One for the economists: national debt and deficit – what's the difference?

Morning Ransos!! How are you?

are we going to have another short selling is logically/morally worse than going long debate!!!

Not while my tummy is rumbling for lunch we wont….

grand, thanks! And you?

Regarding the shift off the balance sheet – is this a reference to PFI? I think we both know that the tories started PFI, and the small difference to the balance sheet, even if it were to be included.

Not while my tummy is rumbling for lunch we wont….

Hear, hear!!

Ransos – not its that with securitisation, the assets were shifted off balance sheet. The panic was when these were forced back on balance sheet at a time of excess leverage among banks. It became impossible from either a capital or funding perspective

I try to keep these debates apolitical and let others put my political persuasion into my mouth (?) when they really have no idea!!!

I think we both know that the tories started PFI

Was that Maggie?

ransos – actually the Australians started PFI. The Tories expropriated it, but the Labour government deployed it in another order of magnitude completely.

ransos – Member

Regarding the shift off the balance sheet – is this a reference to PFI? I think we both know that the tories started PFI, and the small difference to the balance sheet, even if it were to be included.True – it was started by the Tories, but the last government didn’t exactly stop it in its tracks. Somewhere around £60Bn extra, or is it more now?

But the original securitisation structure was what enabled issuers to brand junk loans as AAA

Which was still a consequence of de-regulation anyway. Which is really my main point – that de-regulation can have bad side effects.

Personally I think that the trade off of efficiency (de-regulation) for stability (regulation) is worth making for overall fairness/happiness/contentment (or whatever wooly metric you’d like to use)

ransos – actually the Australians started PFI. The Tories expropriated it, but the Labour government deployed it in another order of magnitude completely.

Slightly OT, but can’t help but think of the analogy (in reverse) of the move to academies in schools.

OK. But be careful of tarring every financial tool with the same brush. You’re interchanging your allegations about derivatives with your allegations about deregulation. they arent in essence the same thing.

Not all tools are evil, and even those that can be evil arent always evil. Id argue that, to a greater extent, the liquidity that most of the tools provide has been a far greater benefit to the world over the longer term than the instability that their misuse has caused at the edges of the cycles.

RPRT – I don’t mean to be argmentative, but I think exactly the opposite. Securitisation took off as a concept exactly when regulation on capital was introduced, not because of deregulation. Regulators wanted to limit the extent of leverage on the balance sheet hence the original Basle regulation on capital – essentially to stop under-capitalised Japanese banks from taking over the world!!

So the response – shift assets off balance sheet but accrue revenues to the P&L. Leverage goes down, profitability measures go up…. etc

The banking system is a very efficient and leveraged mechanism that exploits positive and negative aspects of policy. Some would argue that this makes bankers morally corrupt and that may be true in some cases. On balance, I would prefer to conclude that on the whole the system is morally agnostic. It merely ruthlessly responds to the environment in front of it. This can have positive and negative implications.

The problem with pure banker bashing (as tempting as it may be) is that it ignores this fact and the interconnected relationships that led to the mess we are all in.

My allegations about deregulation and derivatives are largely the same – that they have both been allowed to get out of hand.

I didn’t say that all derivatives should be banned. I can see the benefit in advancing money against the next wheat crop. But derivatives that really are nothing more than a means to deceive by hiding the true value of assets simply shouldn’t be allowed.

+ I thought it was deregulation in the early 80’s that allowed the subprime market to take off?

The problem with pure banker bashing (as tempting as it may be) is that it ignores this fact and the interconnected relationships that led to the mess we are all in.

Totally agree. Banker bashing is a politically convenient/manipulative argument by vested interests to move the focus of blame to other parties. Not to say the banks weren’t at fault – they took advantage of loose regulation and did what all businesses do, try to make profit, but ignored the risks of getting it wrong.

It’s also an emotional response by a disempowered and ignorant electorate who would quite like to carry on deluding themselves that they were wealthy and would quite like to carry on buying ‘stuff’ and thinking of shopping as a leisure pursuit thankyouverymuch.

We all helped create this mess one way or another IMO. It beggars belief that anyone can believe the near-collapse of the whole global capitalist system was due solely to a few thousand people who work in the main financial centres…

<highhorse mode>I guess it’s more comforting to think of yourself as morally pure and not as greedy and consumerist as the next man </highhorsemode>

“True – it was started by the Tories, but the last government didn’t exactly stop it in its tracks. Somewhere around £60Bn extra, or is it more now? “

Oh, I know. I think that PFI is generally dreadful value for the taxpayer.

I would prefer to conclude that on the whole the system is morally agnostic.

This is where we fundamentally disagree.

I think that “the whole system” is largely governed by the already wealthy for the benefit of the already wealthy.

brooess

but ignored the risks of getting it wrong.

actually, this should be “but didn’t face the risks of getting it wrong.”

I would prefer to conclude that on the whole the system is morally agnostic.
This is where we fundamentally disagree.

I know …but that makes for interesting debate!!

Ah well, in the fullness of time your savings and pension will be worth sod all and you’ll come round to my way of thinking.