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

[Ash]

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.

Ah, but if you take that view that some individuals are stupid, feckless, greedy, and so on, while banking institutions are intelligent, wise, experienced, sober, sensible and fore-seeing, then why on this earth do the banks keep lending these individuals money that they know won't get paid back?

I mean, you can expect stupid people to be stupid, right? So why are smart people like you giving these people money? I mean, as thay say, duh?

[Burney]

Ah, but if you take that view that some individuals are stupid, feckless, greedy, and so on, while banking institutions are intelligent, wise, experienced, sober, sensible and fore-seeing, then why on this earth do the banks keep lending these individuals money that they know won't get paid back?

I mean, you can expect stupid people to be stupid, right? So why are smart people like you giving these people money? I mean, as thay say, duh?

In the case of banking, I would agree with you only to the extent that, by lending irresponsibly, the banks put themselves and their shareholders in jeopardy. That is mismanagement. The individuals, however, deserve no protection from their own stupidity. It's like these fixed odds betting machines that everyone gets upset about. Now I am actually quite puritanical about gambling on a personal level. I think that, of the vices, it is one of the least forgivable. However, I see no reason to protect someone from their own lack of impulse control. If they're stupid enough to keep feeding money into a loaded game, too bad about them. Nature has a way of taking care of such people.

[Ash]

Now I am actually quite puritanical about gambling on a personal level. I think that, of the vices, it is one of the least forgivable.

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.

[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.

[Peter]

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.

The high isn't the money. Its the achievement of being right, beating the odds, having the balls to back your judgement. I guess you dont understand that because you dont need gambling to convince you that you are always right- you just know it

Hence I can understand betting on the horses, blackjack, poker. I cant understand fruit machines or games of pure chance.

[World's End Stella]

Now I am actually quite puritanical about gambling on a personal level. I think that, of the vices, it is one of the least forgivable.

Message reported to Kilburn Al.

[World's End Stella]

Ah, but if you take that view that some individuals are stupid, feckless, greedy, and so on, while banking institutions are intelligent, wise, experienced, sober, sensible and fore-seeing, then why on this earth do the banks keep lending these individuals money that they know won't get paid back?

I mean, you can expect stupid people to be stupid, right? So why are smart people like you giving these people money? I mean, as thay say, duh?

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.

[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.

[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]

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.