Are banks holding us to ransom?

[donkey]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11174953

 

It seems that any attempts which are made to prevent the major banks from further damaging the economy and wrecking livlihoods are met with threats to 'relocate' to countries where the governments are more compliant to their demands.

 

Are these bankers holding us to ransom? If so, what - if anything - can be done about it? Discuss.

[andyofborg]

its one bank, which to be fair, didn't take advantage of the various government schemes to rescue the banks.

[Bedders]

They are not holding me to ransom!

 

Mortgage...building society.

Current account....building society.

Savings / ISA....building society.

 

Just need to worl out how to finance the pension without bankers & sharedealing being involved!

[donkey]

its one bank, which to be fair, didn't take advantage of the various government schemes to rescue the banks.

 

It's not the first time banks have threatened such action in an attempt scupper post credit crunch regulations.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7947127/Bankers-threaten-to-move-abroad-over-bonus-restrictions.html

 

http://news.hereisthecity.com/news/business_news/9701.cntns

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/04/standard-chartered-bank-levy-relocation

[Andy]

HSBC did not need a penny of government support. As a privately owned business they are entitled to move their operations elsewhere if the UK government brings in too much regulation.

 

This is not holding anyone to ransom, it's operating in the free market.

[donkey]

HSBC did not need a penny of government support. As a privately owned business they are entitled to move their operations elsewhere if the UK government brings in too much regulation.

 

This is not holding anyone to ransom, it's operating in the free market.

 

Yes, the free market where you can use your financial influence to play governments off against each other. Without standard international regulations, the banks can scupper any attempts designed to make them more responsibly towards the people they make their money from and prevent a repeat of the credit crunch, which was also a product of the 'free market' as you may remember.

[Andy]

But it's arguable that the only reason HSBC moved their headquarters here in the first place is because there was less red tape in London than in other possible locations.

 

Do you think a break up of HSBC is needed?

[donkey]

But it's arguable that the only reason HSBC moved their headquarters here in the first place is because there was less red tape in London than in other possible locations.

 

Do you think a break up of HSBC is needed?

 

I don't know enough about it to be able to say, but i do think those people who have looked at the problems in the banking sector in depth should be able to enforce the changes they deem necessary without being vetoed by the banks. If it is an international problem, then it needs tackling at that level.

[Loubbe]

It is notoriously difficult to enforce international regulation. Governments, of developing countries most certainly, will entice capitalist institutions (of which banks are amongst) and a lack of regulation is certainly attractive to these institutions. The more freedom to to do what they want, the better as far as the big companies are concerned. Unfortunately this doesn't offer the little person much in the way of protection

[HeadingNorth]

But it's arguable that the only reason HSBC moved their headquarters here in the first place is because there was less red tape in London than in other possible locations.

 

 

 

It so, then it's clearly not a good idea to introduce more red tape and have them take all those jobs away again. Or is it?