OK this is totally off topic, but I'm getting tired of hearing all this ill-informed populist ranting.

The problem with that rant is you owe your quality of life to banks.

If you want to know what makes some countries rich and others poor, its not doctors, its not engineers, its not levels of education.

Its bankers.

Thats why countries that want to get rich fast, like Dubai or Singapore, have as their number one strategic objective to build a major financial centre. Nothing else matters as much in raising the living standards of ordinary people.

The reason bus drivers in Bangladesh have a lower standard of living than bus drivers in Switzerland, is that Switzerland has a functional financial system (lots of bankers). After all both bus drivers have the same skills and same experience. The reason doctors in Sweden make more money than doctors in Cuba ... is because Sweden (like all wealthy countries) has a functional banking system. Cuban doctors are just as highly educated and experienced.

So you are biting the hand that feeds you when you go on about hating bankers. Your standard of living would be a fraction of what it is now without them.

All wealthy countries have advanced financial systems - run by bankers - its what makes those countries wealthy.

Countries with high levels of education, and loads of doctors or engineers per capita are not necessarily wealthy. Cuba, Ukraine etc. ... because they dont have enough bankers !

Countries with loads of mineral wealth (such as most of Africa) will also not be wealthy, unless they have a good banking / financial sector.

It might really suck to learn it, but the reality is, banks and bankers are not only essential to a functional society, but they are the single biggest reason your standard of life is as high as it is compared to other people in the world doing exactly the same job as you.

Bitching about them is laughable and shows a total lack of understanding about what their role is in the world, and how effective the financial system is in raising the living standards of the entire country.

If anything, you should be grateful ! Its thanks to banks and bankers that you have a high standard of living relative to the rest of the world.

Why do you think governments talk tough against the banks but actually in reality protect the sector?

Its because talking tough appeases the ignorants who hate the banks but have no idea how important they are, while protecting the banks is actually protecting the golden goose.

Saying you hate whole sections of the community because of what they do for a living is insane and rednecky enough ... but when its the sector that is the most important in delivering your living standards, I just shake my head and despair.

__________________

Cole, you have some good points; some that are inarguably true, but you let your post deterioration into a rant of its own.

Stating that banks are are responsible for much of the wealth we enjoy while also saying that "bitching about them is laughable" is a dubious position. While banks and strong financial sectors generate absurd amounts of wealth for a country and its citizens, the citizens most certainly have the right (obligation?) to demand better, more ethical banks and banking practices. ("or one with [more?] morals" ~ Drwnite).

Also, there are lots "utter scum" in the world, in all manner of industry. Sucks for them. However, cab drivers that are "utter scum" will rip you off for a few dollars. High level bankers that are "utter scum" will rip people off for several million (or vastly more). Though rare, they garner slightly more vitriol.

If I had to guess, you don't see things as black and white as you let on in your post. I doubt drwinite does either. You may have been irritated by what you perceived as blind reactionary rhetoric against an institution that is not wholly, or even mostly, bad.

Both your and drwinite's post emanate from a "we vs. they" mentality. Immoral bankers vs the people; educated opinion vs redneck rhetoric etc. As a world traveler, I've discovered that "they" don't exist. They're always in the next town over, yet I never see them.

There is only us, we humans, and in this global society, we're all on the same team. Why else would your two diametrically opposed rants both be so accurate?

Motorcycles.

Absolutely not ... you have no right to demand anything from banks or bankers.

Just like I have no right to demand anything from you. Nor do I have the right to demand plumbers in the UK work cheaper.

You have the right to move money from a financial institution whose policies you dont like to one you do like.

If you think you can operate a superior model of financial institution, you have every right to try and make one and profit from the fact that your model appeals to the consumer better than existing banks! If you think there is that much demand for it, then you will be very successful. You absolutely have the right to try.

But you have no right to demand other banks or bankers behave in a way that you personally or even the majority of the population see fit.

__________________

As much as I want to agree with what Cole said earlier, perhaps the lesson first needs to be adopted by governments to let other jurisdictions run themselves as they see fit or not be allowed to play ball. The OECD TIEA and FATCA are designed to prevent the "competition" of places which have built themselves on banking.
But before this digresses to debate on "tax havens" at least I don't need a carnet to visit them..........!
So is there any cheaper way to get a carnet if the RAC are digging their heels in?
Richard (stashing his money under the mattress)

Just a few of things.

-I thought the anti banking post was unnecessary, but choose not to say anything, there is always that thing about arguing with fools.
-Walter you could have asked a Mod to remove it that would have been simpler than an economics lesson.

On topic, what really is the difference between leaving the RAC with a bond and paying the charges on a bank guarantee? I can't see it would be a whole lot different.

Also there have been some various threads suggesting that Africa is now possible with Temp Imports, including Egypt.

See here and here.

That just leaves the Middle East, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Japan, New Zealand and that other big over regulated place next to New Zealand.

Hi Craig
Could you copy the bits from this post relevant to the Carnet thread back into it?

__________________

TBS.com

Partially true. You can demand something bank owes you something (ie the money you deposited), or you can demand something from banks if they broke the law. Best to stay away from absolutes in my opinion as it forces you to really consider what is being said.

However, answering to the spirit of your statement: citizens most certainly have the right to demand better banks/ banking practices. They do so all the time, albeit indirectly, at the legislative level. People even organize to 'demand', directly or indirectly, that the workers of particular industries get paid less or more. Happens all the time in various societies. Dunno if it'll get your toilet fixed any cheaper. I guess what I'm saying is don't give up hope.

Also, as you pointed out, banks are highly important to society. Hence, I think most citizens are obliged to demand ever better banks. How to prevent the populace from shooting themselves in the foot via over-regulation is another issue altogether.

Stating that I am entitled to 'start a better bank' is a non-sequitur. I'm not saying that I could do better, or that new banks should be started. There are better ways of fixing the problems using existing banks. Additionally, profitable is not the same as ethical, beneficial to society, or the conforming to the desires of the people. There is loads to be said about this.

To what extent does the developed world benefit from more capital/ capitalism? For example, inflation adjusted GDP per-capita in the US has tripled in the past 50 years, but results from life satisfaction surveys remain flat over the same time period. Think about that. Fifty years of material and capitol development for no significant increase in subjective well being.


How much regulation should there be?
What aspects of banking should be subject to regulation and by whom?
Should the HUBB be demanding a seat at the next G20 conference?

all good questions.

As a follow up to how banking is progressing in democratic Iceland (multiple referenda) here is another case study which is ongoing (non stable and non democratic).
New Kabul Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Afghan elite ransacked $900m from Kabul Bank, inquiry finds | World news | guardian.co.uk

Consider who is ripping off who.

Incidentally, a news item stated today that Honduras is in financial meltdown.

__________________
Dave

However when a bank customer screws up there is a fee, when a bank screws up there is none (well not really anyway). And when most/all financial institutions act in a similar/identical way, do we really have a choice? (note: I cannot comment on local/regional small banks, you may have a good one? I don't know)

The fees are where the banks are now making big money. However due to low interest rates, depositors (mostly responsible Middle/working Class people)are loosing money everyday their money is in a bank. (albeit low risk mind you) Wages are not going up, prices are. Inflation is based on cost of living and wages. The way to mask inflation over the short term is to depress wages. Wages for the lower 95% are being depressed worldwide.

The easy blame is on the China/Asia region, when in fact it is the multinational banks. No, many smaller banks do not fit this mold. Contrary, many USA banks (my country) are the queen of this, and London is the King(due to slightly less regulations, same corporations though).



Should we keep money in our mattresses? Technology is getting cheaper by the day, but it is not the type of technology that lowers the costs of the necessities to live. This post is getting too long, and conviluded... Ask me about price vs value when I am truly drunk, it's fun

"But you have no right to demand other banks or bankers behave in a way that you personally or even the majority of the population see fit."

I find this statement quite bizarre. People demand all sorts of behaviors out of me all day long: that I do certain things and not others at traffic lights, that I refrain from killing or seriously maiming my blameless fellow citizens, that I act in certain ways when dealing with contracts, money, possessions, manner of dress, etc. etc. etc.

For example, I'm forbidden, under penalty of law, to defraud other people, institutions, or the government. "Fraud" is defined in various ways for various situations--in my professional work I'm actually required to conform to a fairly strict definition of acceptable behaviors. So are auto mechanics. So are lawyers. And like it or not, so are bankers.

To claim otherwise--that no one can impose rules restricting the behaviors of bankers--just doesn't make sense...unless, of course, you're a pure anarchist, who believes that no one has any right to limit any behavior but their own under any circumstances. If that's the case, I respectfully decline to engage any further.

Mark

In fact, some banks are better than others, and if you can't be bothered to find the good ones and move your money to them, then you are just being lazy. I currently have money in a handful of banks, and if their service fails to impress, I transfer my money to another one and close the account. While I can't say that I have found the perfect bank yet, I at least try to reward good banks with more deposits and penalize bad ones by closing accounts. If you act like all banks all the same and do business with bad banks, you are part of the problem...

Not sure where to start here, because it is not clear what you are saying--you are blaming banks for paying low interest rates? Or for depressing wages? Or both? How do you mask inflation by depressing wages?

Well, as it's The Bar, I'll put a sixpence in the jukebox.



Maybe Pride Germination from Zimbabwe can help - they know all about inflation over there.
(The video is snowflakes on a cobweb - completely irrelevant!)

Inflation - too much money chasing too few goods, so increase the prices. Or, reduce the wages - same effect.
The difference between the two, as I understand, are the different effects on the value of a country's currency, decided by the 'government' and the finance sector lobbying it.

Yes, dead right to say that.
I think throughout here (my posting anyway) 'bank' and 'banking profession' always means 'those board directors responsible for how a bank behaves within the community in which it operates'.

__________________
TTR250 - London to Cape Town

Inflation, is by definition, an increase in the cost of goods and services, which are determined only partially by wages, and mainly by other factors (competition, raw materials, duties, regulations, etc.). If you freeze, or even reduce wages, it would therefore have only very limited effect on inflation, and such effect would not be "masking" inflation, but reducing it to some degree.

I think the convoluted nature and size of this thread shows clearly the universal nature of banking and the wide impact that it has on everyone.

Perhaps the moderators for the bar conversation would make this a sticky; otherwise when this thread does come to an end (but probably not any firm conclusions) it will disappear; as I said earlier, there is some serious education in here for us.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".

__________________
Dave