« Johnson's spending challenge | Main | Economics & identity »

August 02, 2019



There has been a very big regulatory backlash against banks in the form of MIFID II and other regulations. The conflict of interest between banks managing their own capital and banks providing services to customers has all but been eliminated and replaced with clear requirements to provide transparently prices to customers and deliver best execution.

The issue that has got us where we are now is not the financial crisis but the fifteen years of flatlining productivity, in which I would suggest the EU has been a significant factor. So unless you can link the GFC and banking (2007/8) to the flatlining productivity (started 2004) I do't see your point holds water.

Per Kurowski

And there is even no discussion about the fact that the risk weights in the risk weighted bank capital requirements are to access to credit, what tariffs are to trade, only more pernicious.

Ralph Musgrave

Another factor is that the economics profession (never mind the average voter) hasn't the faintest idea as to what improvements could be made to the bank system. And the reason for that is that banks and related stuff like the nature of money are genuinely abstruse and difficut subjects - or at least they are easy enough if you spend a very large amount of time getting to grips with it all. But people just don't have time and even economics degree courses are nowhere near enough to give people a grasp of the subject.

Personally I think I've got to grips with it. But that's not because I'm clever: it's simply the result of thousands of hours of reading, thinking, etc.


A counter argument to Chris's view of the financial crisis as evidence against capitalism.

As Chris says, recessions increase intolerance and have lots of other bad effects and they seem inherent to capitalism - they will happen.

The great recession has done all these things. But it's not been as bad as the great depression. We've not had a world war, we've not had nazis. Unemployment hasn't been too bad. We're ess tolerant than we were ten years ago perhaps, but less tolerant than we were twenty, thirty years ago? I certainly don't think so.

Why was this one not so bad? Because we're much richer than we were. Capitalism, in a long run view is still working.

All that said, could be much better and may be running into fatal resource/environment issues best addressed by a system of government with more control and/or less incentives to consume... but who really knows about that.

Terry callachan

Banks are no longer needed, there is no reason whatsoever why every born individual cannot have a government created account into which their income and outgoings can be recorded no interest rates required these accounts would operate on a similar basis to a bank account but would be non profit making, all would be administered by government with internet.
Cash obtainable from post offices supermarkets etc as done presently .
Forget about bankers bonuses they are not required they never were required there is no competition between banks and has not been any for decades.

Gregory Bott

Intolerance is a dialectical term. Capital and debt expansion since 1350 have triggered a major lifestyle boom for the old "barbarian" tribes. By 1500, it had led toward these barbarians and their aristocracy to begin leaving politics and turn into capitalists while popular governments formed.

Sadly, people don't get this consciously. But subconsciously do. They act in tribal ways to protect their masters and creators unleashed after the plague.

Ralph Musgrave

I fully agree with Terry Callachan above.


"... we've not had nazis."
D. I take it you wrote that before the events of the weekend. There is a proto-Nazi in the White House.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad