Would shorting England be acceptable?

Sir Christopher Caldwell concludes his “Why Kerviel is so unsettling” February 9, saying “The problem is not the rise of the super-empowered individual. It is that the super-empowered individual tends more and more to be an amoral individual.” He is right of course but how did we get here?

We have currently a system that allows for the creation of all kinds of amoral vested interests…like making profits out of an increased mortgage default rate, something not much different from having allowed Englishman to short England and created a group of nationals with a transparent and legal vested interest in Hitler winning the war.

Also when Caldwell refers to “What is striking here is the contrast between the mediocrity of the trader and the scale of the catastrophe” this is really peanuts when compared to the contrast between the super-sophistication of the financial wizards and the credit rating experts and the scale of our current catastrophe.

Unsettling indeed is how we settle to focus on Kerviel as our convenient scapegoat. Hang Kerviel we’re innocent!

Authorized trading could be even worse than not authorized trading

Sir Frank Partnoy does quite well to remind us that for a shareholder a dollar lost is a dollar lost independent on whether it comes from an authorized trade or not, “Kerviel is just a part of a global rogue’s gallery”, January 28. In fact one could make the case that the huge losses on duly authorized but never really comprehended investments are much more worrying.