(About 48 minutes each)
The advantage of getting a grounding in finance is that it can lead to a prestigious position such as treasury official, government advisor, UN under secretary general, and or even more importantly a place on the board of such as the Royal Society or the Bank of England from where it is possible to create a quango or several to provide lucrative paper chasing positions for your family and friends and influence government to provide funding in your direction.
After establishing a reputation (such as rubbing shoulders with leading financiers) it is possible that you will be able to establish a charity bank such as Green Environment Fund where money passes on its way to the needy. Making such into a multinational in line with globalist ideology ensures multi government contribution. A mini UN if you will, investment of such funds in your own ventures whilst the cash is in your care and charges such as a 10% handling fee ensure viability and these can be incrementally increased ahead of growth to eventually match the UN's 99.5% or so passed off as running costs. Due to your reputation you are free to dispense the funds as you see fit, accountability is not required.
Would it not be easier to give the money to the bankers as repayment of loans and then they can lend or gift the money to the needy so taking credit for their benevolence with their own money rather than burdening the public purse with interest payments on the same amount that goes through their bank in any case? Considering what was formerly national wealth now in their hands they are better positioned to undertake and underwrite such loans than the UK.
I mean after all the whole purpose of establishing charity banks in the first place is so the founder can help the needy... isn't it? Uncharitable people that suggest such are artificial middlemen positioned to take an unnecessary and undue bite out of public funds intended for the needy, calling it a scam are surely just lunatic deniers. The fact that charity banking is a growth business testifies to the good intentions of the bankers and the politicians and civil servants that collude in their formation.
It seems nowadays to be a politician is to be a bank assistant, the purpose being to extract the maximum amount of cash from those least able to afford it to fund corrupt organisations such as the UN, the EC, multitudinous parasitical groups and orgs such as quangos, banks and "funds", think tanks, research units and charities like TERI, WWF, WMO and boondoggles such as anything associated with carbon dioxide, set up to provide the excuse for public investment and to make bank shareholders wealthier than beyond dreams as well as providing corporate welfare. The best thing to do in these circumstances is to officially declare the nation bankrupt and get shut of the lot. Those that are necessary will be rapidly identified not by self and agenda serving politicians but by the people that need them. Those people are perfectly capable of forming their own self funded groups without the need for UN/EC regional offices or spin-offs. It would also force a dramatic, perhaps over 50% cut in government bankrolled
votes jobs. Bankruptcy seems the better choice when the alternative is what we have. It would also reduce the inflow of unsupportables.
Considering globalists Tickell and Houghton were involved in (IPCC chair) Pachauri's company TERI establishment of a branch charity in the UK, I expect to see the name appear in funding sources for Brit met, CRU etc as the gov't bow to public will and defund the globalism supporting activist advocacies.