7 ms·

The right to bank should be enshrined in the laws of free societies. I don't care what the business is or what people's moral qualms might be--as long as it is

The right to bank should be enshrined in the laws of free societies. I don't care what the business is or what people's moral qualms might be--as long as it is not breaking the law, there is no excuse for cutting off this critical business infrastructure.

zoobab 3y ago
"The right to bank should be enshrined in the laws of free societies" Banks are living on "Credit", which is unethical and does not correspond to any creation of goods or services in the real economy.
- CrazyStat 3y ago
  Is providing credit not a service?
  - loup-vaillant 3y ago
    It's not paid as a service. See Fractional Reserve Banking for the gory details, but the gist of it is, private banks create money out of thin air (within limits) so they can lend it to you. And then they charge interest back for it. That's not how it should work. First there's the morally questionable interest rates to begin with (not all societies or religions permitted that), but even if we assume it is legitimate, the justification for this is something about investment and risk taking. Which are supposed to involve your own funds, not money you printed out of thin air. But there is a risk, and there is a service. How should they charge for it? Well, it's simple: risks are supposed to be (and are) handled by insurances. And then there's the paperwork and checking and all that that most likely should involve a flat rate. This should be much more ethical than charging interest over money that didn't even exist to begin with. (Edit: 3 downvotes in 30 minutes, no rebuttal… guess I hit a nerve. I'll just say this: if you disagree with anything I've said here so strongly that you feel the need to downvote it, at least take the time necessary to articulate to yourself why.)
    - UncleEntity 3y ago
      > Well, it's simple: risks are supposed to be (and are) handled by insurances. So the banks charge a 5.75% “risk premium” and we’re back where we started. And just because some cultures and religions are anti-usuary doesn’t invalidate it’s value. All interest does is price the value of money (ignoring all the shenanigans the central banks get up to). Money today is worth more than money tomorrow so you have to pay a premium to both access it and compensate the owner for the lost utility. Yeah, fractional reserve lending is fraud but it’s legal fraud so what are you going to do?
      - loup-vaillant 3y ago
        > Yeah, fractional reserve lending is fraud but it’s legal fraud so what are you going to do? Isn’t that obvious? We’re living in an increasingly oppressive regime, and fractional reserve banking is but one of its many symptoms. So we’re going to do whatever people do under oppressive regimes. First step though is awareness.
      - mikea1 3y ago
        > fractional reserve lending is fraud I don't understand how it's fraud. Banks could not lend at all if they must retain 100% of deposits. On the lending side, it would hurt everyday people and the economy if banks could not lend. Loans are important for homeowners (mortgages) and for businesses of all sizes (research and development). On the savings side, your community bank provides incredible guarantees with your deposit that are difficult to find elsewhere: deposits are very liquid, principle is virtually guaranteed, and convenience in routing the money wherever you direct it. What would a better system look like?
        loup-vaillant 3y ago
        > What would a better system look like? More democracy. Yes, banks couldn’t lend as much money if they couldn’t create it, and the way we’re making the economy work needs money to be created for those loans. So they definitely fill a need. However they are printing money and decide who can borrow and who cannot, without democratic oversight. We tend to reduce democracy down to restrictive laws & regulations. Whether we want guns or not. Whether we want to allow abortion or not. How heavy the penalties are for murder or theft. How a given industry should be regulated. But resource allocation is arguably even more important. How we allocate our resources determine pretty much everything in our lives. It’s the choice between more roads or new train tracks, which industry should be prioritised, basically what direction our whole economy should take. And that, instead of being subjected to democratic oversight, is currently left to private interests, with a vague hope that it will somehow be okay, because "invisible hand" or something. Damn, I’m just asking for more democracy, and there we are, way outside the Overton window.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Credit isn't unethical. There are a lot of good things that would have never happened without credit. Even employment is a form of credit. "I'll work X hours on this task, and at this time, you will pay me $X" is an incredibly simplified form of credit. Borrowing a few bucks to make it to payday from your friends isn't unethical for either the lender or the payer. Usury is what is unethical about lending, specifically unregulated usury. That, and being allowed to refuse service to people or businesses that you don't like or whose legal business your stakeholders find distasteful. If you're in the banking or finance business, you shouldn't be allowed to choose to not provide service for citizens who are performing legal business, and you should have the amount of profit that you make from a lending transaction regulated and limited by a third party whose goal is to ensure equal treatment.
trallnag 3y ago
Why? Companies should be free to not service certain customers (with some boundary conditions).
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Because it's increasingly difficult to transact without using a bank. Cash is less and less of an option.
- RealStickman_ 3y ago
  Banking should be an essential service. There are obviously people who suffer from not having access or having it taken away.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    I consider banks almost a branch of the government. More like cities than companies.
- laserlight 3y ago
  There exists regulated markets in which businesses are not free to do anything they want. Banking is already regulated and is a necessity in modern world. Essential banking services should be treated like a utility.
- selcuka 3y ago
  Banks are not companies. They are allowed to create money out of thin air [1], unlike a "normal" company. They are heavily regulated by the government, unlike other companies. They are in fact an essential service in today's world. [1] http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco212i/lectures/ch13-17 http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco212i/lectures/ch13-1...
nicbou 3y ago
It is in Germany, at least for individuals. In practice it's a bit bumpy for immigrants with unrecognised passports and no registered address, but the principle is there and can be enforced with some effort.
- dx034 3y ago
  For businesses it is not. I don't think there are any countries where banks don't use blacklists that go beyond legal requirements.

zoobab 3y ago

"The right to bank should be enshrined in the laws of free societies" Banks are living on "Credit", which is unethical and does not correspond to any creation of goods or services in the real economy.

CrazyStat 3y ago
Is providing credit not a service?
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  It's not paid as a service. See Fractional Reserve Banking for the gory details, but the gist of it is, private banks create money out of thin air (within limits) so they can lend it to you. And then they charge interest back for it. That's not how it should work. First there's the morally questionable interest rates to begin with (not all societies or religions permitted that), but even if we assume it is legitimate, the justification for this is something about investment and risk taking. Which are supposed to involve your own funds, not money you printed out of thin air. But there is a risk, and there is a service. How should they charge for it? Well, it's simple: risks are supposed to be (and are) handled by insurances. And then there's the paperwork and checking and all that that most likely should involve a flat rate. This should be much more ethical than charging interest over money that didn't even exist to begin with. (Edit: 3 downvotes in 30 minutes, no rebuttal… guess I hit a nerve. I'll just say this: if you disagree with anything I've said here so strongly that you feel the need to downvote it, at least take the time necessary to articulate to yourself why.)
  - UncleEntity 3y ago
    > Well, it's simple: risks are supposed to be (and are) handled by insurances. So the banks charge a 5.75% “risk premium” and we’re back where we started. And just because some cultures and religions are anti-usuary doesn’t invalidate it’s value. All interest does is price the value of money (ignoring all the shenanigans the central banks get up to). Money today is worth more than money tomorrow so you have to pay a premium to both access it and compensate the owner for the lost utility. Yeah, fractional reserve lending is fraud but it’s legal fraud so what are you going to do?
    - loup-vaillant 3y ago
      > Yeah, fractional reserve lending is fraud but it’s legal fraud so what are you going to do? Isn’t that obvious? We’re living in an increasingly oppressive regime, and fractional reserve banking is but one of its many symptoms. So we’re going to do whatever people do under oppressive regimes. First step though is awareness.
    - mikea1 3y ago
      > fractional reserve lending is fraud I don't understand how it's fraud. Banks could not lend at all if they must retain 100% of deposits. On the lending side, it would hurt everyday people and the economy if banks could not lend. Loans are important for homeowners (mortgages) and for businesses of all sizes (research and development). On the savings side, your community bank provides incredible guarantees with your deposit that are difficult to find elsewhere: deposits are very liquid, principle is virtually guaranteed, and convenience in routing the money wherever you direct it. What would a better system look like?
      - loup-vaillant 3y ago
        > What would a better system look like? More democracy. Yes, banks couldn’t lend as much money if they couldn’t create it, and the way we’re making the economy work needs money to be created for those loans. So they definitely fill a need. However they are printing money and decide who can borrow and who cannot, without democratic oversight. We tend to reduce democracy down to restrictive laws & regulations. Whether we want guns or not. Whether we want to allow abortion or not. How heavy the penalties are for murder or theft. How a given industry should be regulated. But resource allocation is arguably even more important. How we allocate our resources determine pretty much everything in our lives. It’s the choice between more roads or new train tracks, which industry should be prioritised, basically what direction our whole economy should take. And that, instead of being subjected to democratic oversight, is currently left to private interests, with a vague hope that it will somehow be okay, because "invisible hand" or something. Damn, I’m just asking for more democracy, and there we are, way outside the Overton window.
BizarroLand 3y ago
Credit isn't unethical. There are a lot of good things that would have never happened without credit. Even employment is a form of credit. "I'll work X hours on this task, and at this time, you will pay me $X" is an incredibly simplified form of credit. Borrowing a few bucks to make it to payday from your friends isn't unethical for either the lender or the payer. Usury is what is unethical about lending, specifically unregulated usury. That, and being allowed to refuse service to people or businesses that you don't like or whose legal business your stakeholders find distasteful. If you're in the banking or finance business, you shouldn't be allowed to choose to not provide service for citizens who are performing legal business, and you should have the amount of profit that you make from a lending transaction regulated and limited by a third party whose goal is to ensure equal treatment.

trallnag 3y ago

Why? Companies should be free to not service certain customers (with some boundary conditions).

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Because it's increasingly difficult to transact without using a bank. Cash is less and less of an option.
RealStickman_ 3y ago
Banking should be an essential service. There are obviously people who suffer from not having access or having it taken away.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  I consider banks almost a branch of the government. More like cities than companies.
laserlight 3y ago
There exists regulated markets in which businesses are not free to do anything they want. Banking is already regulated and is a necessity in modern world. Essential banking services should be treated like a utility.
selcuka 3y ago
Banks are not companies. They are allowed to create money out of thin air [1], unlike a "normal" company. They are heavily regulated by the government, unlike other companies. They are in fact an essential service in today's world. [1] http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco212i/lectures/ch13-17 http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco212i/lectures/ch13-1...

nicbou 3y ago

It is in Germany, at least for individuals. In practice it's a bit bumpy for immigrants with unrecognised passports and no registered address, but the principle is there and can be enforced with some effort.

dx034 3y ago
For businesses it is not. I don't think there are any countries where banks don't use blacklists that go beyond legal requirements.