TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.01.2009
False Advertising

On October 13, Her Majesty's Treasury bought in to the Royal Bank of Scotland, a counting house the history of which goes back to the 17th century. The Exchequer's investment of 20 billion pounds through two different stock vehicles this past fall basically bought it a 58% share in the bank. This was not a statement of confidence. It was, in fact, a nationalization of the institution, reluctant nationalization, to be sure, but nationalization nonetheless. What does it mean for socialism in the U.K.? I have not the slightest idea.

All the while the travails of R.B.S. and of other British banks have been in the press, I've been looking at a series of overhead adverts in the shuttle U.S. Air terminal at La Guardia. There are sillier ads in the jet ways of the same terminal, and those emanate from some creative director at the Honk Kong Shanghai Bank Corporation (HSBC). I don't recall the message. But it is confusing.

The  R.B.S. makes very assertive claims, sequentially on one ceiling beam after another: that the bank had "foresight."  And also "clarity."  Plus "ingenuity."  And, of course, oh, I forget. The one characteristic it made no claim to possess is "prudence."  And so the bank is owned by the Queen or the People, whichever you prefer.

Posted: Sunday, January 04, 2009 8:54 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

nbarry said:

Didn't the Royal Bank of Scotland invest funds with Bernie Madoff and take a bath as a result? No wonder it needed a bailout.

January 5, 2009 12:17 AM

iambiguous said:

I don't get it. What the hell does this have to do with demonizing and dehumanizing Hamas?

I mean, as far as I know, Hamas is neither a client of RBS nor socialists.

Does the Queen support them or something?

george walton

January 5, 2009 7:20 PM

nbarry said:

George, get off your Hamas obsession, at least for this thread.

January 5, 2009 8:23 PM

iambiguous said:

nbarry said:

George, get off your Hamas obsession, at least for this thread.

George responds:

Do you in any way shape or form have an inkling as to how irony works in exchanges like this?

Do you even know what irony is?

Do you take literally everything everyone posts in here?

Maybe I should start posting a disclaimer [irony ahead!!] so you will not be confused.

george walton

January 5, 2009 9:48 PM

rozenson said:

George, you might actually make the confusion for ironyroad worse if you started writing that.

January 6, 2009 3:46 AM

Andrew Davis said:

Most irony isn't very ironic.  Mostly its just bitter.

January 6, 2009 2:17 PM

iambiguous said:

rozenson writes

:

George, you might actually make the confusion for ironyroad worse if you started writing that.

George responds:

As you may have already noted, I finally advised irony that his irony is to a road [actually more like a cul de sac] as mine is to the entire interstate highway system.

Now, alas, irony is trying to convince me I am just a character he invented in a magazine called the new republic.

So now I am forced to read the damn thing to find out which one is me.

Hey, wouldn't it be ironic if it turned out to be you?

Oh shit. What if it turns out to be Marty!!

george walton

January 8, 2009 3:35 AM

iambiguous said:

Andrew Davis writes:

Most irony isn't very ironic.  Mostly its just bitter.

george:

Ain't that the truth?

Well, ironically, of course.

gw

January 8, 2009 3:37 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.