In short, he trusted Banks about as far as he could throw a Romanov Princess and that was almost a hundred years ago so heaven knows what he would say about the banks today because his words still ring true today, banks are still operating a bundle of wily tricks to separate us from our money.
After the numerous scandals that have been exposed in the banking sector, it would seem that keeping such a shabby outfit in public ownership where it can be tightly regulated is in the public interest rather than the current course we are on of nationalising them before cleaning them up at taxpayer expense and then selling them back to the private sector to recoup the public money therefore handing them to a new set of people set to commit the same scandals as the previous owners.
Back in 2008 when the economy crashed, when the banks and bankers were being roundly condemned, one of the more ridiculous statements that was bandied about by the money men was that somehow, it was our fault. Apparently it was because we had been going to the banks to get loans and mortgages that we couldn't cover, living on the never-never and racking up debt and not caring that one day it would all come crashing down around our ears.
What drives me mad, apart from people refusing to take responsibility when caught red handed, is that we the public have all the power when it comes to greedy companies that continually punch us in the face and expect us to say thank you.
Every once in a while the idea of charging us to withdraw our own money lifts it head because the banks need to drive more profits, which is why they say they have to rip us off.
The head of Barclays Bank said that customers should pay because 'banks are not charging, it drives them inexorably into this sort of position' with the position being conning billions from the public in the payment protection racket and charging sky-high overdraft fees, all as he explained 'the consequence of not charging for bank accounts'.
I'm not sure what i think about the idea that if banks charged more, they would stop trying to mis-sell other financial products, offering derisory rates of interest, charging us for withdrawing our own money or charging us £25 for a letter. Oh wait, yes i do, its utter bullspit.
If the customers of one bank moved their accounts to another bank, the first Bank would spiral down until it collapsed and we, the public, would have taught it and all banks a valuable lesson, that we no longer are the soft touch they have long taken us for.
1 comment:
if a person applies for a loan they know they cannot pay, there is some culpability for the applicant... not just the bank. the greed of the people that got a loan they could not pay is a significant part of the problem. oh hell yeah poor people are greedy too... try doing some volunteer work to feed the poor and see how many want their free plate of food, plus the plate intended for someone else. it is sad and understandable, but still greedy.
in the US in 2008, the democrats, who controlled the banking regulators, were pressuring US banks to take more risk on loans to increase home ownership for the "poor". and, at the same time, the rules were changed by the Fed to allow the "projected" future value of homes be used as collateral for home loans (supposedly to protect the banks from failure. if someone doesn't make their payments, take the two years to evict them, then sell the house to minimize the loss on the loan, then raise prices on the customers that do pay to make up for the loss).
this was fine until a significant portion of people fell behind and stopped paying their loans, which led to a drop in housing prices, which led to the collateral being insufficient to cover the loans, which led to the banks owning houses they couldn't even sell for a loss because of the sudden glut of homes on the market, which led to the US mega banks failing... which was exasperated because the Fed made the mega banks buy the pad loans from other failing banks... all chartered and backed by the US government
a bit of banking history, until about 1980, we paid to have bank accounts. then the western governments changed the business model so that instead of a deposit account being an asset (banks charged a monthly fee for banking services and that was part of their profit), deposit accounts became a liability (they started paying interest on deposit accounts, but used the extra money in the accounts to provide more loans, pay 1% on the deposits, but make 2% on the loans). again, a business model that was enabled by the government.
in other words, government intervention to save the banks and to serve the public have caused our recent crises.
BTW, your government won't let everybody move their money to a different bank because your government (left and right) think it wise to have multiple banks.
your precious government is not your savior. regardless of party, their efforts to "control" human greed, envy (counter part to greed), and jealousy just add more government control, government cost, and provide temporary solutions until the next government created crisis
Post a Comment