The State should get the hell out of Banking – and I mean literally, in the sense that it should not even issue Monies if it holds an enforced monopoly on this activity, legitimised directly by itself. I am not going so far as to say that a State should not issue a Money at all – just that others ought to be allowed to compete.
The Free Market will discover very fast whose moneys are worth something and whose are not.
The kneejerk-Daily-Wail-three-health-scares-a-week-MSM-rag-style lynching of “bankers” for our current woes, caused as they actually are by a profligate and financially-incontinent Stalinist State, ought to be exposed for what it is: fingering an easy and conspicuous small target instead of the real culprits. Shades of Hitler and the Jews under Weimar and later, come to mind.
In the 90s and early 2000s, poor old Sir Fred Goodwin was only doing what all other “successful” (in the context of the time) bankers were doing, only more aggressively. He’s Scotch after all, so we can’t blame him for his aggression in business either.
These people were responding in a logical way to what the British State Treasury was doing to its own (monopoly) money: they were “getting it away”. What would we have done in their stead? Inside the only system they knew, they were trying to turn worthless paper into (at least some) performing assets.
In the Observer, he analyses how it all came about.
But to explain, perhaps, to other libertarians, why I have seemed to be praising what seems to be a lefty writing somethng, I ought to have included the link to Coffee House where his article was summarised. here’s part of what he meant:-
“the paradox of the 1997 Labour government was that it was at once a left- and a right-wing administration. It wanted a huge public works programme. It aimed to redistribute enormous amounts of wealth. To achieve both these desirable goals, it made a bargain with the markets. All right, the political left said, we will accept extremes of wealth we once denounced as obscene. With the City accounting for a fifth of the British economy, we will embrace your speculators and not drive them overseas with tough regulation. If the authorities overseeing the Wall Street markets or the Frankfurt bourse become too inquisitive, capital will always be able to find a sanctuary from scrutiny here. Nor will we restrict the operations of financial services even though they are entrapping our supporters in levels of debt that the puritan in us finds frightening. We will concede all this if in return you will give us the tax revenues that will allow us to build the new schools and hospitals, and increase the incomes of our struggling constituents. For all its virtuous intentions, the political left was living off the proceeds of loose financial morals. Prostituting itself, to be blunt.”
Perhaps we’ll have some music later to celebrate.
But in the meantime, this piece from friend Paul Marks on Samizdata is good reading, about bankers, greed, other kinds of sin, and dodgy election practices in places called Chicago.
But the Alex Cartoon of today jokily makes out that this is so.
We at the LA don’t think so. A number of years ago, Brian Micklethwait published this piece for us, about taxation policy. It wasn’t the one I was looking for, but it will fill the bill just nicely as the nation’s MSM is in a hooha aboutt axation right now.
Here, you can see the whole sad thing, but…
…to prove my point in the title, I have to quote directly from the article:-
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, condemned the financial traders who made millions by driving down the share price of leading banks as “bank robbers and asset strippers”.