| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Supreme court backs bankers | |
| Posted by: | Alan Clark | |
| Date/Time: | 26/11/09 11:05:00 |
| There's a couple of points to respond to here. First is the concept that the loan shark is the same as the lending bank. I'd suggest that there's a couple of fundemantal differences - least of which is the setting out of clear terms and conditions of contract which loan sharks tend to forget and re-invent (with massively higher rates) at a later stage. They are not the same. The second is about whether people need a bank account or not. Is the trend towards a cash-less society not well underway (Oyster, debit cards, internet buying, etc.) and unlikely to be reversible? There is every possibility that within our lifetime cash will fall out of use. Where would that leave those without bank accounts? But my last point is to suggest that we are increasingly in a 'blame everyone but ourselves' world. The banks overcharged me (yes, but you allowed your account to go overdrawn). I needed a loan urgently (yes, but you overspent on crap you did not need). The council is to blame for my son falling off the cliff (yes but he was drunk - and underage for drinking - at the time). And so on. |