Isn't it strange when people you used to think were mental turn their theories around and end up supporting what you said all along?
When I read Martin Wolf stuff like Why Globalisation Works, i though the bloke was a real dogmatic so n so, blindly wedded to right-ist ideology I could not at all see working. Now almost everything he says I agree with. I have changed my views, and so has he. That in itself is impressive pragmatism. Fair play to the lad
Showing posts with label ft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ft. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 October 2010
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Tories attack FT
I've mentioned many times that the FT has been very critical of the Tories in the past. It seems i'm not the only one who noticed.
Dan Hannan, Iain Dale, Guido Fawkes, Iain Martin (paid by Murdoch, who'da thunk it?) and Tim Montgomery have all come out against the FT for daring to support Labour.
Guido (mr impartial, the one who doesn't support any political group, that's the one) says:
"As the FT’s circulation shrinks further perhaps it will decide not to support the Labour Party for a fifth general election in a row. Yes, the Pink ‘Un even backed Neil Kinnock to the huge annoyance of the readership."
And he's on about "Two refugees from the Labourgraph". The Labourgraph eh?
Now i've noticed the FT aren't keen on the Tories. Maybe there's a conspiracy going on. Maybe they just don't rate the Tories very highly?
Given what I think of the media (corrupt, back-stratchers, cronies) the last can't be right.
But what if it was....
Dan Hannan, Iain Dale, Guido Fawkes, Iain Martin (paid by Murdoch, who'da thunk it?) and Tim Montgomery have all come out against the FT for daring to support Labour.
Guido (mr impartial, the one who doesn't support any political group, that's the one) says:
"As the FT’s circulation shrinks further perhaps it will decide not to support the Labour Party for a fifth general election in a row. Yes, the Pink ‘Un even backed Neil Kinnock to the huge annoyance of the readership."
And he's on about "Two refugees from the Labourgraph". The Labourgraph eh?
Now i've noticed the FT aren't keen on the Tories. Maybe there's a conspiracy going on. Maybe they just don't rate the Tories very highly?
Given what I think of the media (corrupt, back-stratchers, cronies) the last can't be right.
But what if it was....
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
FT on George Osborne
I did a little bit on Georgie Boy yesterday, but now the FT comes out against him:
"if he wants to be a successful chancellor, Mr Osborne will need to rein in his well-honed instincts on positioning and headline-grabbing in favour of greater focus on policy"
"if weak lending is the problem, Mr Osborne could simply have specified how much new lending he expected from the banks in return for public support. There was no need to appease the bonus-bashing mob and inflame anti-City sentiment further. Mr Osborne would have won fewer headlines for such an announcement, but he would have been advocating the sort of policy that separates a chancellor-in-waiting from a shadow chancellor."
I almost get the feeling the FT might come out in favour of Labour by the election. Will Osborne REALLY turn things round for himself in their eyes? I doubt it.
He's a politician, strategist and spin doctor. That in itself does not qualify him to handle the purse strings
"if he wants to be a successful chancellor, Mr Osborne will need to rein in his well-honed instincts on positioning and headline-grabbing in favour of greater focus on policy"
"if weak lending is the problem, Mr Osborne could simply have specified how much new lending he expected from the banks in return for public support. There was no need to appease the bonus-bashing mob and inflame anti-City sentiment further. Mr Osborne would have won fewer headlines for such an announcement, but he would have been advocating the sort of policy that separates a chancellor-in-waiting from a shadow chancellor."
I almost get the feeling the FT might come out in favour of Labour by the election. Will Osborne REALLY turn things round for himself in their eyes? I doubt it.
He's a politician, strategist and spin doctor. That in itself does not qualify him to handle the purse strings
Monday, 12 October 2009
Ick
I usually like the FT, but this is REALLY up it's own arse.
And this is newly launched, in the present climate. When I have lost MY job. It's disgusting.
Still, not the worst thing anyone's ever done.
And this is newly launched, in the present climate. When I have lost MY job. It's disgusting.
Still, not the worst thing anyone's ever done.
Friday, 9 October 2009
Financial regulation
"It’s clear to me that the FSA has to be very, very wary of seeing the competitiveness of London as a major aim, and that’s not a popular thing to say .."
He's "right on both counts" according to those damn commies at the FT. That's interesting, coz the FT tend to be in favour of business, they might even know a thing or two about it. But aren't they supposed to favour free markets and that? Apparently not. Very interesting.
I'm in total agreement with the closing remark:
"But the regulator’s role is neither to promote the City nor to shrink it. It is to help make financial activities sound, both at home and abroad. This is in the true interest of the UK. Promoting activities likely to generate hugely expensive global crises is not."
He's "right on both counts" according to those damn commies at the FT. That's interesting, coz the FT tend to be in favour of business, they might even know a thing or two about it. But aren't they supposed to favour free markets and that? Apparently not. Very interesting.
I'm in total agreement with the closing remark:
"But the regulator’s role is neither to promote the City nor to shrink it. It is to help make financial activities sound, both at home and abroad. This is in the true interest of the UK. Promoting activities likely to generate hugely expensive global crises is not."
Labels:
economics,
ft,
market regulation,
politics
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Lloyds bank independence
"Lloyds Banking Group has won backing from its investors to raise £10bn as it fights to reduce its dependence on the taxpayer."
After many banks did so well without state intervention. hmmm.
if they are able to get their money and give back the government bail-out, good for the gov. as the deficit can be reduced as a result
After many banks did so well without state intervention. hmmm.
if they are able to get their money and give back the government bail-out, good for the gov. as the deficit can be reduced as a result
FT editorial
When the FT runs an editorial titled "Too much of a very good thing", and includes things like "So, the view expressed by Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, in an interview published last week that parts of the British financial sector might be larger than is “socially optimal” is uncomfortable. He is, however, right, and his intervention is symbolic of the welcome change in attitude at the FSA since he took charge at the supervisor."
and
"during the boom, British banks were allowed to bloat"
and
"Now that the banks are returning to profit, many in the City would like to return to the status quo ante. Let us be clear: this would be unacceptable. The sector must realise, as Lord Turner has, that real reform is essential. "
i have to wonder if they've been taken over by lefties. Or if lefty ideas are just the right thing to do according to financial journalist types, which i'd tend to agree with. Interesting times.
and
"during the boom, British banks were allowed to bloat"
and
"Now that the banks are returning to profit, many in the City would like to return to the status quo ante. Let us be clear: this would be unacceptable. The sector must realise, as Lord Turner has, that real reform is essential. "
i have to wonder if they've been taken over by lefties. Or if lefty ideas are just the right thing to do according to financial journalist types, which i'd tend to agree with. Interesting times.
Cruddas
Well, the blogosphere is all of a blogger over Cruddas' proposals, here, and here.
Other than the fact that they are uncosted, they work very well as principles:
"1 - establishment of a High Pay Commission;
2 - greater tax justice, including closing tax havens and more equal distribution of income and wealth;
3 - index link benefit levels, pensions and the minimum wage to average incomes;
4 - replacing tuition fees with a graduate solidarity tax;
5 - a Fair Employment Clause in all public contracts;
6 - windfall and transaction taxes and resetting capital gains tax;
7 - a new covenant with the military, including more investment in mental healthcare, equipment, housing and support for veterans funded by scrapping plans to renew Trident and re-deploying the money saved within the Minister Of Defence budget;
8 - a Green New Deal, to include scrapping the third runway at Heathrow;
9 - remutualisation of the finance sector;
10 - a credit card bill of rights for consumers."
it would certainly energise Labour's base/core vote, which has been neglected by the recent leadership in favour of swing voters. That is now coming home to bite them on the bottom.
Lots of nice lefty proposals, which i'm all in favour of.
There is one thing that divides Tory from Labour and Tory from Tory: Europe. Let's hear something on that too.
I've got a sneaking feeling that the FT quite fancy Labour, and might just try to get their number in moments of weakness:
"Some of it may sound radical (scrapping Trident and tuition fees and doing more to prevent grotesque pay in the private sector…and what does he mean by a new “windfall tax”?). There is much here which is likely to play well in the Compass “leftie” heartland. Interestingly, you might also argue there’s little in there that wouldn’t also appeal to the aspirant working classes which are increasingly tired of Labour."
Other than the fact that they are uncosted, they work very well as principles:
"1 - establishment of a High Pay Commission;
2 - greater tax justice, including closing tax havens and more equal distribution of income and wealth;
3 - index link benefit levels, pensions and the minimum wage to average incomes;
4 - replacing tuition fees with a graduate solidarity tax;
5 - a Fair Employment Clause in all public contracts;
6 - windfall and transaction taxes and resetting capital gains tax;
7 - a new covenant with the military, including more investment in mental healthcare, equipment, housing and support for veterans funded by scrapping plans to renew Trident and re-deploying the money saved within the Minister Of Defence budget;
8 - a Green New Deal, to include scrapping the third runway at Heathrow;
9 - remutualisation of the finance sector;
10 - a credit card bill of rights for consumers."
it would certainly energise Labour's base/core vote, which has been neglected by the recent leadership in favour of swing voters. That is now coming home to bite them on the bottom.
Lots of nice lefty proposals, which i'm all in favour of.
There is one thing that divides Tory from Labour and Tory from Tory: Europe. Let's hear something on that too.
I've got a sneaking feeling that the FT quite fancy Labour, and might just try to get their number in moments of weakness:
"Some of it may sound radical (scrapping Trident and tuition fees and doing more to prevent grotesque pay in the private sector…and what does he mean by a new “windfall tax”?). There is much here which is likely to play well in the Compass “leftie” heartland. Interestingly, you might also argue there’s little in there that wouldn’t also appeal to the aspirant working classes which are increasingly tired of Labour."
Labels:
ft,
john cruddas,
labour,
labour leadership,
politics
Thursday, 3 September 2009
FT's hree-part prescription to take to G20
More from the FT (i've now used up my free articles)
I've stated my belief that the FT is more sympathetic to Gordy than most places, and it comes across again here. Maybe this is because he's an economist and the FT tend to focus on economics?
"Mr Brown, though, is convinced that he still has a story to tell. The bright spot in his short and often troubled premiership has been his prominent role in co-ordinating a global response to the financial and economic crisis.
His chairmanship of the London summit of the G20 group of leading nations in the spring was praised. His grasp of the issues – from the technicalities of banking regulation to arguments about global economic imbalances – is probably unmatched among his peers."
"Mr Brown’s theme is that the crisis has shown governments can co-operate to manage the global economy: “There is definitely proof that when the world comes together it can make some difference”. The lesson to be drawn is that more must be done to institutionalise global economic governance."
I can't do better than to quote it:
"Mr Brown’s prescription comes in three parts. A package at Pittsburgh that charts a return to durable economic growth – including careful co-ordination of the eventual tightening of fiscal policies; measures to restore trust in the banking system, including curbs on remuneration that encourages excessive risk-taking; and a “global compact” to encourage sustained recovery.
This third element would include a commitment to balanced growth – avoiding the imbalances between countries that contributed to the crash – as well as an agreement between rich and emerging economies to tackle climate change.
The package would include “insurance policies” to encourage countries running huge current account surpluses to stop hoarding foreign currency. A recapitalised International Monetary Fund would be on standby, if necessary, to intervene.
The compact could also embrace “trigger points” to alert governments to rising imbalances and to apply peer pressure on governments failing to live up to their promises, say, on dealing with distressed assets. “The world has got to be more co-ordinated in its actions. That is a form of global economic governance that people can have confidence in without diminishing people’s right to make their own national decisions,” he said.
Mr Brown claimed that stabilisation of the banking system “owes a lot to decisions we have made”. Now, the Basel committee must move faster to formulate common rules.
Only the most fervent disciple of laisser faire would challenge the idea that governments have a role in preventing another crash. But are there votes in it at home? Maybe not, but perhaps Mr Brown has an eye also on his place in history."
i think he should go ahead with this, it's his best chance to do some good. The elephant in the room being the election. I think him concentrating on his strengths will bring him the best chance of success, and his strength's are boring, policy stuff
I've stated my belief that the FT is more sympathetic to Gordy than most places, and it comes across again here. Maybe this is because he's an economist and the FT tend to focus on economics?
"Mr Brown, though, is convinced that he still has a story to tell. The bright spot in his short and often troubled premiership has been his prominent role in co-ordinating a global response to the financial and economic crisis.
His chairmanship of the London summit of the G20 group of leading nations in the spring was praised. His grasp of the issues – from the technicalities of banking regulation to arguments about global economic imbalances – is probably unmatched among his peers."
"Mr Brown’s theme is that the crisis has shown governments can co-operate to manage the global economy: “There is definitely proof that when the world comes together it can make some difference”. The lesson to be drawn is that more must be done to institutionalise global economic governance."
I can't do better than to quote it:
"Mr Brown’s prescription comes in three parts. A package at Pittsburgh that charts a return to durable economic growth – including careful co-ordination of the eventual tightening of fiscal policies; measures to restore trust in the banking system, including curbs on remuneration that encourages excessive risk-taking; and a “global compact” to encourage sustained recovery.
This third element would include a commitment to balanced growth – avoiding the imbalances between countries that contributed to the crash – as well as an agreement between rich and emerging economies to tackle climate change.
The package would include “insurance policies” to encourage countries running huge current account surpluses to stop hoarding foreign currency. A recapitalised International Monetary Fund would be on standby, if necessary, to intervene.
The compact could also embrace “trigger points” to alert governments to rising imbalances and to apply peer pressure on governments failing to live up to their promises, say, on dealing with distressed assets. “The world has got to be more co-ordinated in its actions. That is a form of global economic governance that people can have confidence in without diminishing people’s right to make their own national decisions,” he said.
Mr Brown claimed that stabilisation of the banking system “owes a lot to decisions we have made”. Now, the Basel committee must move faster to formulate common rules.
Only the most fervent disciple of laisser faire would challenge the idea that governments have a role in preventing another crash. But are there votes in it at home? Maybe not, but perhaps Mr Brown has an eye also on his place in history."
i think he should go ahead with this, it's his best chance to do some good. The elephant in the room being the election. I think him concentrating on his strengths will bring him the best chance of success, and his strength's are boring, policy stuff
The FT on current economics
To be fair, a pretty fair and dull assessment of the current debates about the two parties' economic policies.
I would say that Brown comes out of this piece slightly better than Cameron, which makes the future very interesting if the economy is going to be central to the next election. Whether or not it is has been debated by people who get far more listners than me
I would say that Brown comes out of this piece slightly better than Cameron, which makes the future very interesting if the economy is going to be central to the next election. Whether or not it is has been debated by people who get far more listners than me
Labels:
david Cameron,
economy,
ft,
gordon brown,
politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)