Posts
if this is true, and it does seem close to the mark at least, it's very sad. i wrote recently about Ed Miliband being called Red Ed and stupid that is, well:
"Why cannot the Business Secretary seek to address a lightly regulated market, or at least question the merits of unfettered capitalism? The acceptable debate has leapt from concerns about banks and the short-term recklessness of some businesses to one about the inefficiencies of the public sector. Savings in the public sector can and should be made, but surely it must be possible for public figures to highlight other issues without being portrayed as revolutionary Marxists.
Yet the younger Miliband has been christened "Red Ed" for daring to argue that the state has a role in regulating markets, and Cable is called a Marxist. Both are compared to Tony Benn for veering a millimetre away from Cameron/Blairite orthodoxy. It seems that the acceptable perimeters of debate in Britain are very narrow. The wacky reaction to Cable reminds me of a brilliant lecture that Gordon Brown delivered in 2003 in which he argued that while markets worked in most spheres, there were limits in one or two areas. The lecture was widely dismissed as a disastrous return to Old Labour."
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Saturday, 3 April 2010
Business leaders back Conservative national insurance pledge | Business | guardian.co.uk
Very interesting:
" Its noticeable that these business leaders did not particularly object to the NI rise when it was first proposed by Labour. Only now when the Tories cynically promise to give the money back to business do they come out in support - so anyone can see that its pure self interest behind this endorsement of Osbourne's policy.
To me this smacks of political tactic by the Conservatives rather than a well considered economic policy. It runs counter to everything they have been saying over the last year about cutting the deficit hard.
As for funding the tax cut by efficiency savings - this is a joke. Savings are "estimated' and aspirational so what happens if in practice the money cant be found? The deficit will grow, risking market panic etc.
I run a business so the NI tax increase will hit me as an employer directly, but at least Labour are being honest about where the pain has to come. The Tories meanwhile are indulging in a fantasy-economics.
It may be a useful tactic to wrong-foot their political opponents in the short term, but I don't see this as a viable or responsible policy for getting the public finances back on track.
Quick reminder: All of the above are legally required to ensure that their shareholders can leach the highest return out of their passive and fleeting ownerships."
" Its noticeable that these business leaders did not particularly object to the NI rise when it was first proposed by Labour. Only now when the Tories cynically promise to give the money back to business do they come out in support - so anyone can see that its pure self interest behind this endorsement of Osbourne's policy.
To me this smacks of political tactic by the Conservatives rather than a well considered economic policy. It runs counter to everything they have been saying over the last year about cutting the deficit hard.
As for funding the tax cut by efficiency savings - this is a joke. Savings are "estimated' and aspirational so what happens if in practice the money cant be found? The deficit will grow, risking market panic etc.
I run a business so the NI tax increase will hit me as an employer directly, but at least Labour are being honest about where the pain has to come. The Tories meanwhile are indulging in a fantasy-economics.
It may be a useful tactic to wrong-foot their political opponents in the short term, but I don't see this as a viable or responsible policy for getting the public finances back on track.
Quick reminder: All of the above are legally required to ensure that their shareholders can leach the highest return out of their passive and fleeting ownerships."
Friday, 18 September 2009
Today's business news from the BBC
There are three stories today that strike me as important, to varying degrees and for different reasons:
1) US gets tough on ratings agencies
2) Lloyds in toxic asset plan talks
3) Bonus claw-back
late addition 4) Support for tax to curb bonuses
1) credit rating agencies were part of the problem in getting us into this mess, where ratings agencies were too quick to give out top marks when they were not merited. There are some theories that corrupt practices were at work, but i can't substantiate it so will only mention in passing. The proposals involve greater regulatory supervision of the ratings agencies, the success of which will depend on their remit and powers.
The agencies will be under greater pressure to make public information about their past decisions, which is a very good thing: "agencies must disclose more information on past ratings to help investors make informed judgements."
this is also important: "The SEC also proposed rules to ban "flash trading" - the process where certain financial institutions gain access to trading information...before it is made public."
2) Lloyds bank is considering removing much that they have invested (or are going to invest) in the government-backed Asset Protection Scheme. Provided this is not done recklessly, it's a good thing all round. The government is liable for less money and less mistakes, the bank has it's money and greater power over itself. Hopefully it can take part in paying back some of the loans it got off the government. The fact that "Lloyds had been told it would need to substantially strengthen its balance sheet if it were to withdraw from the APS" is both good and bad. Good in terms of the long-term sustainability of the banking system, bad in terms of the short-term mountain of debt our economy has been built on. Perhaps that should be sand castle.
3) To me, by far the least important of the three stories is that "EU agrees on bonus claw-back call". The first two are important systemic measures which will have a significant impact on the stability and sustainability of the banking sector. The third, to me, seems like a vague wave in their direction, based more on short-term political motives. If the 'claw back' scheme is a success in bringing about a more sustainable and long-term approach to banking then good, but it's the detail rather than the principle i'm yet to be convinced by.
Gordy says: ""I believe that people have been appalled by the suggestion in some institutions and their practices that they simply want to return to the policies of the past," Mr Brown said."
If these measures deliver the much-needed kick up the back side to bring these practices to an end for the good of wider-society, then i'm in favour.
which brings me rather nicely onto 4) Support for tax to curb bonuses. This is not a new piece like the others, but was listed with them and provides an interesting counter-point with 3. There is also a deeper issue about how the consensus is moving to the left on bankers' pay, the political consensus seems to be drifting to the right with the relative ascendancy of the Tories and demise of Labour.
Interesting times
1) US gets tough on ratings agencies
2) Lloyds in toxic asset plan talks
3) Bonus claw-back
late addition 4) Support for tax to curb bonuses
1) credit rating agencies were part of the problem in getting us into this mess, where ratings agencies were too quick to give out top marks when they were not merited. There are some theories that corrupt practices were at work, but i can't substantiate it so will only mention in passing. The proposals involve greater regulatory supervision of the ratings agencies, the success of which will depend on their remit and powers.
The agencies will be under greater pressure to make public information about their past decisions, which is a very good thing: "agencies must disclose more information on past ratings to help investors make informed judgements."
this is also important: "The SEC also proposed rules to ban "flash trading" - the process where certain financial institutions gain access to trading information...before it is made public."
2) Lloyds bank is considering removing much that they have invested (or are going to invest) in the government-backed Asset Protection Scheme. Provided this is not done recklessly, it's a good thing all round. The government is liable for less money and less mistakes, the bank has it's money and greater power over itself. Hopefully it can take part in paying back some of the loans it got off the government. The fact that "Lloyds had been told it would need to substantially strengthen its balance sheet if it were to withdraw from the APS" is both good and bad. Good in terms of the long-term sustainability of the banking system, bad in terms of the short-term mountain of debt our economy has been built on. Perhaps that should be sand castle.
3) To me, by far the least important of the three stories is that "EU agrees on bonus claw-back call". The first two are important systemic measures which will have a significant impact on the stability and sustainability of the banking sector. The third, to me, seems like a vague wave in their direction, based more on short-term political motives. If the 'claw back' scheme is a success in bringing about a more sustainable and long-term approach to banking then good, but it's the detail rather than the principle i'm yet to be convinced by.
Gordy says: ""I believe that people have been appalled by the suggestion in some institutions and their practices that they simply want to return to the policies of the past," Mr Brown said."
If these measures deliver the much-needed kick up the back side to bring these practices to an end for the good of wider-society, then i'm in favour.
which brings me rather nicely onto 4) Support for tax to curb bonuses. This is not a new piece like the others, but was listed with them and provides an interesting counter-point with 3. There is also a deeper issue about how the consensus is moving to the left on bankers' pay, the political consensus seems to be drifting to the right with the relative ascendancy of the Tories and demise of Labour.
Interesting times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
