91热爆

I am French and remember when I was little everyone was rushing to Spain because it was so cheap. I suppose everyone is rushing to the UK for the same reason now. We should make sure we get our act together, offer good customer service etc to ensure they spend all their money here.

I don't think it is on anyone's interest for the UK to go bust and this will not happen

The article gives a good insight in the balance of the British banks. I'm just wondering what the effect of imported inflation will be?

As for the trade balance:
The production output of the UK actually fell 4.3 %. So, for now, a lower pound doesn't seem to stimulate production yet.

As far this remarks:

"Indeed, you can take some heart from the fact that senior French officials have been publicly fuming about the fall in sterling. They're not worried about Britain going bust. They're worried about British exporters doing rather too well out of a weak currency.

So, we won't be calling the IMF any time soon. And good thing too, because I suspect we'd be put on hold. These days the IMF doesn't have nearly enough money to help us out. It's also being run by a Frenchman."

Well, that is just plain discrimination on ethnicity.

All very welcome oil on troubled waters, but whilst you are doing all this hypothetical stuff is there any way to run the treasury economic model, and then run it forwards to actually see what kind of damage/opportunities are ahead in the way of paying back all this money that has been used to bail out our financial institutions?

Would it be helped immensely if the government reduced the number of civil servants?

If we have shored up the short term, we really need answers about the long term. No point in buying a new shirt if the government is going to want it off my back.

Great Stuff Stephanie, you really know how to write these things so the lay man like myself could understand these complex issues. It does really show how naive and out of depth David Cameron and the younge pretender Osborne are. It's staggering really for two people who could actually be running this Country in a year's time. God help us all if they ever succeeded in that goal

Stephanie wrote:

"the government could simply run out of buyers for its debt"

in which case they will have to raise the interest they are prepared to pay, - or are you saying that the government could simply run out of buyers for its debt at any price?

I don't think this is given at all.

I also take issue with your reiteration of the Bank of England's mantra on interest rates. The Bank has to change direction in the medium term or we will 'by definition' not have recovered from this present situation. The question is when. In fact I reiterate my question - If it is OK to say that VAT will go up, why is it not OK to do the same for interest rates? (I have previously argued that it is essential.)

I am also disturbed by you anti French xenophobia towards the end of your article. vis "... it's also being run by a Frenchman" - this is uncalled-for and inappropriate.

Generally I am sceptical about accusations that the media is exacerbating an already terrible situation, but on this occasion I am not. Just on what side of planet clever did you wake up today, to decide on writing a piece with the great title: Is Britain going Bust! Everyone is sick enough of this whole thing without hearing a drag net of comment encouraging pessimism and very outcome described. Jeremiah got put down a hole because everyone was so sick of listening to his doomsaying. I think we should have a hole dug for the most dispiriting hacks. Watch out Flanders, you could be the first down it.

It's difficult to quantify the British government's potential liabilities.

Some analysts point out that if you take the forecast for public sector net debt, include the unfunded public sector pensions, and PFI commitments, plus the capital and loans provided to banks, it would amount to over GBP 2.5 trillion by the end of 2009. This would be 200% of the UK's GDP.

Total public liabilities would increase further if the British banking system had to be nationalised.

However, although the PFI and public sector pension commitments are real costs, they do not fall due immediately and will be spread out over the coming years.

The money provided to banks will, in theory, be repaid by the banks at some point in the future.

On Stephanie's arguments for Foreign Currency Assets and Liabilities.

Firstly the data you are presenting is well out of date.

Secondly Sterling has fallen dramatically since.

Thirdly there is ample evidence, both public and private, that the financial institutions do not know what there net assets and liabilities are now or will be in the future.

Fourth, given 1,2 and 3 it is not possible to know the effect of changes in the value of sterling of the net assets and liabilities situation of the UK as a whole today, tomorrow or at any day in the future. This is compounded by the volatility of sterling and the imponderable and unknowably complex results of the highly complex financial instruments interaction with every other Nation's banking and currencies.

Given the foregoing: Where are the error bounds on your 'absolute' certainties?

This may be a central prediction, but how do the compounding of the errors and uncertainties pan out?

overall a grade of C-

All of your assumptions rely on out-of-date hearsay, not evidence; you also project the future from the ancient past, with no justification save that it is what the good and the great want to hear you say:

e.g.

"Either way, it's clear that UK banks - and the system as a whole - have foreign currency assets which match or exceed their liabilities." is unjustified by the evidence.

"The surprising bottom line is that British-owned banks should stand to gain from a lower pound," Oh yeah? Justify this.

You can use your arguments to present exactly the opposite argument.

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.

It is a bit of a worry when the leader of the main opposition party starts talking nonsense about the IMF coming - fortunately Ken Clarke who knows something about finance put him straight.

Incidently I noticed that although all pundits got their predictions about the British economy wrong last year, the worst of the worst performers was the IMF.

The problem with markets is that at the extremes they perform badly, either behaving like the boom will never end in a bubble, or assuming we are all doomed and the world is about to end when we are in a recession. Look at what's happened to Barclay's share price over the past week. For no good reason the share price bombed and now it's risen again.

Oh that's all right then. In fact there's no problem at all. Neither the banks or business or individuals are anywhere near to being over-indebted. So there is no problem Crisis what crisis?

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

Hello from a fellow kennedy scholar,

You note that the 拢1.1 trillion in foreign currency assets held by UK banks exceeds the 拢840 billion they have in foreign currency liabilities.

Would it not also be relevant to determine whether the actual currencies that form part of the foreign currency assets actually match the currencies that form part of the foreign currency liabilities? For example, assume the 拢1.1 trillion is held today entirely in yen, but that the Japanese authorities decide to devalue the yen tomorrow, and assume the yen then loses x% of its value against the pound, whereas the liabilies are held entirely in Swiss francs that remain stable against the 拢. There may well be a stage at which the assets will no longer cover the liabilities. Has anyone conducted an analysis of this kind?

Welcome back Stephanie!

Even if you think another bail out from the IMF is unlikely, is it not a coincidence that it is only with Labour in power that the IMF is ever mentioned?

A quick verdict on the UK's economic stewardship and financial reputation:

1950: 13.2 Swiss francs to the pound
2009: 1.6 Swiss francs to the pound

Nough said

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.

Thank God journalists like Stephanie still exist! Amidst all the scaremongering and doomsday predictions that swamp our media, it is refreshing to read an article like this, based on 'old-fashioned' quality research.
Keep up the good job!

Stephanie wrote:

"But whatever the (foreign) assets may now be worth, we can be fairly sure that their sterling value would go up in the event of a run on the pound."

How so? The loan may be denominated in Sterling in which case it would remain unchanged or it could be denominated in an even worse currency in which case the sterling value would drop. (And of course the opposite could be true if the loan was the other way.) There are all kinds of paper out there and some of the loan related derivatives are hugely complex. Do you have some inside information that informs your comment?

My best guess is that the banks just do not know, and you cannot know.

If the Middle East investors end up with more than 50% of Barclays is it still a British Bank? If not who guarentees the deposits?

'So, we won't be calling the IMF any time soon.'

That's OK then.

Just hope its a better judgement than 'no one could see this recession coming'.

I fear you're wrong again.

Enjoyed the article.

Was grabbed by some Francophobic claws in the last sentence !

"There seem to be two big concerns. One relates to the debts of the banking system; the other to the debts of the government."

There is also the concern about the debt of the non-banking UK private sector - business and household.

Notwithstanding this, I maintain that the key indicator is the nett overall financial position of the UK as a whole. Once all the inter-UK financial assets and liabilities have been netted off, what is our nett financial balance? How much debt do we owe outside the UK, what is the value of our financial assets over and above those offset against internal UK debt, and what is the difference between these two sums?

