Commentators

Rain (AM and PM) 5° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

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.

h.mcrae@independent.co.uk

More from Hamish McRae

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

Not a 'blame game'
[info]grah8m wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 04:07 am (UTC)
To characterise it as 'a blame game' is to trivialise it. This is about attempting to enforce some kind of meaningful accountability where actually 'they' can't be sanctioned in a meaningful way.

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.


Blame or Responsibility?
[info]highgatelad wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 07:53 am (UTC)
Bankers, civil servants, politicians - none ever takes responsibility for misjudgements or errors. They trouser their bonuses, final salary pensions, redundancy packages etc and shuffle off dripping crocodile tears. The rest of us cough up and let it happen. We must be mad.
blame game
[info]mdavidl wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 08:56 am (UTC)
Whether we feel angry is by the way. The bank heads created the problems and hugely rewarded themselves. As an example to their successors their misbehaviour should be understood and recognized and if possible undue rewards should be recovered and penalties exacted. Otherwise why should future heads act any better.
"absurd" and "reconciliation"
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)
"absurd" : bowlocks. It can be done and Balls disclosed the fact a couple of days ago.

"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
Seeking Blame or A Solution
[info]sheumais wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 09:00 am (UTC)
How is it possible to identify a solution before you have identified the problem? It was interesting to note the very careful exclusion of any inference of policy failure during yesterday's parliamentary questioning of the ex-bankers. It is grossly irresponsible to ignore this factor, as it was certainly contributory, as repeating obvious error is more likely if you remain oblivious to the original fault. Admittedly, party politics weakens the whole process and fails the electorate, yet again. Fingers of blame can justifiably be pointed at both sides of the house.

As far as Ed Balls being thoughtful and sensible is concerned, I prefer to think of him as no more than sincere.
Inflation caused this bust
[info]daryoush wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 09:10 am (UTC)
The boom bust, that is what they do, we shouldn't wholly blame the banks who were no more culpable than those of us who had our own greedy forays into the property market. We should have inflation targets for asset prices, in other words interest rates should have been put up faster and higher as the cost of housing spiraled out of reach of many. Shareholder capitalism not the market is the problem, most people even institutions invest in shares because they expect them over time to inevitably rise. But shares value can be diluted in so many ways, not just through bad management or a turn in the market but also by the selling of a firms own shares which is in-effect the printing of money as shares are treated by many as money.

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.
Dealing with systemic problems
[info]steelyglint2 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC)
Wise words, Hamish. There's something rather nauseating about seeing a bunch of people - our elected leaders - who are MORE culpable for the financial crisis, attempting to humiliate another bunch of people caught up in the disaster. Why do I say more culpable? Well, surely those elected to manage our economy must be more responsible than mere participants. I strongly suspect that John "Chip on both shoulders" McFall and his cronies rather think THEY should be the Masters of the Universe. This arrogance is what leads to the idea that nationalisation is some kind of solution. Please, no! Hubristic the bankers may have been, but a casual observer could not help but conclude that more intelligent analysis was provided by each individual banker than the whole Treasury Select Committee. Many of their questions managed to be both incoherent and puerile at the same time.

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/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/02/the_questions_for_the_former_b.html
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.
[info]judylane wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 09:41 am (UTC)
Mr Macrae, you say what the UK is doing is quite small by world standards because we are limited by our weak fiscal position. You say the programmes of other countries are much larger in relation to GDP than our own.

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
"profligate"
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 10:06 am (UTC)
I prefer generous - because of the extent to which organised economic crime has its claw embedded in the government of bananarepublicanised Britain.

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/article-479751/Hounding-decent-woman-Labours-brutal-campaign-destroy-ethics-watchdog-Elizabeth-Filkin.html
Insulting
[info]paulireland wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 09:57 am (UTC)
So the when the public demand accountability from the people who have undermined the economic life of their nation through avarice, cronyism, and greed, its a "blame game". A "show trial" of poor misguided people who didn't know what they were doing???

