How long more are we going to have to wait for the banks to be filleted?

Good article by Fisk which the likes of the Tipping King might want to have a read of. “Inside Job” which he talks about is a brilliant documentary by the way, watched it this week. It’s not just in government, banking and the revolving door between them that America is rotten. Economics in all the major US universities is compromised by ties to major financial corporations. It’s the same in other fields. And of course, the media.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-bankers-are-the-dictators-of-the-west-6275084.html

[size=5]Robert Fisk: Bankers are the dictators of the West[/size]

Writing from the very region that produces more clichés per square foot than any other “story” – the Middle East – I should perhaps pause before I say I have never read so much garbage, so much utter drivel, as I have about the world financial crisis.
But I will not hold my fire. It seems to me that the reporting of the collapse of capitalism has reached a new low which even the Middle East cannot surpass for sheer unadulterated obedience to the very institutions and Harvard “experts” who have helped to bring about the whole criminal disaster.

Let’s kick off with the “Arab Spring” – in itself a grotesque verbal distortion of the great Arab/Muslim awakening which is shaking the Middle East – and the trashy parallels with the social protests in Western capitals. We’ve been deluged with reports of how the poor or the disadvantaged in the West have “taken a leaf” out of the “Arab spring” book, how demonstrators in America, Canada, Britain, Spain and Greece have been “inspired” by the huge demonstrations that brought down the regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and – up to a point – Libya. But this is nonsense.

The real comparison, needless to say, has been dodged by Western reporters, so keen to extol the anti-dictator rebellions of the Arabs, so anxious to ignore protests against “democratic” Western governments, so desperate to disparage these demonstrations, to suggest that they are merely picking up on the latest fad in the Arab world. The truth is somewhat different. What drove the Arabs in their tens of thousands and then their millions on to the streets of Middle East capitals was a demand for dignity and a refusal to accept that the local family-ruled dictators actually owned their countries. The Mubaraks and the Ben Alis and the Gaddafis and the kings and emirs of the Gulf (and Jordan) and the Assads all believed that they had property rights to their entire nations. Egypt belonged to Mubarak Inc, Tunisia to Ben Ali Inc (and the Traboulsi family), Libya to Gaddafi Inc. And so on. The Arab martyrs against dictatorship died to prove that their countries belonged to their own people.

And that is the true parallel in the West. The protest movements are indeed against Big Business – a perfectly justified cause – and against “governments”. What they have really divined, however, albeit a bit late in the day, is that they have for decades bought into a fraudulent democracy: they dutifully vote for political parties – which then hand their democratic mandate and people’s power to the banks and the derivative traders and the rating agencies, all three backed up by the slovenly and dishonest coterie of “experts” from America’s top universities and “think tanks”, who maintain the fiction that this is a crisis of globalisation rather than a massive financial con trick foisted on the voters.

The banks and the rating agencies have become the dictators of the West. Like the Mubaraks and Ben Alis, the banks believed – and still believe – they are owners of their countries. The elections which give them power have – through the gutlessness and collusion of governments – become as false as the polls to which the Arabs were forced to troop decade after decade to anoint their own national property owners. Goldman Sachs and the Royal Bank of Scotland became the Mubaraks and Ben Alis of the US and the UK, each gobbling up the people’s wealth in bogus rewards and bonuses for their vicious bosses on a scale infinitely more rapacious than their greedy Arab dictator-brothers could imagine.

I didn’t need Charles Ferguson’s Inside Job on BBC2 this week – though it helped – to teach me that the ratings agencies and the US banks are interchangeable, that their personnel move seamlessly between agency, bank and US government. The ratings lads (almost always lads, of course) who AAA-rated sub-prime loans and derivatives in America are now – via their poisonous influence on the markets – clawing down the people of Europe by threatening to lower or withdraw the very same ratings from European nations which they lavished upon criminals before the financial crash in the US. I believe that understatement tends to win arguments. But, forgive me, who are these creatures whose ratings agencies now put more fear into the French than Rommel did in 1940?

Why don’t my journalist mates in Wall Street tell me? How come the BBC and CNN and – oh, dear, even al-Jazeera – treat these criminal communities as unquestionable institutions of power? Why no investigations – Inside Job started along the path – into these scandalous double-dealers? It reminds me so much of the equally craven way that so many American reporters cover the Middle East, eerily avoiding any direct criticism of Israel, abetted by an army of pro-Likud lobbyists to explain to viewers why American “peacemaking” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be trusted, why the good guys are “moderates”, the bad guys “terrorists”.

The Arabs have at least begun to shrug off this nonsense. But when the Wall Street protesters do the same, they become “anarchists”, the social “terrorists” of American streets who dare to demand that the Bernankes and Geithners should face the same kind of trial as Hosni Mubarak. We in the West – our governments – have created our dictators. But, unlike the Arabs, we can’t touch them.

