Subscribe to RSS 2.0A rankling thought
The Bank of England are estimating the cost of this current market hiccup as being $2,800,000,000,000. That's getting on for three trillion dollars if I've hit the zero key the right number of times. I can't help wondering how that figure compares with profits from the shadow banking sector since the banking rules that were introduced following the 1929 crash were eased about a decade ago. Wouldn't it be ironic/galling/coincidental if the amount of money required to bail out the financial sector was exactly the amount that the financial sector had made off with in profits by doing dodgy deals? Because that would make it clear that those yachts and Porsches and third homes were effectively paid for with public money. And people might ask for some or all of it back. Not that I can imagine that happening. But you combine that three trillion with the three trillion the Iraq War has cost and pretty soon ordinary people are going to start noticing there's a problem. In fact, in America, I think they have. But the proof will be on election day. I have my fingers crossed that the least corporate-sponsored (front-running) candidate of recent years will carry the day. I intend to let off some fireworks to celebrate.
Comments: 4
The "least corporate-sponsored" candidate.
Is that the one who chose public funding for his campaign or the one who has raised record amounts of private money to fund his campaign (and is currently the front-runner).
M
Posted by: Matthew on October 28, 2008 02:46 PM
This morning on local radio, the newsreader very helpfully put the $2,800,000,000,000 into context, by saying it was equivalent to everyone in the UK buying 23,000 lattes each.
Ummm, it's at moments like this you realize exactly how dumbed down the news has become.
Posted by: NaomiM on October 28, 2008 05:39 PM
I know what you mean, Matthew, but Obama's fundraising relies much more than is usual on small donations. Most of the other candidates, in either party, tend to average fewer donations but they're for larger amounts which means they're more likely to be from rich people or big companies. If you calculate what percentage of their donations are under $2300, for Obama it's 66%, for Clinton it's 57% and for McCain it's 50% (source). Obama has relied more heavily on small donations and despite that he's raised more than twice as much money as anyone else. That says to me that he's getting a lot of support from average voters rather than from rich people or corporates. And that suits me because that's who he needs to be beholden to.
Posted by: Rob on October 28, 2008 06:21 PM
Of course. I was just joshing. I did admire McCain for going with public funding for the presidential race but it does look to be hurting him now. Am surprised he's not made more of this.
Still I am hoping Obama wins.
M
Posted by: Matthew on October 29, 2008 06:40 PM