Well ... Right. Yeah. Exactly. Sort Of.

Who: Mark Steel
What: "Hands off our greedy bankers", The Independent
When: December 14, 2011

They shall never surrender their island ....

You can see why, after 50 years of putting up with Europe, this was finally the issue where we couldn't take any more. Because the bastards were insisting we impose a vague regulation or two on our bankers and speculators, those brave and tireless souls who invest round the clock to keep us safe with not a thought for themselves. Well, the French had the audacity to suggest someone kept an eye on them from time to time. Haven't bankers suffered enough?

So, just like in 1940, we stand alone, and hopefully at every bus stop, you'll hear the plucky British saying: "Blooming Krauts, who do they think they are telling us our bankers aren't allowed to rob us blind? That's the right of every Englishman, to have his country robbed blind by bankers. Now Frau Merkel wants to make them only rob me nine-tenths blind until they get themselves straight. Well, we fought off the Luftwaffe, so we'll see off this lot an' all."

Recognizing the Obvious

Who:
What: "Let's ask florists for a credit rating ", The Independent
When: December 7, 2011

If you resent someone stating the obvious, you're probably more intelligent than the general public, which apparently doesn't recognize the obvious.

Here's my question about economic—why should it send countries into panic when the bankers make pronouncements about countries' credit ratings, as they did yesterday? You could choose any layer of society at random and most people would trust them more than bankers, so it would make more sense if the BBC News started, "Private sector growth must be the priority for Europe, said the scouts today, although canoeists and wrestlers disagreed, and there was strong opposition from people with fetishes that involve celery. Robert Peston, what does this mean for the Government's inflation target?"

And banks aren't neutral observers, they're banks If you resent someone stating the obvious, you're probably more intelligent than the general public, which apparently doesn't recognize the obvious. the people who caused the mess. It's like someone who's wet themselves in a public building insisting they choose which mop the librarian fetches to clear up the puddle.

No, really. If you're wondering why anyone needs to tell you this, you've probably figured out what the rest of your neighbors can't seem to figure out for themselves, and God help anyone inclined to explain it to them.

Meanwhile, Across the Pond

Who: Mark Steel
What: "Flogging is too good for them", The Independent
When: August 17, 2011

There's the call to evict families if one of their kids has been arrested, because once they're all homeless they'll be much less likely to steal things, won't they. On one phone-in a caller yelled, "These parents don't pay any attention to their own kids." So the presenter asked what age the caller's son was and he said, "Either seven or eight, I think."

Across the Pond: Mark Steel on London Riots

Who: Mark Steel
What: "Imagine the Bastille with BlackBerrys", The Independent
When: August 10, 2011

A glimpse, of sorts, into the London riots:

But whatever else they are, the riots can't just be driven by criminality. Professional shoplifters are probably furious, as there's nothing left to steal. Nick de Bois, MP for Enfield North, insists criminal gangs organised the riots, "stashing the stolen goods in their Volkswagen GTIs". So that explains it; it's a mass robbery planned in advance by thousands of people across Britain, with help from the Volkswagen GTI owners' club.

It's more likely that he doesn't know, just as most of us don't know, why exactly this is happening. But everyone likes to have a guess. Some people are blaming BlackBerry phones, as if throughout history it's not been possible to organise a riot without a BlackBerry. Before the storming of the Bastille there must have been criminals across Paris sending messages such as "C u by drawbridge 2 mash da Kng shd b gr8."

One thing that's probably true is that the more stable and secure your life is, the less likely you are to smash windows and set fire to an assortment of buildings. For example, it's unlikely the managing director of an investment bank would announce to the shareholders: "Our strategy for increasing profits in the third quarter is to decrease investment in oil futures, and instead do in the windows of Foot Locker in Ealing and shove hundreds of trainers in a Volkswagen GTI."

Tipples and Tw@ts

Who: Mark Steel
What: "Alcohol can be a problem, as can doctors", The Independent
When: August 3, 2011

A front-line report from inside the "nanny state":

But the campaign against drunkenness doesn't seem to have learned from the "Just say no" anti-drugs campaign, which connects with hardly anyone as it insists drugs lead rapidly to disaster and aren't fun. But if they weren't fun there'd be no need to tell people not to take them, just as there's no need to tell people "Just say no" to sticking your bare arse into a nest of wasps because no one does it anyway because it's not fun.

Always remember: The "nanny state" needs people who need a nanny state. Without the need, the abstraction disappears. Kind of like God, that way.

The Problem With Financial Experts

The problem with financial experts is that, to the one, they have tremendous influence over people's outlooks on wealth security. To the other, they are utterly useless to people who don't have wealth security.

Or, as Mark Steel offers the view from across the Pond:

One of the most touchingly innocent lines of thought you hear is from financial experts when they're giving advice about the need to provide for our pensions, now the state pension is unreliable. "The earlier you start, the better," they say. And: "It's best to top up your contributions to £400 a month."

I never get further than that but I presume they continue: "Because all of us have several hundred pounds spare at the end of each month that we can't think what to do with. Some of us spend it on crack, or buy antique furniture and set fire to it, or have our pets gold-plated or take out a super-injunction but it makes much more sense to put that annoying leftover cash in a pension fund."

Now, in response to the disturbing news that more of us are living longer, selfishly placing an unbearable strain on the nation's finances, the Association of British Insurers has been public spirited enough to find a solution. They suggest "workers should be forced to pay towards the cost of their long-term care in old age", adding "almost two-thirds of adults have given no thought to how they would afford a place at a residential home".

They might not be exactly right, as most people have given it a thought, but the thought has been: "I'm buggered if I know HOW to pay for it, I just hope I keel over in one go". In any case what sort of 23-year-old says: "Ooh no, you go to Glastonbury if you like, but I'm putting that revenue into my care home fund. You might think you're enjoying yourself but you'll regret it in 73 years when I'm the one getting sponged down regular."

And then there are those of us who don't give it a thought because there is no point to it. Winning the lottery, writing a bestseller, or maybe dealing drugs.

Or I could hope for American socialism.

No, seriously though. There are a lot of people in our society who do important, or, at least, gainful work that just won't see the point of putting whatever pittance they have beyond necessity—or, I suppose, whatever pittance they have, period, regardless of whether it meets necessity—toward retirement.

It sort of reminds me of the lectures we used to get from our parents about financial responsibility. Sometimes it seemed as if the calculations about money presumed human beings need no substantial recreation in order to maintain their sanity. Of course, if we all took up meditation, we wouldn't be spending much at all in our recreation.

Maybe that is the key: We should all live like monks in order that we can give that excess income to the financial experts; after all, it's rightly their money, anyway. Right?