Don't be fooled by cunning con artists

Terry_Towelling

@ValiantSon I have just been reading similar stuff on the origins of banks and banking.

Anyway, wading in at this stage simply to tell Peter Baker that his view of banking's original purpose is not accurate and that he's 'asking for the moon' (however carefully phrased) comes across to me as one-upmanship and a bit of a put-down.

If that was not what you intended then I apologise but that is what I infer. I think we are all now aware of the need for 100% accuracy with what we write on the forum (or have suitable caveats built in) lest we get taken to task.

And, yes, I am aware that this post doesn't add materially to the debate either.

Sapphire

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

@ValiantSon I have just been reading similar stuff on the origins of banks and banking.

Anyway, wading in at this stage simply to tell Peter Baker that his view of banking's original purpose is not accurate and that he's 'asking for the moon' (however carefully phrased) comes across to me as one-upmanship and a bit of a put-down.

If that was not what you intended then I apologise but that is what I infer. I think we are all now aware of the need for 100% accuracy with what we write on the forum (or have suitable caveats built in) lest we get taken to task.

And, yes, I am aware that this post doesn't add materially to the debate either.

Agree. And on the subject of 'social purpose', through their increasingly bizarre ads (featuring the 'poor and otherwise needy', children, and so on), today's banks do appear to be attempting to convey the message that they have one, that they 'care', and even that they are charities of some kind. That is not the case. They are cold and ruthless businesses.

Mixed in with all this is the practice of encouraging people to take up 'credit' (AKA debt) at the drop of a hat. That's something that used to incur shame in people, but now many appear to think that this debt is somehow free money granted to them so that they can try to emulate the lifestyle of some crass celebrity by buying tat (that's until the next financial crisis). Not much of a social purpose demonstrated in brainwashing the naive into believing that.

Terry_Towelling

I'm not entirely certain that wanting banks to have a social purpose/conscience (to be defined) is too much to ask, or that it will change the nature of capitalism. However, we do have to remember that they are there to survive and generate a return for their owners (shareholders) and, as stated in an earlier post, that includes many of us on the forum. We do need profitability for our own investments and pensions. I guess it is all about balance, but exactly what that should look like and how it should be achieved is up for grabs.

peterbaker

<Social purpose> is an easily understandable phrase in the English language for those of us with a decent-sized vocabulary in English. Whilst I personally have to Google <amorphous> to be reminded what it might mean, I only smile when I get there

<Social purpose> is not an amorphous idea. A purpose may or may not be a social purpose. If it is not, then we can perhaps discard it as of neutral effect on society. If it is a social purpose, then it can be of positive or of negative or perhaps of almost neutral effect on society. What banks habitually report as showpiece examples of their <social conscience> are usually of almost neutral effect on society. A predomonantly positive social purpose either exists within a culture, or it doesnt, in which case it is likely to be negative and society at large should decide whether to change that culture or destroy it altogether (for the good of society).

The phrase <social purpose> is nothing more than a convenient <wrapper> or container type concept for those thinking about good and evil effects upon society at large. Commentators or leaders put into it (if they fully engage in thoughtful discussion) what occurs to them might be desirable for their own wellbeing and/or for the benefit of society at large. If social purpose is is admitted by a culture within society at large, it is for that particular culture to say what their social purpose comprises. It is not for us to guess, unless things get so bad that it becomes obvious such that society at large needs to intervene.

Once admitted, claimed types of social purpose might be simply labelled by society at large as:
(a) right
(b) wrong
(c) questionable at best

So what social purposes do the banks admit or claim? And what social purpose(s) do they need to affirm or deny so that we may judge them?

Clearly <money safety> is denied by some commentators here, so strongly in fact, that they have gone so far as to deny that a personal money safety service of any description was ever an affirmed social purpose for any bank back to the beginning of time.

ValiantSon

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

@ValiantSon I have just been reading similar stuff on the origins of banks and banking.

Anyway, wading in at this stage simply to tell Peter Baker that his view of banking's original purpose is not accurate and that he's 'asking for the moon' (however carefully phrased) comes across to me as one-upmanship and a bit of a put-down.

If that was not what you intended then I apologise but that is what I infer. I think we are all now aware of the need for 100% accuracy with what we write on the forum (or have suitable caveats built in) lest we get taken to task.

And, yes, I am aware that this post doesn't add materially to the debate either.

Well, thanks for that.

My comment was materially relevant because what peterbaker is arguing is that banks should return to some (undefined and amorphous) concept of social responsibility which he believes they were originally founded on. As they weren't founded on that concept then his argument is flawed.

You think it to be one-upmanship? If knowing more about something is one-upmanship, then I guess it is.

Have a nice day.

ValiantSon

Sapphire wrote: »

Agree. And on the subject of 'social purpose', through their increasingly bizarre ads (featuring the 'poor and otherwise needy', children, and so on), today's banks do appear to be attempting to convey the message that they have one, that they 'care', and even that they are charities of some kind. That is not the case. They are cold and ruthless businesses.

Mixed in with all this is the practice of encouraging people to take up 'credit' (AKA debt) at the drop of a hat. That's something that used to incur shame in people, but now many appear to think that this debt is somehow free money granted to them so that they can try to emulate the lifestyle of some crass celebrity by buying tat (that's until the next financial crisis). Not much of a social purpose demonstrated in brainwashing the naive into believing that.

Ever heard of personal responsibility?

ValiantSon

peterbaker wrote: »

<Social purpose> is an easily understandable phrase in the English language for those of us with a decent-sized vocabulary in English. Whilst I personally have to Google <amorphous> to be reminded what it might mean, I only smile when I get there

Then I guess your vocabulary isn't that great.

You haven't defined what you mean by social purpose, but you keep pretending that you have and ignoring requests from others to do so.

peterbaker wrote: »

<Social purpose> is not an amorphous idea.

Yes it is. You have not defined it, so by definition, it is amorphous.

peterbaker wrote: »

A purpose may or may not be a social purpose. If it is not, then we can perhaps discard it as of neutral effect on society. If it is a social purpose, then it can be of positive or of negative or perhaps of almost neutral effect on society. What banks habitually report as showpiece examples of their <social conscience> are usually of almost neutral effect on society. A predomonantly positive social purpose either exists within a culture, or it doesnt, in which case it is likely to be negative and society at large should decide whether to change that culture or destroy it altogether (for the good of society).

In those sentences you have said exactly nothing.

What is the social purpose that you believe banks should have?

peterbaker wrote: »

The phrase <social purpose> is nothing more than a convenient <wrapper> or container type concept for those thinking about good and evil effects upon society at large. Commentators or leaders put into it (if they fully engage in thoughtful discussion) what occurs to them might be desirable for their own wellbeing and/or for the benefit of society at large. If social purpose is is admitted by a culture within society at large, it is for that particular culture to say what their social purpose comprises. It is not for us to guess, unless things get so bad that it becomes obvious such that society at large needs to intervene.

More empty rhetoric.

You cannot argue that banks must fulfill a social purpose and complain that they don't, if you then say that it is not for you to define what that social purpose should be!

peterbaker wrote: »

Once admitted, claimed types of social purpose might be simply labelled by society at large as:
(a) right
(b) wrong
(c) questionable at best

So what social purposes do the banks admit or claim? And what social purpose(s) do they need to affirm or deny so that we may judge them?

Clearly <money safety> is denied by some commentators here, so strongly in fact, that they have gone so far as to deny that a personal money safety service of any description was ever an affirmed social purpose for any bank back to the beginning of time.

That would be because it wasn't. It was a consequence of the intended purpose of banking, which was to facilitate commerce.

You have now departed from any sort of real argument and are engaged in cod-philosophy.

Terry_Towelling

ValiantSon wrote: »

Ever heard of personal responsibility?

Isn't that part of the issue with some people perhaps being unable to exercise appropriate judgement in those areas.

ValiantSon wrote: »

Well, thanks for that.

My comment was materially relevant because what peterbaker is arguing is that banks should return to some (undefined and amorphous) concept of social responsibility which he believes they were originally founded on. As they weren't founded on that concept then his argument is flawed.

You think it to be one-upmanship? If knowing more about something is one-upmanship, then I guess it is.

Have a nice day.

Don't mention it.

Last point first - day not going that badly but plenty of time for it to get worse. Urinary incontinence and mild aggression so far, faecal incontinence yet to make its appearance today - not from me I hasten to add - I still perceive myself to be dementia-free, but can't be completely certain. Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, risk of personal injury only moderate. Morning administration of antibiotics successful! Evening delivery still in the planning. My risk management capabilities have fallen a little short today. I will learn the lesson and be better tomorrow.

I don't think I'd define one-upmanship that way; it's more about the way you deliver that larger knowledge that defines it - once again, if I have inferred something that wasn't intended, I apologise.

Notwithstanding the perceived difficulties of changing the way the world works, do you have a view as to whether the banks should do more to protect vulnerable groups and can you add anything to the debate overall?

ValiantSon

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Isn't that part of the issue with some people perhaps being unable to exercise appropriate judgement in those areas.

We don't live in a utopia. It is not reasonable to blame banks for people getting into debt because they don't have the ability to, "exercise appropriate judgement". Banks are required, and do, try to assess whether someone is capable of understanding what they are doing, but bank staff are not medically qualified. Neither, do banks push loans at people: an assertion that they do is simply ridiculous. They provide loans and they advertise their rates, but this is not the same. Furthermore, they also carry out due diligence checks on those applying for a loan to decide whether or not they are a good risk. Funnily enough, it isn't profitable to lend money to people who are likely to default.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Last point first - day not going that badly but plenty of time for it to get worse. Urinary incontinence and mild aggression so far, faecal incontinence yet to make its appearance today - not from me I hasten to add - I still perceive myself to be dementia-free, but can't be completely certain. Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, risk of personal injury only moderate. Morning administration of antibiotics successful! Evening delivery still in the planning. My risk management capabilities have fallen a little short today. I will learn the lesson and be better tomorrow.

Your wife's dementia is not relevant to this discussion. I am sorry to hear that she has dementia, but the manifestations of that are not relevant. You may find certain other areas of this forum where such comments are more appropriate.

We all have private lives, and you have no idea what others may or may not be coping with.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

I don't think I'd define one-upmanship that way; it's more about the way you deliver that larger knowledge that defines it - once again, if I have inferred something that wasn't intended, I apologise.

I corrected an assumption in peterbaker's argument (as I have already explained), which was one of the cornerstones of the argument. My comment was, therefore, entirely valid and materially relevant. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that's life.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Notwithstanding the perceived difficulties of changing the way the world works, do you have a view as to whether the banks should do more to protect vulnerable groups and can you add anything to the debate overall?

Well, I did add to the debate because the argument was flawed, so my correction does add to it.

Do I think that banks should do more to protect "vulnerable groups"? I'm not sure what there is that they could additionally do. In what ways are "vulnerable groups" not proteced currently, and who are "vulnerable groups"? Even more pertinently, are all "vulnerable groups" the same, or are there multiple different kinds of vulnerability that require (in some people's eyes) multiple different forms of protection?

I have seen some suggestions on here, and Cornucopia's idea of optional add-ins for securing accounts are potentially a feasible way forward, but they would have to remain optional and choosing not to use them should not then be taken as demonstration of inadequate care by the account holder. Peterbaker's insistence that pretty well every transaction and instruction should be authenticated by a person to person phonecall is over the top and completely unworkable. It would also, quite likely, make little difference, as the person wishing to make that transaction would pass the security check.

peterbaker

I guess historians, a bit like many lawyers, dont have too much to contribute until others have done their worst - original thought leading to positive action doesnt come easy:p

I do know there are consultancies contracted by banks to protect their online reputations and to promulgate their preferred view of the world. I think they call themselves marketing consultants and analysts, and I suppose that such marketing can take all forms up to and including Cambridge Analylitica type work.

I am not sure if those clever chaps would feel the need to frequent MSE, but one might imagine that anyone actually employed in a more normal bank role wouldnt be so animated as to spend so much of their spare time knocking us concerned citizens down at every turn. Afterall, all we are asking - in the context of protections offered by banks (or not!) to vulnerable customers damaged by confidence tricksters committing serious fraud as a living - are simple general questions about the existence of any remaining resoundingly positive social purpose of banks

Why do we keep our money in banks? Why dont we just use cash from under the mattress? Perhaps As we now begin to understand that risk of unintended major loss is now more likely to involve exploitation of FinTech than to involve burglary, we ought to review why we now even tolerate the banks in their current guise since they now so often deny responsibility for digitally unlocked cash.

Oh and for any serious commentator in this particular forum to suggests banks dont or havent pushed loans onto customers is about the most naive assertion I have ever read in this forum if it is honestly asserted. Some of us actually know banking retail and its manoeuvres under the whipping of so called performance managers.

If I see such misleading rubbish spouted again on MSE by anyone claiming to hold or have held a banking job with real responsibility, I think may start feeling very nauseous indeed.

Let me be crystal clear, because the PPI scandal relied on selling credit first in order to sell the PPI, for performance purposes, bank staff who sold loans without PPI were ridiculed daily. PPI single premiums added thousands to requested new loan sales balances.

Consolidation of other existing debt was also a tactic to inflate the sales value of the new loan, with PPI on the lot. Luvverly jubberly! Did you help the customer? Yes because we are proud to say, thats what we do. Did you consolidate all their other loans? And the big one - you DID sell PPI, right? :rotfl: