The Mystery of the Disappearing Ethics

The Dubai debt crisis raises fundamental questions.

UK banks account for half the £60billion of global loans to the debt-laden emirate, new statistics show.

Well done British banks ….. loads of loans built on sand … I suppose the words “conservative” and “prudent” didn’t get printed in the Banking Terminology dictionary?

So Britain, that Global Giant of the banking world, has half the dodgy loans? British banks are therefore as daft as the rest of the world put together? (Can someone check my maths!)

Oh, and why exactly were the banks lending money to SORDID DICTATORSHIPS? Would we have lent billions to Hitler’s Germany in 1937? What on earth happened to ETHICS in the financial world? I suppose lending to POOR countries who need it rather than the nasty, venal, corrupt dictatorships of the Middle East was right off the radar?

There is an obsession with the “Human Rights” of immigrants and others in Britain, but a complete and utter turning of  blind eyes to the slavery going on in the Middle East, as if it doesn’t concern us because it’s in “another far-off country of which we know little”. (Neville Chamberlain’s shameful explanation of his inaction over Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1936.)

Sorry, but “No Man is an Island” …. we can’t sign the UN Declaration of Human Rights on the one hand and then blithely lend money (the PEOPLE’S money) to countries that are treating people so terribly.

I hope Dubai goes bankrupt and our cretinous banks with it so that we can start again with people’s banks that have a modicum of honour and decency and are prepared to invest in democracies, not insanely greedy property developments based on dictators’ idle fantasies.

It wasn’t much different with Sadaam Hussein, whatever you think of the invasion. This was a man who – just to take one example – gassed to death 5,000 innocent men, women and children in one single village alone. Yet countries in the “free world” were secretly queuing up to do deals with him. One British government MP even went there and shook his hand, the hand that consigned hundreds of thousands of people to a horrible death.

Ecology? Apart from anything else, Dubai’s carbon emissions are pro rata 250% higher than the US, so much power goes into air-conditioning and desalination. Once again, the left hand doesn’t know or care what the right hand is doing. A British minister tells us to stop eating meat to save the world while British banks simultaneously rush to finance a humongously-profligate and obscenely-elitist project in the desert.

I sometimes wonder if we really deserve to survive Global Warming. Will it be God’s way of cleansing the Earth of an aberrant experiment in free will?

By Chris Snuggs

9 thoughts on “The Mystery of the Disappearing Ethics

  1. I mostly agree… Now for a few nitpicks…

    Sudeten: 1938, not 1936… And Hitler grabbed all of Czekoslovakia, not just the Sudeten. Only the 3.5 million Germans in the Sudeten were in the Munich accord. (They were kicked out in 1945.)

    More importantly, Hitler was INDEED massively financed through DIRECT INVESTMENT from a vast crowd of Anglo-Saxon banking and industrial devils. Hitler would have been nothing without that financing, which involved astoundingly massive transfers of technology and moneys. I have mentioned this many times on my various sites. Nearly all of the US establishment was involved.

    The Bush family fortune, was, in particular, directly founded on Auschwitz… Directly, as astounding as it sounds. Wall Street and others have long been associated to the worst organized crime (what’s worse than the Nazis? Even Stalin was not as bad, because he was reactive. And yes Wall Street financed Stalin too!)

    So what is going on now is small potatoes, but they are just being fried in full sight of everybody, that’s all…


  2. Well said Patrice. While I don’t claim to have the knowledge Patrice has on these subjects I think it ingenuous to expect banks and large corporations to have ethics their charter is simply to make money, lot of money, whenever, wherever and however they can human rights, global warming, death and destruction notwithstanding.


  3. So, it is “ingenuous” to expect ethical behaviour from vast institutions and companies eager to make money?

    Oh dear, no wonder the world is in a mess. As long as we want to make money then ethics don’t count? Are ethics then only for little people who don’t want to make money?

    Frankly I have rarely heard such a dispiriting comment. If we follow your way, then anything goes as long as it is in order to make a fast buck. How do you stand on the Enron directors then? Just bad luck getting caught out?

    What about giant tobacco firms aggressively marketing cigarettes to third-world countries so that tens of thousands of people will die an agonizing and totally-unnecessary death? I suppose that’s OK, too for you?

    I don’t wish to live in a world without ethics. I am sorry you seem happy with it. I fear that is is actually people like you who encourage the abandonment of ethics in the quest of money.

    You couldn’t make it up. As long as you are trying to get rich fast (WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY!!!!!) then it’s OK to pursue unethical policies? Pour billions into an obscenely-elitist, wasteful and ludicrous “luxury” investment in the desert while millions of people round the world starve or die of disease?

    Sorry, Patrick is a stupendous intellect, but on this occasion he is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.


  4. Who is this “Patrick”? The patron saint of Ireland, whose real name was Patricius (“Protector”)? Abreviated by the lazy French as “Patrice”…

    The Patrice above thinks that banks are, in truth, agents of the state, masquerading as privateers, and they have a fiduciary duty, and ought to be forced, under the penalty of law, to apply an appropriate deontology.

    It is indeed ingenuous to expect without further ado that bankers would get the call of ethics, as if they were Saint Patrick, without our help, and that of the gendarme…

    Maybe that Patrice was misunderstood… But he does appreciate the compliment, I am sure…



  5. Patrice … sorry, I am terrible with names …. a gross insult … you deserve better …. there is only one Patrice, after all …..

    I am very interested by your comments about the western financing of Hitler and would like to learn more. Unfortunately and sadly, I do fear that greed knows no boundaries.

    Do keep us informed about CERN!! I note that scientists now claim to have discovered “dark matter” …. maybe you can enlighten us on that!!!! I thought it only existed in the brain of the current Prime Minister of the UK …..


    1. Dark matter and dark energy are supposed to be most (97%) of the mass energy of the universe. In other words, the percentage of what Darling’s tax on bank bonuses ought to be… But it’s good someone did something (following the Netherlands).

      This being said, the existence of all this darkness depends upon theories we are in no way not sure of, such as the large scale theory of gravitation…
      We will see… It’s an exciting time in physics, though, when absolutely all the basic theories are being questioned…



  6. Patrice … surely not ALL basic theories? Has something now supplanted Quantum Mechanics as well as relativity?

    Isn’t all this theory about “strings” and “wormholes” just silly speculation? Wasn’t science once based on observable testability …

    CERN? anti-gravity? Surely impossible? But re gravity, pls can you explain something to me.

    We know that mass attracts other mass. The planets are held in position by “gravity”. This MUST mean, surely, that something “travels” between masses. A “graviton”? What exactly IS “gravity”? How can it be so powerful? Why cannot we detect what is is that holds massive bodies in a heavenly tango?

    I am relying on you Patrice …….


    1. We will hopefully talk about this some more. Quantum Mechanics, in my opinion is being questioned directly as “decoherence” (= quantum collapse) is being investigated ever more (for making Quantum Computers). Moreover, the question of time has to be questioned, and QM there is in total contradiction with Relativity (I think QM is more right than Relativity about this).

      The question of Chris was already asked aloud by Newton, and is not really solved by Relativity. Relativity says there are no forces, just geodesics (idea of Riemann, circa 1860, not Einstein)… It is not very clear how to make a particle from a geodesic, though…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.