The class politics of government bail-outs
Posted on Friday 21 September, 2007
Filed Under Society
In October last year, 150,000 low-income families lost a total of £45m when dodgy Christmas hamper racket Farepak collapsed. As a result, some of Britain’s poorest yet most thrifty people – the very people who don’t whack a few hundred quid on the plastic to pay for their Christmas, because they can’t afford to – saw their festivities ruined. No government bail out for them.
About 125,000 workers and pensioners have lost some or all of their pension entitlement after their employers went under or shut down insolvent occupational pension schemes. No government bail out for them, either.
Of course Alistair Darling was right to guarantee the deposits of Northern Rock customers this week. But why the selective treatment? Building society savers have no more intrinsic merit than Farepak punters or pension contributors.
In round numbers, seeing the Farepak clientele alright would have cost exactly 1% of the £4.55bn value that the taper relief tax break extends to venture capitalists every single year.
As Nick Ferguson, head of SVG Capital, pointed out recently, venture caps pay a lower rate of tax then their cleaning ladies. And cleaning ladies are the kind of people that save with Farepak and who at best have a couple of grand in savings. A Labour government should consider their interests too.
<<Go back
Comments
50 Responses to “The class politics of government bail-outs”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Spot on Dave, absolutely spot on.
Many more billions on the way to bail out the gamblers in the giant money markets casino I would guess.
Brilliant point Dave and tbh something i hadn’t though about: what a contrast! this should be publicised elsewhere. The issues of inequality and the tackling of poverty, etc, should be much higher up the political agenda and certainly at the top of the lefts. But not the ‘faux’ concern of the major parties who talk the talk while cutting benefits but genuine and real concern for those at the bottom: disabled people facing massive benefit cuts and maybe losing their homes and an ever more brutal welfare regime under the Welfare Reform Act,the one million NEET’s abandoned by NL, those struggling on the minimum wages, carers leading totally unsupported and financially difficult existences, students burned by massive amounts of debt.
One only has to lok at the 20’000 pound cars driven by twenty somethings while bus services deteriorate and tickets prices rise to see what is happening.
Its time for some righteous anger….
On the one hand New Labour doesn’t give a toss about poverty yet Brown pats himself on the back for that minefield known as Tax Credits: a means tested measure that often takes money away from people with children due to its complexity and poor design.
And the latest report from the Committee of Public Accounts state that 1.6million pensioners are not claiming their Pension Credits. Less than 20% of women qualify for a full state pension compared to 98% men.
And with the Green paper on Welfare Reforms that further attacks lone parents, people with disabilities and so on. In other words, the poor..And Peter Hain had the gall recently to state that full employment and conquering child poverty, in his opinion are socialist statements and “nobody can argue with them”.
But forcing and coercing people back into the job market with threats of benefit loss is not socialist by any stretch of the imagination….
Spot on about the comparison with Farepack.
Spot off on supporting financial guarantees to Northern Rock. Not a penny of public subsidy to support businesses and their activities.
I’m sure the shareholders are very grateful after he made their shareprice recover so much – maybe they will give a donation to Labour.
Who’s supporting financial guarantees to Northern Rock, Punchie?
I specifically backed the guarantee of customers’s deposits. The shareholders and management can go hang.
Did you notice the share price rocket after the guarantee? (A guarantee on saving there that no other bank etc in the country enjoys.)
Who makes the money – those with a recovering share price or the depositors who weren’t going to lose any money anyway?
No public subsidy to businesses.
Maybe you should pay more attention in your economics class.
Southpawpunch
Ahem, the following from Southpaw: “No public subsidy to businesses.”
is very reminiscent of Margeret Thatcher, and the Chicago school.
but I am not sure when it has ever been a principle of the socialist left?
Surely what we want is the maximum government intervention in the economy in the interests of jobs, wages, production for need and equality?
Sometimes that means underpinning failing companies in the interests of the woder economy.
That is by the way the difference between NOrthern Rock and farepack. While socialists were correct (and the SSP were very good on this) to argue for full compensation, the governement has intevened here becasue the whole house of cards of Brown’s debt based economy was under threat, not concern for the bank’s depositors,
It’s rather odd that so many people on the alleged ‘left’ have so little understanding of modern, fractional reserve banking. Northern rock creates money it does not have, by fiat, under state license. What deposits it does possess have been created by other banks who have produced credit ‘money’ in precisely the same way. It has no meaningful assets.
They’re were not bailed out to protect small depositors and mortgage holders. They’ve been bailed to protect the whole, corrupt system from total collapse.
It’s amusing listening to government ministers claiming they will bail out any other bank in the same situation. With what? Banks create 95% of the money supply as pure credit. Another run, and the whole system is in danger of a major collapse.
Casnadra: “It’s rather odd that so many people on the alleged ‘left’ have so little understanding of modern, fractional reserve banking.”
Is that odd?
Why would you expect people on the left to know about “fractional reservce banking”??
Or is the point of your comment that you are cleverer than most of us?
Interesting piece in the Guardian today;
City bankers estimate that short-sellers could have pocketed as much as £1bn over the past week as shares in Northern Rock crashed. Pressure on the stock is likely to continue with more than half the bank’s shares loaned out to more speculators.
The Newcastle-based bank has become the target of one of the largest “bear raids” ever seen by the Square Mile. Short-selling allows traders to profit when share prices fall by “renting” shares from a holder to sell in the market on the assumption that the price will fall. The short-seller then buys the shares in the market at the low price, hands them back, paying the “rent” on the borrowed stock out of the profit made between the sell and buy prices.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/markets/story/0,,2174689,00.html
Surely all this is ‘voodoo’ economics?
I like your blog and I see we share sufficient common ground for a link to each others blogs to be mutually beneficial.If you agree to link then please contact me at ‘An Unrepentant Communist’
http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/
on the commments page of the current post,and I will immediately link your blog to mine.Looking forward to hearing from you.
Gabriel in County Kerry Ireland
You sent an identical comment to me a while back, Gabriel. Unrepentant indeed.
I’m still hoping we can link…Gabriel
Gabriel, if you want people to link to – or even read – your blog, write something that shows you’re actually interested in the blog you’re commenting on. At the moment you’re just an unrepentant communist spammer (a conclusion which WordPress came to all on its own when you commented on my blog).
Ah thats harsh Dave , because I have read your posts for a long time now and your not a bad guy for a Trot (joke). As for Northern Rock was anyone else surprised by the huge quantities of dosh people were taking out, 1 million in one case, and loads saying I am taking out 300,000 but leaving 75,000 in? Sheesh sometimes I forget just how wealthy the UK middle classes really are, these are the poeple who count, middle England, not the lasses who saved for Crimbo with Farepak..It stands up to a class analysis as does anything in a modern capitalist society. Sorry if I have pissed you off Dave, and I apologise if I have contravened netiquette on this, but I do genuinely admire the blog and felt we might share some common ground.
Oh as for KMS and Phil the same applies, I apologise, but when your getting a genuine effort together you try in the early stages to get links to people in the same political ball park.Its not as if I am trying to sell you a penis replacement is it? So perhaps a little less criticism and a bit more understanding perhaps, after all the offer was reciprocal and I think your blogs could benefit too..So lads lighten up a bit eh?
So Gabriel, are you going to be linking to pro-choice socialist feminist sites as well as there are some unrepentent communist women out there too….
And I post for two leftie activists sites that have stroppy feminists attached and involved. The leftie blog world isn’t just blokes..
http://unionfutures.blogspot.com
http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com
Gabriel: Will you be linking to pro-choice socialist feminist blogs too? There are many unrepentent communist women out there as well.
The leftie blogworld isn’t just blokes-only…
I post for two leftie blogs where there are stroppy feminist activists attached and involved…
http://unionfutures.blogspot.com
htto://stroppyblog.blogspot.com
when your getting a genuine effort together you try in the early stages to get links to people in the same political ball park
You seem to forget that we’ve all been there. Yes, you do try to get people to notice your blog & link to it; you do it by writing something that shows you’re actually interested in the blog you’re commenting on. At the very least you vary the wording of your comments between different blogs. As for giving you an easier ride because you’re on the Left, I’m doing just that – I don’t tell most spammers how to improve their communication techniques!
Actually, this is a bit unfair because Unrepentent Communist is quite a good blog, and I linked to it a while ago based on its content.
All the more reason for Gabriel not to give it a bad name, shirley?
“Did you notice the share price rocket after the guarantee?”
I didn’t, because it did nothing of the sort. NR shares closed on Friday at under £2, they started the week at around £3. So the effect was the opposite you suggest.
“I’m sure the shareholders are very grateful after he made their shareprice recover so much – maybe they will give a donation to Labour.”
Who do you think “the shareholders” are anyway? Baillie Gifford was one fund manage that lost a lot of money in NR shares. Clients’ money that is. Its clients include John Lewis staff pension fund and Cheshire local govt pension fund, the capitalist bastards.
I think it might be you who needs the economics class.
No, Tom, you need the classes.
“Today’s fall wiped out some of the recovery seen in the stock price since the government stepped in on Monday to guarantee depositors’ savings, and highlights the uncertainty over the troubled bank’s future.” – The Guardian
There is no dispute that the Northern Rock share price was boosted by the government’s intervention – it would have finished the week even lower without.
There is an argument, deployed by some, that as quite a few shares are owned by pension funds etc then capitalism is a ‘peoples capitalism’ – we should support the market, as it’s our money.
The sort of people who make that argument are capitalists – albeit the left variant of same.
I say fuck the stockmarket.
“you do it by writing something that shows you’re actually interested in the blog you’re commenting on”.
Wow I really didnt think there were so many sensitive souls out there, the fact that I have sent a message to these blogs is indicative of the fact that I like the blogs,as I state in the perfectly courteous message I leave, as I said it is a request that would be reciprocated after all, so its not just a one way thing.However I am being upfront and asking for a link, would it be less objectionable in some esoteric way if the request was made in the form of an email. Its when I encounter this sort of petty mindedness that I am reminded of the sort of nit-picking mean mindedness that resulted in what Sheila Rowbotham pungently referred to as the male Left as ‘fragments’, very male, very proprietorial, very petty, and really rather sad.
the fact that I have sent a message to these blogs is indicative of the fact that I like the blogs,as I state in the perfectly courteous message I leave
But that’s exactly the point – the message (singular) that you’ve been leaving says absolutely nothing about the blogs you’ve been leaving it on. For all we know, those comments might have been posted by a script.
it is a request that would be reciprocated after all, so its not just a one way thing
I don’t blog as a means to the end of getting my name seen by more people; I’m trying to have a conversation with other bloggers. If you want to join the conversation, that’s great – go ahead. Just saying “hey, look at me!” doesn’t contribute anything.
am being upfront and asking for a link, would it be less objectionable in some esoteric way if the request was made in the form of an email
It’s quite simple – really not esoteric at all. If you write interesting comments, then people will notice your blog. If people notice your blog – and if it’s any good – then people will link to it. And, er, that’s it.
petty mindedness … nit-picking mean mindedness … very male, very proprietorial, very petty, and really rather sad.
Sorry, it’s no use trying to sweet-talk me into it.
Phil – I think you are being too grumpy
)
Northern Rock disprooves the banks create money theory – it would have gone under without help, if it could have just created money to pay its liabilities it would’t/
In a nutshell, the argument runs thus – banks loan out all but a small reserve of their desposits. Say, 10% – far too little to cover all their liabilities should they be called in.
I give the Coatsite Bank £10 to look after. They then lend £9 to SPP, who promptly deposits it back with them (or spends it, and someone else does). The Coatatollah then lends Stroppy £8.10, keeping back 90p.
The same happens again and then they lend to Andy Newman, the princely sum of £7.29, keeping back 81p.
From my original £10 there are now £34.39 in circulation plus a total of £4.71 in reserve.
This is the theory by which banks create money.
It’s also bunkum, because if you look, each loan is certainly an asset, but each deposit (which is in fact a type of loan) is a liability – they cancel each other out entirely, there is still only £10 there, until new wealth is created.
each loan is certainly an asset, but each deposit (which is in fact a type of loan) is a liability – they cancel each other out entirely
That’s where interest comes in, isn’t it?
Yes, banks make their money by borrowing (i.e. attracting depositors) at a lower rate of intrerest than they lend – so in strict market theorist terms, the depositors were at fault because they were, presumably, chasing attractive interest rates, and got their fingers duly burnt. From a strict market eprspective (i.e. not quite true).
For Marx, interest was a function of the use value of money – a capital of magnitude X could quite reasonably raise profit Y, and so banks can charge an interest rate based on that assumed profitability…
“No, Tom, you need the classes.”
No Southpaw, it really is you. Go and have a look at what the share price did last week. At no point did it “rocket” as you claimed. Here, have a look:
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NRK.L&t=5d&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Remember you said the share price rocketed, that it was recovering and so on. But none of that appears in te share price movements of last week. Maybe you ought to look at what really happened rather than what you think should have happened?
And what would the reason be for the share price jumping in any case? The guarantee effects savers’ deposits, not the value of the company. The shares are only worth what someone will pay for them, guarantee to savers or not.
“as quite a few shares are owned by pension funds etc then capitalism is a ‘peoples capitalism’ – we should support the market, as it’s our money.”
I’m assuming this, and your dig about capitalists, is aimed at me. which is fine. I make no secret of the fact that I am interested in ownership, and collective shareholding by pension funds and other institutions has, in my view, the potential to be a significant change in the nature of company ownership which might be used a positive force. Hence the interest in it amongst trade unions around the world.
But clearly trying to understand how a major bit of the economy works in practice (and how it affects us) is a waste of time. there is a much more constrcutive approach:
“I say fuck the stockmarket.”
Phil said
“I don’t blog as a means to the end of getting my name seen by more people; I’m trying to have a conversation with other bloggers. If you want to join the conversation, that’s great – go ahead. Just saying “hey, look at me!” doesn’t contribute anything”.
I don’t blog to get my name seen by more people either Phil, in fact I did’nt think that a polite request to link would provoke such a reaction. I’m not saying ‘hey look at me’…I am saying “I write a Left Wing blog and so do you, some of the readers of the blog I write might like a quick and easy link to yours, why don’t we cooperate and link each others blogs?”.
If its such a big deal for you mate just forget it, so much for the ideals of mutuality and cooperation..I regret that you found it beyond you to respond civilly to such a reasonable proposal.
Attention Dave Osler (off topic) — hat tip coming your way…
Dave — see here
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/09/gang-of-100.html
for this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/23/nleft223.xml&page=1
93. DAVID OSLER
Dave’s Part Blog (www.davidosler.com) Osler is a financial journalist and a Trotskyite turned Labour Party member whose blog has given him a profile and influence few on the extreme left can dream of. He’s one of the few leftist bloggers with a finely developed sense of humour.
Gabriel – I sense we’re not going to see eye to eye with regard to this one, so I’ll drop the subject. I’m just a bit puzzled by your apparent belief that my responses are unreasonable, uncivil, unco-operative, petty, mean-minded etc. So far I’ve:
- pointed out that your link requests were annoying people
- given you some advice on how to get your comments noticed
- retrieved your comment from my blog’s spamtrap and written a post about it (including the address of your blog)
- taken a second comment from you out of the spamtrap and taken your address off the blacklist
- written a comment pointing out that the same thing is almost certainly happening to your comments at other WordPress blogs
I’d call that helpful advice, frankly.
Tom,
You can’t have it both ways. First you say, in effect, the share price fell after government intervention (£3 to Tom,
You can’t have it both ways. First you say, in effect, the share price fell after government intervention (£3 to <£2 in that week) and then you reverse what you say and acknowledge the intervention of the government did boost the price but not cause it to ‘rocket’ (what’s the definition of ‘rocket’ anyway?).
You also strangely claim, “The guarantee effects savers’ deposits, not the value of the company.” Rubbish. Which company do you think will have a higher value (with all other things being equal): DodgyBank – £10M in deposits, bank under regulatory investigation and depositors queuing round the block – or – SoundBank. £10M in deposits, Top ratings from all commentators?
Of course such a guarantee affects the value of the company. And that ‘s what happened with Northern Rock, the share price went up when the government intervened making the company more, er, valuable and it will be still more valuable, as the share price will be higher than it would have been, if the shares remain lower than last month (as I imagine they will).
‘Fuck the stockmarket’ may pithily convey a communist’s view of the stockmarket but let me do it more formally – Expropriate all the companies listed on the stockmarket (and more) and pay compensation only in the case of proven need. i.e. former Cheshire local government workers living in Crewe will get their pensions, Mr Mega Speculator living in Prestbury owning 1% of Northern Rock will get rations to stop him from starving.
And frankly ‘fuck the stockmarket’ is a lot better strategy than yours. You website is a very good example of the utopian dreamers who really think that it is possible to make capitalism kinder and friendly by the ethical use of pension funds.
I daresay workers at the John Lewis Partnership may get slightly better conditions than those working for Tesco but it’s pitiful reformism to set our sights so low. We want control of these retailers with the workers, not just a few better minor conditions.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I own 0.00000000001% of Northern Rock through public sector pension funds I have but I’m not going to hesitate for moment to call for the seizure of all banks and not think about the equivalent of the few paperclips that I may own inside them.
first para above got mangled – should read
You can’t have it both ways. First you say, in effect, the share price fell after government intervention (£3 to under £2 in that week) and then you reverse what you say and acknowledge the intervention of the government did boost the price but not cause it to ‘rocket’ (what’s the definition of ‘rocket’ anyway?).
Damn i didn’t notice 2nd para published was also just the draft – should be
You also strangely claim, “The guarantee effects savers’ deposits, not the value of the company.”
Rubbish. Which company do you think will have a higher value (with all other things being equal): DodgyBank – £10M in deposits, bank under regulatory investigation and depositors queuing round the block – or – FraudBank. – £10M in deposits, under regulatory investigation and depositors queuing round the block – and such a financial guarantee?
Top 100 most influential leftists. Look who’s at number 93:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/23/nleft223.xml&page=3
LOL
Dave is more influential than tariq Ali and JOhn Pilger acording to the Torygraph!!!
I note that Liam Byrne MP is on the list, who is only slightly more progressive than patrick harrington and garry Bushell, so they have an “inclusive” idea of who is left wing!
Actually I take that back.
Liam Bryne is more progressive than Patrick harrington, but worse than garry Bushell.
“You can’t have it both ways. First you say, in effect, the share price fell after government intervention (£3 to under £2 in that week) and then you reverse what you say and acknowledge the intervention of the government did boost the price but not cause it to ‘rocket’ (what’s the definition of ‘rocket’ anyway?).”
I don’t think you read what I wrote properly. I’m not trying to have it both ways. I am saying the share price FELL after Darling announced the guarantee. That’s why I posted the share price graph (which I presume you didn’t bother to look at) because it clearly proves you were wrong.
And as such all the stuff you go on to say about the value of the company is equally nonsensical. NR shares closed today at about £1.70 – almost half what they were worth before Darling made the announcement. It is also worth less than other banks which do not have a guarantee from the Government that they won’t lose their savings. How much clearer can it be?
“And frankly ‘fuck the stockmarket’ is a lot better strategy than yours. You website is a very good example of the utopian dreamers who really think that it is possible to make capitalism kinder and friendly by the ethical use of pension funds.”
I will resist the temptation of engaging in a scrap.
I think you will struggle to find much on my blog about the “ethical” use of pension funds, because that’s not what I am interested in. I’m more interested about the ownership and economic power that flow from financial institutions, not least because I have seen that this can have an impact on company behaviour.
I realise to a revolutionary like yourself this is all reformist incremental change, but then isn’t it you who is really the utopian?
You’re interested in;
“I’m more interested about the ownership and economic power that flow from financial institutions, not least because I have seen that this can have an impact on company behaviour.”
I was speaking to a friend of mine about this on Saturday, she works for a city bank as a researcher, the four directors of which were dividing up £32 million in bonuses. It’s pretty clear about how they use their economic and financial power. They buy castles with it. (or so she told me anyway)
So who’s utopian?
Bill J
I’m not sure what your point is? I’m not denying that people who work in the City get paid too much money. That doesn’t alter the reality that working people’s capital is a significant (if largely untapped) form of economic power. In fact I would argue that part of the reason people like those you mention get away with paying themselves so much is because we have ceded the power that goes with our capital to ‘professional’ investors.
I’m not arguing that this is the be all and end all, clearly it isn’t. But it is a form of leverage that I think should be used.
Tom,
I did look at the Yahoo chart. I would however need to see, not this, but a daily chart showing price movements of Northern Rock in the hour or two after Darling’s statement.
But I don’t need to. The Guardian is indeed the house journal of those, like you, who think it matters how the laces are tied on the boxing glove that punches us in the face.
But I trust the Guardian on what they wrote on NR (not least because other papers, according to Google News search wrote likewise) – “Today’s fall wiped out some of the recovery seen in the (NR) stock price since the government stepped in on Monday to guarantee depositors’ savings, and highlights the uncertainty over the troubled bank’s future.”
You write “(NR) is also worth less than other banks which do not have a guarantee from the Government that they won’t lose their savings”
Indeed, NR is worth less than SuccessfulBank but that’s no surprise. But NR with a guarantee is also worth more than NR without.
So you’re still wrong on the fundamental point. Without the guarantee then maybe the NR shares would be even further down – £1.40? £1.00?
And that guarantee is a financial gift from government to shareholders – £1.70 minus £1.40 (or £1.00 etc) x number of shares = fat cat smiles (or at least, not such long faces).
Believe me, I like reforms. I don’t want 8 year olds working down mines.
It’s just that I know that they are all will ‘o’ the wisp unless you consolidate changes (and more) in society through socialist revolution.
I also don’t fall for all the PR bullshit from companies who will major on their Corporate Social Responsibility, commitment to diversity, pledge to be carbon neutral ad nauseum. Your whole blog is the same – just putting a different face on the same old exploitation of workers.
Expropriate them all.
Tom,
You can very clearly see the uplift on the share price graph for NR here – http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NRK.L&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
It’s a 3 month chart. You can see the share price slowly drift down from June at 900 to 700 on Sept 13.
Then fall off a cliff down to maybe 300 on Sept 17.
And then the announcement on Sept 17 – you clearly see the recovery, a strong upstroke in the midst of the cataclysm – looks to be rise of maybe 20p or 30p.
This is then followed by further large fall to it’s present position – now about 195.
So the government guarantee is approximately worth number of shares multiplied by 20p or 30p. If you can get a chart for 17/9, I can be more accurate.
(Of course some of this uplift could be because of other matters e.g. maybe the stockmarket generally rose that day but it would be perverse not to recognise the overwhelming significance of Darling’s action on that day’s price – as can be seen in the chart).
I’m guessing you work in finance, and in these areas. I’d be grateful if you would consider asking your boss if I may replace you if you also get the sort of bonuses that we (stereotypically?) associate with investment managers.
I suspect, economics ignoramus that I am, that I know somewhat more. I would also be happy to take over your blog – which is apparently the 80 something best Leftie blog (but with no comments), according to Tory Iain Dale this week – but I would need to rename it from ‘Labour and Capital’ to ‘Labour v Capital’.
Tsk! Cheeky little sod …
Southpaw
If the Government guarantee – which I repeat is to savers, not shareholders – has an impact on the value of the company why has the share price kept heading down? You say it would be perverse not to recognise the “overwhelming significance” of the Govt intervention, yet as I write this NR is under £1.70, way lower than when Darling made the guarantee.
I’m amazed that you are able to attribute a 20p to 30p change in share price to the Government’s guarantee to savers. Look at the trading in NR shares on any given day and there will be swings up and down of this magnitude or greater – what is causing them? Never heard of random walks? If the Government guarantee to savers is of overwhelming significance and results in a 20p or 30p movement there must be some other much more significant factors at play. What are they? In particular what causes upswings in share price of the same scale?
I repeat that the company is only worth what people are willing to pay for it – guarantee or not. That is what is driving the share price, not whether there is a guarantee or not. The fact that the Govt had to step in has arguably made the NR brand more toxic to investors, confirming a picture in investors’ minds of a company in serious trouble. But in any case the clear trend the share price is downwards.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to indulge in personal digs. But since you ask I work in corporate governance currently, rather than investment management, having previously worked as a union officer (sorry, bureaucrat). And to be honest I would be surprised if you know somewhat more than I do in this field.
hey ho.
Tom, you’re right that the clear price in the trend is downwards but it is absolutely clear – look at the chart – that the government guarantee also meant a upwards spike on that day and that the price would be lower today (20p, 30p lower) without it – anyway, we’ve been through this already.
As to my other remarks (about your work, etc) some were indeed over the top and I apologise to you for that.
BTW Tom and SPP
In my totally arbitrary ranking of the top 101 left blogs, you mae in at #12 (SPP) and #50 (Tom)
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=757
Ok I think we’ve bored this issue to a standstill. I might just add that I entirely agree with the launch post. there isn’t any good reason why a full guarantee should provided to NR savers, but victims of failed pensions schemes and the Farepak collpase get less than 100%.
Thanks for the plug Andy.