from the we-promise-to-be-honest-from-now-on dept.
A recent study by the University of Zurich shows that bankers are substantially more dishonest than other professionals (abstract is in German). Interestingly, this is tied closely to their profession. As private individuals, they are just as honest (or dishonest) as anyone else. However, as soon as they are reminded of their profession, their dishonesty soars. The study draws the conclusion that the context and standards of the profession are the problem.
Of course, anyone who has been paying attention has long suspected this to be true. It is interesting that it has now been demonstrated in an objective study, and that a University was bold enough to do this in a country known for its banking industry. Perhaps this will help sow the seeds of much-needed reform?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday November 23 2014, @12:35PM
In the pre-industrial era people were serfs to the dominant local landlord. In the industrial era people and landlords are serfs to banksters. If you can get resources without rent, you are more likely to win this system.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday November 23 2014, @01:01PM
Lately I have begun to wonder if we can't transform finance entirely into a non-profit activity that is conducted through institutions like credit unions. The Too Big To Fail banks and the bankers in them have done and are doing enormous damage to democracy and humanity. Even as it is they are quickly digging even deeper with dark pools and front-running trades. Their criminality is vast, and if we as a species don't deal with them completely and harshly and soon it will lead to the mother of all collapses.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday November 23 2014, @04:39PM
It's not a complete solution, but the one thing most ordinary people can definitely do to reduce the power of big banks (if only a little) is move their deposits out of banks and put them into a credit union. It's usually a good tradeoff, because in exchange for the hassle of making the switch you are likely to get better interest rates for whatever you have in the account, and fewer or no fees: since credit unions are owned by their depositors, they're more motivated to treat them well.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 23 2014, @04:44PM
Lately I have begun to wonder if we can't transform finance entirely into a non-profit activity that is conducted through institutions like credit unions.
I don't see why not. Credit unions would be a lot more popular, if it weren't for the artificial restrictions on who can use them.
The Too Big To Fail banks and the bankers in them have done and are doing enormous damage to democracy and humanity.
"Too big to fail" is a convenient myth. The solution is to allow them to fail when they fail.
Even as it is they are quickly digging even deeper with dark pools and front-running trades.
Which are not activities that banks engage in. Dark pools are IMHO a good idea since they route around regulatory damage and introduce competitiveness into securities markets. Front trading is an imaginary problem which afflicts large traders doing predictable trading.
Their criminality is vast, and if we as a species don't deal with them completely and harshly and soon it will lead to the mother of all collapses.
Get rid of "too big to fail". That is sufficiently complete and harsh.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday November 23 2014, @05:40PM
Those "restrictions" are now so open that just about anyone can find a credit union that they can join.
(Score: 1) by dry on Sunday November 23 2014, @06:29PM
Credit Unions are pretty socialist, what with being owned by the people instead of the masters and if there is anything American news has taught me, socialism is bad. Next you'll be preaching using co-ops, another socialist idea designed to take away the profits from poor private enterprise.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Sunday November 23 2014, @10:13PM
Worth checking out the recent history of the Co-Op bank in the uk... http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/22/uk-coopbank-results-idUKKBN0GM0DY20140822 [reuters.com]
Not designed to take profits from anything - rather to make large losses and fund drugs and rent boys for the guy at the top, losing the money of the small investors in the process.
(Score: 2) by d on Sunday November 23 2014, @01:08PM
The second paragraph is disgustingly pompous. If you're not agreeing with me, you're not paying attention!
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Sunday November 23 2014, @03:37PM
Thus speaks someone who hasn't been paying attention.
After all the misdeeds associated with tie 2008 crash, the top criminals were prosecuted^H^H^H^H^H
changed positions on the merry-go-round and are still in positions of power. Still, the banks have surely learned their lesson.
Right, of course they have. [theguardian.com] Most recently, six international banks were fined for rigging exchange rates [bloomberg.com]. It's not the cashier at the window who is dishonest. It's the top level traders and the bank management, and the problem seems to be systemic.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Sunday November 23 2014, @05:29PM
Well, yes and no. Banking strikes me as similar to another pariah career - intelligence.
Soylentils know that there have actually been FIVE NSA whistelblowers, with Snowden being #4, hence "CitizenFour". Binney, Drake and Wiebe were the first three, and has anyone heard anything more of the fifth unnamed guy who was raided by the FBI? Unfortunately the organisation kept crushing dissent and creating surveilance systems that WILL be used to suppress citizens (if history is any guide).
We've certainly had plenty of banking whistleblowers too, but just like the NSA the banks crush the few internal dissenters, subvert politics to their own ends, and exploit their customers to such an extent that the very stability of the global economic system and the livelyhoods of billions is treatened.
There must be something about the culture of such organisations that turn average employees into psychopath simulators, though that's not to say that whistleblowers aren't amazing for being able to swim against that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24 2014, @07:46AM
Considering Occams Razor, perhaps the simplified answer would be that sociopaths are naturally drawn to these institutions and their associated positions of power, rather than some intrinsic property of these organizations makes them psycho-factories.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kaethy on Sunday November 23 2014, @01:09PM
Many years ago I was a bank teller. I quit in less than a year, for the usual reasons, it was low pay, boring, etc.
But I also HAD to quit, because I couldn't stop thinking of ways to take money without getting caught.
I imagine sitting in an office, with all those numbers crossing your desk would have a similar effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 23 2014, @01:52PM
Repeat with (used) car salespeople. PR "professionals". Lawyers. Damn, the list goes on.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Justin Case on Sunday November 23 2014, @02:12PM
I'm done with banks, but I can't seem to think of a good alternative.
Banks seem to run among the most insecure web sites out there.
Recently a "customer service" agent glibly explained to me that they will cheerfully pull money out of my account at the electronic request of any random stranger worldwide who happens to guess a number, without the slightest attempt to verify identity or trace where the transaction goes so it can be reversed. So anonymous fraudulent outflows, no problem. But dare I try to give money to a bank by opening an account and suddenly all sorts of paperwork and proof of identity is required.
It is just backwards, stupid, and begging to be exploited.
And then when some Russian hacker does trick my bank, not me into sending a bunch of money overseas, completely without my involvement, they have the nerve to claim my identity and my money was stolen, not theirs.
With all the retail chains that have been hacked lately, what is going to happen when a bank is hacked in a big way and completely cleaned out? Will the bank admit yeah, we blew it? Or will they blame their customers for being mass simultaneous victims of "identity theft"? And how would you prove your innocence? Or collect damages from the rigged court picked by the bank that you can't appeal?
So what are the alternatives?
Invest my life savings in bitcoin??!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kaethy on Sunday November 23 2014, @02:43PM
CREDIT UNIONS.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by dlb on Sunday November 23 2014, @03:33PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Bill Dimm on Sunday November 23 2014, @03:25PM
In the experimental group, the participants were reminded of their occupational role and the associated behavioral norms with appropriate questions.
What does the part that I boldfaced mean? Did they say: "Remember, you are a banker, and bankers rip people off." Their results could be very sensitive to whatever that boldfaced part is supposed to mean.
(Score: 1) by gumby on Sunday November 23 2014, @04:28PM
Correlation != causation
(Score: 1) by Pseudonymous Coward on Sunday November 23 2014, @08:21PM
How the hell do you even make a difference between 'substantially [more] dishonest' and 'a tiny bit [more] dishonest'?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 23 2014, @09:26PM
How the hell do you even make a difference...
It's actually an interesting study--rtfa. Not sure that the experimental design is perfect, but it is a start.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday November 23 2014, @09:27PM
Even the summary disproves that hypothesis.
"As private individuals, they are just as honest (or dishonest) as anyone else. However, as soon as they are reminded of their profession, their dishonesty soars."
I'd need to really read the study to decide exactly what it means, but the above suggestion of repeating the study with various different occupations is important. Another thing to study might be "is the dishonesty restricted to particular domains?". So, taking the summary at face value, it's an interesting study, but not, in an of itself, conclusive. (Also it would need to be replicated, both exactly and with variations in procedure. Whoops! too many variables.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.