Latest
» Impressed with Liam Byrne's comments in the Guardian today on giving power back to ppl. Perhaps they could have tried this 10yrs ago? 13 mins ago

» Well, at least Michael Jackson saved the BBC from enduring more faux-outrage over its expenses http://tr.im/pRdc 1 day ago

» "some people have gathered where we're pointing our camera. And that's the news" http://tr.im/pR4E (love it) 1 day ago

» Thanks @moviegrrl and @tcgriffin for #followfriday 1 day ago

» Birmingham based Jewish group slams Obama's speech in Cairo (only a few weeks late) http://tr.im/pQVA 1 day ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    This is what I meant earlier…


    by Sunny on 24th March, 2009 at 10:26 am    

    .. when I said the people brought in to deal with the financial crisis are part of the problem.

    Lord Myners, the minister charged with clamping down on tax avoidance, ran two more businesses that controlled substantial offshore funds, it emerged yesterday. The disclosures come a day after it was reported that the peer set up an offshore company in the tax haven of Bermuda of which he was part-time chairman. That company — Aspen Insurance — avoided more than £100 million a year in tax.



      |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Economics, Economy




    17 Comments below   |  

    1. Aaron — on 24th March, 2009 at 10:30 am  

      I suppose it’s Catch 22. You need someone with the savvy to unravel the mess, but then you’re left with the goons who made it.

      Unless we get rad-i-cal, I suppose. But that isn’t going to happen.

    2. Riz Din — on 24th March, 2009 at 11:07 am  

      The article keeps saying ‘it emerged yesterday’, but it also says that spokesman for Lord Myners said: “All of his past business roles are a matter of public record and he has made a full declaration of his interests.’

      If it’s the former he should stay, and if it’s the latter he should go.

      Personally, my phrenological analysis indicates that he is not a man to be trusted.

    3. Rumbold — on 24th March, 2009 at 11:14 am  

      This is what you get when you merge capitalism with socialism; a corporatist system which favours big business and the state elites. It is small businesses and individuals who lose out, because they don’t have enough influence to affect the over-mighty centre.

    4. cjcjc — on 24th March, 2009 at 11:47 am  

      Obama’s Wall Street bailout is of course just as bad.

    5. Sunny — on 24th March, 2009 at 12:03 pm  

      All points well made…

    6. Katy Newton — on 24th March, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

      Personally, my phrenological analysis indicates that he is not a man to be trusted.

      Um. Because of the shape of his head?

    7. Sunny — on 24th March, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

      Except the point about Obama of course.

      If the US govt didn’t do that, it would be Japan all over again. Someone has to buy and detoxify the bad loans - and it certainly won’t be Citigroup…

    8. Ravi Naik — on 24th March, 2009 at 12:36 pm  

      If the US govt didn’t do that, it would be Japan all over again. Someone has to buy and detoxify the bad loans - and it certainly won’t be Citigroup…

      Krugman thinks otherwise. That the only way to solve this problem is by nationalising banks as Sweeden did. And that Obama is just postponing the inevitable, wasting taxpayers money, and his political capital.

    9. Shamit — on 24th March, 2009 at 12:59 pm  

      I have never heard a bunch of economists agree on any one course of action. As a policy maker I guess you have to hear from all sides and make your best judgement.

      And that is what Obama gets paid to do and unless he fixes the economy — his legislative agenda would come to a grinding halt. So he had the political courage to make the call.

      Only time could tell the impact of this particular decision but he has cleared the ways for Banks to lend. They have no argument left.

      So while some economists will always disagree why not give credit to Obama for taking his best shot which took political courage.

    10. Ravi Naik — on 24th March, 2009 at 1:26 pm  

      So while some economists will always disagree why not give credit to Obama for taking his best shot which took political courage.

      I totally agree, Shamit. I hope Obama is vindicated.

    11. Riz — on 24th March, 2009 at 2:39 pm  

      Katy, yes, after finding a strong correlation between the size of an economist’s head and the quality of analysis, my thinking, well, turned on its head!

      Okay, so far it is based on a sample of one - Willem Buiter’s, who’s head is very large, particular the upper section i.e the brain casing:

      http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/

      I wrote up my take on the latest Obama - Geithner plan here:

      http://www.rizdin.com/2009/03/come-on-tim-latest-on-bailout.html

      The final paragraph for the link averse:

      “…while Geither’s give-away looks like a bad egg for the taxpayer, just compare it to the UK plan, which has been to insure the losses (beyond a small first loss) on over £600 billion of toxic assets, and this figure is going to rise. We UK taxpayers are on the hook for the potentially massive downside, enjoy none of the upside, and the toxic assets continue to remain on the bank’s balance sheets, leaving a lingering opaqueness about the whole affair. In terms of trade-offs, I’d say Geithner seems to have struck the better balance of the two.”

      Rumbold - yes, this is the unholy merger of socialism and capitalism. The commies infested and inverted the free market doctrine, they abused it over and over until it broke. A big pickle!

    12. cjcjc — on 24th March, 2009 at 2:52 pm  

      Oh dear, I see Sunny is torn between Obama and Krugman!

      Follow the debate here anyway:

      http://www.clusterstock.com

    13. cjcjc — on 24th March, 2009 at 2:53 pm  

      Oh, and buy Goldman Sachs stock for your pension funds!

    14. cjcjc — on 24th March, 2009 at 3:13 pm  

      http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-james-galbraith-geithner-plan-extremely-dangerous-banks-massively-corrupted-2009-3

      Obama is just as much a creature of Wall Street as Bush…

    15. Riz — on 24th March, 2009 at 3:51 pm  

      Rumbold, I always thought I was 25% socialist, 75% capitalist, but I am mistaken. I just looked up socialism, and this is the first paragraph from the wikipedia entry:

      “Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.”

      I am like soooo against this, apart from the idea of fairness. This way disaster lies, me thinks. As you say, a mish-mash of two opposing systems can not be sustained over the long-run.

    16. Sunny — on 24th March, 2009 at 6:43 pm  

      Krugman thinks otherwise. That the only way to solve this problem is by nationalising banks as Sweeden did.

      Isn’t Paul Krugman’s problem more that by trying to get banks to bid for the bad loans, the taxpayers won’t get the lowest price associated with it?

    17. cjcjc — on 25th March, 2009 at 7:52 am  

      That’s part of his problem - that the taxpayer is being ripped off - as the story you posted from Rolling tone suggested.
      (Do you actually read your own posts?!)
      The other is that the banks won’t/can’t lend more (they are lending some) even after the “toxic” loans are removed so the current plan (other than giving private investors - but only very large ones of course - a huge risk-free loan) won’t/can’t achieve much.

      The excellent http://www.clusterstock.com site continues to cover the whole story very well.

      The Obama administration either doesn’t understand its plan or is lying about it. Read »

      http://www.businessinsider.com/how-taxpayers-can-lose-money-even-when-private-investors-get-rich-2009-3

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.