The lead-in headline suggest that King has some questions to answer.
The main one: Why does anyone rely on a rate that is a truncated average of pure guesses by a number of banks. The LIBOR question is "at what rate COULD you have borrowed funds at 11am" not "at what rate DID you borrow funds."
The second question is: if you were asked to guess at something and leaning in one direction would hurt you while guessing the other direction would help you, what would you do?
The third is: what is the legal basis for assuming that the banks reporting to Thompson-Reuters acting for the British Bankers Association have a duty of care to either?
The fourth: Should every used-car salesman who says "this is the best price you'll see today" face charges of fraud?
The fifth: why does anyone assume that banks are different from used-car salesmen?
“"We cannot have widely-available and generous health insurance." Actually, there are three ways we COULD have both:
1) If we are willing to pay for it. (Okay, we're not, so next...)
2) If we slash the profit potion of the cost. (Unlikely, given the power of campaign contributions)
3) If we pay providers on outcome, not on input. (Unlikely,See 2 above)
The reason our costs are twice as high as other OECD countries, and our system produces worse results than OECD countries, is political, not financial.k
You've heard of "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells"? Well, I live in Holland Park and I've Had It. Up to here! An old curmudgeon, I rant and rave about things I read, see or hear in the News. Frequently sarcastic, irreverent and libertarian; often wrong - but never uncertain.