According to CNBC's Robert Frank, a Bank of England report shows that its quantitative easing policies had benefited mainly the wealthy, and that 40% of those gains went to the richest 5% of British households. Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research wrote that "QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it". Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation wrote that QE "is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality". In May 2013, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said that cheap money has made rich people richer, but has not done quite as much for working Americans.  The majority of citizens lost a great deal since the financial crisis in 2008. Savage 'austerity' cuts, increase in VAT, (yet tax cuts for large corporations) has led to a devastating impact on public services, small businesses on our High Streets going bust, over a million people using food banks and an increase of suicides... I could go on.  The finance industry toxic financial products; price manipulations; market bubbles and just blatant fraud, is unsustainable and ordinary people should not continue to pay for this crime in the financial sector. This is not 'capitalism', this is not a 'free-market' and smaller business cannot compete.  If the bankers were prosecuted and went to jail for their crimes back in 2008, like they did in Iceland and the US reinstated the Glass–Steagall Act and we had the equivalent in the UK, the Markets would not be in the volatile state we constantly see. Savers would be more protected. Only robust effective regulation can stabilise the Markets.

Oops trying to concentrate on some thing else and make a balls up . Was going on to say the Banks and the establishment also knew that austerity wasn't the answer as the collapse in the 1930s proved this The top economist knew this and were saying so .Salmond, who is also an economist was saying so .We should have used the Billions thrown at the banks to implement a strategy in getting the country working and investing in a host of projects . It was an ideological decision rather than one based on sound financial judgment,  and certainly the working class man /woman weren't taken into consideration at all. We could have become the manufacturing country which we once were instead of a third rate Service industry, and economy with a race to the bottom with regards to low wages.

We are possibly on the cusp of another financial downturn although the Banks are still carrying on as before and it seems they never learned any lessons at all from the crash .

It really wasn't rocket science, just greedy bankers and their right wing friends in the Tory party and press who decided the pathway and the stupid Labour party had neither the guts or sense to fight against it. And it looks like Osborne's policies are still failing, although we might be creating jobs it's the caliber of job and the wages that are obviously keeping the country back. AS mentioned before with the 2 million jobs created one would expect a thriving economy, and it certainly doesn't seem that way to the majority of people, and many economist were forecasting this and now the OECD are just catching up.

Between 1980 and 1985 the dollar had appreciated by about 50% against the Japanese yen, Deutsche Mark, French Franc and British pound, the currencies of the next four biggest economies at the time.[1] This caused considerable difficulties for American industry but at first their lobbying was largely ignored by government. The financial sector was able to profit from the rising dollar, and a depreciation would have run counter to Ronald Reagan's administration's plans for bringing down inflation. A broad alliance of manufacturers, service providers, and farmers responded by running an increasingly high profile campaign asking for protection against foreign competition.  Major players included grain exporters, car producers, engineering companies like Caterpillar Inc., as well as high-tech companies including IBM and Motorola. By 1985, their campaign had acquired sufficient traction for Congress to begin considering passing protectionist laws. The prospect of trade restrictions spurred the White House to begin the negotiations that led to the Plaza Accord.[2][3]  The justification for the dollar's devaluation was twofold: to reduce the U.S. current account deficit, which had reached 3.5% of the GDP, and to help the U.S. economy to emerge from a serious recession that began in the early 1980s. The U.S. Federal Reserve System under Paul Volcker had halted the stagflation crisis of the 1970s by raising interest rates, but this resulted in the dollar becoming overvalued to the extent that it made industry in the U.S. (particularly the automobile industry) less competitive in the global market. Devaluing the dollar made U.S. exports cheaper to purchase for its trading partners, which in turn allegedly meant that other countries would buy more American-made goods and services.

 

The Safe Harbour deal was brought before the ECJ after whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the extent of US-led mass surveillance programmes. With American internet services popular among Europeans, the EU side wanted to know if it could still trust the US authorities on data collection.  “The US side has clarified that they do not carry out indiscriminate mass surveillance of Europeans,” said Ansip, adding that the US intelligence activities underwent “substantial internal reviews”. His colleague, justice commissioner Vera Jourova, said the written assurances would include one from the office of the director of national intelligence in the White House.

“This is a unique step the US has made in order to restore trust in our transatlantic relations,” noted Jourova, adding that the EU would “hold the US accountable on the commitments they made”.

The deal sees the phrase Safe Harbour replaced by a new name: the EU-US 'Privacy Shield'.

“We decided to rebrand, rename the scheme,” said Jourova.The framework will also include redress possibilities for EU citizens who feel their data has been misused. “The US will create the role of a special ombudsperson within the US State Department who would follow up complaints and inquiries by individuals on national security access upon referral by EU data protection authorities,” said Ansip.  In a conference call with journalists, US secretary of commerce Penny Pritzker said they were “tough negotiations”.  “It's been a long road but we've turned a corner and now we stand together,” she said, adding that the new framework would provide certainty to EU and US businesses and citizens alike. “This new mechanism will allow the digital economy in both the EU and the US to grow, which is so critical to jobs and economic security,” noted Pritzker. She said she was “confident” that the new deal met the requirements of the ECJ. A senior official at the US department of commerce said the new deal, just like Safe Harbour, was “not a multilateral agreement or a treaty in the formal sense”. This has already prompted some criticism. Liberal Dutch member of the European Parliament Sophie in 't Veld said the “legal status of these safeguards is very unclear”. “The assurances seem to rely exclusively on political commitment, instead of legal acts. So any change in the political constellation in the US may undo the whole thing,” she said. The deal was announced a day after the 10-month race for the White House kicked off in Iowa.  The American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union is happy with the agreement, however.

“This new framework gives business the necessary confidence to continue to invest in the transatlantic marketplace,” it said in a press release. Jourova and Ansip will draft a so-called “adequacy decision” in the following weeks to determine if the US commitments provide adequate protection for European citizens' data. The decision is a legal tool under the comitology procedure, whereby decisions are taken by experts from EU countries. Jourova expects the new framework to be in place in three months.

The EU’s draft agreement with the UK received moderate backing from governments in eastern Europe, who had been critical of British prime minister David Cameron’s plans to curb benefits for EU workers.  Governments across Europe are still studying the small print of EU Council chief Donald Tusk’s proposals for a deal with the UK to keep it in the EU, but gave tentative backing to the plan on Tuesday (2 February)  EU leaders will discuss the draft agreement for the first time on 18 and 19 February.  Tusk’s plan offers Britain a gradual, four-year brake on welfare for EU workers, and cuts benefits for children of EU workers living outside Britain.  Eastern European countries had argued that cutting benefits for EU workers was discriminatory and threatened the principle of free movement. Poland, which supplies the bulk of EU workers in Britain, wanted to see more details before signing up to the plan. “Free movement of workers and services is a fundamental value of the European Union,” Polish 
president Andrzej Duda said Tuesday, Reuters reports. "There is a clause [in the deal] saying that in the case of a sudden influx of wage migrants some payments could be curbed. We will see what the interpretation [of the clause] is.

Cameron will visit Poland  to encourage Warsaw to accept the deal.  “We are analysing the latest proposal thoroughly,” Polish prime minister Beata Szydlo also said. The Polish and Hungarian foreign ministers will meet in Budapest on Wednesday to coordinate their positions. “While Hungary supported Britain’s effort to cut down on the abuse of its social system, the government opposes any discrimination in benefits among workers hailing from the EU,” Hungary’s foreign minister Peter Szijjarto said, according to Bloomberg.  The Czech Republic gave a positive first signal, with state secretary for EU affairs Tomas Prouza telling Bloomberg the draft agreement was a "very good solution" for keeping the UK in the EU. “It doesn’t mean totally closing the UK and it isn’t turning anyone into a second-class citizen,” he added. Berlin has kept quiet so far. But Cameron is to hold talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on 12 February.  Norbert Roettgen, chairman of the German parliament’s committee on foreign affairs, told the Guardian, a British daily, that the draft proposal was a “good and fair compromise, and a convincing outcome that Cameron can present to the British public”. Denmark’s prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen tweeted on Tuesday that Tusk’s proposals were a good basis for negotiations. He will also meet Cameron on Friday.

Funny that they were all expecting Russia to crumble, but instead its the ISIS supporting country of Saudi Arabia and the Ukrainian Na@tzi supporting country of Canada that are the worst hit thus far. Russia is diversifying the economy with a 2 year plan to become completely independent and its paying off fast. A guaranteed $400 billion energy agreement with China probably helps some too, as does the Nord Stream 2 project that is still a go. So, I'm thinking that in WW3, Russia are the good guys and the US has picked some pretty terrible allies who support ISIS in the Middle East and fascism in Ukraine. My, that was a quick fall from grace as Worlds super cop to aiding and abetting terrorists and Na@tzis. The alliances and proxies of the Syrian Front explained. World War III - The New Axis of Evil.. The general manager of state-run Russian energy company Gazprom Exports, Elena Burmistrova, said at the ninth European Natural Gas Conference in Vienna that the two-pipeline Northern Stream project does not require any financial support and will not cost the European Union anything. Burmistrova provided details regarding the two underwater pipelines that will carry 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. Burmistrova said Europe will need more natural gas in the future, and since prices have dropped more than expected, the competition in the market has become fiercer. Currently, Gazprom supplies 25 to 30 percent of Europe's gas demand, and with the Northern Stream-2 project, this will be secured, as more countries in Central and Eastern Europe will be able to receive Russian gas. "Since we will be using the same design as the previous Northern Stream line, we will not need months to design it. Currently, large energy companies support the project, which means we won't require any financial support from the EU. All financial matters are being discussed and resolved together with our partners," Burmistrova said. Gazprom CEO Viktor Zubkov also stressed that the project will be beneficial for Europeans. Once it is implemented, Russia can sell gas to Europe at better prices. "Not only Russia but other gas providers should also decide on the role they want to play in the middle- and long-term with their relations with the EU. We will always be a reliable resource for Europe; however, we need to establish a common dialogue," Zubkov said.  The official contract was signed between Gazprom, the German companies E.ON and BASF and the Austrian based OMV last September. However, Eastern European countries such as Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine are objecting to the project, as they don't want to lose the $3 billion in transit fees they receive.

The European Court of Justice has dealt a blow to David Cameron on the morning of his renegotiation, as its top legal adviser said that France was wrong to jail a woman attempting to get into Britain on someone else's passport.  France had no right under EU rules to detain an African woman who was caught at Calais attempting to reach Britain on false papers.  The case has potentially significant implications for how French and British police guard Calais - and critics will argue the opinion will encourage further attempts to reach Britain illegally.  Sélina Affum, a Ghanaian woman, was stopped by French police at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel while on a coach going from Ghent in Belgium to London. She was carrying a Belgian passport with the name and photograph of someone else, and had no other travel documents. Looks like there is going to be a biff between China and the Wall Street parasites, sorry, investment bankers. Could be interesting to see what the Chinese do as they have clearly identified who is driving their currency down. It is also interesting that they are paying off Dollar debt like the Russians are. This situation is historically unlike what has gone before as the global financial system appears on the verge of splitting and making assumptions about it being the same as before might not be a good idea.