In some influential circles, these questions are now asked: What's wrong with high levels of inequality in general, and with having very rich bankers in particular. After all, human societies have survived the presence of extremely wealthy individuals in the past - in fact, some now argue, the presence of such a "new aristocracy" can finance growth and spur innovation.... Can the rich and powerful really be counted on to save the system, or just themselves? Go back carefully through the early history of the Great Depression (see Lords of Finance). Certainly the big New York players saved banks and securities firms that were seen to be part of their club (e.g., Kidder Peabody), but they - and the New York Fed - were not so inclined to save financial institutions they regarded as less than central (e.g., Bank of the United States), even if this meant thousands of people lost their life savings. When the Bank of England's Andrew Haldane speaks of a "doom loop," he is describing the declining future for our middle class. Powerful financiers, by and large, did just fine during the Great Depression.
When the Bank of England's Andrew Haldane speaks of a "doom loop," he is describing the declining future for our middle class. Powerful financiers, by and large, did just fine during the Great Depression.
What's wrong with high levels of inequality in general, and with having very rich bankers in particular.
Now just add, "It's the way GOD meant the world to be." and you have a winner!
All you starving, homeless folks! Would you please suffer with a little less noise. I'm busy enjoying myself and all your moaning is ruining the ambiance. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
Have you checked the price of a real classy hooker, a bottle of the best scotch, or a rare art piece? These folks can't be bothered with taxes! Look what happened in Dubai! Didn't its collapse make you sad? (Waaaaah) In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
