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.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers