A taxing problem

Yes, I’m still here and now looking to get back into the swing of things with this essay…

The news yesterday that Cameron’s little Lib Dem helper, Nick Clegg, was floating the idea of a new wealth tax had me gritting my teeth in frustration. Not because I am wealthy, I’m not. In that sense I’ve no skin in the game. But because of what this latest assault on people’s wealth represents.

The problem – and major issue to be tackled – is the State’s presumption that it can simply help itself and just take money from people for no reason other than they have it, whenever it suits.

On the radio this morning the talking heads were at it again, offering views that some people in this country have too much and therefore the State should take some of that wealth from them.

The cheerleaders for this mindset and agitators for this behaviour are those left wing authoritarians who covet what others have without making any effort to achieve it for themselves, and who all too often depend like parasites on the public purse to fund their non jobs and activism.

When they say some people have too much money what they are saying is that in their selfish opinion those people have been too succesful. The logical conclusion, that more should be done to ensure more people have the opportunity to be successful and savour the rewards for their hard work – something that should attract congratulation – is rejected in favour of the dumb mantra that ‘It isn’t “fair”‘ and attendant idiocy of levelling downwards. And these deranged idiots actually feel morally superior as a result.

When this money is eventually stolen via this state sanctioned theft, it is spent as seen fit by a small cabal of politicians and The end result is always the same. The poor stay poor, wealth is stripped from people simply because they have some, and the money is frittered away on subsidy junkies, fasionable wheezes and pet initatives that somehow rarely if ever deliver value for the people as a whole, without any reference back to the people whose money it is. That is why we end up with such perverse outcomes as the billions being wasted on ineffective wind turbines and lavish and unrealistic feed in tariffs, the hundreds of millions given away on effectively subsidising the Indian space programme, the disgrace of other ringfenced overseas aid funds that are routinely plundered by corrupt officials – while at the same time many thousands of Britons in genuine need go without supposedly the unaffordable assistance to feed themselves, enjoy resdiential care in old age, heat their homes or receive a meaningful state pension.

Some people might think it is overblown hyperbole to describe this state of affairs as evil, but that is the reality. This kleptomanic behaviour and the mindset behind it that is articulated by the rent seekers in all three main parties, condemn millions of people to reliance on the State for a subsistence life. It is a major problem that is to the detriment of both the poor, the so called squeezed middle and the wealthy.

The solution is to put a brake on the State’s capacity to help itself to our money at will. The State is entirely unaccountable to taxpayers and has inverted the relationship between government and people. Instead of serving us and acting as stewards trusted to take only what is required to deliver the essential services required by the public, we have become the property of the State where we are used to serve the narrow interests of the establishment.

What is required is a dramatic correction. The people need to take back power to gain control. That will not be achieved through the political parties, they have long pledged to serve our interests but the outcome has always been a further erosion of people power and dismantling of what passed for democratic structures. What is needed is the framing of a charter of demands, that are constructive and positive and when delivered will result in proper people power. What is needed is more people to think about this and discuss this and contribute to a way forward…

29 Responses to “A taxing problem”

  1. 1 alfredtheo 30/08/2012 at 5:11 pm

    Whilst I agree with you, it would be good to change from the current system where it seems that only “The Little People” pay tax. No change in tax rates needed, just bring all into the net, that the majority of us cannot avoid.

  2. 2 barnacle bill 30/08/2012 at 6:25 pm

    We’ll never have a “Charter of Rights” because our political elite won’t allow us too.
    The time for talking is now gone.
    The piggies will only ever give up their places at the trough when we cut off their snouts and break off their trotters from our pockets.

  3. 3 James Murphy 30/08/2012 at 7:28 pm

    This is all very well, AM, but I’m afraid your understandable rant against Socialism’s undeserving ne’er-do-wells takes no account of the other even more ghastly side of things – namely, the corporate kleptocracy known as the banking system.

    Ironically it will be bankers not socialists who bring down the West. The debt crisis the banksters have provoked has far worse implications for us than the ultimately surmountable challenge posed by Socialism’s deeply flawed philosophy. Worth quoting dear old Amschel Rothschild from 1863 again: “Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who runs the government…”

    I’m afraid (and deeply depressed) to say that, seen in the context of such a quotation, our current cultural crisis renders party politics irrelevant. Quite simply, the banksters are quite literally insane with greed: they will not stop until they have reduced us all to utter ruin. The current equally pathological austerities package bizarrely acclaimed as a solution by all the pseudo-centrist governments of Europe will do nothing but provoke the arising of a new ‘Hitler’ for the 21st century. History does not lie.

  4. 4 thespecialone 30/08/2012 at 8:56 pm

    So James that is the simple reason why everything is down the pan is because of the bankers. Nothing to do with Clinton ordering American lenders to lend mortgage money to the poor who had no chance of paying it bac? Nothing to do with people who were willing customers of the banks offering ridiculously high mortgages – and the politicians allowing them to do it because it brought in more revenue to HM Treasury to enable the government to spend spend spend. Nothing to do with all governments desparately wanting more money to spend on African despots so they can make themselves feel good? Nothing to do with their “green dream” or the EU? Nothing whatsoever that politicians at all levels devour our money (not theirs, they do not have any), raising taxes to waste?
    Yes the banks have been bad. But who allowed them to get away with it and loved the extra money in tax that Treasury got? Now it has all gone pear-shaped.

  5. 5 James Murphy 30/08/2012 at 9:32 pm

    O Special One, you’re missing the point: none of the transgressions (admittedly nauseating) which you itemise would have been possible had they not been subsidised by a fraudulent expansion of the money supply through easy credit, itself rendered possible by the inherent malfeasance of the ‘fractional reserve’ banking system. Booms, busts, inflated house prices, ridiculous mortgages – they’re all controlled by those who themselves control the money supply. Until we wake up to the vital principle of debt-free sovereign currencies issued independently of the banksters we will be mired in cultural decay….

  6. 6 James Murphy 30/08/2012 at 9:39 pm

    You also write, O special One, as if unaware of the fact that the various members of Her Majesty’s absurd government are not effectively synonymous with the banking system anyway. Do you really think Cameron and Osborne have no banker friends? That they aren’t all spawned from the same grotesque, fat, greedy frog? Reveillez-vous mon ami!

  7. 7 James Murphy 30/08/2012 at 9:55 pm

    Sorry to be a bore about this, but I’m afraid the gross turpitude of bankers’ greed and how we expose and reform it really is the defining moral issue of our age – not Socialism, the inherent flaws of which are comparatively small beer. The tragedy of this crisis is precisely the fact that it renders mature politics irrelevant. Trying to conduct reasoned policy in this fiscal climate is like refurbishing your house in the midst of a hurricane: it just ain’t relevant. There IS no polity at the moment: and there can be none until the financial firestorm is extinguished. – that’s the point.

  8. 8 David 30/08/2012 at 11:01 pm


    I wholeheartedly agree with the 6 principle points of the Harrogate Agenda, but, as has been alluded to in the above comments the biggest problem by far is the power of the Banks.
    I would therefore suggest the removal of the Bank of England’s monopoly of ‘creating’ money for the Government to waste, and then expect the people to repay it back ‘at interest’.
    I cannot for the life of me understand how/why if the BoE is the nations bank it can charge interest to the very people who’s money it is.

  9. 9 Furor Teutonicus 31/08/2012 at 6:34 am

    This is another, and perfect example, of what I have ben saying for a while. And that is, although, on the face of it, this is an independant British “Government” initiative, WHY then are Germany and some other countries in the E.U talking of exectly the same thing?

    Which, if you read only the German media, you would think was an entirely independant GERMAN “Government” plan.

    NOTHING that happens within E.U member states appears to be “independant” any more. Especially when you read the individual countries media/blogs/etc, but they do not hesitate to let us THINK that.

  10. 10 John Payne 31/08/2012 at 2:25 pm

    I agree with the writer’s anger. But PLEASE, PLEASE do not forget the Billions we give away for Europe to squander.

  11. 11 james higham 31/08/2012 at 3:59 pm

    Now, all we have to do is tattoo this on Cameron’s, Clegg’s and Milli[ede’s foreheads:

    The problem – and major issue to be tackled – is the State’s presumption that it can simply help itself and just take money from people for no reason other than they have it, whenever it suits.

  12. 12 James Murphy 31/08/2012 at 4:53 pm

    David, agreed – but this is the point – research and ye shall find! THE BOE is NOT our bank! Like the Fed in America it is an entirely private bank (funded of course by a composite of private banks), as such it is nothing to do with the government of the day to whom it dictates terms. The names BOE and FED RESERVE are convenient fictions to hoodwink us credulous civilians into thinking they are on our side. They’re not, they’re crooks one and all, with no-one’s interest at heart but their own. That this simple fact, namely, the commercial self-interest of the so-called BOE, is not broadcast by the MSM is, frankly, either criminally ignorant or just criminal…

  13. 13 Vanessa 01/09/2012 at 3:34 pm

    I think what you work for and earn is yours. A Polish girl was ranting about how the rich should pay more and I said to her “isn’t that what we all aspire to?? To be rich and wealthy?? She shut-up. This evil indoctrination of it being so unfair to be wealthy but fine to be poor takes no account of the hard work and courage it takes to run a business and employ people and take risks with, generally, your own money. This political incorrectness and thinking that it is unfair has to go. LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

  14. 14 Furor Teutonicus 02/09/2012 at 7:43 am

    XX A Polish girl was ranting about how the rich should pay more XX

    With Polands post 1945 history, you would think a bloody pole would know better.

  15. 15 PeterMG 03/09/2012 at 1:46 pm

    Politicians are happy for us to blame the Banks as that gets them of the hook. James Murphy whilst your words strike a cord with most, be aware this is exactly how the establishment wishes you to act and think. Hundreds of thousands of people across Europe and the US and other places work for Banks providing an essential service to 99.9% of the population. These ordinary working people are now very tired of worthless misdirected rhetoric.

    Even amongst many “bankers” there was little they could do to change the course of what was happening, even though they could see where it was leading. And I have had it confirmed that as far back as 2005 all those in power knew exactly what was happening. If you think they were all caught out by the actions of some greedy bankers, think again.

    In the EU this crisis is being used to push to the ultimate aim, Political Union. The reason the crisis with the Euro has not been resolved is because it is a Political Construct, and not being treated as an economic issue. Politicians have passed Laws to protect the Banks, who in a normal capitalist system would have failed, their assets sold and share holders taken their retribution on the directors. But no in our Crony Capitalist system they are protected by the political class and in return take the heat.

    If we continue to vent at the Banks we dilute our efforts to get to those who constructed this mess. Changes in our political system to make the political class accountable, must go hand in hand with a return to Capitalism where you protect the individual and ensure competition, which leads to innovation, which in turn creates growth and advancement.

    Please don’t read this as me being an apologist for the actions of some Banks. As businesses those t should have all failed, and this would have sent a message to shareholders to rein in excess. But even now in some instances it is still not happening.

  16. 16 James Murphy 03/09/2012 at 9:23 pm

    Your logic is flawed, PeterMG. Indeed, your cart sits immovably before your horse! For the politicians to be conspiring – for whatever reason – at European political and fiscal union they would first have to have the permission of the bank(ster)s, without whose specious money supply no such union would stand a proverbial snowball’s chance-in-hell of getting off the ground. So there must first – as always – be something big in it for the bankers for them to allow any such political idea to gain currency(!) Thus: get rid of the banksters and you get rid of any remote possibility of political union. The institutionalised fraud of the banks – not the politicians – is the primary problem. The politicians are merely enablers, a class of low-life no culture can ever entirely root out.

    As regards political union itself, the great irony is that socialism, being unaffordable, requires deficit spending to the nth degree to subsidise it: this is only possible if zombie banks lend money they don’t really have (indeed, which doesn’t even exist except in the fantasy world of fractional reserve banking) to governments that have no mandate to borrow it.

    You also miss my other point which is that there is no effective difference in identity between our politicians and our bankers: the one is merely the other operating in a slightly different pin-striped post-code of dear old deeply decadent London. I must also say I don’t have too much sympathy with people who work in banks as they stand in their current state of utter moral decay: get another job! After all the writing has, as you say, been on the wall for many a year. Paul Moore (Hbos Risk Manager and famous whistleblower) was warning back in 2007 that his bank was in way over its head: result: the good old tin tack!

    One thing we can agree on: we don’t have capitalism at the moment: capitalism always has a price discovery mechanism called the open market where failed companies and products (the banks and their spurious loans) fail. In this respect, nothing is too big to fail. The only thing that is too big to fail is corporate fascism – and that’s what we’ve got right now. Full stop, end of.

  17. 17 James Murphy 03/09/2012 at 9:33 pm

    Furthermore, PeterMG, you suggest that “Politicians are happy for us to blame the Banks as that gets them of (sic) the hook”. – Sorry but no mainstream politician has pointed a ‘j’accuse!’ finger at the banks in a real, detailed, expose. None of them has exposed the utter mendacity of the fractional reserve system banking fraud; none of them has shamed the derivatives market for what it was – a ‘Ponzi’ scheme calculated to defraud us all right across Europe of our sovereign currencies, which is exactly what is happening. Look at Draghi, Samaras, etc – not so-called technocrats (what in f****s name doe that mean anyway) but ‘placemen’ – ex-staffers at Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan etc. This is not conspiracy theory rubbish. It is hard, journalistically-checkable fact.

  18. 18 EForster 04/09/2012 at 11:00 am

    Your spending is my income. If my income is taxed, then part of your spending necessarily pays my tax since I have no other money. As a consequence consumers are the ultimate tax payers and bear the entire burden of taxation. The employee thinks that income tax is his burden, but in reality he is used as an unwitting agent of government to collect tax from his customers ultimately individual end consumers. Hence payroll income tax deductions to automate and speed the process.

    We are all subject to the implicit consumption tax resulting from accumulated taxation incurred in the supply chains of goods and services we buy, which is today equivalent to an overall tax rate taking half of consumers’ spending money on average. The more we spend the more tax we pay, rich or poor.

    Economists and politicians represent this stupendously complex tax system as some higher form of “progressive” taxation. And, it does conveniently conceal the huge burden of tax that we all pay and there is no doubt that we are happier in our ignorance. We are also firmly of the belief that, while the rich are evidently paying at very high rates, they should be paying a lot more to support us.

  19. 19 PeterMG 04/09/2012 at 12:09 pm

    James Murphy, I’m sorry that your obvious bitterness towards the banking community is distorting your ability to rationalise what I know you know, and what many others know and can see plainly; namely the unholy alliance between corporates, banking and Politicians. But just as the engineer, production line worker, salesman or IT technician has no control over the path their corporate bosses take, those directly engaged in banking operations have no influence over what the Banking heads do.

    And I’m not talking of the Bob Diamonds of this world or even Fred the Shed. They were only taking advantage of the conditions created by Politians and regulators. Remember, Clinton passed a Law forcing American banks to lead to those who couldn’t pay and changed other Laws so that the obvious losses could be “securitised” and passed off as real tradable securities. Those “Bankers” that were involved in hatching this were Politians themselves, just as the appointed head of the ECB, along with the PM’s of Greece and Italy are politians who once worked for Banks. The heads of the broke Spanish banks are not bankers but Politians.

    As an Engineer I have done a lot of root cause analysis, and you are not the only person that has told me that they think that if they bash the banks enough it will stop the Politians spending wasting our money, or they see the banks being the weak link. Wrong on both counts, because the Banks that do the greatest harm are the Central banks that sit there pretending they are the paragons of sensible practice when in reality they are the central cause of all the funny money, and they are all politically controlled. As much as you may loath Goldman, and as much as you may think Fred the shred was a lunatic, they are were allowed to get away with poor business practice by both the shareholders and regulators.

    Ask yourself why Labour split responsibility for regulation. Because then who has responsibility would be blurred and if it all went wrong as it has, pinning the responsibility on someone become exceedingly difficult. The Libor scandal is nothing but a smoke screen to keep the banks in the news and a little bit of sharp US politicking. I don’t disagree with the sentiments of your rant at banks, but it is Politians who are responsible.

    An analogy is climate change. This has NEVER been about science, but we have had to debunk all the junk science in order to get the majority of people to focus on the issue. Just winning the scientific argument was never going to be enough, and as much as I would like to see Michael Mann and others in jail, this is not going to change anything. It is Politians we have to attack.

  20. 20 Alfred the Ordinary (@AlfredtheO) 04/09/2012 at 3:56 pm

    In total agreement.

    Let’s not forget that if we can demonise the banks then it makes it so much easier to introduce the Financial Transaction Tax, that first EU centrally collected tax that the colleagues are so desperate to introduce. It will be tiny, at first, just like sales tax was, but then …

    Of course, it will only affect bankers plus those foolish capitalists that insist on trading outside of the euro zone. They wont pass the FTT costs on to the rest of us, will they, ho, ho.

  21. 21 James Murphy 04/09/2012 at 8:37 pm

    PeterMG, somewhat confused by your reply as it seems to echo everything I’ve been saying whilst affecting to disagree with me. You claim I am in denial about the ‘Unholy alliance between corporates, banking and politicians..” but the latter constitutes the entire point of my post! Did I not also castigate the central banks? I stated clearly that they are private banks and crooked to the core. You’re not reading my posts closely enough.

    Together, all these bloodsucking groups represent a de facto corporate Kleptocracy. Of course, we must attack the politicians – but only because they do not tell us the truth about the banks and the corrupt banking system. It’s a question of primary causes. – If you have a hangover, yes, of course, in the short-term you take a pill, but at a deeper level, you stop binge-drinking.

    I certainly agree with you that what we need first and foremost are honest (ha!) independent politicians who will apply the regulatory fiscal laws that already exist to root out the banksters. – But we don’t have honest politicians, so we must do all we can to use the media to spread the word about the corrupt banking practises that lie at the foundation of our current crisis. Remember, this is a monetary crisis first – a political one second. – If you think you can change anything politically without first changing the banking system you are living in cloud cuckoo land, I’m afraid. As such, Cameron’s ‘austerity package’ as well as being utterly morally repugnant (bankers privatise their gains and socialise their losses onto us) is useless. Like bailing out Niagara Falls with a teacup.

    As for your Clinton example, he did a deal with the bankers (you recall I suggested socialism needs crooked banking to pay for it): i.e., make as much profit as you like with derivatives and the fractional reserve system, so long a you make some available to my blue collar political constituency. That the bankers laughed as they waved goodbye to Clinton after a heavy lunch should be taken as read – he was, like most politicians, an economic illiterate (amongst many other things).

    BTW, you mention my being ‘bitter’ about the banks as if it were some kind of character flaw. On the contrary, I’d suggest you need to be a great deal more bitter about them, you’re far too forgiving. They’re laughing at your tolerance.

  22. 22 James Murphy 04/09/2012 at 8:42 pm

    Alfred. – er, have you been following the last five years of the crisis? It’s a banking crisis caused by the banks. The banks don’t need demonising: they ARE demons.

  23. 23 James Murphy 06/09/2012 at 9:36 am

    Now there’s a thing! – in today’s telegraph:

    “The Senate inquiry found that (during Lord Green’s tenure as chairman, he is now an adviser to the George Osborne on banking) HSBC accepted more than $15bn in cash between 2006 and 2009 from Mexico, Russia and other countries at high risk of money-laundering but failed properly to monitor transactions.

    Lord Green was chief executive of the London-based bank from 2003 to 2006 before becoming its chairman until 2010 and was made a trade minister last year.

    The peer, who is also an adviser to the George Osborne on banking, has stayed away from the House of Lords in recent days….

    I’ll bet he has.

  24. 24 PeterMG 06/09/2012 at 1:43 pm

    All of which proves my point that its all about politics. Lord Green is not a banker, never has been never will be. He is a member of the establishment who wouldn’t know his a…s from his elbow. To change banking we need to change politics. Bankers do what politics wants them to do, and their consciences are bought off with large amounts of wonga that not even you or I would refuse if we were in that position truth be told.

    Banks need to be much smaller, but we can’t break them up, as that will just ultimately cost the taxpayer more. They need to be separated into retail and investment but again we can’t force them apart without huge costs to the Taxpayer. I have been thinking about this issue for many months and my answer is as follows.

    First we need accountable politicians. Without that they won’t stick to a principled position. So big prerequisite, and something that is being pursued.

    Second, if we apply the principles of Capitalism, it is conceptually easy to achieve your aims. For Capitalism to work you need competition, and for competition to flourish you need to ensure that regulations are crafted to allow new entries into whatever field you are regulating. At present our regulators on the pretext of protecting consumers, have made it impossible for anyone other than the mega banks to survive. Insurance is another area where cost are rising and service falling due to regulation.

    This happens because our regulators fail to understand how capitalism works, and secondly are currently being influenced by all the wailing from the public and politicians. (this is the smoke screen that ensure nothing changes)

    If we truly want to split the banks you change the tax laws so that separate banks pay less tax, or another way is to signal that in 5 years or more you will start to ramp up taxation on combined organisations, but I prefer the carrot to the stick as it works much faster. To get smaller banks you have a lower rate of taxation, and perhaps capital requirements so that they can’t be forced out by their larger competitors. This gives them a chance to offer the better levels of customer service we need that large organisation are not able to provide. We want no bank to have more than 5% of the market (domestic) as a principle so that is a minimum of 20 banks (retail) and if we ensure regulation is working correctly we will end up with 30 or more and never again see them too big to fail.

    All very simple, but it has to come from political change. Also we should ban bailouts, and re-establish shareholder rights to ensure we don’t go back to the seven figure salaries that can never be justified.

    Just some ideas, that I think would work and whats more not cost us a penny, so I guess bound to be rejected out of hand.

    And just for those who may think it immoral for me to suggest a bank pay less tax, we would get far more tax from 20 to 30 small banks paying a lower rate of tax than from the 5 behemoth’s we have at present who are not at all profitable and unlikely to ever pay back the bailout money let alone pay much tax.

  25. 25 James Murphy 06/09/2012 at 9:44 pm

    “Bankers do what politics wants them to do,..” – Eh? If this were the case surely politicians would just have let the banks fail??? Why would they bail out the banks?

    Tragic fact 1) – Most politicians do not understand how money works – or even what money actually is! They really do believe the anti-capitalist mendacity ‘too big to fail’.

    Tragic fact 2) When Rothschild said “give me control of the money supply and I care not who runs the government”, he meant that whatever the political hue of the party in power, it’s the banks who issue the currency who are in control – not the politicians. Whichever way you cook it the bankers win when they control the money supply – Think about it. – Credit boom at the behest of the politicians? Bankers win (privatise the profits). Credit squeeze when all the fractional reserve lending goes tits up? Bankers win (socialise the losses). Remember: all the West’s sovereign currencies are debt-based currencies issued by central banks, leaving us, the people, immediately in hock to them before we’ve even begun trading, It was to avoid and evade this iniquity that Lincoln issued the so-called ‘Greenback’ in 1863: a currency issued by the people for the people, etc.

    Tragic fact 3) Fiscal (banking) crises always occur when politicians get in bed with bankers. This is what has happened. And now that they are married, so, too, are their destinies: they cannot divorce without losing all their mutual wealth. This they will never do. Hence making us foot their bill with austerities.

    Actually, PeterMG, I suspect we agree on most of the major details of this tragic disaster about to befall us ( I applaud all your banking reform ideas) – For let’s not forget, the catastrophic effects of currency debauching have barely even begun to manifest yet! It’s going to be grim – and the banks are going to win. They always do. remember Weimar (our current destination): politicians of all parties come and go – who remembers names like Stresemann, Ebert and Luther? – But Rothschild? Yes, that sticks in the memory somehow…..

  26. 26 alfredtheo 07/09/2012 at 10:30 am

    James Murphy, said on 04/09/2012 at 8:42 pm
    Alfred. – er, have you been following the last five years of the crisis? It’s a banking crisis caused by the banks. The banks don’t need demonising: they ARE demons.”

    Yes, but the demonising must continue to take attention away from the real aims of the politicians, ie a centrally imposed Financial Transaction Tax and an EU Banking Authority under one political power, in Brussels. As long as we think the politicians are slaying dragons for us, we’ll let them get away with anything, or so it seems.

  27. 27 London Callingr 10/09/2012 at 10:00 pm

    James Murphy you have too much time on your hands. Go up the pub and have a discussion with real people instead of bashing your keyboard, you are wasting your breath. Get out more.

  28. 28 James Murphy 11/09/2012 at 7:10 pm

    Surely, this is supposed to be a platform for informed dialogue, London Callingr? What on earth, therefore, are you doing here wasting your time educating yourself when you could be ‘darn the pub’ playing darts with the rest of the lemmings? Chop! Chop! Old son!

  29. 29 PeterMG 25/09/2012 at 1:18 pm

    Whilst we are having an adult discussion how about this for a bit of classic scapegoating by the FSA.


    This action against this individual will not change a thing in our banking system one iota. It is against an individual that can’t fight back, and because it was done by the regulator who was not so much asleep at the wheel but dead at the wheel, we can have no confidence that it has achieved any progress toward resolving the Banking crisis’s.

    It comes back to my theme that the problems are political and continue to be. The US has started QE3 giving more money to Banks who will first and foremost do what the regulators want and strengthen their balance sheets!!!! not support the economy.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: