3 ms·

Institutions like this that have no sense of financial responsibility are an evil in the world. They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money, decla

by tomp 10y ago

Institutions like this that have no sense of financial responsibility are an evil in the world. They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money, declare the debts in default (presumably), and when their actions are deemed imprudent and unprofitable, though not technically illegal, they acts like that's just name-calling and get right back up on his high horse. Remind you of any Wall Street bank?

marviel 10y ago
Like with most polarized issues, the truth is that both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two.
- restalis 10y ago
  "both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two" Between these two only the bank, as institution or licensed financial entity, has an obligation to guard the flow of public money. The bank should not hand anyone the responsibility of overdraft limit management. The individual can be assumed incompetent and just be absolved of any responsibility solely based on that.
raesene6 10y ago
Except that's not what appears to have happened here. I didn't see any suggestion in the article that the bank knowingly lent out the money, most likely a human error or bug in one of their systems caused his account to have this line of credit applied to it. If they had pushed him to take a reckless loan, I'd agree with you that they shared liability here, but this was (from what I've read) just him taking advantage of a mistake by the bank.
mempko 10y ago
> They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money Banks don't lend other people's money. They create money when they lend. Read this from the Bank of England. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

by tomp 10y ago

marviel 10y ago

Like with most polarized issues, the truth is that both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two.

restalis 10y ago
"both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two" Between these two only the bank, as institution or licensed financial entity, has an obligation to guard the flow of public money. The bank should not hand anyone the responsibility of overdraft limit management. The individual can be assumed incompetent and just be absolved of any responsibility solely based on that.

raesene6 10y ago

Except that's not what appears to have happened here. I didn't see any suggestion in the article that the bank knowingly lent out the money, most likely a human error or bug in one of their systems caused his account to have this line of credit applied to it. If they had pushed him to take a reckless loan, I'd agree with you that they shared liability here, but this was (from what I've read) just him taking advantage of a mistake by the bank.

mempko 10y ago

> They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money Banks don't lend other people's money. They create money when they lend. Read this from the Bank of England. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...