Instead, there were a variety of controls of which some could be influenced by bankers, some could be influenced by the government, and some could hardly be influenced by either.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In addition to their power over government based on government financing and personal influence, bankers could steer governments in ways they wished them to go by other pressures.
The connection which formerly existed between the Government and banks was in reality injurious to both, as well as to the general interests of the community at large.
The history of the last century shows, as we shall see later, that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally.
Of course, bankers were always interested in making money. But when bankers had clients, they bore some responsibility for the clients' welfare.
The banking collapse was caused, more than anything, by bad government policy and the total failure of bad regulation, rather than by greed.
Before the arrival of the Credit Union, people who were from the poor background or a working class background couldn't borrow from banks.
The way the bankers have kind of toppled the way money is distributed, and taken most of it into their own hands, is as good as Stalin or Hitler.
Bankers cannot afford to be concerned with only the economic aspects of projects. There may be serious implications on the natural environment, the urban environment, on human culture.
What the study I chaired actually said was we needed tougher regulation of cash and capital in banks, as credit was too easy. Events proved that right.
Let's be honest: It wasn't just the banks who messed up. There were a lot of people who tried to buy assets they couldn't afford. That's a reality.
No opposing quotes found.