15 August 2011

Post on: 2011-08-26 By: admin

A lot of theories are being advanced about the precipitants for the London riots. The list includes futureless youth, a culture of defeat, criminal sub-cultures, racism, reneging on the social contract, irresponsible parents and austerity measures, and all may be true, but what springs to mind is William Montague The Third.The government adopted the predictable hardline approach with David Cameron saying:As to the lawless minority, the criminals who've taken what they can get, I say this: We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.A determined looking Cameron also announced that police can use rubber bullets if they wish, water cannon will be available at 24 hours' notice, courts will keep sitting overnight to deal with riot cases, and photographs of rioters will continue to be published to allow them to be identified: "Picture by picture, these criminals are being identified and arrested, and we will not let any phony concerns about human rights get in the way of the publication of these pictures and the arrest of these individuals." The government says it is also working with the police, the intelligence service and industry to work out whether it would be right to stop people communicating via websites and services when "we know they are plotting" violence, disorder and criminality.Inevitably and almost invariably, government reaction to events like this is force and violence and the stripping back of civil liberties instead of a close look at how and why its own institutions and structures have failed. What's next? A colour-coded curfew? The model for the UK government's reaction could have been V For Vendetta.But speaking of the looters - criminals who've opportunistically taken what they can get - reminds me that it wasn't so long ago that some of London's now-concerned citizens - the archangels of private property and the free market and small government - were the first to put out their unclean, invisible hands and whisper those sweet little words, 'bailout please'.It was reported that:… the commitments include buying 76 billion pounds of shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group; indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than 200 billion pounds of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to 250 billion pounds of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing 40 billion pounds of loans and other funding to BradfordBingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over 280 billion pounds for bank assets … the NAO ruled that the "unprecedented" 850 billion of support for banks was "justified" to head off the potential damage of one or more of them going bust, and preserving people's savings and confidence in the financial system…Paid for by?The perpetrators of the financial rape and pillage that engendered that global financial crisis were saved, along with their still-teetering institutions, but somebody had to pay the piper.According to Bank of England governor Mervyn King, "The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it. Now is the period when the cost is being paid, I'm surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than this."Last year the British government unveiled the largest cuts to public spending since World War II in a bid to bring its huge debt burden under control. It confirmed that there would be 81 billion pounds in spending cuts through 2015, and tax increases to wipe out a spending deficit of 109 billion pounds. As many as 500,000 public sector jobs will be lost, about 18 billion pounds axed from welfare payments and the pension age raised to 66 by 2020. In March this year King said:If it's possible [for financial services firms] to make money out of gullible or unsuspecting customers, particularly institutional customers, [they think] that is perfectly acceptable. We've not yet solved the 'too big to fail' or, as I prefer to call it, the 'too important to fail' problem. The concept of being too important to fail should have no place in a market economy… Why do banks in general want to pay bonuses? It's because they live in a 'too big to fail' world in which the state will bail them out on the downside … the institutions bailed out were those at the heart of the crisis. Hedge funds were allowed to fail, 3,000 of them have gone, but banks weren't…Although we all await the final report of the UK Independent Commission on Banking into improving regulation in the banking system, it remains to be seen whether the UK government will be as prompt to pursue the bankers as it is to pursue the people on mainstreet.In May, The Interim report of the High Pay Commission was released which confirmed that:The UK's top earners are taking a bigger slice than ever of the national income. If current trends continue, by 2025 the top 0.1 per cent of earners will take home10 per cent of the national income and by 2030 we will have gone back to levels of inequality not seen since Victorian England. The winners - those who make up the lion's share of the top 0.1% earners - are finance workers (30 per cent), those working in business (38 per cent) and company directors (34 per cent), with FTSE 100 chief executives also topping the scale with average total remuneration of over 4.2 million pounds in 2009/10… Average salary for workers compared to FTSE 100 CEO total pay in 2010 was 145 times the average salary and 214 times projected in 2020… Businesses and government has failed to tackle the dramatic growth in pay at the top of the income distribution amid growing public disillusionment and a hardening in attitudes towards business. High pay in the financial sector naturally generates the strongest feelings among the British public and trust in the banking sector has plummeted… But public anger over bank bonuses has not stopped staff in 11 European banks increasing their pay by 7 per cent in the year from 2009. Nor has it stopped Barclays giving bankers three times as much in bonuses as it paid investors in dividends…So the losses were socialised and the marketeers permitted to continue on their merry way while average working people had to tighten their belts and pay off the debts.The burden of the parlous financial state of the United States, the UK and most of the eurozone is being borne by the citizens of those countries, and on mainstreet the problem doesn't just involve losing some of your assets: you end up losing the roof over your head, your job and income, the prospect of a future for yourself and your children and eventually your dignity. It's little wonder that rioting youths are stealing the very things for which advertising whetted their appetites but which the system gave them no opportunity lawfully to acquire. Repressing them with violence and locking them up isn't going to solve anything, and when the financial crisis that is just around the corner hits things are going to become much worse.And a further question of interest is, when do popular riots against an unpopular system become "legitimate", like the riots we have seen and are seeing in North Africa?Kellie Tranter is a lawyer and human rights activist.
Comments for this story are closed.No new comments can be added.
The problems behind the matters you address are fairly fundamental.A means of exchange is not a commodity and whilever we treat it as one we'll be suffering the effects of this delusion.Self interest is not enlightened. Beyond prudent acquisition, self interest is greed, and greed is not a virtue.It is a vice.Millions of city dwellers, all over the world, rushing from where they sleep to where they shuffle paper and back again is not described by going to work. The only sensible use of the word work involves the concept of production - and all they produce is waste.The really astonishing thing is that a species which has survived for about five million years or so since we parted genetic company with the ancestors of the chimpanzees should abandon its survival mechanisms - its social nature and its intellect - and start performing en mass like like dim-witted wolverines.I hope that we can become human again.The quicker we forget about the demented rattlings of people who lived in the tundra whose brains were affected by too many oats the better.A poor diet obviously mitigates against clear thinking.
While we are commiserating,or laughing at theinvestors super funds,bank deposits,etc,where interest rates are around 6%,spare a thought for the American depositor, receiving,around,.o3%. If the American interest rates ever rise to 3-4%,watch the havoc on the Dow Jones then,makes one wonder.
If the European countries,America, and Japan have lost, borrowed,trillions of dollars,where is it? Money,doesn't just disappear,it goes from one pocket to another pocket.Does anybody know whose pocket,it lines? China doesn't appear to have it,so who does? When the recent sell down on world stock markets occurred,the shares were still in existence,as somebody else bought them as fast as the financial experts,of all colours could sell them,so somebody has benefitted. Who. It is the same thing applies when interest rise,a lot of people pay more,but a lot of people get more.How does this work? Meanwhile there is a class of people who sail ever onwards,apparently untouched,by any of these so called calamities.How does this happens?
Sadly, money does just disappear. If I buy shares for $10,000 and sell them for $3000, then I lose $7000 and the buyer spends $3000 only. So my $7000 has disappeared up the spout. No-one gets it.Money is like the magic pudding. In good times the banks create money out of thin air, following treasury rules, and then sell it to us as debt.In bad times it evaporates just as quickly but the debt stays behind. That is where the US and EU are at now.
'So my $7000 has disappeared up the spout. No-one gets it'I would have thought that the person that you bought the shares from, for $10k,has the $7k,in his pocket.
If the English riots were Saudi Arabia,or China,Or some other similar place,they would have been praised all over the western media,and Cameron,and his ilk, would have been leading the pack
It has all happened before folks, and it has been allowed to happen again:The disasters of the 1890s made it apparent to most people that while uncontrolled capitalism might be a marvellous way of unleashing human energy and ambition, it could also be a devilish force capable of recoiling indiscriminately on the just and unjust and causing enormous suffering...one of the most striking examples in history of the interdependence of all parts of the social order. Cannon, M. The Land Boomers, Melbourne University Press, 1966
Whaaaa Whaaaaa Whaaaaaaaaaa!! it's always someone elses fault! WhaaaaaaaNow give me back my dummy!
Two phrases that I have seen in the media sum it up.Bankstersand Pinstripe Looters.I am sure the damage caused by Cameron's Hooded Looters is miniscule compared to the Pinstripe Looters efforts.Has anyone else noted the irony of Robert Zoellick ( World Bank chairman since 2007 ) pontificating on the dangerous sovereign debt crisis in the EU, particularly Greece?Mr Zoellick was MD of Goldman Sachs prior to his appointment to the World Bank, this is the same Goldman Sachs who helped Greece mask the true facts concerning its national debt between 1998 and 2009.Goldman Sachs arranged swaps that effectively allowed Greece to borrow 1 billion Euros without adding to its official public debt.Goldman also created CDSs insuring the Greek debt. Ie. betting against failure - Sound familiar?Goldman eventually sold the swaps to the national bank of Greece.
Zoellick is spawned from the noisome miasma that is PNAC.That of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny together with the Manichean You are either with us or against us!Zoellick follows in the fine footsteps of Wolfowitz , another Neocon, who had to quit the job that Zoellick now holds.Why? Because Wolfie transgressed World Bank ethics by having as his squeeze the World Bank Senior Communications Officer (and Acting Manager of External Affairs) for the Middle East and North Africa Regional Office Shaha Ali Riza.Zoellick like Wolfowitz was one of the signatories along with Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld, of the Project for a New American Century's 1998 manifesto calling for removing Saddam's regime from power.So Zoellick was one of the instigators of the illegal invasion and occupation which created the Iraq War that Three Trillion dollar and counting Fiasco.Wolfowitz another instigator of the Fiasco thought, somehow, it would would pay for itself.! And this was a man they made President of the World Bank?Meanwhile back to the neocon perps, in the 2000 U.S. Presidential election campaign Zoellick was foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush, as part of a neoconservative group led by Condi, that also included Paul Wolfowitz and who called themselves The Vulcans?? And no, they had not named themselves after the very logical and rational group the Vulcans, whom Terrans encounter on Star Trek.They took their name from Vulcan, the Roman name for the Greek god Hephaestus. He was the god of technology including, specifically blacksmiths, craftsmen, artisans, sculptors, metals and metallurgy, and fire.A statue of Vulcan, in Birmingham Alabama , is the largest cast iron statue in the world. So maybe this name was suggested by Condi?To punish mankind for stealing the secret of fire, Zeus, ordered the other gods to make a poisoned gift for man. Hephaestus contribution was the beautiful and foolish Pandora, he molded her from clay and then breathed life into her. Hephaestus was an ugly bastard, literally and physically. Hephaestus made the thrones for the gods on Olympus.We know what happened in the Pandora story!Does this not start to sound rather allegorical?
One of the issues being swept under the carpet after the GFC, is how woeful business really is at doing business.We have had to put up with years and years of business gloating about how much better they are in every way compared to governments -more efficient, more productive, better at creating jobs, single handedly keeping economies going.So, why is no-one re-evaluating these claims in light of the GFC ? The GFC showed that business leaders, the ones with the multimillion dollar salaries, are absolutely incompetent at managing businesses. The GFC showed that business leaders have all the sophistication of little kids: all bravado until they get into trouble, then off to mum and dad to bail them out when their stupidity gets them into trouble.Sadly too, it is the mums and dads who have paid the price for these selfish little bizkids, who seem to have learn't nothing and are now up to their old tricks.With kids you let them fail occasionally or they will never gain some common sense. So maybe its time to get these businesses to repay all the money that we gave them over the next 5 years.That should help the government debt problems somewhat !
False compensation claims, and looting, may be illegal, but property rent-seekers profiteering from disasters by increasing rents by 10% isn’t.Following the Queensland floods, authorities there were and are completely unwilling to put urgent public need before private profit and private property rights; they could've required investor-owners of long-term vacant housing to either let their long-term vacant dwellings (8% of the Queensland's total) to temporarily homeless flood victims or (e.g.) suffer a vacant dwelling tax of perhaps 25% of the weekly rental value. Bligh Government assistance with housing has in fact been purely token, just enough to make it look good.Apparently the Japanese Government has so far built 18,000 temporary houses, the Bligh Government 26.Good temporary accommodation would have been a big big help after such disasters, both financially and psychologically.Climate change deniers, by denying, thus help deny assistance in crises as well as the problem itself.Insurers continue to exploit and demean Qld flood victims, with Bligh Government support.As usual, home-buyer subsidies in the recent Qld Budget appear intended, as usual, to shore up unaffordable house prices, quite deliberately to the cost of victims and buyers.That the rent-seekers of property industry were and are openly and happily profiteering from the floods crisis disturbs the Bligh Government not in the least.It is, after all, the property industry, also, incidentally, with a mutually parasitic relationship with the banks.
If you want to thieve and destroy public wealth. Wear a suit and you won't get touched.
A superficially plausible thesis of social exclusion and exploitation.That is, until one considers that during the Blair/Brown Labour governments spending on social security, with the aim of poverty reduction, has ballooned both in absolute and relative terms.This caused the increasingly unsustainable indebtedness.It would appear that giving people more money did not solve the social problems.
Did you not read the article? State debt was caused by the bank bailouts, not social security!
True enough Kellie. The usual suspects have lined up to denigrate anyone to the left of Genghis Khan, as usual, with the usual right wing tripe. Read on below at the peril of your sanity, dear reader.
This is Kelly saying the emperor is not wearing any clothes.The massive GFC debt was caused by irresponsible private spending, not public spending. Banks are private companies, insurance companies are private companies, investment companies are private companies, mortgage lenders are private companies.All over the world billions of dollars of government money have been funnelled to these private companies to save their shareholders from pain. For ordinary people, when you defraud you go to jail. But not these clowns. And a good question is, why has public money been diverted to private shareholders in the billions, private shareholders who obviously can't run a business ? Are they now squandering these public billions as well ? And if our banks got into trouble, it would be the same here, by either the Libs or the ALP.You could say good bye to spending on schools and hospitals, police and roads, just like in the USA and the UK.There but for the grace of God go us.
This article tells the truth. It is the banks that took all of the money from the USA and Europe with threats of economic ruin if they were not bailed out. The one thing I would add is that it was the same banks who created the financial crisis with dodgy loans and bundling of derivatives. Mr Cameron may promise to punish the underclass for their (recent) crimes but no government has dared to attempt to punish the bankers for their crimes. Why is that? Is it because the bankers and governments were in collusion to carry out those criminal acts? If so, isn't that a criminal conspiracy and an act of financial terrorism?
LOL and those same institutions are the ones that made those same imaginary billions/trillions that magically disappeared off the sharemarkets and balance sheets.Or did you think that was actual real wealth that had been created?Was it criminal of those institutions to create that imaginary wealth in the first instance? That imaginary wealth and value was never a reflection of the true underlying value of those assets. It was just market hype that made you think so.The market adjusted accordingly, there was no global conspiracy, just the normal cyclical ebb and flows of the global market.
I disagree.To the people who lost money from their superanuation funds during the GFC, the money they lost was real enough; to those who are self-funded retirees and rely on their investments for their income, that lost money and diminished returns were real enough; in those countries that had to bail out their banks during the GFC, the increased taxes and cuts to government services are real enough; and for the public servants who had their jobs cut in the name of austerity measures, the loss of income was real enough too.The numbers may seem too big to be real. The USA has 14.5 trillion dollars worth of debt for instance which is $14,500,000,000,000 (and change) which seems like an unreal number but the truth is that the damage that this debt swap has caused to societies all around the world is real and hurting real peopleBut the very same banks continue to profit as they now lend nations the same money from the bailouts at higher interest rates than before so that they can continue to (barely) function. It is very real.
In the past 60 years we have gone from welfare only for the deserving poor, to universal entitlements for all.It is ludicrous that a corporation should be getting a government handout, simply because its fat cat bosses backed the wrong horse.My parents lived through the Great Depression.They would have disowned me if I had tried to go on the dole, when I could grab a rake and a lawnmower and find a paying customer.The government handouts of 08/09 were always going to lead to today's massive government debts.And let's face it, we deserve to be in this pickle.We have let 50 years of democratic socialism talk us into the notion that electable governments must fix all our problems in exchange for nothing more than our votes.So, it is now time to go home and rediscover how our grandparents survived the Great Depression; wild rabbit stew and a vege patch are a good start.Good luck people, and enjoy every moment of taking responsibility for your family.And would all the politicians please go home; really, you are just getting in the way.
Obviously Angus is someone who still lives in the Great Depression.If we could all grab a rake and a lawnmower and find a paying customer it wouldn't be a Depression; a Depression is when there are no ways of earning any living, even criminal ones, for many people, you follow?democratic socialism?You refer to the ALP, I presume, that sold workers' interests to the bosses in return for corporate endorsement? Argus is living not merely in the past, but in the fantasy created by Labor's media agents.No doubt he finds it much more comfortable than dealing with the complex reality.This primitive mentality is absurdly unsuited to megalopolises where the average house has barely enough space for a couple of plants, no fireplaces, and total reliance on centrally provided gas, water, power, transport routes, and telecommunications.What is needed is a move to more socialist principles, in which government is expected to directly provide a good range of the important public services - health, education, housing, transport, etc., instead of abandoning it or flogging it off to a motley collection of shabby profit-seeker/NGO providers.
You're improving. Poor old Argus.
No, no, he can have his preferred lifestyle property - the humpy with river views previously occupied by some itinerant workers.
I don't need to be reminded...They both got a 10 quid ticket in Steerage...now have a another squizz at what we won for our money.
Strange isn't it. No mention of the people equally repressed by their situation and who had their property destroyed by the rioting mob. But oh, those poor misunderstood rioters must not be repressed for even one second as they loot stores for fashionable ghetto wear. Ms Tranter, you may be able to excuse the behaviour of the mob. Those with a moral compass can not.
Social media failed.There weren't enough rioters. There wasn't enough looting.There wasn't enough destruction of property.The extent of lawlessness wasn't enough for the number of offenders to be too big to gaol.Which is a shame.Because there is almost a poetic symmetry in the too big to fail bailouts inducing austerity measures that germinate too big to gaol riots.
Great insights Kellie.However the problems in the UK go much deeper.Many in Britain see the solution as being a Republic.www.republic.org.uk provides some interesting reading.
Why are western media and governments full of praise when citizens of Arab countries rally and protest their corrupt governments who no longer concern themselves with the welfare of their citizens and fail to be pleased when the same eruption of discontent erupts in the West. It's not just the bank bailout that is squeezing the Brits or the crushing of social programs, it is also the colossal carnivorous Olympics which has been changing their lives for the last few years. A couple of years ago British papers were full of comments by unemployed tradesman and builders, many of them middle aged with a lifetime of experience who were being bypassed by big business shipping in slave labor visa holders to build the stadiums etc; jobs that British people has expected to be theirs. Just recently I noticed a quibble about tickets, shortages and over-pricing and not many being available for the normal Brit. The normal low income British person has been paying for it for years and will continue to do so. Britain is hardly a democracy with a House of Lords and people are protesting. While the wealthy still carry on as if they are living in the days of the British Empire expecting a massive defense force to be supported by taxpayers and involved in wars of empire the common people are now saying What for?
Interesting.Our reactions are largely to do with an emotional reaction.The physical damage caused by the rioters (murders aside) was not so important as the emotional damage - the fear and insecurity, the sudden loss of social order.In contrast, when rock stars had a penchant, some decades ago, for wrecking the places they stayed at and played at, they were seen as naughty because they were just having a good time - and of course usually had to pay the bill to fix the damage.A final contrast is the MUCH more extensive damage incurred by the GFC including loss of savings, houses, livelihoods, suicides, failed projects and lost retirements - but because this involved no direct, personal damage to property, and a widespread diffusion of responsibility, we don't class it as being nearly so reprehensible.It's all about the personal vs the impersonal.Knocking down a door is violence; knocking down a suburb is progress.At the end of the day it's about the meaning behind the actions, more than the actions themselves.
Like most things, there will be a bunch of answers and most commentators probably will correctly identify some.Again, as with most things, the more strident and one-eyed they are, the less correct they probably are.I take Kellie's point about the perceived justice issues WRT the banks, bankers etc.Contrary to some of the comments here, I don't believe she is suggesting that her article is the full story.My $0.10 is:* Monkey see, monkey do.There have been lots of riots and protests in Europe recently.It's just a news story for us down here but for the Poms, its happening (relatively) much closer than New Zealand is to us.* General dis-ease.So-called IRA bombings restarted within about 6 months of the Irish economy tanking.Especially in a more crowded environment, worries are more contagious and there are lots of worried people with too much time on their hands.* I second the break down of family units argument.Not blaming single mums here but quite simply, kids do best when they have strong, positive female and male adults in their lives.And if those strong, positive adults also modeled healthy, loving relationships, so much the better.*Any viable solution to this troubling issue will take time and will involve pretty much equal parts toughness and compassion.
Thebalance of distributionneeds toreturn toutopian socialistsandthenotion of theethical IQpromulugated . However thecomplexities ofinnate competitiveness and individualismform acontraryto the levelers . Inequality exists and the tenth commandment thy shall not covet brings the collarythy shall not induce jealousy.
I was brought up in a very poor family, worked from the age of 14, was born just after WW 2, I was lucky to have meat once every week. My parents gave it to me and went without while I was growing and sacrificed themselves so I could develop in a healthy child. Until I became 18 we did not have a TV then it was Black and white, we never had a car, but no one thought of rioting, mum worked in a textile factory and dad cleaned, in those days they had the fat cats too, so nothing has changed. It seems these days no one wants to get their hands dirty. Much easier to hold a gun, get money that way through drugs and robbery, I find it disgusting that they burned those shop owners shops who tried to make a living in an honest way. How would we like it, if our corner shops were burned, hard working people who get up at 6 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. sitting there waiting for the customers who buy a packet of cigarettes, bread and bottle of milk. I can't understand these good doers they disgust me just as much, sitting with their fat asses on a chair, wonder what they would think if their house was burned down, their relatives were murdered and mum had to jump out the window of their burning house? Would they be so forgiving?For some odd reason I say they would change their mind and if not they should go for sainthood. I think those people in London were nothing more like thugs, and the younger ones were carried away in the heat of the moment. I don't blame the 12 and 13 year olds they don't know much, and just go for the thrill, and then realise what have I done, how did this happen to me? It's the mob mentality, big people lure little waifs to get excited.
All sounds good, a pity she is just like Michelle Bachman,she is all talk and has no understanding of what she is talking about, just base appeals to her crowd. I am just glad she is a lawyer and not and accountant as she obviously has no idea of the causes of the budget deficit and why the cuts are being made.Ignorance doesnt seem to stop some people spouting rubbish and inciting people to believe.Why not be honest with people for a change.The truth - people and governments have been living beyond their means and borrowed too much to cover large annual defecits (and BTW for Kellie the deficit doesnt include the bank bailouts).
You still didn't address her main point. It doesn't require an accoutant (thank god).Why is there a difference in treatment of rioting vandals and the economic vandals who STILL run things? What is worse is that they are responsible for almost everyone in this country's super. The point isvandal - high street or economic, should all be in jail.
But does include the interest payments on the money used to do it.Perhaps - here's 850b in bailouts.It comes with this lovely 10% special tax applied to any company to takes it until its repaid.Oh, and shareholder dividends must be larger then employee bonuses.
Mart - there are two points, the cuts needed have nothing to do with the bank bail outs.On your point, it is a bit hard to punish those who have made a bad lending decision for criminal behavoir.If that was the case, then no banker would lend to anyone with a risk and this would exclude thousands from buying a home or starting a business (or indeed lending to governments such as Greece!).It would criple the chance for people to try and make life for them and their family better. Having said that, the culture in banks needs to change from the top down and be institution rather than individual first.More importantly, those who lead institutions or have key roles within institutions who fail should (just like the rioters) be cast out from decent society and not be given awards, invited by companies or individuals to be at sporting events, opening nights or at be in the A list.Those who have missold to super funds should be prosecuted.The super funds should employ better people who arent taken in by market hype.Peter, the bail out mostly consisted of guarantees and making liquidity available not the provision of cash.The banks did pay for these facilities.The shareholders also paid by the majority of their buisness being taken over and their share of the business being significantly reduced.The dividends from the banks offset the interest.I agree that shareholders should get more back bone and insist that the bonus pool is compared to dividend pool.One thing that is grating is that the returns to shareholders over the last 10 years compared to the returns to the bankers are completely out of kilter.It should be made clear to bankers that no matter how smart they are they would make no money without the shareholders money behind them.
Very interesting...when I broached these subjects during the rioting I was accused of speaking 'Dribble' by someone and 'Drivel' by others.Though this article is a little behind the times and merely parrots my thoughts it is good to see people on a similar wave length and sad to see that it takes an 'official' type article for readers to accept such ideas that are very relevant.
The words of Michael Meade are particularly poingnant: “In many tribal cultures, it was said that if the boys were not initiated into manhood, if they were not shaped by the skills and love of elders, then they would destroy the culture. If the fires that innately burn inside youths are not intentionally and lovingly added to the hearth of community, they will burn down the structures of culture, just to feel the warmth.” ( Men and the Water of Life, 1993)Totally agree with your point about if we are making an example of looters how about making an example of the GFC looters. The finance sector are not using their own money they are using OUR money and without Our money they couldn't even do their jobs and yet they are paid on a take no responsibility now take no responsibility later basis. Time to bring back strong regulation because deregulation and privatisation has not worked.Time to leave Neverland.
Ain't it funny how the factory's doors closeRound the time that the school doors closeRound the time that the doors of the jail cells open up to greet you.Like the reaper.Rage against the Machine, Battle of LA
Too big to fail vs big enough to fit in a cell.
It's little wonder that rioting youths are stealing........It's little wonder that they don't know right from wrong?Well, they ought to know
I wonder how tolerant of rioting people would be if the rioters had burned down Newtown, Annandale, Leichhardt or their Melbourne equivalents?
Love the article Kellie. Spot on. There is a bigger picture to these riots that has been carefully ignored by much of the media- the UK's youth has been left with little to look forward to thanks to the baby boomer generation's love of feathering their own nest at the expense of others.
While it is unfair that poorer people have to bail out banks by having to endure austerity measures, higher taxes, and even poverty, I think that poor policing polices have lead to these riots in the UK. Too many bureaucrats in the UK police force instead of police having a presence on the streets with authority to enforce rules may have lead to a different outcome. The Met Police force and other UK forces (and some Australian ones) seemed to spend too much time in their offices and not enough on the streets. You can't outsourcepolice presence to CCTV cameras!I also think that most of society was involved with what happened prior to the GFC. In every country, people were buying houses with little deposit saved and paying astronomical prices for assets hoping for them to have record dollar increases in value(Wait a minute! - people are still doing it here ) People's own greed (in my view) caused the GFC, they took out dodgy loans and paid extradordinary prices for houses driving the market too high.
Yes its amazing how people control bank boards and Ceo's. They forced them to write those loans and in the case of sub prime made them increase the loans by 3% after a few years. They apparently also had control of the financialsector who had bundled sub prime and other toxic loans into bundles that were AAA rated by the genius rating agencies then sold on to governments and investors around the world. giving us the Global Fraud Crisis which hasn't ended as it is a 65 Trillion dollar mountain of toxic lies. Peoples own greed control so much and forces those nice honest financial people to do so many bad things.
A perfect article about double standards. It's also interesting that looting was going on during the Arab Springs but Western leaders were pretty silent about that. Ignorance is bliss.
After reading so many previous comments denigrating your very excellent article, I must be one of many, surely, who feel compelled to add our feeble voices in support.So many comments leave one pondering if the average intellect in our species will ever grow to the point of being able to resonate with and appreciate what you are saying.Among criminologists and so many others who think they are criminologists there appear to be too distinct camps. There are those concerned only with WHAT crime is being committed, where and how often it occurs, what penalties and sentence lengths are being imposed, what are the imprisonment rates per hundred thousand of the population and so on.They are the WHAT criminologists.And then there are others, the ones with somewhat more developed intellects, who concern themselves much more intently with WHY crime is being committed. You so obviously belong with the latter.No one is saying that looting and rioting is not criminal behaviour, but people with the real brains are asking why. You are one who is attempting to answer that question so eloquently. Congratulations!
As unpleasant as the bankers are, I dont recall any buildings being burned, any homes being destroyed, or bystanders being assaulted by people in Saville Row suits. As far as I know the bankers didnt murder anyone either. Shifting the spotlight from the violent mob to the merely corrupt and trying to link the low brow 'power shopping' in London to the legitimate protests in North Africa is a bit self serving. In fact if I was a North African or Syrian protestor Id be pretty upset at the comparison.
I don't recall... any homes being destroyed- you must have missed the home repossessions and misery brought on by mass unemployment. They played roulette with the economy but it was ordinary brits who were the ones to loose it all....
You've entirely missed the point of the article.
Treefrog: I guess you must have missed the image of the young Polish woman jumping from her building. The point of this article is that commentators, like rioters and looters, know an opportunity when they see one.
The rich have no need to resort to rioting. Only those with no voice within the hegemony have no option but to resort to their only uncontrollable liberty as living beings - to riot. This is not new - but history confuses the simple facts for so many.
The cemeteries are full of democracies silent gutter deaths.Stress, depression and dejectionkills.Interesting to note amongst the rioters and looters that in proportion, the hearts and minds of future bankers,politicians and deserving just elite live in ratio.Ripping and tearing at all ends in reflection.Natures balancing act perhaps.It's certainly not the peoples at either end.
David, you must also have missed the middle eastern resource wars currently raging. Who the hell you think finances these?!?! War is a racket... The same gangsta bankers that crafted the GFC, as extracting hydrocarbons at an ever increasing velocity is required to perpetuate their electronic counterfeit currency - which their puppet governments protect using a bought and sold parliaments and complicit courts.Anyone wanna address the real elephant in the room? These bankers created both the war finance AND the dodgy home loan finance, AND our government debt, out of thin air via FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING. That is - they have a fraction of what you or I would be required to make a loan - but demand it ALL back, plus interest. Its systemic criminality of the highest order. Poor illiterate thugs looting is gross, but pales in comparison to swindling entire nations into un-payable debt to finance the dropping of bombs on brown folk that sit atop their required hydrocarbons to keep the currecny ponzi scheme rolling...Next stop? Your superannuation funds... gobble gobble... police states - else we find our backbone...
I'm waiting for barter. Politicians don't have anything to barter.
When people tell you your article is something I and many others I know have been thinking, you know you have hit the sweet spot for the typical ABC viewer.On the downside, that just means you have packaged up the usual soft left groupthink and presented it anew.The government buying shares and injecting capital was hardly a good thing, but you speak as if this was astronomical grant money, justifying riots.It was not.The government bought shares at the bottom of the market, dirt cheap.It then injected capital and wrung concessions from the bankers thereby, concessions that it would not have got under any other circumstances.The UK and for that matter the US government sold their shares quietly once the market rose, at a profit.The capital was repaid, in spades.Had they been a mere mortal investor there would have been the opportunity cost to consider but for an investor that prints its own money that was not a problem.Therefore the only way that this could have been an issue in these riots was via the leftist commentariat saying it was a problem.The problem if income inequality is an old chestnut.Incomes are rising, the unemployed of today are materially more wealthy than the dukes of a previous time.That they are not as happy as them just tells you that raising someone's income does not of itself make them happy.The answer to that paradox should tell you that income inequality through redistributing wealth via the usual leftist method of tax and punishment of initiative is never going to work.So again, the only way that the rioters would genuinely feel the banking policies justified rioting is if you convinced them so, and erroneously at that.So neither of your arguments stand up to scrutiny, except that they put you in the frame, sister.Not that I think either of these arguments was in fact in the minds of the rioters.BTW The answer to your parting question is When the rioters reflect that views of the non-rioters.Which is clearly not even close to the truth.AS per the above, the only people who think like the rioters are the soft left who project their self-hate onto their community at large.
The answer to that paradox should tell you that income inequality through redistributing wealth via the usual leftist method of tax and punishment of initiative is never going to work.”My guess is that you are not someone who has lost their job, their house, or their dignity to prop up a system that rewards incompetence and gluttony at such an obscene level.A balanced economy with strong social protections is actually the only proven way to prevent violent revolution and all the misery it brings.Raw capitalismhas form in creating the conditions for violent revolution.
As it happens I have lost my job, house, and more, in my life.I just didn't go around blaming someone doing better than me for it all.I actually agree with your last para, but usually when someone talks about strong social protections we get Stalin and Kim rather than Smith and Hayek.
Sorry but nobody is asking anyone to blame people for doing ‘better’ than anyone else.We are talking about people who have been law abiding, hardworking people who are then sacked because somebody else was gluttonous and negligent.I am not talking about the looters - I am talking about the genuine people who have had theirs lives destroyed to ‘save’ economies run by a real elite (not the phoney elite that the right rave on about).You claim to agree with me and then say that when we do that we ‘usually’ get Stalin? Not backed by facts actually.Perhaps you were to blame for your life disasters, perhaps not.I still think you don’t get it.
BTW, none of that make any sense.It really doesn't
You are ignoring the point of the article.Your snidethe only people who think like the rioters are the soft left ... is just that, a snide comment that is no argument.There are issues of immediate response -- yes the rioters must meet the force of the law (in ways that the delinquent bankers ought to have met the force of the law, but to date largely have not), there are issues of what creates an underclass that feels and behaves like this (government had better find out, and do what it can to change those circumstances, else we'll see much more of this), and there are issues of societal fairness.I guess you think that one ought to be able to herd young people up like cattle in a pen, and expect them to behave like mature responsible people!
World towers get bowled over, America drops its interest rates, risk is suddenly not priced properly, world is afloat with cheap money, financial wiz kids generate dodgy products, Standard and Poors (and friends) give them a AAA+ rating , conservative entities buy them based on these ratings...hang on - go back a step!Can someone explain how ratings companies can provide the worst advice in history is still be afloat? Governments, ratings agencies and other have made horrible errors of judgment. The western world is now in payback mode for 10 years of loose money. Lets learn lessons, regulate better, do some hard yards and move on. The rioters are opportunistic thugs.
The ratings agencies manifestly failed. That they are still afloat shows how ludicrous is our current financial system. Its quite incredible that they are not in prison, being accomplices to the selling of 14 trillion in bonds, none of which will be paid back. Bernie Madoff was small potatoes compared to these incompetents.
It seems to me that nihilism, opportunism and narcissism was what drove the people who took part in the destruction, looting and rioting in London and other cities in England.And for that they deserve to be brought to justice.What this article addresses is the fact that much worse damage was done to society as a whole by capitalism, opportunism and narcissism in that which led up to the Wall Street Tsunami culminating in the Global Financial Chicken coming home to roost.To roost , not at the expense of the private perpetrators, but leaving a large and noisome amount of economic, financial and fiscal ordure that had to be cleaned up from the public purse,that of the taxpayersMost of the perpetrators, after having the system bailed out by taxpayers money,have received no more than a slap on the wrist and are now again enjoying their financial packages and counting their excessive bonuses.Will they bebrought to justice?Then there isthe militarism, triumphalism and narcissism exhibited by thosethose who brought aboutthe illegal invasion and occupation that was the Iraq Fiasco. Where 6000,000 Iraqis were killed, 2.4 million internally displace with almost the same number fleeing the country.It also led to a strain on an already weakened infrastructure infrastructure and further deterioration in the humanitarian situation where 4 million are food insecure 25% of children becoming chronically malnourished and only one in three children has access to safe drinking water.They, The Faux Texan, The Poodle and our very own Deputy Dawg have yet to be brought to account .The Faux Texan and Deputy Dawg have kept a low profile. But the Poodle, together with his Faith Foundation, is still narcissistically prancing the world stage with his fatuous remarks on ethics, faith and narcissism.The Chilcot Inquiry has set The Poodle some homework concerning * Bogus claims made about the weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein;* The failure to tell the British public about his secret pledge with President Bush to go to war;* The operation of a sofa government style, which kept his Cabinet in the dark over the planning for an invasion of Iraq;* The failure to foresee the chaos that gripped Iraq following the invasion, and to lay realistic plans to deal with it.It would be good to see the same here DownunderAgain it is that combination of Privatise the profits Socialise the losses and One law for the powerful. rich and well connected BUT another for the rest of us.Which brings up anotherfine example that ofthe VM hacking by NOWT.Enabled by the mutual pocket pissing of News International, politicians of all stripes and the Met.
Anon and Actuary seem to think that only violent crime and stealing goods are crimes. Was there no fraud involved in the origins of the GFC? Does the phrase “mortgage fraud” mean nothing? For those who would like to think more about this, here is a little essay from the US:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/08/sec_fraud/index.htmlIt is, of course, possible to make anything legal if deregulation goes far enough. Maybe we are in the process, as a society, of decriminalising fraud.
One law for the poor and another for the wealthy. There's nothing new in this.However if the politicians continue siding with the wealthy few over the increasingly dissatisfied majority and expect a different result from the past, they will be sorely mistaken.
Touching, not. The bailout was a LOAN (read your own snippet if you don't believe me) as was the US loan to the car companies (since repaid) as was the bank guarrantee in Australia (not even a loan, just a promise of one if needed). That a bunch of public money is now at risk over the parasitic practices of the few is bad, agreed. The main people I note making a fuss about that are the Tea Party...maybe we should all join up hey Ms Tranter? None of this for a moment justifies idiots burning stealing and wrecking the shops and businesses that will one day,slowlypainfully through the hard work of those who DON'T riotwreck stuff, dig us back out of the sh1t.
Gordon, what about the the sub prime loans, that caused the whole GFC. They were repackaged by financial institutions and given a AAA credit rating, when there was never any potential for the debts to be repaid. This caused housing bubbles and encouraged people to borrow more than they should under the illusion their asset had a higher value. Who went to jail, who paid the price? Bankers were criminals with government support.
While those LOANS are extended, until when and if they are repaid, sovereign countries are strung out running huge deficits and servicing debt at market rates. In addition, the size of the LOANS was understated or secret and while soem of the relatively small stated LOANS were partly repaid, the unstated LOANS were not. Many times the TARP loans were actually provided to the US banks for example and only disclosed when the Congress fell to the Republicans and they demanded the truth.No, the bailout was not a LOAN. It was probably money that will never come back.
I don't know why my critic has adopted my name-tag. It would be nice if he/she used his/her own name or at least not mine.For the record, I wasn't talking about bailouts, although I agree with the post that the shameless taking involved in that process amounts to little less than theft. And as for the victims of both the GFC and the riots, well, they're all victims, and they all deserve sympathy. But selective blame of rioters but not banksters sounds awfully hypocritical.
Sorry cobber but I have been posting under this name for a few years. I guess we haven't run across each other until recently, that's all. I'm not your critic any more than you are mineI haven't adopted your tag. Gordon is the name my parents gave me and Gordon it will stay. You are perfectly entitled to use it too of course,we probably even agree on a few things. I've never yet met a Gordon who wasn't a decent chapI'm sure you are no exception.
Nice to hear about the loan. Did they also pull back the 100 million they pushed into poverty into the Third World, or recreate the 10 million jobs they cost in the West?Face it. Looters at the top and bottom of society, but the ones at the top, who arguably caused more suffering for more people, won't be going to gaol over it.Instead, they get to pout and look very stern as they ask why governments don't make more severe budget cuts.Nice work if you can get it!
Nor does it justify the hide of bankers to pay themselves bonuses and inflate their incomes while others are forced to suffer pay cuts, unemployment and worse.It is the equivalent of “let them eat cake”.
The conservative side of politics has lost both its economic and moral credibility because of the bailout of the economic elite; and that was a fact even before the current riots and remains a fact despite the hand-wringing right are getting on their moral high-horse again and talking about moral collapse.The Alf Garnett's Edna Everages around here may love this talk, but that's about all.
'Alf Garnett's Edna Everages'Hey, Baron de Churlish... Alf Garnet didn't create the character of Edna Everage, which is what your poor grammatical construction says he did. Nor are they real people in Australian society. Edna never was, except in Barry Humphrey's imagination of a middle class Moonee Ponds matron of the late 1950s, anything but a caricature. Alf Garnet was Johnny Speight's idea of a conservative voting working class Englishman with working class prejudices. They represent totally different classes of societies that have long disappeared. Your pretended erudition falls flat.
An 'and' went missing.It's called a typo. Who would think otherwise?Edna Everage was never middle class.She was a lower middle class woman with pretensions to something better.Moreover, Barry Humphries only set foot in Moonee Ponds in his imagination. Edna was what the upper middle class son of a property developer thought about the lower middle classes.And what else is upper class moralising for except to show their lower middle class brethren what to fear and who will protect them?Conservative voting working class people have scarcely disappeared from politics. They are what were called 'Howard's battler's' or did you forget something?They are what the Laborites call 'working families'.
Exactly correct. It was the public servants and bankers that started an orgy of stealing, and so set the standard for opportunists at every level. Henry Paulson started the incredible Northern Hemisphere looting first with the stimulus package ripoff. Then with the bank bailouts heist. This was nothing more than people stealing simply because they could. Everyone has to be tripping if they don't imagine that others will take lessons learned from such stupendous criminality.
Shouldn't you begin with Bush's giant military spending spree and Greenspan's cheap interest rate speculative bonanza?
You could go back further one supposes. But I would consider the Paulson measures as unique, as pure thieving for its own sakes without any possible justification, and that went viral around the world. We also had our thieving frenzy with our stimulus thieving spree. The Paulson measures are the ones that really caught fire, and lead to this wild thieving orgy, against the wishes of the people. Quite different to anything prior which usually had to have some reasonable near-majority somewhat behind them.
As a lawyer and human rights activist I would be interested in your position on the plight of the small business owners who witnessed their livelihoods destroyed. (The apologist position and the evil banker conspiracy theories have run their course on this story).
I would be more interested in your opinion on the legal and moral activities of the Financial Sector, legal Observer of limited vision.
The immediate victims need support.However, you are too quick to be dismissive of a bigger picture.Suppose for a minute there was a good reason for them to feel hopeless.When their frustration reaches an intolerable level who do you think they will act against?The people at the top may deserve it but are unreachable.The immediate victims to whom you refer will indirectly be victims of ‘the system’anyway.The point is that you appear to be simplistic and not interested in understanding why it happened?
A bit more context- slashing the NHS buget while allowing it to be privatised by stealth.This achieves 2 purposes, removes welfare for the undeserving poor while allowing the wealthy to continue to access quality healthcare. Just to make sure they are planning to reduce the top rate of income tax by 20%, to ensure the UK retains appropriate proportions.
Ms Tranter seems to suggest it was the Right who bailed out the banks – in fact most rightoids, such as Mark Steyn, Theodore Dalrymple, and even your humble correspondent, were against the idea.I would happily have seen the bankers bankrupted and jailed.In the much maligned Victorian times, they would now rightly be rotting in debtors jails.Anyway to suggest a link between this and the behaviour of the London yobbetariat is the sort of bizarre logic one expects someone those in the ‘human rights’ industry.She expresses, far more eloquently than I could, why we should avoid a Charter of Rights like dysentery.It would give real power to her and her kind, rather than the mere right to propagate curious and irrational articles.The low life of British council estates were probably the least affected by the GFC.Most didn’t have jobs even during the good times and as they are nearly all in public housing, they are, unlike those further up the ladder, under no threat of losing the roof over their heads.Decades of welfare have incubated a culture where to be maintained in every aspect of their lives, from the food they eat to the clothes they wear, is a God-given right.I wonder how many have ever seriously looked for work, or embarked on the training to render themselves suitable for it?I also wonder if Ms Tranter would ever hire them?
Kelly a very good article and something I and many others I know have been thinking.In questions asked about the lack of morals displayed by the rioters, and I agree there were none, but the problem there hasn't been any moral example set by the so called leaders in this society.There certainly was no moral example set by those in the financial industry who cause the GFC.And the economic and social damage caused by the GFC was far greater than the economic and social damage caused by the riots.It runs into the Billions of Pounds, with many lives devastated, by the loss of their jobs, of their business and of their savings.How many of them were punished and went to prison?What example was set by the judicial system to beget the crime?There also was no moral example set by their political leaders in their misuse and abuse of their expenses.And then of course we had the great moral example, or not, set by the political leaders and the government in regards to who suffered most under their harsh budget cutbacks. And then we had the great moral example, or not, set by the media, the fourth arm of their democracy, in the recent phone hacking controversy.As there was also no great moral example set by the police in their too cosy a relationship with the media.This does not and should not excuse the actions of the rioters.But in enforcing their punishment, the country also needs to ask the justifiable questions about the example set by the leaders in that country, and I would suggest in many other countries including our own.
Excellent article Kellie.
Just one moreo article prasing the socialist upheaval please. I can't get enouht of it. If so many people are for the rioters (many well paid lawyers and academics as well), we should start a charity. Anyone for starters?
What about a charity for those poor maligned bankers?Got any spare cash?
So the unethical and possibly criminal actions of the bankers justifies looting? The greed of Chief Executives makes it OK for thugs to rob the corner shop, burn down other small businesses and mug passers-by?It's your own questionable ethics that are on display here.
Did you read the article Aquila? You are accusing Kellie of questionable ethics when you yourself seek to rightfully condemn the rioters but not the unethical and 'possible' criminal actions (no possibility about it-fraud is a crime) of bankers and the excessive greed of CEOsIts the double standards Governments and folks like you apply which ALLOWS the corruption of capitalism to occur- as it has over the past 20-30 years and which if not reversed will lead to more violent riots.
Did you read my entry Rob? In what way is describing the bankers' actions as unethical and greedy not condemning them? As for criminality, that's for courts to decide.
when do popular riots....become legitimate?Seems to me the answer is along the lines of: - when innocent people are not assaulted or murdered;- when innocent people's property is not destroyed or stolen; and - when the rioters are acting as an absolute last resort because they have no other legitimate way to protest, such as through free elections or peaceful protest.Note that in England elections are free and fair, and peaceful protests are lawful. The rioters in England are criminals and the State should take action accordingly.Conflating the riots with the bank bailouts is foolish.
when do popular riots....become legitimate?When they win and take over, then it is a popular uprising to overthrow an oppressive regime.Morals are determined by the winner in politics.
I think what Kelly is saying is that laws are created with different targets in mind; as an example, a younger person mugs someone for $100 bucks and gets 18 months in gaol; the banker mugs the system for a billion bucks and gets...a knighthood - a generalisation of course, but this is how it is viewed; once upon a time the King could not break the law because they were the law - similiar thing applying here.
The King not being able to commit a crime still applies Brad.The Shield of the Crown is used to protect Australian and most other Governments from the long arm of the law.
SO in the world of the left, two wrongs make a right.
No - what is wrong in one world should also be wrong in all worlds.Street looters should be punished.So should corporate looters.Both are wrong.But apparently we increase your wealth if you are corporate and stick the boot in if you are not.
I laugh each time a pseudo-intellectual comes up with another convoluted thread of logic justifying or explaining the riots as some sort of articulate response to bank bailouts, govt spending decreases, MP's mis-spending their allowances etc.This is what the average hoodlum was thinking:Aha! A great opportunity of grabbin some stuff without being caught!Better be quick!
Much like the thoughts of the financial “wizards” behind the GFC.
A lawyer moralising about greed and wealth as if lawyers are only interested in principles. Bankers and lawyers come from the same pot, greedy and self important. Behind every banker there would have been a law firm with their hands grasping out for as much money as they could and if the bankers had committed any fraud who would have been there defending them charging huge sums of money? The lawyers. Perhaps Kelly should start looking at her own profession.
Kelly, I live in the UK at the mo, and I too have been wracking my brain as to why the outrage over the City looters hassn't been / isn't greater: it's largely, I think, because the arcane world of high finance, with its black box algo trading and its byzantine financial products, is just too complicated for anyone to feel like they're well enough informed to protest. It's much easier to protest a war, say, than it is to rail against mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps. And protesting against something abstract like greed is never going to fly. The simplest protest would be against the bonus culture, but again it's not quite concrete enough for most, and is in a weird way demeaning, as it smacks of class envy.. Meanwhile, several hundred / thousand Saville Row clad looters have gotten away with a a decade of recklessnes, looting and destruction, perhaps the greatest theft of all-time - only slavery, perhaps, excepted.
I think that the comments on this article will be on the side of the big earners,at least if you take into account the average Aussie's concern for the big miners,and the big polluters,and the purveyors of gambling poker machines,etc We seem to be following in the USA,s footsteps.Obama's recent attempt to improve the health outcomes for his citizens,his efforts to increase taxes on the affluent,merely to try and undo the excesses of his free spending,low tax,low financial intellectual,Republican predecessor; G W Bush,who was a carbon copy of Ronald Reagan,and certainly the son of Republican Bush. Aussie's will go hand in hand with Cameron,who after the criminal trials fade away,will go back to the safe,reliable way of privatizing the profits,and socializing the losses,until the next riot occurs,which is not unheard of in England,as they have had about 60 large riots,over the last 6-8 ceturies
Arthur 1, there are aussies and there are aussie politicians, just like there are Poms and there are Pommy politicians and common folk and politicians, around the planet. The latter are parasites of the former and have the power to do as the like, with no regard at all for the former. Mustn't confuse the two.
This makes me so angry.These clowns did far more damage to the world than any hoods rioting ever have. How many of these bankers went to jail? The world has got some huge problems if people don't see a problem with that.
The world has got those problems Hank.The Emperor's new clothes and all that!
Latest estimates put the bank bailout at 1.5 trillion quid all up. A good round number.If the recent riots cost 100 million quid over 4 days this is 25 million quid a night.So the riots would have to continue nightly for 150 years to exceed the bankers efforts.
Exquisite calculation.Just remember though, no-one goes to goal.
Calc, I love your mathematical brain!
I have some sympathy for your position Kelly, but the fact is that if the rioters had been specifically targeting the property of those who caused the financial crisis, rather than randomly looting businesses, some owned by families who were only marginally less poor than the rioters (think of the ethnic deli owners who often work 60+ hours a week to earn the equivalent of a basic wage), we'd be having a VERY different cultural conversation right now.The riots weren't a protest against the financial criminality of the wealthy: they're people cut from the same cloth as the fraudsters, acting upon the same greed at a smaller scale. If you're calling for harsher punishment of those who caused and profited from the financial crisis, then I'm fully in support of that. But it's a bit rosy-eyed to view the riots as being a response to, rather than an imitation of, the greed of the financial system.
Azrael - you are correct to suggest that one aspect of the rioting is imitation.You are incorrect to suggest that the meaning was lost because they didn't target the City. If one molotov was hurled anywhere near Paternoster Square then we would have seen the full fury of the Patricians and Plutocrats.The protest against the forces of privilege (for want of a better term) were distilled from many years of deprivation, exasperation and desperation.The slow trickling finally crept over the brim.
I don't care what you call it: response to or an imitation of, it is still an eyesore of a justice system that will punish the rioters and let the thugs, who sit in opulent boardrooms and sleep in even more opulent mansions and who accomplish deeds of unimaginable criminality, continue sitting and sleeping in their opulence.
We know all this, so what's your point?Are you saying we shouldn't worry too much about anarchy and murder on the streets and the terrorisation of ordinary people by thugs because of the corporate robbery we saw following the GFC?
Why don't you look up 'anarchy' on Wikipedia or something before you go misusing it like that and making yourself look like a fool.
Good piece Kellie, thanks.Excellent points on the GFC. Yep, the aforementioned austerity cuts (Cameron This is not about austerity cuts, this is not about poverty). Matt Taibbi's article in Rolling Stone captured it neatly...You want to win elections, you bang on the jailable class. You build prisons and fill them with people for selling dime bags and stealing CD players. But for stealing a billion dollars? For fraud that puts a million people into foreclosure? Pass. It's not a crime. Prison is too harsh. Get them to say they're sorry, and move on. Oh, wait — let's not even make them say they're sorry. That's too mean; let's just give them a piece of paper with a government stamp on it, officially clearing them of the need to apologize, and make them pay a fine instead. But don't make them pay it out of their own pockets, and don't ask them to give back the money they stole. In fact, let them profit from their collective crimes, to the tune of a record $135 billion in pay and benefits last year.(echoes of Brownie, you've doing a heck of a job).The austerity measures we're all facing were caused by these people and they got rewarded?So if you break a window and steal some shoes you're definitely a criminal but if you steal 100 billion and ruin the economy of Iceland you get a promotion. Re the GFC and testimony to the Senate, Congressman Michael Capuano to the banking CEOs... You come to us today telling us 'We're sorry. We won't do it again. Trust us'. Well I have some people in my constituency that actually robbed some of your banks, and they say the same thing. Where was the hardline stance then?
Yes those guilty bankers were let off far too lightly, both after the recent GFC and the tech wreck of 2001.However to blame the riots on the 'cuts' is an association too far. None of the proposed cuts in the UK have been implemented yet. The looters come from a demographic that demands not just to be kept, but to be kept in style.
I agree Sholto,I wasn't blaming the riots on the cuts. The US bankers knew their CDO's were toxic when they sold them, and then they took out insurance AGAINST the very packages they'd just sold... and when it affected the world economy, (we)the public now has to pick up the tab - hence the cuts.The UK politician's expenses scam saw them only offering to pay the money back when they were exposed. These very people are now bemoaning the fact that civilisation as we know it is endangered and we should all GET TOUGH on CRIME.Where was the same level of moral outrage from politicians when billions of dollars was stripped from the world's economies.It seems when you get tough on crime - middle class white collar crime avoids the spotlight.If you steal billions...you're sweet, if you steal shoes - you're going to jail.
Are you in Australia writing this, Kellie? (from an Aussie in the UK).
As always, Kelly, I agree with your every word and your every word brings out a sigh of despair. To the rioters such words -spoken among them in less eloquent phrases but with just as profound an understanding- brought outrage.Many thanks, once again.
I agree with what you say about the Banks and their debt to the community/ taxpayer. But what does it take for these robber barons to realize they can't keep doing it? Eventually as throughout history there will be a violent outcome and governments will still be asking why? The 'me' generation is oblivious, especially the ones in Parliament.
Swap a hoodie for a Hugo Boss suit and you're laughin'...
Politically Incorrect :
15 Aug 2011 4:40:12pm
Really? Hugo Boss? Really?
Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen - Woody Guthrie, 80 years ago.The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. - Anatole France, 140 years ago.Fashions change, but the laws remain a protection for the wealthy and powerful.
Hate to break it to you, but the bailouts are a completely different matter.If the bankers had committed crimes, they would be sitting in a courtroom. If the bailouts had not been publicly mandated, then the government would not have been able to pass them.The issue is legality.Poor people have as much right to be unhappy as they have a right to be poor. But neither is a justification for riots and looting.When do popular riots against an unpopular system become legitimate? Easy. When there is more then a small poor minority taking part. And when they do more then just break into shops and steal things.England is sending an important message to the people who rioted in past days.You live in society. You don't have to be happy here. You don't have to be rich here. But break the law here and society will break you
You talk sense but you waste your time talking to this silly woman.After all, she writes on the Drum so can't be too sensible.
That's right. We have a lot of legality around street crimes but when it comes to white collar, it's a different matter.Taxation law favours the rich and always has done.What we have in England is a clear demonstration of how wealthy fund managers get wealthier AND disrupt the economy without ever been heala accountable.They live in society but behave with no integrity and are rewarded.
legality aside, the cost imposed on society by the negligence of banking institutions is larger and more enduring than the cost of the riots. and yet as you rightly point out, the bankers' actions are not considered in any way to be criminal.maybe there's a problem with the legal system, or even the people charged with making the law?break the law and society will break you. geez that's a little pseudo-fascist don't you think?
Since when is it considered fascist to uphold the law against those who defy it?Unless, of course, your use of pseudo is another way of saying not actually.
Depends on the law I would think.
Upholding whose law, Anon?
Anon,Breaking implies forced psychological breakdown which usually achieved by torture.I hope you're not suggesting the rioters should be tortured?
If the bankers had committed crimes, they would be sitting in a courtroom.And if pigs had wings they'd be flying!
The laws are of class in application. Millions of slow deaths can be traced to the handywork. The 0.1 percent of top earners encompasses a good 30%of baggage of power and political will in high places.Look at the year and era's heights when so much of the imbalance was embedded. People died on their lounges at home and security guards threw children and mothers out of hospitals.China is an environmental toxic dump from the playing field.The people have done well in the matter of moral high ground and considering they've been given a plastic spoon for a sword fight.
Hate to break it to you Anon, but the issue is not legality. Its morality.As for break the law here and society will break you - an immoral society already broke these people. That's why they broke the law.
If the bankers had committed crimes, they would be sitting in a courtroom.How about giving themselves bonuses, not out of profits (there weren't any), but out of taxpayer bailouts?Not a crime?Who writes the laws?If the bailouts had not been publicly mandated, then the government would not have been able to pass them.Publicly mandated?I didn't hear about that plebiscite.Any system where voting is not compulsory is open to abuse.You write that the issue is legality.Not quite correct, because government is not legitimate without the consent of the governed.Riots are evidence of incipient withdrawal of that consent.
Anon, yes maybe the rich and powerful may act within the law, but are they acting with fairness and with justice? Yes? No?
So you consider the Eureka Stockade...illegitimate?The suffragettes?The civil rights movement?The bailouts were never 'mandated'...you're either telling a fib to support an incredibly flimsy premise (that poor people aren't allowed to riot, apparently) or you don't understand the word.Unless you can indicate to me which election campaign touted the multi-billion dollar bailouts?No?England is indeed sending a message: You rioted...and there was nothing we could do to stop you.
Yeah well the Eureka stockade was pretty much an unnecessary waste of life with both sides to blame. The world would have been a better place if the Chartists had been able to carry the arguments instead of the comms.
What a lame apologia for the enormous damage that the arbiters of the GFC caused. Oh their greed pushed millions of people into unemployment and poverty but it wasn't illegal (according to laws made by other rich people) so that's ok.Seems to me historically rich people often get that way by taking from others e.g., the stealing of this continent by the British government, perhaps that is what the rioters have learnt: to get rich, steal. They just didn't do it on a grand enough scale to be legitimate.
legal doesn't make something right. Most especially in a world where bankers' interests are lobbied hard enough to make their plundering legal. If only the youth lobby were wealthy enough to help them loot legally.You might see the riots as petty, non-political breaking into shops and stealing things, but take a step back and you can recognise the complexity of a political expression in the context of an increasingly commercial world.Your hardline approach is only treating the symptoms.
It's not just hardline, it's a criminal.
Spoken like a true Alex Keaton.
No Anon, they are the very substance of what's at stake here.A world of two laws.And those that, instead of collapsing the lives of millions with their gambling, throw rocks.Laws were transgressed all round - and only some of the criminals are punished. You know, the ones that took some water bottles and some nikes.And the others?Well the others were released.Society steadfastly refused to break them.The hypocrisy should be apparent to all but the dullest Conservative apologist.
You live in society. You don't have to be happy here. You don't have to be rich here. But break the law here and society will break youAlternatively, You can break society, which is what happened last week.
If you manipulate your bank's operations so as to earn millions in bonuses while putting your bank at grave risk of going bust, don't worry. The Government will step in to save your bank (at taxpayer expense) and you get to keep your bonuses and your job.Lesson is, don't muck around stealing a few hundred dollars. You will probably get caught and go to jail. Steal millions instead. For this British bankers will probably receive a knighthood for services to the banking sector.
Rubbish, Anon Anon you go,Unrestrained Capitalism vs Unrestrained Capitalism is what is happening,bothshould be held responsible,the rule of law should be applied judiciously to the Bankers pillage and burn practices and the Protesters similar practices,But break the law here and society will break you give everyone a break anon,and balance up.
Er - it is more ability and resources to enforce the law resulting in convictions. The unit responsible for policing the London financial service, for some years, was the Serious Fraud Office or SFO. The unit was clear that some involved in the finance industry were criminals - Private Eye reported such allegations regularly. But the regulator hardly ever managed to bring anything to trial. The few it did, ti was outfoxed, outsmarted, out bid for lawyers, and despite the crime, never managed a single conviction.There was feeling at the time, that the govt, keen not to upset the finance industry, was under-resourcing the SFO, or worse, telling it to go softly. So there certainly is law breaking there. Difference is, criminals are smarter and a lot richer.
The Law is underwritten by violence anyhow. A person who wants to eat mean but does not wish to get their hands dirty by slaughtering an animal themselves can delegate the task to a butcher. In much the same way, authorities who wish to stand over other people can use the legal system to delegate the task of violence to those that are better at it.
I agree that the bailouts were wrong. But that is completely separate from and therefore does not excuse the criminal thugs looting and rioting.
Agree.In spite of her hyperbole, ultimately all Ms Tranter seems interested in is trying to couple her libertarian hobby-horse with populist left-wing hatred of capitalists, a popular subject on these blogs, it seems.Sheer verbiage.
I think Kelly was talking about double standards.I realize that The Law and moral integrity have nothing in common but maybe the law should be serving both the rich and poor equally.I assume that the in any election no one is going to run on a get tough on white collar crime platform OR get tough on executive salaries platform.Democracy is great if you have any party at all really representing your interests. It appears that voice has been cut off in many places.The real point here is to vote for people who represent the average persons interest equally with business, if you can find them.
Are half the people out there fascists? Fair dinkum. It was beautifully put this evening on radio national Australia Talks. When Cameron talks about right and wrong or moral failure, is he talking about the looters, the crooks in the City or the politicians who rorted their allowances to clean the bloody moat. There is a failure of leadership and zero tolerance is fair enough, but he is talking zero tolerance for those who did not go to Eton isn't he?
Do you know what 'fascist' means, Jocko. Look it up in the dictionary!
Your opinion, while noble, is flawed because it is based on the very loose assumption that democracy in the UK is broken.The short answer is it isn't. Flawed, yes. Broken, no.I know this because I had lived in London for several years and had only recently come home to Oz (less than 2 years ago in fact), so my understanding of social demographics in the UK is probably a lot better than what the average punter on these blogs is.Anyway, back to your opinion. The problem of social inequality in the UK - or the perception of it, at least - whilst real, has nothing to do with the issue of democracy. If anything, it has more to do with societal ne'er-do-wells (Anglo Saxons, African-Caribbeans, you name it) who try to post-rationalise their criminal behaviour by fobbing it off onto the usual excuses: youth unemployment, poor prospects, limited education, dah di-dah di-dah.The trouble now is that the majority of these underachievers now earnestly believe that these causes - of which they are largely of their own making, ironically - are the roots of their own melancholy, and they are more content to point the finger of blame at institutions and authority figures rather than accept the hard truth - that they themselves are the real cause of their own problems.And rather than accept their pathetic situation they should try to improve their prospects, at least for their kids sake, if not themselves.Social climbers they ain't.And another thing. If it's reputable politicians you're looking for who can tandem business and public interests, then you'll be pleased to know they're already there.They're called Labour, Tories and Liberal Democrats, not to mention a plethora of alternative political parties who people can vote for if they're dissatisfies with the major parties.Just don't expect grubs like the ones you saw on TV last week to vote for them; the majority who rioted were too young to vote and couldn't be arsed to vote come election time anyway.
Subscribe to our RSS feed
What a week in Washington
Never mind the substance, feel the hypocrisy
Craig Thomson affair reaches its FFS moment
The convoy comes to Canberra
Ian Carroll: a life of carefully creative innovation
Raising a ruckus
Farmers take to Twitter
Many unhappy returns for Labor
What to make of the latest GOP pageant
Trial by social media a threat to justice
Super guarantee: battered by bad times
Trouble round every corner for bad news Obama
Records undermine Abbott's latest Thomson attack
Wave Hill walk-off anniversary targets intervention
Japanese PM resigns as party leader
Voyeur escapes jail over underage upskirt films
Surgeon jailed over prostitute cocaine deaths
News HomeJust InLocalWorldBusinessEntertainmentSportThe DrumWeatherBlogsTag LibraryArchive
CorrectionsClarifications
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.
AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of UTC (Greenwich Mean Time)

Article original from: http://abcasiapacific.com/unleashed/2840012.html