Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1)


5:24 pm - September 1st 2011

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Frances Coppola

It seems to me that all the activity of the last three years by banks, governments and supra-national organisations such as the IMF has been aimed at one thing only – preventing the collapse of the international financial system.

To prevent that collapse governments have wrecked their economies and sacrificed the future of an entire generation.

Yet as I write, the financial system seems to be in no better shape than it was three years ago. In fact if anything it is worse.

I have been arguing for some time now that propping up failed institutions only makes matters worse.

If an institution is not viable, it will fail eventually whatever steps are taken to prop it up. The problem is that when it does fail, it brings a lot of others down with it.

The larger and more interconnected the failing institutions, the greater the risk they pose to the world economy – and the louder the cries of people who depend on those institutions that governments should act to prevent their failure.

If the international financial system is so fragile that it can only survive with constant infusion of mammoth amounts of public money, then IT IS ALREADY IN A STATE OF COLLAPSE. And as any mining engineer knows, propping it up is not only expensive, it is dangerous.

I would like to suggest that the international financial system should be ALLOWED to collapse. That doesn’t mean that governments should abandon their responsibility to protect the people affected and as far as possible prevent long-term damage to the economy.

On the contrary, governments should be actively involved in managing the collapse of the current unsustainable system and the building of a new system that meets our needs better.

But that requires a mindset change on the part of global leadership, and particularly central banks and the IMF. At present they think only of maintaining the status quo.

And while they continue to think and behave only in terms of keeping the ship afloat, the greater the risk to the world economy. When the inevitable collapse happens, they will not be prepared for it and the world economy could indeed suffer serious damage.

But that’s not necessary. Planning for and managing the inevitable demise of an outmoded form of banking has to be the best way forward.


Frances Coppola tweets from here and blogs here. This post was first published on Coppola Comment

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


The main problem you have is two words. “Long-term”. Unfortunately no government, of any colour, has worked in the long term. If they do they are accused of not doing anything and get thrown out after a few years. Imagine a government that announced a 10 year study into reducing re-offending rates rather than simply changing the whole system.

This leads to the current climate of sound bites and gimmicks to try and appease the electorate. I bet that the Tories were planning for the next general election before they even (kind of) won the last one. I’m betting they’ll sell off the bank shares to enable tax cuts just before the election.

Yes, by no public demand whatsoever, its

Carry On Banking!!

Starring:
Kenneth Williams as David Cameron
Sid James as Vince Cable
Dennis Price as George Osborne
Charles Hawtrey as Nick “firestarter” Clegg
Bernard Bresslaw as Mervyn King
Terry-Thomas as Bob Diamond
Alastair Sim as Iain Duncan Smith
Stanley Unwin as William Hague
Shirley Eaton as Theresa May
Hattie Jacques as Mad Nad

Special guests:
Norman Wisdom as Andrew Lansley
Ian Carmichael as Ed Miliband
Tony Hancock as Gordon Brown
Cliff Richard as Tony Blair

Script by: The Bilderberg Group (representation: P. Mandelson talent agency)
Budget: limitless, provided by poor, unemployed, disabled, sick.
Directed by: no-one at all

Novelisation not available at any libraries

At a cinema near you, now and forever more

Chris has the nail hit.

In the panic of 2008 imagine you are chancellor. Long Established financial instutions are going bust around you, and nobody knows which banks are solvent. Your civil servants are telling you in hours cashpoints are going to stop working. What are you going to do?

Even Arsene Wenger has figured out the british public don’t like long term planning.

I was with you right up to this point:

“On the contrary, governments should be actively involved in managing the collapse of the current unsustainable system and the building of a new system that meets our needs better.”

If government is the answer then you’re usually asking the wrong question.

This is balls. There are two completely separate points:

1) can and should governments stop the international financial system from collapsing? Answer – yes. Because I for one like the fact that I don’t live in a shack eating tinned food.

2) is it a good idea to use the financial crisis as an excuse to implement policies deliberately designed to fuck the poor, fuck everyone who works for the government, bust unions, and generally turn everything into Ayn Rand Land? Answer – no, it isn’t, the people who are doing this are doing so because they are scumbags. Belgium is an excellent example – despite having baled out its banks, because it has no government at all, it hasn’t made any cuts. And as a result, is the only major Western European country to show significant growth last quarter.

The equation of “baling out the banks” with “fucking the poor” is a right-wing trope that has no basis in reality. In truth, we can bale out the banks and not fuck the poor, it’s just that the people in power believe that fucking the poor is an entertaining sport.

6. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

In the panic of 2008 imagine you are chancellor. Long Established financial instutions are going bust around you, and nobody knows which banks are solvent. Your civil servants are telling you in hours cashpoints are going to stop working. What are you going to do?

Crack open the Schumpeter, home in time for tea and figs.

Why the banks should be allowed to fail is they are capitalst bodies that act in a market place. If they fuck up they go bust.

When most workers make mistakes they lose their jobs. Bankers must abide by the rules they defend.

In the panic of 2008 imagine you are chancellor. Long Established financial instutions are going bust around you, and nobody knows which banks are solvent. Your civil servants are telling you in hours cashpoints are going to stop working. What are you going to do?

Trust the market.

The failed institutions should have been allowed to go bust and the Government should have paid depositors the money they had contracted to guarantee. There would have been short term pain but deferring that necessary pain will be more painful in the long term.

Indeed had they bitten the bullet in 2008, we would all be much better off by now.

9. Bugger (the Panda)

Norway was faced with a similar, albeit more local version of the World Banks liquidity problem, some years ago.

Their response was to guarantee the depositors and let the shareholders, bond holders etc go whistle.

I think it worked.

Norway is now being attacked because of their stance by the US and the UK. Our govts are in the control of the global elites. They do not like this idea of the rich going bust. Socialism for the rich, and capitalsm for the poor is what they demand.

“There would have been short term pain ”

The recent riots have demonstrated I think a glimpse of what that short term pain was like.When cash machines stop working people panic buy, places get looted, and major unrest occurs. If you were chancellor in 2008 you would have seen the impact of fuel protests, the riots in northern cities and the 2005 terrorist attacks in London.

I think anybody who would have ‘trusted the market’ in those hours where people were panicking needs to live in the real world. The world where when people can’t get cash to eat they don’t sit around waiting for the market to reach equilibirum again and magically provide. They steal, take up arms and horde things.

The problem was the lack of action following the bailout, not an understandable reaction to panic and wanting a short term crisis to go away.

@ Planeshift

It is in the interests of government to spin the illusion that the can protect us from the harsh realities of the consequences of all events. Even as they do so, they understand, better than anyone, that such protection is an illusion but realise that, if they can defer the consequences, they can hope that somebody else will be holding the parcel bomb when it eventually explodes.

In 2008, they sold all of our souls to the corporations to prevent the explosion. Perhaps they had sold them some time previously.

But the explosives are still primed.

If the international financial system is so fragile that it can only survive with constant infusion of mammoth amounts of public money, then IT IS ALREADY IN A STATE OF COLLAPSE.

Correct.

13. douglas clark

I am not a Labour Party member. But, if Sally asked me to join I’d be hard pushed to refuse. Whatever happened to voices like hers?

It really is that simple.

14. Teddy Groves

Pagar, Sally, Douglas Clark

It’s really not that simple. Letting banks go bust has been tried before and it sucked. Many sensible people who have studied the subject in depth think that if the financial system had been allowed to fail there would have been a really awful global depression. Interestingly George Osborne, David Cameron and various Republicans/Tea Party spokespeople have all made the same points as you in the past.

@2 Schmidt

Inspired!

“I have been arguing for some time now that propping up failed institutions only makes matters worse.”

Banks aren’t a failed institution though, merely some of the practices done by some of the institution by some people failed.

I also think there is far too much conflating of the separate issues of public money going in to bailing out banks, and public money going to other governments to bail out their own debts.

17. Charles Wheeler

“At present they think only of maintaining the status quo.”

In light of what Simon Johnson has dubbed the ‘quiet coup’ that’s unlikely to change. The regulatory system has been captured by Wall St. (http://goo.gl/OzY3O) and the City, and work in their interests.

18. Charles Wheeler

@ Falco

“If government is the answer then you’re usually asking the wrong question.”

Anyone that thinks the market can sort itself out hasn’t been paying attention.

Seeing govt. and regulation as inimical to ‘market efficiency’ is the problem.

19. Leon Wolfson

@18 – And conflating the free market and capitalism into a unified whole, for that matter…they’re entirely separable.

Apocalypse Now – smashing film btw

21. Frances Coppola

Wonderful comments – thanks all.

I think I should make it clear that I am not talking about any sort of disorderly collapse. In 2008 governments had their eyes off the ball and were caught napping. No plans were in place to manage failure of one bank, let alone the domino chain of collapses that we saw. Because of that ghastly scenario, we are now very scared of allowing banks to fail. But I don’t think we should be afraid. It’s not the same now. We can see the next crisis coming already. Government should be putting in place the safety net that ensures that when banks fail – as they inevitably will – they do so in a manner that does not destroy economies, jobs, savings, lives.

I don’t mean to suggest that governments should necessarily actively create the next “phase” of the financial system. I mean that they should be aware of new developments and as far as possible clear obstacles out of the way – such as protectionist measures designed to preserve the existing system.

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Bankers and neoliberalist capitalists have been touting the concept of living and dying by the market for decades. When it screwed over the developing world and the more vulnerable populations in the west, they kept collecting their money and said the poor people were doing it wrong: as long as the markets were unregulated then the best would rise and the weak should be allowed to fall.Then they became the weak and they wanted our money to pay for it.

Weak banks should have been left to collapse. Sure, everything would have gone to complete hell for a while, but the thing about a catastrophe is it forces people to do something, it forces change. It would have been a hell of a lot better than dying a slow death as we are now, the system rotten, with the top 1% taking even more money from everyone else.

Alister Darling has some trenchant views about the competence of bankers according this preview in the Telegraph of his forthcoming memoires:

The former chancellor says in his memoirs that Britain’s bankers were “stupid and arrogant” and says Sir Fred behaved as if he was “off to play a game of golf” while officials struggled to prevent a meltdown.

Mr Darling describes the secret discussions which led to the Labour government effectively nationalising RBS and Sir Fred being heavily criticised for his management style and conduct.

The banker was forced to resign but initially refused to surrender any of his multi-million pound pension pay-off.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8736315/Sir-Fred-Goodwin-acted-like-he-was-off-to-play-golf-as-RBS-collapsed.html

24. Frances Coppola

@ 16 Lee Griffin

It was much more than just some practices by some people at some banks that failed. Many banks failed, and were bailed out by government – particularly in the US. Many banks are still only able to continue trading because of government support in the form of guarantees, funding and equity. The banking system has more goverment support and both implicit and explicit funding than any other industry. Remove that support and that funding and the whole thing collapses. I’m not suggesting we should do that straight away – it requires planning and management, otherwise it would be very dangerous. But I am saying that an industry that is so dependent on public support and funding is not sustainable.

There is really no difference between public money being paid directly to banks, and public money going to other governments to enable them to pay money to banks. The Greek bailout is in fact a stealth bailout of banks, mainly French and German ones. German taxpayers are paying money to Greece so that it can pay the banks that otherwise German taxpayers would have to bail out directly.

@24: “But I am saying that an industry that is so dependent on public support and funding is not sustainable.”

Quite so. But the bonuses are still being paid out on a grand scale as though nothing has changed:

“The financial and insurance sector paid out £14bn in bonuses in the last financial year, unchanged from the year before, despite government pressure on banks to curb excessive pay-outs.” [FT 20 July 2011]
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e2e673ae-b22a-11e0-9d80-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Ts0pwPgt

@13 If you’re new round here then you should be aware that while Sally makes occasional *not utterly barking* style comments, she has severe *Queen of fruitcake crazy* tendencies.

@18 You need a basic structure of courts, contract law etc. You do not need what we’ve had; constant, almost random interference.

“Mr Darling describes the secret discussions which led to the Labour government effectively nationalising RBS and Sir Fred being heavily criticised for his management style and conduct.

The banker was forced to resign but initially refused to surrender any of his multi-million pound pension pay-off.”

Labour was right to bail out the banks but appallingly stupid and irresponsible not to set stricter and more advantageous conditions for the Treasury, i.e. the taxpayer.

So while I find Darling’s account completely credible, I would still like to know why Labour didn’t do us all a favour by setting a higher price for government intervention. I am not happy at the way it went about the (necessary) bailout. It was both a missed open political goal for Labour and a failure to get the best for the general public whose money was used.

@ 10 Sally

I didn’t realise Norway was being attacked. Do you have a link?

If people truly believed that we should have allowed the banks to fail they would not also be saying that a large section of bank creditors should be protected from the consequences of that failure i.e. depositors. In a bank failure depositors should join the queue with other creditors if one is being consistent. That was the case in Britain for centuries until 1979. So if you believe that depositors should get special protection shielding them from the consequences of depositing their money in a bank partaking in risky activity, then you do not actually believe your own rhetoric. Depositors should study the bank balance sheet to ascertain if the bank is taking excessive risks. Good luck with that particular project. Here is a clue, if the bank is making excessive profits it is engaging in risky activity because there is no such thing as high yield and low risk.

So if you believe that depositors should get special protection shielding them from the consequences of depositing their money in a bank partaking in risky activity, then you do not actually believe your own rhetoric. Depositors should study the bank balance sheet to ascertain if the bank is taking excessive risks.

I don’t think depositors should get special protection. In 2008 there was a government guarantee in place for deposits up to, from memory, £58,000 and that should have been paid, although I don’t believe the protection should have been there in the first place.

In Scotland, a free banking system worked well for centuries and none of the banks got involved in FRB. Had they done so, nobody would have deposited money with them (and there’s a clue as to what is wrong with the current system where the state is the lender of last resort and has to keep the whole rotting machine lubricated by continually devaluing our money).

@ 30. pagar

The highly successful Scottish free banking period was FRB. A truly free market in banking has always chosen FRB. I will give you some links this evening.

I totally agree with the idea that banks, like all businesses should be allowed to fail. However when Lehman was allowed to fail it resulted in a near melt down of the financial markets which is why bank failures need to be done in an organised way.

This is why the FSA is requiring all financial insitutions to draw up a living will, so some effort is actually being made in this direction.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/FSA-drawing-bank-living-reuters_molt-2476163935.html?x=0

I agree with Richard W that depositors shouldn’t automatically get Govt protection. I remember reading a good suggestion is that deposit holders have a choice of two types of account – those which are protected by Govt and those that aren’t. The catch being that if you want protection a percentage of any interest earned goes to the Govt as a form of insurance premium.

So what would have happened if the governments did nothing? Ignore the banks for a moment and consider the consequences of the government shrugging its shoulders over the case of Network Rail. What if one of the private companies that maintain the national grid went bust? What if were a water company?

Would we as a public accept the response that these things happen to private businesses and that’s it’s our own fault for relying on them – “Hey everyone is this other part of the country is fine with their power and water; perhaps you should have been using their suppliers instead?”

It doesn’t work; they’re so tied into everything that they can’t be allowed to just collapse. Of course anyone with any intelligence would either a) not allow such a system to develop in the first place, or b) put plans in place to allow a quick and easy transfer of services should such occur.

Instead we get patching.

34. Frances Coppola

Richard W and Fungus, I agree with you that depositors should not in general be protected. It encourages excessive risk-taking by bankers. People need to understand that money placed on deposit at banks is at risk, and follow good diversification practice to mitigate those risks – “don’t put all your money in one institution” is good advice!

I do think current accounts should be protected, though. The present system, where money that people need to buy food and pay bills is treated by banks as “deposits” and placed at risk, to me is unacceptable. It’s very hard to manage now without a current account, so it could be argued that current accounts and access to payments facilities are a public utility and banks should not have access to those funds. However, such an arrangement would lower the deposit cover for lending still further and probably therefore require more bond issuance and interbank borrowing to support lending – or more capital, of course. Nothing’s ever simple!

Hmm, sorry, but there’s a logical flaw in the middle of this.

“preventing the collapse of the international financial system. ”

That’s an excellent idea. We no more want the financial system to fall over than we do the sewage system (yes, insert joke about the big chunks floating to hte top here). They’re both vital utilities without which any form of modern or civilised life is impossible.

“I would like to suggest that the international financial system should be ALLOWED to collapse.”

No, we really don’t want todo that, just as we don’t want Bazalgette’s Embankment to rupture and the thames to be a river of 8 million people’s shit. We just really, really, don’t want that to happen.

“I have been arguing for some time now that propping up failed institutions only makes matters worse. ”

Ah, but this is different. We’re, or at least we should be, entirely happy that component parts of the financial system fail. That individual institutions do. That the shareholders lose their money for having invested with bad management.

Just as we don’t actually care that Thames Water goes bust: as long as someone else comes in and runs the sewers we’re happy enough.

The difficult part of all of this is in knowing how many of the constituent parts of the financial system we can allow to go bust without having the entire system collapsing. I tend to think we could have allowed more of it to fail than we did. Iceland’s had a horror of a time but is recovering very nicely.

I can also see that people are putting in place the mechanisms by which in future we can allow more of it to fail without problems than we did. Things like contingent capital.

But at root, sorry Frances, I think you’ve got a logical fail at the heart of what you’re saying. The financial system is vital. The component parts of it not so, or at least not all of them. We must save the first and perhaps some of the second but certainly not all of the second.

36. Leon Wolfson

@35 – Nice apologia for the excesses of the capitalist system.

But no, the free market most certainly does NOT depend on the banking system in it’s current form.

What has happened is that a lot of private debt, run up by idiot bankers, and not controlled by lazy shareholders has been taken on , and turned into public debt by govts.

Remember that when the right wing bond markets are demanding that nation states must cut their debts.

Tim @35:

I suspect that quite a few in this thread would agree with you that we need a financial system.

I think it is fair to argue based on recent evidence that we don’t need this financial system.

@ 30. pagar

” I don’t think depositors should get special protection. In 2008 there was a government guarantee in place for deposits up to, from memory, £58,000 and that should have been paid, although I don’t believe the protection should have been there in the first place.

In Scotland, a free banking system worked well for centuries and none of the banks got involved in FRB. Had they done so, nobody would have deposited money with them (and there’s a clue as to what is wrong with the current system where the state is the lender of last resort and has to keep the whole rotting machine lubricated by continually devaluing our money). ”

Before 2007 only £2,000 had full coverage in the UK. From £2,000 to £35,000 had 90% cover. During the 2008 banking crisis the figure for 100% coverage was raised to £50,000. The EU has since decreed that all EU member states must cover the equivalent of 100,000 euros. So 100% coverage is now £85,000 in the UK. Moreover, it is £85,000 deposited in different institutions and not £85,000 per person. So a liquid wealthy person can spread their money around and get a 100% guarantee from the state that they will not lose any money if a bank failed. As I said, before 1979 not a penny of bank deposits was guaranteed in the UK. Mrs Thatcher under pressure from the EEC introduced the guarantee to the UK banking system.

The thing is people are not really aware that the compensation scheme is a subsidy and a subsidy that accrues obviously more to the wealthy. Moreover, it encourages risk-taking by the banks. On the other hand, theoretically it prevents bank runs and allows people to sleep easily knowing that the state will bail out their laziness of not checking the safety of the bank where they deposited their money.

This is an excellent Lawrence White paper about the Scottish free banking era. Page 21 onwards describes the historical experience.
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook115pdf.pdf

Some additional links pointing out that 100-percent reserve banking is state-sponsored banking. Any time a real free market in banking has existed with no state interference, the market has chosen FRB.

http://www.freebanking.org/2011/05/31/the-state-and-100-percent-reserve-banking/

http://www.freebanking.org/2011/08/02/free-banking-and-economic-development-part-1/

http://www.freebanking.org/2011/08/09/fractional-reserves-and-economic-development-part-2/

http://www.freebanking.org/2011/06/11/capital-and-cash-reserves/

http://www.freebanking.org/2011/09/02/is-fractional-reserve-banking-inflationary/

38. But I say again, only a very small aspect of this financial system has caused a serious problem, while the rest continues on unchanged, or is actually very useful.

Do we need the exact system we had in 2008? No. Is it worth reinventing the wheel just because one spoke snapped? No.

41. Leon Wolfson

@39 – So we sleepwalk into the next failures? It’s not working out…

40. Who said anything about not learning from the mistakes of the past? No-one here is saying that the banking system as it existed pre-crash is exactly the right system and should be used time and again.

The only thing that is being said here, by a moron and a few rhetoric junkies, is that somehow a singular issue with one part of the banking system is somehow a reason to get rid of ALL of the banking system.

43. Frances Coppola

@41 Lee Griffin

If you think that only one part of the banking system failed in 2008, and that more of it isn’t going to fail very shortly, you have your head firmly buried in a nuclear testing ground.

@35 Tim Worstall

I can see the point Tim – and indeed @34 FlipC makes the same point. We can’t do without a financial system. I’m not suggesting that we can. @38 John Q. Publican got to the heart of the matter….THIS financial system appears to be collapsing. Perhaps I’m not explaining myself too well, but my idea was that rather than trying to preserve it in its present form, we could aim to manage its transformation into something better – by giving less support and money to failing institutions, and making life easier for new entrants and innovative competitors. The original post had some tentative suggestions for what might take the place of some of the existing structures.

Just for @15, I missed out the synopsis so here it is

Setting: a run down suberb of London with a bank and a sleazy council.
Synopsis: When bank manager Bob overhears a tip he places all the bank’s funds on Ninja Mortgage in the 3.30 at Haydock Park. Unfortunately Ninja Mortgage is a blind, ashmatic, three-legged donkey who spontaneously explodes when he leaves the starting gate. Is Bob in trouble for losing all the bank’s money? He simply goes to his friend Dave and his chums. Clegg suggests burning down the bank for the insurance but Cameron tells him to shut up and serve more drinks, Osborne says he’ll crack down on tax-dodgers while managing not to laugh or look in a mirror, no-one can understand Hague’s suggestion and Lansley wants to sell the local hospital but Mad Nad demands a bigger maternity ward which is just as well since Boris Johnson (Leslie Phillips) has lost his trousers again! Dave finally decides to send Iain Duncan Smith onto the streets disguised as a kindly old vicar, where he steals charity boxes and unattended crutches, throws the disabled from their wheelchairs which he sells for scrap metal and picks the pockets of the blind. Vince Cable, sulking after a row with the proprietor of the East Cheam Advertiser (Rupert Murdoch, played by Barry Humphries as Sir Les Patterson), sees a chance to make himself popular, but what will he actually do anything or simply go back to sleep? In a sub-plot Theresa May promises to be extra strict with the local naughty boys, something which has Osborne salivating. Well-meaning posh twit Ed Miliband is unsure what to do about any of this so he seeks the advice of his predecessors. The local miser Gordon Brown slams the door of his wooden shack and goes back to counting a vast pile of £50 notes and Tony Blair appears on the balcony of his mansion wearing a tinsel halo and sings Money(That’s What I Want), The Great Pretender and If I Ruled The World. Confused, Miliband does nothing. The final scene shows Bob the Banker in a bigger office reading the racing Post and eying up a horse called Land Speculation.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) http://t.co/bgnXXJ9

  2. Gemma Handford

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) http://t.co/bgnXXJ9

  3. Bleam

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) http://t.co/bgnXXJ9

  4. Bleam

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) http://t.co/bgnXXJ9

  5. Max Blunt

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) http://t.co/bgnXXJ9

  6. Watching You

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) http://t.co/bgnXXJ9

  7. Alex Braithwaite

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/WWrLZcH via @libcon

  8. Johnny Saxophone

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) http://t.co/bgnXXJ9

  9. Dell Macefield

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) http://t.co/bgnXXJ9

  10. Frances Coppola

    Me, at Liberal Conspiracy – Managing collapse (pt 1) http://t.co/7Zz5XIq

  11. Christian

    Me, at Liberal Conspiracy – Managing collapse (pt 1) http://t.co/7Zz5XIq

  12. Frances Coppola

    Me, at Liberal Conspiracy – Managing collapse (pt 1) http://t.co/7Zz5XIq #gfc2

  13. Lee Hyde

    Me, at Liberal Conspiracy – Managing collapse (pt 1) http://t.co/7Zz5XIq #gfc2

  14. MonetaryIntelligence

    Me, at Liberal Conspiracy – Managing collapse (pt 1) http://t.co/7Zz5XIq #gfc2

  15. TheCreativeCrip

    Me, at Liberal Conspiracy – Managing collapse (pt 1) http://t.co/7Zz5XIq #gfc2

  16. sunny hundal

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  17. kiki ki

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  18. Gael

    RT @sunny_hundal: The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/ojvunnI

  19. Will Wilcox

    RT @sunny_hundal: The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/ojvunnI

  20. Philip Burrage

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  21. Andy Saul

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  22. Wulfy

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/TMZc6Oy via @libcon

  23. Lloyd Raworth

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  24. Lee Griffin

    Very silly piece on @libcon that sees far too many separate issues as a singular issue of "keeping banks afloat" http://t.co/iEPIN23

  25. Jennifer C Krase

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  26. Nemesis Republic

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  27. Tim

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  28. S.Worrall

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  29. Itsmotherswork

    “@Frances_Coppola: Me, at Liberal Conspiracy – Managing collapse (pt 1) http://t.co/V9mcylR #gfc2” << Nice one Frances. Looking fwd to pt2

  30. Ian Fraser

    "Why we should have allowed the banks to fail" http://t.co/f0ItlFn @Frances_Coppola via @libcon #RBS #HBOS #NorthernRock

  31. nobby-Lobby

    "Why we should have allowed the banks to fail" http://t.co/f0ItlFn @Frances_Coppola via @libcon #RBS #HBOS #NorthernRock

  32. xx

    "Why we should have allowed the banks to fail" http://t.co/f0ItlFn @Frances_Coppola via @libcon #RBS #HBOS #NorthernRock

  33. Michael Atkinson

    The banks should be allowed to collapse says @frances_coppola. I agree with this too http://t.co/kBy5tyf

  34. Jonathan Davis

    RT @Ian_Fraser: "Why we should have allowed the banks to fail" http://t.co/L1uj2lU @Frances_Coppola #banbankbailouts

  35. Praterstrasse

    "Why we should have allowed the banks to fail" http://t.co/f0ItlFn @Frances_Coppola via @libcon #RBS #HBOS #NorthernRock

  36. Frances Coppola

    @flipchartft It's a cut-down version of Managing Collapse. Good comments tho http://t.co/7Zz5XIq

  37. Rachel Hubbard

    WhyBanksShouldBeAllowed2Fail(Pt1) @LibCon http://t.co/Pa9BHYF GlobalLeadership&CentralBanks&IMFPresentTheyThinkOnly2MaintainingStatusQuo

  38. K Naismith Robertson

    Why the banks should be allowed to fail (pt 1) | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/q8jMq1N via @libcon

  39. Joanne Dove

    HBOS Why the banks should be allowed to fail after lawless binge of billions(pt 1) | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/SqBnvb4 via @libcon

  40. Joanne Dove

    HBOS Why the banks should be allowed to fail after lawless binge of billions(pt 1) | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/SqBnvb4 via @libcon

  41. Joanne Dove

    SoulintheCityJoanne Dove

    CAMERON Why the banks should be allowed to fail(pt ) | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/SqBnvb4 via @libcon

  42. Joanne Dove

    CAMERON HBOS Why the banks should be allowed to fail
    http://t.co/SqBnvb4

  43. Frances Coppola

    @iamalrightjack Part 1: http://t.co/NcKujzF





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.