02/22/2010 02:50 PM
Darius is right (marginally) on some things and (spectacularly)wrong on others; particularly how fractional reserve banking works. you cant lend out 10 dollars for every one you keep. However he misses out the real villain here, which isnt the banks. banks do as banks will when allowed to. Adam Smith hit the nail on the head when he said businessmen only meet to conspire againt the consumer. that's one of the main purposes of a govt: to prevent cartels (like the banks) from rooking the rest of us. one major way of doing that is to let them fail when they eff up. one of the major problems we have today is the self-reinforcing "too big to fail" principle. moral hazard is removed from the system because bankers know they'll be bailed out.
the real issue here, which guppy doesnt really address, is that it isnt the system that's the problem, rather its the behaviour of govt, and the way it distorts the system for its own end. the massive expansion of the monetary base and failure to adequately regulate the banks was as a result of govt pursuing a keynesian policy of spend spend spend (despite being at the wrong end of the business cycle recommended by keynes himself in the General Theory). it suited gordon to expand the money supply, keep interest rates artificially low, and regulation minimal as it was the only way he could realistically get away with the "biggest spending spree in british history".
Guppy himself is a peculiar mix of eton-educated, self-justifying, public school pillock that shouldnt be allowed to write here. He's the archetypal unrepentent criminal still trying to justify his original "faultless actions". He justified his original crime as "revenge" against the system, and justified his attempts to beat up a journalist. in short, everything he does is honest and justifiable. reading the interview he gave in the ST was rather chilling. he's never wrong, he's completely honest, has unquestioned integrity etc etc. complete bollocks. his economic views are even more mixed up. part keynesian, part austrian, wittering on about overpopulation and climate change with a tint of religious fanatic in there as well.
get the distinct impression he's still peddling snake oil and trying to justify it morally. and as for those who say its down to the evil capitalist system: yawn, yawn, grow up. the banking cartel and its idiot supporting governments arnt the "capitalist system". the capitalist system is the antithesis of what has happened in the credit crunch. the credit crunch is what happens when you get away from a capitalist system. arguments to the contrary are the same tired socialist bollocks that's spouted by those who havnt grown up yet.
02/22/2010 05:55 PM
twozero: I fail to see anywhere in this article any attempt by Guppy to justify his past behaviours, or make pro-Keynesian arguments, or any peddle snake-oil. Perhaps you should actually READ it before commenting - you're the one who comes across as a pillock, not Guppy.
02/24/2010 11:48 PM
Is Two Zero a blogger who goes by the name of ‘Freeborn John?’
‘Snake Oil’ was the give away.
Look at: http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2007/10/cryptography-and-snake-oil.html
And the language on the rest of his blog very similar to that in his comment too.
Trouble is ‘Freeborn John’ is none other than the police informer who gave evidence at Mr Guppy’s trial to get off a crime he’d committed. The real reason for his personal and confused comments?
(Another interesting link: www.nobodylikesagrass.com)
Maybe I’m wrong. In which case apologies two zero, but u’re still a pillock.
As Big Jim said READ the article next time before making a fool of yourself. And READ the links suggested in the other comments. Then do some research on fractional reserve banking.
COMMENTS ON EXHIBIT 58
This exhibit constitutes a number of postings made by Peter Risdon, one on a Sunday Telegraph Blog Comments Section regarding an article written by DG about the Banking Crisis (See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7273332/Darius-Guppy-our-world-balances-on-a-sea-of-debt.html) and a couple of others on an article in Wikipedia relating to DG.
The exhibit is not itself of great importance and nothing much hangs on Peter Risdon’s comments. They simply constitute a couple of representative postings made by him over the years, the rest of which can be seen on the internet.
But they are of interest in so far as they underline, as if it were needed, two of his dominant character traits which have already been discussed in the comments on Exhibit 52 – hypocrisy and obsessiveness.
Thus, bearing in mind Peter Risdon’s repeated disparaging remarks about “sock puppets” on his own website and on other blogs, one can only marvel at the man’s brazenness. As commentators immediately pick up in these two cases, it is in fact Peter Risdon who is hiding behind pseudonyms, (as he also did for example in Exhibit 49 and just as he did when posting flattering comments to himself on his own site such as “You’re so brave, Peter!” employing female aliases).
Needless to say, Peter Risdon is his own worst enemy because the comments he posts are so patently absurd and ill thought-out that he simply embarrasses himself. (See, for example, his postings made as “Two Zero” on the Sunday Telegraph blog [see link above] where he is quickly picked up and falls flat on his face).
Similarly with Peter Risdon’s obsession with DG. (See Exhibits 2 & Exhibit 3 where his business partner comments on Risdon’s tendency to become obsessed with certain types of individuals).
From a cursory investigation on the net, readers can ascertain for themselves the fixated and desperate quality of Risdon’s various postings.
In a way such an obsession can be understood. He realises full-well that he has ruined his life through his career as a police informer and is bitter about it and about being exposed. But telling stories to oneself never solved anything and in the long run can have detrimental effects on mental health. Nor should Peter Risdon underestimate the intelligence of the average member of the public who is far quicker to pick up on his lies and excuses than he would like to believe, as this particular exhibit demonstrates.