Reply to: Brown in 2003, when warned he was causing a debt problem

[Peoplesoft bloke]

All that I said is well known, except to you obviously. Don't you know anything?


This is the same as the last time you questioned something I said about your beloved labour party and I had to provide you (just you) with links for something that everyone else seems to know, and the time before that. Next time you can f***ing look it up yourself.

I see why Tories get called the nasty party anyway. I am so sorry for challenging your precious "knowledge" and for the record, I am not a Labour supporter.

[PM-Junkie]

That is a cheap and thoughtless shot on your part. The history of the 20th Century shows that many an economics PhD didn't know what he was talking about, so the idea is not preposterous. The question is whether Brown had any right to think that in this case he had done better. We all think now that he didn't, but in 2003 it was plausible for Brown to think so.

So he was wrong. That's not "rather funny", and taking "arrogance to a whole new level". It's just mistaken.

Of course your version was funnier. Just not right.

No actually. Brown is famous for not taking advice and thinking he knows best. There are numerous recorded examples of people he works/worked with confirming that.

That would be fair enough if he had some academic background or some experience in what he claims to be an expert in. He hasn't. His previous job to becoming an MP was as a journalist.

So taking his taking the mick out of Cable was arrogance, pure and simple. And yes I find it funny (in a very, very sad way) that someone so utterly unqualified to run even a company's finances - let alone a country's - can be put in the position where he can virtually bankrupt it.

[Doggy Styles]

Good post Mich.

Bankers were smoking fine cigars unaware they were catching cancer.

[Mich the Tester]

Some things are just obviously wrong. The over-complication of almost everything he touched was ringing alarm bells all over the place. I am not saying that had anything to do with the current situation, but it is a severe condemnation in my book.

As an IT dude, I know it takes far, far more brain power to simplify a complex situation than it does to just keep it going, and adding more complexity. I spend my working life coming up with neat solutions, I bet you do to.
That is why I have no time for the guy

I agree, but I’d add that this phenomenon of complicating things that should be simplified is something I come across time and time again at various ClientCos. I have a feeling that managers and ministers feel a need to complicate things and thereby expand their span of control. Gordon just followed modern management orthodoxy; if it doesn’t work, make it more complicated and get paid for maintaining it.

This is one reason I think that the current mess is not so much a ‘credit crisis’ as a ‘management crisis’. The failure of the banks to manage their risks and the failure of supervisors to intervene is actually a symptom of a kind of management where those in authority remain in ivory towers, doing big merger deals and drawing up world domination plans while completely unaware of what’s happening on the workfloor or even what the customer or taxpayer actually wants and needs, only coming out of their towers when the numbers on the ‘dashboards’ and spreadsheets turn red.

We need banks to be run by economists who understand the products in which the bank deals, not people who’ve got an MBA while running a biscuit factory and just hopped from one job to another.

We need car manufacturers and steel companies to be run by engineers who know how to make new technology work in the long run, not jumped up ‘marketing experts’ or hedge fund managers who are only looking at short term ROI.

Likewise, a finance minister who supervises banking should be have an extensive CV of experience in accounting and auditing and supervisory roles in the financial sector, and not a humanities graduate with limited experience in journalism.

[Mike Hunt]

Check out this link- Peter Schiff predicting the recession back in 2006-- similar to Brown and Cable ,

one guy stating the obvious the other one laughing at him


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6PamCQ6zw

[Doggy Styles]

and let's have chapter and verse on these assertions unless they are just the word of the man in the pub.

All that I said is well known, except to you obviously. Don't you know anything?

Why is Alistair Darling planning to reform the UK banking system?

The chancellor, along with the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority, has shouldered plenty of criticism since the Northern Rock debacle in September.

In a bruising six months since taking office, Darling has been criticised for not acting sooner to prevent the first run on a British bank in nearly 150 years.

The failure of the tripartite system – under which the Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA jointly regulate the banking industry – led opponents to question Darling's judgement, and also that of Gordon Brown who introduced the system in 1997.

This is the same as the last time you questioned something I said about your beloved labour party and I had to provide you (just you) with links for something that everyone else seems to know, and the time before that. Next time you can f***ing look it up yourself.

[Platypus]

Some things are just obviously wrong. The over-complication of almost everything he touched was ringing alarm bells all over the place. I am not saying that had anything to do with the current situation, but it is a severe condemnation in my book.

As an IT dude, I know it takes far, far more brain power to simplify a complex situation than it does to just keep it going, and adding more complexity. I spend my working life coming up with neat solutions, I bet you do to.
That is why I have no time for the guy

FWIW, I'd agree with that.

[DimPrawn]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politi...-200901271536/

[EternalOptimist]

and let's have chapter and verse on these assertions unless they are just the word of the man in the pub.

Some things are just obviously wrong. The over-complication of almost everything he touched was ringing alarm bells all over the place. I am not saying that had anything to do with the current situation, but it is a severe condemnation in my book.

As an IT dude, I know it takes far, far more brain power to simplify a complex situation than it does to just keep it going, and adding more complexity. I spend my working life coming up with neat solutions, I bet you do to.
That is why I have no time for the guy

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Nope.

You might not know this, but Brown effectively dismantled the supervision of banks that prevented this sort of thing happening in the past.

He did this because he thought could do it better with his far more complicated system, despite knowing bugger all about economics. Needless to say, his system didn't work.

You can trace the explosion of net debt and leveraged debt in ordinary banks in the UK back to the time of that decision. Note also that he had been warned about what was happening for years, but ignored it because the debt boosted growth figures, and the growth figures boosted his reputation as a brilliant chancellor.

He has shut his ears to all but what promoted his own political gain, and as a result he has been the principal architect of this disaster in the UK.

The bankers are just minions in this, behaving like kids let loose in a sweetshop doing what every other banker was doing in order to get a slice of the action, encouraged by the changes in government rules.

and let's have chapter and verse on these assertions unless they are just the word of the man in the pub.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Nope.

You might not know this, but Brown effectively dismantled the supervision of banks that prevented this sort of thing happening in the past.

He did this because he thought could do it better with his far more complicated system, despite knowing bugger all about economics. Needless to say, his system didn't work.

You can trace the explosion of net debt and leveraged debt in ordinary banks in the UK back to the time of that decision. Note also that he had been warned about what was happening for years, but ignored it because the debt boosted growth figures, and the growth figures boosted his reputation as a brilliant chancellor.

He has shut his ears to all but what promoted his own political gain, and as a result he has been the principal architect of this disaster in the UK.

The bankers are just minions in this, behaving like kids let loose in a sweetshop doing what every other banker was doing in order to get a slice of the action, encouraged by the changes in government rules.

Interesting. Do you think that the banking crisis wouldn't have affected the UK but for Gordo's fiddling with regulation?

What did the opposition say about these changes (at the time, not with hindsight)?

[expat]

It is rather funny. A guy with absolutely no qualifications in economics or finance telling a guy with a PhD in economics that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Takes arrogance to a whole new level.

That is a cheap and thoughtless shot on your part. The history of the 20th Century shows that many an economics PhD didn't know what he was talking about, so the idea is not preposterous. The question is whether Brown had any right to think that in this case he had done better. We all think now that he didn't, but in 2003 it was plausible for Brown to think so.

So he was wrong. That's not "rather funny", and taking "arrogance to a whole new level". It's just mistaken.

Of course your version was funnier. Just not right.

[Doggy Styles]

I agree the turd has well and truly turned.

[ratewhore]

Darnit, not quick enough on the Editing

You were - I just edited it back

[EternalOptimist]

Today's Independant ComRes poll.

Cons: 43%
Labour: 28%
LibDems: who cares

Translates to a 120 Seat Conservative lead (15% poll lead)

Looks like the tude has well and truly turned

agreed