
So we’re throwing eggs at bankers now. Any day now, Ted and Dougal will be chained up outside my workplace.
The recent fad of throwing stuff began when George Bush showed off his Air Force training – how to dodge flying objects. The man is like a cat; for all he knew the Iraqi journalist could have been Oddjob throwing razor shoes at him. Then of course Peter Mandelson took a cup of green custard to the face. This week, an angry AIB shareholder decided Dermot Gleeson deserved some egg on his face. Eggs are not cool anymore, not without the flour. Especially not in a shareholder meeting.
For comedic effect, throwing messy things at important people is always worth a pop. But as a political statement, frankly it’s little short of utterly lame. Especially in the case of idiot vs. Gleeson. The CEO of AIB has already agreed to step down , wisely choosing to remain in office while a successor is suitably found and groomed. He has admitted that mistakes have been made in running the bank, especially in regards to property exposure. What more do you want from him?
In Old Testament times, to atone for the sins of the people, various animal sacrifices were made. Without going into too much detail, one of these sacrifices was a goat upon which was ceremonially placed all the sins of the people; it was then released into the desert to wander off and die. Our goat was held responsible for the sins of a country (that’s quite a burden for a mere goat), and this is where we obtain our phrase “scapegoat”, or, “Dermot Gleeson”.
The Irish people are pissed off. Our economy is going to fall an estimated 8% this year, and we’re losing 1000 jobs a day. It’s only natural to want to blame someone. I myself, little over a year ago, mused about whom to fault with the credit crunch, taking a broad look at the American economy, bond traders, mortgage brokers etc. But now the crisis has gone global in infamous fashion, the average person is feeling the pain first-hand. Assigning blame is now more than an exercise, it’s catharsis, a psychological outlet, a shared hatred to rally around creating solidarity among the masses.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t apportion blame. Where laws were broken, blame should be lavished (accurately) and punishment distributed. But we must be careful where we place our blame, and why we’re doing it in the first place. My opinion? There’s no crime in investing in a booming market, which is what the banks did in good times. Make hay, right? Some argument can be made that loans were made to property developers based more on the state of the economy than the financial status of the borrower, and there was little thought given to the eventuality of things going wrong. Valid, no doubt; look at Anglo – hardly the model of prudence, and now wholly owned by the government for its sins. AIB and BOI retained some conservativism and remain above water albeit with the help of a life-jacket, in precisely the same situation as every other bank in the world, including the ultra-conservative Germans. The Germans did not take part in the property boom, but are suffering regardless because they relied on their quality, solid exports to bolster their economic growth. Now America Inc. has no money to import German goods, especially with the cost of the Euro, killing the previously inpenetrable German economy. So seemingly the innocent are suffering too.
If prudence didn’t save the Germans from the global fallout, would it have saved the Irish? A small, open economy, immediately prone to the winds of change in larger economies? The comfortable (or none-too-confortable) position we sit in now is one of hindsight, and it’s easy to see your and others’ mistakes with the gift of seeing through your hind. What do I see looking back? I see those most criticised today being praised: banks offering cheap credit; property developers creating so many jobs Ireland became the promised land for Eastern Europeans, never mind the locals; a government lowering taxes, bringing in huge revenues from abroad, spurring on record growth and minimising the unemployment rate at record lows.
To the “people over profits” folk amongst us, we would do well to bear in mind that it is not necessarily one or the other. In the boom years, profit benefitted people, and in fact, profit still benefits people. We have every right to insist on financial transparency for legal and moral reasons. But we should make sure our intentions are more constructive than finding a hook upon which to hang our frustrations.