By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
No a massive surprise to be honest. They only ever act in self interest and don’t care about the impacts on us. Same with the quantitative tightening over here to keep interest rates high and scupper growth. Nice work for the banks though.
I take a lot of the hype around Trump with a pinch of salt as his bark is often worst than his bite, but things like this are really not going to help. Not that we aren’t screwed on climate of course. We’ll probably just be a bit more screwed after Trump’s meddled.
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:20 - Jan 9 by Swansea_Blue
No a massive surprise to be honest. They only ever act in self interest and don’t care about the impacts on us. Same with the quantitative tightening over here to keep interest rates high and scupper growth. Nice work for the banks though.
I take a lot of the hype around Trump with a pinch of salt as his bark is often worst than his bite, but things like this are really not going to help. Not that we aren’t screwed on climate of course. We’ll probably just be a bit more screwed after Trump’s meddled.
On the climate he'd have to go some significant distance to screw us as much a China are screwing us. The US remain as the number two emitter in the world, Trump won't like that.
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:20 - Jan 9 by Swansea_Blue
No a massive surprise to be honest. They only ever act in self interest and don’t care about the impacts on us. Same with the quantitative tightening over here to keep interest rates high and scupper growth. Nice work for the banks though.
I take a lot of the hype around Trump with a pinch of salt as his bark is often worst than his bite, but things like this are really not going to help. Not that we aren’t screwed on climate of course. We’ll probably just be a bit more screwed after Trump’s meddled.
Bankers gotta do what bankers gotta do!
[Post edited 9 Jan 9:42]
0
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:48 - Jan 9 with 3254 views
Bit in the FT today about Starmer relaxing the rules around banks reporting their exposure and insurers not needing approval in advance of investments.
Its almost as it they need a repeat of 2008 to make some cash....
1
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:50 - Jan 9 with 3234 views
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:27 - Jan 9 by Cheltenham_Blue
On the climate he'd have to go some significant distance to screw us as much a China are screwing us. The US remain as the number two emitter in the world, Trump won't like that.
Trump got to make America great again and be number one in the world.
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:27 - Jan 9 by Cheltenham_Blue
On the climate he'd have to go some significant distance to screw us as much a China are screwing us. The US remain as the number two emitter in the world, Trump won't like that.
Grim stuff all round, but isn't the US pretty much pure self produced, self inflicted emissions so to speak., Whereas a lot of China and Asia emissions are effectively the wests outsourced manufacturing and the like. Not that it makes it any better necessarily, I just hear that argument from people saying we shouldn't bother either, when we effectively own a chunk of those emissions.
1
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 10:02 - Jan 9 with 3144 views
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:20 - Jan 9 by Swansea_Blue
No a massive surprise to be honest. They only ever act in self interest and don’t care about the impacts on us. Same with the quantitative tightening over here to keep interest rates high and scupper growth. Nice work for the banks though.
I take a lot of the hype around Trump with a pinch of salt as his bark is often worst than his bite, but things like this are really not going to help. Not that we aren’t screwed on climate of course. We’ll probably just be a bit more screwed after Trump’s meddled.
Disagree with that first para - monetary policy is set by the Central Bank, not banks themselves. It’s not some conspiracy to hinder growth, it’s to control inflation which is proving particularly sticky and is likely to worsen given the moves to protectionist policies (not just from the US but also the EU). We’ve had years of quantitative easing without any material growth, the EU printed nearly a trillion Euro’s with dreadful economic growth.
The second part is spot on - Trump isn’t going to send energy and environmental policy in the right direction. Such is the strength of anti-climate change/denial in the US there have been rumblings of class actions against financial institutions on the basis that green/ESG investments have a lower ROI and could therefore be negligent. Interesting times ahead.
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:51 - Jan 9 by Help
Trump got to make America great again and be number one in the world.
don't tell him that the us aren't even in the top 10 per capita, languishing behind the likes of palua and new caledonia (still almost double china though).
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 10:02 - Jan 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna
Disagree with that first para - monetary policy is set by the Central Bank, not banks themselves. It’s not some conspiracy to hinder growth, it’s to control inflation which is proving particularly sticky and is likely to worsen given the moves to protectionist policies (not just from the US but also the EU). We’ve had years of quantitative easing without any material growth, the EU printed nearly a trillion Euro’s with dreadful economic growth.
The second part is spot on - Trump isn’t going to send energy and environmental policy in the right direction. Such is the strength of anti-climate change/denial in the US there have been rumblings of class actions against financial institutions on the basis that green/ESG investments have a lower ROI and could therefore be negligent. Interesting times ahead.
How are you finding it fiddling in the markets as Rome burns?
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 10:02 - Jan 9 by BanksterDebtSlave
It's almost like the markets are run by sociopaths with no interest in wider society. We are owned and entirely expendable....go figure!
I offer evidence to support your theory.
An American friend has just posted devastating news on Facebook
“ Today's mail brought with it news my insurance company is not going to cover my insulin any longer. I have an attitude about non doctors involved in my health care.”
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 10:42 - Jan 9 by Pinewoodblue
I offer evidence to support your theory.
An American friend has just posted devastating news on Facebook
“ Today's mail brought with it news my insurance company is not going to cover my insulin any longer. I have an attitude about non doctors involved in my health care.”
Novo Nordisk is one of the largest suppliers in the world of insulin.
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:27 - Jan 9 by Cheltenham_Blue
On the climate he'd have to go some significant distance to screw us as much a China are screwing us. The US remain as the number two emitter in the world, Trump won't like that.
Trump only cares about Trump. Being a president is just his way of making sure things are set to make his life easier in the long run. He is a believer that the earth/world is flat. Climate change is no concern of him as all he cares about is today and how much richer he has become. People seem to forget how bad things was in USA after his first 4 years and we are still paying for it now due to all the import taxes he put on countries and how it raised inflation The rich gets richer and the poor has to pay the taxes so the rich can get richer paying little to no taxes.
3
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 17:07 - Jan 9 with 2631 views
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 09:27 - Jan 9 by Cheltenham_Blue
On the climate he'd have to go some significant distance to screw us as much a China are screwing us. The US remain as the number two emitter in the world, Trump won't like that.
Worth noting that China will probably hit peak emissions this year. Also, the US has produced approximately 133 billion tons more co2 than China. Trump will be pleased to know they're number one in per capita by nearly double that of China.
Edit: seems I was wrong about per capita after seeing Positivity's post.
[Post edited 9 Jan 17:11]
1
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 19:20 - Jan 9 with 2458 views
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 10:02 - Jan 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna
Disagree with that first para - monetary policy is set by the Central Bank, not banks themselves. It’s not some conspiracy to hinder growth, it’s to control inflation which is proving particularly sticky and is likely to worsen given the moves to protectionist policies (not just from the US but also the EU). We’ve had years of quantitative easing without any material growth, the EU printed nearly a trillion Euro’s with dreadful economic growth.
The second part is spot on - Trump isn’t going to send energy and environmental policy in the right direction. Such is the strength of anti-climate change/denial in the US there have been rumblings of class actions against financial institutions on the basis that green/ESG investments have a lower ROI and could therefore be negligent. Interesting times ahead.
Yeah, it’s mostly the BoE. However, their approach isn’t controlling inflation. They’ve been selling government bonds to deliberately inflate interest rates, under the pretext that it will control inflation. But as I understand it, that’s nonsense because the inflationary pressures are supply side. Now these higher interest rates are hitting borrowing costs. The other thing their approach it’s doing is constraining growth.
I don’t understand it enough tbh, but it seems that Reeves has the power to stop the BoE’s quantitative tightening but refuses to use it. That’s one way she could help for starters. There seem to be several more options available to her as well that various economic commentators have mentioned, but again she’s reluctant to act for some reason.
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 19:20 - Jan 9 by Swansea_Blue
Yeah, it’s mostly the BoE. However, their approach isn’t controlling inflation. They’ve been selling government bonds to deliberately inflate interest rates, under the pretext that it will control inflation. But as I understand it, that’s nonsense because the inflationary pressures are supply side. Now these higher interest rates are hitting borrowing costs. The other thing their approach it’s doing is constraining growth.
I don’t understand it enough tbh, but it seems that Reeves has the power to stop the BoE’s quantitative tightening but refuses to use it. That’s one way she could help for starters. There seem to be several more options available to her as well that various economic commentators have mentioned, but again she’s reluctant to act for some reason.
There’s a lot to unpack there - some of it somewhat specious. This is where a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. Our monetary policy is independent and will hopefully remain that way. Giving politicians control of policy is dogmatic and dangerous- and it’s no coincidence only the populists like Trump, the current iteration of the Tories, and Corbynits were/are pushing to take control.
A country’s borrowing costs are not only impacted by the central bank rate, it’s more so the sovereign rating, overall level of debt, and the government’s actions have impacted this far more than the BoE.
Virtually every developed economy perused higher interest rates to dampen inflation, many to much higher extents than the UK. Supply side or not they had to take the heat out of the economy, and it will get worse as supply chains become strained over the next few years. The other point that many don’t seem to understand is that the increased interest rates were needed to prop up the sterling (and other non US denominated currency’s). Had the BoE not increased rates at least as fast as the Fed it would have been economic suicide. Sterling would have dropped lower and lower making commodities and other USD imports more expensive and further fueling inflation further (see Russia). The government’s budget impacting the pound so significantly will further delay any interest material rate drops.
The ratings agencies predicted all this, I dare say a further downgrade could be on the cards. it’s not on the BoE it’s a budget which Starmer backed himself into a corner. In the interest of balance most of these issues are downstream of the shocking state of affairs the Tories left.
[Post edited 9 Jan 19:58]
0
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 22:12 - Jan 9 with 2219 views
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 19:20 - Jan 9 by Swansea_Blue
Yeah, it’s mostly the BoE. However, their approach isn’t controlling inflation. They’ve been selling government bonds to deliberately inflate interest rates, under the pretext that it will control inflation. But as I understand it, that’s nonsense because the inflationary pressures are supply side. Now these higher interest rates are hitting borrowing costs. The other thing their approach it’s doing is constraining growth.
I don’t understand it enough tbh, but it seems that Reeves has the power to stop the BoE’s quantitative tightening but refuses to use it. That’s one way she could help for starters. There seem to be several more options available to her as well that various economic commentators have mentioned, but again she’s reluctant to act for some reason.
Isabella Weber, a heterodox economist, showed in the linked paper how Neoclassical economists were wrong (again) on the causes of inflation. Even Krugman did a U-turn on that one.
Reeves has tried to stick to the dogma you find in any Neoclassical economics textbook. It will be interesting to see where she goes next, I think this rubbish should have been put to bed after the GFC, but given we are now halfway through the decisive decade on climate change, we had better change tack soon or as we are seeing in Los Angeles, the damages will be colossal.
The latest weird trend I have noticed is that right-wing Neoclassical theory is now 'independent' and heterodox theory is loony left-wing. Economics has become such a political battleground that I'm not sure any side is particularly interested in the truth. There was a chap on here recently questioning the economic acumen of a fellow poster, another said to me that prediction/ forecasting was beyond economists because of epistemic/deep uncertainty. The vocal ones on here constantly contradict each other and often make little sense (they're just nicking stuff off social media and then claiming it as their own thoughts).
I recently volunteered for a food bank which turns out to be a baby bank, clothes bank, sanitary bank, toy bank, debt advisor, provides free internet and supports numerous Ukrainian refugees. The people who have been running this for a few years now are incredibly selfless and see the true impact of idiotic economic policy.
