Wednesday, July 04, 2012
We have seen Labour spreading the lie that the recession was caused by the banks – as if they had all been somewhere else and the bankers running the government when government deficit and banning of productive technology was going on. And the Tories letting them away with it because they like having scapegoats too.
Now we see Barclays being crucified when it is apparent that what they did was done on the nod of the Bank of England and unless the BoE were deliberately deceiving their boss, on the at least implicit command of Ministers.
Nor is manipulating Libor comparable in its costs to ordinary people with the deliberate actions of the monetary policy committee in letting inflation rip when they were, at least in public, charged not to.
How many of us, asked to put money in a bank or a government, would be more confident that they would get it back from the latter. None – if it were not so taxes would not have to be compulsory.
In purely practical terms this attack on the banks is likely to kill or drive offshore the only major industry the British state has not so far been able to stifle, and thus deprive the Exchequer of £100 billion and drive us deeper into recession. This is a high price for ordinary people to pay simply so that the politicos will have a scapegoat for their own creation of an unnecessary recession.
Somebody then wrote that because the banks had been more successful than the rest of the declining economy, the declining bits must be suffering from all the good people going to the City. I replied
If you wish to make such a case I would be amused to see you doing so. Perhaps you could explain that if derivative dealers were not dealing derivatives they would be the ideal people to be employed as drillers of shale gas and builders of nuclear power stations – the skills being interoperable.
That is a ludicrous claim. A free market would allow all these industries to prosper. The lack of growth of the latter 2 is entirely down to politicians banning it and owes nothing to drillers being snapped up as financial analysts.
All the above from John Redwood's blog. It Looks like Bob Diamond has been persuaded to tone down his statement that the Bank of England told them to fix the Libor rate but (A) it could only have been done if all or most of the banks were doing it, because "outliers" are discounted from the figures Libor is made up of (B) it would have been obvious to a competent examiner at the BofE & everybody would know that (C) only the BofE has the muscle to get everybody on board & (D) the Libor fixing is insignificant compared to the failure, under both governments, of the Monetary Policy Cttee, charged with keeping inflation to 2% by using interest rates, to make even a token attempt to do so. If the minor one is fraudulent the MPC's fraud is far moreso.
It rather looks like Barclays have been deliberately picked on because they have no government money in them and indeed Vince has never quite forgiven Barclays for not accepting state handouts back in October 2008?
I have previously compared the targeting of the bankers as being responsible for the recession as equivalent of the claim made by Germany's ruling class that they were not responsible for losing the war - it was all because of a "stab in the back" by the socialists and Jews. They got away with it, at an enormous cost to Germany and Europe.
Who were the 'senior Whitehall figures' who tried to fix the Libor rate?
Well no such fixing would be authorised without the approval; of the Chancellor and he couldn't do it except on the PM's word. Of course both of them deny it, in the same way that both of them made manifesto promises that we would have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and Brown has stated under oath that he never leaked or briefed against any party colleagues which everubody knows is perjury.
Are there any circumstances under which the sworn word of any politician in the main parties can be treated as 1/1000th as credible as those of the average banker. I suggest not though I would be open to evidence,