Jack you are predictable and boring. Why do you bother? Are you paid to come here and talk to people whose viewpoint and opinions are entirely contrary to yours? I'm genuinely interested.
For 42 of the past 51 months, inflation has been above the Bank's 2pc target (DT website).
So maybe the brilliant change in responsibilities ( the so-called independent BoE) which Brown introduced and the Toriesd endorsed, maybe it was not so great after all.
We know the division of responsibilities between the BoE, FSA and HMT did not work in regulating the banks. We have known for a long time the FSA is a sub-optimal solution regardless of the question.
Now we know the BoE has not worked in controlling inflation. Enough already!
Yes- so much for the 'independent BoE'. In those 12 years, we have seen an obscene, completely unsustainable boom, a massive bust of Biblical proportions and now explanations about how they have their recent figures and predictions wrong.
In the real world, they would be asked to collect their P45s.
The sad and scary thing is that it is the real world.
The man and his (Govt appointed) chums are utterly hopeless - an asset bubble was a sign of prosperity apparently, debt levels were sustainable. What an idiot - although not quite as much of an idiot as David Blanchflower.
After the fiasco of BCCI, the Boy thinks the BoE should take back regulation. Idiots, the lot of them.
King's thoughts, if implemented, would mean that banks would not/could not lend to anyone without 100% solid collateral to back the loan.
It sounds like the era of the first great depression, when loans were very difficult to obtain, even by farmers needing seed and fertilizer, to plant a crop, even when the farmers routinely pledged their farms as collateral.
In other words Cameron`s cuts are going to push us back into recession!
Posted by: JCS | August 11, 2010 at 03:05 PM
Jack you are predictable and boring. Why do you bother? Are you paid to come here and talk to people whose viewpoint and opinions are entirely contrary to yours? I'm genuinely interested.
Posted by: Steve Tierney | August 11, 2010 at 03:12 PM
For 42 of the past 51 months, inflation has been above the Bank's 2pc target (DT website).
So maybe the brilliant change in responsibilities ( the so-called independent BoE) which Brown introduced and the Toriesd endorsed, maybe it was not so great after all.
We know the division of responsibilities between the BoE, FSA and HMT did not work in regulating the banks. We have known for a long time the FSA is a sub-optimal solution regardless of the question.
Now we know the BoE has not worked in controlling inflation. Enough already!
Posted by: Andrew Smith | August 11, 2010 at 04:32 PM
Yes- so much for the 'independent BoE'. In those 12 years, we have seen an obscene, completely unsustainable boom, a massive bust of Biblical proportions and now explanations about how they have their recent figures and predictions wrong.
In the real world, they would be asked to collect their P45s.
The sad and scary thing is that it is the real world.
Posted by: eugene | August 11, 2010 at 04:50 PM
ST: If he is paid, someone is wasting their money.
Posted by: Super Blue | August 11, 2010 at 05:42 PM
The man and his (Govt appointed) chums are utterly hopeless - an asset bubble was a sign of prosperity apparently, debt levels were sustainable. What an idiot - although not quite as much of an idiot as David Blanchflower.
After the fiasco of BCCI, the Boy thinks the BoE should take back regulation. Idiots, the lot of them.
Posted by: David Hollins | August 11, 2010 at 10:35 PM
King's thoughts, if implemented, would mean that banks would not/could not lend to anyone without 100% solid collateral to back the loan.
It sounds like the era of the first great depression, when loans were very difficult to obtain, even by farmers needing seed and fertilizer, to plant a crop, even when the farmers routinely pledged their farms as collateral.
Posted by: Mervyn King Bank of England | January 14, 2011 at 08:21 AM