Hanging 20 bankers at the end of the street won't help, says Blair

[NicholasTeakozy]

Why not 30? Or 40?. Maybe not Tone, but it'll be a start.

Bread - That was edam's statement, not yours.

'They make this money for their shareholders, not their employees ("bankers").'

I thought it was vice versa. There are a lot of grannies who turn up at AGMs who who may not agree with you.

And some of those grannies turn up with a rolled up copy of the people's paper under their arm. Some of those grannies ask why we can't implement a Glass Steagall type act to control the "masters of the universe", just like the USA implemented after the banker's margin trading excesses which led to the Great Crash of 1929 and plunged teh world into a subsequent Depression. Some of those grannies wonder whether that would force bankers to care a bit more about "sertvices to the community" than "services to banking" and "services to their bonuses". Some of those grannies want a return to morality to curtail the "moral hazard" of some immoral bankers. Some of those grannies wonder why this can't be implemented and wonder if it because of the bankers' deep pockets which they use to lobby and push their hobby horse of "services to banking" - their deep pockets filled flush with cash from the public purse .

"
Edgar - you appear to see breaking the law as perfectly valid as long as it makes money. How do you prevent society breaking down in this lawless fantasy of yours?"

what the fuck? where have i said any of this?

or anything from which that could be implied even?

Edgar, could you clarify your post above, then, which I obviously misunderstood?

" " You do realise, Edgar, that by your definition criminals and thieves are just good businessmen as they are succeeding in making money according to the supposedly iron law of everyone acting in their own self-interest alone?"

criminal = someone who breaks the law.

i have placed no moral judgement on the purposes of businesses. "

This was following on from your earlier post that:

"the purpose of a bank is to make money. it may provide useful (or, for modern life, essential) services as a by-product. "

Could you therefore clarify in what way criminals are not the same as bankers (ignoring the crossovers, obviously, like HSBC and those Mexican drug cartels ) - given you have claimed that the social utility of what both do is irrelevant and you do not judge businesses on moral grounds?

Thanks.

Mr JudgeyPants - we appear to agree. Not on all issues, certainly, but on this one, happily. :)

Breadandbutterfly Sorry to break up the 'love in' so soon after peace has broken out but HSBC were prosecuted for not having mechanisms in place to prevent drug cartels from laundering money through the bank. AFAIK, there was no proof, or even suggestion that HSBC were actively involved in money laundering or any other criminal behaviour, merely that they left themselves open for abuse. This is a subtle but important distinction which should be made.

Fair enough - love in still in place,however reluctantly you may shy away from my hippy embrace. :)

I'm afraid you are wrong, MrJP. HSBC was actively involved in laundering dirty money according to the US Senate 'A report compiled for the committee detailed how HSBC's subsidiaries transported billions of dollars of cash in armoured vehicles, cleared suspicious travellers' cheques worth billions, and allowed Mexican drug lords buy to planes with money laundered through Cayman Islands accounts.

'Other subsidiaries moved money from Iran, Syria and other countries on US sanctions lists, and helped a Saudi bank linked to al-Qaida to shift money to the US.'

Funny how the banker's pals always try to pretend there's nothing much to see round here and we should move along - even when the bankers have been caught bang to rights. Yet again. And resigned in front of the US Senate.

Ooh dear

edam No, I'm right. HSBC have been accused (and have been caught bang to rights) by the US senate for not having anti-laundering mechanisms in place. The bank should certainly have investigated all suspicious activity and, it appears, that that hasn't happened. To make the assumption, however, that HSBC were actively colluding in money laundering activities is a leap too far. Either way, let us await the outcome of the proceedings before jumping to conclusions.

Your second point, that they handled money from countries on the US sanctions list is irrelevant. HSBC are a massive business with subsidiaries all over the world. Each of these subsidiaries will have been registered with their host nation and will be subject to that country's particular rules and regulations, not American ones. These countries have no obligation to recognise the US sanctions list. It therefore stands to reason that a US senator has no more jurisdiction over a non-US registered bank as we might expect our government to have over a US registered one. You can argue the ethics of this for as long as you like but, in this instance, I don't think the Senator has a leg to stand on.

As for a Saudi bank with links to al-Qaida; what constitutes a link? Did Bin Laden once open up a current account with them before 9/11? Did al-Qaida have a business account there which was picked up by the compliance team and reported to the relevant authorities? It is perfectly possible to establish a link between almost any unpalatable figure and any legitimate business - until those details are known I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt... You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

More suspect banker behaviour written about in today's New York Times:

'' The Standard Chartered Bank is being accused of hiding roughly 60,000 illegal transactions with Iranians. The New York State Department of Financial Services is accusing the British bank of deliberately falsifying records in order to cover up the transactions, which are reportedly worth $250 billion. U.S. law requires transactions with Iranian banks to be closely monitored, in order to prevent the use of American banks to finance the country?s nuclear programs or terrorist organizations. According to the report, Standard?s dealings ?left the U.S. financial system vulnerable to terrorists, weapons dealers, drug kingpins and corrupt regimes.?

Same story from the BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19155577