Anger at the banks is justified, Mervyn King says
Philip Aldrick
Telegraph, 01 Mar 2011

Category: Bailouts, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

4 Responses to “Mervyn King: Anger at the banks is justified”

  1. MakingtheDrop says:

    The tide of anger I do believe is rising. Gonna be interesting to see how the ill-gotten wealth of past decades will be redistributed. Systems have to re-balance or implode.

  2. Greshams-law says:

    He’s either a superb liar or completely confused!

    Does he not consider that his institution – by being supposedly ‘kind’ and ‘benevolent’ – is the chief culprit?

  3. CitizenWhy says:

    Anger is useless, ridiculous without investigation, indictment, arrest and prosecution.

    Will ANY politician dare say: “Goldman Sachs, next time we will let you go bankrupt.” No, no one would dare speak that way to our sovereign monarch.

  4. CitizenWhy says:

    How about an Income Inequality Tax? … When income inequality reaches a certain level, the most wealthy (top 10-15%) get taxed, based on Yearly income plus assets. Those at the top of the range pay a much higher tax than those at the bottom of this wealthy range.

    The taxes would be used to fund unemployment insurance, health care, social security, social services, small business investment. OR simply be distributed the the children in the bottom 30% income range. Or to everyone below the 50% income range, with those at the bottom getting more.

    Also, how about an Unemployment Tax? … When unemployment reaches a certain level, the incomes earned in the USA of all large corporations (no small businesses or corporations), no matter where these corporations are headquartered, at a certain extra rate. Bonuses paid would be counted as income, not expenditure, for this tax. The tax on corporations headquartered in tax havens would be taxed at triple the rate of the other corporations.

    How about a Superfluous Contribution Tax? … To be applied to contributions to already rich institutions (such as Harvard) who spend below a certain amount of their endowment income. The tax would also be applied to foundations that mainly benefit relatives.