Skip to main content

The banks raked in the profits and sold our future.

Britain's biggest bank, HSBC has been fined a record $1.9 bn by US regulators for money laundering and sanctions busting. .Money laundering, libor fixing, skulduggery of the highest order; illegality; breaking the law; a law unto themselves. The banks let us all down badly.

Whilst some bankers were cheating and breaking the law; whilst the financial service industry was driving us to ruin, and whilst year on year huge bonuses were being taken,  year on year endowment policies were failing to meet targets,  leaving families in difficulty with their mortgages. I have an axe to grind because mine became one of them although fortunately I didn't depend on it. I started to receive the dreaded letters; first informing me that my endowment was 'on track' (great) but they would keep me informed (ah!); then to say it was 'at risk' (oh!); then to tell me it would not meet its target (inevitable!). Angrily I pulled the plug because I decided I could do better with the money than they could. I cut my losses. But I wondered what on earth the financial 'services' sector had been doing to allow it to happen.

What they had been doing was for ever inventing new 'products' to bamboozle their customers. So many different types of savings, investments, insurance, endowments. Trackers, fixed-rates, flexible this and that; all tweaked to encourage people into debt. And let's be clear they wanted us in debt. They were about selling debt; so much so that unbeknown to us they were selling our debt to each other. A veritable trade in sin. We were being prostituted through our debt. Passed around to be financially gang banged. We were all hung out to dry for the sake of bank profits. 'Service' didn't come into it; financial 'services'  couldn't possible account for what they were doing. There wasn't a service ethos. It was all unethical; all of it! Run by people who appear to have been out of control and who thought they were accountable to no one, least of all their customers. Scoundrels!

When I tackled  my 'friends' in the financial services sector  (yes I do have a few), and particularly those in investment banking, I asked how could they get it all so badly wrong. It wasn't us they replied it was the markets. Markets can go up and down. Indeed they can. How silly of me to assume they had any expertise in the matter. It was all my fault for being stupid enough to think they would take care with my hard earned savings.

But I was informed that it was more likely they would than wouldn't; go up that is. I was shown a wonderful graph comparing the rise of the stock market since the year dot and house prices. Yes it goes up and down, I was reminded, but 'on average', well you can see can't you. On average!   But also wasn't it very silly to base mortgage lending on the premise that it would go on rising and at an unsustainable rate? To offer a product that was unsound is a bit like selling a car knowing it had been clocked. Yes, but they weren't to know of course. And why did they lend so much against so little, often 5 times a persons earnings?

Weren't to know? Then how were we to know?  Millions were mis-sold endowments. Many were mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance. Millions are suffering now because of the egregious unethical behaviour  of the bankers who encourged fast buck sales. And not only are they suffering but they have the ignominy of being called scroungers. The poor are not only shouldering the greatest burden of austerity but they are also being blamed for the poor ethical standards of the bankers.

It was of course unsustainable.  Growth was founded on a false premise; that somehow we could all go on spending the future. Private debt ran out of control fuelled by greed and a have it now culture. The banks raked in the profits and sold our future.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As