Topic: Why the Animosity Towards Banks - page 2. (Read 319 times)
There are many obvious reasons why we should prefer bitcoin than our regular banking system. I assume you can transfer money between accounts within no time but have you ever tried internation transfers? The banks can process overseas transfers not before a minimum required period of 24 hours while in bitcoin system your settlements are processed immediately. The another differance i have kept in notice is that you can spend limitlessly but banks have always limits
One of the biggest reasons that I love the idea of BTC and crypto in general is because I hate the unpredictability and inflationary nature of fiat money supply.
And how is BTC predictable? Last year at this time it was valued 10 times less than now. I just don't see why this community has this hatred towards big banks so I'd love to understand some of the reasons people have.
I think the big reason why people hate banks is because they control your money, hell the money that you deposit in the bank isn't even in the bank they use it to give out loans and stuff. With BTC people get 100% over their funds and I think most people like that control, I do too. 
By the way, don't forget the regime change in russia led by Lenin/Stalin was funded by international bankers.
Mao Zedong's revolution also was funded by banks. Fidel Castro likewise was probably funded by banks. It wouldn't be surprising if Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong and all of the other communists/socialists also received banker support.
Banks engage in worldwide regime change and utilize their influence towards bringing about widespread paradigm shifts which can result in wars, genocide, the deaths of millions and also the enslavement of entire nations looking at russia under Stalin's regime. As far as I know, this continues to the current day.
Looking at communists and socialists around the world, bankers are likely those who fund those campaigns and influence schools into indoctinating students into having pro socialist/communist worldviews.
I know there are lots of other good reasons to not believe banks are the good humanitarian institutions they would have us believe, its hard to think of them all.
I would say bitcoin can't be used to launder money. The transaction would be recorded publicly and it would be too easy to trace.
The only case I know of an attempt to launder money involved a woman stealing money from credit cards and bank loans, then using crypto to try to anonymize her transactions as she tried to transfer the funds to ISIS. But of course, her last transactions were to a series of banks and so whatever role crypto played in her attempting to launder money was very minimalized and she was caught.
In the case of HSBC bank, we have hard evidence of banks laundering money for terrorists over a period of decades and they still do it to the current day as there has been no real effort made to stop them.
Mao Zedong's revolution also was funded by banks. Fidel Castro likewise was probably funded by banks. It wouldn't be surprising if Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong and all of the other communists/socialists also received banker support.
Banks engage in worldwide regime change and utilize their influence towards bringing about widespread paradigm shifts which can result in wars, genocide, the deaths of millions and also the enslavement of entire nations looking at russia under Stalin's regime. As far as I know, this continues to the current day.
Looking at communists and socialists around the world, bankers are likely those who fund those campaigns and influence schools into indoctinating students into having pro socialist/communist worldviews.
I know there are lots of other good reasons to not believe banks are the good humanitarian institutions they would have us believe, its hard to think of them all.
I am a big fan of cryptocurrency and I do not like the banks at all. Banks are very corrupt and create a lot of trouble for people and I agree with your other points.
But bitcoin can also be used for laundering money can't it?
But bitcoin can also be used for laundering money can't it?
I would say bitcoin can't be used to launder money. The transaction would be recorded publicly and it would be too easy to trace.
The only case I know of an attempt to launder money involved a woman stealing money from credit cards and bank loans, then using crypto to try to anonymize her transactions as she tried to transfer the funds to ISIS. But of course, her last transactions were to a series of banks and so whatever role crypto played in her attempting to launder money was very minimalized and she was caught.
In the case of HSBC bank, we have hard evidence of banks laundering money for terrorists over a period of decades and they still do it to the current day as there has been no real effort made to stop them.
You all have laid out solid and fundamental reasons as to why banks are hated but I believe the biggest one was missed and I will explore that. The biggest reason why I and most people here probably hate banks is because
-They exclude more than 75% of the world from financial services
And that fact alone makes me sick to my stomach. I could go on a rant for two hours about how inhumane, and terrible that is but I think we all here know the power and ruthless nature of banks. Think of that 75% next time you think we are just mad at the banks alone.
-They exclude more than 75% of the world from financial services
And that fact alone makes me sick to my stomach. I could go on a rant for two hours about how inhumane, and terrible that is but I think we all here know the power and ruthless nature of banks. Think of that 75% next time you think we are just mad at the banks alone.
- As noted above banks have laundered money for terrorists, drug cartels, organized crime and russians over the past 10-15 years
I am a big fan of cryptocurrency and I do not like the banks at all. Banks are very corrupt and create a lot of trouble for people and I agree with your other points.
But bitcoin can also be used for laundering money can't it? [/list]
Wiring fees aren't the issue.
Look what happened in Greece. The government and the banks worked together to keep people from taking their OWN MONEY out of the banks. They had to wait hours and hours to get to an atm to withdraw 300 euros at a time. Do you even understand what that feels like? If you have $10,000 and someone that you're paying service fees to to hold your money on your behalf says "you can't have it back right now" . It's a fucking ponzi scheme then?!!?!?
That's what bitcoins are really about.
Look what happened in Greece. The government and the banks worked together to keep people from taking their OWN MONEY out of the banks. They had to wait hours and hours to get to an atm to withdraw 300 euros at a time. Do you even understand what that feels like? If you have $10,000 and someone that you're paying service fees to to hold your money on your behalf says "you can't have it back right now" . It's a fucking ponzi scheme then?!!?!?
That's what bitcoins are really about.
go back to a gold standard or completely adopt crypto.
Jesus, those are alternatives on the complete opposite sides of the spectrum. I'd say going back to a gold standard is ridiculous at this point, at least in the U.S. We've gotten so far into the free money printing that I don't think there's any going back from this--there isn't enough gold in the world to back all the money we've printed. It was a nice thing for many years to have something backing up the currency, but I don't think that's even necessary anymore.
The crypto idea is more of a solid one, but I don't think governments OR banks are going to get behind this unless they come up with their own crypto. Bitcoin will forever remain borderless, IMO. Banks are always on the receiving end of hate because they have all the fuckin' money, plain and simple, and they charge you for it. I don't think they're afraid of crypto, but they sure as hell are being slow to adopt it. Not sure they ever really will.
One of the biggest reasons that I love the idea of BTC and crypto in general is because I hate the unpredictability and inflationary nature of fiat money supply. If it were up to me, we would get rid of the US Federal Reserve and go back to a gold standard or completely adopt crypto. But one of the other big reasons that people seem to gravitate towards crypto is the hatred of big banks. I'm wondering why that is. I use Chase and I never have to pay any fees to wire money, move money around my accounts. Yeah, the bank pays out only tiny bits of interest but I don't feel like I'm getting robbed by these banks in any way. When I need to transfer money, I use PayPal, when I have to buy stuff I use my credit card and I get points for it. I just don't see why this community has this hatred towards big banks so I'd love to understand some of the reasons people have.
Look at all the bail outs, prime examples of why it's such a mess.
Read this news story. It will help explain some of the negative sentiment towards banks.
The most obvious reasons for negative sentiment against banks:
There are many other good reasons. I think that if people don't recognize banks as being a negative influence--it has to do with them being uninformed and unaware of past history.
Quote
HSBC Helped Terrorists, Iran, Mexican Drug Cartels And Shady Russians Launder Money, Senate Report Says
JUL 16, 2012
A Senate report released ahead of the embargo time revealed that HSBC’s lax anti-money laundering policies allowed Mexican drug money, Iranian terrorist money, and even suspicious Russian money to enter the U.S. and gain access to U.S. dollar liquidity over the last couple of years.
The report, released late on Monday despite a 10 PM embargo time, was prepared by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and counted with the support of Senators Carl Levin and Tom Coburn.
In a year-long investigation, the Subcommittee found that HSBC violated several rules, exposing the U.S. financial system to “a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing.” According to the report, HSBC’s Mexican affiliate channeled $7 billion into the U.S. between 2007 and 2008 which possibly included “proceeds from illegal drug sales in the United States.”
UPDATE: In a statement, HSBC acknowledged that "in the past, we have sometimes failed to meet the standards that regulators and customers expect." Vowing to improve their oversight and compliance with the law, they committed to fixing what is wrong, taking the opportunity to learn from previous mistakes.
HSBC actively circumvented rules designed to “block transactions involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes.” In one case, “two HSBC affiliates sent nearly 25,000 transactions involving $19.4 billion through their HBUS [HSBC’s U.S. affiliate] accounts over seven years without disclosing the transactions’ links to Iran.”
They provided U.S. dollar financing and services to banks in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh that were tied to terrorist organizations, while also clearing $290 million in “obviously suspicious travelers cheques” that benefitted Russians “who claimed to be in the used car business.”
Furthermore, the investigation showed how the bank’s regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) failed to take a single enforcement action against HSBC despite numerous violations by the international bank. Among them, failing to monitor $60 trillion in wire transfer and account activity, a backlog of 17,000 unreviewed account alerts regarding potentially suspicious activity, and a failure to conduct anti-money laundering due diligence before opening accounts for HSBC affiliates.
Senator Levin, whose scolding of Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein during a hearing on collaterized debt obligations made him a well-known face in Wall Street, was hard on both HSBC and their regulator:
Due to poor AML [anti-money laundering] controls, HBUS exposed the United States to Mexican drug money, suspicious travelers cheques, bearer share corporations, and rogue jurisdictions. The bank’s federal bank regulator, the OCC, tolerated HSBC’s weak AML system for years. If an international bank won’t police its own affiliates to stop illicit money, the regulatory agencies should consider whether to revoke the charter of the U.S. bank being used to aid and abet that illicit money.
The Senate’s Subcommittee will reveal its findings on Tuesday during a Congressional hearing that will include testimony by HSBC officials and federal regulators. This report is the latest in a string of embarrassments for the world’s major banks. Only a few days ago, JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon finally revealed further details on the so-called London Whale trades (which reportedly cost the bank more than $5 billion), while the on-going Libor manipulation scandal sparked a series of lawsuits that could be difficult to swallow for Barclays and other institutions involved.
HSBC’s New York-traded shares fell in post-market trading, as the report was leaked. After a 0.3% decline during the trading session, the stock dropped 2.5% to $42.50 by the end of aftermarket trading.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/07/16/hsbc-helped-terrorists-iran-mexican-drug-cartels-launder-money-senate-report-says/
JUL 16, 2012
A Senate report released ahead of the embargo time revealed that HSBC’s lax anti-money laundering policies allowed Mexican drug money, Iranian terrorist money, and even suspicious Russian money to enter the U.S. and gain access to U.S. dollar liquidity over the last couple of years.
The report, released late on Monday despite a 10 PM embargo time, was prepared by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and counted with the support of Senators Carl Levin and Tom Coburn.
In a year-long investigation, the Subcommittee found that HSBC violated several rules, exposing the U.S. financial system to “a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing.” According to the report, HSBC’s Mexican affiliate channeled $7 billion into the U.S. between 2007 and 2008 which possibly included “proceeds from illegal drug sales in the United States.”
UPDATE: In a statement, HSBC acknowledged that "in the past, we have sometimes failed to meet the standards that regulators and customers expect." Vowing to improve their oversight and compliance with the law, they committed to fixing what is wrong, taking the opportunity to learn from previous mistakes.
HSBC actively circumvented rules designed to “block transactions involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes.” In one case, “two HSBC affiliates sent nearly 25,000 transactions involving $19.4 billion through their HBUS [HSBC’s U.S. affiliate] accounts over seven years without disclosing the transactions’ links to Iran.”
They provided U.S. dollar financing and services to banks in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh that were tied to terrorist organizations, while also clearing $290 million in “obviously suspicious travelers cheques” that benefitted Russians “who claimed to be in the used car business.”
Furthermore, the investigation showed how the bank’s regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) failed to take a single enforcement action against HSBC despite numerous violations by the international bank. Among them, failing to monitor $60 trillion in wire transfer and account activity, a backlog of 17,000 unreviewed account alerts regarding potentially suspicious activity, and a failure to conduct anti-money laundering due diligence before opening accounts for HSBC affiliates.
Senator Levin, whose scolding of Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein during a hearing on collaterized debt obligations made him a well-known face in Wall Street, was hard on both HSBC and their regulator:
Due to poor AML [anti-money laundering] controls, HBUS exposed the United States to Mexican drug money, suspicious travelers cheques, bearer share corporations, and rogue jurisdictions. The bank’s federal bank regulator, the OCC, tolerated HSBC’s weak AML system for years. If an international bank won’t police its own affiliates to stop illicit money, the regulatory agencies should consider whether to revoke the charter of the U.S. bank being used to aid and abet that illicit money.
The Senate’s Subcommittee will reveal its findings on Tuesday during a Congressional hearing that will include testimony by HSBC officials and federal regulators. This report is the latest in a string of embarrassments for the world’s major banks. Only a few days ago, JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon finally revealed further details on the so-called London Whale trades (which reportedly cost the bank more than $5 billion), while the on-going Libor manipulation scandal sparked a series of lawsuits that could be difficult to swallow for Barclays and other institutions involved.
HSBC’s New York-traded shares fell in post-market trading, as the report was leaked. After a 0.3% decline during the trading session, the stock dropped 2.5% to $42.50 by the end of aftermarket trading.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/07/16/hsbc-helped-terrorists-iran-mexican-drug-cartels-launder-money-senate-report-says/
The most obvious reasons for negative sentiment against banks:
- As noted above banks have laundered money for terrorists, drug cartels, organized crime and russians over the past 10-15 years
- Banks caused the economic crisis of 2008 with their irresponsible handling of derivatives, lack of legitimate regulation is also responsible
- Banks have contributed towards economic crisis in greece and elsewhere in the world
- Banks have been known to discriminate against workers in the adult entertainment industry(chase bank) and other small business owners
- Banks often create economic and foreign policy for major nations which decrease standard of living and redistribute wealth away from the poor and middle class to the super wealthy
There are many other good reasons. I think that if people don't recognize banks as being a negative influence--it has to do with them being uninformed and unaware of past history.
I think mostly it's the idea that corporations do not do what is best for their customers and are abusing their power to take advantage of the poor and unfortunate, it's mostly a 'f%!k the establishment kind of mentality.
One of the biggest reasons that I love the idea of BTC and crypto in general is because I hate the unpredictability and inflationary nature of fiat money supply. If it were up to me, we would get rid of the US Federal Reserve and go back to a gold standard or completely adopt crypto. But one of the other big reasons that people seem to gravitate towards crypto is the hatred of big banks. I'm wondering why that is. I use Chase and I never have to pay any fees to wire money, move money around my accounts. Yeah, the bank pays out only tiny bits of interest but I don't feel like I'm getting robbed by these banks in any way. When I need to transfer money, I use PayPal, when I have to buy stuff I use my credit card and I get points for it. I just don't see why this community has this hatred towards big banks so I'd love to understand some of the reasons people have.
Jump to: