Obstrobogulous obnubilation...

---

Miliband calls for an inquiry (interesting how the BBC changed their headline to big-up Ed, not for the first time...since changed again); Brown was at the heart of the design for what failed miserably; Balls and Miliband were his lieutenants: "no return to boom and bust". We know it was 'self delusion masking rank greed'...no risk. Britain having in place 'the most up-to-date early warning and response system' boasted Brown; it was worth nothing 'if you don't understand the system and its risks', watching Dispatches again is a good reminder. Politicians and bankers were and are living in a fools paradise...and "Right now, we’re seeing the party organizers blaming the bartenders";

But when Ed Balls adds his voice to calls for a Leveson-style inquiry for the banks, we ought to remember how many people have a vested interest in framing the banks for the crash. And is rigging interest rates for personal gain so much worse than rigging them for political gain by pumping cheap debt to the masses and dressing the result up as prosperity or recovery? [Link] (Fraser Nelson at The Spectator).

Obstrobogulous obnubilation...

---

Miliband calls for an inquiry (interesting how the BBC changed their headline to big-up Ed, not for the first time...since changed again); Brown was at the heart of the design for what failed miserably; Balls and Miliband were his lieutenants: "no return to boom and bust". We know it was 'self delusion masking rank greed'...no risk. Britain having in place 'the most up-to-date early warning and response system' boasted Brown; it was worth nothing 'if you don't understand the system and its risks', watching Dispatches again is a good reminder. Politicians and bankers were and are living in a fools paradise...and "Right now, we’re seeing the party organizers blaming the bartenders";

But when Ed Balls adds his voice to calls for a Leveson-style inquiry for the banks, we ought to remember how many people have a vested interest in framing the banks for the crash. And is rigging interest rates for personal gain so much worse than rigging them for political gain by pumping cheap debt to the masses and dressing the result up as prosperity or recovery? [Link] (Fraser Nelson at The Spectator).

Ordinary opprobrium...

---

"The wrongdoings were overwhelmingly the product, not the cause, of the bubble", clearly so but this won't assuage the opprobrium. Following on from yesterday's overflowing ordure and the Banks' perfect storm: Allister Heath From Boom to Bezzle, quoting US economist John Kenneth Galbraith: "...at the height of a bubble, a punch drunk world becomes so wealthy that it turns a blind eye to financial crime (embezzlement, or the “bezzle). But when the music stops, and the crash comes, everybody suddenly uncovers past scandals. It is worth quoting him at length: the bezzle, he said, “varies in size with the business cycle. In good times people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful. But even though money is plentiful, there are always many people who need more. Under these circumstances the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the bezzle increases rapidly. In depression all this is reversed. Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. The man who handles it is assumed to be dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous. Commercial morality is enormously improved. The bezzle shrinks.” We are now at this stage of the cycle.

Ordinary opprobrium...

---

"The wrongdoings were overwhelmingly the product, not the cause, of the bubble", clearly so but this won't assuage the opprobrium. Following on from yesterday's overflowing ordure and the Banks' perfect storm: Allister Heath From Boom to Bezzle, quoting US economist John Kenneth Galbraith: "...at the height of a bubble, a punch drunk world becomes so wealthy that it turns a blind eye to financial crime (embezzlement, or the “bezzle). But when the music stops, and the crash comes, everybody suddenly uncovers past scandals. It is worth quoting him at length: the bezzle, he said, “varies in size with the business cycle. In good times people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful. But even though money is plentiful, there are always many people who need more. Under these circumstances the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the bezzle increases rapidly. In depression all this is reversed. Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. The man who handles it is assumed to be dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous. Commercial morality is enormously improved. The bezzle shrinks.” We are now at this stage of the cycle.

Overflowing ordure...

---

Some, me included, defended the banks from much criticism over the 'credit crunch' because it was not only the banks but also the greedy public and the hopelessly wrong politicians: in the UK's case Gordon Brown et al. Now, the banks have ceded any goodwill by letting the mask slip to reveal the casino-bank wide-boy jumped-up spivs they really are; I have no need nor wish to paraphrase Raedwald who puts it so well:

"We have been forced to recapitalise the banks, mortgaging future generations and impoverishing the Kingdom, to pay for the bankers' greed and folly. Ordinary lives have been ruined, industry grievously wounded, the nation's trade, it's very life-blood, draining from severed vessels as these gilded popinjays, these pampered jades, these foul and corrupt excrescences continue to lie, steal, distort, manipulate and cheat to maintain their pillage of the national wealth. Though the temptation is to march on Docklands with a coil of hempen rope and decorate the lamp columns of Canada Square with this noxious fruit, we must leave it to the courts and the criminal justice system to exact retribution. For retribution there must be."

Overflowing ordure...

---

Some, me included, defended the banks from much criticism over the 'credit crunch' because it was not only the banks but also the greedy public and the hopelessly wrong politicians: in the UK's case Gordon Brown et al. Now, the banks have ceded any goodwill by letting the mask slip to reveal the casino-bank wide-boy jumped-up spivs they really are; I have no need nor wish to paraphrase Raedwald who puts it so well:

"We have been forced to recapitalise the banks, mortgaging future generations and impoverishing the Kingdom, to pay for the bankers' greed and folly. Ordinary lives have been ruined, industry grievously wounded, the nation's trade, it's very life-blood, draining from severed vessels as these gilded popinjays, these pampered jades, these foul and corrupt excrescences continue to lie, steal, distort, manipulate and cheat to maintain their pillage of the national wealth. Though the temptation is to march on Docklands with a coil of hempen rope and decorate the lamp columns of Canada Square with this noxious fruit, we must leave it to the courts and the criminal justice system to exact retribution. For retribution there must be."

Osborne's officinal...

---

...or, you're having a Laffer. An officinal drug or preparation is something that is readily available in the chemist's counter; something not requiring special preparation. George Osborne needs something as Paul mentioned last week - but nothing that 'special' or innovative - partly, IMHO, to counteract [one of] Gordon's poison pills:

"Mr Osborne’s political antennae tell him cutting tax rates on enterprising people is against the spirit of the times. His economic antennae should also waggle and tell him the way to tax the rich more is to make it more worthwhile for them to stay here and invest here. The UK is simply no longer competitive on tax. That was Mr Brown’s idea, his farewell present, his poison pill. 40% and 18% were good rates for Labour in power. In irresponsible opposition they will go the way of socialists not in government and send out a message that all we need to do is to soak the rich, even at the expense of less revenue from them . The priority today should be more jobs and more activity."

A case in point could be HSBC - "which makes most of its profit outside Europe and the US - has repeatedly warned it would up and leave if new rules became too onerous,"[Citywire]; HSBC are also in current wrangling over possible unpaid tax, a dispute which focuses on a decision by the bank "to hold shares in its Asian and some European subsidiaries through a Dutch company, which it has done since moving its main holding company to the UK. HSBC believes it should not pay UK tax on dividends it receives", ironically the dispute covers the period from 2002 to 2009. HSBC moved its HQ back to the UK but has arranged it's tax matters accordingly: so, hit them for more tax or risk them moving back to Hong Kong: is this a classic case for the 'law of diminishing returns'?

Osborne's officinal...

---

...or, you're having a Laffer. An officinal drug or preparation is something that is readily available in the chemist's counter; something not requiring special preparation. George Osborne needs something as Paul mentioned last week - but nothing that 'special' or innovative - partly, IMHO, to counteract [one of] Gordon's poison pills:

"Mr Osborne’s political antennae tell him cutting tax rates on enterprising people is against the spirit of the times. His economic antennae should also waggle and tell him the way to tax the rich more is to make it more worthwhile for them to stay here and invest here. The UK is simply no longer competitive on tax. That was Mr Brown’s idea, his farewell present, his poison pill. 40% and 18% were good rates for Labour in power. In irresponsible opposition they will go the way of socialists not in government and send out a message that all we need to do is to soak the rich, even at the expense of less revenue from them . The priority today should be more jobs and more activity."

A case in point could be HSBC - "which makes most of its profit outside Europe and the US - has repeatedly warned it would up and leave if new rules became too onerous,"[Citywire]; HSBC are also in current wrangling over possible unpaid tax, a dispute which focuses on a decision by the bank "to hold shares in its Asian and some European subsidiaries through a Dutch company, which it has done since moving its main holding company to the UK. HSBC believes it should not pay UK tax on dividends it receives", ironically the dispute covers the period from 2002 to 2009. HSBC moved its HQ back to the UK but has arranged it's tax matters accordingly: so, hit them for more tax or risk them moving back to Hong Kong: is this a classic case for the 'law of diminishing returns'?