Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

darwinist · Nov 11, 2003, 03:13 pm

Bamking Debate.

As an European, under the Maastrickt treaty. I am entitled to work and live in any of the European countries. I am British, but currently living with the Netherlands.

It is my opion that a Basic current/checking account. Should be a basic civil right. That anyone is able to get an account.

This is not the case. It is possible for any bank to refuse an account. On the basis that it is not profitable for them to do so.

So should an bank account be a basic civil right?

If you have time please read the following:

Financial citizenship -- A wider responsibility

Banks in particular are not only commercial enterprises. They occupy a special position in the financial system and the tight financial coupling of one bank to another makes them collectively vulnerable to 'systemic risk'. In considering risk banks therefore have a responsibility not merely for the internal cost of potential failure to their customers and employees but in a wider sense for the external cost to the economy.

Their special 'systemic' position also gives banks and other institutions a responsibility for the consequences of 'market failure' within our own society. We believe that financial exclusion should be viewed from this perspective. It is much more than a consequence of poverty among certain individuals. It is a real failure of the market to provide whole communities with the basic equipment of modern life. Basic financial services are becoming as necessary as water and electricity. This may be an exaggeration but it indicates their special role.

# Choice and exclusion

Most suppliers of goods and services are happy to provide for anyone who chooses to buy from them. Pubs sometimes chuck out undesirables but most shops and manufacturers are not so choosy. In this situation customers are free to choose between competing suppliers and somebody will usually supply a Mini for anyone who can't afford a Rolls Royce.

The difference with banks and insurance companies is that some customers are likely to be unprofitable. These institutions increase their profits not by maximising their customer base but by optimising it, picking off the most profitable customers and rejecting the rest. The result is that that although they compete for the custom of the wealthy customers, for the poorer ones it works the other way round; the customers are competing for the favours of the banks. Exclusion is therefore not merely a matter of poverty or cultural resistance or lack of education; it is a positive mechanism of rejection. As the Office of Fair Trading points out:

"It is often claimed that those who fail to take up even the most basic of financial services have done so out of choice. My scepticism of such claims has been confirmed by the analysis and research in this report. The take-up of bank current accounts, household insurance and short-term credit is inconsistent with the exercise of any meaningful choice."

(John S Bridgeman, Director General of Fair Trading)

Conclusion

For people who are excluded from the economic life of the community, active citizenship is not just the goal; it is the road back to participation and inclusion. Public administration must acknowledge this linkage in order that it can work to bring together the seemingly disparate worlds of commerce and community.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 11, 2003, 06:04 pm

Here in America, opening checking and savings accounts have minumum startup deposits. On top of that, checking accounts have monthly fees (like $20) if you have less than a certain amount (like $500). If you don't get either of the two, you can't deposit checks from employment except at check-cashing places, which charge anywhere from 5-10% of the total amount of the check to cash it, and to send money orders costs an additional 5% of the total amount that you're sending. Either way, it's expensive to be poor.

They're vultures, all of them. This is capitalism.

G. Adams · Nov 11, 2003, 06:10 pm

??? i don't know whats going on there

In Britain I've had a savings account since I was 5, I opened it with a £1 coin. It costs me nothing to have the savings and checking account I have, and there is a whopping -£300 right now (damned residential fees). I'll have to look into it but it sounds like there must be regulations in UK making it easy for me to have a proper bank account.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 11, 2003, 06:36 pm

Your being a student might account for that.

G. Adams · Nov 11, 2003, 06:43 pm

Even in the none student accounts I've had there has never been anything close to that. And apart from special high interest accounts (like there ever as high as the interest rates they charge for loans), I've never seen an account that requires high initial deposits like you were suggesting.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 11, 2003, 08:08 pm

My bank, HSBC, did. I know Citibank does. And the funny part is, HSBC is a British company.

darwinist · Nov 11, 2003, 08:44 pm

Well in the Netherlands so far. As a non-Dutch European. I have had to pay 100 Euro's " Adminastration fee". Plus a monthly payment, regardless to how much money that was on the account. Of 5 Euro's a month.

The kicker is, i supposed too have the same rights as any Dutch person. Who does not have to do any of the things i mentioned above.

I was not sure to post this debate in Rights or Politics.

Anyway, i have also been asked, to start an account. A contract for one year. Proof of employment, for a one year period.

It is my understanding, that in any country. The banks can refuse you an account. If they believe that it is not profitable for them. This is at least true in Europe, I am not sure about the USA. Or Asia.

Impenitent · Nov 12, 2003, 11:33 am

this post is filled with irony...

"I was not sure to post this debate in Rights or Politics."

why not religion?

http://www.bankhonesty.com/files/ManualChapter15.pdf

of course every good christian knows that banking is satan's gig...

god remains dead

nature of reality · Nov 12, 2003, 08:45 pm

i don't think anyone has a basic civil right to club bankers and force them to give money without rationality...

once again a prime example of how "economic" rights (for some at the expense of others) undermine political rights (the such as the right not to get clubbed by the gov't)

Impenitent · Nov 12, 2003, 08:58 pm

bankers? (insert your favorite billiards pun here)

club the lawyers first...

darwinist · Nov 13, 2003, 08:06 am

I am temped to club bankers over the head.

But I was not demanding money. Just a basic service, that in mordern day society. Noone could live without.

Impenitent · Nov 13, 2003, 09:18 am

d

ask the Amish about modern day services no one could live without

darwinist · Nov 13, 2003, 10:10 am

I did not think they chose to live in the mordern day society. So what could they tell me about it.

But i would think, even they have a current account. Housing cost moeny, land cost money. The start up fee, or first loans. Must of come from somewhere.

Impenitent · Nov 13, 2003, 10:18 am

they live in modern times and they live quite well in their modern day society...

not all modern day societies are "western," in fact most are not...

nature of reality · Nov 13, 2003, 06:17 pm

Okay, what your are presenting as "rights" clubs two clases of people 1. The bankers 2. The non-dumbasses.

1. forcing them to make foolish loans in people likely to default on them removes there right to do with their money as they please, effectively "nationalizing" and stealing their bank. Remeber, property rights are the dividing factor between a citizen and a slave.

2. Since more dumbasses will default on loans, and banks HAVE to stay afloat, they make up there difference on a higher interest rate. Thus hurting ever other non-dumbass who won't default. Also, good ideas won't get as much funding, and bad ideas will get more, since they will both be required to get funding and the interest rate will be the same.

Once again penalizing the able for the sake of the stupid.

and the net effect of course is damanging to the economy as a whole. Although the "common good" is irrelevent (but nevertheless HIGHLY SERVED BY A POLICY OF SELCTION), property rights is the prime reason your proposal is sickening.

darwinist · Nov 13, 2003, 06:55 pm

Where excatly did i say, banks have to give loans. Did you even read my post. I think not.

I want that everyone. No matter, what colour, religon, backround. Be entitled to a current account.

Which in Europe, if you do not have one. You would not be able to function in mordern day society.

The only dumbass, that i can spot. Are the bnakers themselves.

In England at the moment. Most people are in debt. The banks have been falling over themselves to give out money. The population of England at the moment. Have a debt of 120% of desposeable income.

Now real back too 1992, huge problems in England. Huge slide. Housing really expensive. Lots of people laid off. Bank start demanding there money bank. The housing prices crash. No one can sell their houses. Cannot make repayments, etc. In 1992, England had a debt of 90% desposable income.

Starting to spot a pattern?

nature of reality · Nov 13, 2003, 07:28 pm

Whatever. Its still the bankers business to give out account to whoever they want to. You want to take control from them, and thus effectively steal there banks.

darwinist · Nov 13, 2003, 08:49 pm

No, bankers are in the banking business. Business is trade or commerce, a commercial establishment.

In Business, it is a good idea to make money. Otherwise, you do not have a business for long. The way you make money, is to sell a product or service. Normally the customer and pick and choose, which product or service he wants.

If the banks refuse to sell a service to everybody, they go out of business. Vis-visa, if a customer chooses to refuse all bank services, he/she has a huge problem.

All normal rules for commerial transactions, no longer apply to banks. The way most normal businessess make money is too mazumize their customer basis and/or sell a better product and/or better/closer locastion. etc.

All banks are inter-linked. In England each bank, has to have One Billion pounds in reserve.

I do not want to steal their banks. They would still own the banks. Plus every other service would still be at there finger tips. Loans as you mentioned, are run by credit risk. Saving account have similiar controls. Most have blocks on accounts, which means that current accounts cannot drop below zero. So how are the banks going to lose money?

nature of reality · Nov 13, 2003, 11:47 pm

Your saying its a good idea for them to do this...

I say you have no fucking right to tell them what to do with their god damn business.

darwinist · Nov 14, 2003, 09:43 am

Well under your, options of freedom.

Electric companies could refuse me Electricity.

Water compainies could refuse me Water.

What should i do, grap a spear and go and live in a cave somewhre?

Governments tell people what to do (laws). Tell companies what to do(laws). Control compainies who do not behave themselves(regulation).

Whithout people you have no government. People band together, ie Trade unions. Who told the compainies what pay and condition they wanted.

So my learned friend. I have every right to demand, what i feel is justice. I have every right to write letter to governments. Complain and make a noise. I have every fucking right to do so.

Unless of course YOU want to take away my freedom of speech as well.

Nov 11, 2003, 03:13 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Bamking Debate. As an European, under the Maastrickt treaty. I am entitled to work and live in any of the European countries. I am British, but currently living with the Netherlands. It is my opion that a Basic current/checking account. Should be a basic civil right. That anyone is able to get an account. This is not the case. It is possible for any bank to refuse an account. On the basis that it is not profitable for them to do so. So should an bank account be a basic civil right? If you have time please read the following: Financial citizenship -- A wider responsibility Banks in particular are not only commercial enterprises. They occupy a special position in the financial system and the tight financial coupling of one bank to another makes them collectively vulnerable to 'systemic risk'. In considering risk banks therefore have a responsibility not merely for the internal cost of potential failure to their customers and employees but in a wider sense for the external cost to the economy. Their special 'systemic' position also gives banks and other institutions a responsibility for the consequences of 'market failure' within our own society. We believe that financial exclusion should be viewed from this perspective. It is much more than a consequence of poverty among certain individuals. It is a real failure of the market to provide whole communities with the basic equipment of modern life. Basic financial services are becoming as necessary as water and electricity. This may be an exaggeration but it indicates their special role. # Choice and exclusion Most suppliers of goods and services are happy to provide for anyone who chooses to buy from them. Pubs sometimes chuck out undesirables but most shops and manufacturers are not so choosy. In this situation customers are free to choose between competing suppliers and somebody will usually supply a Mini for anyone who can't afford a Rolls Royce. The difference with banks and insurance companies is that some customers are likely to be unprofitable. These institutions increase their profits not by maximising their customer base but by optimising it, picking off the most profitable customers and rejecting the rest. The result is that that although they compete for the custom of the wealthy customers, for the poorer ones it works the other way round; the customers are competing for the favours of the banks. Exclusion is therefore not merely a matter of poverty or cultural resistance or lack of education; it is a positive mechanism of rejection. As the Office of Fair Trading points out: "It is often claimed that those who fail to take up even the most basic of financial services have done so out of choice. My scepticism of such claims has been confirmed by the analysis and research in this report. The take-up of bank current accounts, household insurance and short-term credit is inconsistent with the exercise of any meaningful choice." (John S Bridgeman, Director General of Fair Trading) Conclusion For people who are excluded from the economic life of the community, active citizenship is not just the goal; it is the road back to participation and inclusion. Public administration must acknowledge this linkage in order that it can work to bring together the seemingly disparate worlds of commerce and community. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Nov 11, 2003, 06:04 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Here in America, opening checking and savings accounts have minumum startup deposits. On top of that, checking accounts have monthly fees (like $20) if you have less than a certain amount (like $500). If you don't get either of the two, you can't deposit checks from employment except at check-cashing places, which charge anywhere from 5-10% of the total amount of the check to cash it, and to send money orders costs an additional 5% of the total amount that you're sending. Either way, it's expensive to be poor. They're vultures, all of them. This is capitalism. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 11, 2003, 06:10 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	??? i don't know whats going on there In Britain I've had a savings account since I was 5, I opened it with a £1 coin. It costs me nothing to have the savings and checking account I have, and there is a whopping -£300 right now (damned residential fees). I'll have to look into it but it sounds like there must be regulations in UK making it easy for me to have a proper bank account. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 11, 2003, 06:36 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Your being a student might account for that. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 11, 2003, 06:43 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Even in the none student accounts I've had there has never been anything close to that. And apart from special high interest accounts (like there ever as high as the interest rates they charge for loans), I've never seen an account that requires high initial deposits like you were suggesting. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 11, 2003, 08:08 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	My bank, HSBC, did. I know Citibank does. And the funny part is, HSBC is a British company. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 11, 2003, 08:44 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Well in the Netherlands so far. As a non-Dutch European. I have had to pay 100 Euro's " Adminastration fee". Plus a monthly payment, regardless to how much money that was on the account. Of 5 Euro's a month. The kicker is, i supposed too have the same rights as any Dutch person. Who does not have to do any of the things i mentioned above. I was not sure to post this debate in Rights or Politics. Anyway, i have also been asked, to start an account. A contract for one year. Proof of employment, for a one year period. It is my understanding, that in any country. The banks can refuse you an account. If they believe that it is not profitable for them. This is at least true in Europe, I am not sure about the USA. Or Asia. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Nov 12, 2003, 11:33 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	this post is filled with irony... "I was not sure to post this debate in Rights or Politics." why not religion? http://www.bankhonesty.com/files/ManualChapter15.pdf of course every good christian knows that banking is satan's gig... god remains dead "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 12, 2003, 08:45 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	i don't think anyone has a basic civil right to club bankers and force them to give money without rationality... once again a prime example of how "economic" rights (for some at the expense of others) undermine political rights (the such as the right not to get clubbed by the gov't) Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 12, 2003, 08:58 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	bankers? (insert your favorite billiards pun here) club the lawyers first... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 13, 2003, 08:06 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	I am temped to club bankers over the head. But I was not demanding money. Just a basic service, that in mordern day society. Noone could live without. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Nov 13, 2003, 09:18 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	d ask the Amish about modern day services no one could live without "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 13, 2003, 10:10 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	I did not think they chose to live in the mordern day society. So what could they tell me about it. But i would think, even they have a current account. Housing cost moeny, land cost money. The start up fee, or first loans. Must of come from somewhere. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Nov 13, 2003, 10:18 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	they live in modern times and they live quite well in their modern day society... not all modern day societies are "western," in fact most are not... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 13, 2003, 06:17 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	Okay, what your are presenting as "rights" clubs two clases of people 1. The bankers 2. The non-dumbasses. 1. forcing them to make foolish loans in people likely to default on them removes there right to do with their money as they please, effectively "nationalizing" and stealing their bank. Remeber, property rights are the dividing factor between a citizen and a slave. 2. Since more dumbasses will default on loans, and banks HAVE to stay afloat, they make up there difference on a higher interest rate. Thus hurting ever other non-dumbass who won't default. Also, good ideas won't get as much funding, and bad ideas will get more, since they will both be required to get funding and the interest rate will be the same. Once again penalizing the able for the sake of the stupid. and the net effect of course is damanging to the economy as a whole. Although the "common good" is irrelevent (but nevertheless HIGHLY SERVED BY A POLICY OF SELCTION), property rights is the prime reason your proposal is sickening. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 13, 2003, 06:55 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Where excatly did i say, banks have to give loans. Did you even read my post. I think not. I want that everyone. No matter, what colour, religon, backround. Be entitled to a current account. Which in Europe, if you do not have one. You would not be able to function in mordern day society. The only dumbass, that i can spot. Are the bnakers themselves. In England at the moment. Most people are in debt. The banks have been falling over themselves to give out money. The population of England at the moment. Have a debt of 120% of desposeable income. Now real back too 1992, huge problems in England. Huge slide. Housing really expensive. Lots of people laid off. Bank start demanding there money bank. The housing prices crash. No one can sell their houses. Cannot make repayments, etc. In 1992, England had a debt of 90% desposable income. Starting to spot a pattern? What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Nov 13, 2003, 07:28 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	Whatever. Its still the bankers business to give out account to whoever they want to. You want to take control from them, and thus effectively steal there banks. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 13, 2003, 08:49 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	No, bankers are in the banking business. Business is trade or commerce, a commercial establishment. In Business, it is a good idea to make money. Otherwise, you do not have a business for long. The way you make money, is to sell a product or service. Normally the customer and pick and choose, which product or service he wants. If the banks refuse to sell a service to everybody, they go out of business. Vis-visa, if a customer chooses to refuse all bank services, he/she has a huge problem. All normal rules for commerial transactions, no longer apply to banks. The way most normal businessess make money is too mazumize their customer basis and/or sell a better product and/or better/closer locastion. etc. All banks are inter-linked. In England each bank, has to have One Billion pounds in reserve. I do not want to steal their banks. They would still own the banks. Plus every other service would still be at there finger tips. Loans as you mentioned, are run by credit risk. Saving account have similiar controls. Most have blocks on accounts, which means that current accounts cannot drop below zero. So how are the banks going to lose money? What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Nov 13, 2003, 11:47 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	Your saying its a good idea for them to do this... I say you have no fucking right to tell them what to do with their god damn business. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 14, 2003, 09:43 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Well under your, options of freedom. Electric companies could refuse me Electricity. Water compainies could refuse me Water. What should i do, grap a spear and go and live in a cave somewhre? Governments tell people what to do (laws). Tell companies what to do(laws). Control compainies who do not behave themselves(regulation). Whithout people you have no government. People band together, ie Trade unions. Who told the compainies what pay and condition they wanted. So my learned friend. I have every right to demand, what i feel is justice. I have every right to write letter to governments. Complain and make a noise. I have every fucking right to do so. Unless of course YOU want to take away my freedom of speech as well. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.