(That is of course typical of offshore financial centres. They don't call for much space. An island will do. A city is fine. Mailboxes, telecommunications, some offices, and that's it. "A clean shirt and a blower", as Magnus Pym's con-man father says in John Le Carré's A Perfect Spy.)
I'd be interested to know if Darling realizes how contradictory his statements are. He doesn't actually have to bother his head about it. Is there a journalist anywhere who'll point it out? When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
Larry Elliott who is economics editor at The Guardian has pointed this kind of contradiction out in the past, but nobody cares, because, well, he writes for The Guardian, so what credibility does he have compared to a 1000 mud flinging tame economists working for think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute?
Most non-City Londoners (and even a large chunk of City workers) have to pay the price for that extravagant parasitic concentration of wealth in that real estate prices have become insane, and, with the insanity decreasing in slow concentric waves, people need to live huge distances from their place of work, with the accompanying strain on infrastructure and the price of everything else. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
