Bankers May Not Be Nice People

26-10-2017 8:00pm

server down wrote: »

The question is whether those terms and conditions are legal and whether he was notified

Aren't they legal if he was 'of sound mind', and agreed to them? I'm assuming the agreement he signed had all the usual legal contract requirements. banks tend to be very thorough in having a contract conform to legal standards and not allowing any loop-holes.

I was a credit controller for just over a decade, and the most recurrent problem was that most people who defaulted hadn't fully read the contract before agreeing to it. They just assumed a lot of the contract requirements and were shocked when the rules for defaulting came into effect.

server down · 26-10-2017 8:00pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Aren't they legal if he was 'of sound mind', and agreed to them? I'm assuming the agreement he signed had all the usual legal contract requirements. banks tend to be very thorough in having a contract conform to legal standards and not allowing any loop-holes.

I was a credit controller for just over a decade, and the most recurrent problem was that most people who defaulted hadn't fully read the contract before agreeing to it. They just assumed a lot of the contract requirements and were shocked when the rules for defaulting came into effect.

Can you put the consequences (default etc) in the fine print? (Not a rhetorical question btw).

26-10-2017 8:07pm

server down wrote: »

Can you put the consequences (default etc) in the fine print? (Not a rhetorical question btw).

Yup. Some companies do. However, usually, they will refer to the small print and suggest that you read it yourself. Many people don't, even after that suggestion. My mortgage agreement doesn't though. It has a rather large clear section, but then, I requested that my contract be changed to highlight certain areas over others... and I read the whole thing a few times (and asked two family members to do the same).

I do wonder if the OP really read his whole contract or just assumed that he would be fine?

And seriously, don't rush into contract agreements. Companies have a lot of leeway in how they can deal with defaulters or the addition of interest.

lawred2 · 26-10-2017 8:09pm

server down wrote: »

Can you put the consequences (default etc) in the fine print? (Not a rhetorical question btw).

the consequences of default would usually be something along the lines of 'we will do what we can to recover any unpaid debts'

26-10-2017 8:18pm

lawred2 wrote: »

the consequences of default would usually be something along the lines of 'we will do what we can to recover any unpaid debts'

Yup.. and depending on the actions of the debtor, whether we destroy his credit rating and/or, demand legal punishments or offer him different products/services to keep him as a customer.

maryishere · 26-10-2017 8:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I was a credit controller for just over a decade.

Did you come across any cases where banks lent money which could not be repaid, or where a mortgage slipped through which should not have been sold by the bank? For example, someone on a 30k salary getting a 600k mortgage?
Bankers are human, I would say some would be of the opinion it is just the rogue bankers who "may not be Nice People".

Wanderer78 · 26-10-2017 8:28pm

maryishere wrote: »

Did you come across any cases where banks lent money which could not be repaid, or where a mortgage slipped through which should not have been sold by the bank? For example, someone on a 30k salary getting a 600k mortgage? Intererst only too.

Bankers are human, I would say some would be of the opinion it is just the rogue bankers who "may not be Nice People".

bill blacks work is worth checking out to see how bad banking systems can be with unethical lending practices.

26-10-2017 8:37pm

maryishere wrote: »

Did you come across any cases where banks lent money which could not be repaid, or where a mortgage slipped through which should not have been sold by the bank? For example, someone on a 30k salary getting a 600k mortgage?
Bankers are human, I would say some would be of the opinion it is just the rogue bankers who "may not be Nice People".

Never worked for the banks. I worked as a contract based credit controller for private businesses in Ireland, Europe, the US, and Australia. And I saw similar kinds of contracts across all industries, with service industries easily being the worst. Businesses do seek to trap the stupid, ignorant or simply careless.

Banks are a business. People need to forget the way Banks were fifty years ago, and view them as corporations with no moral guidelines, and seeking to entrap debtors for profit.

I don't have an issue with Bankers themselves. They're just doing their job. I was hated by many as a credit controller because I would be the one enforcing the terms of the contract on them. A contract that they should have read thoroughly, and didn't. Nobody forced them to sign that contract. Keep your anger for the banks as an institution.

We live in a theoretically capitalist society, and there are other options. Shop around and find a contract that suits your needs, or better yet, negotiate your contract. All businesses (and banks) use standardized contracts, and while they will resist requests for a customised contract, such contracts are available should the bank want the customer. Negotiate... and if you find yourself in a bad agreement, well, frankly it's your own fault. Contract changes need the approval of both parties before they become enforceable... but so many people just accept the changes thinking the bank or business will never mess with them.

It's naive, and extremely foolish... and many people fall into such webs easily.

Lastly... about mortgages. I got a 265k mortgage when I was earning just over 30k. I knew it would be difficult to maintain when I got it. Anyone who went for a 600k mortgage knew what they were getting themselves into. And if they didn't, then they had no reason to be getting any kind of mortgage in the first place. Yes, the banks are corrupt. Yes, the banks are unfair. But the banks didn't force people to behave in such a short-sighted and stupid manner. The people that requested the mortgage did.

I get tired of all this passing blame on to the banks for the ignorant behavior of people. Do your research properly, determine what you can afford, decrease that further by 20%, and then get a reasonable mortgage. And do everything you can to pay it. Even if that means leaving the country and working abroad to pay for it. Stop passing the responsibility for your own choices and poor negotiation on to others.

maryishere · 26-10-2017 9:04pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the banks are corrupt. Yes, the banks are unfair.

Think of a time when they were worse than that, say 11 or 12 years ago.
A time which lasted for a couple of years only (the banks did not usually behave like this ). Sometimes there was a rogue banker, in pursuit of a short-sighted bonus or for whatever reason, who sold a mortgage and told a borrower he could afford it when he clearly could not eg someone on 30k getting a 600k mortgage.
Borrowers were not always 100% to blame.

Unless some rogue bankers are punished, such mistakes will happen again, and more borrowers lives destroyed. Do you know how many bankers were jailed in Iceland, a tiny country?

Wanderer78 · 26-10-2017 9:08pm

maryishere wrote: »

Think of a time when they were worse than that, say 11 or 12 years ago.
A time which lasted for a couple of years only (the banks did not usually behave like this ). Sometimes there was a rogue banker, in pursuit of a short-sighted bonus or for whatever reason, who sold a mortgage and told a borrower he could afford it when he clearly could not eg someone on 30k getting a 600k mortgage.
Borrowers were not always 100% to blame.

Unless some rogue bankers are punished, such mistakes will happen again, and more borrowers lives destroyed. Do you know how many bankers were jailed in Iceland, a tiny country?

bill black actually played a major part in those convictions

26-10-2017 9:40pm

maryishere wrote: »

Think of a time when they were worse than that, say 11 or 12 years ago.

Trust me. That memory is burned into my brain quite securely. I lost quite a bit of savings/investments due to the banks and the government.

A time which lasted for a couple of years only (the banks did not usually behave like this ). Sometimes there was a rogue banker, in pursuit of a short-sighted bonus or for whatever reason, who sold a mortgage and told a borrower he could afford it when he clearly could not eg someone on 30k getting a 600k mortgage.

Banks have been behaving like this for decades. The crash happened because they could no longer hide what they were doing. You really think the crash was a sudden thing? It was building up in the background for years, with the banks/governments working to cover it up.

Funny how governments are only efficient when they're covering up/hiding their corruption or mistakes.

And regarding selling a mortgage to someone who couldn't afford it... you really think that was an unintended mistake? What better way to own someone? The banks have done quite well out of the crash, seizing land/property, running the seized businesses themselves, and generating extra profits before selling them onwards as the economy bounces back. I still think many of the people who got mortgages they couldn't afford even without the crash, were idiotic.

Borrowers were not always 100% to blame.

Nope. They're not. When the contract terms are broken, or mismanaged by the banks.

Unless some rogue bankers are punished, such mistakes will happen again, and more borrowers lives destroyed. Do you know how many bankers were jailed in Iceland, a tiny country?

Iceland? Nope. Don't care about Iceland. I know that very few, if any of the top board members of the banks, the building societies, or the government ever saw the inside of a jail cell, or were financially punished. Christ, most of them left office with bonuses in their pensions and extra benefits.

But then that's the weakness of a modern democracy. Nobody feels that the people can force the government to do anything worthwhile. Instead, we complain loudly for a few months, and then allow it all to settle back to the way it was before.

TBH if we want changes in the banks and the legal system, we need to completely scrap the current political parties, expel the whole lot of current politicians, and enforce a creation of a democratic system based on modern values. Not this pro/anti-treaty or republican bull****. Our political system is less than a 100 years old, but god forbid that anyone suggests that we change it. It's like suggesting changing a millennia-old tradition.

Our political parties are corrupt. All of them. It's scary that SF are almost reaching a moderate perception in comparison with them. Playing political games with each other rather than dealing with the real issues that are important for the country. We know they're corrupt. We know they're not qualified for their positions... and what do we do? Elect in more gob****es and a few honest people who are submerged by 80 years of crap.

You want the banks to change? We need a series of strong governments capable of returning the law to the people. We need to reduce the power of big business and remove the government protection provided to the banks. And we need to look to an efficient system that allows this country to move towards self-sufficiency, even if it means reducing all welfare by 60%-80%. Cut all this bloody wastage of tax and focus more on the small-medium sized businesses in the country, encouraging backbone growth.

Because the banking crash is just the start. More will come over the next few decades... and what are our politicians doing? Arguing about who is to blame.

Rant over.

Rawr!

maryishere · 26-10-2017 10:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Banks have been behaving like this for decades.

No they have not. The only instances of where some rogue bankers lent money to people who clearly could not afford to pay it back - like selling a 600k mortgage to someone on 30k -was in the bubble years as far as I know. I never heard of it happening before the bubble years, or after the crash.
Even now banks claim to evaluate a borrower ability to repay before lending the money.

Wanderer78 · 26-10-2017 10:32pm

maryishere wrote:

No they have not. The only instances of where some rogue bankers lent money to people who clearly could not afford to pay it back - like selling a 600k mortgage to someone on 30k -was in the bubble years as far as I know. I never heard of it happening before the bubble years, or after the crash. Even now banks claim to evaluate a borrower ability to repay before lending the money.

Unethical banking may have taken time to get to these shores, but most certainly has been occurring globally for many decades, once again, the work of people such as Bill black reveals this

maryishere · 26-10-2017 10:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH if we want changes in the banks..

Some bankers being jailed for greedy mistakes they made in the boom years, like happened in Iceland, would help ensure they did not make the same mistakes again. As you correctly say " very few, if any of the top board members of the banks, the building societies, or the government ever saw the inside of a jail cell, or were financially punished. Christ, most of them left office with bonuses in their pensions and extra benefits."
Why should victims of the rogue bankers feel all the pain?

Wanderer78 · 26-10-2017 10:59pm

Discussion on tonight show now about our banking system

26-10-2017 11:08pm

maryishere wrote: »

No they have not. The only instances of where some rogue bankers lent money to people who clearly could not afford to pay it back - like selling a 600k mortgage to someone on 30k -was in the bubble years as far as I know. I never heard of it happening before the bubble years, or after the crash.
Even now banks claim to evaluate a borrower ability to repay before lending the money.

They were doing it with much smaller amounts but still beyond the ability of the person to pay, thus gaining the collateral used to secure the loan. A fairly common procedure in the US farming areas prior to the crash.

Edit: You mention the evaluation to pay a mortgage by a bank. When I arranged my second mortgage, (I was due to sell my first house, a lesser investment, a few months later), I was evaluated by the bank. I also evaluated myself. The evaluations matched relatively closely, since I had trained in Financial management in University. The bank still offered me an extra 100k on my loan based on where they saw my career going over the next 10 years. I didn't take it. Generous interest rates, and all that, but I wouldn't have gotten my fixed rate. An evaluation is just a suggestion. It's used for risk management. Doesn't mean that the bank will actually use it to decide anything... and doesn't mean that the bank won't decide to encourage a customer to enter debt. You know that in the US they've started suggesting that slavery is making a come back, and its down to debts owed to banks or other financial institutions where the debt can be carried across generations... that used to be illegal, but it's coming back once again.

26-10-2017 11:10pm

maryishere wrote: »

Some bankers being jailed for greedy mistakes they made in the boom years, like happened in Iceland, would help ensure they did not make the same mistakes again. As you correctly say " very few, if any of the top board members of the banks, the building societies, or the government ever saw the inside of a jail cell, or were financially punished. Christ, most of them left office with bonuses in their pensions and extra benefits."
Why should victims of the rogue bankers feel all the pain?

And I agree with you. I believe that the top management should be held financially and criminally responsible for their negligence. But then, I feel that politicians should be held accountable for poor decisions too.

The normal individual is usually held accountable for the decisions they make in life. Sure, society is pushing to remove that, but it's still there for most people. Alas Politicians, and bankers seem immune.

jluv · 27-10-2017 12:08am

Not defending all bankers in any way shape or form but maybe trying to highlight personal responsibility.
2007..applied for 150,000 mortgage. was offered 200,000..go on holiday,buy a car,finish driveway etc..I refused and went for the 150,000.
Due to a family crisis in 2014 I had to give up my job..contacted my bank soon after and sat with them..they gave me 6 months interest only..ok breathing space but soul destroying to see nothing coming off principle,,so sat down again and negotiated a figure that pays some off principle. Will be reviewed after 3 years and I'm quite sure I will be able to pay full mortgage at that point. They said the reason they were so willing to work with me was I didn't put my head in the sand, I reached out to them before it became an issue..and it looks like we will have a positive result for all involved.
Now as others have said..I had all my accounts with the same bank so I could not have hidden anything from them.maybe going forward I might change that..but maybe not as it may have helped me to some extent as they could see an honest financial assessment on me.
TLDR..if you were having issues with loan reach out to your bank..
If you didn't read the correspondance from your bank correctly than lesson learned...read BOTH sides of any letter you get from any financial institution

