Yes, let’s take away all the shovels (not to mention JCBs) and give the labourers spoons to dig with.

The late great C. Northcote Parkinson once remarked that every year the Chancellor of the Exchequer solemnly presents accounts to the nation that would disgrace a third-rate bookmaker.

Just to repeat the accusation – the government covered up the real position of the public debt with the aid of banks. Because of this, the government should have more power over the banks?

Of course it is, you dimwit, because capital undeniably is meritorious. The entire reason that banks (and any other firm you care to mention) are in business is to make money for their shareholders. That’s why they exist; other people benefit coincidentally (as Mr Smith noted). The amount of money they make indicates how well they are conducting that business.

I’m not an economics or accountancy professional so I’m certainly missing some salient detail, but is this really so hard to understand?

Yes, but this is that Socialist Plural at work again: he thinks that he (and people that think like him) will be the government.

Socialists don’t read much history. If they did, they’d realise that most of the early ones got shot for being counter-revolutionaries and thus would be a little more circumspect about calling for ultimate power in the hands of a central committee.