mission: retail banking must be ring-fenced07:21am on 12 Apr 2011Hi Robert,I thought it would be a good idea to read the report in full, thank you for posting the link, It is also a time consuming but necessary job to read the other contributions of your other readers.
The commissions recommendations whilst welcome in that the banks are being placed under scrutiny does fall short of a comprehensive analysis of the problem.
The tone of the report seems to be “what can we do to keep as close to business as usual” as opposed to ” there has been a catastrophic failure here what is structurally amiss”.Douglas Carswell tabled a private members bill in Parliament in September its second reading I think has been delayed I am trying to find out what happened to it. Mr Carswell I do feel is asking the right questions and would have been an excellent member for the Commission. Here is footage of his Bill being voted on under the ten minute rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGr-OuXihgThere is a lot of reading to do here and so much going on elsewhere in the world and peoples daily lives and yet this is perhaps one of the most important issues of our time with profound effects on what all of our futures will bring. I can’t help but think that all those of you still living in the UK and who have an MP should ask them to speak with Mr Carswell and offer him some support. Mr Carswell the MP for Clacton is a Conservative ember of parliament, not my own stripe admittedly but it does seem to me that his question is important to democracy and to a fair and even playing field. The system as it currently stands does not represent that.
My view is that the present system is past its sell by date those running it would have forfeited their right to continue with the trust of the Government long before 2007 ( their continued arrogance since should be all the evidence anyone needs), there is a very big public service element of Fractional reserve Banking, it is licensed it is institutionalised, supposedly for the greater good. The bail outs are not serving the greater good and the Bankers have taken their privileged position granted to them when they were being useful for granted for to long.The price we are being asked to pay for a System that does have an alternative ( a Credit not Debt Based Money Supply system) Is far to high. Let them leave if they don’t like the Ratios, The Bank of England isn’t going anywhere and Neither are Llyods or RBS. Heres a populist suggestion Fully Nationalise Lloyds and RBS Merge them and put Alan Sugar in charge with a board of directors made up of Leaders from our Manufacturing and innovation sectors Like James Dyson.Sadly I agree with this readers analysis of what the purpose of the commission is.
24. At 09:22am 11th Apr 2011, nautonier wrote:
Banking Commission wants firewall around retail banking4:46pm on 10 Apr 2011Hi Robert, How about some background on this Private Members Bill, What’s this all about?Douglas Carswell MP announced a bill that would end fractional reserve banking. It’s produced below in full (directly from Hansard), but I’ve added some explanatory comments in [brackets]. The bolding is mine. The bill passed to a second reading, which will be held on Friday 19th November 2010.
Explanation time for the Bank09:14am on 17 Feb 2011I agree with Thomas Paine and his comment at no28.Ordinary Savers and ordinary Mortgage holders are equally badly served by the Banking System and the astonishingly narrow minded de-regulation of the same. The objectives of policy should be to safeguard Savers, Pensions and Work . Pandering to the international money markets seemingly pays very little regard to interests of the wider population of the UK and their average daily experiences and needs.
The problem is that we are all being referred to the wrong page by the narrow interests at the top which ignore the needs of the many.
For Savers why don’t the government introduce a Savings Bond for all , with a reasonable rate of interest paid this can surely be done at a lower cost to the government than what it pays to raise its borrowing through the Markets , the current system is a syphon of the hard earned wealth of ordinary people into the Global Banking Bonus pot.
2. Work. ( most people need to work to pay their Mortgage)
On the Mortgage market part of the reason interest rates are such a good control of demand is that home ownership has become the aspiration for most since the 80’s, there is already a nationalised Mortgage Bank, Northern Rock and another candidate in RBS. Why not just be honest rename them the National British first time buyers mortgage bank set them sensible lending guide lines and prevent the current position whereby another whole groups savings, represented by their investment in home ownership, are written off. Presently we have a system that has no reference point in the wider needs of the society it should be serving. The current system has us all held hostage to the fortunes of International Robber Barons, some one comments above that of course the traders love it, but I question how much it benefits the vast majority of us.
3. Savers , Pensions and Work.
There needs to be a change in priorities for those who lead our country away from Globalism and to considerations of sustainability at a national policy level. We all simply have to include measures appropriate to where we are and the direction in which we want to go not measures forced upon us designed to promote the short term paper profits of a system that simply does not take into account what as a society most agree is more important. Comparing us to China or India and their rates of growth is just not relevant. Stephanie mentions the international terms of Trade in her article the truth is international markets compare apples with oranges all the time as they are following narrow key indicators( for them) that only matter over very short term horizons( again only to them).
Perhaps Mr King is taking some wider considerations into account and is what could be termed more of the Old School on which he would have my vote on the Monetary Policy Committee every time. Maybe Mr King feels it is time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.
9 years is a long time in room one oh one, Now the book burning really starts.
BBC Further tighten the memory hole noose, Room 101 alive and well. #StepfordAunty
And the ones that mother gives you, don’t do anything at all
Tell ’em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call
And you’ve just had some kind of mushroom, and your mind is moving low
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen’s off with her head
Remember what the dormouse said
Feed your head, feed your head
When I look around at the state of public discourse in ‘the West’ what strikes me is that everyone says they want to have a reasoned and rational debate but say that the reason it doesn’t happen is because the ‘other side’ is irrational and so they can’t be debated with. The ‘other side’, their opponents say, always avoids the debate, is never willing to just answer a reasonable question and generally just refuse to have the debate they claim to want. Does this resonate with you?
I see impasse everywhere I look. In the UK between Brexit and Remain supporters and in the USA between Trump and Non-Trump supporters. I see it between Alt-right advocates and Progressives, and between all the various groups within and around identity politics and those they see as their enemies. I see it in every discussion of immigration. I see it between globalists and those they call populists or nativists.
How is this possible? How can all sides in every debate want to have a reasoned and rational discussion and yet all claim the ‘other side’ is irrational and unwilling to discuss?
At Stack Exchange, one of the tricky things we learned about Q&A is that if your goal is to have an excellent signal to noise ratio, you must suppress discussion. Stack Exchange only supports the absolute minimum amount of discussion necessary to produce great questions and great answers. That’s why answers get constantly re-ordered by votes, that’s why comments have limited formatting and length and only a few display, and so forth. Almost every design decision we made was informed by our desire to push discussion down, to inhibit it in every way we could. Spare us the long-winded diatribe, just answer the damn question already.
After spending four solid years thinking of discussion as the established corrupt empire, and Stack Exchange as the scrappy rebel alliance, I began to wonder – what would it feel like to change sides? What if I became a champion of random, arbitrary discussion, of the very kind that I’d spent four years designing against and constantly lecturing users on the evil of?
Social Networks have been all the rage years ago when they reached their peak and destroyed a couple democracies around the world (including mine) but this is not a text about that. The lens I want to use for us to observe social networks is the content creation and manipulation lens, so grab your lens and follow me through some underexplained reasoning.
- Social Networks try to present a minimal UI, just enough so that the core features are usable. They are target at common, easy idioms that foster passive engagement in the form of content consumption and sharing. Content sharing is not the same as creation or manipulation, you’re supposed to bring content from outside.
- Social Networks have been optimized for mobile-first UIs which provide a better experience in detriment of a more powerful and flexible experience.
- Social Networks prioritize artificial rituals such as liking which gives the trappings of interactivity without generating new content (while also helping fine tune their profiling and tracking data for advertisement purposes). In essence they are metric factories where most features are present to provide measurable forms of engagement to feed ML powered advertising engines. The content sharing is just the fuel used to burn through these metric rituals.
So, my case is, Social Networks limit the amount of interaction
Presently working on. ToneFreqhz