The 10 people most reponsible for the recession

RainMaker_2

Who is responsible for this recession ? Every single one of us ! Sure, there are differing degrees of blame, but NOBODY is completely blameless.

BlondeHeadOn

I've just seen this article (been away for a few days), and was amused to see that the people voted 1, 2 and 3 in the poll are as follows:

1. Alan Greenspan - 31.8%
2. Gordon Brown - 20.7%
3. George Bush - 16.6%

I think I would probably agree with that, although from a UK rather than a world perspective I would put Gordon Brown at number 1 (or maybe joint number 1 with AG).

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

So you advocate capital punishment for being the child of a banker? That's pretty extreme.

I advocate nothing for the child of a banker but that they reap what was sown by their parent: much in the way that the child of a murderer is cursed by their parents crime. No-one would suggest that we offer a murderer or drug-baron a soft option because of the affect on his children of imprisoning him - but these peoples children are to be "protected" because why? Because they are rich?

I sincerely believe that ALL of those people are guilty of very serious fraud, I also believe that their behaviour will make many other children in this Country and others a LOT worse off. But you want an exemption for them because it might be "unfair" to their children - perhaps you would like to explain that to every child in the Country who is now facing serious financial upheaval, family breakdown, and heartache because of these people who knew nothing but greed and self agrandisement and yet are still having excuses made for them by people who would no doubt be shouting "string em up" had they stolen from the Christmas fund or worse still made a bit on the side whilst on benefits.

I believe these people should be stripped of every asset (including those secreted away in various tax havens) and NEVER allowed near any financial institution again - and not only these people, but the other traders and merchants involved but so far keeping their heads down: they have behaved no better than drug or illegal armament dealers, and that is what would happen to their assets.

The double standards regarding the rich in our society are the fundamental biggest reason for the poor state of honesty and integrity all the way down the line. Until we face that fact we are never going to clean up the behaviour and morals of anyone else, and indeed, we do not have the right to want to either.

Generali

moggylover wrote: »

I advocate nothing for the child of a banker but that they reap what was sown by their parent: much in the way that the child of a murderer is cursed by their parents crime. No-one would suggest that we offer a murderer or drug-baron a soft option because of the affect on his children of imprisoning him - but these peoples children are to be "protected" because why? Because they are rich?

I sincerely believe that ALL of those people are guilty of very serious fraud, I also believe that their behaviour will make many other children in this Country and others a LOT worse off. But you want an exemption for them because it might be "unfair" to their children - perhaps you would like to explain that to every child in the Country who is now facing serious financial upheaval, family breakdown, and heartache because of these people who knew nothing but greed and self agrandisement and yet are still having excuses made for them by people who would no doubt be shouting "string em up" had they stolen from the Christmas fund or worse still made a bit on the side whilst on benefits.

I believe these people should be stripped of every asset (including those secreted away in various tax havens) and NEVER allowed near any financial institution again - and not only these people, but the other traders and merchants involved but so far keeping their heads down: they have behaved no better than drug or illegal armament dealers, and that is what would happen to their assets.

The double standards regarding the rich in our society are the fundamental biggest reason for the poor state of honesty and integrity all the way down the line. Until we face that fact we are never going to clean up the behaviour and morals of anyone else, and indeed, we do not have the right to want to either.

You're weird. Killing kids because of what their fathers do? Very odd.

moggylover

BlondeHeadOn wrote: »

I've just seen this article (been away for a few days), and was amused to see that the people voted 1, 2 and 3 in the poll are as follows:

1. Alan Greenspan - 31.8%
2. Gordon Brown - 20.7%
3. George Bush - 16.6%

I think I would probably agree with that, although from a UK rather than a world perspective I would put Gordon Brown at number 1 (or maybe joint number 1 with AG).

Actually, as an economist of the old school (i.e. one who was expected to think things through regarding social impact etc, rather than just doing a number crunching exercise and some "theoretical modelling") I find it hard to blame politicians for anything other than falling for what the financial World had been trying to convince them of for donkeys years: that given a free reign and lots of dosh they would be able to make Countries wealthy AND also control their own greed and remain honest.

They have proved for once and for all that they have no real concept of honesty or integrity when not kept on a very tight leash - and the politicians will take the can for it.

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

You're weird. Killing kids because of what their fathers do? Very odd.

Stop twisting or intentionally misreading what I have written Generali: it is waaaay beneath you.

I have NEVER once advocated killing their kids: only those actually guilty of the crimes.:D

That their children would suffer in the way that the children of all other criminals do is sad, but something their parents should have thought about before selling their souls for the quickest dollar.

Mr_Matey

I'd like to see the article put someone from the media in the top 10. The media has a huge influence on the way people think and act and definitely played it's part. Not sure who that'd be, perhaps Murdoch?

I voted for Greenspan.

Generali

moggylover wrote: »

Stop twisting or intentionally misreading what I have written Generali: it is waaaay beneath you.

I have NEVER once advocated killing their kids: only those actually guilty of the crimes.:D

That their children would suffer in the way that the children of all other criminals do is sad, but something their parents should have thought about before selling their souls for the quickest dollar.

I thought it was odd and I was looking for clarification. I posted 3 times you wanted to kill the offspring of bankers and you didn't disagree hence the misunderstanding! I didn't deliberately misunderstand.

What laws would you use to impose capital punishment on bankers? Would it be all bankers or just senior ones? It's still very extreme - they obeyed the laws and regulatory regimes they were under at the time.

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

I thought it was odd and I was looking for clarification. I posted 3 times you wanted to kill the offspring of bankers and you didn't disagree hence the misunderstanding! I didn't deliberately misunderstand.

What laws would you use to impose capital punishment on bankers? Would it be all bankers or just senior ones? It's still very extreme - they obeyed the laws and regulatory regimes they were under at the time.

Thank you, we'll just let the first part go then.:D But my posts do not read that way to me;)


As to what crimes they are guilty of: I think that remains to be seen. It is already obvious from some of the interviews on TV that many "off the books" deals were being done that were not made in line with even the very weak regulations that were in place, and that it was thought to be either funny (as in ha ha) or convenient that the FSA, as older style bankers, were unable to understand these deals or even be aware that they were happening.

I certainly watched some very shifty hedge fund managers being interviewed by the enquiry last week and it was most apparent that they knew that what they were doing was indefensible - even if they may have just about managed to stay within the realms of "legality". I'm pretty sure, however, that some of it will turn out to be actual fraud.;)

My personal feeling, and this was compounded by watching Panorama last night about the tax havens and the felonious shenanigans involved in "hiding" large sums of money therein, that probably the thing that will "catch" many of these people will be their hidden assets and the tax they have (almost doubtlessly) been avoiding so I suspect that they may come meet their nememsis via the same route as Al Capone:D . I'm also pretty sure that with several countries VERY willing to make it worthwhile to be a whistle-blower at the moment that there may very well be a lot of pairs of very brown boxers out there:D .

Possibly the best retribution at the moment would just be that anyone trying to get work as a "hedgie" or a "trader" who has any association (however tenuous) with any of the banks or financial "wizards" who have been identified as at least morally corrupt in this find themselves unable to get work for the forseeable future, and find themselves suffering the financial penury that they have condemned many hard working AND thrifty people to.

Certainly I know of one young man (whose father is a retired merchant banker and a neighbour of mine) who was involved at a senior level in trading and who found himself on the harsh side of his fathers tongue at Christmas when he was bemoaning the lack of a Christmas bonus AND the fact that his bank were not paying for drinks at the Christmas party. He was actually asked to leave his fathers house and was told that his family wanted nothing more to do with him as he had never been brought up to be a "coke headed thief". Thus perhaps some of them will actually find that the condemnation of their family will be what makes them suffer the most. He has since been "let go" from his job pending an investigation as well.:D

I'm sorry if you think I am harsh - but we are always far too soft on this sort of corruption and it needs to be redressed.

I do feel sorry for the children of those on the list: it must be terrible to have people so totally lacking in any integrity as a parent. It does not mean that I would let the parent off were we actually able to prove a crime.

Sapphire

treliac wrote: »

Yep, everyone was on the bandwagon it seems. Don't you think, though, that a lot of ungreedy people took on too big a mortgage because they were naive, encouraged to believe it was a normal, rational thing to do - the money being thrown at them - and it appeared the only way to get themselves what they deemed would be some security in their own home?

I think a fair few could quite justifiably claim they were missold.

I think that being naive and stupid can be just as much of a crime as committing outright fraud. I am no more clever than the average person, yet I did not gamble and get seduced by all the advertising, etc. To me it was as clear as daylight that there was an ever-growing debt bubble over the last few years that would burst and have enormous repercussions on the economy. People also didn't just get mortgages for 'security in their own home'. They wanted bigger and 'better' all the time, and to constantly 'move up the ladder' because property was such a great 'investment' – it wasn't about security at all. It was about greed.