And what about a revival of ethics in the bank regulatory establishment?

Sir, ‘Day of shame’ sparks call for a revival of ethics, writes George Parker, February 7, with respect to many loud and outspoken demands from politicians to hold the financial sector to higher standards.  

But though Andrew Tyrie, the Tory chairman of the Commons treasury committee rightly said "that high-quality regulation was not just morally right but would attract business to the UK”, there is not one single of them urging the bank regulators to come clean on their outright immoral (and dumb) concoctions.

Because it is indeed immoral to impose on the banks capital requirements which favor bank lending to those who already find themselves favored by banks and markets, “The Infallible”, while odiously discriminating against bank lending to those already discriminated against by banks and markets, The Risky”.

Because the regulators with those regulations have in fact, without having been authorized thereto, castrated the banks, and, with it, blocked the will of a nation to take the risks it needs in order to move forward, so as not to stall and fall… and that my friends, might not only be immoral, but it might even be an outright act of high treason, even if unwittingly committed

Oh please, don’t come with that never ending BS of banks taking excessive risks by creating excessive exposures to what was perceived ex ante as “risky” and which therefore required the banks to hold any substantial amount of capital against it. Give me just one example of that, or shut up!

Current banking regulations is a venomous potion for smal businesses

Sir, Vince Cable the UK Secretary of state for business, in “Private recovery is the only potion for growth” February 18, worries about “growth being undermined by costly, limited bank finance for smaller business”

Excuse me! Does the UK Secretary of state for business not know that limiting and making more expensive the finance for smaller businesses is a direct consequence of the subprime banking regulations that so odiously and regressively discriminates against perceived risks?

Does the UK Secretary of state for business not know that while banks are required to hold important levels of capital against lending to the small businesses, it needs to hold basically no capital at all when lending to the government?

What the UK Secretary of state for business should be doing is to protest the venomous regulatory potion that attempts against real private recovery… and not leave that to Sir John Vickers’ banking commission, which does probably not care one iota about small businesses.