The Mahdi Bunting on banking

She tells us that we\’re just swept aside, told it\’s all too complicated for us to understand:

This public deference is also evident in how effectively the banks have used complexity and expertise to dodge accountability. \”You wouldn\’t understand\” was the mantra provided to regulators, politicians and the public, just as priests in a cult might tell devotees. The complexity required a superior intelligence and skill, insisted the \”masters of the universe\”, as they recruited the sharpest minds.

Is it all too complex to understand?

Just over 200 \”core\” staff at Barclays took home £554m last year, while thousands of shareholders, who had lent £51bn of equity capital, were left with £653m in dividends.

Apparently so for you don\’t \”lend\” equity capital.

7 thoughts on “The Mahdi Bunting on banking”

  1. ‘Lending’ equity? This would be an hilarious mistake if it wasn’t for the painful fact that Bunting probably wields a sizeable degree of influence over her follow ignoramuses.

  2. I guess that’s a journalist’s basic job description: being able to right evocatively and persuasively on just about anything, and especially on subjects about which they are extremely ignorant.

  3. The flub aside, don’t these sorts of commentators normally complain about shareholders making money for “doing nothing” except “gambling” on the stock exchange? Whatever happened to the parasitic capitalist? Isn’t all the money supposed to go to the workers?


  4. Tim, you pendant. I guess “bought” and “gave” don”t work either. are you criticizing because she didn’t use an abstract like “provide” or slang like “stumped up”? “Lent” at least captures that something was provided, provisionally, and could be withdrawn at any time, barring bankruptcy.

    Anyway. The article, on the other hand, is as woolly as it is silly. “Something must be done.” ho hum. I guess specifics would be too complicated for us readers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *