Ritchie really is a Soviet, isn\’t he?

There’s enthusiasm for the appointment of a woman as COO at the Bank of England with less mention of the fact that she comes from a high Tory family. If that is not the maintenance of the system, what is?

Someone who has been at the Bank of England, JP Morgan, Santander and Experian. Clearly entirely unqualified to work at the Bank of England given that she\’s tainted with an haute bourgeois background.

Yes, seriously Ritchie really is saying that the circumstances of your birth mean that you cannot have certain jobs. How very Soviet, Stalinist even.

23 comments on “Ritchie really is a Soviet, isn\’t he?

  1. I know Charlotte from her Morgan Stanley and Discover days. She is great.

    Just what those ponces at the BoE need.

  2. If that is not the maintenance of the system, what is?

    I am finding it hard to see what Ritchie is objecting to. Surely by definition the job of the BoE is to maintain the system? You know, price stability and the general solvency of the government and banks?

    He seriously thinks the BoE should be engaged in the violent overthrow of the capitalist order?

    I expect what he means is that they have inexpicably failed to choose a retired accountant from Ireland to run the BoE. Inexpicably! Who would have, of course, shook the system up no end.

  3. “Ritchie really is saying that the circumstances of your birth mean that you cannot have certain jobs.”

    Seems to me the “circumstances of birth” angle fits within the traditional English class culture.

    But this specific case is different because of the inversion: denying the fitness of a person for a position on the basis of higher-class standing, rather than on the basis of lower-class standing.

  4. But we know this. RJM thinks that property belongs to the state first and foremost, which gets to decide how much private citizens can have and to monitor that scrupulously.

    I used to think he was a buffoon. Now I think he’s actually the enemy. And a buffoon, but the enemy nevertheless.

  5. So all this stuff about equality and feminism and such like go out the window the moment someone’s parentage is highlighted. Shows the left’s priorities in high contrast doesn’t it.

  6. Well yes, if you’re determined to sustain a rapacious plutocracy, you’d want to recruit the most competent rapacious plutocrats you can find. The Mafia think family is important in hiring policy too.

  7. One woman who does know what she’s talking about with regard to banks is Frances Coppola. She is recommending bank nationalisation on her blog.

  8. Doesn’t matter who owns the banks, if you don’t abolish (a) the central banks (b) the bond market (by ending government borrowing and settling the current debt. Or defaulting).

    Basically, we have to take the State central planning ideology out of finance.

  9. From the current Daily Telegraph-

    “Stock, bond and commodities markets around the world have slumped this morning as investors take flight at news the Fed’s QE3 could end by mid-2014.”

    Free market? Total arse biscuits.

  10. Stalin good at his job? I’m not sure a competent dictator would have purged half his army while his psychopatic next door neighbour armed up, and refused to believe his country was being invaded even as the tanks rolled over his borders.

  11. He made some mistakes. So does every leader. As dictators go, he seems to have been highly competent in general though.

  12. @#10Why should governments borrow? If they controlled the banks they could create their own money, not pay the banks to do it for them. The present monetary system is steampunk: an elaborate mechanism powered by steam and clockwork which has not made the obvious technical breakthrough.

  13. @Ian B
    Why balk at nationalisation then? It would abolish the requirement for the state to borrow off the private sector .BTW Frances Coppola’s argument is more prodedural but very convincing in its own right.

    NB Can we have the numbers back against each e-mail? They make it easier to identify an argument when somebody has mailed successively?

  14. DBC-

    The State has no need to borrow already. If it really wants to expand the money supply, it can simply create the money itself and spend it into the economy (think, Lincoln’s greenbacks, but electronic). And if it wants to destroy money, it can simply throw taxes into a /dev/null account. There is no need for borrowing at all. And no need for nationalisation on that score.

    On the more general question about bank nationalisation, Frances isn’t quite suggesting that. She’s basically suggesting a type of nationalised transaction system, a sort of “E-Cash”. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this, though most libertarians would be horrified. The problem is, it’d only be safe to do this if we lived in a free country. We don’t live in a free country.

    Every citizen would become entirely dependent on the State for the ability simply to spend money, which is essential. The State- driven by pressure groups- could arbitrarily and whimsically decide you can’t e-transact for anything they don’t like. Porn, gambling, booze. Anything. They’d have complete records of everything you’ve bought and sold, ever. And, since the State transactions system would push everybody else out of the market, you’d have nowhere else to go.

    If we were a genuinely free country, there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. But we aren’t. Not by a long chalk.

  15. He made some mistakes. So does every leader.

    Stalin’s mistake was very, very nearly existential. Not every leader makes these kind of blunders.

  16. @Ian B
    Frances’s main point :” The idea that banks can provide risk capital to the economy without a sovereign back-up for essential deposits is simply unrealistic” bears great emphasis in this discussion. It is not a million miles away from my argument, made here some time ago, that, since the public only puts money into banks now because there is an implicit state guarantee on deposits should things go wrong again, then the State should own the banks and be done with it.
    Frances’s proposals, rather sketchy by her standards, are more than a payments system but for a linked (national) Savings bank and coming out the other end , a (national) Investment bank fed by deposits from the savings bank. Got most bases covered nationalisation-wise.
    Nice to see reference to Greenbacks

  17. DBC-

    We need to get away from this fallacy that lending underpins the economy. It’s a useful service, but not the driver. Currently, there is simply too much lending, driven by an overheated, state-backed banking system. You of all people should be aware of this, it’s what is forcing the house market into the ludicrous condition it’s in.

    So, if elminating deposit insurance strangles the banking system, good. It needs some strangulation. A lot of it.

  18. @Ian B
    Actually I am all for banks ,even a State bank , lending i.e. creating new money and chucking it in all directions ,the classic throwing money at problems. However chucking it at the land market does nothing but inflate land values causing calamitous bubbles and trapping young people in debt servitude (of inflated mortgages).It is therefore necessary to attach a simple tax to land values so they get clobbered the minute they begin to inflate : the original LVT devised by James and JS Mill can be adapted to this purpose. So apart from land : Its chuck money at it time!
    PS Operating banks without deposit insurance “is simply unrealistic”(to quote FC).
    Needless to say though land values are the one thing you should n’t chuck money at, this is precisely what the Coalition of Dullards is doing.
    The banks themselves ,instead of sullenly conducting a go-slow on lending, should be saying to the CoD “We’re not lending into the property market until the Guv stops land price bubbles.” Bankers for LVT !

  19. DBC

    Wherever the money you throw lands, there will be inflation. And that is all you will get. Not growth. Not stimulus. Not equality. Just inflation. The money naturally lands in the housing market because it’s the one place in the economy that ordinary people tend to take out calamitously huge loans. But even if you get the money to direct itself somewhere else (how?) you will just cause inflation, and general economic instability.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>