12 December, 2009
Thank you Jim Smith for your comment on the post below…Thought I would respond by quoting an excellent letter in today’s FT (not on the web) sent in by Mr. Alec McBarnet, of London N6.
Dear Sir,
City bankers are reported to be considering taking their business to Switzerland, the US or Hong Kong.
If that means that it will be Swiss, American or Chinese taxpayers who pick up the tab for their next irrational exuberance, perhaps we British taxpayers should offer to help with their relocation expenses.”
Aye to that, say I.
I think the U.S. has seen quite enough of that sort lately; no thanks. 😉
Ditto. The sooner they go the better.
I am
very flattered you took notice of my previous post. What I like about your analysis is that you are opposing the bankers with INTELLECTUALLY
RIGOROUS counter-arguments.
This is where the letter from the FT you now quote is so appropriate. Some very sophisticated arguments are
being used by bankers at the present time to protect their position, but their arguments must be continually tested by rigorous counter-argument.
The bankers are now going on about Zurich, New York and Singapore, but this is a complete red herring. They would have been moving their
anyway, as a result of globalisation. To keep access to the European Union, the largest trading bloc in the world, there are only three real
choices – London, Paris or Frankfurt.
Don’t know if you’re seen this article on banking ethics, Ann:
Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims