Some of these ‘rules’ or social contracts get defined or backed by the laws of the state.
A simple illustration of a social contract is the government’s supply of parks and open areas that are free and safe.
Another is the supply of banking services by entities who compete to ensure a range of essential financial services are available to the community. The state oversees and regulates these services for our good.
Pivotal to an effective banking system is the trust that customers place in banks to safeguard their money, provide loans, and facilitate transactions. In return, banks expect customers to abide by the terms and conditions of their financial products, such as maintaining minimum balances and repaying loans on time. This mutual trust focused on financial services ensures that the banking system functions smoothly, allowing individuals and businesses to manage their finances effectively.
Banking services are a social contract that hinges on trust, regulatory oversight, and the provision of essential financial services. Banks dominate the financial scene and are almost impossible to bypass.
In a disturbing departure from their passive community role several banks are using their preponderant leverage to inflict their own view of a moral code for their customers over climate change.
Demanding farmers pay penalty interest for not using their interpretation of methane emission mitigation measures is a giant nose thumbing to the social license they hold.
Refusing to fund petrol stations may be in the strictest terms, legal, but it is a troubling and disquieting departure from what the community expects and have accepted for a very long time.
There is a bad stench around these moves. Banks, who delight in reminding us they are competitive and differentiated, seem to be moving hand in glove. Do we still have a Commerce Commission? Are they being ‘guided’ from higher up?
We should be demanding that the boards of directors of the major banks immediately review and revoke any such moves. It is a grave misuse of a dominant position as an essential service – a flouting of a social contract.
Otherwise, the populace may well take the only action open to it and use their leverage to write more restrictive rules into their empowering legislation. Those rules may not be to their liking on associated issues.
Another is the supply of banking services by entities who compete to ensure a range of essential financial services are available to the community. The state oversees and regulates these services for our good.
Pivotal to an effective banking system is the trust that customers place in banks to safeguard their money, provide loans, and facilitate transactions. In return, banks expect customers to abide by the terms and conditions of their financial products, such as maintaining minimum balances and repaying loans on time. This mutual trust focused on financial services ensures that the banking system functions smoothly, allowing individuals and businesses to manage their finances effectively.
Banking services are a social contract that hinges on trust, regulatory oversight, and the provision of essential financial services. Banks dominate the financial scene and are almost impossible to bypass.
In a disturbing departure from their passive community role several banks are using their preponderant leverage to inflict their own view of a moral code for their customers over climate change.
Demanding farmers pay penalty interest for not using their interpretation of methane emission mitigation measures is a giant nose thumbing to the social license they hold.
Refusing to fund petrol stations may be in the strictest terms, legal, but it is a troubling and disquieting departure from what the community expects and have accepted for a very long time.
There is a bad stench around these moves. Banks, who delight in reminding us they are competitive and differentiated, seem to be moving hand in glove. Do we still have a Commerce Commission? Are they being ‘guided’ from higher up?
We should be demanding that the boards of directors of the major banks immediately review and revoke any such moves. It is a grave misuse of a dominant position as an essential service – a flouting of a social contract.
Otherwise, the populace may well take the only action open to it and use their leverage to write more restrictive rules into their empowering legislation. Those rules may not be to their liking on associated issues.
Owen Jennings, a former Member of Parliament and President of Federated Farmers, maintains a keen interest in ensuring agricultural policies are sensible and fit for purpose. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
Well said Owen!
There is an extremely “bad stench around these moves.” It’s cancellation in another form. If they expect accolades for such heavy handed, woke moralising they are much mistaken. I’m no fan of Gloriavale, or sex toy shops either, but I like debanking even less. The banks are not churches. Illegal activities aside, they’re in the business of money not morals and are highly likely to lose my business if they don’t change their tune quick smart. Setting out to lose customers? They really must be making too much money.
Banks demanding to be our moral leaders, hahahaha, you couldn't make this up.
Post a Comment