This is a breathtaking example of lefty irresponsibility, fed by slobs who refuse

[Ash]

There are many ways to answer those questions but the simplest is probably that even very intelligent people aren't perfect and can make mistakes and not just once, but on an ongoing basis.

See also, the Vietnam War.

But that fact doesn't mean that the ignorant masses who borrowed money they shouldn't have don't share in the responsibility for the crash and subsequent events. That narrative won't sell as many newspapers as 'evil bankers cause crash and misery and then pocket huge bonus etc etc' though.

Yeah, but bankers are evil, WES. That's just a scientific fact. Nothing personal, of course. I know about the Vampire Squid, you see.

And I'm not buying this "honest mistake, guv. Again." theory.

[Burney]

There are many ways to answer those questions but the simplest is probably that even very intelligent people aren't perfect and can make mistakes and not just once, but on an ongoing basis.

See also, the Vietnam War.

But that fact doesn't mean that the ignorant masses who borrowed money they shouldn't have don't share in the responsibility for the crash and subsequent events. That narrative won't sell as many newspapers as 'evil bankers cause crash and misery and then pocket huge bonus etc etc' though.

Hmmm. Not sure this washes, though. As things stand, large sections of the finance industry are trying to convince the poor, ignorant demos to trust them on the basis that they know best and want the best for everyone on the subject of Brexit. You can't take that kind of patronising/paternalistic line on one hand while on the other saying 'Yeah, we systematically failed, knowingly lied to you, swindled you and screwed you over, but tough shït'.

I'm not saying you're wrong on the issue of personal responsibility, I'm just saying you probably oughtn't to be surprised that people are disinclined to listen to or trust you anymore.

[World's End Stella]

Yeah, but bankers are evil, WES. That's just a scientific fact. Nothing personal, of course. I know about the Vampire Squid, you see.

And I'm not buing this "honest mistake, guv. Again." theory.

In fact, did you know that the most evil of all banks, Goldman Sachs, bet heavily for a property crash and held open positions which would have earned them billions had they forced the counterparties to honour them.

They cancelled almost all the trades as it would have wiped out a rather large number of financial institutions and done irreparable damage to the global economy. And they weren't the only bank in that position who acted in the same way.

Well done investment banks. Some top class bonhomie there.

[Burney]

Why is this, in your opinion? Gambling is a vice that I have managed to avoid, having no interest in it, but I don't understand why I am not interested in it, given it's evident popularity, and my enthusiasm at various points for drinking, smoking and drugging. Perhaps I just go for chemical stimulants, rather than the exciting prospect of losing a lot of money.

I think perhaps it's that I can't understand the buzz. With all the chemical vices, I can at least get how the outlay/reward dynamic works. You're getting something for your money. Gambling just seems a bit abstract to me. To me it seems like giving someone the money for a couple of grammes of coke and there only being a slim chance he's actually going to give it to you.

Like I say, I don't understand the high.

[Burney]

In fact, did you know that the most evil of all banks, Goldman Sachs, bet heavily for a property crash and held open positions which would have earned them billions had they forced the counterparties to honour them.

They cancelled almost all the trades as it would have wiped out a rather large number of financial institutions and done irreparable damage to the global economy. And they weren't the only bank in that position who acted in the same way.

Well done investment banks. Some top class bonhomie there.

Yeah. Definitely no self-interest for Goldman Sachs in not precipitating the downfall of global capital, was there? Very selfless.

[World's End Stella]

Hmmm. Not sure this washes, though. As things stand, large sections of the finance industry are trying to convince the poor, ignorant demos to trust them on the basis that they know best and want the best for everyone on the subject of Brexit. You can't take that kind of patronising/paternalistic line on one hand while on the other saying 'Yeah, we systematically failed, knowingly lied to you, swindled you and screwed you over, but tough shït'.

I'm not saying you're wrong on the issue of personal responsibility, I'm just saying you probably oughtn't to be surprised that people are disinclined to listen to or trust you anymore.

But the profits of the large banks suggest that people and institutions are doing precisely that.

And it probably isn't so much a matter of trust but more likely an indicator of how utterly reliant we are on banks not only for our financial security but for our economy and therefore our lifestyle generally. Amazing how quickly people will forgive or forget someone or something upon which they are completely reliant.

[World's End Stella]

Yeah. Definitely no self-interest for Goldman Sachs in not precipitating the downfall of global capital, was there? Very selfless.

Almost philanthropic

[Ash]

But the profits of the large banks suggest that people and institutions are doing precisely that.

And it probably isn't so much a matter of trust but more likely an indicator of how utterly reliant we are on banks not only for our financial security but for our economy and therefore our lifestyle generally. Amazing how quickly people will forgive or forget someone or something upon which they are completely reliant.

We are also utterly reliant on electricity, transport and communication networks and farmers.

[World's End Stella]

We are also utterly reliant on electricity, transport and communication networks and farmers.

True. What's your point?

[Peter]

Much like the 2008 crash, actually.

How many times have we seen the accusation of 'irresponsible lending' leveled against banks without ever seeing the corresponding allegation of 'irresponsible borrowing' being leveled against the individuals who borrowed money they could not pay back?

Institutions are easy targets you see, individuals - especially the disadvantaged - less so.

I suppose if we had had to give over 850 billion in public money to the feckless individuals to bail them out we probably would blame them rather the banks.