Which fuckwit ex-Prime Minister of ours wrote this?

While many U.S. banks still have leverage ratios that are 10 times their assets, the banks of Germany have a leverage ratio 32 times their assets, and French banks are leveraged 26 times their assets.

No wonder the banking sysytem\’s in the crapper. The bloke responsible for the regulation of them for over a decade doesn\’t know the difference between a bank\’s assets and its capital.

Either that or the WaPo has some really grossly incompetent editors.

And this is even worse:

A continent that was once responsible for 40 percent of the world’s output is now producing only 18 percent — and within a decade it will produce little more than 11 percent. This is an epic shift, yet one virtually unnoticed. What Europe is experiencing may prove to be a permanent and irrevocable loss of prosperity.

We don\’t care about the portion of the globe\’s production that we produce. Not at all, not in any way. We don\’t even really care about what portion of the world\’s production we get to consume. We do however care about how much we get to consume.

And what he\’s taling about here is a fall in that portion of the world\’s production that we are able to consume, not a fall in what we are actually avble to onsume. Good God, the man\’s complaining that the third of the human race that inhabits China and India (add Indoneisa if you want to be accurate) is getting close to three squares a day.

What? I thought we wanted the poor to get rich?

That last I\’m sure is G Brown\’s fault….willing to give him a pass on hte first because that could be the fool editors. But if I were him I\’d get the to change it fast because it makes him look like and ignorant fucking fool.

9 comments on “Which fuckwit ex-Prime Minister of ours wrote this?

  1. We had 13 years to realise that he is an ignorant fucking fool, and confusing assets with capital is the least of it.

  2. Interesting. Many people make that mistake when discussing percentages of an increasing value, but then he also confused “investment” and “spending”.

  3. No no no. We don’t want them to get rich. They will then suffer the sins of affluence that afflict us in the West. We want them poor, but not quite so poor as they starve (as then we feel guilty), and subsisting on Aid, so that we may “governance” them from afar, via our most excellent committees and organisations.

  4. Why are you in the least surprised by any thing GB says/writes/thinks?
    As chancellor he did nothing for 4 years (except the BoE thing) because all he could see was that the Tories had been right. Then he took the brakes off in the most spectacular splurge in the history of anywhere.
    He is a man that cannot see the wood for thr trees and he is incapable of allowing those go grow unmolested. He has to get his fingers into everything, honestly believing that he knows what’s best for everyone.
    It comes from the insistance of the Manse on knowing everybody’s business and meddling with it.
    I don’t think you should give him a pass on not knowing the difference between ‘assets’ and ‘capital’, he must have written it in the first place, the subs would hardly dare meddle with a world class economist, however much self-styled.

  5. @ Nick Luke
    He did nothing for four years because he committed himself to following Ken Clarke’s plans to avoid a run on Sterling. He didn’t care that KC was right, just that a run on Sterling in his first year as Chancellor would destroy his career. In brainlessly simultaneously raising the pay of medical staff faster than Ken planned and sticking to Ken’s budget plans he severely damaged the NHS (same budget and higher pay = fewer staff).

  6. Sounds to me like he’s confused capital ratio – capital to risk weighted assets – with leverage ratio – debt to equity. Yup, he’s ignorant. But he’s right about the parlous state of European banks. On either measure they are a mess.

    What appalls me is his notion that there should be a new Marshall plan for Europe. He doesn’t say exactly what he means by this, but if it was anything like the old Marshall plan it would involve the US (and since this is a new plan, presumably China) paying huge amounts of money to rescue Europe from its self-imposed slump. The fact that both countries have refused to do any such thing seems to be lost on him.

    The US sent Geithner to advise the EU on how to leverage up central banks (the only people listening were Sarkozy and Draghi, of course). That seems to be all the US is prepared to do, since it doesn’t even want to give any more money to the IMF.

    China has indicated a willingness to invest directly in European countries, and the Bank of China intervenes now and then to support the Euro. That is as far as China is prepared to go. It isn’t interested in increasing domestic consumption to attract European exports, as GB suggests. It is interested only in supporting its export markets (hence its support of the Euro).

    GB has joined the Fairyland crew – wave a magic wand and the problems will go away. The rest of the world is less than impressed with the behaviour of the Eurozone leadership. When Merkel went cap in hand to Canada to ask them to support the bailout fund, their response was short and to the point – “You want aid? Find it yourself”. Europe has to solve its own problems.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.