tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post7472912508957316730..comments2024-02-10T12:12:06.028+00:00Comments on The Real Blog: Cameron and the hedge fundsDavid Boylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11410159311875228620noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-56201153233733894622011-12-12T21:37:40.879+00:002011-12-12T21:37:40.879+00:00Hedge Funds and SPECULATORS are not = 'Banks&#...Hedge Funds and SPECULATORS are not = 'Banks'.<br /><br />If you want to form a Hedge Fund and gamble, you can go ahead, but you cannot co-mingle this with traditional banking that involves the deposits of citizens into traditional secure bank accounts, or using state tax dollars.<br /><br />You split the gamblers from the community bankers, and then WHEN the Hedge Fund eventually gets too greedy, and loses all its cash, the only entity that goes out of business is the Hedge Fund (i.e.-MF Global.<br /><br />Cameron does not want this, since his party has gotten 20+ Million in 'donations' from speculators/hedge funds, specifically to ensure that he does not cast them off the pay their own losses.<br /><br />They want to be on the public teat, so that when they lose, they can demand a govt bailout, or threaten to crash the entire global financial system as each level of speculator, creditor, bond-issuer and investor all go broke.<br /><br />Instead of letting the gambler be segregated into the casino, where only the gambler pays the price for his losses,<br />Cameron is ensuring that the Gambler can tap the purse of the state and threaten the assets of average depositors in the event of a huge loss in their gambling,<br />thus allowing the speculators/gamblers to pass their losses onto the public while keeping all winnings only for themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-66636553624821767652008-09-26T23:27:00.000+01:002008-09-26T23:27:00.000+01:00I think it means regulations regarding self-certif...I think it means regulations regarding self-certification and x income. I'm all for that given the fact that a whole raft of our society are locked out of the property market even now due to the high prices.<BR/><BR/>The problem with your analysis of the US `obliged US banks to lend to customers` is that these so called regulations came in in 1999 - yet it's only 2008 when these so-called chickens have come home to roost. I suspect that after this mess is sorted that lending institutions will not be doing the sub-prime lending with no legal comeback at all.<BR/><BR/>The problem with NOT restricting the excess of investors is that taxpayers have to bail them out for fear of an economy going over a cliff.<BR/><BR/>If it was just `fat cats` and the feckless that were affected there would be some merits but it's not.<BR/><BR/>I agree the debate HAS moved on - between those that want to make capitalism as `people-sized` as possible and those that don't care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-9199672285737466722008-09-26T22:56:00.000+01:002008-09-26T22:56:00.000+01:00New Deal - that sounds very centralising.The New D...New Deal - that sounds very centralising.<BR/>The New Deal in the US was the most centralising project in the history of that country, seeking to bring all business under the purview of the state (and its corporate backers).Tristanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15395992764678278326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4169740113013066976.post-22823325744146945432008-09-26T22:52:00.000+01:002008-09-26T22:52:00.000+01:00"regulations about mortgage lending"You mean, like..."regulations about mortgage lending"<BR/><BR/>You mean, like the regulations about US mortgage lending that obliged US banks to lend to customers who were obviously unable to meet their mortage payments? <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that additional regulation is going to solve a problem created by poor regulation.<BR/><BR/>The only way we are going to (philosophically or practically) create a system whereby "free market of productive finance" is obliged to temper "greed" with caution is to allow investors to experience the cost of careless investment. <BR/><BR/>Rather than restrict the excess of investors, we need to give them free reign and then let them get their fingers burnt. The alternative (regulated ivestment and bail-outs when it goes sour) is how we got in this mess in the first place.<BR/><BR/>I'm not clear what you mean by "2" but am very interested. <BR/><BR/>I'll skip "3".<BR/><BR/>As for "The key political debate", I think it is still "Freedom verses state control".Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.com