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.
crass
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 10:12 am (UTC)
how crass to compare this situation with that in post-apartheid s africa- our dim four don't even see what the problem is, let alone show any genuine wish to make amends ; just how does reconciliation take place under those circumstances?!
is the writer of this article getting a bonus for his efforts?
Not a "blame game"
[info]george_999 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 10:16 am (UTC)
Borrowers made mistakes they are paying for it by having their houses taken from them. What was taken from the bankers?
Bankers
[info]asurbanipal wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 11:22 am (UTC)
Hardly has the bubble burst than apologist like McRae begin to chant their sanctimonious drivel. How many times over the past eleven years have we heard people like Blair reciting the same nauseous, self-exculpating mantra, "it is time to move on" ? No, this business must be cleared up first: these people must be made to suffer as harshly as is humanly possible for their incompetence and unmitigated greed. They have almost single-handedly reduced the futures of perhaps millions of ordinary working people to an exceedingly bleak prospect. Revenge is what is needed; revenge imposed with the maximum savagery. Since public hanging is now unfortunately out of the question, some other way must be found to mark them for the rest of their lives.
Get it right!
[info]simonstephenson wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 11:38 am (UTC)
steelyglint2 has it just about right.

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.
Gee! Now we know, it's "the ORTHODOXY"!
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 12:43 pm (UTC)
Where's the source of this 'othodoxy' and who do we put down to eliminate it? I know, but do you?
The blame game
[info]letsbefair wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 12:09 pm (UTC)
The article is dead right about dropping the blame game. I happen to think that some people in our society are grotesquely over-rewarded relative to their contribution to society. Entertainers (including professional sportsmen) are at the top of the list, but top business leaders, especially in finance, are not far behind. Some deeply stupid decisions were made, motivated at least in part by greed. That doesn't however mean we should blame them exclusively for the present situation. We should all accept communal responsibility for communal behaviour. The banks and regulators did not force people at gunpoint to take out loans they could not afford. I know some will have done so in good faith, and then suffered an unexpected health or work misfortune, but those are private tragedies, not the cause of a global meltdown. That was caused by too many of us being too willing to take on commitments we couldn't service. Society has moved from saving up for what we desire to buying it now with someone else's money, and that is the fundamental cause of the meltdown. The world voted for bad credit.
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.
"The analogy isn't perfect"
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC)
You can say that again. We have institutions, laws and government to keep anti-socials in check as part of the function of "government".

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
Re: "The analogy isn't perfect"
[info]letsbefair wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 01:23 pm (UTC)
Cronyblatcher, either I don't understand you, or you don't understand me. I am not arguing for a free-for-all, just pointing out how it is. In a democracy we get the government and institutions we deserve - not only by voting for them, but by setting the environment in which they operate. We are not very tolerant of rational argument - our leaders are expected to say what we want to hear in certain circumstances, and are pilloried if they don't. There has never been a public appetite for a fairer distribution of wealth, or for restrictions on the bonus culture, and certainly no party has seen any electoral benefit in advocating those things to any meaningful degree. The fact that we have high levels of debt is the consequence of millions of individual decisions, and we have not given our leaders any reason to believe that we would like them to stop us having credit. In a democracy, except in the very short term, government is subject to, not the principle driver of public will. My point is that if we want things to be better we need to be better citizens, both in the decisions we make as individuals and in the way we influence and select our leaders.
Re: "The analogy isn't perfect"
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 01:49 pm (UTC)
"In a democracy" you would "get" the government / institutions you "deserve".
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.
Re: "The analogy isn't perfect"
[info]letsbefair wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 02:46 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure who 'my' parasites are; if you refer to top business leaders, I think I made it clear in my first remarks that I consider them grotesquely over-rewarded. I could also write a substantial essay on why bonuses are nearly always bad for business. But to your actual point, this is a real democracy, just as a car is no less real if it is badly driven. It doesn't work very well because we don't excercise our choices well. You or I can stand for election, or form a political party. The only thing in our way is rallying enough support. Independents and small parties stand. The labour party started from nothing, but new parties don't grow today. Why? Because we don't vote for them. Print and broadcast media influence things hugely, but ultimately they aim to say what people want to hear, because that's what provides an audience. Again, we get the press we deserve, by the buying choices we make. Politicians make fine judgements about policies based on what will carry enough votes. That doesn't mean they follow public will on every issue, but they only stay in power if they do enough that pleases the public. I'm afraid there is no way round this. If enough people thought about the kind of society they want, and judged politicians on the rationale they present for achieving those aims, rather than the ability to exploit the news of the day, then change would come. If the media truly care about democracy they should be promoting quality of debate (as opposed to good fights) and factual information so that the population can do its civic duty and choose good leaders.
The Blame Game
[info]mikecrawshaw wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 12:33 pm (UTC)
In all the witch hunting there has been one omission. Steelyglint2 puts his finger on it. Who decided that the cost of one of the basic human needs, shelter, should be omitted from the Consumer Price Index? If the CPI had included housing costs, and if the BoE had fulfilled its remit to target inflation, we would have ended up in a better state than we are today. We would not have been able to escape the fall-out from troubles in the US, but asset price inflation might have been controlled, and indebtedness in the UK would be a lot lower. Metrics should tell you what's going on, not what you would like to hear.
Re: The Blame Game
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 02:10 pm (UTC)
It's called government by created illusion and concocted misrepresentation, aided and abetted by a dootiful meeja
The blame game is necessary for our sanity Hamish
[info]rozr wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 02:30 pm (UTC)
You may be relaxed about the blame game, Hamish, wanting it to go away. I can understand your POV that things need to move on. However, the guilty must be punished. The problem in life is that the guilty rarely get punished if they are rich enough to have clever lawyers that get them off or know so much they can threaten to tell. Yes, we know this is the way of the world. But this isn't just a few angry people. It is nearly the whole population of this country that's furious. The exceptions are of course those who caused the chaos, from Gordon Brown the profligate or stupid Chancellor whose grasp of financial matters is clearly way less than he wants us to think, to the defiant Speaker and the ranks of greedy MPs with their snouts in the trough pretending they can justify outrageous expenses that are clearly unjustifiable, to the gamblers in banks playing with our money, to their ignorant or greedy or compliant bosses, to all those employees of banks who knew what was going on and kept quiet.

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.
"the guilty rarely get punished "
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 at 03:36 pm (UTC)
Unless they are poor voiceless specimens of developmentally mutilated humanity.

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
Boy Scouts
[info]had_it wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 01:51 am (UTC)
"It would be astounding if the fall in UK output were anything like as bad as in the 1930s"

Be prepared to be astounded.
We should all accept communal responsibility ?
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 10:06 am (UTC)
We should all accept communal responsibility for communal behaviour?- well ypu can count me out: apparently banks are there to 'provide credit' - they never did that for me, as a young woman with a good job when there was no loan at all unless i could get a MAN to countersign, nor once retired on a modest but adequate pension when i needed a small bridging loan to cover the cash flow while i moved to a smaller house...; yet over the last 20 years or so any time i went into the blasted place i was confronted by jazzy posters offering any amount of credit for any amount of time to everyone else, and by counter staff keeping beady eyes on my current account so that they could try to drag any surplus into a bank savings scheme ( and get a nice little bonus for their trouble), and always asking sweetly 'is there anything else we can do for you today?' ( which i suppose was at least not as insulting as the old shifty slogan 'we care about more than your money'...); no bank ever did anything for me except pay c 0.01% on my current account which i always had to keep with one of them in order to get on with my life; i used to comment on all this quite loudly every time my intelligence was thus insulted...;
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

Columnist Comments

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Enough of the philosophy, Mr Cameron.

Think-tanks play an important role in politics. But they have their limits.

christina_patterson

Christina Patterson: Very nice - but forgiveness is overrated

Sometimes, as Lydon sang, in his post Sex Pistols band, 'anger is an energy.'

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Why not call Blair now and wrap it up?

The enquiry already seems like a sideline as the queues dwindle.


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion