Twenty 'G's - all on black!

As it transpires, all bankers, personal or otherwise are morally corrupt bad individuals contributing directly to the global crisis. Well, at least this would be the case were you to believe some of what has been said today. I am aware that this is a potentially sensitive topic in the current climate, but I did want to make a few remarks about how I see the current protests around how the 20 G's* affects our positions on the Graduate programme.

1. If You got love - you ain't' lonely: The same goes for hate. While it is not nice to work in a sector that gets an awful lot of bad press, I must say that I for one, find it very interesting to work for a company that has such incredible exposure. Understandably, not all this exposure is positive, but many of us are working for one of the most high profile business's in the country, in the financial capital of Europe. This really makes me appreciate the fact that, yes we are having tough times, but we are not going through it alone. Hell, we may even be one of the better equipped to handle the difficulties. Plus, we all should know, that if we make a positive impact now, when times are tough, we will stand out as being able to contribute to the business in tough times.

2. Lets all Play the Blame game: It is very easy to blame other people for pretty much anything. If you don't want to take responsibility, there is usually someone else you can pass it on to. While this may undeniably be the wrong business attitude, it is important to look at the vitriol being directed at bankers. Some of us may argue that we are still very new to bank, and sure, decisions were made in the past that were incorrect, but its not like we made them. However, the banks do get bad press and one of the reasons we do, I would suggest, is that many people fail to see the difference between making and allowing.

If I were to make something happen, say by pushing a child into the sea to drown, I would have caused the child's death by making it happen. If i were to stand by while a child was in the sea drowning and not rescue the child, I would have caused the child's death by allowing it to happen. The outcome of both my actions is the same - in both cases my actions caused the child's death. This is one way that people look at common issues - the bottom line is what matters, and if you allow it to happen, you are as responsible for the event happening as if you caused it in the first place. This is , I believe, one of the reasons why so much anger is directed towards bankers, as we are working for companies that have endorsed in the past one particular set of rules and behaviours as employees we are happy to allow these procedures to take place.

However, there is something fundamentally different between doing and allowing. In the above example, causing the child to drown implies callous, calculating and sociopathic tendencies. Allowing the child to die implies cowardice, ineptness and lack of empathy. While both sets of characteristics are flaws in character, there are very fundamental differences. However, the point is thatjudgement is often made of the bottom line.

We, as 'bankers', are being judged at the bottom line. If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem in that we are 'allowing' the problem to happen. However, there is a very big difference between allowing a problem to happen and intentionally bringing it about in the first place.

I for one, am happy to admit that I am part of the problem in that there are things I can do to improve, but I am not willing to admit that I am part of the cause of the problem. I want to make a differnce, but I want to do it in a fair and educated manner.

My guess is that many of the protester's are looking are being very "bottom line" and looking at the ultimate outcomes. Which is exactly the kind of behaviour they have criticised the banks for - looking too much at the bottom line and not enough at the big picture. The big picture for me (student debts, lifestyle, career) is very differnt from the "corporate approach".

Then again, though I may not agree with a particular way of thinking, I would not dream of anything as vulgar as throwing bits of steel through their windows.

My two main points of this post were around the high level of exposure and the philosophical implication of the problems. I have missed out something more serious and this has been intentional. I have not covered the threat to bankers personal safety - but with good reason.

In a modern civilised society there is no place for threatening people because of their (legal) profession. There are many difficult and repugnant jobs that have to be done that do not get subjected to the same exposure in the media. I would not wish to indulge any cretin who threatened a colleague of mine with violence by discussing the fallacies of their point of view.

3. One for the Road: For what its worth, my own opinions are distinctly very left wing. I agree, in principle with a large element of what the protester's have been saying, though I would go one step further and criticise the democratic systems in place. I agree with protesting, but never in the manner which reduces protests to ignorant acts of indiscriminate, disruptive violence.

Coming from Northern Ireland, I know a thing or two about indiscriminate, ignorant violence.

My fundamental point is this. It is fascinating to work in a culturally diverse society. It is even better to work in one that supports pro-active opposition to the status quo. I feel privileged that I can work in a job where I can make a difference and learn at the same time. I don't agree with violence and erratic opinions.

Protesting in such a manner as we saw today is a gamble. It is a gamble for your own safety, your colleagues safety and a gamble on the profile of your opinion.

Ultimately, I would not gamble with things like my colleagues safety or endorse violence against them for holding political opinions contrary to my own. Which is essentially what many people are doing. Protesting is one thing, but encouraging violence is another - it suggests that it is easier to blame than reason.

But then again, that's maybe why I didn't put Twenty G's on this passing off peacefully. I'm just not a big enough gambler and I prefer to reason than blame

Kindest,

DD


*20 G's is actually a reference to the book "the Gods that Failed". It is a discussion of the most powerful leaders in the world and how they modelled themselves as gods - but ultimately, failed.