22nd RLDG Discussion, on Money and Banking

Held on: Thursday 19 January 2023

Present: NO, CA, CM, AB, AH (later), DW (later).

Topic of Discussion:
(a) Update from 21st Discussion
(b) Discussion of draft section on the nature of money
(c) Explanation and discussion of Banking

The main purpose of these RLDG discussions is to develop our Rethink of Economics (Full or Summary).

This 22nd discussion is part of the series of the RLDG discussions, which started at the 2020 Reith Lectures. This time there are no summaries at the end of each section, but instead there are indications of how various points have been incorporated into version 2 of the Rethink.

-- Contents

-- About This Page

[This is annotated notes of the 22nd RLDG discussion. Not the usual full transcript, because the new update of Zoom did not provide any audio recording, despite us clicking "Record" and it telling us that recording was in progress.

AB typed notes during the discussion, then went through correcting spelling errors and sometimes filling them out into sentences, and inserting links, and notes and comments in square brackets (31 January 2023). Then it was submitted to the participants for checking and further filling out.

AB adopted two roles, (a) of editor, "Ed.", e.g. giving links to other material, adding "***" to important points attaching unique labels for future reference (actually only places for labels to be added later), or explaining things; and (b) of contributor ("AB:"), inserting responses to what had just been said, especially some that he would have made had be not been taking notes. AB's responses are added in order to further the discussion, especially in a way that could contribute to our Rethink. Sometimes he will criticise himself for what was said on the day!

"???" indicates unclear memory of what was said. "..." indicates missing content (spoken but not written into the notes). = content added by editor that was not in the discussion. ]


----- Introduction [zem00]

# CA: Visited Northern Ireland. Linen factories and museums. Shipbuilding. Potato famine. The people in Ireland went to Liverpool to board ships to America, but many were robbed and so had to stay in Liverpool.
# Such a waste of talent. So much intelligence; where is all of that now?

[started recording - but recording never delivered. So, the following is a tidied version of the raw notes.]


----- Update on Where we Are [zem01]

# AB: Gave overview of previous discussion, 21st RLDG Discussion, held on 4th November 2022. As he presented each section, it stimulated discussion.

--- On Visions for Economics [zem02]

# AB: AH had led a discussion on Visions for Economics, which raised some important points, which were then discussed in more detail. We discussed topics:

# The latter led into the next topic discussed last time, but led to more discussion now.


--- On Communicating Our ideas [zem03]

# AB: In RLDG21, there was a discussion on Communicating our Rethink, where we discussed the Purpose of our output and which media for output. NO had sent a list, including the FT, and said he had more, especially Catholic.

[CM joined]

# CA: The FT (on NO's list) is choosy. Will find out who is writing, what they write. The FT editorial policy is not to move to left or right, so they ask of an submitted article, "Is it biased?"
# ACTION CA: Find out who and what at FT.
# NO: Martin Wolf is right-leaning
# CM: the way you get something into the medium. The staff. FT reports news and comments on the news. Boty FT and Economist.
# Try to get your content into the hand of one of their writers.
# Top dollar. but ...
# Next level, FT and Bloomberg not do this: they publish under own name as op-ed.
# Angle: Maybe via the letters page. But that needs to link to a current topic and must be short.

# CM: On what we call it. "Rethinking economics" - there are dozens of these. But "Dooyeweerdian economics" is unique. ***
# Needs to be hooked into the news.
# AB: [Not sure what AB said here; relied on recording to find out!]


--- Discussion of Content of Rethink [zem04]

# AB: In 21st discussion, we presented the 5 topics.
[DW and AH joined]


--- Philosophical Roots: Meaning and Being [zem05]

# DW: Why do you focus on meaning rather than being or entities?
# AB: Dooyeweerd's view that all existence is grounded in meaningfulness, and it makes a lot of sense in practice. Meaningfulness is diverse; the aspects are "modalities of meaning".
# 1. Nothing just exists 'in itself'; everything exists-as. Example, the pen exists-as lingual and has no other existence, qua pen, without the lingual aspect.
# 2. Meaningfulness implies goodness. This makes normativity and value inherent in things, rather than as an add-on property. Focusing on existence, and treating meaning as a property, leads to lots of problems.
# 3. What about the number 7, in what way does that exist, unless we refer to the quantitative aspect? What about the tree falling in the forest when nobody sees or hears it? (It exists-as biotic, which precedes the psychical aspect of seeing or hearing.) What about fictional characters like Gandalf; do they exist? They may be said to exist lingually and aesthetically. How do we explain why certain things are impossible, e.g. present king of France (breaks juridical-social laws), square circle (breaks spatial laws).
# DW: Makes sense

# NO: Rather philosophical. But accept the view.
# AB: It is meant to be philosophical; the entire Rethink is based on a philosophical basis, so that it is not yet-another reaction to currently-perceived problems like climate change, inequality or poverty, but is based on foundational understanding of the nature of reality, including its normative nature.

# CM: Your example of the number 7, or the tree in forest falling. They are both relevant, what they tell us is relevant. No 7 relates to whether money exists.
# Humans epistemology. Humans use 7 but nothing else [in the animal kingdon] does. It is a construct. Same with money.
# But trees exist, in no way depending on humans.
# Aspects allow us to see them as ...
# Reification of money as thing in itself.
# May or may not be good.

[AB: Not sure whether I said this: I would not say that 7 itself is a construct; it really exists without humans, such as in the number of protons in a Nitrogen atom, but only humans can actually count to, and conceptualise, 7. So the awareness of 7 is a human construct but the number 7 itself transcends human counting. The difference in its existence from the tree is that the tree's main aspect (biotic) is post-physical and hence exists-as physicually, whereas 7 is quantitative, pre-physical and hence has no physical existence. Both are pre-analytical, hence 'exist' without needing to be conceptualised. ]


----- Discussion of Draft Section on Money [zem06]

[Ed. AB had sent round a draft section on the nature of money, the main thing being that money should be understood as potential for functioning that contributes towards Overall Good, rather than as an owned commodity.]

# NO: will send comments.
# ACTION NO: Send comments on draft section. [Done 30 January 2023]
# NO: Glad to see quite from Timothy. Use Rich man and Lazarus esp in 8.3 [AB: Noted in chapter]
# NO: This is writing to the educated crowd [AB: rather than to economists, as discussed in ze21?]. There is a lot of foreplay; "I've heard those"
# Meat: gets into aspects

# AB: AH make proposals before the stuff

# CM: We are in the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
# AH: Express my entusiasm. WdW can add something. But it's not new, qualitatively new.
# AB: Money as functioning (rather than as owned commodity)
# CA: Money in Use, money as form of exchange
# AB: [AB: Not sure what I said here]

# AB: Why have this section?
# AB: My ideas [not sure what was said]
# e.g. Because I have some disposable income, I am free to use money as a form of voting e.g. one supplier or shopkeeper over another. If I believe that one supplier is more ethical than another, more local, or even I just like them, I can buy stuff from them rather than another. ***

[AB: To do: add that into Rethink, using money as a vote. Done.]

# CA: More expensive ethical products, no subsidies from government.
# Choice: how much money do you have, and then you might not be able to.
# NO: True today but so many problems when we keep looking over shoulder.
# Now kids in patagonia play angry birds.
# This section should be in.
# Money is a conveyance. Reflects back onto human decision, on good and harm you are going to do with the money. Money could be used to help family, or to watch football. That is what I thought we were trying to bring out in this section. ***

[AB: To do: Shorten the preliminary stuff on money; put message up front. ]

[AB: Slightly disappointed that there was little challenge to the ideas about money. Maybe however it means the group largely agrees. NO's comments sent later seemed to largely agree. ]


----- Banking [zem07]

[Ed. Banking is something we have not yet properly discussed in the RLDG. Since CA is something of an expert in it, her PhD being on bank failures, she was asked to present and discuss several questions on banking, so that the Rethink could include some rethink of banking. ]


--- Q1. Why are Banks Important? [zem08]

# CA: Commercial banks are different from investment banks.

-- Commercial banks. [zem09]

# 1. Banks allow savings, a safe place to store my money. Need to put money somewhere. Want money to work for me. Bank will use the money eslewhere. (Terminology: Money comes from deficit unit (savings), to surplus unit (people who need money).)

# 2. Banks will pay interest. It will take savings, and use them for people who to use money, e.g. to buy house, car, or finance a business.
# In other words. Why important?

# 3. Banks offer large loans.
# d (a) Household, if I want a new car, house. These can cost a lot of money, [which I do not have]. The money I earn is not enough.

[AB: But is there not other ways of obtaining money for such purchases, such as saving up for it, or from rich benefactor, or though gifts (including crowd-funding)? Clarify with CA: ]

# (b) Can say same thing about companies too. e.g. needing funds to build a warehouse. They go to bank for a loan.
# (c) Governments likewise, e.g. to byild roads etc., they go to bank.
# Who else will give out such large amounts?

[AB: Similar question: could governments not get money by similar means (saving up, rich benefactors, crowd funding (including the tax system)? But there is another possibility: Lower expectations and plans. Why do we need to build so many roads to quickly? Why not fewer roads, more slowly? Or any other major expenditure?

I am trying to find out why banking is necessary, so it would be good to hear why none of the following work: # saving up; # rich benefactors; #crowd funding / tax; # slower road-building; # reduced aspirations; etc. I suspect that a lot of the reason is pride and greed.

# 4. The bank is the heartbeat of economy.

[AB: In what way? Please explain. Is it heartbeat for anything other than economic growth of GDP? If mainly or only for those, then, since those cause harm, then what we are saying is that banking is necessary only to do Harm. I want to find out why banks are necessary to do Good without Harm. (I acknowledge that there is some validity in both: economic growth in less-developed nations, and GDP as an overview figure, and possibly modified to not conflate Harm with Good.]


-- Investment banks. [zem10]

# Investment of my lot of money.
# What are we trying to invest in? shares, minerals?
# Invest in projcts and try to make money.
[Ed. I guess there was more in the discussion than that.]

[AB: I do not see reason why investment banks are important there. I expect that CA said a lot more than that, which was not captured in notes, which I hope CA will be able to fill in from memory or even add new text, to answer the question "Why are investment banks important?". Not just for individuals but more generally. Or "In what ways would the world, and all of Creation, be less blessed if there were no investment banks?" ]

[AB: But why not use Islamic Finance methods here, where the investor does not get interest, but rather an agreed share in the profits? ]

[AB: I realise the question "Why are banks important?" should really be "In what ways would all of Creation (including individual humans who want to contribute to Overall Good) be less blessed if there were no banks?" ]


--- Q2. What is a Good Quality Bank? [zem11]

-- Quality is soundness [zem12]

# CA: A good quality bank is one that is sound in itself.
# What is difference between quality and soundness? [addressed to AB, who suggested these questions]. To me, quality is [did not take that down; but mainly to do with soundness]
[Ed. See on Soundness below.]


-- Quality is trustworthiness (bank keeps its promise or contract) [zem13]

# AB: [AB could not think immediately, but began by giving some instances of what he thought was poor quality banking.] My bank closed its branch. I get cash out by cheques submitted to bank counter (I am a rebel!). TSB arranged with Post Office to allow me and a few others to cash TSB checks there. I used that service one the branch closed, for several months. But then discovered the Post Office had lost 1000 because TSB did not reimburse the Post Office. That is very poor quality banking. Unethical. Untrustworthy.

[AB: Aspects of bank quality. Was aware of other meanings of poor quality. meaningful in other aspects. That example was in the juridical, ethical aspects. CA's identifying quality with soundness seems to be the economic aspect of quality, i.e. what you put in you will always be able to get out. That is also partly juridical, i.e. it is unjust if you cannot. Is there any other meaning of bank quality that is meaningful in the economic aspect? For example, if money is flow rather than / as well as asset, should not liquidity be a component of bank quality? What about the investment or lending strategy of a bank; for example, if it ends up with stranded assets, is it still high quality? (Stranded assets: companies or plant devoted to environmentally damaging things, which nobody wants to buy any more.)

# CM: Your experience.
# The First National Bank Of Waco Texas failed because guys wanted their money. The bank had misinvested the money. and could not give people their money when they asked. A failed scheme. They played with other peoples money. there are many of those.
# A trustworthy bank, you will give it your money.
# Online: system works.

[Ed. Not sure where this, or any, chat came in the discussion. AH, can you remember, please?]
# chat AH: time 16.00 UTC. I have hears that by definition, funds are investments only if the owner or controller of the funds hopes the funds will appreciate. Is that accurate, please?
[Ed. See below: CA was going to answer.]


-- Government underwriting [zem14]

# CM: That is why CA mentions government underwriting. 85000 per account [in UK].
# Liquidy of the bank. The Basel rules define how banks can manage the ratios [of assets held to amount lent].
# Internationally. other assets.
# That was one of the reasons for the Kwazi Kwarteng wobble: it disturbed everybody, including the bond market. [AB: pistic aspect of belief] There was volatility in bond prices.
# Liquidity is important because of fractional reserves.


-- Building Societies [zem15]

# Contrast with building societies.
# Immediate demand. Temporal change. Not just get money immdiately but paying back loan in time. Lending long and borrowing short.

# DW: Does this raises the issue: is there a role for government here.

# chat AH: [time 16.09] need to return to my statistical work. Best wishes everyone
[AH left]

# chat CM: [time 16:09] a) Social interest bank(s) serving disadvantaged people, excluded, etc.? b) lender of last resort (government) to prop up failing banks to protect the public (or is it to protect the banks, the system?!)

# DW: What about homeless people. Not sure how a commercial bank [missed some of what was seid] ... government.

# CA: Going to answer AH question on chat.
[Ed. Sadly, zoom did not give us a chat file; it was empty. CA: Please would you send an answer by email, which I can insert; thanks. ]


-- National Banks [zem16]

# [Ed. National banks are banks that governments go to to get to borrow big amounts. So there are special rules governing them, so that government will not fail. ]

# CA: On DW: the government and their role.
# The Bank of England is separate from government, so they don't get influenced by politics. When Liz truss came in and wanted to order ... banks would not take orders from govenment. Kwazi Kwarteng announced tax cuts, but ignored with bank. Bank of England1 said "What they are doing is nothing to do with us."
# Tax cuts promised [though financially ruinous], so the UK pound started to come down, as international investors started to sell UKPs.
# Bank of England came in to the rescue, by buying government bonds, so that the bond price stopped falling. To back up the country, because of fall of UKP.


-- Pension Funds [zem17]

# [Ed. Cannot remember whether this was said in discussion: Part of the problem with the bond price falling was that pension funds invest in government bonds because they need a steady return over long term in order to pay pensions. So when bond price falls they get less money to pay pensions.]

# CA: However, the pension funds also were not doing things correctly. They are supposed to invest in low-risk things like bonds, not supposed to invest in risky. But they were investing in risky things. Because people say "I need a higher return" and some will take their pension out of the pension fund and invest in stocks and shares, hoping to get a higher return. But that causes a problem for pension funds. So pension funds staretd to invest in SWAPs, in derivatives [which promise high returns but are risky].
# So Bank of England had to come in and buy bonds to keep the price up.

# AB: Please can you clarify: You mean pension funds were doing bad things independently of government doing bad things? # CA: Yes. They should have been investing risk free.

# chat NO: [time 16:18] The pension funds were not actually being reckless. But they did have bonds that were crashing with everyone else. Pension funds must have diverse investment because they need to earn for future payments to beneficiaries.

# CA?: Of course, in reality, when government bond for US did not ... Even though triple-A* rated, they [unwisely] said "lets just reduce it just a little bit".
# It is the reputation of government as well. Get the back rap. This whole ecology of things.

[AB: Doing unwise things because of fear about reputation is pistic dysfunction impacting other aspects such as the formative aspect of planning. ]

# CM: I think the root of the problem was the government. ... the way it was able to develop. Except Japan. Believing government a not ...
# Pension funds had lot in bonds, but kept having to sell them to pay out.
# Market knew that [UK, Liz Truss] government would have to borrow more money, because of cutting tax. Net sector borrowing up. So persuading more bonds. But exisitng bonds prices start to crash. Need to rush to sell them, so price go down [further]. Bank of England had to buy bonds - which it should not do because it was not set up for that. Quantitative easing.

[Ed. Not sure where some of the chats go in relation to the discussion, because have no recording against which to measure the time.]
# chat NO: [time 16:25 UTC] This was the issue in the 2008 collapse - derivatives and CLOs.

# NO: actually, CM is correct. pfs hage to have xxx portfolios.
# underlying problem was not KK cutting taxes. prob was that increased government had already ... energy bill. 600 billion.
# so the mkt was already stressed. went crazy.
# underlying problem ... linking to energy costs.

# CA: pf has to diversify. so we don't get hit in one sector. but problem was that they invested in SWAPs. using Swap to hedge, that is good. but pf was using swaps as investment. does not make sense. so everyione not happy with pf.
# All this wuld not have happened if ... in first place
# Credit Suiss used derivaties as ...

# chat CM: time 16:34. Agree NO. Consolidated Debt 'instruments' where no-one knew the real credit risk of the underlying loans: no relationship to the borrowers. (No social or ethical aspects?) Where there should be. )
# chat NO: time 16:34. Yup. Still the same issue today, sadly.


--- Q3. What makes a Bank Sound? [zem18]

# CA: What is meant by soundness. Bank has to be functioning in aspects ... in a sound way.
# A bank needs capital, needs people to invest in it: shareholders etc.
# Basel. The Basel rules govern how much capital and liquidity bank needs to have. Tiers 1,2,3. For a bank to funciion well, it must keep to the tier appropriate for it.
# Capital and liquidity.
# ... is the last thing a bank gives up before it collapses. [Ed. Sadly, AB did not capture what is the last thing the bank gives up.]
# For example, a person wants money back. ... [not sure what was said there] Then there is a run on the bank. e.g. Northern Rock.
# ... absorb risk the ... recession. e.g. cannot afford to pay house, so give up.
# Bank ends up with non-performing loans. ... amount of capital, liquidity.

# Quality of the ... the bank is holding.
# [Ed. I think the content here was about banks owning houses and real-estate as assets it could sell if it needed to]
# Bank goes to developer [House developer] and will buy a load of houses. If quality of houses is bad, that will give problems.
# When someone applies for a mortgage, the bank asks "Who are these people? Are they credit worthy? What sort of job do they have (are they likely to be able to continue paying the mortgage?." Then they give a loan.


--- Banks in a Financial Crisis [zem19]

[CA: I seem to have a lot of gaps in notes in the following; would you be able to fill in the gaps a, as needed, correct and modify what is there, please?]

# In financial crisis, banks do not give out to people who are not credit worthy.
# So quality of loans is important [as judged be e.g. the questions above].

[AB: What about other aspects of quality?]

# Also the bank must have a good management team, who will do a proper risk assessment. [AB: That seems to be another aspect]

# Lot of people unemployed ... will not have money to pay up. How ... get the house back? The recession now will go on long time.
# So is it a good idea to ... default on payment ... collection house
# end up with all those houses.
# so must think carefully re all we must do.
[Sadly, no notes where "...".]

# Then earnings. How we manage our earning? Bank has to earn money to survive. Must consider ... how earn its living?


--- Survival of Banks [zem20]

# AI coming into the bank.
# The new generation is tech-savvy. They are impatient: "Tell me right now!" Want instant replies, 24/7. So bank must move into AI, to give this new generation what they expect. The new role of technology.
# bank has to find way to work with AI. survival.

# CA: bank has to evolve with all that moves around it. when bank is not modern [i.e. not using technology that seems recent], people will move out of it. Banks have to battle with lots of forces.
# how to we survive in these difficult times?
# investment bank struggles. commercial banks ??righer??. Because investment bank relies on people investing, but people are saying "i have no money to survive, so none to invest." So investment banks fail first.
# Commercial banks survive longer. So money is channeled to commercial banks. But, when they have lots of money, they move money to investment banks. When the investment bank fails, the commercial bank that depends on it also fails. So both banks fail.


--- Q4. What Needs Changing in Banking? [zem21]

[Ed. The next few lines seem to be about bank soundness above?]

# CA: The problem I have: in the global financial crisis, some banks survived, were more robust. e.g. Canada, New Zealand. They were doing something right, that other banks did not do.
# Basel: Need to hold 8% tier 2 capital. 4% in tier 1 capital.
# most banks in the US were holding 8%, but banks in NZ were holding way more. Asking about US banks, why they failed when they held 8%.
; ... lots of different ... econometricians work out all the factors, to say how much banks must hold. But things are always changing. ... these are things we have not computerd.
# Meeting in basel, to decide how much to hold.
# They will never get this calculation right because things are changing all the time. There are so many risks involved.
# Every time there is a crisis, we say "We got this wrong; need to incraese [the Basel ratios?]"

# CEO of JP Morgan "how much more are you going to eat up into our capital!" # If you are just holding back, just close the business down.
# 80% of capital in reserve.
# the challenge we are going to.
[Ed. What were those about? Was it CA who said them, or someone else? ]

# The other thing: as soon as the global financial crisis hit, and this was ini 2008, then in 2010 the companies rescued by government started to take on high risks again. Why had they not learned the lesson?!

[AB: pistic, ethical dysfunction there: idolatry and greed?]

# Only 6 large banks, so they have a duty of care. So there is a lot of pressure, rules and regulations, to say "Come up with our own CDO, because you do not know external CDOs, what is in them, whether they are risky or not." [AB: juridical aspect of responsibility?]
# So, banks in Australia bought foreign CDOs first to see how they worked, and then they made their own CDO.
# They [Ed. Who?] trying to put rules and regulations in Canada and Australia, to say "You cannot take a lot of risk".

# CA: This brings us to what happened in Northern Rock. It was shocking. NR were randomly giving loans to people without knowing how likely they were to pay back. Their loan officers were on commission, so were encouraged to give as many loans as possible without much checking.

[AB: Summary of what CA believes needs to change in banking: That banks etc. will be more responsible and take less risk. ]


--- What Are Banks For? [zem22]

[Ed. Not sure these chats were sent here or above or below.]

# chat CM: time 16:42 UTC. I think the fundamental question is 'What are banks for?' A lot of what they are doing seems to be making more from the money they already hold. (both their own - accumulated profits - and a lot of other people's money, where they make further profit, not from fees on investment management but by leveraging their own investments ... which may be speculative). It brings us back to the 'nature of money' question: banks and similar finance companies have (imho!) reified money and made it an end in itself.
# chat CM: time 16:42. Banks seem to have gone way beyond their 'original' functions of retail banking (providing money accounts so people don't simply have bags of cash at home, for paying living costs and for savings; intermediation (lending money that savers have put with them for the longer term; the roles of borrowers and savers often interchanging over time); and credit creation (actually making loans without taking in money first - as they're allowed by government, based on the collateral and credit-rating of the borrowers. This is how money gets created in modern economics. Bank of England has made this clear in publications.)

# NO: How do we get out of this mess? One of the situations. When you put all in same pot, you end up with ...
# Problems get good out of fund. ??
# Gone wrong. Commercial banks: we allowed them to get into the game of speculation and trading CDOs.
# Laws in the USA for years prevented commercial banks owning inestment banks. So American commercial banks invested in europe for more returns, because Europe did not have those rules of separation between commercial and investment banks, so European commercial banks gave higher returns.
# It is as though we have allowed our gambling brother to take over our finances!
# All in the game are greedy. Huge commisssions for turning over CDOs. A Porsche culture.
# Need to get bank to ... [What?]

[AB: What NO said emphasises the importance of attitude: pistic and ethical functioning. ]

# CA: In the 1930s we had the Great Depression. There was the same problem then: Commercial and investment banks were joined together. So, in the USA, they came up with the Glass-Steagall Act [1933], GSA, to separate the two types of bank. Europe however did not follow this.

# chat NO: time 16:47. Yes - my point.

# chat CM: time 16:47. Sorry I have to leave asap. thanks everyone!
# [CM left]

# CA. I think what happened there [in later decades?] was that, when US banks saw European banks joined together and offering greater returns, the US banks used the trick of going global, by working with [or even owning?] European banks. The Gramm-[Leach]-Biley Act [1999] came in, which [by repealing part of the GSA that maintained separation between commercial and investment banks] allowed this globalization [AB: Called "modernization"].
# In the UK there was some ring fencing, in which you can be one bank, but you must keep its commercial and investment activities separate.


--- Case: RBS [zem23]

# DW: What happened with RBS? RBS was for a long time seen as "stable" and thus "boring".
# CA: Same thing.
# The banks in Scotland were robust, because of Scotland's history. They were pioneers in how to keep themselves safe. Canadian banks got the ideas from Scotland (because they were colonized by Scots). And Canadian banks are doing very well now.
# In England, by contrast, banks evolved.
# Austrialian banks ... So UK [Scotland?] was supposed to be robust. But colony has changed.
# AB: RBS abandoned their frugal ways? # CA: Yes they abandoned. They had come up with a charter etc. [which allowed non-robust practices?] # AB: Do you know why they changed? # NO: One word "Greed!" Big ...
# [Ed. I think a bit of discussion was missed here, including about RBS in particular]

# CA: So that is why investment banks are basically going down. How much chances of boom to make money?
# Commercial banks deal with trade, international trade, which continues. International trade was still going on even during Covid-19. They have to service households, companies, etc. and hence trade continues.

# AB: It is all to do with attitude [c.f. NO's "Greed!"]
# CA: Its not the resources. ... Can be working in bank but follow a personal agenda etc. [AB: I think CA might have been referring to Porsche-culture investors.]
# Banks get blamed because they are near politics. That is wrong. Banks are supposed to be away from politics, concerned with what do with the economy.


----- Ending [zem24]

# DW closed in prayer.