In response to an FT article by Martin Wolf on 25th June 2015, entitled 'Indispensable banks need a sturdy ring fence'
"Critics make a number of objections. One is that there is no reason to suppose investment banking is riskier than retail banking. That is true."
That is utter tosh. There is also no reason to suppose that driving a car after two bottles of wine is riskier than driving sober - at least not if you talk to the drunk.
It is not true Mr Wolf, and you know it.
Retail banking at its best, is built on relationships and personalised assessment of risk. That is what we need to get back to. It should not come within a country mile of 'slice, dice, package and flog', it should not be providing the chips for a game of roulette, and it should not be standing behind the gambler with a cheque book just in case he loses. Retail banking should not be the enabler of moral hazard.
We seem to have very short memories. You want to take big risks? Use your own money.
You are right Mr Wolf, we should ignore the whinging. We should also be careful when the drunk says 'It's OK I can drive'. Not my car you can't, and not any car with me in it.