toxicmolotof
2015-01-04 10:18:03
- #1
Could you please also address the rest of my thread?
[...]So far, I have not shown these morally questionable behavioral patterns in any area [...]
To cut the story short: it no longer mattered that the bank could have easily helped a - until then - reputable and long-standing business partner (there were enough securities, but they were tied up). What mattered solely was that a board colleague coveted a property of the bank customer and could benefit from this - by refusing support ... and indeed did so.
But that has nothing to do with the topic of banks now, does it? Where am I not getting the picture? That this is antisocial behavior is beyond question, but it exists everywhere in varying degrees. Banks, politics, trade... if I don’t like the kebab shop next to my kebab shop, then I try to get that kebab shop removed. I don’t have to be a bank to play with unfair means. That is the behavior of individuals.
But here, regardless of the discussion about bank fees, one is again accused that all banks (and all bankers) are bad. And that is simply not true. It is a minority that projects all the bad onto the majority.
What goes on in the executive suites of banks and other companies, I cannot and do not want to judge. But that has to do with the person, and not with their profession. Because bankers haven’t been the people in the executive suite for a long time. That has a lot to do with lobby and politics.
No one also gets the idea to say that all general contractors are profiteers and drive families into financial ruin just because it is about profit. And yes, there certainly are bad apples there, but that does not make the whole industry corrupt, or does it?