Yes and no, make your mind up????
You say yes and no that it was deregulation that allowed the banks to mess up then you say im filled with Tory propaganda?????????
Ps. A head full of Tory propaganda is better than a head full of broken biscuits
Cameron responsible for recent weather!
- Thread starter nara
- Start date
Yes and no, make your mind up????
You say yes and no that it was deregulation that allowed the banks to mess up then you say im filled with Tory propaganda?????????
Ps. A head full of Tory propaganda is better than a head full of broken biscuits
No problem @Firemouth
On the yes/no part (and this is just part), yes, Labour did deregulate the banks but no, they weren't entirely to blame as a Thatcher government significantly deregulated in the mid-80s. This led to what Norman Lamont described as 'unexpected outcomes'. So Thatcher provided the 'cake' and Labour 'iced' it!
Quite why anyone thought the idea of combining investment banking with retail was a good idea is beyond me - they must have only been seeing £-signs from the expected tax revenues.
Of course, the investment side became less risk-averse as they then had access to billions of depositors money to gamble with as well as millions of their own. The only regulation that MIGHT have saved matters would have been to split retail from investment (as it had been) then if they'd fooked up we (as in Joe Public) would have been largely unaffected and they could have gone to the wall.
That remains the only useful regulatory option but politically? I doubt it will happen TBH.
Last edited by a moderator:
Firemouth
Inactive User
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,512
- Reaction score
- 351
actually, if you had read my post i said No and YES.
NO labour did not reduce market regulation. though its true the FSA turned out not have the teeth it was hoped to.
Labour sin was not increasing regulation.
so the baking rules that brought the country to its knees, were actually Tory rules.
YES they did bail out the banks. as any government, of any colour, would have.
as to the ps. you had better get on replacing you biscuits then, hadn't you.
Actually, that's not true. Who temporarily suspended anti-competition regulation to allow Lloyds to take over HBOS? Gordon Brown. End result? TWO fooked banks instead of one. HBOS was dead in the water and should have been written off.
Incidentally, why don't we take a look at the toothless FSA. It was set up in the mid-80s as the Securities and Investments Board (overseen by the Bank of England). When Labour did their deregulation bit (around 1997) it became the FSA (new single point of contact so-called 'Super Regulator'). However, the biggest change was the name on the door and the letterheads plus the removal of the supervision of the BofE.
Latterly, we seem to have gone full circle with the BofE now supervising the FCA which, incidentally, lives in the same offices and employs many of the same staff that the FSA did. So, the name changes (along with the letterheads) but they seem to be otherwise much the same.
We appear to be more or less back to where we were in 1985 and, on the grounds it was fooked then, it seems reasonable to say it's probably fooked now although, arguably, not quite as badly fooked.
In the deregulation vs regulation argument it might be better to regulate GOVERNMENT to stop them interfering with stuff they patently have no clue about.
Firemouth
Inactive User
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,512
- Reaction score
- 351
the HBOS Lloyds fiasco, is at his door, it's true.
but there was no major deregulation under labour. even though both the banks and the torys were screaming for it.
and i agree the FSA was a disaster, again in hind sight.
the main accusation here seems to be Brown allowed deregulation via his "light touch" approach.
this my well be true. but if this were the case. the FSA, as an INDEPENDENT body, should have objected then.
but it's leader only mentioned this in the run up the the 2010 elections.
he seemed happy at the time. as he made no objections, that i can find.
the only way a "free Market" can work is with proper regulation.
otherwise the market rapidly becomes a series of anti competitive monopolies.
The emphasis being 'proper'. One of the problems with regulation is it favours the bigger organisation who have the finances to comply. Some would argue (reasonably IMHO) that this leads to an UNCOMPETITIVE scenario since the smaller organisations cannot AFFORD to comply and move on.
Typically, regulation doesn't take this into account.
