There's an economic argument that progressive taxes can act as automatic stabilisers that dampen fluctuations in real GDP of the economy. So in an expansionary economy people pay more as a proportion of their income in tax, and in a recessionary economy it's the opposite. This can help to avoid government action which generally lags significantly and can just amplify the boom or bust.
Just because there are desks doesn't mean desktops will be around for years to come. The company I work for isn't the most technologically aware, but is currently replacing all its desktops with laptops as it moves to hot-desks.
The US regulators didn't want JP Morgan to bid up so as to punish the the Bear shareholders (a large number of which were the staff at Bear themselves). They could do this as the Fed was assuming the risk of the more dodgy securities that Bear held.
And as a taxpayer whilst I would rather not have to bail out banks, I think the alternative is far worse. None of what I have said here is propaganda. The only person who has used propaganda is you by trying to spin Americans being forced out of their homes as a reason not to force the takeover of a systemically important institution. (Note: I am not an American).
As I'm sure most Basel Committee members would tell you, you can't guarantee anything in banking.;-)
An interesting point you make about banks following and circumventing regulations at the same time, securitisation being a particularly salient example. Technically it wasn't circumvention of the rules, and substantial parts of Basel cover risk transfer. The danger is, of course, that we didn't realise the risk wasn't fully transferred.
Speaking as an actual prudential banking supervisor (not from the US) I have to say I agree with you. It's obvious that consumers are incapable of properly assessing the risk of exposure to a bank, particularly when some large and sophisticated counterparties also struggle.
I couldn't agree with this more. Blame whomever you want for the crisis, but just think how much more difficult all these leaks are making the authorities' lives.
Borrowing short and lending long is fundamental to banking. Most banks use wholesale funding to support lending, but not always to the same extent as Northern Rock.
I'm not sure I agree that the government shouldn't have guaranteed deposits. The funding provided by the Bank of England did nothing to shore depositor confidence and the run was doing huge damage to the reputation of the UK financial services industry - when the UK bills itself (rightly or wrongly) as a financial centre, queues of panicking depositors aren't a good thing.
However, maybe I would agree about having put a realistic cap on the level of deposits guaranteed.
It works really well in London. It's nice to know you can always fall back on credit card if you have no cash, and if you're in a situation where you _need_ a taxi you don't care about the surcharge.
No, it won't be a lot of money.
Breaches of the data protection act are essentially treated with a slap on the wrist, it's pathetic. Hopefully this will make the Information Commissioner actually do something at last, especially after the recent incident of banks simply throwing away sensitive customer details in the normal waste (sans shredding).
If you have a mobile phone you don't need to drive for the government to determine your location to within a few feet. This goes for any country with a mobile phone network.
Slashdot Mirror
There's an economic argument that progressive taxes can act as automatic stabilisers that dampen fluctuations in real GDP of the economy. So in an expansionary economy people pay more as a proportion of their income in tax, and in a recessionary economy it's the opposite. This can help to avoid government action which generally lags significantly and can just amplify the boom or bust.
Just because there are desks doesn't mean desktops will be around for years to come. The company I work for isn't the most technologically aware, but is currently replacing all its desktops with laptops as it moves to hot-desks.
The US regulators didn't want JP Morgan to bid up so as to punish the the Bear shareholders (a large number of which were the staff at Bear themselves). They could do this as the Fed was assuming the risk of the more dodgy securities that Bear held. And as a taxpayer whilst I would rather not have to bail out banks, I think the alternative is far worse. None of what I have said here is propaganda. The only person who has used propaganda is you by trying to spin Americans being forced out of their homes as a reason not to force the takeover of a systemically important institution. (Note: I am not an American).
Whilst the government has essentially assumed a large portion of the risk, the transaction is still not risk-free for JP.
Sorry, why is JP Morgan "risk-freer"?
Why do you feel the US should have a flat tax system?
As I'm sure most Basel Committee members would tell you, you can't guarantee anything in banking. ;-)
An interesting point you make about banks following and circumventing regulations at the same time, securitisation being a particularly salient example. Technically it wasn't circumvention of the rules, and substantial parts of Basel cover risk transfer. The danger is, of course, that we didn't realise the risk wasn't fully transferred.
Speaking as an actual prudential banking supervisor (not from the US) I have to say I agree with you. It's obvious that consumers are incapable of properly assessing the risk of exposure to a bank, particularly when some large and sophisticated counterparties also struggle.
I couldn't agree with this more. Blame whomever you want for the crisis, but just think how much more difficult all these leaks are making the authorities' lives.
Borrowing short and lending long is fundamental to banking. Most banks use wholesale funding to support lending, but not always to the same extent as Northern Rock.
I'm not sure I agree that the government shouldn't have guaranteed deposits. The funding provided by the Bank of England did nothing to shore depositor confidence and the run was doing huge damage to the reputation of the UK financial services industry - when the UK bills itself (rightly or wrongly) as a financial centre, queues of panicking depositors aren't a good thing. However, maybe I would agree about having put a realistic cap on the level of deposits guaranteed.
Northern Rock is neither in administration or liquidation - it is solvent.
Has nobody thought of checking BA's own website? http://www.britishairways.com/travel/flightops/public/en_gb?p_faqid=3115
There's no reason that age or frequency of update alone, without any other considerations, should prevent use of a piece of software.
I don't know, maybe because a court order said they had to?
It is the Office of Thrift Supervision that has closed NetBank, not FDIC: http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/7/777071.html
It works really well in London. It's nice to know you can always fall back on credit card if you have no cash, and if you're in a situation where you _need_ a taxi you don't care about the surcharge.
They could just charge a fee for passengers wanting to pay by credit card.
Actually, we have something called a "Group action".
Some more UK entries:
You mean an EHIC card (which replaced E111 forms).
You obviously don't know much about traditional fields of engineering if you think they're simple.
No, it won't be a lot of money. Breaches of the data protection act are essentially treated with a slap on the wrist, it's pathetic. Hopefully this will make the Information Commissioner actually do something at last, especially after the recent incident of banks simply throwing away sensitive customer details in the normal waste (sans shredding).
If you have a mobile phone you don't need to drive for the government to determine your location to within a few feet. This goes for any country with a mobile phone network.
Point taken - particularly re. Usenet/IRC.