The pantomime season is under way and bankers are, perhaps predictably, cast as the villains in some shows. A London production of Dick Whittington has a banker cast as King Rat. Across the Atlantic, one Bernard Madoff has satisfied demand for a real-life pantomime villain. Are we just picking on chaps when they’re down, or is it fair to portray the banking classes as a new type of scoundrel?
A few weeks ago, I bumped into someone I had last seen on a robbery charge a quarter of a century ago. We chatted, and I asked what had become of his young sons. He chuckled. They had gone into the City of London, the UK’s financial hub, and made far more money than their criminal dad ever did. If only he had known how easy it was, he said, he would have done the same thing.
The fortunes made in the City and the subsequent collapse have many echoes in the criminal world. Armed robbers enjoyed their heyday in the 1970s thanks to a combination of unsophisticated security in banks, a corrupt detective branch in Scotland Yard and a code of criminal conduct that eschewed informing.
When all those three factors altered, many criminals looked for other, safer ways to make money. One popular scam was the long firm fraud.
It works thus: You set up a business in a warehouse using a bogus name, you order goods and pay on time; repeat, for a much larger number of goods and pay again on time; repeat for a much, much larger amount and disappear.
In many ways, some of our financial institutions have in effect been carrying out a fantastically sophisticated long firm fraud, although that may not have been their intention at the outset. They asked people to give them their money, they paid out on time; they asked for more, and paid out again; then they asked for even more — and announced they had nothing left. Essentially, a long long firm fraud.
The big difference, of course, is that the dodgy warehouse version of this operation is illegal, while the City version, involving supposedly venerable institutions, is legal — although the damage done by the legal long firm is much greater than that perpetrated by the illegal ones.
Years ago one of the regular sights on Oxford Street, one of London’s main shopping streets, was a handful of shifty-looking men and a cardboard box. They were engaged in the three-card trick, or “find the lady”: a Queen and two other cards would be placed face up on top of the box, turned over and shuffled around; the dealer would then invite bets from gullible members of the public as to which was the Queen. From the watching group a plant would emerge.
When the dealer was supposedly not watching, he would bend over the edge of the Queen card and bet on it. He would win, and generously tip off a member of the public on this fail-safe method of winning. The punter would foolishly place a bet and — hey presto — when the card with the bent edge was turned up, it would no longer be a Queen but a deuce.
I learned a painful lesson from these operators. This, too, has many parallels with the way people were encouraged by advertisements showing satisfied customers to stake their money on a sure-fire investment. The three-card men have long since gone from the streets, and I would wager that many of their sons and some of their daughters went to work in the City.
But what is to be done?
Here in the UK, it is 45 years now since the Great Train Robbery. Here were a group of criminals robbing one of the country’s venerable institutions, the Royal Mail. When they were caught, they had to be punished severely — and seven of the gang were jailed for 30 years, sentences far stiffer than those then given to murderers or serial rapists. In fact, one of the robbers — Ronnie Biggs — is still in prison, aged 79, and unable to communicate except by pointing at letters on a laminated sheet. Why he is not released on compassionate grounds is one of the many wonders of the British justice system.
But the point is this: An example was made of Biggs and his fellow robbers because they had caused such damage to an institution on which people relied. No one is suggesting that the chaps at the top of our collapsed financial institutions, who have been rewarding themselves so lavishly for so long, should join Ronnie in a prison cell; well, not many people are. But here’s a thought: Why not set a government department the rewarding task of tracing the assets of the people whose irresponsibility and personal greed led to the collapse of the institutions where money was thought to be safe?
If, say, all assets in excess of what could be accumulated from a million-dollar annual salary and a million-dollar annual bonus were confiscated from those involved in the collapsed institutions and placed back in the public purse, would that not have an immediate beneficial effect on the economy? And would it not act, just like those 30-year sentences, as a wonderful reminder about how to behave?
As the judges like to say when dispatching a miscreant to the cells: “Society needs a rest from this kind of behavior — take him away.”
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS