WI Brown didn't rescue the banks?

They might not be able to. If I remember correctly the collapse in the banking sector started in America with the collapse of a major American bank that started a cascade reaction in the entire global financial sector.
The situation with Lehman Brothers was a mess - first it was allowed to go bankrupt, justified by the Treasury and Federal Reserve as sending a signal that reckless firms couldn't automatically assume any guarantees from the government, but then when the rather obvious fallout of a major inter-linked institution like that going bankrupt caused the markets to freeze up suddenly the official reasoning became that they hadn't had the legal authority to bail them out. That excuse lasted all of a day or two until AIG failed at which point they realised they were staring at financial Armageddon and so a loan of $180 billion was extended. They at least took a major chunk of the company as payment, along with Washington Mutual which they fully seized when it failed, and then Wachovia which they encouraged Citigroup to buy much like with HBOS and Lloyds TSB although Wells Fargo stepped in instead at the last minute. Then all the others that were bailed out.

There's been some speculation since then about whether bailing out Lehman Brothers would have headed the crisis off or at least made it somewhat smaller. Both sides have some compelling arguments, personally I come down of the it wouldn't have stopped things completely but they wouldn't have been as bad side of things. Doing so would have been politically deeply unpopular however.
 
The situation with Lehman Brothers was a mess - first it was allowed to go bankrupt, justified by the Treasury and Federal Reserve as sending a signal that reckless firms couldn't automatically assume . . . . . That excuse lasted all of a day or two until AIG failed at which point they realised they were staring at financial Armageddon . . . . .
So, you're saying the response from officialdom was clunky rather than smooth?

Or, neglected the fact that we're always trying to achieve multiple goals at the same time?
 
A bigger crash also means the Tories - who could get in without a coalition - can claim a mandate to do even more austerity measures.

It should be remembered that Brown wasn't the only leader who had to bail out the banks to avert total collapse. Others did as well following his lead on the issue.

And since I'm assuming at least one of them would have the same idea if Brown hadn't done it, one of them would probably get the credit for saving the system. Instead of the UK ignoring that Brown stopped the crash being worse, we'd be blaming him for not acting like the Chancellor of Ruritania.
 
A bigger crash also means the Tories - who could get in without a coalition - can claim a mandate to do even more austerity measures.



And since I'm assuming at least one of them would have the same idea if Brown hadn't done it, one of them would probably get the credit for saving the system. Instead of the UK ignoring that Brown stopped the crash being worse, we'd be blaming him for not acting like the Chancellor of Ruritania.

Weren't you the one who once posted that Brown in 08-10 was in such an impossible situation public opinion-wise that he could have contained the Crossed in Britain with the rest of the planet falling to the epidemic, and it still wouldn't have been enough for the public? I found that to be a humorous, yet apt, metaphor.:p
 
Weren't you the one who once posted that Brown in 08-10 was in such an impossible situation public opinion-wise that he could have contained the Crossed in Britain with the rest of the planet falling to the epidemic, and it still wouldn't have been enough for the public?

Yes. Oh yes. :cool:
 
As a Yank, I rather liked Gordo Brown.

Although I realize, he comes across a little as the over serious guy who tries too hard, whereas David Cameron is the cool character, rich guy, elitist, former frat guy, etc. It took me a while to warm to Mr. Cameron, although now I kind of think he's alright.
 
The writing was on the wall when the Japanese markets failed in the early '90's. Those responsible, government & bankers should be held accountable for their incompetence.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
As a Yank, I rather liked Gordo Brown.

Although I realize, he comes across a little as the over serious guy who tries too hard, whereas David Cameron is the cool character, rich guy, elitist, former frat guy, etc. It took me a while to warm to Mr. Cameron, although now I kind of think he's alright.

He was alright but Labour was suffering from a severe identity crisis and the country as a whole had just had enough of Tony Blair. Brown was handed a real poison chalice and wasn't charismatic enough to really win anyone over much.

I like him but for what politics is and has become he was a bit serious, didn't carry the camera or the media with him
 
Things would have gotten much worse if the banks hadn't been bailed out. 85,000 helps the bottom/lower middle earners, but not the small business and companies. The banks weren't the only fallout from the crash.

What should be discussed more is how he should have held the banks to account. This crash was seen coming by many in the industry for years. It's impossible to think that Banks like North didn't see this coming. Brown could have won a lot of people over if he had broken up the banks and forced them under a new regulator.

You can argue that it might drive business out of the UK, but it would have made our economy less susceptible to turbulence from abroad. (ala the USA.).

I could be wrong. A friend of mine used be an investment banker. I've chatted with him a few times about this.
 
Brown could have won a lot of people over if he had broken up the banks and forced them under a new regulator.

Given that it was Gordon Brown in 1997 who removed bank supervision from the Bank of England and moved it to a new regulator of his own making, he has to carry a chunk of the blame.

Bank regulation is about saving the banks, but screwing the bank shareholders (and management) - in the long run the taxpayer will get back the money used to save the banks. Allowing the banks to go under would also crash the payments system and almost force us back to a cash economy.
 
He was alright but Labour was suffering from a severe identity crisis and the country as a whole had just had enough of Tony Blair. Brown was handed a real poison chalice and wasn't charismatic enough to really win anyone over much.

I like him but for what politics is and has become he was a bit serious, didn't carry the camera or the media with him
Instead of trying to invent something new or present it to the public as if it's something new, why don't you just say, Yes, this is the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression. What worked well during the Depression was _________ and ________ and ________________. And that's going to be what our game plan is.
 
Given that it was Gordon Brown in 1997 who removed bank supervision from the Bank of England and moved it to a new regulator of his own making, he has to carry a chunk of the blame.

Actually every government since 1980 has to carry part of the blame. Thatchers deregulation and the "Big Bang" started the slide towards what happened.

(Just to nail my colours to the mast I'm certainly NOT in favour of economic Laissez Faire nor am I of complete state control although episodes like this make me wonder sometimes )
 
Here's one way President Bush could have been a harder negotiator with the big banks:

Instruct his Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to appoint someone who's express job is to find mid-sized banks who want to get big in a hurry and ramp them up.

And then suddenly, the former big boy banks are not the only game in town.
 
Thatchers deregulation and the "Big Bang" started the slide towards what happened.
Not really, IIRC the 'Big Bang' actually increased regulation, what it did was move things away from the old informal rules and procedures and put it on a formally regulated basis. Until 1980 insider trading wasn't a crime or even see as a thing.
 
If that's the case, kudos to Prime Minister Thatcher and her cabinet.

I'd only add that it's equally important to be able to recover matter-of-factly and let a medium mistake just stay a medium mistake. For of course no system is perfect.
 
Not really, IIRC the 'Big Bang' actually increased regulation, what it did was move things away from the old informal rules and procedures and put it on a formally regulated basis. Until 1980 insider trading wasn't a crime or even see as a thing.
It changed the way the city was regulated more than increased or decreased regulation. It changed the city from being a restrictive 'old boys club' and opened the stock market up to foreign membership. However, the important and unintended consequence of the big bang as far as the financial crisis is concerned was (as Nigel Lawson, the Chancellor at the time told the BBC Radio 4 programme Analysis in 2010) that UK investment banks, previously very cautious with what was their own money, had merged with high street banks putting depositors' savings at risk and... leading US banks to follow suit.
 
Top