On bankers, rioters and printed opium

I’m no friend of the bankers. It seems that Dalrymple isn’t aware of the full extent of corruption the bankers indulged in, but he does raise the important moral point. Easy Credit and asset inflation has been the opium of the 21 century masses, and the public complacently and greedily accepted this arrangement.

Dalrymple on the riots:

…comparing the looters who have terrorized Britain to the bankers who were involved in the financial crisis of 2008. For these pundits, the looters only did retail what the bankers did wholesale.

The comparison is alarming for several reasons. First, it disregards the distinction between the legal and the illegal. No doubt some bankers broke the law and should be held to account for it, but not all did. To conflate those bankers who behaved badly but not illegally with looters is, in effect, to encourage either the impunity of the latter or the punishment of the former, who have broken no law. In either case, the rule of law would be subverted, and it is not encouraging that journalists—important members of the intelligentsia—should have so little regard for it.

Second, the comparison disregards the fact that the bankers’ main fault was to have lent too much, a fault in which the population was joyfully complicit. You can lead a man to a loan, but you can’t make him borrow. In Britain, furthermore, the government benefited mightily from this coining of fool’s gold. Not only did the process impart to the electorate a pleasant sensation of prosperity; it allowed the government to increase the scope of its own operations and therefore of its own patronage. If the bankers are guilty, so are the people and, even more, the government. To single out the bankers to blame for the general orgy of improvidence is to indulge in that most pleasant of all political pastimes—scapegoating. But improvidence, however undesirable, and however much some people may have profited by it, is not a crime. It is punished only by reality.


About Avadoro Worden

This entry was posted in Capitalism, Corruption, Finance and Economics, Intellectuals, Psychology, Socialism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to On bankers, rioters and printed opium

  1. rosencrantz says:

    In this instance, for a change, Darlymple assumes that all people are equal. Not so, some are more stupid and do, perhaps, need an additional protection. If not, we then ought not to have any ‘fraud/false pretences/uttering false documents’ sections in our criminal laws – caveat emptor. Beware (stupid) buyer. I wouldn’t mind, but in civilised societies we protect weak and feeble minded. For example, in many common law based jurisdictions, an incest by a male is a crime, but an incest by a female is only a misdemeanour.

  2. Faust was as ever bit responsible for his predicament as the devil, who so willing crafted the ‘Dark Pact’. I will concede to you that certain people require the protection of blissful ignorance from moral condemnation but surely not society at large, the masses. I’ve spent the last week warning any and everybody of a near global monetary collapse happening within the next year or two, and to hence forth prepare. Except no one wants to believe that the system is that corrupt, as well as, that reality, and their lives, are going to be turned upside down. Far too complacent.

  3. Meral says:

    The ends justify the means. They seek something that sounds really great, social justice, but our founders sought equal justice. Progressives follow the Uncle Saul method of evaluating the two systems. If you can find any fault with the free market, capitalism, and individual liberties then that means you gotta tear it down and replace it. The burning question is replace it with what?! Gaming the system is gonna happen whatever system you have in place because it’s members are HUMAN! We want a system that can do everything possible to prevent any one group of people becoming all powerful. Your statement:Their apparent goal is to roll the clock back to the glory days of 1890s predatory capitalism when “the right people” could live “with proper style” and the masses knew their places, the bloody rabble upstarts!What in the name of all that is holy do you think the progressive elite will do if they obtain control?! Utopia?!!Oh, and one more thing. The Tea Party does focus on the things you mention. It does not, however, advocate eliminating programs that provide the truly needy with assistance. You’ve been sucked in to the demonizing of the opposition if you believe that. I do try to listen to opposing views and read things from the Huffington Post, etc. When I find reasoned debate I consider it. However, what I generally find is information that consists of personal attacks and obfuscations. And .before you get your knickers in a twist, yes you may find this coming from the other side too. We, however, don’t have a rule book that says ridicule is a great weapon. And, more importantly, we are willing and able to admit that we don’t totally agree with those we select as our leaders. If we take demonization and Rules for Radicals out of the process we’d find we have more in common than we think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>