2
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 23:01 - Jan 9 with 2120 views
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 19:52 - Jan 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna
There’s a lot to unpack there - some of it somewhat specious. This is where a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. Our monetary policy is independent and will hopefully remain that way. Giving politicians control of policy is dogmatic and dangerous- and it’s no coincidence only the populists like Trump, the current iteration of the Tories, and Corbynits were/are pushing to take control.
A country’s borrowing costs are not only impacted by the central bank rate, it’s more so the sovereign rating, overall level of debt, and the government’s actions have impacted this far more than the BoE.
Virtually every developed economy perused higher interest rates to dampen inflation, many to much higher extents than the UK. Supply side or not they had to take the heat out of the economy, and it will get worse as supply chains become strained over the next few years. The other point that many don’t seem to understand is that the increased interest rates were needed to prop up the sterling (and other non US denominated currency’s). Had the BoE not increased rates at least as fast as the Fed it would have been economic suicide. Sterling would have dropped lower and lower making commodities and other USD imports more expensive and further fueling inflation further (see Russia). The government’s budget impacting the pound so significantly will further delay any interest material rate drops.
The ratings agencies predicted all this, I dare say a further downgrade could be on the cards. it’s not on the BoE it’s a budget which Starmer backed himself into a corner. In the interest of balance most of these issues are downstream of the shocking state of affairs the Tories left.
[Post edited 9 Jan 19:58]
You’ll have no arguments from me on the little knowledge point. That’s why I pay more heed to people who know a lot more about it and don’t claim to know the answers. I can only really repeat what’s being said by those people (which doesn’t make for a great discussion!).
I don’t see how it would it damaging for Reeves to use her democratically won powers to make changes that benefits the Treasury and by extension the people of the UK. To govern is the reason why they’re there. The BoE and the City/markets don’t seem to have our best interests at heart.
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 22:12 - Jan 9 by CoachRob
Isabella Weber, a heterodox economist, showed in the linked paper how Neoclassical economists were wrong (again) on the causes of inflation. Even Krugman did a U-turn on that one.
Reeves has tried to stick to the dogma you find in any Neoclassical economics textbook. It will be interesting to see where she goes next, I think this rubbish should have been put to bed after the GFC, but given we are now halfway through the decisive decade on climate change, we had better change tack soon or as we are seeing in Los Angeles, the damages will be colossal.
The latest weird trend I have noticed is that right-wing Neoclassical theory is now 'independent' and heterodox theory is loony left-wing. Economics has become such a political battleground that I'm not sure any side is particularly interested in the truth. There was a chap on here recently questioning the economic acumen of a fellow poster, another said to me that prediction/ forecasting was beyond economists because of epistemic/deep uncertainty. The vocal ones on here constantly contradict each other and often make little sense (they're just nicking stuff off social media and then claiming it as their own thoughts).
I recently volunteered for a food bank which turns out to be a baby bank, clothes bank, sanitary bank, toy bank, debt advisor, provides free internet and supports numerous Ukrainian refugees. The people who have been running this for a few years now are incredibly selfless and see the true impact of idiotic economic policy.
The politicisation makes it really hard for an ignoramus like me to understand. I’ve no idea who to trust.
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 17:07 - Jan 9 by bluester
Worth noting that China will probably hit peak emissions this year. Also, the US has produced approximately 133 billion tons more co2 than China. Trump will be pleased to know they're number one in per capita by nearly double that of China.
Edit: seems I was wrong about per capita after seeing Positivity's post.
[Post edited 9 Jan 17:11]
the us was only really beaten by tiny nations and the major oil producers per capita (plus oz and canada)
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 22:12 - Jan 9 by CoachRob
Isabella Weber, a heterodox economist, showed in the linked paper how Neoclassical economists were wrong (again) on the causes of inflation. Even Krugman did a U-turn on that one.
Reeves has tried to stick to the dogma you find in any Neoclassical economics textbook. It will be interesting to see where she goes next, I think this rubbish should have been put to bed after the GFC, but given we are now halfway through the decisive decade on climate change, we had better change tack soon or as we are seeing in Los Angeles, the damages will be colossal.