This, surely, is quite a simple figure to calculate, and if it shows a reasonable, manageable position for the UK's nett financial balance, I should have thought that it would be just about the most reassuring statistic for the public to hear. Why then does the Prime Minister mention only the public-sector position when asserting the the UK is "well-placed" to deal with the downturn? If he's looking to reassure people, why doesn't he reassure them with the stat that really matters, rather than one that paints only a partial picture?

Unless, of course, the stat that really matters is not quite as rosy as the one he keeps trumpeting. In which case he's misleading the population, and this failure needs to be uncovered and reported by those who are paid to do so.

Hi Stephanie

Please explain the relevance of the IMF being run by a Frenchman. I don't get it.

Thanks

#8 John from Hendon.

Something did not ring true about Stephanies post, now I know why. Cheers!

Maybe she has not got her feet back under the table yet, fair enough, but not convincing thus far anyway even from my comparatively ill informed perspective.

Jericoa

The issue is really around the amount of borrowing and increase in debt as a percentage of GDP. Given the huge amounts of debt to be issued by all countries next year there is a risk the market may have an issue absorbing it all. The US for example will issue a huge amount of debt as well as printing a great deal of money. The US Dollar's status as the main reserve currency in the world (64%), coupled with US Treasury Bills acting as a safe haven in the current climate, leave it able to do this and maintain its currency value. To some extent the same can be said of the Euro, though the risk of IMF involvement and potential debt raising issues in some member states, may put some pressure on the Euro zone this year.

The UK with a reserve currency of far less importance may struggle to pull off such large debt issuance and quantitative easing without either downward pressure on the currency, or a need to pay a higher rate to attract buyers for the debt.

Perhaps more fundamental to the economy is the loss of foreign lenders in the domestic market. Even if all the bank bailouts work, and Barclays can sustain good results for 2008 and a still to be seen 2009, this is going to be a serious drag on growth of some time.

I think Stephanie is missing the point about the value of Sterling. A currency falls relative to others when the markets lose confidence in the underlying economy. They have now lost confidence in Gordon Brown and in his Government's ability to rectify all their mistakes.

Reducing interest rates and increasing public borrowing in order to lend money to the banks will not in itself encourage banks to lend to business or home buyers. Conversely if interest rates were raised then lending would become more attractive as it would produce a higher return. Overseas investors would have an incentive to hold Sterling deposits and that would provide the banks with the additional liquidity they require and without the need to incur public debt.

Great online journalism. I have read a few of your blogs now and am very impressed with your commentary and insights into the world markets.

A modern clarity and approach. Very informative. Keep up the excellent work.

Mike Clay, Cornwall, UK

hmmmm?

Where did you get the figures from - the banks - the government?

Do you really trust such figures not to be WARPED asnd EXCLUDING certain undesired information to show credible margins.

if you believe this propaganda classic then go long in RBS.

Why would the French be worried about a cheap pound? We don't export enough to upset anyone. That apart there a lot of French companies here that will benefit from the weaker pound.

Get a grip.

Stephanie:

....Is Britain in danger of going bust? ...

I think that the chances of Britain going bust is a likely option...

~Dennis Junior~

I have to say I'm not sure that I agree.

Firstly, the security of foreign currency assets depends strongly upon the currencies held. I rather suspect that the British banks hold a lot of US dollars, which is also a currency likely to fall in the not too distant future (although it does have the benefit of being a reserve currency).

Secondly, when Germany is having problems financing it's debt then the outlook is far from bright for HMGs plans. If buyers really want AAA rated debt in bulk quantities at almost no return then the US will also be pushing out large quantities in the near future. Unless interest rates rise to make UK debt more attractive I cannot see how the UK will continue to access funds on the global market. As you note, this would probably not be good for the economy.

I do not think that the UK is in danger of knocking on the IMFs door in the near future, but unless the economy is turned round and public expenditure reigned in then perhaps we should pencil in a call for early 2010?

I have real concerns about Quantitative Easing (QE) as a policy and I suspect I may not be alone in these concerns.

QE is of course, the theory which has sometimes been referred to as

'The Economic Theory of Last Resort'
or as the Telegraph puts it
'The Therapy of Last Resort

As the independent observers on here will be aware, Quantative Easing is the latest theory to be forwarded as a 'let's try it out solution' by Merv.

Merv is of course aided and abetted in his experiments by the luminaries from all stations between Thread. St, Whitehall, Cass and Cardiff.

That evidently being the Collection of Luminaries who as indicated earlier by Steph, all got their last predictions so spectacularly wrong.

Now, one doesn't have to be a Professor in Economics to know that the Economy can't really afford too many more expensive trials. The money will run out and the People will be asked to pay the bill.

So perhaps our hopes are that someone might come up with a workable economic theory that hasn't been coloured by a political theory and then we might have a bit of a chance.

However from where I sit, it looks as if Quantative Easing has massive downside potential for the Populus - that is you and me and everyone you know or are ever likely to know, and then all their buddies and their buddies as well.

Whereas the beneficiaries from QE are likely to be those Institutions of the Banks, the Government and the BoE.
ie People get clobbered whilst Institutions benefit.

So I envisage a Merv-inspired splurge of QE money with a resultant further weakening of the Pound, a futher rise in inflation from imported essential goods and a further spending value erosion to fixed interest incomes (pensions and pension funds).
And then higher taxes to pay for it.
Not good news for the 'people' really.

If anyone wishes to bone up on Merv's latest wheeze, then the following two articles from the Guardian and the Telegraph give a nice bit of background.





[Broken link removed by Moderator]

Conclusion : there is a need to do some substantial groundwork on the likely effects of QE, before rushing into implementation.

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

Wow, I now share the horor with a few others that my post didn't get published.

Another try to get the message out there:

Brown's current rhetoric does not really match with that in the past, neither with his actions. Brown in his Mansion House speech in 2006:

"I believe that we were right not to go down that road which in the United States led to Sarbannes-Oxley, and we were right to build upon our light touch system through the leadership of Sir Callum McCarthy - fair, proportionate, predictable and increasingly risk based."

"Let me say I see no case for a European single regulator and will continue to reject such a proposal, just as we will resist the new and unnecessary proposals to harmonisation corporate taxation in Europe."




A rather more balanced assessment by Ms Hargreaves on whether the UK is living on a prayer:



[Broken link removed by Moderator]

No point trying to best the FT which today carries the following quote:

"Mr Brown gave warning on Monday about a growing 鈥渃apacity gap鈥� in lending around the world as multi-national banks retrenched into domestic markets.

His comments are at odds with the impression given by government officials that the Treasury expects RBS and Lloyds Banking Group, the part-nationalised banks, to focus more on their core British markets.

Indeed, RBS has recently sold its stake in Bank of China and Mr Brown has strongly criticised the bank鈥榮 purchase of ABN Amro, the Dutch institution."





[Broken link removed by Moderator]

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

We know the world economy is contracting sharply, causing unemployment to rise, and future earnings to fall.

We know that US and UK households, businesses and government are burdened with high levels of debt, which they will struggle to pay off.

We know that sterling has depreciated sharply.

We know that asset values are falling, wiping out large amounts of notional wealth.

We know there is a crisis within the world financial system, with many institutions already broken or bust.

We do not accurately know the value of the British government's future liabilties.

We do not accurately know the true financial strength of our financial insitutions, and how they will cope during the coming months and years.


Bearing all this in mind, it is difficult to be optimistic.....

#38

The situation is dire. Even during the last decade when the consumers had taken leave of their senses and were borrowing 100bn a year to squander on Chinese tat, foreign holidays and Starbucks the Maximum Leader still had to borrow 3% of GDP every year just to make the payroll. So if we, as a nation, ever have to stop borrowing then we are automatically 150bn a year in the hole just to make the payroll.

Which is why the deficit for 2009/2010 is slated to be 150bn quid. That is our natural deficit. The baseline annual overspend as a result of not balancing our budget. The past decade was not 'normal'. It was an illusion of wealth perched on a pyramid of debt.

Brown is operating scorched earth economics. He has no way of paying back the 150bn a year he's squandering to avoid any public sector job cuts/pay cuts. A couple of dog-whistle initiatives to appeal to the Labour Fundamentalists such as add 5% to higher rate income tax. Which will apparently raise 2bn quid. Less than a weeks squandering.

He has no way to pay off this money and yet he continues to squander. A 'recovery' won't pay off the money because we couldn't balance the budget before the recovery. 5% wealth tax and an increase in VAT won't pay off the money because if 2.5% off vat is 12bn quid then increasing VAT to 20% will 'only' raise 24bn quid. Peanuts. 2 months squandering. Where's the rest going to come from?

We are utterly stuffed. Just as George W Bush has handed an utterly trashed economy to Obama then Brown intends to hand an utterly trashed economy to Cameron and then leer as all the Labour Lobby Chimps get stuck into Cameron for having to make the really tough choices. Cut public sector spending/pay. Increase taxes. Balance the budget.

Brown is just playing politics with our future. He has calculated (although his calculations are invariably wrong) that he can just get over the finish line without the IMF being called in and without having to increase taxes or interest rates. So he's going to do exactly that and leave somebody else to sort out his mess.

Having read these posts on here, would I be right in assuming that for academic economists it depends upon where you start and what terms of reference you use as to the data that is produced?

If we could therefore all start from one point with the same parameters, then surely the extrapolations would have validity.

Until then I believe that your premise that GB won't go bust, with all the evidence sited here, is simply kite flying at the market. Please just make sure it doesn't become a red rag that encourages them to test your theories

In about 10 years, Indonesia has shrunk its national debt from 107% to 20% of GDP. Therefore, it is possible that the UK can service the potential of 80-90% of GDP debt we will be left with by 2012. However, it will take a brave government to bring our debt level down to about 30%. And it could be a 15-20 year project.

The UK is far from bankrupt, and I also think we (BoE) should set out reasonable economic conditions for when it would be prudent to start to slowly raise interest rates. This may be when inflation is under 2 per cent and when the Libor is at a certain level. Then interest rate rises would not demonstrate currency protection but a sensible longterm policy to prevent deflation and possible bubbles - and cheap lending - in the near future.

Yes Britain is going bust.

It is highly risky to base strategy on the least worst option. This is what is happening, everyone talking about recovery - when, how... There is not going to be a recovery as such. There will be a re-ordering of things, which - if we are very lucky, will limit the damage to individuals, companies and the country as a whole. You have to work on the worst case or you're never going to get anything moving. That was how Major and Clarke handled the 90's recession and that is why it went on so long and caused so much social and commercial debris.

There is a rising deficit in balance of trade, which can ONLY be fixed by a manufacturing and export drive. The manufacturing - well, it's vital to differentiate between firms who simply make things to go into main assemblies and those who make finished product. The latter is by far more important. There are NO substantive measures in place or under consideration in Guvt that will drive that. I'm not talking giant factories here so don't start reminding me of the collapse of MG Rover.

This is the end of big retail chains and retail sectors that don't have real customer loyalty. It's the end of the housing boom and big construction firms. It's the end of inwardly invested firms across the board. They don't know this yet, but it's coming. Hear them interviewed on Radio 4 business news and of course, they all sound optimistic. They have to, you see, unless they want to send their share price into freefall. And that optimisim generates a kind of commercial blindness to the worst case.


Only export will bring money into the UK. If you disagree remember fine, but remember I said it in two years time when the country is reduced to worthless currency, IMF handouts and everything that belongs with a country that can't stand on its own two feet.

Finite money: There are two buckets of internal money, one is the tax revenue we contribute and the other is the Guvt who spend it. If our bucket is not replenished - and it only can be by export, the internal money supply will dry up and when that happens we won't be able to import never mind export and will be FORCED to exist on our own internal resources. Which are few of course albeit that we are a clever and inventive nation and could reconstitute them if we were encouraged and helped to do so. So here we are, chasing internal money round and round in circles while our own bucket empties more each day.

As the level in the Guvt's bucket drops they will have less and less for spending that we currently take for granted and future projects will be quietly shelved. The knock-on effect will be most keenly felt in rising theft and burglary. This is already on the increase.

Those British-owned firms who can make things and export then should be given every facility, encouragement and this will require intensive consideration. There are no incentives at present, which is why so many in recent years have taken the get-rich-quick route and imported - mainly from the Far East. This has to stop. Actually I guess it is already stopping of its own accord and about time too. Businessmen need to start putting export at the top of the agenda. For some this will mean really hard work for the first time. Most will be unable to cope with it and fall down.

Retail is changing and reading the signs they all say that the future will be the past, small shops and outlets who buy direct, exist on modest margins, know and care for their customers. There could well be a resurgence in locally produced homegrown product in everything from vegetables to shoes and who says that's any bad thing.

I happen to think the days of the so-called global economy are over, over because the concept was always a pipe dream and the fragility of the balance sheets that it created is plain to see. And that I see as being no bad thing. The environment has been subjected to massive, massive damage because of it.

Time is tight, it's do-able, but I doubt very much if it's do-able under this commercially inexperienced and plodding government team. This one needs people who can really 'think outside the box' and I don't see anyone like that in Westminster. There seems to be a notion that 'it will blow over' in a 'year or two'. It won't. This recession is being declared 'different from the last in many ways and yes it is in some, but the socio-economic fallout is of the same genre but infinitely more serious. So serious that a radical rethink - quickly - about whether it's time for change rather than a continuation (or hope for same) of the old way is needed. I know my answer to that.

When I campaigned for a seat in the last election I warned that Brown was coming after Blair and that he would be a disaster for the economy. He may understand banking and high finance better than most but in terms of understanding business he is a Neanderthal. He is running out of time, option and money. Thus he will print more.

Name a single substantive measure introduced since August last year that is not LENDING and that relates DIRECTLY to business and export that has been both implemented and WORKED? And tell me who benefited from that. I cannot think of a single example.


GC

So we are not going bust so that's alright then . NO IT ISN'T

When are you people going to stop sensationalising everything?

The headline here is 'Bust Britain' and the previous link is 'Is Britain in Danger of Going Bust'

Don't you get it? We are in extremely difficult times but the constant pessimistic headlines are just killing confidence.

It's time you - and Peston - kept quiet.

The article reads like a Public Announcement Broadcast designed to comfort the worried. Post #9 is accurate, add to that a lot of the assetts are Toxic. There is a reason why these companies can only get money from the goverment.

Are you a member of this useless, corrupt government? Give us some Balance !

re: 40 (U9461192).

I agree, Brown has proved himself to be a failed financier of the old politiek who is exacerbating the financial problems for what he sees as short term gains.

Unfortunately it's a pyramid scheme he's bought into. And an even bigger bubble will burst if he isn't stopped soon.

Cameron will bring in fresh perpectives, integrity and sensible policies. A sort of Obama for the UK. Seriously, mark my words.

Don't you get it? We are in extremely difficult times but the constant pessimistic headlines are just killing confidence.

It's time you - and Peston - kept quiet.

I think Stephanie and Peston are still being relatively upbeat. Remember it was a full decade of crushed debate about what the hell the Maximum Leader was doing running up all these debts and running these budget deficits that sleep-walked us all into this crisis. Pretending it isn't happening won't make it go away.

Even now the internet is stalked by paid Labour apologists trying to throw up chaff about how it all started in America. Or how it's the banks fault for not lending enough money. Somebody else's fault anyway rather than the man who has been in charge for the last 11 years.

We're having enough trouble getting the Maximum Leader to even admit we've had a 'bust' on his watch. Which should be far more alarming than a bit of realistic comment. Our PM can't even admit he screwed up and marched the entire UK straight into a housing bust. How is he going to 'fix' the economy when he can't even come to terms with how he screwed it up. If you want to worry about something - worry about that.

#40 - Mr/Ms U9461192

Spot on.......

... one thing no one seems to be discussing is what the New World will be like post Credit Boom - Credit Bust.....

Once interest rates return to normal (the non artificial rates currently in place), once VAT returns to 17.5, once Direct and other Indirect Taxes are adjusted to take into account our New Debt and to fill the hole in the Exchequer left by business and the financial services......... and once the availability of credit that has inflated the economy over recent years has returned to some sort of normality.....

How much disposable income is going to be available!

I'm not sure there are any plans in place to get us out of a recession - it seems that GB does think this is totally Global and if he hangs on they鈥檒l sort it out for him.

Statistically we may be out of this recession in a couple of years, but if we take the bench mark as 2007 we may never come out of it in real terms

I know it is a terrible analogy but if I have a personal recession and from earning 20k, over the next 2yr period my salary drops to 10k am I then technically out of recession if the following year if I am up to 12k? Or do I have to wait until I am back over 20k in real terms?

It was a joke about the Frenchman.

As for when this recession will end?

It will not end until Starbucks, Costa Coffee and all those other 3 quid a cup 'lifestyle' outlets are either bankrupt or selling coffee for 50p a cup.

Seriously. Minimum wage 5.50 an hour and yet people will stand in a queue and pay three quid for a cup of coffee?

What kind of an economy is that? How is that 'sustainable'? Except by massive borrowing to pay for ludicrously over-priced beverages.

#42 guycroft.

We are both singing from the same hymn sheet.

The sad thing is that so much focus is being placed upon the banks that little or no work is being done to identify those sectors of commerce and industry that are in our strategic best interests. As usual the politicians can only think in terms of short term tactics. That's why they "didn't see that coming!".

If we don't develop a strategy NOW it will be too late -as usual!!!!!

#51 is one of the most sensible comments I've seen in a long time.

The problem is slightly more widespread though. Look in the electrical chains at the price of a DVD player (start at 25GBP for a basic one and 35GBP for a branded one), then at the prices for the cables to connect them up (range from 5-50GBP). Same applies to inkjet printers and their cartridges.

My point is that there is little correlation between what something costs and what the High Street shops want to charge you. If these shops are only making their profit by selling the accessories at inflated prices then I suspect they won't be far behind the coffee shops!

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

#51

Thinking about this again some of the coffee shops will survive. Not becase of the coffee, but because they offer free WiFi connections! DIY internet cafe.

#40

I agree 100% with you. Brown has run up so much debt we will not be able to handle it without a permanent large reduction in the public sector. He of course won't do that, and is leaving a scorched earth for the Tories. Cameron won't want to make the really hard choices for obvious political reasons, so we will eventually have to run to the IMF, who will force change on us (Cameron is clearly getting the blame in early to make sure it attaches, rightly, to Labour).

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

Nice bit of casual chauvinism at the end; everyone knows that the horrible French are only nasty to you lovely English people out of jealousy.

"4. At 5:27pm on 26 Jan 2009, jhs001 wrote:
It does really show how naive and out of depth David Cameron and the younge pretender Osborne are. It's staggering really for two people who could actually be running this Country in a year's time. God help us all if they ever succeeded in that goal"

I note you're not endorsing Brown's running of the economy for the last 12 years as he was in a position to do something about it but chose not to out of sheer incompetence.

The more he talked of prudence the more it seemed like a deception.
Boom and busts - there were at least two under his watch
'All the US's fault' is what he constantly repeats now as though there was nothing he could do.

