Minimally off-topic perhaps, but what we need in the UK is the following from the Daily Telegraph blog of Jeremy Warner yesterday:

“Mervyn King’s suggestion that some kind of a Glass-Steagall like seperation of utility and high risk investment banking be enforced as a way of dealing with the “too big or important to fail” problem (see my column in this morning’s Daily Telegraph) may or may not have intellectual merit, but by common agreement in the Government and the banking industry, Britain would be mad to embark on such a course alone. To do so, say critics, would crucify London’s competitiveness as a financial centre. Wrong and wrong again.

In fact it would greatly enhance the City’s long term comparative advantage. To argue that Britain should not be taking unilateral action to restore stable and sound finance is a bit like saying that if others have lax regulation, then you too should have lax regulation. The evidence is to the contrary. Sound regulation will enhance the competitiveness of a financial centre by making it more trustworthy to international finance.”

Probably not. But since when is the first purpose of a bank or any other business in capitalism whatsoever to serve the “common good”? The first purpose is to make money for its owners/investors. And what is the “common good” supposed to be, anyway? It's quite an empty term.

rc

Minimally off-topic perhaps, but what we need in the UK is the following from the Daily Telegraph blog of Jeremy Warner yesterday:

“Mervyn King’s suggestion that some kind of a Glass-Steagall like seperation of utility and high risk investment banking be enforced as a way of dealing with the “too big or important to fail” problem (see my column in this morning’s Daily Telegraph) may or may not have intellectual merit, but by common agreement in the Government and the banking industry, Britain would be mad to embark on such a course alone. To do so, say critics, would crucify London’s competitiveness as a financial centre. Wrong and wrong again.

In fact it would greatly enhance the City’s long term comparative advantage. To argue that Britain should not be taking unilateral action to restore stable and sound finance is a bit like saying that if others have lax regulation, then you too should have lax regulation. The evidence is to the contrary. Sound regulation will enhance the competitiveness of a financial centre by making it more trustworthy to international finance.”

Probably not. But since when is the first purpose of a bank or any other business in capitalism whatsoever to serve the “common good”? The first purpose is to make money for its owners/investors. And what is the “common good” supposed to be, anyway? It's quite an empty term.

rc