wychburyman
|
Just a thought
Nov 04, 2010, 09:04
|
I was just wondering whether the financiers and bankers that caused the financal crisis have, in fact, done more damage to the UK over the last 3 years than Al Qaeda.
My reasoning is that we are in the face of such terrible cuts to welfare, health and support serices generally that it seems inevitable that the poorest will suffer the worse and the old and the frail could die earlier if treated less quickly, or the home help is unable to come out so often, for example. I sort of economic terrorism.
I do not mean to be disrespectful to those that died and families that suffered in the 7/7 London bombings. It just strikes me that far more people will be affected in very diverse and subtle ways than we could ever imagine.
Just a thought
|
Loopy Lumbago
|
Re: Just a thought
Nov 04, 2010, 09:34
|
|
A very interesting point, but the Al Qaeda is so much more convenient as The Great Enemy.
|
grufty jim
|
Edited Nov 04, 2010, 11:53
Re: Just a thought
Nov 04, 2010, 11:53
|
There was a minor scandal here in Ireland last week when a politician stood in the Dáil (our equivalent of the House of Commons) and said that "bankers have done more damage to Ireland than the IRA ever did", and that "they should be treated like subversives".
It's a measure of how bad the Irish economy has been damaged that this analysis didn't come from a Sinn Féin TD or someone else on the hard left, but from a TD in one of the main centre-right parties, Fine Gael.
Generally I have no time for FG, but in this case, the guy is clearly correct.
|
wychburyman
|
Re: Just a thought
Nov 04, 2010, 13:17
|
|
grufty jim wrote: There was a minor scandal here in Ireland last week when a politician stood in the Dáil (our equivalent of the House of Commons) and said that "bankers have done more damage to Ireland than the IRA ever did", and that "they should be treated like subversives".
It's a measure of how bad the Irish economy has been damaged that this analysis didn't come from a Sinn Féin TD or someone else on the hard left, but from a TD in one of the main centre-right parties, Fine Gael.
Generally I have no time for FG, but in this case, the guy is clearly correct.
some interesting comparisions there, and not to be taken lightly. I wonder if anyone has tried to calculate the damage to to the economic, social and cultural fabric of countries, casued by the banking collapse
|
toasted-whippet
|
Re: Just a thought
Nov 04, 2010, 18:27
|
|
Some excellent points, and ones that I can already hear myself using in arguments
|
dodge one
|
Edited Nov 04, 2010, 21:13
Re: Just a thought
Nov 04, 2010, 20:54
|
|
wychburyman wrote: I was just wondering whether the financiers and bankers that caused the financal crisis have, in fact, done more damage to the UK over the last 3 years than Al Qaeda.
I am frankly puzzled that anyone might measure one against the other.
Al-queda is certainly not responsible for the global economic downturn.
At least i do not believe so.
Edit here:
Nor can it even be remotely possible that A-q has caused even a fraction of the financial damage the bankers have.
Those #'s are in the Trillions. Hundreds i suspect too.
Just the short term debt in the states is at 13 or so trillion.
Estimated pay out for the just the babyboomers{those born before 1964} is at over 65 TRILLION here, for just social security and medicare.
Were sunk.
A-q had fuck all to do with that.
I dunno...has London just been flattened by A-q with a dirty bomb or something? Haven't heard.
End Edit.
They are a gadfly though.{perhaps that is what the common link between Bankers and Al-queda is.}
We have just nearly been the recipients of some of there lovely packages these days past. You may have noticed.
Two very diffrent discussions entirely.
Two very diffrent unresolved situations.
Is this another ethical matter that i have failed to understand?
|
grufty jim
|
Re: Just a thought
Nov 04, 2010, 21:57
|
I don't think anyone's trying to draw an ethical comparison between the two, dodge. I think the point being made is that while bankers have done more damage to our society than terrorists (not saying terrorists haven't done terrible things, you understand, it's all about relative levels of damage), we nonetheless spent billions trying to hunt down and kill the terrorists, while the bankers continue to draw large bonuses (often from public money spent on bailing them out).
In truth, the comparison (leastways the one made by the Irish politician) is more about how we treat them than about what they actually did.
|
dodge one
|
Re: Just a thought
Nov 04, 2010, 22:09
|
I don't have too much of a problem with money being spent on national security.
If it keeps packages like the one's from Yemen off our airways and suicide bombers out of our cities. And whatever the fuck the inscrutable forces at work in our world are cooking up.
My Dad says that we should have just sent the packages back to Yemen....'Return to Sender'
Hard for me to argue with that.
If someone would like to put a 'sensible' amount in dollar figures{or euros or pounds or whatever..} to that expenditure, that would be acceptable to the public at large....i'd sure like to know.
Just the same...its apples and oranges to me.
One is all the Blowing themselves up motherfuckers.
The other is just our own motherfuckers.
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Just a thought
Nov 08, 2010, 02:36
|
|
"Return to sender" means you don't care who opens the package..and sets the bomb off. Absolutely fine if you are are a terrorist too. Not for me.
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Just a thought
Nov 08, 2010, 10:25
|
|
Well if the terrorists sent it would they open it if it was sent back to them? More likely they'd just send it somewhere else.
|
