If you're a news junkie you may, like me have found the recent news difficult to digest. Not because the news about the economy is a sorry tale, but mainly because I find the financial system so hard to navigate. One of the main stories that seems to have emerged is the fact that irresponsible banking has played a significant role in the downfall of the global economy. Bankers have been playing the market like it's a pinball machine; directors and partners have been pocketing huge bonuses in full knowledge that the home lending was out of control. It's too early to evaluate the bigger picture, but the scenario proves a theory that the state, and not the City should manage the flow of these huge sums of money. Thatcher believed that by allowing money to accummulate at the top of the tree, it would eventually trickle down through philanthropy and charity, but it rarely ever happens. Critics of the Brown government (and socialism in general) have stated that there has been too much interference from the treasurary. In my opinion there hasn't been enough. Cameron wouldn't change anything, and Clegg would sit on his hands because his values of a liberal democracy. If Labour is responsible for the credit crunch, its because they havent utilsed their socialist values in the City. Unfortunately the Republican approach in the States which affects the rest of us has proved to be Thatcherite and costly, and Bush is only now getting into gear when he knows the heat is off him personally.
Liberal Democracy?
26.9.08 09:16
powered by
20six.co.uk
.jpg)
