Bad Banks, Good Robbers?

During the recent G20 conference in London, protesters broke into and damaged a few banks. A small and insignificant blip on the radar screen given the big picture, perhaps, but I wonder if this may be a sign of things to come.

After all, banks and bankers are not popular just now.  The degree to which most of these institutions bought into the big financial house of cards before it collapsed is mind-blowing, and millions of people have lost investments and jobs as a direct result.  What's worse, many banks are happily accepting taxpayer funded bailouts without increasing their lending in return, hoarding the gold like Midas in his counting room.

The last time banks were as unpopular was during the Great Depression of the 1930s.  So reviled were they, people who robbed them became popular heroes.   John Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks across the nation and were loved for picking the pockets of what many saw as the uncaring rich.   These criminals are still folk heroes today, and movies continue to be made about them, like the new Public Enemies, with Johny Depp as Dillinger.

In the 30s, these robbers were seen as incarnations of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.  Never mind that what they did ultimately hurt everyone, it was enough for the moment to see the hated bankers getting a little payback.  

In our current economic 'recession', the same attitude may take hold.  Financial institutions and the people that run them have always been suspect, but enjoyed a period of détente which gave banks a favorable image during the booming 90s.  Now, financial institutions may become automatic villains once again, and those who harry and hurt them heroes.

Let's hope not, because we are not likely to see a return of the 'romantic' robbers of the past.  These days the perps will probably be off-duty desk support staff in India or Malaysia and their crimes not daring daylight stickups but unseen cyber-siphoning.  Who'd pay to see a movie of that?  Boring...