I feel it's all very well having an "addiction" (although pathalogical gambling is recognised as such in DSM-IV, I struggle to see how an objective and reliabe diagnosis could be made.... interestingly the Cochrane review on Interventions for pathological gambling has been withdraw for some reason) and he could blow his student loan, his overdraft and his parent's money on it if he wanted, but by no means can it justify or even mitigate violent crime. We do not know if his actions had serious affects on his victims (i.e. the people who worked at the stores he raided), but it could have done.
few people show any sympathy for the average narcotic addict (and many may deserve some degree of sympathy), but Will Mears (whom I knew a little about before) does not. He did not come from a deprived background in which some sort of addiction would have been, if not normal, not unexceptional. Instead he came from a wealthy, well educated backgroud, so he should have known what he was doing.
"Judge John Plumstead, sentencing Mears who he stood sobbing in the dock, said: "... He is a decent, civilised young man who has made a very bad set of choices." "
Clearly, his lordship has an unorthodox definition of "decent" and "civilised" and I wonder whether this sounds like he did slightly badly in his multiple choice question exam paper? Suffice to say that if Mears were a young black man from an inner-city estate I'm sure the judge would have sung a different tune and sounded less lenient.
Incidentally, those of you moping about LSE's reputation... perhaps you don't realise but most people don't care about how great or not the LSE is. As for investment banks... in the present climate I wouldn't bank on them. Far better to get a respectable job as a chartered accountant than muck around in the dubious waters of investment banking. Anyway back to the LSE. Where was I? Oh yes, few people care. Because the LSE has little impact on the real world (that is the world where tangible things are done, like science or engineering and health disciplines or the arts) and anyway what is the LSE to anyone? The "pronvincial" universities (particuarly the civic universities) play important parts in their communities. I doubt the LSE does. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the LSE. But if it disappeared overnight very little would change. The only reason London seems so wonderful in any case is that the rest of the country subsidises it. The Olympics are a case in point - funded in part by the regional arts budget as I understand. Of course it'll be small provincial organisations not the big subsidised London museums and theatres that suffer. Oh well, at least we have less pollution.
Incidentally, those of you moping about LSE's reputation... perhaps you don't realise but most people don't care about how great or not the LSE is. As for investment banks... in the present climate I wouldn't bank on them. Far better to get a respectable job as a chartered accountant than muck around in the dubious waters of investment banking.
I'd rather jump off a bridge (and probably would). You sound like the average ignorant Daily Mail reader who has watched Wall Street one too many times and has no idea how financial markets work and the role they play in every economy in the world. Stick to things you actually understand.
Anyway back to the LSE. Where was I? Oh yes, few people care. Because the LSE has little impact on the real world (that is the world where tangible things are done, like science or engineering and health disciplines or the arts) and anyway what is the LSE to anyone? The "pronvincial" universities (particuarly the civic universities) play important parts in their communities. I doubt the LSE does. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the LSE. But if it disappeared overnight very little would change. The only reason London seems so wonderful in any case is that the rest of the country subsidises it. The Olympics are a case in point - funded in part by the regional arts budget as I understand. Of course it'll be small provincial organisations not the big subsidised London museums and theatres that suffer. Oh well, at least we have less pollution.
Well, your average Joe usually won't have even heard of LSE, so of course he won't be directly affected in his blissful ignorance. You really haven't got a clue about anything do you? LSE is an international research powerhouse for social sciences, especially in the field of economics. If that's too "intangible" a field of study for you, then that's a shame, but you have to be truly ignorant to fail to grasp the importance of it on both a micro and macro scale across the world.
Well I wouldn't play done chartered accountants. When you think about financial organisations few are as old and well established as the accountancy firms and I expect the likes of Deloitte and PwC will still be around in times when nobody remembers Goldman Sachs. Secondly, chartered accountants are likelier to be sensible people of good character than the millionaire trolls in the City. For example, Graham Beale is a chartered accountant and while most banks have had varyingly bad years, as chief executive of Nationwide he has had an excellent year.
Social sciences... whatever. I've been unfortunate enough to sit through some sociology lectures - I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. Anyway if economics is so wonderful, how come you have blatantly failed to improve the world in any way? I'm not sure any one has ever been saved by an economist, but many millions have been saved by scientists developing vaccines, doctors and nurses doing their day to day work and engineers building the world. I'm not an engineer, but really, we owe everything to them. Everything we have and see around us was made by an engineer. Because what matters are not clever theorems, but actually doing something that benefits others.
And I do not read the Daily Mail. Not ever.
are you really sure about this? Your talk of 'clever theorems' being solely the preserve of economists as opposed to engineers/ medics is certainly flawed. In my view, economics can save lives. Look at the work of Amartya Sen whose work on welfare economics has led to developing countries adopting measures to expand their economy, which of course benefits a population and saves innumerable lives. Even bankers, since they are wealth-creators, stimulate the economy just like an entrepreneur does. In doing so, they also benefit the population (As well as themselves of course).
True there are sometimes dogmas in medicine, but we are moving away from that, with, in government-speak, the rolling out of Evidence Based Medicine. That is, we are now interested in examining the evidence before we commit ourselves to a particular policy. and where things do go seriously wrong there are internal investigations, external investigations, disciplinary hearings, court cases etc etc. How many economists have ever been held to account for being wrong? Clearly, nobody involved with the Northen Rock affair.
The whole problem with the way our economy is managed is that the government seems to think that "wealth creation" is possible. I'm sure it is. But I'm not sure that the way forward is a bloated system of people who think they know it all (and I don't mean myself) running some investment banks. Clearly that isn't sustainable in the long run and we're now getting our just desserts. We really ought to be investing much more in emerging technologies. What developing countries need is not bankers, but the technological know-how to increase crop yields and so on.
How many economists have ever been held to account for being wrong? Clearly, nobody involved with the Northen Rock affair.
The problem is too many ppl claim themselves to be 'economists'. Some of these 'economists' even argue against generally accepted economic theories. For example, World Bank president is from a law background instead of economic one.
If there's an accrediting bodies that gives the title 'economist', accountability will rise.
Economic science have helped a lot of unemployment and producing reasons to understand issues. I don't agree 'hard science' necessarily means tangibility, just look at Theoretical Physics.
Edit: There was also once a US secretary of commerce who proposed a government supported monopoly on steel industries. And unjustified monopoly is abhorred by economic theories.
You wouldn't say that if you lived in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
I have yet to see whether we can travel back in time.
Well I wouldn't play done chartered accountants. When you think about financial organisations few are as old and well established as the accountancy firms and I expect the likes of Deloitte and PwC will still be around in times when nobody remembers Goldman Sachs. Secondly, chartered accountants are likelier to be sensible people of good character than the millionaire trolls in the City.
Firstly, most investment banks have been around (in some origination or other) for over a century. Wow, so PwC was formed around 1850 while GS was soooo much later in 1869. I won't even dignify the second ignorant sweeping statement with a proper response.
For example, Graham Beale is a chartered accountant and while most banks have had varyingly bad years, as chief executive of Nationwide he has had an excellent year.
He's the chief exec of NW, hardly a chartered accountant any more. What a stupid example to give to try and promote chartered accountancy. Like I said, if I was to do accountancy for the rest of my life: bridge ---> me.
Social sciences... whatever. I've been unfortunate enough to sit through some sociology lectures - I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. Anyway if economics is so wonderful, how come you have blatantly failed to improve the world in any way? I'm not sure any one has ever been saved by an economist, but many millions have been saved by scientists developing vaccines, doctors and nurses doing their day to day work and engineers building the world. I'm not an engineer, but really, we owe everything to them. Everything we have and see around us was made by an engineer. Because what matters are not clever theorems, but actually doing something that benefits others. And I do not read the Daily Mail. Not ever.
Do you realise just how important economics is in running a country? The extent of your ignorance is mind-blowing.
Your argument that investment bankers are worthless because they don't produce anything tangible while chartered accountants somehow do is quite simply, re-tarded. They both provide services, but the former gets much higher rewards for taking risk.
As for your silly notions about integrity, look up Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, Enron, etc. I love how people who have never been on a trading floor or met any decent number of City employees (other than maybe when they're pissed in London night clubs) seem to think they know enough about the City to judge people who work there.
Thanks for reminding us that science has also claimed millions upon millions of lives in less than a heartbeat.
He's the chief exec of NW, hardly a chartered accountant any more.
I believe he was Group Finance Director before being elected CEO.
Your argument that investment bankers are worthless because they don't produce anything tangible while chartered accountants somehow do is quite simply, re-tarded.
I would go further. Bankers don't produce anything. Accountants produce reports and help their clients.
Anderson suffered from an isolated case of malpractice in the States. There was no real reason why their operations in Britain should be affected, were it not for political point-scoring. as it happens, Andersons in Britain is now part of Deloitte, so it was just a name change, really.
I'm happy to say I have never met a banker. In this part of the country you are more likely to meet a Quaker than an investment banker (though of course several major banks owe their roots to honest Quaker banking). All the same, the nature of investment banking is that it is merely the very worst aspects of capitalism combined in one line of business. That is, the exploitation of the poor and honest for the benefit of the rich and useless. And how do we know this so certainltly? Surely, investment banking is the only "profession" in to which people go to solely make big money?
In fact there is significant debate about this. As I understand less than 250,000 people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, while deeply tragic, is not a significantly higher toll than would have been the case were conventional weapons used several more cities (cf Dresden). On the contrary, many argue that the prompt surrender of the Japanese saved potentially hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost in a forced invasion of Japan.
Futhermore, it might be argued that the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped maintain the precarious peace during the Cold War, thus saving tens of millions. Of course millions of others died in the proxy wars anyway.
In any case, nuclear technology is, on the whole, a very positive thing.
Or, put another way... if economists and their ilk are the primary determinant of wealth, do the Scandinavian countries have better economists than Britain? Or do they in fact have fewer economists and more sense?
Incidentally, investment banking is not very high risk, since you are usually gambling with others' money, so you stand the lose a few thousand of your salary, while the pension fund might lose hundreds of millions. Of course, if you're lucky and things go well, you'll make millions.
Meanwhile, the nurse you saw you when you came in with a hang over twelve hours ago after a crazy party is still on duty working over time to pay the morgage for her hovel. Arrest the lot of them and send them away from this place.
All the same, the nature of investment banking is that it is merely the very worst aspects of capitalism combined in one line of business. That is, the exploitation of the poor and honest for the benefit of the rich and useless. And how do we know this so certainltly? Surely, investment banking is the only "profession" in to which people go to solely make big money?
I absolutely agree that IB have created certain problems but how can you imply that IB give out no benefit to society as a whole? If you assume that IB firms doesn't gives no net positive benefit to society then will be no demand for the IB firm's goods. But very fact that IB exists proves your assumption to be wrong.
And where did you get the connection between the exploitation of the poor with investment banking?
IBs don't have to be of benefit to society, they can be just of benefit to individuals, which is not at all the same and quite possibly the opposite.
Well imagine a company that makes sports gear. The vast majority of its workers will be paid the minimum wage in dingy factories abounding with H&S issues. That company then sells the gear for five times what it cost to produce it. The company is owned by IBs that take all the profit for themselves without investing any in their workforce. It seems to me that the workers have been exploited - their hard work has made some banker somewhere who does very little, very rich. I'm no communist, quite the contrary, but is this really how Britain should be in the twenty-first century?
From your proposed situation, I speculate that the company's poor financial standing may cause huge job loss on those poorly paid workers had not IB helped them out. I don't see worker being poorly paid being sourced from IB's existence rather than poor financial management from the business. And also from here, I can see how IB have helped to prevent unemployment thus it's beneficial to society.
Perhaps if the company was owned by someone alike George Cadbury the workers would be happier than if they were owned by an IB that squeezes every last penny out.
As if the workers had an option for a better choice? It seems more like getting unemployed or work to pay off the IB and still get an feasible income.
Oh so it's ok for an employer to pay crap wages because otherwise the person would be unemployed?
Admit it, the only reason any one sticks up for these "people" is that they aspire to themselves become this ruling "elite".
Do you have a feasible alternative plan that have also a better damage control?
I am not sticking up for them as I have already stated that I agree IB have caused quite some problems and some times these are in global scales. I disagree with your ideas on how IB oppresses the working class when the problem lies with bad managements.