91Èȱ¬

I hope you held Mr Kahn's feet to the bonfire of the IMF's vanities. It was set up precisely to avoid the disaster which has just occurred. Yet it became a byword for naive application of monetarism; its one, fits all, solution was too often tight, rigid fiscal policies accompanied by devaluation.

I was the main adviser to the President (I had better not say which one) who negotiated what was claimed by the IMF at the time as its greatest success. In fact we ran what amounted to a scam. When we loudly cried rape, the IMF sought a compromise - exactly as we had expected - at which we point we successfully asked that the inevitable rise in price of energy imports should be underwritten. In fact, as the official exchange rate was meaningless, since all currency was bought and sold through the black market, the IMF demand for devaluation - which we acceded to - had no impact whatsoever; but the World Bank still lent us $1 billion!

If I/we can con the IMF what chance does it stand against the Madoffs of this world!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

NO REWARD FOR FAILURE.

As Jacqui Smith faces up to her reward for failure-to-maintain-scruples, Blair collects $1 million for failure to have any in the first place.

If these are the sort of people who gain high office in UK politics, might there be a failure in the selection and elevation process? Could it be that Westminster 'democracy' is a mockery?

While we, the voters, fail to address the status quo, we will also be rewarded for failure - with failure.

We must be sure to have the option of 'quantifiable abstention' (none of the above) at the next General Election, so that a vote of no confidence in Westminster politics my be recorded. Put simply: NO REWARD FOR FAILURE.

barrie (#3) "If these are the sort of people who gain high office in UK politics, might there be a failure in the selection and elevation process? Could it be that Westminster 'democracy' is a mockery?"

I know that many people 'in the loop' have long had 'dark thoughts' that maybe, just maybe, many of the people selected for positions in our Public Sector (Civil Service) were put where they were (unbeknown to them) precisely so they would do maximum damage through their incompetence.

Anarchism worked in curious ways under Thatcher and her followers.

Organised cock-up.

ORGANISED COCK-UP? (#4)

I think we have been here before JJ.
I struggle with the concept, perhaps because the least complex answer (Occam's Razor) is simply 'cock-up'.
My comments are confined to MPs (not Whitehall) whose genesis I (naively?) think I can observe.
I am under the impression (illusion?) that Tony Blair desperately wanted to be somebody with status, adulation and wealth.
He took a punt at being a pop star, then Rumpole of the Bailey and finally a politician.
He felt need of war-victory, for his portfolio, and was blessed with Iain Duncan Smith's, military minded, ADMIRING, support. IDS was, as we all knew (yes?) out of his depth and trying to look authoritative. Jenkins Ear comes a poor second.

To me this is a story of dismally inadequate individuals (typical of the politician class) who's leaders, with their fawning acolytes, took us into a stupid war. We have also been taken into a bizarre EU alliance.
Will the next delusional upstart march us all into the sea?

I am no stranger to cock-up; it feels like cock-up to me!

barrie (#5) As I keep saying, in the end, intenT/Sion doesn't matter.

Peston's missed the real story .... he should have been in a small claims court in Oban?!
Watch this space ..... judgement next week.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

DIVIDED BY A SINGLE LANGUAGE (#6)

I am reading your words JJ, and have a sense, by inference, that you feel, you are negating my stance at #5. Unfortunately my scolarship would appear to be inferior.

I yield.

Did Peston wreck the Rock?

No. Contrary to what the public on the program tonight were saying - Peston was not premature in giving bad news about the Rock.

Where he went wrong is that he should have told the truth about Northern Rock much, much earlier.

Years earlier in fact. Years ago, as a financial expert and journalist, he should have noticed that the bank was over-reaching itself and should have publicised that.

He should have warned the public not to put money into the badly-run bank.

But he didn't and no-one had ever heard of Robert Peston until after the financial meltdown started. He just seemed to appear out of thin air once the credit crunch got going.

Perhaps Robert Peston didn't realise that there was any problem with Northern Rock until the crisis point. That is a total failure on his part and he shares this failure with the vast majority of financial journalists, commentators, and economists.

I don't really know why these people are so revered.

Peston goes to Newcastle had the feel of those auditions for Big Brother or the X factor. It definitely should be an annual fixture from now on.

Even better, 91Èȱ¬3 could put Peston and a carefully selected group of Rock shareholders in a televised house in search of a proper verdict on just how miserable those who've lost their life savings are.

I know I'm going to get castigated for what I'm about to say, but I've been down the pub, so...

This 'Peston-Bashing' nonsense must stop. Full Stop.

Those two dippy wazzocks are upset because they 'lost' [their word] their investment in Northern Rock shares, and they are blaming Mr Peston. A couple of questions..

1/ Do they really expect any sympathy, when as bank employees they had invested a huge percentage of their personal wealth in one company without spreading the risk.

2/ As employees of a financial services and banking company, surely they would know, if anyone would, that 'Ordinary Shares' are a big risk because unlike loan stock or even preference shares, they are at the very back of the queue when it comes to paying out money in the event of a liquidation. And that is without allowing for the fact that preferential creditors such as the Revenue and Customs are well ahead of even the secured creditors and debenture holders.

If anyone has not seen the full one hour interview on 'Sunday Politics' or whatever it is called, go and watch it NOW. The way these people think the Government is going to ride a big white charger to rescue every business which falls victim to this downturn is absolutely laughable if it wasn't so damn tragic.

Yes, the Government have screwed up big time in terms of defective regulation and the like - but for goodness sake, with the 'Stock Market' it is 'caveat emptor' so don't expect taxpayers to pick up the tab for all these mistakes.

I agree nationalisation wasn't ideal and was a least worst option. But the idiocy of referring to an 'age of Peston' and trying to pretend that one's entire retirement was going to be paid for by increasing the value of a £ 60,000 share portfolio which was also going to provide an increasing dividend income was laughably optimistic and has led to hugely over-inflated income estimates which were never going to be met.

So leave Pestoni alone - without him the Ponzi scheme would have gone on even longer, and the ensuing crash would have been even bigger.

The fatuous assumptions that many of the people there would have gotten a place on the 'graduate scheme' just because they did a few summer internships doesn't bear close inspection either - as they might well have been winnowed out in the first phase of separating the wheat from the chaff.

A lot of people need to wake up and smell the coffee with a substantial reality check very quickly if you ask me.

neilrobertson - son, don't hold your breath...

A terrible 91Èȱ¬ Secretary - I guess one law for politicians and another for everyone else.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

OUR MENTALISTIC CELEBRITY CULTURE

barrie(#10) My point is that we live in a world where unless some party (in the singular and collective sense) can be proven to have intended to have done something, i.e. to have willfully planned/conspired to bring something about, they are not deemed legally responsible/culpable/accountable. In our mentalistic world of intenT/Sion the fact THAT something happens ever more frequently plays second fiddle to credit assignment (which some call the praise/blame game).

I think we have it dangerously out of balance given our logical understanding of the nature of the intenT/Sional, but I suspect some are quite happy with the current state of affairs, and that's why law/argument plays a much greater role in politics than austere pursuit of truth (science).

Jacqui Smith the "Second Hone" Secretary was assasinated on Newsnight last night by a surgical and precision unveiling of the facts.

Of course morally she is in the wrong, but Newsnight methodically and without emotion showed why her defence that she was "acting according to the rules" is full of more holes than the Belgrano.

It was a brilliant piece of television journalsim and the nation collectively should be shouting "Gotcha". (Unfortunately perhaps not enough of us were watching?)

At a time when "dead man walking" Brown is laying in to bankers over a corrupt bonus culture what is his view on his own Minister caught with her snout in the trough?

The second home allowance is clearly designed to pay for the incremental costs of having a second home - not to be a primary source of income.

If she had any decency or public spirit she would have claimed £100 a week for the cost of her room in her sister's flat.

The rest of the nation has to pay for the upkeep of their family house out of post tax income - why does she feel this is something she is exempt from?

This demonstrates more than anything else why this Government is past its sell by date.

Well done the 91Èȱ¬.

13. lordBeddGelert wrote:

"I know I'm going to get castigated"

Not from me you won't. What you said is perfectly correct, and quite remarkable if you really had been down the pub!

The whole "it woz Peston wot done it" malarky is probably great for sales of Pesto's book and, hey, let's not allow the facts to get in the way of making a bit of cash. Actually the whole "run on NR" story is stretching the truth pretty thin. NR didn't collpase because a few thousand people queued outside the branches to remove GBP5-6 billion in deposits. It collapsed because, unseen to any TV crews, other bank Treasury/Risk Depts were systematically reducing or withdrawing much larger funding lines to NR as and when term deposits reached maturity. And this was happening in other banks across the globe.

Pesto just reported the news, which is what he's supposed to do. The "unseen hand" of the market decided it wanted a less geared world. Not surprisingly, those most dependent on unsticky wholesale markets funding were the first to expire. Pesto reported it, he didn't cause it.

Peston shares some of the blame on the public run as do those who leaked it? Who benefits?

given the importance of the banking sector to the economy and Northern Rock to the mortgage market the 'only' reporting news excuse doesn't wash. A run on the bank was always going to crash it [see the film 'its a wonderful life'] when quiet moves to build a rescue behind the scenes might of prevented the run. Those who leaked the news to Peston [ex FT chums?] and Peston 'scooping' it are joint factors in the run. Its not the first time is it?

There was a 'higher good' and it wasn't taken.

what is more interesting is the 91Èȱ¬ public relation effort to extricate Peston from its growing 'bad bank' of 'talent'?

MP Expenses.

it looks bad [would someone on income support get away with such explanations?] which means the rules are wrong.

"that's why law/argument plays a much greater role in politics than austere pursuit of truth (science)."

Well, that's one opinion as to why law and argument play a greater role in politics thann hard science, but I'm not sure I can entirely agree with the proposition, since it doesn't seem to be rooted in a historical understanding of the development of the political spehere (and, indeed, of science).

Interesting suggestion, though - I particularly like the inclusion of intesional argument as a means to discredit intensional argument.

Dominique Strauss Kahn said something that interested me. His answer to why people didn't see the financial crisis coming was that we hadn't seen the particular reasons before. Can we extrapolate that the future crisis's will be of the same nature - we wont see it coming because we haven't yet dreamt up the new financial methods that greed brings. So if we cant predict the future financial greed methods and tides what can we predict? What should we study to predict the issues that brought about this failure ? In my view its human nature and interaction, we need sociologists and psychologists. Capitalism will not dream up different human behaviours that cant be predicted.

Peston's relevance is irrelevant, his a good looking dude who may or may not regret this style of side burns.

JayPee28bpr (#19) "It collapsed because, unseen to any TV crews, other bank Treasury/Risk Depts were systematically reducing or withdrawing much larger funding lines to NR as and when term deposits reached maturity. And this was happening in other banks across the globe.

Pesto just reported the news, which is what he's supposed to do. The "unseen hand" of the market decided it wanted a less geared world. Not surprisingly, those most dependent on unsticky wholesale markets funding were the first to expire. Pesto reported it, he didn't cause it."

What made the "unseen hand" of the market 'decide' it wanted a less geared world?

I thought Kirsty Wark's interview with the Head of the IMF was interesting if a tad too 'respectful'. This was a rare opportunity to forensically question a man whose organization has had a very controversial history, and who was now rather smugly claiming to be wise AFTER the cataclysmic events of the past few months even though his organization had praised the very financial instruments that has caused the collapse of so many economies. This interview should have been conducted by an economic expert such as Paul Mason who might have better able to challenge his smug responses.

One thing however did emerge which surely deserves more detailed investigation and that is the intimation that Gordon Brown is advocating for a new IMF, funded by SWFs and with powers to control the actions of governments. There's a thought to ruin a goodnight's sleep. Why is this new labour administration of Davos men so keen on giving away to non elected international bodies power over us that we have 'lent' to our democratically elected government. I believe in democracy and would not want powers handed over to a body primarily funded by and thus ultimately controlled by non democratic SWFs who interests do not accord with our own. Should Newsnight not be giving this government intent a more considered airing ?

lets try again...

who benefited from the leaking of the Northern Rock story before a rescue package could be put in?

was a run always 'inevitable'?

given the importance to a functioning society of a bank with massive exposure to the mortgage industry should not more care been taken not to create panic?

In the film 'It's a Wonderful Life' we see that deposits are not in banks but in mortgages so a run means demanding money back from those who borrowed which means a collapse in the housing market. That was never going to be allowed to happen.

So the effect of the 'scoop' was to cause an unnecessary public panic and pandemonium that caused a run that would inevitably lead to nationalisation. Who benefited from 'the scoop'? And was it public service?

hoobrisk (#21) "it doesn't seem to be rooted in a historical understanding of the development of the political spehere (and, indeed, of science)."

It's Quinean. Is that good enough?

It's hard to avoid paradox when one is writing in the vernacular (Natural Language).

Why was my post killed? i only pointed out that the IMF is known as an bringer of misery with its proven financial machinations that has buggered many economies...and linking shared house J Smith looking dodgy as well (allegedly)...it was tame!
Is the Blogdog a Labour supporter...is J Smith's husband moonlighting on here as a blogmaster? oooh the plot thickens.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Meanwhile, back in the small claims court in Oban, "Round 1" produced some cracking
quotes from 83 year old Ian Hamilton QC.

Counsel for Goliath (aka 'RBS Group' not
'RBS plc' as in the original writ apparently)
was trying to argue that the case was too
complicated to be heard in a small claims
court - where crucially legal expenses for claimants are capped at £150 rather than the tens to hundreds of thousands of £s
claimants might risk being liable for were
they to lose in a higher court under the
'ordinary cause rules' - to which Hamilton
responded that in a proper democracy
there should be a public court where
the public "can defend their little piece of property against the big beasts that prowl around this society".

The Scotsman report has more including the line on expert witnesses that he could just as easily listen to them "and my eyes could
just as easily glaze over" in the small claims court as in a higher court. Vintage stuff ,eh?

Post #24 was perhaps not listening closely enough to Dominique Strauss-Kahn of the IMF? I thought Kirsty did quite well - until
that last question about whether Gordon
Brown might succeed him as MD of the IMF.

DSK nearly fell off his seat at the suggestion! For the record: you
do actually have to have studied
economics to get made IMF MD -
it is not a job for amateurs like
Brown who is 'just a politician'!

You also need to be able to
speak French as a general
rule. Christine Lagarde is a
much more viable candidate
and is prettier than Gordon.

Fraudsters at the top seem to stay right out in the limelight. Stanford even looks like JR.

Thought Peston could have defended himself better. Not only did he not affect the run on Northern Rock but if he and other financial journalists had been more aggressive on issues like risk analysis (as with HBOS) perhaps, and only perhaps, the financial system problems would have been exposed earlier.

thecookieducker (#27) Whilst no supporter of many of New Labour's policies and antics, I have yet to see Jacqui Smith put a foot wrong in public - which I find quite refreshing. From what I have followed of this expenses issue it doesn't appear that she's done anything wrong. She's responded to the press attention very well all things considered.

Is this just a bit of clever New Labour PR?

#17 Jaded_Jean

"...but I suspect some are quite happy with the current state of affairs, and that's why law/argument plays a much greater role in politics than austere pursuit of truth (science)".

But as you know race "realism" is rejected by 99% of scientists! There is greater variation genetically within a race than between races. Multiculturalism is here to stay. So your claims to the pursuit of scientific truth are false. You may mean race "realist" scientists.

Where would you put Mengele in the spectrum?

Politics for somebody who does not want democracy but ... I forget what you actually call your desired system - a system of planned economies much in the mode of Hitler and Mussolini in the 30's - probably would not require much law or argument?

So why use an ultra democratic outlet for a non-democratic ideology?

You are very confused - as you are about the Holocaust! It happened.

Still I am the sort of person who "paints Hitler as darkly as possible for party political reasons".

99.9% of people don't share your ideology and reject your views.

