Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

ED WON!

195 replies

pinkbasket · 25/09/2010 16:51

There you go.

OP posts:
TDaDa · 05/10/2010 19:37

Claig - I wish that you wouldn't be so partial. The article talked about a report. The British Govt has NOT been passengers. What have the Americans done that is so significant.

Basel 3 is by definition multilateral and is definitely the way to go.

By the way the Swiss bailed out their banks without even blinking.

TDaDa · 05/10/2010 19:38

sorry about my appalling grammar!

TDaDa · 05/10/2010 19:44

Banks are multinational. Their are entirely dedicated specialist that deal with "transfer pricing" i.e. tax optimisation. Capital can be moved almost instantly. Head offices (a la HSBC) and people can also be moved with implications on control, tax, jobs etc. So you are ignoring the reality if you think that the UK Govt could just hammer the banks into a corner.

TDaDa · 05/10/2010 19:48

Their There are entirely .......

You should note that the City is has been full of French bankers favouring the UK tax regime. Sarko would love to have them back! In his election campaign he even came over here to woo them.

claig · 05/10/2010 19:48

I'm not being partial. I think you are being partial and therefore failing to see the real picture which is staring us in the face.

Yes the Swiss bailed out their banks without blinking, which is good. They were able to do it and had no problem doing it. They also have no problem introducing tougher regulation now.

Why is Obama not waiting around for Basel 3 to be agreed? Why is he taking unilateral measures as well as waiting for Basel 3? Do you think that the United States has got advisers that are less capable than those that advided Mandelson? I don't think so.

TDaDa · 05/10/2010 20:44

i thought that the UK took action in respect of:

i)taxing bonuses
ii)introducing banking levy (tax) on UK banks
iii)deferred bonuses
iv)More rigorous FSA regime

TDaDa · 05/10/2010 20:45

v)new rules on bonus deferral

claig · 05/10/2010 20:59

yes the UK did take some action. They couldn't have done otherwise faced by the biggest collapse in history. But they want to discourage other countries going further and without unilateral agreement. Why? Why does Mandelson think that Obama is wrong to pursue unilateral measures?

claig · 05/10/2010 21:01

wouldn't it benefit the UK if Obama hindered the US by taking unilateral measures that would affect the US as a place of doing business? Then why aren't they encouraging Obama to go ahead. Then the City would be even more competitive wouldn't it? The answer is no, and that is why they don't want Obama to pursue unilateral regulation.

TDaDa · 05/10/2010 21:53

"Why does Mandelson think that Obama is wrong to pursue unilateral measures?"...cos it is a global industry with a very very homogenous and mobile product.

You wouldn't regulate emissions effectively unless you go for global framework, would you?

claig · 05/10/2010 22:00

""Why does Mandelson think that Obama is wrong to pursue unilateral measures?"...cos it is a global industry with a very very homogenous and mobile product."

Don't you think that Harvard educated Obama knows that? Don't you think that the Fed and the Treasury Secretary and all the top economic advisers of the United States know that? Do you really think they are stupid and need to be educated by Mandelson?

TDaDa · 06/10/2010 22:08

Claig- I am looking for the relevant Mandy/Obama article?

claig · 06/10/2010 23:34

not sure I understand what you mean, but here is the article
Peter Mandelson frowns on America's unilateral financial reforms

TDaDa · 07/10/2010 06:31

thnaks. will have a look

TDaDa · 07/10/2010 21:53

Don't see what the problem is. Mandelson is absolutrely right that multilateral approach is the way togo on banking reform. Anything else is plain stupid give (or take a few local initiatives) or political posturing. Obama is under pressure to flex muscle because of mid term. Also the US is more diversified and therefore can take more risks with financial services than the UK.

claig · 07/10/2010 22:07

You said that Labour took some unilateral action at the start. When the US and the Swiss wanted to take unilateral action, they tried to discourage them. The disadvantage of unilateral action is that it is supposed to make the party taking the action less competitive (because of the threat of banks and high rollers moving elsewhere), so why are they so keen to prevent the Swiss and the US being less competitive and why do the US and Swiss want to take action that is supposedly uncompetitive? Something doesn't add up.

TDaDa · 07/10/2010 22:16

UK Govt also reactiong to political pressure, I agree.

Fine for the US Govt to take unilateral action. Just saying that it isn't sensible/best course/final solution (give or take marginal local action)

claig · 07/10/2010 22:29

Remember when teh Irish decided to back depositors in their banks with 100% guarantee of all of their money, and when Germany decided to ban naked short selling. There were the usual howls and squeals and condemnations saying that they should have waited for Godot and multilateral agreement. The Irish were desperate and had to take that action to maintain confidence in their banking system, but others told them to wait for Godot. If they had waited, they would have been sunk. The Irish did the right thing.

Why did it concern the howlers and squealers what the Irish did? What were they scared of? They were frightened that if Ireland unilaterally guaranteed deposits, then there might be a run on UK banks, and people might take their money out of UK banks and put it in Ireland. That is why they were desperate to prevent Ireland acting unilaterally.

The Swiss are strong enough to act unilaterally and so are the US. Neither of these countries are stupid. They don't want to wait for Godot, they want to act unilaterally now, in order to restore confidence in their banking system. I think the reason that Mandelson warned them against doing so, is because he would then have to do something similar in the UK in order to maintain confidence in our system. So why doesn't he do that and follow what the Swiss and the US are doing? The reason is because he can't. The Robert Peston article showed that the UK banks would not be able to easily raise the capital that the Swiss were able to raise. So he wants everybody to wait and act together unilaterally, so as not to expose any country which is not capable of acting. But the other countries are not prepared to sacrifice their countries for the sake of those who are not able to act, due to their weaker financial system. They will do what the Irish did, and act in their own national interest, and not in the national interest of other countries. Note that it was teh strong countries, the USA, Germany and the Swiss who wanted to act unilaterally.

TDaDa · 08/10/2010 21:06

i think that you are getting carried away/exaggerating unilateral action. The Swiss, as far as I am aware have commissioned a report. On the contrary they are being careful to preserve their competitive edged and have bent over backwards to preserve their position in global Financial services cos they are at least as exposed as the UK to Fin Services, perhaps moreso.

We have hijacked this thread for our one-to-one. Perhaps we should have a diff thread?

claig · 08/10/2010 21:21

I think we've probably let this discussion run its course. I don't think we are going to agree. I think the US was clever and right to want to act unilaterally and were not going to be dissuaded by Mandelson. I think they understood that his objectives were not helpful for the United States.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page