Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Chris Blackhurst is losing it

Chris Blackhurst is the City editor of the Evening Standard and from reading his recent City pages he seems to be hating his job and railing against the world. Normally times likes these call for a post from Money is the Way, but tonight's ES really caught my eye.

The main for this story is an interview with Clive Cowdery and a writeup of what a good guy he is (and this is true at least); but the real agenda is an attack on the Coalition cuts and how these are really targeted at the middle class; my view is that this is the writer himself speaking about his own situation. There is a gratuitous attack on Nick Clegg below the piece to, harping on about the University Fees issue.

Next up today, as if to confirm this, is an attack on City Law firms and how sexist they are. Mr. Blackhurst recounts his own interview failure of decades ago and manages to make himself feel better that lawyers are all horrible and old fashioned. He has a single source on which to hang his tirade (N.b. Cityunslicker works for a large City law firm 70-30 ratio of Women to Men).

In recent weeks too there has been backing for the Student protests with a nice unbiased interview with Ronnie Cohen, high profile Labour supporter who amazingly thinks the Coalition is going too far too fast. Perhaps unsurprisingly he has a strong case of envy for those who work in the City too, they are of course overpaid compared to himself.

I find it odd that the Evening Standard is keen to have such an unreconstructed and bitter lefty as its City editor. Surely their readers, being in chunky part Commuting City Workers, would want to read something of how the current issues should be dealt with rather than polemics against the City and the Government. After all, it was the Labour Government that bears the main responsibility for this mess, a fact often glossed over by the ES City Editor these days....


Budgie said...

"... an unreconstructed and bitter lefty ..."

I didn't know there was any other sort?

hovis said...

Chris Blackhurst is city editor only in the sense that he might happen to live in a city. For months (years? never read the Standard when I had to pay for it) hads been spoutimng the most purile unthinking drivel.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the OT, but I thought you may like this.

Just a quick note :-


There is no place in the new IMF drawing rights, and basket of currency comprising those drawing rights for any of the emerging economies.

This is the old banking cartel clinging on to power, having ruined the economies of the west.

The IMF SDR will prove to be the western finance entry vehicle into emerging economies that need financial assistance...loans....debt...in the future...should they need it.

This is unbelievable, China is the No. 2 economy in the world, measured by GDP. There will never be any G20 agreement on ANY subject, while ever this travesty is ongoing.

This guarantees currency wars, restrictions on capital flows, falling world trade, falls in standard of living, and possibly countries like China and Russia refusing to accept $ and £ in payment for exports.

It guarantees regional currencies, like the Yuan, or the Ruble, being used for international trade in non-western areas, ever more bi-lateral agreements, and guarantees the further demise of the West.

It also guarantees, as far as they are able, emerging economies will NEVER go to the IMF SDR for "help".

A split globe!

For f*cks sake, we are ruled by madmen!

Sorry once again, CU.

Delete if you wish, no offence.

CityUnslicker said...

Anon - no its is fine it is quite interesting. However,until China unpegs the Yuan what is the point of it being int he basket - I was of the view that this was why the basket was kept this way, so few other credible emerging market currencies with a free float?

Anonymous said...

As I said earlier, Japan got screwed by the plaza accords, hence the Yuan/$ peg.

If the Chinese had opened their financial markets according to WTO obligations, they would by now be a puppet of the Fed, probably following an almighty engineered boom and bust allowing western capitains of industry to purchase at rock-bottom. China was never going to allow that, given the history, and predictability of such a pattern.

Given the ongoing re-orientation of Japan eastwards, I was surprised at its weighting.

I am equally amazed at the UK at the quoted levels.

"so few other credible emerging market currencies with a free float?". - Agreed, however is lack of depth in capital markets a reason for a total block, given the size of China, its forex reserves, and ability to contribute?


The reaction will be interesting.

The new economic order is embodied in the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) with its members, observer states and affiliate nations. The SCO is already driving prices in commodity markets, and this transfer of power from the old (West, IMF) to the new economic order is of tectonic magnitude, but volcanic speed.

The driving forces behind the SCO are China and Russia. It seems self evident that at some point in the future they will introduce a currency that in all probability will be gold backed. Indeed Russia at a previous G20 presented the participants with a bullion coin, saying that was the coin of the future. At some point, foreign purchasers from the SCO nations will probably have to provide some sort of "hard backing" to enable the transaction, or buy the "new" gold backed currency first, in order to transact.