The Irish Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, solemnly informed his people this week that they were not responsible for the crisis in which they found themselves. They already knew that, of course. What he did not tell them was who was to blame. Isn’t it time he and his fellow EU prime ministers did tell us? And our reporters, too?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/12/britain-ruled-by-banks

Britain is ruled by the banks, for the banks

Is David Cameron’s kid-glove treatment of the City remotely justified, when it neither pays its way nor lends effectively?
[b][color="#005689"]Aditya Chakrabortty[/b][/url] [url=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/”][color="#005689"]guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 December 2011 20.00 GMT

The City, London . . . Britain’s finance sector contributes less to the country than manufacturing. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

The national interest. It’s a phrase we’ve heard a lot recently. [color="#005689"]David Cameron[/url] promised to defend it before flying off last week to Brussels. Eurosceptic backbenchers urged him to fight for it. And when the summit turned into a trial separation, and the [url=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/dec/12/politics-live-blog”][color="#005689"]prime minister walked out at 4am[/url], the rightwing newspapers took up the refrain: he was fighting for Britain. In the eye-burningly early hours of Friday morning, exhausted and at a loss to explain a row he plainly hadn’t expected, Cameron tried again: “I had to pursue very doggedly what was in the [url=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8945155/EU-suffers-worst-split-in-history-as-David-Cameron-blocks-treaty-change.html”][color=”#005689"]British national interest."

As political justifications go, the national interest is an oddly ceremonial one. Like the dusty liqueur uncapped for a family gathering, MPs bring it out only for the big occasions. And when they do, what they mean is: forget all the usual fluff about ethics and ideas; this is important.

You heard the phrase last May, as the Lib Dems explained why they were forming a coalition with the Tories. More seriously, Blair used it as Britain invaded Iraq.

But here Cameron wasn’t talking about foreign policy; nor about who governs the country. The national interest he saw as threatened by Europe is concentrated in a few expensive parts of London, in an industry that would surely come bottom in any occupational popularity contest (yes, lower even than journalists): investment banking.

In its haste to depict events as Little Britain v Big Europe, the Tory press hasn’t dwelt on the inconvenient details of last week’s fight. But it was only after the prime minister failed to secure protection for the City from new financial regulation mooted by the EU that he told Nicolas Sarkozy to get on his vélo.

On one issue in particular, Cameron had a good case: Britain wants banks to put more money aside for a rainy day than the EU is considering. Elsewhere, he just looked unreasonable – what exactly is wrong with having international banking supervision? One reason for the euro crisis was that its members have 17 national bank watchdogs and barely anyone looking across borders.
Step back from what even EU officials were calling “arcane” details, though, and the big principle is this: the prime minister effectively stuck relations with the rest of Europe in the deep freeze in order to protect one sector of the economy.

In my recollection, no British minister in recent times has termed one industry as being of “national interest”. “Vital” or “key”? Why, such words are the very currency of the MP’s address to a trade association. But on the big phrase, I asked the Guardian’s librarians to check the archives from 1997 onwards. They came back empty-handed.

Cameron is merely expressing more openly something Labour frontbenchers also believe: that the City is pretty much the last engine functioning in Britain’s misfiring economy. Indeed, one of the Labour lines of attack against Cameron this weekend has been that he has left the City more open to regulation.

A few weeks ago, the shadow chancellor Ed Balls warned against any further taxes on financial trading within Europe. However, he said, he would urge a “Robin Hood tax with the widest international agreement”. In other words, Balls will give his fullest support to something that has no chance of happening.

This is the same kind of political subservience towards the City, observed by the [color="#005689"]Financial Services Authority (FSA)[/url] in its [url=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8945155/EU-suffers-worst-split-in-history-as-David-Cameron-blocks-treaty-change.html”][color="#005689"]report into the collapse of RBS[/url]. According to the watchdog, a major reason why Fred Goodwin wasn’t checked as he drove RBS off a cliff was because of “a sustained political emphasis on the need for the FSA to be ‘light touch’ in its approach and mindful of London’s competitive position”. Had [url=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/regulators”][color="#005689"]regulators been harder on the bankers, “it is almost certain that their proposals would have been met by extensive complaints that the FSA was pursuing a heavy-handed, gold-plating approach which would harm London’s competitiveness”.

As all British taxpayers know by now, securing the “competitiveness” of RBS has wound up costing us around £45bn.
So what is it that justifies the kid-glove treatment of the finance sector? Switch on the news and you normally hear some minister or lobbyist (come on down, Angela Knight of the British Bankers’ Association) talking about the vital contribution banking makes to employment. Our tax revenue. Or the role banks ideally play in directing money to needy businesses.

These claims are repeated so often that they rarely get even the briefest patdown from interviewers, let alone backbench MPs or economists. Yet they are largely bogus, as explained in a new book called [color="#005689"]After the Great Complacence[/url], produced by academics at Manchester University’s [url=“http://www.cresc.ac.uk/”][color="#005689"]Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (Cresc). Indeed, on nearly any important measure, finance actually contributes less to Britain than manufacturing.

Take jobs. The finance sector employs 1m people in Britain. Chuck in the lawyers, the PRs and the smaller fry that swim in its wake and you are up to a grand total of 1.5m. And most of these people are not the investment bankers for whom Cameron went to war in Brussels. At the big British banks such as RBS and HBOS, 80% of the staff work in the retail business. Even if Sarkozy were to shroud Canary Wharf in a giant tricolore, those staff would still be needed to staff the branches and man the call centres. Even in its current state of emaciation, manufacturing employs 2m people.

What about taxes? Lobbyists like to point out that banks are usually the biggest payers of corporation tax, but usually omit to mention that corporation tax isn’t that big a money-spinner. For their part, even leftwingers will usually assume that the bankers effectively paid for the tax credits, hospitals and schools we enjoyed under Labour.

It’s not true. The Cresc team totted up the taxes paid by the finance sector between 2002 and 2008, the six years in which the City was having an almighty boom: at £193bn, it’s still only getting on for half the £378bn paid by manufacturing. It would be more accurate to say that the widget-makers of the Midlands paid for Tony Blair’s welfarism. But that would be a much less picturesque description.

Even in the best of times, the finance sector hasn’t paid anything like as much to the state as the state has had to pay for them since the great crash. According to the IMF, British taxpayers have shelled out £289bn in “direct upfront financing” to prop up the banks since 2008. Add in the various government loans and underwriting, and taxpayers are on the hook for £1.19tn. Seen that way the City looks less like a goose that lays golden eggs, and more like an unruly pigeon that leaves one hell of a mess for others to clear up.

Ah, but what about lending? After all, this is why we have banks in the first place: to channel money to productive industries. The Cresc team looked at Bank of England figures on bank and building society loans and found that at the height of the bubble in 2007, around 40% or more of all bank and building society lending was on residential or commercial property. Another 25% of all bank lending went to financial intermediaries. In other words, about two-thirds of all bank lending in 2007 went to pumping up the bubble.
This doesn’t look like a hard-working part of an economy humming along: it’s nothing less than epic capitalist onanism.

If the statistics don’t support the arguments for the City’s pre-eminence, the public don’t either. In 1983, 90% of the public agreed that banks in Britain were well run, according to the British Social Attitudes survey. By 2009, that had plunged to 19%.
In other words, both the evidence and the voters are against investment bankers. So why do the politicians cling on to them?

Part of the answer is financial. Bankers used the boom to buy themselves influence – so that, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the City now provides half of all Tory party funds. That is up from just 25% only five years ago.

Another part must be cultural. Running this government are two sons of bankers. Cameron’s father was a stockbroker, Clegg’s is still chairman of United Trust Bank (and famously helped his son get some work experience). For its part, Labour spent so long outsourcing all economic thinking to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls that it has long lost the ability to argue against the orthodoxy of giving the City what it wants.

In a poorer country, the cosiness of relations between bankers and politicians would be scrutinised by an official from the World Bank and disdainfully pronounced as pure cronyism. In Britain, we need to come up with a new word for this type of dysfunctional capitalism – where banks neither lend nor pay their way in taxes, yet retain a stranglehold on policy-making. We could try bankocracy: ruled by the banks, for the banks.

What are the results of bankocracy? It means that the main figures arguing for a Robin Hood tax are the Archbishop of Canterbury [color="#005689"]Rowan Williams[/url] and [url=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzZIRMXcxRc”][color="#005689"]Bill Nighy. It means that opposition to the rule of banks isn’t found in Westminster, but in tents outside St Paul’s or among a few grizzled academics and NGO-hands – with no political vehicle to carry them. Meanwhile, the politicians declare that the national interest of Britain can be defined by what suits one square mile of it.

Bank of Ireland still paying golf subscriptions for staff :rolleyes: Looks like they’ve told Jimmy Deenihan (and his idea to take Grattan’s Parliament back for the people) to go fuck himself.

Fine Gael really showing these guys who’s boss.

Youl be delighted to hear SS that one of my former colleagues got a job in AIB there last wk. he started in a team hat has grown from having 6 staff to 32 staff over th past 12 months. Contract job only

Ah shur AIB are flying it Dan, I know lots of full time lads in there. Not a sign of them ever having to take a pay cut or anything like it. It is gas to think that if you work for a bust bank there’s no question of you having to take mere statutory redundancy, you’ll get a few weeks on top due to ‘industry norms’ but if you work for a bust Vita Cortex you don’t even get statutory :lol: Great country.

Ulster Bank announcing up to 900 redundancies today. That’s an awful lot of people to release onto the jobs market if they don’t stagger them over a number of years.

Has a single person been made redundant from AIB since they SLASHED jobs last year?

Since it’s the UK Govt paying these we shouldn’t care too much but none of the 900 could have any complaints if they were told to clear their desks today. They work for a failed corporate institution.

Cutting special needs assistants while not sacking a soul in the banks that brought down the Irish state is another matter. Country is rotten to the core

These are Irish jobs mate. Of course it matters.

So special needs assistants that work for failed institutions get different rules to people who work in failed corporate institutions?

[quote=“Rocko, post: 535495”]
These are Irish jobs mate. Of course it matters.

So special needs assistants that work for failed institutions get different rules to people who work in failed corporate institutions?[/quote]

There should be different rules if you believe in the interests of society over those of speculators - special needs assistants work on behalf of the State, bankers on behalf of bondholders and other vested interests.

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through.

Of course it’s despicable that special needs workers lost jobs and the government picks on those less fortunate but you’re ignoring all logic or hope of improvement by suggesting there should be no reform for people who work on behalf of the State (no matter how poorly anyone might work or how ineffective their role might be because of a badly organised system) but anyone working in a bank can have no complaints because those institutions are failures.

[quote=“Rocko, post: 535497”]
I’m not sure you’ve thought this through.

Of course it’s despicable that special needs workers lost jobs and the government picks on those less fortunate but you’re ignoring all logic or hope of improvement by suggesting there should be no reform for people who work on behalf of the State (no matter how poorly anyone might work or how ineffective their role might be because of a badly organised system) but anyone working in a bank can have no complaints because those institutions are failures.[/quote]

When did I suggest there should be no reform of the public services? It’s difficult to justify though when public sector bankers are still getting their golf subs paid. The state banks should have culled their workforce 3 or 4 years ago.

If any other private corporation fails, the workers pretty much go with it. Don’t like to see any workers to lose their jobs but employees of bankrupt banks can’t have too many complaints. There weren’t too many voluntary redundancy packages going in the likes of Vita Cortex et al

[quote=“KIB man, post: 535498”]

When did I suggest there should be no reform of the public services? It’s difficult to justify though when public sector bankers are still getting their golf subs paid. The state banks should have culled their workforce 3 or 4 years ago.

If any other private corporation fails, the workers pretty much go with it. Don’t like to see any workers to lose their jobs but employees of bankrupt banks can’t have too many complaints. There weren’t too many voluntary redundancy packages going in the likes of Vita Cortex et al[/quote]

They’re not interdependent. You don’t think public sector reform is justified because of banking losses. Christ you’re a bright spark.

[quote=“Rocko, post: 535499”]

They’re not interdependent. You don’t think public sector reform is justified because of banking losses. Christ you’re a bright spark.[/quote]

You are a mong. I’m not arguing that at all.

The banks are effectively part of the public sector now. It would have been easier for everyone to accept if more effort had been put on them to reform first.

It’s fairly clear either you or someone close to you works for Ulster Bank btw

[quote=“KIB man, post: 535500”]

You are a mong. I’m not arguing that at all.

The banks are effectively part of the public sector now. It would have been easier for everyone to accept if more effort had been put on them to reform first.

It’s fairly clear either you or someone close to you works for Ulster Bank btw[/quote]
You have me there. I’m a big fish in Ulster Bank and so are all my family. Weirdo.

You did argue that public sector reform is hard to justify because of the banks. That, my friend, is retarded.

It is staggering that banks like AIB have paid everyone away as normal for four years now despite them being bust. The public sector needs major reform but why should the bloated pay packages of bank staff be immune from the knife? They are broke, if they worked in any other company they’d be asked to take a huge pay cut and there’d be compulsory redundancies, yet there seems to be no move to haircut these people working for broke companies. It’s bizarre. As Runt says, years later we’re still waiting for AIB to cut the fat.

I absolutely agree. I don’t see why anyone should be immune from review, public or private.

The banks need to be protected.

from themselves

If they are part of public sector they would be covered by Croke Park agreement ergo no job losses or no paycuts.

Small beans in UB today. It’s in the post for the others in AIB etc but these are big highly unionised institutions. Wheels move v slowly.

FWIW, and iv said this all along, I think there will be a queue a mile long in AIB to get out if the package is anything above statutory