Now you see it ... now you don't

I know I am very far from being alone in questioning the logic of the events of the past couple of years in the City of London, on Wall Street, etc. All this government and media talk about the crucial importance of 'saving the banks'? Why? In the name of heaven and our idolatised free market, why?

If the answer is, 'to ensure the continued validity of millions of depositors' savings I could live with it, although I would want to know where those same savings went, into whose pockets, and what is being done about the charging in courts of law of those who have spirited away (stolen is a more direct word) said savings.

But I haven't heard any such explanation. I have heard nothing but the vital importance of getting the banks back lending again. Which seems, to me at least, a bit like medical advice to a pneumonia sufferer to go wade in the open sea each day. Poor Rabbie Burns! Lending is the disease, not the cure, and is more responsible for serious personal and group human misery than all other causes added up together.

Should we not to asking ourselves why cannot banks behave in the way they were designed to behave. i.e. like the cornerstones of our community and the trusted holders of the fruits of all our labours? Should not our elected government be devising and enforcing changes to this effect? Gambling is not banking. Sorry. Gambling is a disease like any other.

If you really want to destroy capitalism in the way that has often been forecast by Islamists and by others, you first destroy the valueand integrity of monetary rewards for work done. Which is precisely what our governments have been doing in their frantic efforts to get the bankers back into full and legal stealing mode.

The one and only valid cry from the heights of our establishment came the other day from Lord Turner, ex head of the FSA I believe. He called into question the value to our society of, essentially, the City of London. Few of his fellow establishment figures have agreed or will agree. Could that be because they mostly have their sticky fingers in what used to be called the public purse?

Are you listening to us, Gordon? No, of course not.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.