Saudi is in talks re such.

I reckon the west just shot itself in the foot.

Time will tell.

CityUnslicker said...

Anon - i think there is a strong case now being made for a return to some sort of bretton woods III and you are correct that it will be the emerging economies leading this not the West.

I have doubts about the efficacy of Gold backing in the modern world and how ti would be possible to control the price given that gold is so heavily speculated (i.e. JPM etc and their huge short positions)

Anonymous said...


I doubt that any agreement on BW 111 is possible.

The IMF won't sell gold to China

China + all other emerging nations are excluded from the IMF basket, with economic power reserved for the old guard, cartel members.

Cartel members rig the price of just about every commodity on the planet, not just PMs, burning food capacity for energy, creating problems for the less wealthy nations.

Cartel members plus captured politicians, have killed all western economies, where ultimately QE will be applied liberally throughout.... there is no other way out... to debase their debt.

Why would the emerging, vibrant, less heavily taxed nations wish any agreement with said cartel nations?

Over time, mercantilism will increase, defences raised, eventually with exports likely requiring a certain amount of gold along-side paper payment, since the west will continue to debase their currencies. The criminal shorting/manipulations will have no relevence in this equation.

According to some authorities a similar arrangement to this was operative for several years with Saudi as the swing producer on OPEC, however I have never seen any evidence of such.

We have witnessed Rare Earths.

China also controls 70%+ of global Tungsten production.
Tungsten for all practical purposes is inert, and melts at plus 3000C.

Try making a machine tool without Tungsten! Or a host of other technical applications!

And that's just for starters.

Naturally this won't happen overnight.....

Or the west might regain sanity...

Well, who knows?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Mr Blackhurst makes routine use of the word "cuts".

In our house, we make enconomies, we don't cut anything. Somehow, it sounds oh so positive.

Over this year, our budget has been stretched. That's a nuisance, but you know how it is, one gets one's wages and squanders it fecklessly on fuel and food.

I am glad, Mr City Unslicker, that you make a contribution to my general well-being, but have decided not to demand you send me a bottle of Krug and your air miles, for though you possibly have a higher income, somehow, I don't feel I have a right to demand you give it to me.

I am trying to be reasonable. But then, I always was odd.

Anonymous said...

Just a final comment.

Finland objects to Ireland bailout.

Austria objects to more Greek aid, 'cos they lied about the current.

Portugal jumps up and down pleading with Ireland to take the bailout.

Rumpy Rumpy says it's a crisis.

Euro tanks.

Greek costs rocket

Over the Ocean, CME raises costs for longs on Gold, and Silver (again)...disorderly markets.

Seems to me PM markets are more disorderly on the take-downs, but no movement by CME on shorts costs!

US states good bankster bonuses this year end. (I wonder what percentage of M3 (calculated since helicopter boy doesn't publish) will be sucked away this year in bonuses for state bailed out criminals)

More and more covert QE going on in the west.

Seems to me I will be proven correct. The takedown of the entire commodity complex has been orchestrated since last friday. The Cartel is losing control, pillars of support are crumbling.

Tree shaking isn't working for physical longs...OI in PMs for Dec delivery could crash the bloody lot.

Euro will wander back up to 140, shorts move in again, good first quarter bonuses again.

Rinse and repeat.

All beautifully choreogaphed by a compliant media


The sooner the less-than-modern-world comprising 70% of the global population can ditch this cartel and its crap, the better for the entire world.

Seems to me that Germany will leave the EU within 8 months, team up with a few smaller players, and enter a different currency block backed by hard assets, and endless resources (liquid and solid, and gaseous. In fact, I'll bet on it!

And that will probably be the straw for the cartels back!

Now I'll go and contemplate.....

Botogol said...

CU is that really the case that your firm is 70/30 in favour of women? Or am I reading it wrong. it seems very high to me.

Is that all lawyers, or just the graduate intake?

what's the percentage of women partners? I bet <10%?

CityUnslicker said...

Botogol re partners of 10% would be a smidge low, but clearly that is going to change over time given the new demographic.

Botogol said...

yes, understood. Anyway Partner ratios are pretty public information, I can look them up online - but for all lawyers below partner? is your firm really 70%?

I would have guessed - blindly - a 50/50 trainee intake, with the %of women dropping inexorably as you go up the firm, over all lawyers averaging about 25% women?