27-10-2017 8:16am

jluv wrote: »

Not defending all bankers in any way shape or form but maybe trying to highlight personal responsibility.
2007..applied for 150,000 mortgage. was offered 200,000..go on holiday,buy a car,finish driveway etc..I refused and went for the 150,000.
Due to a family crisis in 2014 I had to give up my job..contacted my bank soon after and sat with them..they gave me 6 months interest only..ok breathing space but soul destroying to see nothing coming off principle,,so sat down again and negotiated a figure that pays some off principle. Will be reviewed after 3 years and I'm quite sure I will be able to pay full mortgage at that point. They said the reason they were so willing to work with me was I didn't put my head in the sand, I reached out to them before it became an issue..and it looks like we will have a positive result for all involved.
Now as others have said..I had all my accounts with the same bank so I could not have hidden anything from them.maybe going forward I might change that..but maybe not as it may have helped me to some extent as they could see an honest financial assessment on me.
TLDR..if you were having issues with loan reach out to your bank..
If you didn't read the correspondance from your bank correctly than lesson learned...read BOTH sides of any letter you get from any financial institution

Spot on. When the recession happened, I lost my job, and was forced to rely on savings, but lets face it, few single people have much savings until they're much older... I couldn't find work, and welfare wasn't an option since it was too low. I contacted my bank and they put the payments on hold for almost a month, while i found work abroad, left Ireland, and started working in Australia.

The banks then restarted the payments and didn't lose out on anything. No extra interest. Because they recognized that I could pay them if I was given some breathing room. The problem is that so many people who got mortgages were not willing to make that extra effort to pay what they owed, or their mortgages were so high that even if they had got work again, they'd never make the payments.

seamus · 27-10-2017 8:35am

server down wrote: »

The question is whether those terms and conditions are legal and whether he was notified

Actually in fundamental terms, the small print/fine print/T's & C's are often just a courtesy to the customer. They go in there to make things clearer and avoid lengthy argument with customers.

Much of it is already enshrined in contract law and applies whether or not they were in the small print and whether or not the bank contacted the individual.

In the OP's case, the bank is not obliged to notify the customer that they can use money from other accounts, and not necessarily obliged to notify the customer of a missed repayment. The customer has the responsibility for making the payments, it's not the bank's responsibility to notify them of missed ones - the customer should already know they've missed a payment.

One could argue that the bank may not be permitted to charge any penalties unless they've notified the customer. But they are perfectly entitled to take the repayments from the customer's other accounts, without notification.

27-10-2017 8:41am

Look. I don't want to come across as having no sympathy for those that the banks have screwed. I do have some sympathy for them, but there has been for the last few decades, this growing sense of irresponsible behavior towards money. This belief of not being accountable for their poor decisions with finance.

When I finished university, obtained my first job, and I naturally got a credit card. And I went nuts on it, running up 3 grand debt on it for sheer convenience it provided. Everyone I knew had told me to be careful, but I ignored them thinking I'd be fine. I had rushed over the terms and the interest charges that would be added in the application process, and I was given a hefty amount of interest to repay. And I couldn't. In the end, I needed my parents help to pay it all back. Oh, the shame of it. That was my own fault. It was well-known that the credit cards were a dangerous activity, but I went ahead anyway. Just like so many other people out there.

The banks respond to our desires. Not what we need, but what we want. Just like the government. Most of the time, They don't really care about our welfare... they just want to make a profit for their shareholders. Just as the government increases public spending to gain more votes even though it increases our national debt. Playing up to people rather than seeking our long-term interests/benefit.

Those people who sought high mortgage amounts were foolish and they found someone to provide them the monies. Once that happened, they themselves were responsible. For their own actions. The banks are responsible for unethical business practice. But ultimately the people who got loans beyond their means to pay them even without the crash are to blame for their own circumstances. Those that could have paid but were unable due to the recession, are still responsible... they just were unlucky.

CruelCoin · 27-10-2017 9:27am

server down wrote: »

Banks in fact do create money. the principal way money is created is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. That, provided it is regulated, is not a bad system.

That is not how it works in the slightest.

Wanderer78 · 27-10-2017 9:28am

Deleted User wrote: »

Look. I don't want to come across as having no sympathy for those that the banks have screwed. I do have some sympathy for them, but there has been for the last few decades, this growing sense of irresponsible behavior towards money. This belief of not being accountable for their poor decisions with finance.

When I finished university, obtained my first job, and I naturally got a credit card. And I went nuts on it, running up 3 grand debt on it for sheer convenience it provided. Everyone I knew had told me to be careful, but I ignored them thinking I'd be fine. I had rushed over the terms and the interest charges that would be added in the application process, and I was given a hefty amount of interest to repay. And I couldn't. In the end, I needed my parents help to pay it all back. Oh, the shame of it. That was my own fault. It was well-known that the credit cards were a dangerous activity, but I went ahead anyway. Just like so many other people out there.

The banks respond to our desires. Not what we need, but what we want. Just like the government. Most of the time, They don't really care about our welfare... they just want to make a profit for their shareholders. Just as the government increases public spending to gain more votes even though it increases our national debt. Playing up to people rather than seeking our long-term interests/benefit.

Those people who sought high mortgage amounts were foolish and they found someone to provide them the monies. Once that happened, they themselves were responsible. For their own actions. The banks are responsible for unethical business practice. But ultimately the people who got loans beyond their means to pay them even without the crash are to blame for their own circumstances. Those that could have paid but were unable due to the recession, are still responsible... they just were unlucky.

i will agree with you that some level of personal responsibility is required, but id also agree with those that say we ve given the ability to create money largely to privately owned banks. this is a potentially lethal for all, as it creates a systemically dangerous system, whereby 'profit maximisation' is king, and sometimes, at all costs to the majority. we need to find ways of reducing this ability of these financial institutions of doing this, and increasing ways of still producing credit with less risk to the majority.

id have to also agree with somebody like steve keen in that, balancing the budget is pure nonsense, and its fine for governments to create money in the form of bonds, within reason of course, and i suspect the sky wouldnt fall in if this was done.

the global financial system is in a very precarious place, and again, id agree with keen, the problem is actually not with what many of our politicians would say, i.e. public debt is too high, the problem is in fact, private debt is actually the most dangerous one here, and is out of control, and unsustainable. i beleive it was printed in the irish times during the week, some people in dublin are paying up to 55% of their income on their housing needs, and this is sustainable!

Wanderer78 · 27-10-2017 9:31am

CruelCoin wrote: »

That is not how it works in the slightest.

again, as server down kindly posted, this has been confirmed by both the bank of england and the bundesbank. this has been written extensively by people such as ellen brown, steve keen, jim rickards etc etc. it is what is termed as 'double entry bookkeeping'

CruelCoin · 27-10-2017 9:58am

Deleted User wrote: »

I get tired of all this passing blame on to the banks for the ignorant behavior of people. Do your research properly, determine what you can afford, decrease that further by 20%, and then get a reasonable mortgage. And do everything you can to pay it. Even if that means leaving the country and working abroad to pay for it. Stop passing the responsibility for your own choices and poor negotiation on to others.

It's a bit like buying a house on a flood plain and getting all shocked when it floods.

You'd swear by some of the posts on thread, that some people cannot operate without someone holding their hand and telling them "NO!, that's dumb"

Hitman3000 · 27-10-2017 10:05am

As for the title of the thread, I like the description the Labour senator gave of them yesterday purely political of course as he was in government which allowed them behave they way have and continue to do so.

CruelCoin · 27-10-2017 10:06am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, as server down kindly posted, this has been confirmed by both the bank of england and the bundesbank. this has been written extensively by people such as ellen brown, steve keen, jim rickards etc etc. it is what is termed as 'double entry bookkeeping'

That creates extra money supply, not extra money.

If i lend you a euro, then you lend on, and your lendee lends again, thesingular 1 euro behaves as 3.

But it is not 3.

Quantity and supply are not the same when it comes to money. I think that's sailing past you.

CruelCoin · 27-10-2017 10:10am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i will agree with you that some level of personal responsibility is required, but id also agree with those that say we ve given the ability to create money largely to privately owned banks. this is a potentially lethal for all, as it creates a systemically dangerous system, whereby 'profit maximisation' is king, and sometimes, at all costs to the majority. we need to find ways of reducing this ability of these financial institutions of doing this, and increasing ways of still producing credit with less risk to the majority.

Profit driven systems have created a scenario where the average industrial wage has 2 cars in every driveway, foreign holidays, tvs in every room and plentiful amounts of free time, choice of goods, etc.

There is no, and i mean no, alternative that has ever delivered as much prosperity to the general populace "majority" as capitalism.

The alternative is a socialist ****hole where we're all equal, and all equally poor.

Wanderer78 · 27-10-2017 10:10am

CruelCoin wrote: »

That creates extra money supply, not extra money.

