Bankers on trial
Hamish McRae: We must get the blame game out of the way and move on
It would be astounding if the fall in UK output were anything like as bad as in the 1930s
South Africa is a better model than Germany. There was something of the Nuremberg trials about yesterday's grilling of the former leaders of HBOS and Royal Bank by the Select Committee but more of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission too. That is good. People may feel angry about what has happened, as our Prime Minister is reported to be. But anger achieves nothing. What matters now is how it is all put back together again.
Ed Balls hasn't helped. He is thoughtful and sensible and decent but to say that we face the worst recession for a century is plain wrong. In the narrow sense that our financial institutions are under greater pressure than at any stage since the 1930s is probably correct and in some respects our banks (though not American or Continental ones) are under more pressure now than then.
But it would be astounding were the fall in British or global output to be anything like that which occurred in the 1930s. The much better parallel would be the 1970s, with the economic mayhem that followed the collapse of the fixed exchange rate system. But Mr Balls was six months old when sterling was devalued in 1967 and nine when the IMF rescued the Government in 1976, so he can be forgiven for not recalling the details of all that.
So what is going to happen? I'll tell you. It would be absurd to predict the precise trajectory of the downturn and subsequent recovery but subject to one proviso you can sketch the broad outline. That proviso is that there will not be some huge error of policy or some huge global political catastrophe that would blow to pieces all economic predictions. Then all bets are off. But subject to that... well, see what you think.
The starting point is that there is serious global banking weakness, much more serious than was appreciated either by the banks or the monetary authorities. But that, at a cost, is being fixed. I like the more measured response which came from Alistair Darling in these pages yesterday, where he quoted Keynes that he "would rather be roughly right than precisely wrong".
The Chancellor was referring to UK policy but you could apply that to the response by governments around the world. When we question the detail of the policy response around the world we tend to forget that policy will never be optimal. It just has to be good enough. That phrase was put to by one of the officials who choreographed the rescue of Northern Rock: "We didn't do it well, but we did it well enough."
So while we could criticise elements of the British response, in particular the cut in VAT, you have to remember that we are learning as we go along. Similar criticism could be made of the US response, the German, the Japanese, the Chinese, whatever. But the broad approach of first making sure the banking system is working and then figuring out whether it is possible to give some boost to demand is on the right lines.
Go back to the experience of the 1970s. There was a global inflationary crisis, the worst inflation from a world perspective in recorded history. It was much more than the great inflation of the 16th century, when prices "only" quadrupled. We did not know the precise way to fix it, just as we don't have much of a road map now. But the world cobbled together a number of disciplinary techniques, of which the most important was money supply targets, which brought inflation under control. Our present inflation targets are a refinement of that device.
Now, to fix the banks there are a number of options. There are the various methods being used to boost liquidity generally. There is the possibility of temporary full nationalisation of the weakest banks, as used in Scandinavia in the 1990s. There is the idea of a "bad bank" that takes over the questionable loans of banks and then works these off over a period. That worked well in the US after the Savings and Loans crisis and here after the Lloyd's insurance market losses.
Fixing the financial system is a necessary precondition for resumed global growth – necessary but maybe not sufficient. Or rather, eventually growth would recover of its own accord but government intervention can probably speed up the process. Here we should not underplay the huge boost to demand that is being banged into the world economy at the moment.
What the UK is doing is quite small by world standards because we are limited by our weak fiscal position. The programmes of the US, Germany and Japan (and as far as I can see, China) are all much larger in relation to GDP than our own. But of course the beauty of all this is that we help each other. More demand in the US or Europe helps us too and vice versa. We cannot feel the effect yet and I am afraid global output has further to fall. But a year from now the world economy won't still be going down at anything like this rate and may even have started to recover.
And the fall, peak to trough? Well the IMF reckons that it will be more serious for the developed world than any post-war cycle and that output will actually fall for this part of the world. However thanks to the rise of the emerging economies, overall global output will continue to inch upwards right through the trough. As for Britain, maybe the IMF is right in saying we will do worse than other large developed nations, but let's see. I have a feeling they will turn out to be too pessimistic.
What worries me is not what will happen in 2010. By then, or by 2011 at the latest, recovery will be secure. What worries me is the quality of that recovery. The entire developed world will be saddled with a massive increase in public debt – not as big as after the First or Second World Wars but big none the less. The disruption will have led to international trade and financial tensions. Public finances will be devastated by weak tax revenues everywhere.
The pull out will be slow and difficult. Debts, personal and public, take a while to work off and until these are under control there won't be much left over to enjoy ourselves. If this goes for us in the UK, it also goes for much of Continental Europe and North America too.
Financial markets, faced with all this, will continue to be frightened. So much wealth has been lost already and more losses will be revealed in the coming months. It is not realistic to expect a recovery in market sentiment until some sort of turn in the world economy comes into sight, for typically, financial markets turn a few months ahead of the economic situation but first they have to see some sort of base from which things can't get any worse and we are still some way from that.
Meanwhile we do need reconciliation. To judge by conversations in the past few days many people are probably not ready for that yet but the sooner we are, the better the shape of the economy through the eventual recovery. There have been monumental errors made by all: bankers of course, but also regulators and borrowers. The Government has mismanaged national finances, making similarly optimistic assumptions as the rest of us. But we must get the blame game out of the way and move on.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
As to the Regulators at the time of failure (in the FSA - and actually in the Bank of England) they should be made aware that there is, it seems, actually a common law offence of deriliction of public duty, and that they may have committed offences.
"reconciliation" - no thanks, blatcherism and attendant pseudo-democracy has had thirty years in which to hang itself . It's done it - in spades, by first bananarepublicanising Britain and then, with spectacular incompetence, self-destroying Britain's ability to produce bananas
As far as Ed Balls being thoughtful and sensible is concerned, I prefer to think of him as no more than sincere.
Ultimately we need to invest in increasing supply the most efficient way of doing this is through education if people can see the economy will recover in the medium term they will invest. Education anyways has the best return on investment to government spending, it's also the western equivalent of micro credit, it short it works. The problem with our current recovery plans based on deficit spending is that most people expect them to blunt economic growth in the long term and therefore confidence is being knocked.
Ultimately the west thought demand and not supply was key to their economic prosperity we need to think on how best to increase supply.
This whole process illustrates how difficult it is to solve systemic problems - climate change being another that comes to mind. Surely it's essential to leave your own emotions outside the door and focus on rational logical argument. You probably read Robert Peston's blog last night:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/therepor
He seems to imply that the entire fault for the financial crisis lies within the banks and seems baffled that they can't provide definitive answers about the cause. It's shocking that someone presumably so focused on the financial world doesn't realise that we are dealing with something a little more complex than mistakes by individual institutions. If we in the UK can't fix all the problems around the world caused by trade imbalances, commodity price bubbles and the resulting hot money, we should at least try to make ourselves a little less vulnerable by controlling house price inflation (and asset, in particular commercial property, prices more generally). Trouble is, of course, then we might all have to change our behaviour and couldn't just blame our troubles on a few bad apples.
Can you post some figures to illustrate that point? It is a striking one because many reactions have suggested that the UK stimulus was particularly profligate.
A J Lane
Another indication of that has surfaced as disclosure that one of the 'players' was/is an "adviser" to the PM - it reminds of the revolving door between big oil and number 10 during the reign of Wonderone - and course there is the nice example of Lord Sub Prime Mortgage and his merry band named ... what was it ? ... "economic war cabinet" or similar, that actually IS government at this time)
Read about Lord S-PM's characteristic threats to Filkin for a whiff of prevailing gangsterism:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art
In a country where you can go to jail for forging a 100 pound check, you have to tread lightly when you ask bankers how they have managed to collapse the money and credit supply system.
Get real, Britain is not a shop or a company, its a nation state, these people need to be brought to account, otherwise the political consensus that underpins your democracy will be undermined.
is the writer of this article getting a bonus for his efforts?
It didn't matter that Stevenson, McKillop, Hornby and Goodwin were in their executive positions. Whoever was there would have made substantially the same decisions, and we would still be in the same situation we are in. These men were NOT put in place because they were the most brilliant original thinkers. They were put there because they were extremely efficient at operating within the parameters of the orthodoxy of the time.
We won't get anywhere by assuming that there is a "right" group of people to get us out of this mess. We need to understand that it's the ORTHODOXY that's wrong, not the people operating it.
If an old lady is mugged in the street, we can blame her, for not taking better security measures; the police, for not maintaining better surveillance on potential criminals; the schools and social services for not moulding the character of the miscreant better, or the person who did the crime. In truth some responsibility attaches to all, but the only deliberate dishonest act was committed by the guy who took the money. The analogy isn't perfect, the 'muggers' in the finance case were under strong pressure from the rest of us to conform to a credit-based acquisitive norm, but that just further democratises the responsibility. Once again, free societies get what their choices deserve.
If it is to be a free for all with everyone doing as he/she wishes then scrap 'government' including a web of institutions, entirely and resort to the 'Murkan practice of keeping a gun under every pillow. The tax savings will be very considerable - and we will at least know where we stand and be relieved of the pseudo-democratic circus
This ain't a "democracy", it's a pseudo-democracy governed by alternating factions of the blatcherist movement (called by some 'the business party') as a stooge of your parasites.
This time it's come a real cropper and is running scared - and I mean scared.
There is plenty of blame to assign. The situation has to be properly investigated and the culprits brought ot justice.This can be done by the police, lawyers and courts, whilst those who aren't culpable can as you say move on whilst we await the judgements of the courts and the imprisonment of those that deserve it. You can't ask us to ignore crime.
Going on from there I have to tell you that there is no chance that this matter will "be properly investigated and the culprits brought to justice" because the only effective court is democracy - and that's something we can look forward to (in a bananarepublicanised failed State) only in the (increasingly less) remote future as a consequence of abstainers (from the pseudo-democratic circus) reaching critical mass and triggering implosion
Be prepared to be astounded.
counter staff were always in cahoots with the spivs at the top and should not get off any more lightly any than any employee in an obviously dodgey business should - i am far from alone amongst many contemporaries who took early retirement from a wide range of jobs because of the complete lack of any hope of any element of working for the common good any more- the banks are special because their outcome has been especially nasty and wideranging