Comments on: Punishing investment bankers: the nanny-state goes global

By: The Bell

The Bell — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:49:07 +0000

You got it “almost” right. Goldman sold triple A rated crap like hotcakes to pension funds. They knew it was garbage. ACA was not their only victim, and might in fact have been the Judas Goat to lure (even less educated) others into Goldman’s designer death spiral. Mouthing “nanny state” platitudes here makes light of first-degree fraud which robs the entire market of credibility.

Your headline should read: punishing crooks, The Law finally wakes up.

By: Raymond Seah

Raymond Seah — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:30:28 +0000

Would you allow children unfettered access to the candy store?

The record is clear.

Bankers will put their hand in the till.

Bankers will lend to friends – commercial viability not withstanding.

Bankers will gamble with your money.

Bankers will pay themselves well with your money.

That is why banking/financial regulations exist.

That banker you stand in awe of is not a master of the universe. Yes he wears the clothes, crows like one and struts like one. Would you leave your money with him or pay his fees if he appeared any less?

Nanny state? No.

Super nannny!!!

Who should have this emperor at least wear a leash!!!

By: John O'Sullivan

John O'Sullivan — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:31:25 +0000

Lots said about “good” and “Bad” bankers, “nanny state” etc.. It seems to me that the bankers, all of them, were very happy when “nanny” states intervened to save their bacon. It should be remembered that democratic government was originally set up to control the rich and powerful

By: nigel gange

nigel gange — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:43:00 +0000

completely agree with this excellent article, but in the world of nanny states everyone expects nanny to protect them from everything, even themselves.

By: Graham Dawson

Graham Dawson — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:44:28 +0000

Thank you! Such a robust and perceptive analysis is refreshing in the context of the sanctimonious whingeing that is so common on these issues.

By: Alyn

Alyn — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:43:38 +0000

Put like that it DOES seem quite bizarre.

I am no expert on these matters but it seems to me that ALL parties should take the bust if they take the risk. And there should be no more government bail-outs of banks or businesses of any kind.

Of course this means we all have to take the biggest risk of all. With no government bail outs being given, that our whole way of life goes down the tubes.

As far as I can see there’s no way out of this conundrum EXCEPT for all us workers to be the ultimate risk takers and bill settlers for every other risk-taker out there.