If i lend you a euro, then you lend on, and your lendee lends again, thesingular 1 euro behaves as 3.

But it is not 3.

Quantity and supply are not the same when it comes to money. I think that's sailing past you.

banks are actually creating money in the form of loans, they are not mediators which is depicted by mainstream economic theories such as neoclassical theory. this is one of the major failures of the standard model, i.e. money, its creation and banking is not included in this theory and its models such as dgse models etc.

27-10-2017 10:12am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i will agree with you that some level of personal responsibility is required, but id also agree with those that say we ve given the ability to create money largely to privately owned banks. this is a potentially lethal for all, as it creates a systemically dangerous system, whereby 'profit maximisation' is king, and sometimes, at all costs to the majority. we need to find ways of reducing this ability of these financial institutions of doing this, and increasing ways of still producing credit with less risk to the majority.

The problem is that we allowed banks to develop beyond what they were originally designed to be. Now, they 'provide' a massive range of services and their only loyalty is to their shareholders. They're no different than the corporations who break the law, wrap up any objection in legal hoops. pay a measly fine, and then go back to what they were doing before.

Id have to also agree with somebody like steve keen in that, balancing the budget is pure nonsense, and its fine for governments to create money in the form of bonds, within reason of course, and i suspect the sky wouldnt fall in if this was done.

I have never understood why governments cannot make money by subsidizing the creation of small/medium sized businesses with a fair return on investment. Take over somewhat from the banks, and provide proper support/advice to create successful companies, which in turn, employ more people.

the global financial system is in a very precarious place, and again, id agree with keen, the problem is actually not with what many of our politicians would say, i.e. public debt is too high, the problem is in fact, private debt is actually the most dangerous one here, and is out of control, and unsustainable. i beleive it was printed in the irish times during the week, some people in dublin are paying up to 55% of their income on their housing needs, and this is sustainable!

Yup. Totally agree. In spite of our technological advancements, and the ease of access to resources (both domestic and foreign), the costs of living continue to increase. It's an artificial system that the corporations, banks, and governments encourage to occur, when in fact, due scientific improvements costs should actually be reducing along with resource expenditure actually decreasing. But, nah, Instead, everything costs more.

Wanderer78 · 27-10-2017 10:13am

CruelCoin wrote: »

Profit driven systems have created a scenario where the average industrial wage has 2 cars in every driveway, foreign holidays, tvs in every room and plentiful amounts of free time, choice of goods, etc.

There is no, and i mean no, alternative that has ever delivered as much prosperity to the general populace "majority" as capitalism.

The alternative is a socialist ****hole where we're all equal, and all equally poor.

and again, we re back to the 'boring' argument of capitalism v's socialism! im not talking about reverting back to socialism!

again, we need to start talking about debt, and not public debt!

there is no alternative, now where have we heard that one before!

CruelCoin · 27-10-2017 10:18am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

banks are actually creating money in the form of loans, they are not mediators which is depicted by mainstream economic theories such as neoclassical theory. this is one of the major failures of the standard model, i.e. money, its creation and banking is not included in this theory and its models such as dgse models etc.

As commercial banks cannot lend what they don't hold deposits for, it is the central bank that creates the money.

The central bank increases creates money, to control inflation, by extending bonds to the commercial banks, enabling them to lend in turn. These bonds are repaid with interest, and it is the interest that generates the increase.
A case in point here is the "quantitive easing" policy in the EU, which is just the issuing of vast amounts of cheap bonds

27-10-2017 10:31am

CruelCoin wrote: »

As commercial banks cannot lend what they don't hold deposits for, it is the central bank that creates the money.

The central bank increases creates money, to control inflation, by extending bonds to the commercial banks, enabling them to lend in turn. These bonds are repaid with interest, and it is the interest that generates the increase.
A case in point here is the "quantitive easing" policy in the EU, which is just the issuing of vast amounts of cheap bonds

**Hand up**...does this mean the OP defaulting on his car loan but expecting credit facilities to remain in place until he reads the other side of the letter is right or wrong?

CruelCoin · 27-10-2017 10:45am

Deleted User wrote: »

**Hand up**...does this mean the OP defaulting on his car loan but expecting credit facilities to remain in place until he reads the other side of the letter is right or wrong?

"points with chalk" Very obviously wrong.

I'm not sure what world he's on really.

turbbo · 27-10-2017 10:52am

CruelCoin wrote: »

Profit driven systems have created a scenario where the average industrial wage has 2 cars in every driveway, foreign holidays, tvs in every room and plentiful amounts of free time, choice of goods, etc.

There is no, and i mean no, alternative that has ever delivered as much prosperity to the general populace "majority" as capitalism.

This is nonsense the reason for the 2 cars is that now both parents have to work, and to get to work in Ireland it means you're forced into having a car in the majority of cases. Also cars have become a lot cheaper in the second hand car market thanks to the same bloody banks flooding the uk and ireland with all types of credit on new cars. TVs are a quarter of the price of what they used to be 20 years ago - so having a TV in every room shows you hoard junk rather than having plenty of disposable income. I'll only concede on the foreign holidays(as I'm not sure)- they have exploded in popularity - but nowadays people on the dole do foreign holidays - so either the dole is too good or foreign holidays have become a lot cheaper - I don't know which is true? So I think your argument is flawed and not really related to the banking crap thats going on.

Wanderer78 · 27-10-2017 10:57am

CruelCoin wrote:

As commercial banks cannot lend what they don't hold deposits for, it is the central bank that creates the money.

It's disturbing to see how indoctrinated people have become with the standard model and how it depicts money creation, I.e. banks do not loan out deposits! Period! No wonder the crash occurred, and if you think 2008 was a serious crash, wait until future crashes. We need to move on from things such as neoclassical theory before we completely wreck our economies

CruelCoin · 27-10-2017 11:02am

turbbo wrote: »

so having a TV in every room shows you hoard junk rather than having plenty of disposable income.

Yeah, because tv's are free. :rolleyes:

server down · 27-10-2017 11:19am

CruelCoin wrote: »

As commercial banks cannot lend what they don't hold deposits for, it is the central bank that creates the money.

The central bank increases creates money, to control inflation, by extending bonds to the commercial banks, enabling them to lend in turn. These bonds are repaid with interest, and it is the interest that generates the increase.
A case in point here is the "quantitive easing" policy in the EU, which is just the issuing of vast amounts of cheap bonds

You just cant be learned, can you.

server down · 27-10-2017 11:19am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's disturbing to see how indoctrinated people have become with the standard model and how it depicts money creation, I.e. banks do not loan out deposits! Period! No wonder the crash occurred, and if you think 2008 was a serious crash, wait until future crashes. We need to move on from things such as neoclassical theory before we completely wreck our economies

If we can't convince people with a very well explained paper from a central bank, I dont think that you are going to ever convince them.

server down · 27-10-2017 11:22am

Deleted User wrote: »

**Hand up**...does this mean the OP defaulting on his car loan but expecting credit facilities to remain in place until he reads the other side of the letter is right or wrong?

What if it is in invisible ink?

It's hard to find the Irish law but other countries have laws on how conspicious the text needs to be.

from wiki

US FTC regulations state that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful. (15 USC § 45 (a))[6] In relevant part, they state that contingent conditions and obligations of an offer must be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer, and that disclosure of the terms of the offer set forth in a footnote of an advertisement to which reference is made by an asterisk or other symbol placed next to the offer, is not regarded as making disclosure at the outset. (16 CFR 251.1)[5][/quote]

PMBC · 27-10-2017 11:26am

CruelCoin wrote: »

Profit driven systems have created a scenario where the average industrial wage has 2 cars in every driveway, foreign holidays, tvs in every room and plentiful amounts of free time, choice of goods, etc.

There is no, and i mean no, alternative that has ever delivered as much prosperity to the general populace "majority" as capitalism.

The alternative is a socialist ****hole where we're all equal, and all equally poor.

I don't have a position on the OP's issue but IMO Ireland, UK, USA did not follow Capitalist principles by rescuing bank/s. Regarding socialism, you are probably referring to places like USSR former and N Korea currently.
Perhaps a mixture of the best of both systems should be given a chance. Ever increasing production and consumption is illogical as it neglects the systems overall ability/limits to resources. Yes we can have new technologies but they take time to develop and be proven and also have limits resource wise.

doinotlikethat · 27-10-2017 11:30am

bajer101 wrote: »

Another interesting aspect of the reply I received from the bank was that it was printed on both sides of the paper, which I think is the first time this has happened. I nearly could have missed the second page if I were a vulnerable person.

Lad....C'mon

server down · 27-10-2017 11:31am

CruelCoin wrote: »

That is not how it works in the slightest.

As I said later that post was exactly taken line for line, word for word, from the Bank Of England paper on money creation.

CruelCoin wrote: »

That creates extra money supply, not extra money.

If i lend you a euro, then you lend on, and your lendee lends again, thesingular 1 euro behaves as 3.

But it is not 3.

Quantity and supply are not the same when it comes to money. I think that's sailing past you.

Thats the velocity of money, its nothing to do with the broad money supply.

The supply of money as measured by any modern definition includes all money on deposit. In fact that is the least broad definition of money ( called M1).

To see how a loan creates money. Image two scenarios.

1) I have a house that I own outright and I sell it for 400K, to somebody who got a 400K loan. After the sale I clearly have 400K in my deposit account. Which is money. Thats new money I can spend. The banks dont get that money from the central bank and reserves only limit how much money they loan ( i.e create).
2) I have a house that I own outright and I sell it for 400K, to somebody who had 400K. After the sale I clearly have 400K in my deposit account but he hasn't. No increase in money.

server down · 27-10-2017 11:35am

CruelCoin wrote: »

Profit driven systems have created a scenario where the average industrial wage has 2 cars in every driveway, foreign holidays, tvs in every room and plentiful amounts of free time, choice of goods, etc.

There is no, and i mean no, alternative that has ever delivered as much prosperity to the general populace "majority" as capitalism.

The alternative is a socialist ****hole where we're all equal, and all equally poor.

We moved on from criticsing banks and financial capitalism ( points often made by right wing economists) to socialism. Either its bad banks, or socialism. Apparently can't have regulated banks in capitalism.

server down · 27-10-2017 11:42am

PMBC wrote: »

I don't have a position on the OP's issue but IMO Ireland, UK, USA did not follow Capitalist principles by rescuing bank/s. Regarding socialism, you are probably referring to places like USSR former and N Korea currently.
Perhaps a mixture of the best of both systems should be given a chance. Ever increasing production and consumption is illogical as it neglects the systems overall ability/limits to resources. Yes we can have new technologies but they take time to develop and be proven and also have limits resource wise.

And most of our banks are in fact government owned still after having been bailed out by taxpayers, but are examples nevertheless of how profit making systems are always better than socialism. Even though nationalising banks is one of the most radical socialist positions, or it used to be.

turbbo · 27-10-2017 11:46am

server down wrote: »

We moved on from criticsing banks and financial capitalism ( points often made by right wing economists) to socialism. Either its bad banks, or socialism. Apparently can't have regulated banks in capitalism.

Yeah title of this thread - Bankers May Not Be Nice People -

I've met a few of them in my time and I would concur.
Think about it - these are people who work with money - of course they change overtime when they see money and greed in everything they do.
To find one that is sound would be like finding a drug dealer that doesn't do any drugs.

server down · 27-10-2017 12:02pm

seamus wrote: »

Actually in fundamental terms, the small print/fine print/T's & C's are often just a courtesy to the customer. They go in there to make things clearer and avoid lengthy argument with customers.

Much of it is already enshrined in contract law and applies whether or not they were in the small print and whether or not the bank contacted the individual.

In the OP's case, the bank is not obliged to notify the customer that they can use money from other accounts, and not necessarily obliged to notify the customer of a missed repayment. The customer has the responsibility for making the payments, it's not the bank's responsibility to notify them of missed ones - the customer should already know they've missed a payment.

One could argue that the bank may not be permitted to charge any penalties unless they've notified the customer. But they are perfectly entitled to take the repayments from the customer's other accounts, without notification.

You are a poster who tends to be very certain in your views, but that statement would be wrong under American law at least. And given the fact that you thanked a post that was clearly wrong about money creation, its possible you are wrong about this too.

I can't find the equivalent Irish law. However I will continue to look.

topper75 · 27-10-2017 12:09pm

DeanAustin wrote: »

... I'm always surprised by the amount of callous pontificating that goes on in threads like this. Some hard, heartless bastards in this country.

I too long for the days when money used to be about heart.

I think it was the era after chemostynthesis but before the development of photosynthesis. I can't quite recall that episode of Reeling in the Years.

CruelCoin · 27-10-2017 12:27pm

server down wrote: »

We moved on from criticsing banks and financial capitalism ( points often made by right wing economists) to socialism. Either its bad banks, or socialism. Apparently can't have regulated banks in capitalism.

The main beef that the OP seems to be sitting at now is that the terms were on double sided paper, and that he should therefore be annoyed his account got locked.
Regulate for that. Good grief.

server down · 27-10-2017 12:32pm

CruelCoin wrote: »

The main beef that the OP seems to be sitting at now is that the terms were on double sided paper, and that he should therefore be annoyed his account got locked.
Regulate for that. Good grief.

Easy enough. MAke the law state that contingent conditions and obligations of an offer must be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer

And similar for penalities.

I mean in general, to be fair to most providers, if you are in arrears at all ( and this has happened to me once with an expired Credit card and utilities) they send you a letter with BIG BOLD WRITING about the arrears, and the penalties, and any potential cut off.

Bankers May Not Be Nice People

Comments