andyoz
pfm Member
Yes, and I think the fact that their depositors weren't the typical £5 or £10k brigade, they generally held much bigger deposits so it only took say 100 of the large ones to get the frights to generate this run...
Crisis? What Crisis?
- Thread starter tuga
- Start date
Yes, and I think the fact that their depositors weren't the typical £5 or £10k brigade, they generally held much bigger deposits so it only took say 100 of the large ones to get the frights to generate this run...
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
You said that evidence that inequality grew with Thatcher was biased and you also said, without evidence, that the wealth gap in 1920’s was much bigger than in 1979. You also said that other evidence of inequality under Thatcher was flawed, “no cigar” was your term along with other sarcastic comments about a “nice graph”
If you agreed with the statement that inequality increased with Thatcher why the sarcasm and opposition to that statement?
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Of course. People went to SVB because they were promised something that ordinary banks could not. We need a system in which the stability of the economy is not threatened by these gamblers.
andyoz
pfm Member
Yes, and they were just to type of 'savy' depositors that aren't complacent and when a few panicked they all did very quickly.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Yes, as you said already, have we learned nothing from 2008? The same gamblers are taking the same risks and being bailed out even when they lose because there might be another crash if we don’t. Maddness.
Spraggons Den
pfm Member
Sorry folks for you having to endure this.
You accuse me of having said inequality didn't increase during/since Thatcher but when challenged you have been unable to show where I stated this. So now you have moved onto deflection/conflation to hide your error.
It's ok, no sweat, it's a hi-fi forum on the internet - move on and just stop digging.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think ks.234's inferences from what you said are logical, though. If it isn't what you meant to imply, perhaps have a care for how others might interpret what you write?
I've had people infer things from what I wrote which I didn't intend, and sometimes it's salutary to see how others may perceive what you write. And, indeed, sometimes how you perceive what others have written.
I've had people infer things from what I wrote which I didn't intend, and sometimes it's salutary to see how others may perceive what you write. And, indeed, sometimes how you perceive what others have written.
Darmok
pfm Member
<Wicked laugh>
A yardstick book written by, "R D Laing" entitled "Knots."
Wrap yer heads around that one, if you can?
Hehehe
If you have troubles figuring out the above, try tackling this one...
R.D. Laing's The Divided Self.
SVB sowed the seeds of their own short-term downfall by misamanging risk (no risk officer for one), poor treasury management, failure to attract enough deposits, the CEO's "stay calm, don't panic" comment (a red flag to depositors) and apparent humming and hawing over a rights issue. Ultimately, the Fed could have stepped in as lender of last resort and saved everyone the bother - and some money.
Chefren
pfm Member
It was a general trend after WW1 and especially after WW2 in the west to move towards more democracy, more freedoms and lower income inequality. At least the income inequality trend reversed after the oil crisis and other economical issues of the 1970s which ushered in neoliberalism
This link only compares recent times to 1938, and not the 1920s but I think it still shows the post-war change that happened:
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed
Some years ago I saw a Youtube video of a presentation where an economist, presented a thesis that economic macro-trends tend to last for something like a generation until they become unworkable and then they are ripe for a crisis that forces them to change. I have not been able to find the video again.
The deflationary economy of the late 1800s could not cope with the population growing faster than the gold reserves and the crisis that ultimately ended that period was WW1 - states needed to go away from the gold standard or become bankrupt.
After WW2, social democracy was in vogue in the west, even in the US where taxes were high and a father with a blue collar job could support his family and afford to build a house with the wife staying at home with the kids. Ultimately the productivity suffered and when the oil crises hit, there was again a shift.
Since the 1980s, we have had neoliberalism, the service economy and outsourcing of manufacturing to low income countries. The 2008 crisis didn't manage to quite force a change, although it did cause central banks to step into the limelight. Central bank leaders used to be nameless bureaucrats, but not anymore. Compared to the 60s, in the US blue collar families need both parents working and if they own their home, they probably have more debt that savings. Maybe even if they don't own their home.
The economist doing the presentation argued back then that climate change might be the crisis that forces another shift. There is also the war in Ukraine. If he was right, we are likely to have some fundamental changes in the 2020s economy, perhaps the end of the globalisation trend and/or the move back to quality made products that are repaired instead of replaced within a few years.
Spraggons Den
pfm Member
I disagree... with your reading of his inferences of the words I typed.
So you bloody well should be.
Spraggons Den
pfm Member
testa di cazzo?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
And you have the nerve to accuse ks.234 of derailing threads?
Yes, you are.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Matters not a jot. It's not exactly on-topic, which is what you and others have berated ks.234 for, upthread.
kensalriser
pfm Member
The Saudi investors didn't 'cease their funding' as such, thy were at a regulatory threshold.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
I said inequality grew with Thatcher, you argued against that proposition with an argument about the 1920’s, which could be seen in isolation were it not for the fact that you then went on to call BoE data supporting the proposition biased and inconclusive and “no cigar”. If you now agree that inequality did in fact grow under Thatcher just say so. Then perhaps we can get back to the, er, topic of the thread
kensalriser
pfm Member
Every time interest rates and gone low and stayed low, along with the inevitable QE, the wealthy have become wealthier, the pandemic being the most recent example. That's what the data show, but how you choose to interpret the data is another matter. I'm pretty sure even very knowledgeable economists disagree on this.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Which IIUC means Credit S were technically insolvent ? If that is so, why were there no warnings? Corruption? Audit issues? Or is it that, as some say, there is more fraud than fraud investigators in Finance?