He's been stealing a number of Tory policies so maybe he fears that they could do better than he has. They can't do any worse.

Stephanie,

Could you elaborate a bit on your comment

"in fact, the government is still borrowing at historically low rates."?

This is counter to pretty much all the current received wisdom. The government itself anticipates a huge rise in borrowing and the critics say the borrowing will be even greater than that. Is your comment referring to a temporary artefact or does it actually signify something? On the face of it, this is some good news that the government could trumpet and yet they don't - which seems odd.

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

Can't see why so many of you are giving Stephanie a hard time about her last line about the Frenchman.

Don't forget the words of the song:

"And crossing the Channel one cannot say much
For the French and the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch
...
The English, the English, the English are best,
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest!"

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

The system is corrupt, entirely. What's needed here is not some tinkering with the system in order to re-balance it, but a fundamental change in the way we deal with each other as human beings on a social and economical level.

I remember anti-capitalists marching against this system whilst the media, politicians and swathes of the general public, all of whom "had never had it so good", laughed at them and shook their head in admonishment.

"Look at us!" They all cried as people marched against the inequality and social barbarism of an system that marginalised billions of poor people whiclt the rich bankers raked in their profits.

Now the ladder is being pulled up and those who were previously immune to this system are beginning to look over their shoulders, it's not so funny. Is it?

#47

"Cameron will bring in fresh perpectives, integrity and sensible policies. A sort of Obama for the UK. Seriously, mark my words."

No he won't, he has already shown to be opportunistic (say anything, do anything to win votes) and a massive level of incompetent. Even a GCSE student will tell you the IMF was formed to help small and developing economies, they do not have the money to save Britain. Obama is an inspirational leader but also offer hope to the world, Cameron preaches fear to scare the daylights out of vulnerable people. That is what i called gutter politics, so please do not repeat that statement again

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.

A bit late. One of the reasons the banks had trouble was off balance sheet activities. The same applied to Enron. There have been many similar crashes before. PPF ( Public Private Finance or whatever they are) are just that. There is government commitment and it is therefore part of the public purse. To really compare government borrowings surely these should be added. Also like with like should play a role. What is private and what is public differs from nation to nation. Eg. Private Health in the USA vs the NHS

Any chance of getting your Blog on the front page

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

to : The Unknown Moderator,

Ref post #34 at 6.16 am

' [Broken link removed by Moderator] '

Thanks for fixing the broken link which now works correctly.

Worth a few words, so here we go

' The noblest Moderator of them all

Who walks in Duty like the night.'

:)

The Triple A rating to which you refer will no doubt be as reliable as those which the Rating Agencies gave to CDOs based on sub prime motgages I assume.

For somebody called "St茅phanie", and who is allegedly educated and sophisticated it is a bit bizarre and sad to rely on good old Francophobia to get some hits. Is this the 91热爆 or the Sun? If it's a joke, it's actually not funny.

I have two names for you: Pascal Lamy on the one hand, and Peter Mandelson on the other...

Sometimes it's not just because of the crisis that I'm glad I left England last year...

And, Ms Flanders, as said repeatedly by several commenters, more balance would be good. You only ever quote mainstream sources or think tanks etc... And your only excuse is "Yes they got it wrong, yes they're bad, but they're the only ones", which I suspect is really not quite the truth.

Step outside the City and go to the LSE, leave the FT from time to time and read the Guardian or le Monde Diplomatique (shock horror, a intellectual French newspaper). Otherwise soon you will end up in some kind of inflated self-referential respectability like The Economist.

A.

RE: 60. hants_gw

In the unlikely event that anybody cares, I'll answer my own question.

I misunderstood the line

"in fact, the government is still borrowing at historically low rates."

to mean that the rate at which the government is borrowing money is at an historic low, which surprised me given all the trauma about the national debt. However, if you revise it to say,

"in fact, the government is still borrowing at historically low interest rates."

then the actual meaning is clear enough even for me.