Is banking immoral?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

Topcat19

Original post by ForKicks

The only mobility following WW3 would be the cockroaches through the streets of London.

So nothing changes then.

Reply 81

ForKicks

Original post by Aaron_xyz

Have there been any real life examples of this? Just curious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run

Reply 82

JamalAhmed

Still wrong... when you are in a tough financial situation when you have no place to go for help except the bank as they are you're last resort... you may want to prolong your debt repayment date and you know this means your debt will only get larger and worse but you have no choice so what. If banks loan someone it will only make them richer.

They basically control your life (your mortgage) the same way money controls one's life.

Do you have any evidence that they take more money than give more money? (HINT: They take more money from the public, than give - obviously)

Reply 83

ForKicks

Original post by JamalAhmed

They basically control your life (your mortgage) the same way money controls one's life.

They don't control your life if you can afford the repayments..

Reply 84

LETSJaM

Welcome to the thread of angry wannabe socialists. :rolleyes:

<3 x

Reply 85

ufo2012

Original post by Hackett

Another thing which doesn't help, is out even more incompetent MP's. Example: Vince Cable, our BUSINESS (!) secretary on the Andrew Marr show this morning, moaning about Investment Banking (or 'Casino' Banking how he likes to call it, again emphasising his complete lack of awareness) The guy has not worked in the industry, doesn't know how it operates and yet is instigating what happens to the banks and is filling the minds of the general public with the same ould crap because it is what people want to hear.

Original post by Astronomical

In commercial banking: banks lend money to people who want it, using the money from the accounts they look after. This is why banks need to have a large sum of money in reserve, so that if lots of people want to withdraw all their money, then they can. Of course, if everyone tries to withdraw all their money, there is a massive problem because the bank frankly doesn't have it all at any given moment.

This wouldn't happen in reality anymore, because
i) the banks now set limits as to what you can withdraw and how quickly you can do so in a given period of time
ii) it is unlikely everyone would try to withdraw at one time anyway unless they got wind of something and by doing so the bank would probably try to slow things down to protect itself
iii) if everyone did try to withdraw, those who had the sense to get in first would already have exhausted the supply
iv) if the banks ran out of their money, they'd probably go bust then get bailed out again anyway!

Really, I would not use a bank except it is becoming more and more necessary since most places won't accept cash for payments etc.

Big Brother really is watching you.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 86

Inverse

The study of morality is superfluous.

Reply 87

Astronomical

Original post by Aaron_xyz

Have there been any real life examples of this? Just curious

I don't think so, at least not in the UK. Were it not for government intervention, though, I think it could have happened to Northern Rock a few years ago. But, as the post I've quoted below quite rightly says, the government would never let it happen that people just lost their savings.

Original post by ufo2012

Yes he had a good old moan, but why shouldn't he?

The 'Casino' banking he is talking about seems to have just continued regardless of what happened back in 2007-2008.

I don't think people 'want to hear' about such risky banking is continuing, I think they would rather hear that the practice is being curtailed. Not everybody has the time, effort or want to understand CDOs and derivatives.

This wouldn't happen in reality anymore, because
i) the banks now set limits as to what you can withdraw and how quickly you can do so in a given period of time
ii) it is unlikely everyone would try to withdraw at one time anyway unless they got wind of something and by doing so the bank would probably try to slow things down to protect itself
iii) if everyone did try to withdraw, those who had the sense to get in first would already have exhausted the supply
iv) if the banks ran out of their money, they'd probably go bust then get bailed out again anyway!

Really, I would not use a bank except it is becoming more and more necessary since most places won't accept cash for payments etc.

Big Brother really is watching you.

Indeed, I wasn't saying it is likely to happen - only that, in theory, barring any other intervention, it could happen. But, yes, in reality, it is almost impossible for such an event to transpire.

I use a bank because I like buying things on amazon and in sales and whatnot and need a debit/credit card to do so. :h:

Reply 88

py0alb

Original post by Aaron_xyz

Have there been any real life examples of this? Just curious

It was an extremely common problem for a long time. The British were actually the first country to come up with an effective solution: a central bank, with which every other bank was obliged to deposit a set fraction of their deposits in return for a guarantee of emergency loans should the bank ever become temporarily illiquid. This managed to provide enough stability and credibility to the system to prevent public panics and bank runs entirely, and was copied with equal success by almost every other country in the world. Its this rather neat system that virtually the entirety of modern civilisation was built upon.

Reply 89

King Kebab

No banking is not immoral. Many bankers have behaved immorally though in recent years. There is a big difference.

Reply 90

goape

No, it's amoral just like every other industry out there.

Reply 91

JamalAhmed

What if you need to pay someone by tomorrow, or get and buy food to survive. What would you do if you have lost all hope?

Reply 92

Zenomorph

Original post by Topcat19

Service industry ain't really working out, time to tell the bankers to pay up or **** off to singapore, a proper police state in nice managable city form. Thatcheer got it wrong, thank her for wasting our industry and the successive governments for wasting money on things other than unis and infastructure and manafacturing.

LOL.

They are but the market in Sing is small beer for them,

Reply 93

Zenomorph

It IS immoral in the sense that the whole industry is controlled by a few big players. even by economics orthodoxy this is Oligopolistic market failure and government should step and correct it.

Reply 94

Hackett

Original post by Zenomorph

It IS immoral in the sense that the whole industry is controlled by a few big players. even by economics orthodoxy this is Oligopolistic market failure and government should step and correct it.

This is isn't AS Economics buddy.....

Reply 95

Zenomorph

Original post by Hackett

This is isn't AS Economics buddy.....

The way bankers and their apologists behave ... yes it is , ' buddy '.

Reply 96

goape

Original post by Zenomorph

It IS immoral in the sense that the whole industry is controlled by a few big players. even by economics orthodoxy this is Oligopolistic market failure and government should step and correct it.

You think it should be perfectly competitive :rolleyes:

Reply 97

Roy064

Original post by goape

You think it should be perfectly competitive :rolleyes:

Reply 98

WillowLeaves

Banking is not immoral, it's a service / industry that has existed for centuries and allowed many countries to develop the way they did (eg. Italy during and after the Renaissance). There's nothing immoral about banking, unless you consider charging interest immoral. If there were no banks, people and companies would have to somehow store all their cash in their house, which would be impractical; many people and companies would also not be able to afford a lot of things they can now afford, which would be bad for the economy as there would be limited opportunities for growth and development.

There is also nothing immoral about investment banking particularly, as it's just an extension of the basic purpose of banks, which is to manage capital. There are, of course, some immoral people working in the banking sector in the same way as there are immoral doctors or teachers or bus drivers and it is those people that we always hear about as examples of the horribleness of the City. But most people working in the City (or the financial services in general, which make up 1 in every 14 jobs in the UK) are neither immoral, nor are they even investment bankers. As they say, hate the player, not the game.