Reform the Personal Banks

Hello again! Been a small while since my last post but thesis writing has been taking up most of my time lately. I’ll have a blog soon about some of that but today I want to write about what I feel needs to be done about our banking system. 

My blog is based on something I read a few weeks back. Mr Irvin hits the nail on the head quite well with his points and I just wish to touch on a few important points, points that I personally want to throw out there for your interpretation. When I look at the banking industry today I see nothing, absolutely nothing but greed. I see no one but the average person getting hurt by the irresponsibility of our current financial system. The last great act that we had to protect us was the Glass-Steagall Act. I say us collectively because as the biggest unregulated financial sector, the US has the ability to destroy what we have. I think it’s time we nationalise our personal banking system so that what people invest and save can not be touched or mercilessly gambled away like in 2008. I look at the bonuses that the financial sector ‘rewards’ itself with for its ‘hard’ work and I ask myself, if the average person was actually provided with a savings account that was rewarding for them, how much fairer and equitable would society be? Consider the pipe dream of a bank director getting a bonus of €10,000 instead of a few hundred thousand euro, or even the millions that some get, and the rest of the money being given to the loyal customers whose money the banks make fortunes from. You know, a decent savings account rate that rewards your average person for making the effort to save. I’d have a separate investment banking side that businesses could invest in and they could take risks with their money. You know, a business (the bank), taking both calculated and insane risks with another businesses money. And I wouldn’t allow a personal bank have an affiliation with a corporate bank. We’ve seen how easy it is for them to suck money from one to the other to cover losses. I’d certainly give business banks the ability to borrow capped amounts from personal banks. Nothing so great that they could bankrupt a personal bank; However it would be enough so that if they needed a short-term loan, it would be an available avenue for them. I’d also make sure that these loans were fairly high interest due to the risky nature of the loan. The interest the personal banks earn helps reduce personal interest rates on loans for customers and/or adds to the kitty for improved savings and investment rates for their personal customers. I’m fed up with hearing about how the financial sector needs less and less regulations, that they need tax breaks, that a Robin Hood tax would put too great a burden on the financial sector in ‘difficult’ times for them.

Rubbish.

Maybe not in Ireland, but worldwide the biggest banks are still doing ok. Their directors are still taking home insane salaries. They’re still paying out stupid bonuses. Meanwhile the people are unemployed, starving and their governments have somehow been hoodwinked into bailing out the financial institutions. Two countries stood tall and told the banks and world institutions where to stick their recapitalisation plans – Iceland and Denmark and they’re doing ok. We need to bring services back to the people and make them for the people. Not for corporate profit. Corporations profit massively from short-term bets and the CEO’s take so much money from the companies that when things go arse up, there’s no money left to help the companies they run.

« To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them. »
Montesquieu

I think banks should be run a bit more like Credit Unions. They should be there to serve communities and the people in them. Loans should be available and interest rates should be dependent on the nature of the loan. Children’s Education? Minimal interest rate. Necessary home improvements? Low interest rates. A second or third car? Medium rates as it might not be necessary. Shopping trips? High interest rates for discretionary, unnecessary spending. These are only examples of course but I’m just throwing ideas out there! There has to be a better way to run our banks and make them work for us. Institutions may complain that without massive salaries then they can’t entice the ‘best’ to manage them. Em…. The best did a right old job on the world economy in the last 5 years. How about moderate salaries starting at €60,000 rising to €100,000 after 5 years of proven ability? You want more money? Ok then. Go elsewhere. Oh look – a hungry, employee who has worked under you for the last number of years and is perfectly qualified to take over your position. A position needs to be filled? Oh look – a qualified graduate who would be delighted to have a job in which career prospects are good and it’s a solid job. Want the excitement of the private boom and bust banks? By all means – go work for them. In no way is this aiming to restrict people and their job choices. I think a higher management turnover provides more job opportunities to our graduates. It means fresh ideas are constantly being brought from our Institutes of technology, our Business Schools and our Universities. People no longer get lifetime positions on gigantic salaries and pensions. Job security is not affected as if you prove yourself capable of doing the job – then it’s yours. Just like it is now. But you work for the honest growth of an institution; Not for gigantic profits at year-end and therefore a gigantic bonus for you. Even the Financial Times has opinions bubbling to the surface for a redistribution of bank wealth to make the banks more competitive. (You'll need to register free with the FT to read the citation)

“Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending” – Maria Robertson

 Change needs to come soon

Is It Time To Go Small?

Size matters. Ask anyone and they’ll all have their own reasoning:

“I enjoy a larger size” says Mark.

Nadine disagrees: “A small one packs more punch. All you need is a shot of caffeine in the morning. That’s why I like an espresso.” Mark of course, is into his frothy latte so enjoys the ‘grande’ beverage offered by some.

Now what I’m going to write about is probably impossible to achieve in this day and age but what I hope to provoke is thinking! Think about the possibilities of downsizing society. My reasons for doing so can obviously be debated, and I may be taking the most extreme examples but I believe extreme is what works. There’s so much out there today that makes us say “oh. That’s terrible” and click to the next news story.

So here it goes.

I believe that a downsizing of society is necessary. I believe that we are proving ungovernable as sizable entities and I believe this is being shown by countries like Greece, Spain and even America. It is too hard to govern from one particular city, a vast country with so many differing political philosophies. I believe that it is easier to corrupt someone who is far from their electorate than someone who lives and works amoung their voters. I hope my following examples will help my cause of why I’m beginning to believe that less is more.

The nation state system we currently live in emerged after the Treaty of Westphalia. We had defined borders, ones which other states could not interfere in. All well and good until the transnational ‘person’ came to be: the corporation. The world we live in right now is being overly influenced by the power of the multinational corporation. Their size and their power are massive influences on so many lives. Most worryingly, their monetary influence in democracies is ever increasing. America is going to have the most expensively bought presidency this November. The figures being mentioned are just frightening and sickening. Not wanting to state the obvious, but when you invest millions and millions of  $’s, €’s or £’s in a parties or individuals campaign, then it’s expected they repay your ‘generosity’ by passing laws that benefit you, the donor.

But it seems to have come to a stage where the laws and bills passed, are nothing but a gigantic benefit to corporations and are eating away at our humanity. The mantra is now consistently ‘profit before anything’, be it humanity or the environment. And personally I find this very troublesome. Capitalism has taught a large section of humanity to care, not about each other, but about their ‘stuff’. People’s concerns now are about their property. While laws are passed that “don’t affect me” people don’t care. This apathy is allowing big business buy control so much of what affects us and what we do. People who want out of this society and want away from the corporate bought governments are finding that laws written to protect them, are not there for the people any more.

In regard to the environment, well it truly is frightening what corporations are doing. Bad news? Lets just buy silence. Artic is considered off limits for oil drilling? Let’s buy our way to that limit. Lets prove that everyone has a price. It’s hard not to write they’re proving that everyone is corruptible, but for the most part, people live in the here and now, for themselves. If someone offers them facilities that they previously didn’t have, they accept. No thought is given to the generations that we’re passing this earth to. It’s going to be in some state. There are some victories for the small guy, but they’re becoming so rare and localised that it’s disheartening for the society we live in. Look at some of the other battles that are on going and you realise the relentless push corporations engage in. They have the means to keep on fighting in the courts and as shown in this amazing documentary they are becoming less able to lose, if indeed they lose at all.

Smaller society could prove more difficult to buy as individual communities would need to be negotiated with. A government based in Dublin for example, couldn’t just sign away the rights to an oil field in Cork. Responsible governments like Norway’s for example, are increasingly difficult to elect. Lies are told to get people into power and so it exists until the next lying, sorry, election cycle. Look at what is possible with a government for the people. A solution where society as a whole benefits, and the people get a little bonus also. But how many countries firstly have the ability to stand up to corporations, backed up by the countries governments they’ve bought, or are brave enough to do so?

Now I know downsizing what we have is nigh impossible, but what I hope to show in this writing is that it is possible; small victories have been won but we need to want this change to last. By having smaller society, communities will be willing to fight for each other more. I think this would lead to a ‘decommercialising’ of our lives, but what we would lack in capitalist consumerism, we could enrich our humanity with. I’m not asking for a return to pre technological era, I think that technology could only improve the community experience. We are all, after all, one big worldly community. But I believe energy needs can be met locally with the improvements in solar energy, wind power and wave energy. My examples above of small victories, I believe more are possible in smaller society. Local, small victories make nice stories in a national press. Nice stories that are forgotten about a few months down the line by all those except those that fought.

We need to have more than symbolic victories which corporations simply show their cunning and patience, in order to win at all costs.

My argument is currently thin, it needs fleshing out, but these are just my formative thoughts!

Gear Grinding

A famous cartoon personality once had a famous phrase “you know what really grinds my gears”?

Well, you know what grinds my gears? Religion. It is just something that the more I read about and try and learn about, the more ridiculous the whole thing becomes to me. I’m going to write about a few personal experiences that are leading me to a life of pure Atheistic bliss.

A few things recently (and one thing a few months back) have led me to write this non-too controversial blog. I have always been a quiet observer on religious issues and tried to keep out of any debates or discussions on religion and didn’t want a label of an atheist, agnostic or secularist. I didn’t feel the need to involve myself in learning more, or exploring more. No idea why – I just didn’t. That began to change when I attended a debate in UCC back in February where Michael Nugent spoke, and spoke very well, about the need for a secular state. Adnan Rashid was also in attendance speaking for Islam. What really got through to me at this debate, was Michael Nugent speaking without the need to force his beliefs on anyone in attendance. He spoke about the need to keep religious belief separate and private. No belief system should make or influence the making of rules in a society. Nothing at all wrong with that. What got through to me from Adnan was the need for RADICALISATION. DEATH TO THE INFADELS! Ha! I jest! …..hey it’s my blog – I’ll jest when I want. But seriously, he spoke eloquently and clearly, but the points were all stemming from the same belief. That good comes from his religion, that his religion helped create scientific advances. That you need religion for your morals. That Islam does this and it does that. Maybe it does for him – but what I’m asking today is:

‘Why can’t people give themselves the credit’?

Yes - we are a miracle; but of science! We are supposed to be rational beings. Why can’t we give ourselves the credit for what we do?! I went to hear Richard Dawkins speak in the National Concert Hall in June and his talk inspired me to join Atheist Ireland. I find it more important than ever to support causes that are societal driven. Fighting for a secular state merely means fighting for equality for all. You can have your beliefs, but in the private sphere.

Now here’s where I get controversial. Throughout history, different societies have had different gods. All as fake as the next. The only thing I do not doubt the existence of is a man, yes a MAN, named Jesus. There is evidence to suggest that a man named Jesus was around in the years he is said to have been. But he was not and is not a god. What is my reasoning? Well let’s look at how unique his story is:

Not very unique is it? As for the ‘god’ argument? I’ve always been amazed by the fact, the two ‘great’ religions of today, Christianity and Islam, began in the Middle East. It also amazes me that for an all knowing all powerful ‘being’ who wanted all of humanity to know about him, he didn’t do a great job of exporting his message to places like Asia….. Australia…… Europe……. The Americas. Especially as ‘he’ ‘created’ the first two people. I mean, that’s a really bad game of Chinese whispers if your message is passed on by the people you created and you end up with lots of different religions, and hundreds if not thousands of different churches a few thousand years down the line. Where’s ‘his’ voice to remind people of the right way?! Where was he during the Lutheran, Calvinist reformations? How about the major one of Henry VIII calling bullshit on the pope and his power? If the pope truly was and is this gods mouthpiece on earth – why no comeuppance for England as a nation? Why did this god not smite this heathenous nation?  There’s one simple reason – he doesn’t exist. Why would he have allowed the gigantic hunt for witches? Why would he not have given a simple hint as to the world’s position as a planet in a solar system orbiting the sun? Why not a quick whisper to the pope, or to any of the priests of whom so many hear his ‘calling’ but then don’t hear much else. So many questions – so much proof as to the stupidity of it all.

The above reasons are merely a slight peek into my thoughts on the ridiculousness of the Christian religion. There are obviously newer examples to use as to why this god doesn’t exist but that will be for another blog, another day. This little rambling will lead nicely into another blog on religion for a close date in the future. I’m writing my thesis on religion and law and I might condense some of my findings, writings on the matter into a short blog post here. It’s made for a fascinating research topic so sharing would be good! So remember:

Bike Trek: Episode 1 – Trekacide, A Bike For A Snip

So here I am again…. 3 blogs in under a week. The writing bug has (hopefully) well and truly bitten me. This little ramble shall be bike related. As my title suggests, all is not well in my bike world. Some langers stole my bike from UCC over 10 days ago and I’ve been feeling a little empty since. Partly my own fault – I only had a cable lock on it which didn’t even put up a struggle for me. It just lay there like a cheap lockwhore and gave the thief/thieves my bike. 

 I should have done in UCC what I do in the city – lock my cobra lock with my D-lock and it’s highly unlikely it would have been taken. I was planning on selling it in the near future anyway so I had already thought of a Trekless future, well this particular Trek, I shall more than likely be purchasing another one. It was a great, nay, an amazing bike. So many memories with it! It was amazing to me however that even in such a public place, the thieves managed to take it! And even more amazing was that the CCTV quality up in UCC is quite honestly, terrible. A letter shall be on its way to try and get more investment into that for their own benefit. 

What really hit home about the whole episode however, was just how vulnerable us cyclists are to theft. It’s not something I had thought about until I started trying to do something about the theft. I reported it to the Gardai, but I was told it’s highly unlikely they’ll find it and even more unlikely that I’ll ever see it again. Now that’s not a criticism – I know how impossible a task it is for them to find a bike especially as it has probably made its way up the country at this stage. On the contrary, even following the recommended steps of reporting a crime early and giving as much detail as possible about your stolen goods proves more or less pointless when it comes to bike theft. Even if the CCTV in UCC had been good and we had seen someone at the bike – all that would ultimately prove is that someone definitely took it! While there are insurance companies offering cover now, it just feels bad that once your baby is gone – it’s gone! Highly unlikely you’ll ever see it again! Especially if it’s a valuable one.

My learned lessons? Better locks, all the time, everytime. 

And insurance. Because you never know when this distressing event could happen again. The only consolation is the therapy. Bicycle shopping therapy for a new one! And hopefully my new locks won't leave me in this situation.....

Legalise Prostitution

Two blog posts in two days! Wow! I’m back on the writing train baby! After my little ramble yesterday about football, I’m back today with something a bit more topical for Ireland. There’s a public consultation which ends in a few weeks and there's been lots of talk here in Ireland currently regarding prostitution and whether or not we should follow Sweden’s path of criminalising the purchasing of sex. I for one am firmly against the idea. I have to admit, I was on the fence a few months back but I wrote an essay (Should Prostitution Be Legalised) for my course that opened my eyes in a big way. Sweden it seems, has never fully investigated the impact their laws have had on prostitutes, or as I prefer to call them - sex workers.  It does however like to throw about stats ‘proving’ that they’ve curtailed prostitution in their country. All well and good I hear you say; but it’s far from the truth. In 2004, prior to implementing Sweden’s exported moral law, a report by the Norwegian justice ministry “cited evidence of an ‘increased fear of attack’ among Swedish prostitutes, who found it harder to assess their clients because transactions had to be agreed hastily or on the telephone.” Even in 2001, (*note* this link will open a PDF) the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) expressed concern that “the Swedish legislation may have rendered prostitutes more vulnerable, and asked the Swedish Government to evaluate the effects of the law.” 

 (image found on http://www.nerditorial.com/newsandopinion/the-ultimate-catch-22-prostitution-laws-in-contemporary-britain.html)

NGOs like Ruhama in Ireland who want the Swedish model implemented – (Please note that Ruhama are the main opposition to sex worker rights being established in Ireland and are also a powerful religious anti-sex work organisation. Ruhama is a joint initiative of the Good Shepherd Sisters and Our Lady of Charity Sisters, who have been caring for Ireland’s ‘fallen women’ since 1848 and 1853 respectively) - argue that another deterrent of this style of anti-prostitution law is that it would curtail the trafficking of women. On their website they say that prostitutes tend to be women who “were trafficked into prostitution in Ireland but a significant number were trafficked or prostituted into other countries but escaped to Ireland. Now while living here, they have sourced Ruhama for help.” ‘In Whose Name?’ – the largest study of migrant sex workers in the UK to date raised a few issues. It argued that there is a climate of fear being created amongst sex workers due to increasing police activity that is driven by “hype and misinformation promoted by NGOs who are ideologically opposed to commercial sex.” This claim is backed by the ‘Turn Off the Blue Light’ campaign in Ireland: “There is currently a “Turn Off the Red Light” (TORL) campaign being run by an alliance of organisations. They say they want to end prostitution and sex trafficking and ‘the solution’ is to criminalise the purchasers of sex. We believe the real agenda is to have their own ideology on sex work enacted as law.” The Metro focused on the same ‘In Whose Name’ study and reported “the majority of sex workers who were asked in a study say they prefer working in the sex industry to menial jobs where they are less likely to achieve such a good standard of living.”

Legalising prostitution would offer an honest, societal government driven support system for the sex workers. Not an ideologically, moral, religious driven propaganda machine, but an actual support service to these workers. No system is going to achieve perfection. What you want is a system that protects the people that are going to be involved. Ultimately, they’re the ones that suffer. People have to decide whether they want prostitution to be visible, or if they’d prefer the menace of invisibility. One would hope that society could allocate the resources to take the menace out of it full stop. Legalisation and regulation can mean discreetness and safety.

A little football rambling

Ahhh, what’s there left to write that hasn’t already been written about where we currently are with the state of football. One of my favourite bloggers, Mr AB, touched on this today in his blog ‘Sheik, Rattle and Roll’.  With the recent announcement from Milan that Ibrahimovic and Motta are on their way to Paris, he said that we’re “heading even further into ludicrous Championship Manager territory” and he is right. But, was I one of the few who got bored of the Championship Manager ‘system’ of taking over a rich club, along with your own, who then bought your youth and reserve team for millions while selling their own first team (conveniently) to you for a pittance?! Winning got boring. I loved managing what I had, mainly at Arsenal, but sometimes starting at the bottom with a Conference club and properly budgeting for the players the club could afford and when I won something, found it much more satisfying! …… yes yes I am talking about a computer game but in my defense, it was during my Champ Man addiction filled youth….. just imagine what I’ll be like in real life  when Arsenal win the league next season! My satisfied ego will be smug all over your face! Read into that what you will!

But back to the main story, the only thing I can personally say about this move to Championship Manager style football is that football is going to get very boring very quickly with the oil money currently spilling around. In fact, the oil money can be seen to metaphorically be an oil spill over football – the rich companies get to carry on as normal and buy positive PR for the shit storm they’re perpetrating (usually an extra couple of million on the transfer fees), some select few benefit, (yes Arsenal have been a beneficiary) while the least protected get to deal with the spillages, the slicks and the faux interest from the media while it’s considered ‘news’.  The teams in the lower reaches of football must be sickened looking at the sums of money being thrown about. The oil riches are currently overflowing from Manchester, Paris and Malaga (and I’m not forgetting the Russian in Chelsea) and it truly is destroying football. It is sad to see teams like AC Milan and Arsenal losing their best talent due to the massively inflated wages on offer from these oil clubs.  Now don’t misunderstand my point here – there have always been and always will be clubs that can afford bigger wages and have attracted the top talent, but when this is done organically, i.e. the Arsenal way, the Manchester United way or Real Madrid way – paying what you as a club, business or organisation can afford – all well and good. What the oil money is doing is concentrating talent between four to five clubs and it massively skews the market for everyone else. It might be naivety on my part, but how much money do you need to be happy? How much can one person truly spend in their lifetime? RvP was offered a reported £130,000 a week to stay at Arsenal. That he wants more, to me, is sickening. But that’s football life I guess. The idealist in me sighs and hopes for change, the realist knows I’ll still be there with Arsenal no matter what!

What has Mahon told us?

On Thursday here in Ireland, a small report was released called the Mahon Report. Now I’m not going to go into what it was or what it investigated, enough has been written about that. What I’m going to comment on is what I feel it says about us as a nation, the implications and I’m going to hypothisise on if things have and will change. The following strongly worded paragraph sums up the national psyche in my view:

“The general apathy on the part of the public towards that corruption meant that there was insufficient pressure from the public to compel their representatives to take firm action to curtail or eliminate it” is a most damming statement. Mahon attempts to allow some public wiggle room by saying that “this apathy may in turn have been attributable to a lack of understanding regarding the corrosive and destructive nature of corruption” but in my view, it’s more down to the lack of actual caring. Talk to most people on the street today and they’re fine complaining about the issue, but ask them what they’re prepared to do about it and you get an awkward stare as they try and find their excuse as to why they don’t have time to do anything or you get the age old ‘question’ – “sure what can we do about it? They’re all the same.” Unfortunately in one sense, that annoying cliché is slightly true in Ireland. But as a small island nation, we could look to Iceland for inspiration.  Terrible regulation and the banks ruined their economy. They’ve voted in a completely new style of government. So change can come, but people must really want it.

Another case in point for me would be the treatment of the ‘Occupy’ movement. These were people who took to the streets to fight the injustice people complained about on the radio airwaves, on the news, to the papers, to friends/family/neighbours. If you disagree with them – fine. But the hatred that was being thrown at them towards the end of their days in both Dublin and Cork was excessive. They did more to try and fight the injustices put upon us by the banks and successive governments than most people will do in a lifetime. They were willing to make a stand and when I hear and heard people saying they were unemployed, hippies, freaks etc., it bugged the bejaysus out of me. People do realise it takes many different types of people to make a society yeah? And that some will make different choices to others? Choosing to make a stand against the unfair capitalist society we currently live in was extremely admirable. Why do others feel the need to be such dicks and talk down the people who did this?

The Mahon Report will change little unfortunately. People immediately complained about the cost of it (without acknowledging that it brought in more money to that state than the state spent) and the people implicated in it of course denied everything. Vincent Browne succinctly sums it up when he says that “corruption never gets punished here because there is no will to do so. And ex-ministers found to have been corrupt will keep their pensions until their dying day.”  If there was real national will, that would translate to political will as people would be onto their elected representatives to change the system.  The evidence here of course is the fact that Michael Martin backed Bertie to the hilt, defending his ‘integrity’ and his ‘truthfulness’ during the last years of the Mahon Tribunal. The same Michael Martin now wanting to expel Bertie from the Fianna Fáil party for his behaviour.

An interesting way to question and look at this whole political malaise and societal disinterest would be to ask a philosophical question: Have the Irish People as a whole been turned completely ‘Docile’? Is it too controversial to ask if our ‘discipline’ by the British so severe that we’re now a politically docile people with only the few willing to challenge authority or fight? Or has time now elapsed enough to point the finger squarely at we, the Irish nation, have we just slipped into docility? Too few care, too many don’t. When the power rests with the few to make changes for the uninterested many, can the many honestly complain when things like the banking crisis occur?