Wouldn’t we expect the bank to once again equate marginal benefits with marginal costs, including the marginal benefits and costs of the safety net subsidy? But in the resultant new equilibrium, where the value of the net marginal subsidy is again zero, would the total net benefits of the subsidy be the same as in the previous, more constrained equilibrium?
The commentator was quick in qualifying his remark with a statement to the effect that George Soros had spent quite some millions of dollars made in speculating against the Pound sterling in 1992 on charities. Unethical ethics? Ethical dilemma or what? I do not intend to dwell lengthily on such an overarching concept as ethics. We all have our own definition of ethics.