x404.co.uk http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/ |
|
HSBC the worlds favourite Bankster ... http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=16880 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | MrStevenRogers [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:29 am ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | HSBC the worlds favourite Bankster ... | |||||||||
you have just got to love them bankers ...
accounts.http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... gns-senate maybe the drug cartels can do to the bankers what national Govts. can not or are unwilling to do ... |
Author: | davrosG5 [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:29 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: HSBC the worlds favourite money launderer ... |
I was watching this on Channel 4 News last night and they did make one point. US banks have been caught at this as well in the past but have got off very lightly. The suggestion being that the US authorities are taking the opportunity to hammer the UK's banks to bolster the position of their US counterparts and regain the position of Wall Street as the most important financial centre. While what HSBC and the other banks has done is unconscionable you've got to wonder what governments motivations are in all this as well. |
Author: | jonbwfc [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: HSBC the worlds favourite money launderer ... |
Given recent events (and the fact that the general consensus is the LIBOR scandal has much further to run than just Barclays) I begin to wonder not if all our banks are 'clean', but more if it's possible for banks above a certain size to be clean. Is a financial organisation above a certain size almost bound to become corrupt at some point? Is it inherently 'human', once you grow to a certain amount of wealth and power, to believe you are above the law and can do what you like? Is 'ethical capitalism' only possible if there are legal requirements for companies not to grow too big? We recognise that monopolies are a bad thing, so we have systems to prevent them. Should we equally have systems which assume companies above a certain turnover are almost inevitably going to have people within them willing to do things outside the law and therefore companies that reach such a size should be required to split in some way, to limit the damage such people can then do? I'm not against capitalism and profit but is there a flaw in the philosophy such that capitalism, if left unchecked, will always run amok? Simply because in the end it relies on imperfect people to steer it? |
Author: | ShockWaffle [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:12 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: HSBC the worlds favourite money launderer ... |
Perhaps, but small outfits seem to get up to just as much dirtiness as far as I can see; they just lack the scale to make the news, and it's easier for their directors to cut and run if the feds come a sniffin'. Financial outfits tend to misbehave until new regulations force them to reform, but that process reinforces economies of scale. On he one hand it requires costly investment in new systems and processes, and on the other it imposes capital costs making the money they wield more expensive and reducing the returns on it. All of which tends to suggest that rather than splitting banks up, we will be more likely to drive a new round of consolidation if we try to actively fix anything. |
Author: | bobbdobbs [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:29 am ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post subject: | Re: HSBC the worlds favourite money launderer ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We only recognise the abuse of a monopoly status as a bad thing, otherwise we wouldnt have the patent sytstem at all. ![]()
We could assume any company will have people who could do things outside the law, but I know what you mean here. The too big to fail ( a bit like the eurozone, its too big (politically as well) to fail so we will ever increase the money to stop it going belly up.
every political system will run amok if left unchecked, which is why we need such checks and balances in place and for them to be used. |
Author: | jonbwfc [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: HSBC the worlds favourite money launderer ... |
Both arguments re: small companies doing bad things as well are correct, in my view. However it struck me the amount of 'collateral damage' a company can do when/if the bad things get found seems to me to be roughly proportional to it's turnover. A small company doing dodgy things affects maybe a handful of employees and a few dozen customers. A larger company could affect more, say hundreds of staff and thousands of customers. The major financial institutions making irresponsible judgements and dodgy deals has by consequence affected pretty much every single person in the country, one way or another. The basic point is that a company that is 'too big to be allowed to fail' is also surely 'too big to be allowed to do anything stupid' and doing something which will knock billions of pounds off your share price therefore affecting the mortgages and pensions of millions of people, is pretty much a test case of 'stupid'. As the influence on society of a company grows, is it fair to expect that as a consequence society should take more interest in it not doing anything that might cause damage? To use a quote 'with great power comes great responsibility' and are we now at the point where the evidence is such that we simply can't rely on massive companies to be responsible? And is this inherently always going to be the case? Jon |
Author: | pcernie [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: HSBC the worlds favourite money launderer ... |
Read a book recently where a drug dealer walked into a London bank in the 70s with two large suitcases of cash and got it transferred to various accounts and companies after the top brass counted it by hand and deducted their fee... I'd say it's the same deal these days, only nobody gets their hands too dirty. |
Author: | MrStevenRogers [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:46 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: HSBC the worlds favourite money launderer ... | |||||||||
there seems to be very low key reporting over here in the UK about this ...
HSBC the worlds favourite Bankster ... |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |