Comments on: Can financial greed be contained?

By: scythe

scythe — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:53:15 +0000

@ mott – very much in agreement with your comment

@ edward – “a clear understanding of the purpose of the trade: the mutual benefit of all”; nice to have the reminder

By: lhathaway

lhathaway — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:58:32 +0000

Great article. Sadly, the sense of being all in this together is gone in America. Sure, many pay lip service to it, but our whole culture seems to be built around winners and losers, with the winners taking all the spoils. And absolutely no shame whatsoever, even among the financial whizzes who caused, and are still causing, the financial crisis worldwide. Just amazing that we have let the robber barons of the early twentieth century come back, and with gusto.

By: Darmesh

Darmesh — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:16:22 +0000

Excellently written. Superb, “We can get through this thing all right. We’ve got to stick together, though.”

Continue your excellent work Mr. Edward Hadas.

Keep going.

Take care

By: DDearborn

DDearborn — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:37:41 +0000

Hmmm

Attempting to equate home buyers with the crooked wall street mafia is at best disingenius and at worst a flat out lie. But nice try there fella. Articles like this that attempt to rationalize and sanitize criminals and their routine violation of every thing that is right and decent is shameful. I am sure that the author of this article has no problem looking into the mirror every morning. Which of course makes his obvious pandering to the criminal class on wall street all the more nauseating.

By: CarsickPhil

CarsickPhil — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:50:58 +0000

This is a very unequal fight. No one can really threaten the banks, because we are so utterly dependent on them. The answer lies in doing what is necessary, and rather unpalatable, for stability now, but waging a long, steady, non-violent, good humoured campaign to turn things around over future years. This means cheering for the good banks that give fair service to ordinary people and businesses. It means mocking and boycotting those that don’t pay their debts to society. People and companies can drag down the brand value of bad banks by taking their business elsewhere and making public the rationale for their decisions. We can refuse their sponsorship and boycott events that foolishly accept their sponsorship. League tables can rank good behaviour from board room remuneration down to the delivery of decent loans for small companies. This approach can win in the long run. My modest dig at the bad banks starts with a song at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmEm7cieh xc

By: Mott

Mott — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:21:22 +0000

It is refreshing to see the recent well balance, thought provoking and good quality posts by Reuters Columnists. Please keep up the good work.

By: fred5407

fred5407 — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:03:24 +0000

Somehow we have equated making money to being a good person, and have rewarded and lauded the money makers for making money, and have left out the people who have been and continue to clean up the messed up lives of people who got lost in greed. Now we are stuck looking to the Government to fix the mess, when in prior times we sought our friends and with the help of God we pulled together and fixed up the messes that greedy companies and greedy politicians created. How far we have fallen, and how lame our ambitions have become.

By: matthewslyman

matthewslyman — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:14:13 +0000

This is the most insightful article I’ve read since the start of the financial crisis.

As Warren Buffett has proven, a steadily growing economy consists of “boring” companies that just do the honest thing, fulfil an unmet need in society, concentrate at what they’re good at, and ensure repeat business by keeping their promises and by maintaining high quality.

> “Politicians, fund managers and homeowners all welcome sharp increases in the prices of stocks or houses, even though the gains are unearned and asset price inflation benefits the rich and leaves the poor behind.”

Very true. I’ve always wondered why politicians appeared to perceive it as a key economic objective, to manipulate property prices upward through any means at their disposal (even at the expense of people who aren’t property owners!) Perhaps on balance it buys them votes in some countries with ageing demographics, but what about young couples trying to get a start in life? Why should they be made slaves for over a generation, just to put a roof over their heads?

Perhaps we should be hearing more about the Gini index and home/ vehicle affordability ratios, and less about the NASDAQ/ NYSE/ FTSE etc.; on the news reports & government accountability speeches in future.

By: stevedebi

stevedebi — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:13:00 +0000

This article is spot on; regulations should favor small community banks and credit unions that have close ties to the community, rather than big multinational banking conglomerates.

By: Araes

Araes — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:25:27 +0000

“Bring back the full Glass-Steagall structure with draconian penalties with no statute of limitations.”

This.

The instant Glass-Steagall was repealed was the instant our financial institutions went off the rails. Removing separations between investment and commercial banking was possibly the worst move our regulators have ever made. And they don’t even talk about bringing it back because there is vast money to be made without it.

Kumbaya moments and trust and integrity speeches do nothing. They sing along (see Diamond) while they filch you. Big sticks are the only solution.