This is a story about the rich:poor divide...

Theresa May, the British prime minister, had the gall to lecture the poor on living within their means. In actual fact, the poor are working hard and just trying to keep up with the wealthy, who are racing ahead.

If you look at the Instagram account called Rich Kids of Instagram you will see that it is extremely popular. 'Reality' TV shows that have followed mega-rich people like Ozzy Osborne and family, the Kardashians and the cast of Made in Chelsea, are some of the most viewed and talked about things on television. Wealth worship is everywhere, and is it wrong for people to feel that they deserve a little of the life that is rammed down their throats by the media?

When we are talking about living within our means, this is coming from politicians who spend 6-figure sums of money each year on expenses alone, while also pocketing salaries that are many many times more than the average wage. The problem comes right from the top. The more that rich public figures splash their cash, the more the hypocrisy is insulting when they tell the poor to tighten their belts.

How many people on council estates are driving Ferraris that they can't afford the repayments on? How many hardworking families have ordered yachts that they now can't afford to pay the remaining balance on?

When we talk about living within our means, we are talking about people who are quite familiar with budgeting, make do and mending, and the general attitudes of postwar austerity. Really, when talking about living within our means, we should be talking to the banks, who recklessly endangered their financial stability by not living within their means in terms of their ability to maintain solvency. It's the banks that are insufficiently capitalised and are excessively over-leveraged. It's the banks that have lent many, many, many times more money than their reserves allow, in the pursuit of endless effortless profits.

When a person borrows money, they intend to repay that money using hard work. The borrower will go to their job every day, and be productive. In return for a person's hard work - productivity - they will receive their salary, with which they will buy the things that they need and repay their debts.

When a banker lends money, they intend to profit for no labour at all. Through interest slavery, the banker will make money, simply because they already have money. Using the money multiplier - fractional reserve banking - the banker will in fact be able to lend the same money, over and over and over again, multiplying the amount of effortless interest that is earned each time.

It is the banks who are not living within their means, nor being hardworking or productive in any way. It is the banks who have decimated global finances, and are now demanding that the hardworking people accept austerity, pay freezes, job insecurity, unemployment and low growth, simply because they overstretched themselves in pursuit of yet more effortless and labour free income for doing absolutely nothing.

Let's imagine that a banker, with zero money of his own, is paying a generous interest rate of 0.25% on deposits - exactly the same as the Bank of England. Using a fractional reserve of 5%, which is the minimum requirement for today's stress-tests of banks, to make sure they're adequately capitalised in the event of another credit crunch, that means the banker can multiply a £1,000 deposit into nearly £19,000 worth of loans. Obviously, the loans carry a hefty interest rate. Let's imagine that the banker lends out the £19k as overdrafts, which often carry a 20% APR on the high street. In a year, the banker will now net nearly £4,000 of profit, for doing absolutely nothing, out of just a £1,000 deposit. That's a 4 to 1 ratio! For every £1 deposited with Utter Bastard Bank Plc, they're going to make nearly £4!!

So, while the poor toil and tighten their belts, buying the cheapest groceries they can and cutting back on every expense, the banks are getting fat for doing absolutely nothing at all. Interest slavery is a con and a crime, and the perpetuation of this situation is the only reason why ordinary hardworking people are having to suffer NHS cuts, crowded public transport, packed classrooms, pay cuts, redundancies and every other economic penalty for the bankers' failure to live within their means.

Yes, we'd all like to make money while we sleep. Yes, we'd all like money for nothing. However, a bank is just utter bullshit. A bank is supposed to be an instrument to grease the wheels of commerce, not a massive leech, sucking so many pounds out of people's pockets, for every penny they leave in their bank accounts.

And, when you're richer, the things that go wrong in your life are mere pocket change. Let's look at a person who earns £20k, versus a banker who earns £200k, i.e. a 10 to 1 ratio:

• Parking fine £50... costs the banker £5
• Car breakdown £500... costs the banker £50
• Need a new central heating boiler £3,000... costs the banker £300
• Private school fees £12,000... costs the banker £1,200
• Food £300... costs the banker £30
• Holiday £700... costs the banker £70

Imagine if your budget used the values that the banker pays. They're a much smaller percentage of your income, aren't they? Life would be a lot easier if everything cost 1/10th of what it does. Well, guess what, the banker pays exactly what you pay, except they earn 10 times as much, so the two things are equivalent.

Everybody's car breaks down from time to time. It's a fact of life. In fact the shitty old unreliable banger that the poor family bought, is much more likely to break down than the brand new BMW that has a warranty, that the banker bought.

Once you've got money, you can keep it and you can make some more. If you haven't got any, no amount of living within your means is going to improve your situtation. It's a con. It's utter bullshit. It's a swindle.

When the banks in Italy start to fail, and cause a domino-like collapse of all the banks across the world in a re-run of the 2007/08 financial crisis, except much, much worse, it will become apparent that all of the suffering that ordinary people have gone through in order to rescue a deeply flawed banking system, was for nothing.

I think people are going to be pretty angry when they realise that patronising idiots like Theresa May arrived in their positions of power by luck not good judgement. I think people are going to be pretty angry when they find out that the good times never stopped in the City of London, and pay rises and bonuses are just as big as they ever were, while all the hardworking ordinary people suffer the consequences of propping up a broken and corrupt system.

It's time to smash the system, and rip it out of the hands of a psychopathic elite who would have us starving and dirty, living on the streets, if it meant they could maintain their ill-gotten position of wealth, power and domination.

What's the difference between a successful banker and a struggling worker? Absolutely fuck all, apart from pure dumb luck, but those arrogant fucks don't even realise how fucking hypocritical and patronising they are when they accuse other people of being underachievers, having been profligate and poorly mismanaged their finances, and having not worked hard enough.

It incenses me, that a tiny handful have such unimaginable wealth, when so many billions live in abject poverty. Just 62 people have as much money as 3.6 billion others. There is so much that is wrong with that. Off with their fucking heads!

Tags: #banking #capitalism #politics

This is a story about profit...

If you work in a free market capitalist economy, the company you work for is run for maximum profitability. In order to maximise profits, a company will have the fewest possible admin staff it can, to keep overheads low, whilst also having as many revenue generating staff members as the demand for the company's products and services can support. There are no jobs that are created, solely for the benefit of the employee.

Think about it: if you were to quit, the things that you do wouldn't be getting done. If you're in an administrative function, perhaps that means bills not getting paid, invoices not being issued or regulatory requirements not being met. Sooner or later your business is going to get shut down if it neglects its backoffice functions. If you're in a sales function, that means less revenue for the business. Less revenue means less turnover, which lowers the company's valuation, making it harder for them to raise money for expansion. Less revenue means lower profits, meaning less champagne at the shareholders' annual meeting and tough questions asked of the board of directors.

Your salary is a payment for your time. Your time is then used to enable the company to continue to trade, or to make it directly more profitable. Your salary is offset by profits. Your salary is not a gift, out of the kindness of the heart of your boss. Your salary is way less than the profit that somebody else will pocket, for your efforts. Your salary is a price worth paying because the things that you do while at work will generate more money than it costs to employ you.

The business of employing people, is the process of getting somebody to do something instead of you doing it, but you get to keep a proportion of the fruits of their labour. The profit generated is many, many times more than the cost of the wages.

And so, we have described the ragged trousered philanthropists. It is the workers who are generously donating the vast proportion of the fruits of their labour, to an idle wealthy elite who employ them. The wages of those who toil at the bottom of the pyramid scheme, are inadequate to pay for high quality housing, the education of their children and nutritious food. Instead, the people who pick your vegetables and build your houses, and generally give themselves arthritic joints, bad backs and knackered knees, are left with ill health and a pittance of a pension when they are so overworked that they can no longer remain in the workforce.

But, we are told, you should count yourself lucky to have a job!

Lucky? Lucky? Oh, how terribly fortunate that I have enabled members of the board of directors to buy another yacht, or to purchase another rare artwork to hang on the walls of their mansion. La-de-da, how lucky I am to have been able to plump up the trust funds and offshore bank balances of rich shareholders.

But, there's nothing to stop the likes of you or I from quitting our jobs, and starting our own companies, is there?

Well, there are economies of scale and there are monopolies. Certain businesses will not be very profitable for the likes of you or I, because they have a low gross margin. When a company grows very large through acquisitions, swallowing up all of its competitors, it is better placed to capitalise on a market, because it's a dominant player. Also, the cost of administrative, legal and tax obligations as percentage of the overall running costs, is much lower for the very large company, which makes it more profitable.

When a company becomes very large indeed, it is even able to headquarter itself in a country with a favourable tax deal, so all the wealth that is generated by those ragged-trousered philanthropists, flows out of the country where they live and work, so even their public services become deprived of their vital cash.

Yes, you must consider yourself lucky to be able to have grown your company so large that it is able to cheat even the government out of the taxes that would pay for higher quality housing, healthcare and eduction, that would at least be some recompense for the fact that you see such a tiny share of the profit that you generate.

But don't companies offer their staff share options, and bonuses? No. These schemes are just scams to buy your loyalty cheaply. Share options cost far less than offering an attractive salary that would keep you with the company. When you really look into how much money you're going to make when you can finally exercise the options, you will see that your employer has bought your loyalty extremely cheaply.

The pips have been squeezed too much, and the wealth has not been shared. Large companies have not made the societal contributions that we must all make - taxes - to prevent the ordinary workers from suffering a drop in living standards. Education, healthcare, public transport, housing: these things are all chronically underfunded, while the mega-rich are opulently wealthy, living in a totally different world from those who toil tirelessly to add yet more zeros onto obscene bank balances.

It's time to soak the rich, not be grateful for our jobs.

Tags: #capitalism #banking #politics

This is a story about brainwashing...

How do you think that somebody who has worked for the best part of 20 years in the investment banking technology sector, mostly as an IT consultant, would re-adjust to being under lock and key in a psychiatric hospital? The answer is: very easily.

Hospitals and the NHS are a home from home for anybody who's worked for an organisation with hundreds of thousands of employees. The ways that large organisations function are largely the same. The way that systems and processes are supposed to control large numbers of people, are nearly identical.

Being in the loony bin was welcome relief from the bullshit day job, but it's not like I had absented myself from all responsibilities. I still had to have my wits about me to avoid being medicated against my will and put under a 'section' - involuntary commitment to a secure facility, by rule of law - which could have seen my 2 week voluntary stay extended anywhere from 28 days to 6 months.

How did I manage it so easily? Perhaps it's because I knew I could leave any time I wanted to, but perhaps it could be because nearly 20 years of going to a shit office to do a shit job, has kinda prepared me for the monotony, rhythm and routine of spending weeks on end trapped somewhere I don't want to be.

There was a danger that just the very act of asking to leave could have triggered the doctors to decide to force me to stay longer. I knew that I had to remain calm, and give the medical team  enough of a peek at my psyche to be able to make a judgement that I was safe to release back into the wilderness.

The psychiatrist who took me under his care was in two minds, after 6 days, whether he was going to insist on 'committing' me, so that he'd get 28 or so days to poke around inside my head. Naturally, most people would freak out, if they found out that their liberty was about to be taken away from them. It's a game of brinksmanship: who's going to blink first.

Obviously, we don't 'commit' people any more to asylums. Instead we detain them under a section of the Mental Health Act, and put them in secure psychiatric facilities. You're no longer a loony in the loony bin. You're a "service user" in a "care facility". Of course, I'm not saying that the function is not useful or should not be trusted. I'm just pointing out that the names of things have been changed.

Bizarrely, if you say "I'm going to kill myself, I need to be locked up" you are very unlikely to be locked up. If you walk up to the hospital reception desk and use their phone to contact the switchboard, ask to be connected to the bleep holder for Psychiatric Liaison, and explain frankly your situation, you will have an amusing conversation with the poor Psychiatrist who has to follow official channels, but you're not going to get anywhere. The times that I have been admitted as an inpatient to a psychiatric facility, it has just taken time & patience. Only the truly desperate will sit in Accident & Emergency for 13 hours just patiently waiting for help.

Conversely, if you say "I'm not mad, I'm fine" once you're in the system, or in any way try to rush the process along, you're going to end up held down on the floor with somebody injecting Risperidone and Haloperidol in you, and you might wake up 40 years later, shuffling around the corridors of some institution, with the marked side effects of powerful psychiatric drugs causing you to make involuntary facial movements.

You can't fight the system. You can't fight the frustrating fact that you'll never get ahead in life and must instead sit at a desk keeping a seat warm, just so that your boss can appoint somebody from outside the company to come in and be incompetent at the job you were hoping to be promoted into, even though you were experienced and qualified to do it. You can't fight the frustrating fact that your miserable boring existence, helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, is making you pretty depressed, and you really want to fuck everything off and watch everything burn down.

Who is mad and who is sane? That doctor who just declared you to be mentally ill probably talks to their imaginary friend called Dob or Gob or Dog or Dod (or is it God?) who really knows? There's no proof that their imaginary friend exists, just like the doctor has no proof that the voices you hear aren't real and you aren't actually the Son of Dob, resurrected on Earth.

The invisible line between sane and insane is very blurry, when billions of people genuinely believe in magic, invisible entities that don't exist, and have absolute faith that some children's fairy tales are actually instructions that should be devoutly and literally followed to the letter as some kind of prescription for life.

It seems highly irreverent to say it, but people need to speak up, because the loonies are actually in charge of the asylum, when we elect and hand over power to people who believe in their invisible friends, fairy tales and magic.

By the way, for the record, I don't hear voices and I don't think I'm Jesus. But then, saying that kinda makes me sound a bit mad, doesn't it?

Tags: #mentalhealth #nhs #hospital #suicide #depression #religion #politics

This is a story about ingratitude...

Why do I attack the industry that has suckled me? Why am I so angry and upset with the profession that has nurtured me? Why am I so ungrateful for my whopping big salary and cushy benefits?

Administration: the unnecessary bureaucratic headache that creates unwelcome red tape, adds no value to the real economy and is an overhead that limits the productivity, innovation and creativity of those who are truly useful. I don't work in the Information Technology business. I work in the business of administration.

The two most productive things that I do in any given week are filling in my timesheet and submitting my invoice for payment. The most important thing that I do each quarter is to pay my Value-Added Tax (VAT) down to the precise penny that I owe. If I'm not perfectly on top of my bureaucratic administration, the Government will stop me doing my 'real' job, which is creating software.

But what does the software I create do anyway? Most of it is just keeping score. It's bean-counting software. It's software that creates jobs for zillions of IT professionals like me, so that companies can get rid of zillions of administrators, that they immediately re-employ to make sure their IT professionals are filling in their timesheets correctly.

For every person who I put out of a job, by automating the processes they perform, the company will then invent some other pointless position. Our whole economy is based on bullshit jobs.

Should I be happy to have a job, and to count my blessings? Well, no. It's immoral to not consider whether you are having a positive or a negative impact on society, and on the planet. To count my blessings is an incitement to be wilfully ignorant of global issues, and the betterment of humanity.

So what am I doing instead, to align my values? How do I reconcile the rhetoric of what I preach with the obvious fact that I am enabling massive corporations to continue to ride roughshod over the human race and the fragile planet?

Well, I take the money, and with it I pay my rent & bills. And then, I spend 90% of my time thinking about issues and writing this blog. I'm not paid to create software - so little of my time is actually spent doing that - instead, I'm paid to bite the hand that feeds me. It's an inside job. I'm disruptive and cynical. I'm disillusioned and critical.

Does that mean my colleagues have to work harder to make up for me slacking? No. It doesn't work like that. If my boss asks me to do something, I won't do it. I'll wait to see if they ask me again. My boss isn't going to ask somebody else to do it, because they've already asked me to do it. 9 times out of 10, I'll never be asked again. The tenth time, I'll realise that whatever was asked of me actually was important, so I'll apologise and do the work.

So, am I idle? Absolutely not. With the time I could have spent doing those 9 things that were clearly unnecessary, I will conduct a kind of audit. I will go around, looking to see if there's anything more useful I could be doing. Invariably, there isn't. Everybody is just so locked into a hierarchical system of managers, administrators & clerks, that nobody has looked at the bigger picture and realised that what they're doing is absolute bullshit. Or if anybody has realised that their job is utter bullshit, they're not talking about it.

Now, I'm not talking about nurses, garbage collectors, train drivers, firemen. It's pretty obvious what the useful function of many front-line workers is. However, these people are working all hours for some of the lowest wages. No manager needs to tell a nurse to help a patient who is in pain & discomfort. No administrative drone needs to make sure that a garbage collector is hitting their Key Performance Indicators and is going to achieve their annual objectives at their appraisal. Either the important job is done, or it isn't.

There are functions that literally nobody would miss, except maybe not being harassed by an army of micromanagers and bureaucrats. Isn't it the case that you're propping up a sick and twisted system, by continuing to count your blessings and not rock the boat?

I frankly find it disgusting that I'm paid so many more times more than what a nurse gets paid. If I was to simply sit back and "think positive" and try to enjoy my ill-gotten gains, doesn't that make me a terrible, terrible person?

It's probably true that the world doesn't need any more bloggers, but what am I supposed to do? Impoverish myself and retrain as yet another disrespected front-line worker? It's hardly like they're being heard today, is it? How are the social wrongs ever going to be righted?

It seems to me that the right thing to do is to speak up. Yes, I jeopardise my lucrative career in doing so, but it's the right thing to do. People are more likely to listen to an IT consultant from the banking world, who is critical of the sector that pays me handsomely, than they are to somebody who could easily be dismissed as simply "jealous" or "not smart enough" to land themselves a similar job.

Truly, I do not think that front line workers are not smart enough to do my job. In actual fact, you have to be pretty dumb to be able to turn a blind eye to the social injustice of being highly paid to be an idle manager of hardworking people who do the real jobs.

I currently have no cash to put my money where my mouth is. Quitting my job would literally see me homeless and destitute again. However, I do anticipate a time when I will be faced with a true test of my morality: when I am able, will I quit the rat race and try to do something that is more in line with my values?

I have massively impoverished myself, trying to take an ethical stance, and I would do it again. It's the right thing to do.

Tags: #politics #banking #capitalism #career #computing

This is a story about the debt spiral...

When the burden of debt in society is too great, and lenders are unwilling to forgive - to take a debt haircut or even write off debts - then there will be popular uprisings.

It's not that people don't want to repay their debts. In fact, most people accept that debt is a necessary evil in order to get the things they need when they need them, rather than towards the end of their life, in senile old age and infirmity.

And so, we become burdened with a mortgage, in order to give our family a stable roof over their heads. We become burdened with a car on hire purchase, so that we have a reliable and safe modern vehicle to be able to take the kids to school, and to get us to work without breaking down. We put our holidays and special occasions on credit cards, and pay back the debt when we get back, or after the festivities are over.

Most people diligently repay their debts.

In free-market economics, prices are able to fluctuate to find the point where affordability meets maximum profit. Do you think the cost price to the producer or supplier of the goods and services that you purchase, bears any relation to the retail price that you pay? Of course not. That's why a designer brand T-shirt costs at least 10 times as much as an unbranded garment, even though they come from the same sweatshop in the developing world.

In our consumer society, you are 'free' to select the goods and services that you want. However, in order to fit in with your buddies who are in a similar socioeconomic group to you, you will select the brands that they do. If you're rich, you'll do your supermarket shopping at Waitrose. If you're poor, you'll do your shopping at Asda/Walmart. However, the food you buy will have similar calorific content.

The brands become better and better at pricing their products so that you are just about able to buy everything you need, but won't have much spare cash left over. The brands know the income bracket that they're targeting, so they know the level where their consumers will become price insensitive. I literally don't care whether my coffee costs £2 or £4. If my coffee cost £5, then I'd think "blimey! that was expensive, I'm not going to go there again" but the £2 coffee shop could literally increase their prices 100% and I wouldn't even notice.

Once everybody has maxed out their budget, on the mortgage, the car finance, the credit cards, the overdraft, the store cards and some personal loans, where do you really go from there?

We demand that our corporations make increasing profits, but yet in order to do so they must hold down wage inflation and the cost of raw materials. We demand that our economy grows, but in order to do so, people must use increasing amounts of their limited pot of disposable income to drive consumption. What happens when everybody is just maxed out?

We're living in the age of low growth, high borrowing and low wage inflation. In order to sustain corporate profits, the cost of goods & services continues to increase. In order to prop up the capital growth of the pension funds, asset prices - such as house prices - have continued to be overvalued. However, the only way that the general population have been able to maintain their standard of living is through borrowing.

Ordinary people have not been profligate and stupid. People were promised pay rises and promotions, and instead they've been given job insecurity and wage cuts in real terms. If your wage increases just a few percent, but the cost of your housing, bills, food and transportation all increase in double-digit terms, then you're actually getting poorer.

If the headline rate of inflation - which is pretty much just concerned with wages - is low, then the value of your loans & mortgages is not getting inflated away. The baby boomers might complain about interest rates reaching over 15% in the late 1970s, but they forget that their wages were also increasing too. By the time the 1980s came around, people's mortgages were a tiny fraction of what they were earning.

What we see today is people's cost of living skyrocketing, but their wages are the same, which means they're earning less and less in real terms. If your wages stay the same, and your cost of living is increasing, that means you have less and less money to service your debts. So, you tighten your belt and cut back on your consumer spending, which in turn hurts an economy that is so dependent on spend, spend, spend!

What we see today is far worse than the Japanese stagflation that meant that the price of goods and services was getting cheaper, which encouraged people to become thrifty because they could buy things more cheaply if they waited. Instead, what we are seeing is people who have been promised growth, completely screwed over by a system that robs them of their wealth with no opportunity to do anything about it.

In a zero growth world, debts need to be forgiven or else ordinary people will become so unhappy that they will overthrow their idle creditors.

Tags: #banking #capitalism #politics

This is a story about worthless paper...

Do you want to know how to make an infinite amount of money? First, you should obtain a boat. Then, take out as many insurance policies as you can afford the premiums of, on the boat. Then, sink the boat and claim on the insurance policies.

Why can't you do this? Well, because it's illegal to insure something more than once, for the very reason that it creates a financial incentive to go around sinking boats. People respond to economic incentives.

However, it is possible to take out as many life insurance policies as you want. The reason being, that it is assumed that because murder is illegal and suicide used to be (now it's decriminalised) then there is some protection from those who wish to profit from death.

But what about a company? Is a company a person-like entity? Should it be possible to buy life insurance policies for a company?

What is a Credit Default Swap? Well, the simplest explanation is that it's a life insurance policy for a company. If a company gets into a financially distressed situation where it can no longer repay its debts, then the Credit Default Swap will pay out. This is called a credit event. Basically, a credit event normally means the company is dying, because they can't pay their debts. A company that defaults on its debts is never going to be able to refinance themselves after a credit event, because their credit rating will be junk. Game over.

So, if you allow people to take out an infinite amount of Credit Default Swaps, betting that a company is going to go bust, aren't you economically incentivising that event to happen? If there's a bigger and bigger pool of money that is hoping that a company goes bankrupt, that is far bigger than the pool of money who want to see the company rescued, isn't the market going to quite naturally want to push that company under, so that almost everybody gets a big payday?

We know that markets can be manipulated, and because Credit Default Swaps are an Over-The-Counter (OTC) product, there is no market regulation. It's not possible to know who is dealing in these financial instruments, and who stands to benefit. They're kind of ideal for insider trading, because they just don't have the same kind of traceability of equities that are traded on stock exchanges.

The other un-nerving thing about Credit Default Swaps, is that there is no underwriter, and no need to prove that you have sufficient collateral to cover the paper that you have printed. It's possible for organisations to sell vast quantities of Credit Default Swaps, and have nowhere near enough money to cover the losses if the credit events happen.

In the insurance market of Lloyds, there are wealthy names who provide the collateral - cash, precious metals, priceless artworks, property, liquid assets (like shares) etc. etc. - to make sure that the money is there in the event of an earthquake, flood, fire or whatever massive disaster might affect the insurance industry in a major way.

However, in the derivatives market, only the mature products like Futures and Options would have margin calls and require collateral to make sure that losses never exceed one counterparty's ability to pay. Credit Default Swaps have been allowed to be printed completely without regulation, which is concerned with making sure that a credit event wouldn't totally wipe out the risk holders.

Some measures put the Credit Default Swaps market at about $16 trillion, however, when all the contracts were entered into the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation's central system in 2008, the aggregate notional value of the contracts was closer to $2 quadrillion ($1,700,000,000,000,000). That's a shit tonne of worthless paper.

But is it worthless? Well, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a credit event, the money that was demanded by those looking to cash in their Credit Default Swaps would have brought down massive companies like AIG as well as putting a deadly dent in the balance sheet of just about every investment bank with a proprietary trading desk (i.e. all of them) who had been foolishly dabbling with these stupid contracts.

Why stupid? Well, the whole idea of being able to make unlimited bets against a company is market manipulating beyond belief. Who's going to recapitalise a company and save it, when you can bet against it in secret instead? Why wouldn't anybody who gets the vaguest whiff of a company in financial trouble not rush off and place large untraceable wagers that it's going to fail?

Naked short selling is pretty bad, but there's only a certain amount of leverage that you can get, and you have to have the collateral to cover your exposure to the risk that the market might go against you. When you're talking about naked Credit Default Swaps, you're looking at the ability to get leverage of thousands of times the amount of money you're actually risking. That kind of potential profit has the ability to move the market, and collapse a company.

It's a simple moral question: if companies are like people, and therefore allowed to be 'life insured', should we be allowed to murder them so that we can cash in on their death?

Tags: #banking #capitalism #jpmorgan #derivatives

This is a story about ethics...

Imagine if you or I got caught laundering the best part of a billion dollars worth of drug money. We'd get sent to jail for a very long time, right? What if a bank got caught doing it, and there was so much evidence that there was clearly a case for criminal wrongdoing that could be prosecuted? Well, maybe you'd get given a chance to get rid of some of your dodgy customers, and nobody would go to jail. Does that sound fair?

Let's think about the financial crisis of 2007/08, when reckless trading meant that the whole banking sector had to be bailed out, causing austerity for ordinary hardworking people. The people who have paid the highest price - with lower wages, job insecurity and cutbacks for frontline services - would never be able to go begging for interest free loans if they behaved so irresponsibly.

Bankruptcy is not a criminal offence. It's OK for a private citizen to run up huge debts, find out they could never hope to possibly repay their creditors, and declare bankruptcy. You don't go to jail for bankruptcy.

So, arguably, what the banks did in 2007/08 wasn't that bad. It wasn't criminal. They had their risk underwritten by governments, so why wouldn't they take huge risks with public money? They were economically incentivised to take those risks, because the precedent of the "too big to fail" bailouts meant that there was no downside risk.

But what about money laundering? What about facilitating payments for drug gangs, dealers, traffickers? If you or I were involved in any of that as a private citizen, the courts would throw the book at us. They'd lock us up and throw away the key. It's criminal.

So, what about the banks? If the biggest bank in Europe - HSBC - was well known to authorities for helping a couple of major drug gangs to launder the best part of a billion dollars in dirty money, wouldn't that be criminal too? Wouldn't people go to jail?

Well, no. Enter the concept of "too big to jail". Just like the financial bailouts that the banks received, banks can also receive Deferred Prosecution Agreements. That is to say, even though you got caught doing criminal stuff, you'll get let off so long as you take some steps to stop doing it in future.

And how long would you have to get rid of your dodgy customers? Well, say the US Department of Justice were thinking about prosecuting you in 2012, you might still be botching the IT project that is apparently 'essential' to get rid of your dodgy customers 4 years later... in 2016.

How much do HSBC really know about their customers anyway? Well, from their electronic records that they already have on file, they know about 6% of what they need to know. So basically, they don't know 94% of what they need to know.

Now, you might not be an IT project management expert, but you'd have thought that it's more important to find out the missing 94% of what you don't know, than even to bother with the 6% that you do know. Sure, it's pretty embarrassing to have to ask your customers where they live again, but what you really need to know is this: where did you get your fucking money?

In Customer Due Diligence terms, this is called Source of Wealth. You might have inherited the money (legit), you might have won the lottery (legit), you might have sold a priceless artwork (legit) and you might have trafficked vast quantities of illegal narcotics (not legit). Basically, HSBC had 4 years to ask all their customers "is your source of wealth drug money?". Did they manage this? No.

I'm quite spectacularly offended by just how badly they botched a simple project to ask all their customers to fess up: are you in the illegal drugs business?

Sure, it's true that HSBC had to cough up a couple of billion dollars in fines, but for them that's just the cost of doing business. Their profitability was barely affected.

Arguments were made to the US to defer prosecution, and to allow HSBC to keep its banking charter and continue to do business in the United States. These arguments were made on the basis of maintaining stability in the financial markets. The Deferred Prosecution Agreement came with stringent terms, that a court would appoint a Monitor to make sure that HSBC actually cleaned up their act. I can tell you now, Michael Cherkasky, that the project to clean up HSBC's customer base was a total sham. A shambolic waste of time & money, mismanaged to the point that the whole thing was laughable.

Do you think that message that is sent to "too big to fail" organisations, that they're above the law and they can never go bankrupt because they'll always be bailed out, is looking like the right one, today, now, in 2016?

The argument that has been made is that we need to prop up the share prices so that the pension funds are protected, and we need to maintain financial stability. Isn't that just utter bullshit, in the face of austerity and extreme volatility in the markets? We've had round after round of Quantitative Easing (QE) and other attempts to breathe life into markets that have lost their minds. There is nothing at all rational or efficient about the global markets that we see today.

And to round it all off, it's corrupt as hell. To allow banks to ride roughshod over the rule of law is the final step in handing over the nations of the world to the multinational corporations who have driven us into a position of financial ruin, much to the pain of the vast majority of ordinary working people. It stinks of the worst corruption ever perpetrated on Western civilisation, does it not?

Somebody has to call time on the lack of ethics and accountability for the too big to fail organisations, and their board members who are too big to jail.

When we allow the likes of Stuart Gulliver to be the CEO of HSBC, when he doesn't even keep his wealth in the bank he manages, but instead keeps it hidden in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, clearly we have corruption right from the top down.

David Cameron, outgoing Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said, as recently as April, that "[I] can't point to every source of every bit of [my] money" but yet we would have the likes of you or I have to prove that our filthy lucre was not ill-gotten gains from some criminal enterprise. The corruption comes from the very top of both Government and organisations. It stinks.

Who is going to grasp the nettle and hold Government and large enterprise to account for having run us into economic ruin, while busily siphoning wealth offshore?

There needs to be accountability. There needs to be jail time for corrupt executives and government ministers.

Tags: #banking #capitalism #hsbc #politics

This is a story about speaking to the audience...

Acknowledging the reader is not a great literary device, when overused. I think I have pushed most people away, by writing with a very lecturing tone. When I address my readers as "you" I normally have somebody in mind. I tend to be using this blog as a passive-aggressive device, to attack those who have wronged or offended me.

When I write about "get a job" idiots, it's because I'm highly offended, when I've had a 20 year career and been in full time education or employment since age 4. When my hackles are raised because somebody says "everybody has to work" it's because I've probably put up with more shitty boring jobs than most people, and racked up more hours. Investment Banking is not known as a career for slackers. IT projects always demand you to pull some epic hours to get things over the line.

When I write about the hypocrisy of my parents, it's because they epitomise everything I would never want to become: lazy, underachieving, highly critical and negative people, who have always put their own selfish wants ahead of their children's needs. When I look at the general decline in living standards of the younger generation, it triggers my deep sense of having had an enjoyable time as a child and young adult robbed from me. And for what? So I can now have a miserable boring job?

There's a Frank Zappa quote that I like, though:

If you end up with a boring miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest, or some guy on television telling you how to do your shit, then you deserve it

But, in the words of my Dad: "you've got to pay to play". Of course, he forgets that his Dad was a wealthy accountant who very much paid for him to play.

So, I'm working a job that I hate, because I needed money and I needed it fast. Here in London I can get an IT contract very quickly and easily, and earn 5 or 6 times more than the average wage. You might think it's ungrateful, spoilt, to take this for granted and to even be unhappy, but after 20 years of playing the same game, using the same tried-and-trusted formula, there is no novelty, no surprises.

When I was 20 years old, I was earning £400/day working for Lloyds TSB in Canary Wharf. I was doing exactly the same work that I do today. It might seem vulgar to talk about money, but maybe you need to know why I'm not exactly thrilled to get out of bed in the morning.

There's a high-water mark: an expectation, set by your experiences. I really don't live any kind of jet-set life. I shop in regular supermarkets, I rarely eat out, I drink wine that costs less than £10 a bottle. I don't pay for satellite television, luxury gym membership or in any way indulge expensive tastes. Even my suit is threadbare and worn out, and I wear cheap shoes.

Some people need the status symbols, the trappings of wealth. Sure, I could plough my income into having a Ferrari, a speedboat, but you're missing the point: I completely rejected the rat race, made myself destitute, and I loved it. The feeling of liberation from monthly downpayments on some material object, or mortgage payments on bricks & mortar, brought joy back to my soul.

The highlight of my week was talking to the guy who shone my shoes. Under the grand arches of Leadenhall Market, by the futuristic Lloyds building in the City, this chap told me that he had quit his job as an auditor for Ernst & Young, and had become an actor. Sure, he was poor - having to shine shoes for £5 a pop - but you could see he was clearly in love with his life again.

You might see pictures of my fancy apartment, with its river views and think "flash bastard" and "that must cost a pretty penny". However, you have simply been fooled by the image that I wish to project... in fact, I need to project. I get paid a lot of money because I'm successfully hiding the fact that I'm a desperate man on the ragged limit of control. Only the semicolon tattoo behind my ear slightly gives away the fact that I'm living a life of quiet desperation.

In actual fact, the rent on my apartment comes to roughly double what it cost me to live in a hostel. Instead of living in a 14-bed dormitory with people who are on the very bottom rung of society, and having to share a bathroom and protect my few possessions from theft and spoil, instead I have an ample sized ensuite bedroom, storage cupboard and expansive reception rooms in which to relax in comfort.

You would think that living in a hostel would be cheap, so paying twice as much does not sound unreasonable, correct? When you consider that I can safely keep my bicycle in my hallway, I have a central London parking space, and amazing views over the River Thames from my balcony, you must surely recognise the value for money that I'm getting.

My one threadbare suit I only use for interviews, and the rest of the time I wear £50 trousers from John Lewis, no jacket and no tie. Somebody complemented me on my sharp attire the other day, and asked if my clothes had been tailored to fit me. I could only chuckle to myself, knowing that my outfit is entirely cheap off the peg stuff.

My accountant must despair of me, as I always cut things mighty fine. There is no profligacy - every penny I spend is calculated, right down to the few bits of bling that are necessary to indicate that you have attained a certain social status. It's just going to look a bit weird if you're an IT professional with a cheap shit laptop.

The really frustrating thing is how easy it is to fool people. Everybody assumes that under the surface, everything is just fine. If you dress yourself up in the right clothes and pretend like everything is tickety-boo, people have no reason to suspect that you are one negative event away from killing yourself.

I have no idea how I'm going to sustain the charade. Just because you're settled into your little rut, and figured out a system to keep turning the pedals, doesn't mean that I can do it. Smile and take the money, right? But what if it's too easy? What if the formula has been so perfected, that life is a paint-by-numbers?

I tried to teach a friend how to blag and hustle. I tried to show him the magic formula. I busted my balls to transfer as much knowledge as possible about how to play the game. He's no fool, and knew a few of the tricks of the trade already. However, ultimately he let himself down, because of the subtle detail.

There must be something that sets people apart. What is it that shatters the illusion? It could be something as simple as not noticing that your suit has still got the slit in the back of the jacket held together by a stitch of thread that you are supposed to cut yourself. It could be as simple as a cheap pen, or umbrella. It could be a single moment of self-doubt, or an answer to a question that clearly betrays the fact you're blagging, because you fail to one-up the interviewer and blind them with things they don't understand.

It might sound like snobbery, but it's actually the very essence of how people get into positions of authority. Having a shirt monogrammed with your initials, wearing an expensive wristwatch, carrying a Moleskine notebook, writing with a Mont Blanc pen, wearing the correct style suit and shirt and shoes. It's all so shallow, but sadly it works.

I'm part of a boys club, and there's no way I can show my hand. There's no way that my colleagues would be able to process the fact that I'm barely coping with mental health problems, the threat of relapse into drug addiction, and a desire to return to a simpler life when I didn't have to grind just to pay taxes, rent and maintain a fake image of having my shit together.

If I address the audience, it's because I'm so lonely in the little stage-play of my daily life. From Monday to Friday, I'm putting on a poker face, and looking busy at my desk. I face the threat of being found out as a blagger, a hustler, at any moment. The homeless guy is not welcome in the club. There's no room for anybody with a weakness, in the corporate dog-eat-dog world.

My colleagues tell me I'm doing a good job, and they like working with me, but I feel like a fraud when I submit my invoice for the week, and I think about how much time I spent on Facebook, writing blog posts, tweeting, reading the news and hiding in the toilet. I look at my timesheet, and it doesn't reconcile with the amount of work I have actually done. Sure, I was present in the office. My bum was on the seat for the hours I declare, but I don't feel productive or even useful.

So, I cast out into the world, looking for a connection, desperate for somebody to acknowledge my existence. Even when I rub somebody up the wrong way, at least it means some of what I say is hitting home somewhere. Most of the time, I'm alone with my thoughts and lonely as hell.

Every time I address "you" it seems to fall on deaf ears. I quickly forget that people have reached out, gotten in contact, because the conversation is so sporadic, unpredictable. This is such an unusual mechanism of communication, but what would I do without it? Friends have literally threatened to unfriend me on Facebook, because of the disproportionate amount of space I have consumed on 'their' wall.

I'm rambling, but I don't want this to end. It feels like I'm talking to "you". It feels like "you're" listening. It feels like I have a human connection, an honest relationship, that I just don't get for all those lonely, lonely office hours, where my whole focus is on trying to hide my depression, anxiety, boredom and desperate lack of purpose.

Without this blog, I'd be stuffed. There's a temptation to adapt my writing to be more appealing again. There's a desire to drive up the number of readers, by writing things that I know will be like clickbait, and nice to read.

However, that's not my style, not my purpose. We're having an intimate conversation, you & I. You might not realise it, but I'm thinking about hundreds of different potential audience members, as I write... trying to engage you... trying to connect.

Even if this isn't being read by the people I intended, at least it's there. There's something comforting, knowing that a little piece of me has been captured somewhere, in my own words. It feels like I'm at least winning, in the battle to leave a true account of who I was, and not become a convenient dumping ground for those who seek to abstain from any blame, for the part they did, or did not play in somebody's life.

I live in London. I'm practically an expert in turning a blind eye: ignoring the Big Issue seller, the clipboard-wielding survey taker, the collection tin rattling charity worker, the beggar, the pavement evangelist, and every other undesirable member of society who has fallen on hard times. I know what it's like to have your head down because you're so wrapped up in your own struggle, and so fixated on the rat race.

I've considered the question many times: am I a melodramatic attention seeker? Are my cries for help completely unnecessary? Is my lot in life no worse than anybody else's?

Frankly, who gives a shit? I'm just about scraping through every day by the skin of my teeth. Not only walking out on a boring job, but potentially leaving this shitty life altogether. I know how decisive I am. I know how bold and brave I can be, once I have decided to do something. I know I could easily snuff out my life, in the blink of an eye.

Doth I protest too much? Why take the chance?

Isn't this somebody else's problem? Aren't there pills for this?

Yes, try clinging onto those pathetic get-out-of-jail-free cards, once the person has gone.

Perhaps I'm dredging up emotions that could be suppressed? Perhaps the very act of writing is prodding at raw nerves, and actually keeping feelings on the surface that could easily sink back into my subconscious. Am I, in the very act of writing this blog, talking myself into depression and suicide? Well, the journal charts my moods, so you have all the data you need for the postmortem.

I live for writing. I live for my browsing stats and my Twitter followers. I live for those few moments when somebody emails out of the blue, and acknowledges my existence. You would be surprised how few and far between those precious events are.

Moan, moan, moan, right? Poor me, poor me, pour me another drink?

Perhaps Alcoholics Anonymous is the place for this, even though I'm not an alcoholic? Dylan Thomas wrote that an alcoholic is somebody who drinks just as much as you, but you don't like them very much.

Why do we push people to the fringes, the periphery? Why do we want the people who wail in distress to just shut up and go away? Do you think it completely meaningless, when somebody goes to great effort to explain how they're feeling, and attempt to communicate with you, by whatever means they can?

How long have I been doing this for? Shut up! Give up! Go away! Right?

If something doesn't immediately work, just quit, right?

Hasn't the message been received from you, loud and clear? You don't care. You're busy with your own life.

Is it the bystander effect? Surely somebody else is going to do something? Not me, I'm not going to be first. I don't want to get involved!

What do you think's going to happen? Are you going to catch my mental illness? Are you going to be made responsible for my life? Are you going to be shackled to me, forced to live with me, with me stealing food from your children's mouths? Am I out to ruin you and your family?

I feel like a dirty leper. I feel contagious. I feel a huge amount of pressure to pretend like I'm capable of just conforming, complying... when the truth is that things are getting worse, not better. My patience is worn thin. My energy levels have been exhausted. I'm later and later getting to work. I can no longer even pretend to be busy, and keep up the charade.

Join a gym. Eat some kale. Go to a book club. Get a girlfriend.

Can I chase away the existential dread with trivial frivolities, when the bulk of my waking hours are filled with such utter bullshit? Having a taste of freedom has perhaps ruined me. Knowing how the game is rigged, and how to play the system has left me reeling, with the shocking revelation of the pointlessness of it all.

Even if - for the sake of argument - I'm a dimwitted fool, it still doesn't take away the fact that my brain is in overdrive. I'm bombarded with thoughts in the empty hours where I am so unchallenged, so bored.

You educate a person. You train them for a job. You stretch them and challenge them and titillate their interests, and then what? You put them into a corporate machine where independent thought is undesirable? You put them into a bland business environment where creativity is discouraged? You put them into the straightjacket of the working world, where innovation and ingenuity are unnecessary?

Yes, I'm compliant, because I had a tax bill to pay, and debts to pay down. But every day is a simple test of patience. What's going to win: am I going to commit suicide, run away from my pointless responsibilities, or simply sit mute in my chair trying not to scream for long enough that I have built up another nest egg to fritter away on more life-affirming pursuits?

Life's too fucking short for all this. The clock ticks down to the day I die, and what can I say I did with my life? I didn't tell the boss to go fuck himself? I didn't storm out of the office, yelling at the top of my voice that everyone is wasting their precious existence on pushing paper around their desk? I didn't let the bank, the landlord, repossess their precious property and go live somewhere off-grid, to get away from the constant pressure to run just to stand still.

I'm writing and writing, because there is no end until going home time. How do I fill these empty hours where I'm 'working'. Does anybody even care that I've churned out tens of thousands of words, at the expense of the companies I'm contracted to work for? Does anybody even notice, that it makes not a jot of difference, whether I'm fulfilling my job description or not?

You're going to look at the length of this essay and think "what the actual fuck, who has the time for this?". I could put a cork in my mouth. I could curtail this bout of verbal diarrhoea. But what else would I do with my time? At least this wall of words - this tidal wave - records for posterity, the angst that might drive me to my early grave. At least people can see the kind of torture that my soul was subjected to.

Suffer in silence? Fuck off.

Tags: #writing #socialmedia #suicide #depression #mentalhealth

This is a story about the final countdown...

My target was 300,000 words in less than a year, and I'm almost there. There is certainly quantity, but the quality has been hit & miss.

Why would I continue to write, when the number of readers I have has dwindled? I descended into ranting insanity during a rocky start to 2016, and then the ever-unpopular topic of politics.

Well, at some point you're going to make a breakthrough, turn a corner.

Because Google has indexed all of my 292,000 words for search, people are finding this website from all over the world, and they're able to explore the inner-workings of my mind, on a range of different topics: mental illness, addiction, banking, IT, childhood, and of course the running theme of a person who writes candidly, without self-censorship.

I'm going to write more extensively on the topic of 'open sourcing' the contents of your mind. You might think that I'm narcissistic, self-obsessed, but in actual fact it takes time & effort to sit down every day, compose your thoughts, and attempt to convey your feelings, the inner-workings of your own brain.

Imagine if anybody ever wanted to create a 'bot' version of me. How would you 'download' my brain into a computer system, so that my mind could be simulated? There is no technology in existence today that can create a facsimile copy of my entire neural network, and no technology is likely to be possible in any immediate future, given the trillions upon trillions of nerve cell connections in your brain.

However, the more you write, the more data there is for a machine to analyse. The technology for parsing natural language is very advanced. Also, how would you want to interact with me? Today, most of my friends communicate with me via text chat. If I had already created a bot version of myself, would any of my friends even know?

My friends: how are you, Nick?

My bot: I want to die. Every day is pain and suffering.

You see... it wouldn't be that hard.

My friend Ben created a bot that can do certain tasks, like a Siri-style personal assistant, but wouldn't it be so much cooler if you could interact with a virtual version of me that encapsulated my personality, my values, my unique thought patterns and writing style?

Alan Turing famously came up with the Turing Test, where a computer attempts to convince a human that it is also human. As yet, no computer system has managed to pass the test.

Instead of thinking about complex algorithms that can analyse a question, and formulate an appropriate response, shouldn't we start by thinking about how we can capture a human mind, in digital form?

Sure, we could take all your emails and Facebook status updates, and attempt to reconstruct your personality from data like that, but aren't we constrained by social protocols and expectations? Besides, the computer system would be fooled by the fake image you wish to project.

So far as Facebook thinks right now, the human race is full of happy smiling people who love their kids, never have arguments, and whose lives revolve around a culture of trite soundbites, quotes. So far as Twitter thinks, the human race revolves around clipped, concise 140 character retweetbait. Are we really a race defined by short witticisms?

And so, this long-form verbose version of myself, where my heart and soul gets poured out onto these pages is hopefully highly representative of who I am, what makes me tick. I've tried to leave no stone unturned, no hidden characteristic and shameful secret undocumented.

I still have a time-based objective - to write for at least 1 year - to complete, but I really feel like that's not going to be hard. Writing has slipped seamlessly into my life, and I now depend on it to be able to manage my emotional state. Writing is like the best counsellor that money could buy, because the pages of this website are always here, ready to listen to me, as I pour my little heart out.

Maybe I should STFU, but why? I'm not hurting anybody. This is a legacy. An insurance policy. If anybody's ever standing around wondering "why?" it's probably documented somewhere right here. The smoking gun is undeniably here for all to see.

I know from public speaking, that the more you tell an anecdote or a story, the better storyteller you become, and the more engaging and entertaining you get. For sure, it's addictive, putting yourself out there, once you get over the initial fear of embarrassment. However, how would you feel, if faced with the prospect of writing the equivalent of 5 novels in the space of a year?

How should I feel about the vast quantity of white noise I have pushed out onto an overcrowded Internet? Should I feel embarrassed, ashamed, to have not contributed something more pre-planned and better executed? Am I simply polluting the world of words, with my own contribution that doesn't come with a seal of approval from an institution? Where is my peer review? Where is my commercial or academic backer, to lend authority to my case?

Perhaps we should all go on creative writing courses or get degrees in English Literature from University, before we are allowed to be let loose on a keyboard?

No. Writing is democratic. Writing is human. Writing captures the very essence of who and what you are.

I like my little time capsule.

Tags: #writing #socialmedia

This is a story about premonitions...

Our perception of reality is subjective, and it is coloured by our state of mind. I'm deeply depressed, so I tend to see everything as negative, hostile, and doomed to failure.

Yesterday, I was writing a piece about how I thought the markets had over-corrected, and how I expected to see another rout in the FX and equities markets, of Sterling and the FTSE. Little did I know, that as I was writing, a terrorist attack was occurring in Istanbul, Turkey.

When your mental health is suffering, sometimes you can start making too many connections, seeing too many co-incidences. Last year I started to misinterpret events as significant in my life somehow. I started to feel overly connected to things happening around me - because I was unwell - and thought I was at the epicentre of a seismic event again, like during the Credit Crunch, when I felt at the very heart of the derivatives market and Credit Default Swaps, with JPMorgan.

Michael Cherkasky, the monitor from the US Department of Justice, still isn't happy with HSBC's customer due diligence, but nobody seems to give a shit. The share price might have dropped almost 20%, but so far as I know, nobody's going to prison for not warning the shareholders, which would be a violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which has tried to force public corporations to be honest and open when things are going wrong.

The thing is, the show must go on, and everybody has a vested interest to some extent. Bear Stearns couldn't fail, because the markets were already spooked by Lehman Brothers. Greece couldn't default, because the entire stability of the European single currency and the stability of global markets was at stake.

Even now, with Britain prompting a disorderly rush for the door, and the potential for systemic collapse, as a domino-like chain of events is set off, we are still seeing a surprising amount of stability.

Market economics is supposed to weed out the weak and the reckless. The companies and governments that have gone beyond their means are supposed to be punished by the market, but actually what we have all demanded is stability, not a free market.

Really, Bear Stearns should have been allowed to fail, AIG should not have been bailed out, Greece should have been allowed to default on its debts, the UK should be allowed to precipitate the collapse of the Eurozone and the inevitable failure of the Euro and debt defaults across Southern Europe.

What people seem to be voting for is the free market that we supposedly have. Where would we be, if we had bitten the bullet in 2007/2008 and not simply propped everything up? Aren't we going to have to suffer a global recession that is many, many times worse than it might have been if we'd allowed reckless companies and governments to fail earlier?

However, the politicians and the banks believe that they've been tasked with economic stability. Certainly, the Bank of England's brief is to try and maintain inflation in a certain range. It certainly runs contrary to our Keynesian understanding of economics, when central banks are actually used to prop everything up, to maintain the status quo.

Gordon Brown famously declared that we had seen the end of boom & bust, but haven't we simply made a farce of the idea that debts ever have to be repaid, and there isn't an endless supply of money?

Civilisations normally fall when the burden of debt is unmanageable, but creditors refuse to forgive debts.

The world needs to deleverage, to have a debt haircut, for debts to be forgiven. The system has failed. There's no moral hazard. Everything is too big to fail. There is no market economics anymore.

I think that what people want is either inflation, to inflate away their debts, or debt forgiveness, because they are over-burdened with huge mortgages, student loans etc. etc. People feel that they've been hurt in the pocket, and they really don't care about the stability of stock portfolios and the value of Sterling.

I see the Brexit decision as almost a vote to accept a devaluation, in the hope of stoking up domestic inflation. It's a vote to accept volatility and chaos in the financial markets, that we supposedly wanted to avoid during the Credit Crunch, but people were never asked if they were OK with a whole heap of bad banks going bankrupt.

Yes, people are probably naïve about how upset they'd be about their life savings being wiped out, and having to use a barrowload of pound notes to pay for a loaf of bread, but perhaps it's better than their lives of quiet desperation, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

I'm incredibly impressed to see stability in the markets today, but I don't think that's what anybody wants. People are looking for a shake-up in the pecking order. People are rocking the boat, because they're unhappy, and they literally don't care about the global economic impact and systemic risk. Perhaps propping it all up, and forcing a very long period of austerity onto everybody wasn't such a smart move.

The next question is: how far are the wealthy prepared to go, in order to get their pound of flesh?

Tags: #politics #banking #capitalism #hsbc #politics #europe