The latest weird trend I have noticed is that right-wing Neoclassical theory is now 'independent' and heterodox theory is loony left-wing. Economics has become such a political battleground that I'm not sure any side is particularly interested in the truth. There was a chap on here recently questioning the economic acumen of a fellow poster, another said to me that prediction/ forecasting was beyond economists because of epistemic/deep uncertainty. The vocal ones on here constantly contradict each other and often make little sense (they're just nicking stuff off social media and then claiming it as their own thoughts).
I recently volunteered for a food bank which turns out to be a baby bank, clothes bank, sanitary bank, toy bank, debt advisor, provides free internet and supports numerous Ukrainian refugees. The people who have been running this for a few years now are incredibly selfless and see the true impact of idiotic economic policy.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum but theirs money to be made by playing the game so who cares!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 23:04 - Jan 9 by Swansea_Blue
The politicisation makes it really hard for an ignoramus like me to understand. I’ve no idea who to trust.
i'm not sure 'politicisation' is necessarily avoidable - it has always been thus. economics essentially provides a set of tools which can be used to construct opposing arguments. different political views can all have an economic expression. there is certainly a pretty robust current consensus amongst policy makers, and most academics, and in truth challenges to it haven't really got much traction. the current consensus includes inflation control being a matter for macro policy - price, wage and profit controls haven't been used at all in major economies since the 1970s (and in the 1970s they weren't a success). there is debate amongst economists - and that debate certainly has a clear political dimension. but that can't mean that anything goes - there is a set of long established 'facts' or 'realities' (established by a long history of very robust debate and challenge) that any alternative model needs to be able to incorporate if it is going to have wider support. economics is a social science, not a physical science, and it can't claim certainty or any single deterministic understanding. it isn't physics. at best it provides a form of 'grammar' through which debate is structured. again arguments compete, but replacing the current orthodoxy requires answers to be provided to the range of questions answered by the current orthodoxy, and for those answers to be as persuasive and as comprehensive as those provided by the current orthodoxy. it involves more than just finding an article which says what you want to hear. essentially, there is lots of room for disagreement (indeed political disagreement) - it is after all how social science progresses.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
1
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 06:49 - Jan 10 with 1657 views
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 23:01 - Jan 9 by Swansea_Blue
You’ll have no arguments from me on the little knowledge point. That’s why I pay more heed to people who know a lot more about it and don’t claim to know the answers. I can only really repeat what’s being said by those people (which doesn’t make for a great discussion!).
I don’t see how it would it damaging for Reeves to use her democratically won powers to make changes that benefits the Treasury and by extension the people of the UK. To govern is the reason why they’re there. The BoE and the City/markets don’t seem to have our best interests at heart.
“The BoE and the City/markets don’t seem to have our best interests at heart.”
You could make that argument about many of our politicians. Let’s not forget we were all happy the BoE was working against the elected Government to save our pensions from Truss and prop up our currency. We had three additional interest raises as a result of political meddling (with sterling hitting parity with USD). Now Labour have come into some critism suddenly the BoE is enemy of the people.
A lot of our national debt is raised and held internationally and has nothing to do with the City.
[Post edited 10 Jan 11:40]
0
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 07:06 - Jan 10 with 1605 views
Six biggest US banks quit net zero alliance on 06:49 - Jan 10 by SuperKieranMcKenna
“The BoE and the City/markets don’t seem to have our best interests at heart.”
You could make that argument about many of our politicians. Let’s not forget we were all happy the BoE was working against the elected Government to save our pensions from Truss and prop up our currency. We had three additional interest raises as a result of political meddling (with sterling hitting parity with USD). Now Labour have come into some critism suddenly the BoE is enemy of the people.
A lot of our national debt is raised and held internationally and has nothing to do with the City.
[Post edited 10 Jan 11:40]
And that international debt seems to be where we’re held hostage by the interest rates. Could the government not borrow instead from the BoE at lower rates? Or even from UK savers? That seems to be the suggestion in some circles.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
