Originally Posted by
GlesgaKiss
It's a sad state of affairs that this is even the subject of a discussion, to be honest. The source of the problem is the fact that these banks were allowed to become state-owned in the first place.
They were having a debate on Radio 2 the other day about it. It's very worrying hearing members of the general public phoning in to say that Hester shouldn't receive this bonus; just as it's equally worrying hearing a professor suggesting that it's necessary for the role and that he knows better. It shouldn't have anything to with either of them, but both feel entitled to have their say in the running of the bank merely by virtue of existing under the same government.
Yes, this is the antecedent, and I'd challenge you to reduce that back further and outline the consequences of a failure to intervene. If the answer is that we'd have faced an economic apocalypse, then it rather brings in to question the efficacy of the free-market. And you can't go back in time and regulate effectively, we're staring at 2008. So, no intervention, what would have happened to simple men like me and you and our mums and f1 and even superficially wealthy nouveau-riche river fish?