99% of scientists know climate change is a reality caused by human impact. They may consider a bit of R&D against about 10,000 years of cumulative pertinent research but I think they will all decide to go with the science.

You are much more Adolf than Aristotle.

To test the moderators role am I allowed to say that race "realists" feel themselves (wrongly) to be superior to racially inferior pig dogs?

They seem quite sensitive about that but it seems a fair observation to me.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

JadedJean,

thanks for getting back to me. In response to your question, I'd say that it could be argued to be necessary, but I wouldn't say it was sufficient.

You're right about the paradoxes of the vernacular, though; in a sense, these are probably the inevitable paradoxes of a historically constituted culture.

Someone commenting on the Madoff case remarked that the saying is that one only knows who's bathing naked when the tide goes out. One hears talk now about whether we're likely to learn from these recent - the answer is no - too many people (especially women it would seeem) find them very appealing/attractive.

Go1, you are spamming again. (And you overlooked 99% of all known germs.)

The following comment is off topic but in response to your post #33 which was already well off topic.

In 1948 a plaque commemorating the dead was placed outside Auschwitz. It mentioned the figure of 4 million.

In 1990 the plaque was replaced by one correcting the figure to 1.5 million. Yet the total of 6 million remains unchanged. Now this raises some doubt in my mind and I ask you, as an enthusiast who is in possession of all the facts in this matter, to please explain.

But you won't will you? Is it any wonder people question this story?

Back to topic. Although Jacqui Smith may have cleverly managed to stay within the letter of the law I consider she has cynically mutilated the spirit of said law and should be required to return the over payments she received, retaining only a fair rent for the room she occupied.

Mr Peston talked about confidence its a very delicate plant very much so in monetary circles one hint that all is not well with Northern Rock would set alarm bells ringing in some investors It only needs a few to be shown on the news of them taking their money out and the rush starts Mr Peston may not have caused it but his actions did not exactly help either.

THE ROSE AND THE THORN

How heart-warming to see Kirsty falling in love, on screen, with Dominique Strauss Kahn, tossing her hair and coyly turning her eyes; a welcome antidote to 'letter of the law' Jacqui Smith, with her sulky mouth and stomping walk. I still find Kirsty's diction anathema, but when she goes all girly, my pain is forgotten. Come on Newsnight: fix her up with some more predatory French-men, and let's watch her light up! (:o)

NewFazer (#38) It's easy to question why thegangofone keeps saying the things he does, as his concerns have all been rationally addressed.

One might have thought that anything which suggested that less Jews may have been deliberately murdered in WWII (rtaher than die as combatants, collaterals or from disease) than was previously believed would have been welcomed by their decendents as this would have meant that their relatives may have suffered less or the loss had been less. But no. Quite the contrary in fact. People are threatened, even imprisoned for what appears to amount to something akin to a modern act of heresy (these laws were passed in Europe to prevent the re-emergence of National Socialism). This is what leads me to assert that there may well be an egregious, undemocratic political strategy at work where the agenda is to promotion free-market liberal-democratic capitalism at the expense of all else. Tha is not true democracy. Perversely, thegangofone (and others who emote like him) need there to have been a Holocaust just as they need real or imagined persecutors and 'racists' as that gives their cause credibility/affirmation. As it's really a cynical political act of self-interested exploitation of others', it's highly resistant to rational exposure/correction.

As to Jacqui Smith - if she stays within the letter of the law and complies with HoC expense rules, it's unjust to hold her personally culpable for any wrong doing. That is not how the rule of law works - it's how mob rule/anarchy works. If people (MPs) do not agree with how laws and rules are constructed and enforced, they have to get those laws/rules/enforcements re-examined/changed, not single out those who try to comply with them. I suspect that's all that's really going on. A PR exercise.

LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW (#41)

JJ - is this a handy way to highlight the intensional mode?

Am I right in inferring that 'spirit of the law' is intensional; hence, reprehensible every-day language? (I have forgotten your term.)

Are you asserting that a law must be absolute? Utterly precise in its intent and scope? Leaving no room for misinterpretation or doubt?

I got the impression that 'Jacqui's Law' stressed relative nights of residence in one paragraph, and family-domicile in another; standing in contradiction.

I don’t think financial journalism had made a material impact on the demise of Northern Rock or the enormous losses suffered by its shareholders. The bank run was not responsible for the liquidity crisis at Northern Rock. In fact, depositors only started queuing outside the bank after it was already insolvent.

The initial crisis, which started as early as August 2008, was a result of short term borrowing drying up in interbank and short term money markets, which the bank relies on as its main sources of funding. Meanwhile, retail deposits accounted for only a small portion of the bank’s assets. Between August and September, the government had tried to find a suitable buyer to take over Northern Rock behind the scenes, albeit to no avail. When 91Èȱ¬ news broadcast first broke the news, the funding problems at the bank had already gone on for a month, and the Bank of England finally had to intervene as a last measure.

Had Preston kept quiet about his knowledge of the situation, it wouldn’t have made a difference. In the absence of a government bailout plan, one couldn’t have prevented the bank run. In hindsight, the collapse of Northern Rock was inevitable.

barrie (#42) If you've really forgotten how and why some locutions in Natural Language are intensional and thus non truth functional, can I respectfully suggest that you look it up? It's taken seriously in law (as well as science) given the centrality of logic and evidence to justified belief.

#38 and #41; you two clearly don't read well; we've covered this before and barriesingleton was so impressed he asked for provenance of the evidence supplied; details were given.

If you can read, sit down with a cup of hot water and be edified by Gitta Sereny's series of interviews with Albert Speer.

It amazes me why you two are allowed to peddle this repetitive pap on a blog attached to a programme for grown - ups.

kashibeyaz (#45) When people ask for provenance it is usually out of concern for a source's authenticity/reliability, not because they are 'impressed'. I remind you that normal rules of evidence were waived in the interest of expediency for the war crime trials, and one has to consider the history (Tehran 1943 onwards) which led the trials and the de-nazification/Morgenthau programmes (quite aside from the fact that at least some of the evidence was fabricated by the USSR).

That you end your post as you do doesn't surprise me. You are not writing as one who approaches issues in a rational, adult manner.

"PAY CAESAR WHAT IS DUE TO CAESAR"

(It is nearly Easter after all).

kashibeyaz #45

I had no seen your reference previously so will look for the interviews you speak of. Be assured I shall read with an open mind.

It is encouraging to have received a response as a change from Go1's constant peddling of unsubstantiated nonsense but is it really necessary for you people always to add personal insult to your posts? Of course I can read, why else would you bother to write?

anyone who thinks financial news does not move markets has never traded the markets. No one says Peston and those who leaked caused the conditions for inevitable bank failure which is a straw man set up by the bbc in their public relations drive. But there was precipitation of unnecessary public panic.

usually bank failures are managed in secret/pre emptive preventing runs. how many other 'bank runs' have there been? there was no need for a run.

peston admits he was surprised by the run which shows something in that thought process to broadcast was missing. Its not the first time.

finance is like humpty. you can gleefully push him of the wall but who will put it back together? So care must be taken more than with anyone other type of 'news'. Soros says all the time he has to be careful what he says because it can wipe off billions from the markets. So finance news needs a two stage thought process rather than a 'scoop' mindset.

Hello bookhimdano (#49), what you said in the post is nothing new. If financial reporting was to blame for inducing unnecessary public panic, resulting in the run on Northern Rock, shouldn’t that be said for every piece of financial news that has caused some company’s shares to fall in value? What is so different and culpable in the case of Robert Preston and his story on Northern Rock?

My previous post didn’t imply that financial news don’t move markets. I was making a different point that before 91Èȱ¬ broke the story, Northern Rock was already insolvent. The failure of the bank was therefore not caused by a withdrawal of retail deposits during the bank run, but a cut off of short term funding by sophisticated lenders in the capital markets.

As for George Soros, I doubt a speculator’s mindset has a place for conscience that would care about wiping billions from market, a country, and even an entire region. He comments on the markets so that other investors would follow him, so he could make money when markets move in his favor.