Display:
Germany and UK want global financial regulator - EUobserver

The UK and Germany believe that a new international system regulating the financial sector must be constructed to prevent a repeat of global banking crisis in the future.

Peter Steinbrueck, Germany's Social-Democrat finance minister, raised on Sunday (21 September) the idea of "an international authority that will make the traffic rules for financial markets," while speaking to German radio, Reuters reports.

One government alone cannot deal with the consequences of globalisation

Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is to outline proposals for just such a body, run under the authority of the International Monetary fund, in a speech to the Labour Party conference on Monday, as well as domestic plans to crack down on "irresponsible" bonuses handed out in the City, London's financial quarter.

"I think what people haven't appreciated is we've now got global financial systems but we've only got national regulators to cover them," Mr Brown told the BBC ahead of the speech, adding that he had been trying to convince his international counterparts for years of the need for "a global system of financial regulation."

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 01:59:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The first time I read this (while putting together the Salon on Saturday, I believe), I couldn't believe it. Could someone explain why Brown is on board with this?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 03:05:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
he realises that 99% of the population is outraged by the current bailout of the bankers?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 04:05:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He (and other leaders, see Sarko's "tough" posturing about the bad guys having to pay) see that, but also probably realize this crisis is not yet over, and it will be as well to go on record asap as being in favour of regulation. That way they can pretend: "I've always been in favour of regulation".
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 05:22:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's very hard to give a coherent explanation of anything Gordon Brown does these days.

It's not a bad idea though, no?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 04:05:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, isn't that precisely why Brown's support is surprising? ;-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 04:06:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's the labour party conference this week. This is to appease the anger of those outraged by the results of the series of de-regulations he oversaw.

He's also therefore avoiding having to announce anything concrete that will damage his relationships with his chums in the City. After all he may be in need of a directorship or two in the near future.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 06:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is not (just) domestic, this is a joint proposal in the EU. (And that's another big thing; Brown didn't care much for the EU previously.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 06:23:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Someone in the City must have told Brown that they need Europe's help.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 06:31:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's the very point. He knows that by joining in with an EU proposal he's;-

i) postponing any decisions for a couple of years, ie after the election so he doesn't have to worry about it. A deferred policy change is as good as no policy change.

ii)by the time they come to a decision, all of the fallout will be over and, if still in power, he can portray it as an unwarranted intrusion of the EU into the profitability of the City institutions that makes Britain a world leader blah blah.

Basically, he gets to be seen to be supporting the idea of change whilst whole-heartedly resisting it. There's a whole lot of lobbying, parties, favours, golf trips and bribes from deep deep pockets to be done before "decisions" are made. Just remember how effective Mandelson is at ensuring that all regulations and controls on trade reflect Anglo-American priorities rather than protecting the european public from the rapacious scum preying upon them.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 06:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I lean for Mig's opinion above.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 08:08:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While I agree that this needs to be organised at international level, we need to be aware that who gets to determine who is appointed and what their background is will determine the effectiveness. A few years ago arch-deregulators such as Greenspan or Bernanke would have been in the running because the over-riding principle was that "greed is good, greed is what makes America global finance great". The idea that risk threatens the world economy would have been considered as the very definition of girly-men. Anybody who threatened to impose genuine regulation and oversight would have been deposed.

And anyone who thinks any of these bastards have really learnt their lesson need only remember that Barclays are gonna pay $2.5 billion worth of bonuses to Lehmans staff for driving their company into bankrupcy. they're very sorry for 5 minutes and then when everybody's backs are turned they'll be at it again and regulation will be the enemy of "innovation", profits and bonuses; same as it ever was.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 06:28:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And yet, this too will be accepted by the Statesians. Really, when all is said and done in Iraq, it will be 3 trillion in expenses and liabilities lost in the sand, lost to Halliburton and Blackwater and the companies of a half dozen other right wing socialists...even if that war ended to day...2.5 billion...ha.

That's only $10,000 to 250,000 people for a half year of house payments or health insurance perhaps.

One the other hand, 2.5 billion is only 250 x 10 million dollar yachts. Yachts that size are actually the tiny 30 meter ones. But think of all the employment that will bring. The skilled builders and painters and repair engineers flying all over, and a few of crew around all year and more for those few weeks and all those weekends that the owner is actually aboard.

Monaco Yacht Show starts tomorrow. Come on down.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 02:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series