These penal cruel budgets. The Banks are to blame! - or are they?
Society's rampant blame culture infects us all. We just love to find a target for blame - provided that we ourselves are not in the crosshairs of the gunsight.
Reactions to the worldwide financial crash show that in general, individuals don't readily accept any personal responsibility. It seems we all prefer denial. The faults were nothing to do with you or me.
Well I for one am heartily sick of this shallow, self-serving, simplistic, scapegoating blame-game.
Misdirected unfair blame for the fundamental cause of the meltdown; whether from the rantings of red-top media lightweights, or politicians, or cab-drivers, or bar room bores.
The heavyweight "I told you so!" commentators like Robert Peston, David McWilliams and Vincent Browne, while providing insightful opinion on the unfolding drama, have also been guilty of focussing undue blame in the wrong quarters.
Since the problems emerged, without fixing on the real culprits, these whingers have blasted away at a wide and ever-changing set of lesser targets. They started with hedge funds, short-sellers, Northern Rock, currency speculators, fat cats, Sir Fred Goodwin, Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, property developers, tax exiles etc.
Now after a year of this guff, their mixed stew of opprobrium has settled and coalesced into almost universal condemnation of "evil bankers". So, now we know - or do we?
Bankers are a tempting target, - and the banks have to shoulder their own responsibilities - but that they are the original cause of the mess is a complete misrepresentation of the true facts. Their actions were symptomatic, not causal.
The current negative portrayal of banking executives and employees is totally unfair to the thousands of good hard-working people who labour on in trying to provide an essential banking service to their customers. This, despite having to endure misplaced, insensitive, sometimes vicious, criticisms of them and their profession.
At worst, the crime of the banks is analogous to the barman who pours another drink for a drunk, or the server who sells a triple king-size hamburger to a morbidly obese person.
Bad judgement, yes; but it is clearly the personal responsibility of the customer as to whether or not the liquor and the burger is consumed and paid for.
In this whole sorry tale of financial mayhem, banking was merely a conduit and a tacit instrument of government; albeit in many instances a very badly managed, weakly regulated instrument.
Nonetheless, the banks operated competitively, and generally quite legally, within the overall economic ecosystem created by national and international government fiscal trading frameworks.
The undoubted disarray, inequities and abuses in parts of the worldwide banking system are certainly clear symptomatic effects of the catastrophe, but the root cause and original blame belongs to populist vote-chasing democratic governments - and their voters!
Cheap politicians buying your cheap vote in return for cheap money.
At the express impetus of the national political will of virtually every western democratic government, the banks conveyed vast amounts of uncollateralised credit to the spendthrift electorate.
In return, we as voters duly and gratefully put the Congressmen, MPs, TDs et al into their privileged positions of power. They loved it! And we loved it. Every last one of us. Vive la décadence!
We personally voted for cheap money - and got it. Basics weren't good enough any more.
Everybody turned up at the trash-filled consumerist trough for the intoxicating feast.
Today you have the inevitable hangover, as government budgets land the true bill on your mat with a thud.
So who is ultimately to blame? Michael Jackson said it. "The man in the mirror".
Take a look in the mirror. Stop blaming other people. Get over it. Move forward into 2010 - and the rest of your life.
Acknowledging, learning from and dumping your mistakes of the past and moving on will help your career and enhance your attitude to work performance. You'll also be happier.
And to make things even better, look for opportunities to help the hurting people who are much less fortunate than yourself. You have a responsibility there too.
When the Roman emperors needed to pacify the mobs, they offered spectacular games and massive entertainments, funded by their far-off plunder.
And the suckers bought it until the Barbarians were at the gate. Hail Caesar!
Sound familiar?
Find out more about Will at http://www.willmckee.ie/
Find the list of all Will's blog posts at the bottom of this page.
Subscribe to the RSS feed
Find the list of all Will's blog posts at the bottom of this page.
Subscribe to the RSS feed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Will, you're absolutely RIGHT - bottom line, whether we like it or not, is that we're all a bunch of greedy, selfish curs!
We've eaten like pigs, and now we want to find the villain who gave us indigestion!!
agree partly Will - the public voted for cheap money, but can the public be expected to understand the markets behind the availability of cheap money? that was the bankers job and they failed miserably - often not understanding their own business models.... hence, they're still off my christmas card list...
Good Dave, but it is an unreal expectation to think that bankers are any different from you and me in understanding markets. If they did understand they wouldn't be bankers. They would be holed up in Switzerland or wherever like George Soros or JP McManus and making even more shed-loads of money.
I'm still sending my bank manager a Christmas card. Beggars can't be choosers!
Will,
If the “poor” bankers were just mindless drones in the grab all for money and it was the Government that forced them to give our cheap money, how come this influence no longer works as the banks foreclose on perfectly good small businesses in order to preserve cash and recapitalise themselves?
The actions of the banks in Ireland and the UK Toward many small businesses in the last 18 months has been at best unethical, worst criminal. In and attempt for self preservation they have turned the knife on practically every small business by cutting off loans and overdrafts and changing the terms on existing loans, yet the Government that has invested so heavily in the banks are asking them to do the opposite.
In the business community at the moment small business owners are feeling victimised by the banks. They have perfectly good legitimate businesses that have been run ethically and within the boundaries of reason yet the banks preference that their own balance sheet over helping their customers survive. How short sighted!
Thankfully I run my business cash positive so don’t have the same animosity toward these institutions as many of my close friends that own businesses. They hate the banks. The actions of the banks still remains unethical and they feel that due to the bank bail out that these institutions are acting as if they are untouchable. Why? Because they are untouchable. Everyone can be forced to fail at their expense while the banks remain untouchable.
....Don’t get me started on Banks.... :-)
I'm a man who borrowed too much in the eighties and it took me a decade to become debt free. It would have been easy to declare bancrupcy and let others foot the bills but I'm glad I didn't. No the banks are not entirely to blame and personal responsibility is important, but that applies to the banks to. Many a CEO did very handsomly with bonuses paid for what has now been exposed as irrisponsible lending. Will any of those bonuses be recouped by a public who have now bailed out many of the banks? I doubt it! Even with no bonus and salaries capped at 500,000 (I'm speaking here of the Republic) no bank CEO is going to have to worry too much about unpaid bills. Many a bank customer is now sitting with huge debts and a seriously devalued property, reduced income due to unemployment or wage cuts, tax increases and benefit reductions. Anger at the banks is not simply as a result of the red tops and political spin, it is justified and needs expression.
Niall and Keith,
Yes, many banks and bankers behaved irresponsibly as indeed did many small business owners and individuals who borrowed crazily to finance unwarranted luxurious lifestyles. But my argument is that the fundamental flaw lies with governments and by extension voters. The banks only lent the cheap money because they could - as encouraged by govt and now the tardiness in lending is because govt has tightened up on lending and is insisting that the banks recapitalise and build their balance sheets. It ain't all the banks fault by a long way despite the Darling spin!
The people who now "hate" the banks were madly in love with them when they were getting funds to squander on Bulgarian apartments!
But what about those that borrowed responsibly Will, and are still getting screwed by the banks as they continue their role of self preservation?
You talk about the banks as if their bad behavior was isolated and has ended. It's as if this is all historical. It's not. The banks continue to act unethically punishing the prudent as well as the irresponsible.
There are good business that could expand if the banks would lend. Good people that have had unfair terms placed on them and good employers forced to close because of the decisions being made TODAY by OUR BANKS. How could this be shared responsibility? There is no other method for these businesses to raise funds in this market.
Banks are now swathing in cash due to tax payer injections and quantitative easing but yet they refuse to lend. They all say doors open for business but the reality is very different. How is this ethical? How could this not be considered continued bank greed, looking after number 1? How could this be the fault of anyone other than the bank?
In fairness Niall you did warn me not to get you started on banks!
With regard to your comment on it not being fair that the prudent suffer along with those who borrowed irresponsibly. Let me explain - Life's not fair! Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, so a falling tide beaches all boats too.
And the banks who as you put it are swathing in cash injections from govt, you allege are not lending. Well if that is so, again I come back to my fundamental point, whose fault is that? The govt owns those banks so they can dictate how much the bank retains as capital and on what terms they lend. And who votes the govt in - the voters.
Do not believe all that Darling spin in blaming the utility banks for the faults of the "casino" banks.
Rant over Will. I'll get you on the next blog :-) Keep it up
Post a Comment