Wisdom in fragments

Basel III effectively means putting thicker gloves on this boxer, without fixing the fundamental problem (they cannot cope with unexpected punches, from a highly developed adversary- the economy).

These new regulations should (in theory, although there is no research to test it) prevent this psychological risk aversion by ensuring that all counterparties know that at a wholesale and institutional level, they are safe.

Saying people have the ability to participate in decisions, and actually ensuring they can, should not be mutually exclusive. Our nations, economies and companies can perform far better where we genuinely allow and encourage participation in governance and policy from all stakeholders.

Other components of liberal democracy—civil liberties, rule of law and free markets—may play a larger role as long-term deterrents than simply having free elections. If the country goes all the way to a more complete liberal democracy, then it is likely to significantly decrease terrorism and political violence.

Animals in this third group had learned from being exposed to inescapable shocks that nothing they did made a difference- they were essentially helpless when it came to controlling their fate. Most of our fundamental sense of well-being crucially depends on our having the ability to exert control over our environment and recognising that we do.

Psychologist & Founder of Positive Psychology Movement

When we talk of economic confidence, business confidence, or even confidence in global markets, we are talking of the mindset of the majority of participants in that market. In a 'booming' market, participants feel happy, with little sense of risk- so they are happy to invest in their businesses, create jobs, buy property, and drive strong economic figures.

Those who are suffering the consequences of these price increases are rarely (if at all) responsible for their creation- leading to an exacerbated (and right) sense of injustice.

When the main participants in an economy (the general population not the investment banks) are struggling to survive- no amount of economic stimulus applied at arms-length from those participants- will inject growth.

How would one expect society to develop 'actualisation' and 'esteem' driving characteristics (economic growth and spending) when the basic 'physiological' and 'safety' needs (food security, employment, health, property) are not met.

The impact to one's own sense of happiness and prosperity of not being able to afford 'basic' goods is far greater than not being able to afford 'discretionary' goods. By increasing the financial stress on consumers abilities to purchase essentials- the rest of the economy suffers, as people are more likely to hoard than spend.

While it may seem an altogether preposterous notion that people should have to pay for air, a very basic component of life- one must read this hypothetical tale in context of the fact that over 1.7billion people cannot afford food (also a very basic component of life)- and a similar amount have little access to clean drinking water (another very basic component of life).

What we have seen here is a pseudo-nuclear war. An unwind of misused financial instruments created a huge economic shock- which will fundamentally change the next quarter century of our economic story.

By creating public scapegoats of an entire industry- politicians are doing more to harm the future growth of our nation than any other economic policy.

In reality- the financial markets are a critical part of our global infrastructure, as much as energy, food, and communications. For any country to remain globally competitive, their financial industries must be so- as they provide the lifeblood (money) for investment in the ideas and infrastructure which will build a nation.

The people in the advanced countries now face a choice: we can express justified horror, or we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes. If we refuse to do the latter, we will be contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.

Renowned Linguist & Political Activist, Critic of US Foreign Policy

Even though we still have approximately twenty thousand hydrogen bombs in the arsenals of the United States and Russia (many of them ready to use at a moment's notice) the two risks that most experts think are the greatest and most likely are the risks of a single bomb being used by a terrorist group or the risk of a regional war involving dozens of weapons.

Nuclear weapons expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund.