I understand your position on the 'greed' of miners, what do you make of our current day state sponsored finance 'greed' out of interest?
First off I will admit that I don't know an awful lot about it, so my response is based on simply my feelings and what I have gleaned from snippets of information here and there.
As for your question, I'm not a fan overall. I think there is room for the banking sector, and it does indeed have a place in our society. However, I cannot condone high risk gambling with other peoples money even if the possible benefits are lucrative. The banks were (are?) out of control, and permission appears to have been granted by the state which is deplorable (or at least the state looked the other way). However, I think even within banking, greed is a good thing to a degree, but when it clouds judgement to such an extent that it clearly has it is folly. Increasingly risque trading almost brought the country to it's knees. Greed coupled with recklessness will never end well. That is why it is essential to put safety barriers in place throughout the industry, and from what I can gather it does seem like the banking sector is undergoing reform. Perhaps it is naive to think too much will change as making the sector too restrictive just sends the talent abroad. So in essence there is still, in my own mind, going to be state sponsored greed in the banking sector because of the very mechanics of how our country operates these days (IE no chance of competitive manufacturing/heavy industry, heavy reliance on the square mile and other finance sectors). I don't like it, but I cannot deny that it is necessary at this time. Can we change things? I think we could to some extent but we have travelled so far down this road now that changing course is going to hurt our country for decades. We have no industry and to create it we would have to be competitive and to be competitive would mean losing the NMW at the very least, or find lucrative niche markets. But niche markets tend to be small and volatile and are probably not a good bet for sustaining a country.
Financial greed in general is a diverse topic. I suppose you could argue that any ambition to better your life is greed by the very nature of "wanting more". I think a certain level of greed in daily life is healthy if it encourages the majority of people to do better for themselves and vicariously the country benefits. Ambition should be nurtured but the difference between ambitious greed and the perceived greed of the miners, for example, is that ambition means you strive for better (more) but usually that goes hand in hand with progression and development. IE a promotion, the next rung on the ladder and so on and so forth. With the miners, from what I can gather, they were asking for more, more and more but in reality they were still doing the same job, so in effect they were asking for their roles (position in society?) to be elevated above those of others in industry (special treatment). Whilst ambition in the main is a good thing and essential for development, it has to be reasonable. I would like to be earning more money, but I understand I have to develop and advance for that to happen. I can't just keep asking my MD for more money for doing the same job because I feel I am worth more than I was last year.
I do not like the idea of special treatment even though it clearly exists in present day. Mainly because it creates division and makes a mockery of our so called democracy and in many cases undermines the justice system. I don't see why a politician or a banker should evade justice because they are wealthy or influential but I accept that it is naive to think it will change any time soon. To be fair, things have been a little better in recent years and a large part of that has been down to the media exposes (another divisive topic!). Unfortunately the state had egg on it's face and now wants to make the media industry pay (from what I can tell). That said, some of the media tactics were deplorable, so as with any debate there are good and bad elements on both sides.
With regard to the bail outs, the very core of me says no we should not have done so. What is acceptable for the man on the street should be acceptable for a large loss making bank. If you run your business into the ground, you go to the wall. End of. I apply that not just to the banking sector but also to the car industry too. On one level I can see that the financial crisis was not the car industries making, but it did seem distinctly like they were trying to take advantage of the situation by asking for a bail out. On the other hand, there have been thousands of small business that have gone to the wall and the government did nothing to help them, and they are still struggling to get the banks to give business loans.
However, in the interests of the nation I am not sure whether letting the banks go under was the right thing to do at the time. Part of me feels like it would have been catastrophic and the only people suffering would be those least able to afford it and suffering more than they would if we bailed the banks out. If we did let the banks collapse I can't help feeling we would have been far worse off. As much as I loathe tax payer bail outs, my current feeling is that they were necessary to avoid a far deeper, far harder recession. My own, perhaps bordering on 'tin foil hat' view, is that the country is run by wealthy bankers and business men. It has been for a long time and perhaps the reason we have so many malleable politicians is because A) most of them are on the take or have a vested interest in one or many enterprises, and B) because of point A they are simply puppets. I find it a bit of an interesting reflection that the government smashed the unions for trying to take control, but appear to happily acquiesce to the finance/business sector who (without a doubt in my own mind) directly influence policy decisions. But then I suppose large amounts of money can help persuade anyone that black is white, can't it?
With regard to personal finance/material greed that is a complex issue. We do seem to have developed into a society with a "must have it now" mindset. I know that's a rather sweeping statement to make but with the personal financial debt figures running into trillions, it does seem to support that claim. My grandfather (a miner by the way) always said "if you cant afford you don't have". That message seems to have been lost by subsequent generations, and I also feel the behaviour of he banks in plying people with finance has been disgusting. It smacks of exploitation for profit, and yes I know people should know better than to get into debt but not everyone is as clued up as they should be. They see the prize but don't appreciate the implications for getting it (perhaps another example of reckless greed?). I think the banks have to shoulder part of the blame though and should have a role to play in responsible lending. For example, the mortgage sector was a joke back in the early-mid noughties. Banks were lending 5x (I have read reports as high as 7x!) a persons wage and not being overly diligent on ensuring affordability. I think they call that toxic debt?
I feel our current situation in this country is a direct result of reckless greed, mismanagement and profiteering. Whilst a certain level of greed/ambition is healthy, I think we let it go too far.
Does that help to give you an insight to my thoughts? I appreciate they are anecdotal so my apologies if you were expecting informed debate. I would have to do far more background reading on it to offer a more rounded discussion, sorry.
, my first ever use of that emoticon.
