Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

[peterbard]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

HI Yes well that is capitalism for you. So what is the alternative?

Look i totally agree with Nids points on the unenforceablity guide.
Creditors hae a duty yes a moral duty to be reasonable when the debtor runs into genuine trouble.
That is why for the last twenty years i have been working with people who push ethical lending. Unfortuanatley the world we live in, on the whole is not ethical or moral. So we have to do the best we can. But we should not give up, we should not say that morals dont matter or that they are irrelavant.

Peter

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hi Silverback,

That is one of the best commentaries on how it really works that I have ever read. i have known for a long time that only 3% of the country's money is actually underwritten by currency.

Perhaps people can start to understand why the politicians of any colour were persuaded to get rid of the gold standard and any real assets to underpin our economy.

And before anyone leaps in, my own son who worked in the "city" and has SFA qualis left this country because the corruption and blind eye turning that was going on.

Client accounts being emptied overnight so that the bankers could go gambling elsewhere in the world where markets were still open, the buying and selling of food commodities several times over without them leaving the warehouses whilst trading was closed to enhance the price for when the markets did open the next day. There is more.

Is anyone prepared to comment on the morality of that as well?

regards
Garlok

regards
Garlok

[peterbard]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I don't think many if any people start out that way Peter. But the banks are like drug dealers... do you arrest the person buying the drugs or do you go after the dealer who supplies.

In this case we MUST go after the supplier, they are giving to anyone who can't afford and the bank KNOWINGLY gives loans, CC increasing limits to those who can't afford.

Who really is at fault here?

Well i dont know, personally i have used credit myself as most of us have. How many would be abe to afford a car, a house or even a holliday without the use of credit. Whist on holiday lasr year i was ill and if it wasnt for my AMEX i would have been in deep do do as my insurance wasnt for paying up.

If you are saying that we must go after irresponsible lenders i would agree, but isnt that what these laws and regulations do Lets not forget there is such athing as personal responsibility. It is easy to blame other people for our mistakes but it is not always justified sometimes we just screw up dont we.

Peter

[Silverback]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

OK, I made up the bit about Bob the Builder and Eddy the Electrician, but the rest is all, sadly, frighteningly true.

Calling this "Capitalism" is no longer adequate. It's something else. It's gone beyond simple market mechanisms.

This is all out banking greed on a scale we have simply never seen before, compounded by complicit Governments around the Globe, run by weak Self-Serving Politicians who have engineered a blanket monopoly that denies true political and financial choice.

I do not see this as Left-Wing, Centre or Right-Wing, but more as common sense v banking greed gone utterly mad.

The huge problem is the twisted economies that go hand in glove with the bankers' requirements. Little of any real value is given a chance unless its main goal is to encourage Debt.

The world simply cannot afford the cost.

Silverback

[midastouch]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Thanks Silverback.

Explains why the world is in such a financial hole very nicely.

[DGJsaver]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hmmmm , `mutually acceptable solution` ?

That doesnt sound like how it works to me , that would indicate that creditors/DCA`s actually DO leave you alone to get on paying the debt back once terms are agreed ...but no , they harass , write , phone , add interest , charges , never leave you alone , whilst you carry on paying an amount MUTUALLY AGREED

There is only one side , if you dont fight them (if all else fails ie MUTUALLY AGREED PAYMENTS) that matters in the end , and thats the creditors , if you let them kill you , they will ,and they wont bat an eyelid at doing it

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I agree Silverback with what you are saying.

Also Peter, no one is actually saying that morality does not matter per se, of course it does matter and it matters a lot. The message, I certainly and others are trying to put across is that if you expect honesty, common decency, ethics, principled behaviour, compassion or consideration and help and support in trying to overcome your problems, then you are going to be SADLY DISSILLUSIONED.

As you correctly say that is capitalism, but why is it alright for one side to have to behave in an honourable way and not the other. That also is capitalism and the only way to deal with it is having to adopt the same basically unprincipled stance. Capitalism knows no other way, it expects nothing less.

regards
Garlok

[caspar]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Here is why I have no sympathy whatsoever for the banks and believe they deserve everything they get. I used to be in a very secure, well paid job (just short of 10 years ago and pulling in over £55000 a year). I then became extremely ill and was forced to retire early on health grounds aged just 42.

Now, when I was on the large salary I had all the support in the world from all financial institutions. When I became ill my salary went from £55K per annum to just £8K per annum overnight. My commitments obvously remained the same, so I did the right thing and contacted all the banks, card companies, etc... and told them about my situation (all cards had ppi and not one paid out one penny). Without exception they turned their backs on me and, now forewarned of my situation, demanded immediate repayment of everything which was obviously impossible.

As a direct result of this I've ended up losing my house, my future ability to take up paid employment due to the effect what they were doing did to my pre-existing medical condition and they've basically totally screwed up my life. I am now waiting to be made bankrupt.

I am sure I am not by any means the only one in this country to have gone through this. Any talk of having morality towards them is therefore extremely ill founded as morality towards your institution is much the same as respect in my opinion in that it has to be deserved. When you look how they treat people like me and then ask do they deserve it? For me, the answer is straightforward. No!

[peterbard]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I agree Silverback with what you are saying.

Also Peter, no one is actually saying that morality does not matter per se, of course it does matter and it matters a lot. The message, I certainly and others are trying to put across is that if you expect honesty, common decency, ethics, principled behaviour, compassion or consideration and help and support in trying to overcome your problems, then you are going to be SADLY DISSILLUSIONED.

As you correctly say that is capitalism, but why is it alright for one side to have to behave in an honourable way and not the other. That also is capitalism and the only way to deal with it is having to adopt the same basically unprincipled stance. Capitalism knows no other way, it expects nothing less.

regards
Garlok

Hi
Ithink that what you say is a philosophy of despair. I cannot believe that the only way to fight an unjust action is by another unjust action.


peter

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Peter it is not unjust your very own words were that that is the way it is.

In the cold war would you have thrown water bombs at those that had snow on their boots? Would you have gone out and bought a water pistol to protect your family?

The principle is the same, you said it, Capitalism which by definition is Dog Eat Dog.

regards
Garlok

[caspar]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

The problem is Peter, what alternative do we realistically have? We behave in a moral way towards them, then they behave atrociously towards us, yet expect the same morality to continue. That, I'm afraid, is simply not living in the real world, and anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

[peterbard]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Here is why I have no sympathy whatsoever for the banks and believe they deserve everything they get. I used to be in a very secure, well paid job (just short of 10 years ago and pulling in over £55000 a year). I then became extremely ill and was forced to retire early on health grounds aged just 42.

Now, when I was on the large salary I had all the support in the world from all financial institutions. When I became ill my salary went from £55K per annum to just £8K per annum overnight. My commitments obvously remained the same, so I did the right thing and contacted all the banks, card companies, etc... and told them about my situation (all cards had ppi and not one paid out one penny). Without exception they turned their backs on me and, now forewarned of my situation, demanded immediate repayment of everything which was obviously impossible.

As a direct result of this I've ended up losing my house, my future ability to take up paid employment due to the effect what they were doing did to my pre-existing medical condition and they've basically totally screwed up my life. I am now waiting to be made bankrupt.

I am sure I am not by any means the only one in this country to have gone through this. Any talk of having morality towards them is therefore extremely ill founded as morality towards your institution is much the same as respect in my opinion in that it has to be deserved. When you look how they treat people like me and then ask do they deserve it? For me, the answer is straightforward. No!

Hi
You are of course right, this is extremely unfair treatment, although immoral?
I have been in a simillar position myself, and councilled manny others who have also.

I am sure that the banks would say that morally they where acting in the best interests of their investors to whom they owe the greater fiduciary duty.

Not that this excuses their actions in any way of course, but it may well be one the courts would support if the fairness of their actions was not taken into consideration.
Peter

[peterbard]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

The problem is Peter, what alternative do we realistically have? We behave in a moral way towards them, then they behave atrociously towards us, yet expect the same morality to continue. That, I'm afraid, is simply not living in the real world, and anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

We have the laws and rights that are displayed on forums like these for a start.
Using the rights that have been granted to us under these pieces of legislaion is not immoral, all that is being prescribed here ,if i read nid correctly, is that we excersise our rights uner the law when all else has failed, nothing wrong with that. It s what law is for, to protect the weak.
Peter

[The Debt Star]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Here is why I have no sympathy whatsoever for the banks and believe they deserve everything they get. I used to be in a very secure, well paid job (just short of 10 years ago and pulling in over £55000 a year). I then became extremely ill and was forced to retire early on health grounds aged just 42.

Now, when I was on the large salary I had all the support in the world from all financial institutions. When I became ill my salary went from £55K per annum to just £8K per annum overnight. My commitments obvously remained the same, so I did the right thing and contacted all the banks, card companies, etc... and told them about my situation (all cards had ppi and not one paid out one penny). Without exception they turned their backs on me and, now forewarned of my situation, demanded immediate repayment of everything which was obviously impossible.

As a direct result of this I've ended up losing my house, my future ability to take up paid employment due to the effect what they were doing did to my pre-existing medical condition and they've basically totally screwed up my life. I am now waiting to be made bankrupt.

I am sure I am not by any means the only one in this country to have gone through this. Any talk of having morality towards them is therefore extremely ill founded as morality towards your institution is much the same as respect in my opinion in that it has to be deserved. When you look how they treat people like me and then ask do they deserve it? For me, the answer is straightforward. No!

Which is why adverse data should not be so widely abused by the banks and lenders as well. I feel very strongly about this and the 'tude is very much "you defaulted and we are obliged to file it with the CRAs." No matter what the circumstances and for 6 years to boot. The whole system needs to be overhauled and made more accountable to individual circumstances and exceptions.

[caspar]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hi
You are of course right, this is extremely unfair treatment, although immoral?
I have been in a simillar position myself, and councilled manny others who have also.

I am sure that the banks would say that morally they where acting in the best interests of their investors to whom they owe the greater fiduciary duty.

Not that this excuses their actions in any way of course, but it may well be one the courts would support if the fairness of their actions was not taken into consideration.
Peter

Moral = Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

You state this was unfair treatment, or put another way wrong treatment, so yes, by its very definition immoral.

As for fiduciary duties, what about their fiduciary duty to their customers? Without any customers, they would have no investors, so to whom should their primary fiduciary duty lie?