5 ms·

So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it because Govts cant find better revenue source ? The amount of overreaching laws just to ensure Govts r

So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it because Govts cant find better revenue source ? The amount of overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue is staggering. I shudder to think what would happen if UBI is added into the mix.

kagamine 10y ago
> So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it I said nothing of the sort. > overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue Follow the link from my previous post, are you suggesting that laundering the profits from trade in opiates and helping fund terrorism is better than some laws that require banks to be accountable for their actions? Those money laundering transactions are processed for a fee. HSBC made money from people suffering and from people dying/being killed. It looks to me as though in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the banks have been given a procedure by the government to be followed but have neglected to implement a workable solution, based on there being no recourse for individual customers. It appears, at least in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the bank failed in their duty to the customer while citing "it's not our fault and we don't really care anyway". Followed by "oh shit, bad press! Remedy at 12 o'clock!" but that nothing will change in the long term because they still don't care either morally or ethically. If banks want to be in the business of banking then they ought to make banking their job and that does not only involve profit at the cost of everyone and everything, not excuse themselves with a shrug every time demands are placed on the banking system.
- meanduck 10y ago
  The laws that powers banks to withhold someone money are the same laws that Govts use to maximize tax revenue. Drug/Terrorism is mostly irrelevent.
  - kagamine 10y ago
    It isn't irrelevant at all when the law allowing them to seize funds exists directly due to the law being changed in order to prevent HSBC and others having been caught laundering money from cartels and terrorists. It really is not irrelevant.

kagamine 10y ago

> So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it I said nothing of the sort. > overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue Follow the link from my previous post, are you suggesting that laundering the profits from trade in opiates and helping fund terrorism is better than some laws that require banks to be accountable for their actions? Those money laundering transactions are processed for a fee. HSBC made money from people suffering and from people dying/being killed. It looks to me as though in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the banks have been given a procedure by the government to be followed but have neglected to implement a workable solution, based on there being no recourse for individual customers. It appears, at least in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the bank failed in their duty to the customer while citing "it's not our fault and we don't really care anyway". Followed by "oh shit, bad press! Remedy at 12 o'clock!" but that nothing will change in the long term because they still don't care either morally or ethically. If banks want to be in the business of banking then they ought to make banking their job and that does not only involve profit at the cost of everyone and everything, not excuse themselves with a shrug every time demands are placed on the banking system.

meanduck 10y ago
The laws that powers banks to withhold someone money are the same laws that Govts use to maximize tax revenue. Drug/Terrorism is mostly irrelevent.
- kagamine 10y ago
  It isn't irrelevant at all when the law allowing them to seize funds exists directly due to the law being changed in order to prevent HSBC and others having been caught laundering money from cartels and terrorists. It really is not irrelevant.