Is it the case that they just didn't actually comprehend risk or recognise how to price it?
Should have been charging 25% interest on all their property speculation loans.
Were they being judged by the markets on the size of their loans books and given bonuses accordingly.
Well I was referring more to the manner in which a guy with the track record of Mr Boucher can secure a position as head of a "pillar" bank.
But yes, obviously, the wider system encouraged institutions and by extension, individuals, to chase ever greater profits to the exclusion of any level of sanity.
Problem as I see it is these are the very guys who have spouted the quasi social-Darwinist mantra in relation to all manner of human relations including business dealings for as long as I can remember. Such belief actually fed the entitlement culture which these people helped create. The narrative was that these guys were where they were because they had scrapped hard and won. They were winners and role models.
However, when the shoe ended up on the other foot ie it turned out that they are actually "LOSERS" (to use their own ugly-type parlance), not only were their organisations "too big to fail" but the individuals themselves refused to go away - and some such as Mr Boucher, reincarnate as fucking Chief Executives!!
So whats the truth here? If there is no meritocracy, if there is no capitalism in the sense of any risk attaching to the actions of such characters and their institutions, what is there?
Who or what is deciding who and what do and rise to what and where they do?
How does this society really
Ordinarily I wouldnt really care less if a load of overweight jocks want to play masters of the universe amongst themselves. However, when I or my family are expected to pick up the tab for their idiocy, surely the very least I can expect is to be told what exactly the fuck it is that I am paying for?
Is that too much to ask? Or is that the most ridiculously naive question to be posed on the Pin....ever??