Via Obnoxio, the dear fellow, we have this from the FT:
I mean, what is the point, if you are a Stalinist, of nationalising an enormous bank, which is still operating mechanically as a bank that does banking thingies, if you can’t use it to influence free property transactions your way, and push people about?
The Landed Underclass wins, again, the Daily Targeting Grand Challenge Cup. Either he does nothing all day, or else he gets up earlier than I do.
Meanwhile, in the madhouse, the political grandstanding continues. Why, instead of all that, since they are so kind and upright and want to “protect the integrity of the honours system” to assuage their pretend-rage, don’t the Westmonster buggere show what they are _really_ made of? Take away fred goodwin’s knighthood? My trousers they will! It could happen to them next!
Why don’t they just throw poor Fred’s wife and children to the lions in the arena, and make him watch? They’ve done almost as much already.
In the Observer, he analyses how it all came about.
But to explain, perhaps, to other libertarians, why I have seemed to be praising what seems to be a lefty writing somethng, I ought to have included the link to Coffee House where his article was summarised. here’s part of what he meant:-
“the paradox of the 1997 Labour government was that it was at once a left- and a right-wing administration. It wanted a huge public works programme. It aimed to redistribute enormous amounts of wealth. To achieve both these desirable goals, it made a bargain with the markets. All right, the political left said, we will accept extremes of wealth we once denounced as obscene. With the City accounting for a fifth of the British economy, we will embrace your speculators and not drive them overseas with tough regulation. If the authorities overseeing the Wall Street markets or the Frankfurt bourse become too inquisitive, capital will always be able to find a sanctuary from scrutiny here. Nor will we restrict the operations of financial services even though they are entrapping our supporters in levels of debt that the puritan in us finds frightening. We will concede all this if in return you will give us the tax revenues that will allow us to build the new schools and hospitals, and increase the incomes of our struggling constituents. For all its virtuous intentions, the political left was living off the proceeds of loose financial morals. Prostituting itself, to be blunt.”
So he is, to-be-sure, to-be-sure.
From the Daily Mirror, of all places. But I know for a fact that “securitisation” of mortgages went on before 1997. I was written to by the Bank of America (I wonder what became of that?) while living in London with one of their mortgages, sometime in the early 1990s, to say that I was “to be securitised” and sold to some other bank, and did I object?
Not having a blinking clue what it meant, I simply nodded….”whatever”….
So I do think that some ” enhanced financial product development initiative manager” in some bank or other, probably invented the process.