You are here:   Economy > Burdening Banks Will Sink the Recovery — and the Tories
 

It would be nice to be able to say that the deliberations of the Independent Banking Commission were fresh thinking from truly independent authorities. But they are nothing of the sort. On the contrary, Vickers- who was appointed the Bank of England's chief economist on King's personal say-so-shares the same mistaken premises as King and his senior Bank of England colleagues. They all have an obsessive and ideological attitude towards bank capital and the supposed imperative to de-risk the banking system; they do not care enough about the implications of their decisions for the quantity of money. The message must be reiterated. If banks are required to hold more capital relative to their assets, the quantity of money will stagnate and the economy will struggle to grow.

That is a proposition in economic theory; it is also a basic fact for the party political debate. Osborne should be far more pragmatic and easygoing in his approach to the banks than Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. If he accepts the Vickers prescription of yet further increases in banks' capital and continued shrinkage of their risk assets, two or three more years of sluggish money growth are to be expected. The economy may recover, but it will not pick up enough speed before the next general election to reduce unemployment and establish a feel- good factor for the Conservatives. 

And just how sharp are Osborne's (and Cameron's) political antennae? Risk assets include the bank lending to small and medium-size enterprises about which so many crocodile tears are shed. But they also include mortgage loans for the purchase of houses by the British middle classes. If Vickers's recommendations are adopted in full and without reservation, banks and building societies will be more reluctant to help "middle Britain" to acquire its favourite asset. 

Much went wrong in the 1980s, or so we are told. But much went right too, and Margaret Thatcher and her supporters appreciated the importance of a vibrant housing market and growing mortgage lending to their electoral fortunes.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
MDV
December 12th, 2011
6:12 PM
@nalelbro I admit it was not explained fully but it was only a comment. If you disagree with Volker can we hear your reasons.

James Hargrave
October 9th, 2011
2:10 AM
Nothing I have heard of the benighted abd beknighted King from people who had dealings with him in his academic days suggests someone in the least degree fitted to be Governor - indeed he is no banker, he merely rhymes with one. And various other economic historians I talked to in late 2007 were disgusted at his failures of understanding. He is a moral hazard. As far as one could tell he was so busy looking over his shoulder at Europe and in introducing pointlessly modish corporate governance into the Banks' Court of Directors that he failed to see the open grate in the middle of the pavement and fell straight down it. But, somehow, this ass keeps landing on his feet.

Postkey
October 2nd, 2011
10:10 AM
As always? an informative and interesting article. However, No more boom and bust. G.B. He was parroting the high priest of neoclassical/neoliberal economics – R. E. Lucas. In the 2003 presidential address to the American Economic Association, Robert E. Lucas, Jnr of the University of Chicago said: “My thesis in this lecture is that macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”

nalelobro
September 8th, 2011
1:09 PM
@GOODCRED You say this as if it is received wisdom and a "given". Not only is it not correct, it is a delusion to think that retail banking is by definition safer than investment banking. Au contraire, as any glance at Northern Rock's or numerous other lenders mortgage books amply demonstrates. Please try not to regurgitate uncritically politically inspired nostrums.

goodcred
September 2nd, 2011
10:09 PM
but deep down politicians know separating investment banking from retail banking would be the best way to reduce the risk. The tax payer wouldn't have to bail out investment banks if they fail.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.