21-02-2010, 06:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-02-2010, 06:35 PM by David Guyatt.)
Absolutely no disrespect intended whatsoever Bruce, but I disagree with you on several points.
The first one is that you are free not to use banks. Once upon this was true, but it is virtually no longer true. Believe me, I tried for several years. This is the crux of the matter because, de facto, one is a captive to the banking system
If you have money you have to have a bank. I could go into all sorts of examples here but I think a brief reflection will prove this to be the case. It is also intended in the future for there to be a cashless society. Government are committed to this as a way of outlawing the black market and this to ensure everyone pays the taxes they are due to pay.
I also disagree on the question fairness. The banking system is undeniably unfair, but it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s just that the rules are written these days by a tiny but highly influential minority, to suit their own interests and pockets. The rest of us are increasingly being forced to accept a “worker ant” participation in this system, with no say whatsoever.
It has only been in the last 20 years or so that the casino operation has come into banking. I was there when it happened. For hundreds of years prior to that, caution, conservatism and prudence were the keys words used in regard to bankers, who were the trustees of other peoples money. Reagan and Thatcher changed all this with their ridiculous “free market” philosophy. The much vaunted Thatcherite phrase that “free markets regulate themselves” is complete nonsense. They do not such thing (the recent banking crisis showed the futility of this myth). The words “free markets” is simply a cipher for a monopoly - which is illegal under our system of democracy.
I also would not do what Mr. Hoskins did, but as I pointed out in my earlier reply, had he made himself a business - and not a person - what he did would have been completely legal.
And while Mr. Hoskins and millions of others signed an agreement which incorporated unfair terms, those selling him the loan knew full well that they were mis-selling the product in order to generate profits for the current year so that they would receive nice hefty bonuses. Thereafter to hell with what happened.
What has happened in the last 20 odd years is to deregulate banks. Illegality in them, on the rare occasions it is discovered and dealt with, generates a fine -- often a large one. When criminality in a big bank takes place, you can be sure that it is known about and overlooked if it is profitable or could be profitable for the bank. In those cases, if things go wrong, the proverbial muck starts a fast descent from the executive suites to an underling.
The solution is simple. And it’s not the greyness of communism (I traveled through East Germany and East Berlin at the height of the cold war and I am definitely not one to favour that institutionalized drabness and crushing out of the human spirit)
What needs to happen is to heavily regulate the banks internationally. It’s not a lot to ask for the duty of care to be policed and exceptions punished. Have criminal punishment - imprisonment not fines - for the “guiding minds” of banks for the worst excesses and criminality - not fined to peaople who can afford to pay it and still live a sumptuous lifestyle (thanks to the sweat of you, me and everyone else). Surely if the executives expect to benefit in good times, let them pay the cost when things go horribly wrong because of the lack of care- or just plain greed. If under these conditions the executives stood to go to prison, believe me, the incidences of illegality and casino-type risk transactions would be largely reduced over night.
Discussions are taking place internationally for banks to be split into two parts. The casino type operations will be owned by the management and those who wish risk their money (and not other peoples). If they screw up they suffer - not someone else. And they will not be bailed out by the taxpayer. The other half, the deposit, savings and high street banking part will come under strict regulation - as of old. This, if it happens, and if it happens as intended, is probably the right balance.
Thanks for your input too Bruce. It’s always good to discuss matters from different perspectives.
The first one is that you are free not to use banks. Once upon this was true, but it is virtually no longer true. Believe me, I tried for several years. This is the crux of the matter because, de facto, one is a captive to the banking system
If you have money you have to have a bank. I could go into all sorts of examples here but I think a brief reflection will prove this to be the case. It is also intended in the future for there to be a cashless society. Government are committed to this as a way of outlawing the black market and this to ensure everyone pays the taxes they are due to pay.
I also disagree on the question fairness. The banking system is undeniably unfair, but it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s just that the rules are written these days by a tiny but highly influential minority, to suit their own interests and pockets. The rest of us are increasingly being forced to accept a “worker ant” participation in this system, with no say whatsoever.
It has only been in the last 20 years or so that the casino operation has come into banking. I was there when it happened. For hundreds of years prior to that, caution, conservatism and prudence were the keys words used in regard to bankers, who were the trustees of other peoples money. Reagan and Thatcher changed all this with their ridiculous “free market” philosophy. The much vaunted Thatcherite phrase that “free markets regulate themselves” is complete nonsense. They do not such thing (the recent banking crisis showed the futility of this myth). The words “free markets” is simply a cipher for a monopoly - which is illegal under our system of democracy.
I also would not do what Mr. Hoskins did, but as I pointed out in my earlier reply, had he made himself a business - and not a person - what he did would have been completely legal.
And while Mr. Hoskins and millions of others signed an agreement which incorporated unfair terms, those selling him the loan knew full well that they were mis-selling the product in order to generate profits for the current year so that they would receive nice hefty bonuses. Thereafter to hell with what happened.
What has happened in the last 20 odd years is to deregulate banks. Illegality in them, on the rare occasions it is discovered and dealt with, generates a fine -- often a large one. When criminality in a big bank takes place, you can be sure that it is known about and overlooked if it is profitable or could be profitable for the bank. In those cases, if things go wrong, the proverbial muck starts a fast descent from the executive suites to an underling.
The solution is simple. And it’s not the greyness of communism (I traveled through East Germany and East Berlin at the height of the cold war and I am definitely not one to favour that institutionalized drabness and crushing out of the human spirit)
What needs to happen is to heavily regulate the banks internationally. It’s not a lot to ask for the duty of care to be policed and exceptions punished. Have criminal punishment - imprisonment not fines - for the “guiding minds” of banks for the worst excesses and criminality - not fined to peaople who can afford to pay it and still live a sumptuous lifestyle (thanks to the sweat of you, me and everyone else). Surely if the executives expect to benefit in good times, let them pay the cost when things go horribly wrong because of the lack of care- or just plain greed. If under these conditions the executives stood to go to prison, believe me, the incidences of illegality and casino-type risk transactions would be largely reduced over night.
Discussions are taking place internationally for banks to be split into two parts. The casino type operations will be owned by the management and those who wish risk their money (and not other peoples). If they screw up they suffer - not someone else. And they will not be bailed out by the taxpayer. The other half, the deposit, savings and high street banking part will come under strict regulation - as of old. This, if it happens, and if it happens as intended, is probably the right balance.
Thanks for your input too Bruce. It’s always good to discuss matters from different perspectives.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14