This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to enable >some real competition.It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need to >go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives.
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to enable >>some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need to >>go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate change scam >bandwagon.As above, we don't know that . . .
Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several levels. >- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living (provided it
is legal).
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial actions. >- It is none of their business.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, cllearly you have not.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives.
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to enable >>>some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need to >>>go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
a particular business has anything to do with climate change? Many
businesses that call themselves petrol stations transact other
business as well - and the article refers to “businesses like petrol >stations and mines.” The article also indicates that banks have said
that this is part of a commitment to climate change goals - and if
that is true, and a particular bank considers that important to them,
they are entitled to act on it.
As above we do know that.Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate change scam >>bandwagon.As above, we don't know that . . .
I suspect that petrol / service stations have not proved sufficientlyAs above, read it.
robust in the competitive market developed mostly during the term of
the Labour-led governments - Luxon prefers cartels like the
electricity companies and supermarkets that can make easy profits -
but so probably do the banks.
Read the article, clearly you have not.Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several levels. >>- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living (provided >>it
is legal).
They will be judging whether the company is a good risk to lend to -
and whether services such as credit card outlets can be justified in
remote locations. Generally everyone would prefer not to work in a >competitive market that keeps profit margins low, but has it crossed
your mind that this is really just our market economy working for once
as it is supposed to work?
Luxon has of course never worked in a market that was highlyYes he was, highly competitive, perhaps in the top handful of competitive businesses. You really need to get out and meet people.
competitive;
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial actions. >>- It is none of their business.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, cllearly you have not.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives.
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to enable >>>>some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need to >>>>go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
a particular business has anything to do with climate change? Many >>businesses that call themselves petrol stations transact other
business as well - and the article refers to “businesses like petrol >>stations and mines.” The article also indicates that banks have said
that this is part of a commitment to climate change goals - and if
that is true, and a particular bank considers that important to them,
they are entitled to act on it.
As above we do know that.
Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate change scamAs above, we don't know that . . .
bandwagon.
As above, read it.
I suspect that petrol / service stations have not proved sufficiently >>robust in the competitive market developed mostly during the term of
the Labour-led governments - Luxon prefers cartels like the
electricity companies and supermarkets that can make easy profits -
but so probably do the banks.
Read the article, clearly you have not.
Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several levels. >>>- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living (provided >>>it
is legal).
They will be judging whether the company is a good risk to lend to -
and whether services such as credit card outlets can be justified in
remote locations. Generally everyone would prefer not to work in a >>competitive market that keeps profit margins low, but has it crossed
your mind that this is really just our market economy working for once
as it is supposed to work?
Yes he was, highly competitive, perhaps in the top handful of competitive >businesses. You really need to get out and meet people.
Luxon has of course never worked in a market that was highly
competitive;
Abuse gone
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial actions. >>>- It is none of their business.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 03:52:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, cllearly you have not.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/a particular business has anything to do with climate change? Many >>>businesses that call themselves petrol stations transact other
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives. >>>I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to enable
some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need to
go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
business as well - and the article refers to “businesses like petrol >>>stations and mines.” The article also indicates that banks have said >>>that this is part of a commitment to climate change goals - and if
that is true, and a particular bank considers that important to them, >>>they are entitled to act on it.
As above we do know that.
Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate change >>>>scamAs above, we don't know that . . .
bandwagon.
As above, read it.
I suspect that petrol / service stations have not proved sufficiently >>>robust in the competitive market developed mostly during the term of
the Labour-led governments - Luxon prefers cartels like the
electricity companies and supermarkets that can make easy profits -
but so probably do the banks.
Read the article, clearly you have not.
Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several levels.
- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living >>>>(provided
it
is legal).
They will be judging whether the company is a good risk to lend to -
and whether services such as credit card outlets can be justified in >>>remote locations. Generally everyone would prefer not to work in a >>>competitive market that keeps profit margins low, but has it crossed
your mind that this is really just our market economy working for once
as it is supposed to work?
Yes he was, highly competitive, perhaps in the top handful of competitive >>businesses. You really need to get out and meet people.
Luxon has of course never worked in a market that was highly
competitive;
Abuse gone
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial actions.
- It is none of their business.
Rather than singling out Banks that are discriminatory to customers
based on what they consider Climate Change exposure, I would have
thought that the Government would ask for advice from Kiwibank on how >Kiwibank could act to offset this.
National,in particular, are pro-business and pinning their economic
growth. This is another avenue to get advice from Kiwibank. That
advice could and should lead to viewpoints on competition and any
impediments Kiwibank faces to offering specific solutions that would
support exploiting gaps in Ozzie-owned banks services as well as
exploiting options that promote economic growth.
Kiwibank was not a result of any of the Coalition party policies, but
it is there and should be tasked with filling any service gaps from
other banks refusals to meet customer needs.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, cllearly you have not.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives.
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to enable >>>>some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need to >>>>go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
a particular business has anything to do with climate change? Many >>businesses that call themselves petrol stations transact other
business as well - and the article refers to “businesses like petrol >>stations and mines.” The article also indicates that banks have said
that this is part of a commitment to climate change goals - and if
that is true, and a particular bank considers that important to them,
they are entitled to act on it.
As above we do know that.
Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate change scamAs above, we don't know that . . .
bandwagon.
As above, read it.
I suspect that petrol / service stations have not proved sufficiently >>robust in the competitive market developed mostly during the term of
the Labour-led governments - Luxon prefers cartels like the
electricity companies and supermarkets that can make easy profits -
but so probably do the banks.
Read the article, clearly you have not.
Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several levels. >>>- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living (provided >>>it
is legal).
They will be judging whether the company is a good risk to lend to -
and whether services such as credit card outlets can be justified in
remote locations. Generally everyone would prefer not to work in a >>competitive market that keeps profit margins low, but has it crossed
your mind that this is really just our market economy working for once
as it is supposed to work?
Yes he was, highly competitive, perhaps in the top handful of competitive >businesses. You really need to get out and meet people.
Luxon has of course never worked in a market that was highly
competitive;
Abuse gone
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial actions. >>>- It is none of their business.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 03:52:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, it is nothing to do with market sectors.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, cllearly you have not.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/a particular business has anything to do with climate change? Many >>>businesses that call themselves petrol stations transact other
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives. >>>I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to enable
some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need to
go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
business as well - and the article refers to “businesses like petrol >>>stations and mines.” The article also indicates that banks have said >>>that this is part of a commitment to climate change goals - and if
that is true, and a particular bank considers that important to them, >>>they are entitled to act on it.
As above we do know that.
Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate change >>>>scamAs above, we don't know that . . .
bandwagon.
As above, read it.
I suspect that petrol / service stations have not proved sufficiently >>>robust in the competitive market developed mostly during the term of
the Labour-led governments - Luxon prefers cartels like the
electricity companies and supermarkets that can make easy profits -
but so probably do the banks.
Read the article, clearly you have not.
Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several levels.
- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living >>>>(provided
it
is legal).
They will be judging whether the company is a good risk to lend to -
and whether services such as credit card outlets can be justified in >>>remote locations. Generally everyone would prefer not to work in a >>>competitive market that keeps profit margins low, but has it crossed
your mind that this is really just our market economy working for once
as it is supposed to work?
Then you explain why they cannot just decide not to increase lending
to a particular sector.
Perhaps they just think that is in theirWho said they are breaking any law? Read the damn article.
interests in maximising profits - what law or rule are they breaking?
Read the article, get help with your comprehension and when you finally understand the very straightforward logic, go and put your sackcloth back on. Abuse goneYes he was, highly competitive, perhaps in the top handful of competitive >>businesses. You really need to get out and meet people.
Luxon has of course never worked in a market that was highly
competitive;
Abuse gone
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial actions.
- It is none of their business.
The banks have not tried to force anyone to take any actions - they
are just indicating an area where they are unlikely to accept
applications for loans.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 03:52:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, it is nothing to do with market sectors.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, cllearly you have not.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/business as well - and the article refers to “businesses like petrol >>>>stations and mines.” The article also indicates that banks have said >>>>that this is part of a commitment to climate change goals - and if
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives. >>>>I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to >>>>a particular business has anything to do with climate change? Many >>>>businesses that call themselves petrol stations transact other
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to enable
some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need to
go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
that is true, and a particular bank considers that important to them, >>>>they are entitled to act on it.
As above we do know that.
Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate change >>>>>scamAs above, we don't know that . . .
bandwagon.
As above, read it.
I suspect that petrol / service stations have not proved sufficiently >>>>robust in the competitive market developed mostly during the term of >>>>the Labour-led governments - Luxon prefers cartels like the
electricity companies and supermarkets that can make easy profits -
but so probably do the banks.
Read the article, clearly you have not.
Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several levels.
- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living >>>>>(provided
it
is legal).
They will be judging whether the company is a good risk to lend to - >>>>and whether services such as credit card outlets can be justified in >>>>remote locations. Generally everyone would prefer not to work in a >>>>competitive market that keeps profit margins low, but has it crossed >>>>your mind that this is really just our market economy working for once >>>>as it is supposed to work?
Then you explain why they cannot just decide not to increase lending
to a particular sector.
Perhaps they just think that is in theirWho said they are breaking any law? Read the damn article.
interests in maximising profits - what law or rule are they breaking?
Read the article, get help with your comprehension and when you finally >understand the very straightforward logic, go and put your sackcloth back on. >Abuse gone
Yes he was, highly competitive, perhaps in the top handful of competitive >>>businesses. You really need to get out and meet people.
Luxon has of course never worked in a market that was highly >>>>competitive;
Abuse gone
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial actions.
- It is none of their business.
The banks have not tried to force anyone to take any actions - they
are just indicating an area where they are unlikely to accept
applications for loans.
Abuse gone
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:52:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 03:52:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, it is nothing to do with market sectors.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Read the article, cllearly you have not.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives. >>>>>I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to >>>>>a particular business has anything to do with climate change? Many >>>>>businesses that call themselves petrol stations transact other >>>>>business as well - and the article refers to “businesses like petrol >>>>>stations and mines.” The article also indicates that banks have said >>>>>that this is part of a commitment to climate change goals - and if >>>>>that is true, and a particular bank considers that important to them, >>>>>they are entitled to act on it.
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to >>>>>>>enable
some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need >>>>>>>to
go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
As above we do know that.
Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate change >>>>>>scamAs above, we don't know that . . .
bandwagon.
As above, read it.
I suspect that petrol / service stations have not proved sufficiently >>>>>robust in the competitive market developed mostly during the term of >>>>>the Labour-led governments - Luxon prefers cartels like the >>>>>electricity companies and supermarkets that can make easy profits - >>>>>but so probably do the banks.
Read the article, clearly you have not.
Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several >>>>>>levels.
- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living >>>>>>(provided
it
is legal).
They will be judging whether the company is a good risk to lend to - >>>>>and whether services such as credit card outlets can be justified in >>>>>remote locations. Generally everyone would prefer not to work in a >>>>>competitive market that keeps profit margins low, but has it crossed >>>>>your mind that this is really just our market economy working for once >>>>>as it is supposed to work?
Then you explain why they cannot just decide not to increase lending
to a particular sector.
Perhaps they just think that is in theirWho said they are breaking any law? Read the damn article.
interests in maximising profits - what law or rule are they breaking?
Read the article, get help with your comprehension and when you finally >>understand the very straightforward logic, go and put your sackcloth back on. >>Abuse gone
Yes he was, highly competitive, perhaps in the top handful of competitive >>>>businesses. You really need to get out and meet people.
Luxon has of course never worked in a market that was highly >>>>>competitive;
Abuse gone
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial >>>>>>actions.
- It is none of their business.
The banks have not tried to force anyone to take any actions - they
are just indicating an area where they are unlikely to accept >>>applications for loans.
Abuse gone
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 01:52:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:52:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse gone, off topic sarcasm gone.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 03:52:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Read the article, it is nothing to do with market sectors.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Read the article, cllearly you have not.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives. >>>>>>>I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to >>>>>>>a particular business has anything to do with climate change? Many >>>>>>>businesses that call themselves petrol stations transact other >>>>>>>business as well - and the article refers to “businesses like petrol >>>>>>>stations and mines.” The article also indicates that banks have said >>>>>>>that this is part of a commitment to climate change goals - and if >>>>>>>that is true, and a particular bank considers that important to them, >>>>>>>they are entitled to act on it.
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to >>>>>>>>>enable
some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you >>>>>>>>>need
to
go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
As above we do know that.
Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate >>>>>>>>changeAs above, we don't know that . . .
scam
bandwagon.
As above, read it.
I suspect that petrol / service stations have not proved sufficiently >>>>>>>robust in the competitive market developed mostly during the term of >>>>>>>the Labour-led governments - Luxon prefers cartels like the >>>>>>>electricity companies and supermarkets that can make easy profits - >>>>>>>but so probably do the banks.
Read the article, clearly you have not.
Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several >>>>>>>>levels.
- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living >>>>>>>>(provided
it
is legal).
They will be judging whether the company is a good risk to lend to - >>>>>>>and whether services such as credit card outlets can be justified in >>>>>>>remote locations. Generally everyone would prefer not to work in a >>>>>>>competitive market that keeps profit margins low, but has it crossed >>>>>>>your mind that this is really just our market economy working for once >>>>>>>as it is supposed to work?
Then you explain why they cannot just decide not to increase lending >>>>>to a particular sector.
Perhaps they just think that is in theirRead the article, get help with your comprehension and when you finally >>>>understand the very straightforward logic, go and put your sackcloth back >>>>on.
interests in maximising profits - what law or rule are they breaking? >>>>Who said they are breaking any law? Read the damn article.
Yes he was, highly competitive, perhaps in the top handful of competitive >>>>>>businesses. You really need to get out and meet people.
Luxon has of course never worked in a market that was highly >>>>>>>competitive;
Abuse gone
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial >>>>>>>>actions.
- It is none of their business.
The banks have not tried to force anyone to take any actions - they >>>>>are just indicating an area where they are unlikely to accept >>>>>applications for loans.
Abuse gone
Abuse gone
Pathetic cowardly rhetoric from Rich also gone. He hates losing.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:52:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse gone, off topic sarcasm gone.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 03:52:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyRead the article, it is nothing to do with market sectors.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Read the article, cllearly you have not.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-lashes-banks-over-closing-petrol-stations-account/WGZ5FNKACBDF3PRP72MJZ63JCA/
It is not the business of banks to progress climate change initiatives. >>>>>>I do not think they are. What evidence do you have that not lending to >>>>>>a particular business has anything to do with climate change? Many >>>>>>businesses that call themselves petrol stations transact other >>>>>>business as well - and the article refers to “businesses like petrol >>>>>>stations and mines.” The article also indicates that banks have said >>>>>>that this is part of a commitment to climate change goals - and if >>>>>>that is true, and a particular bank considers that important to them, >>>>>>they are entitled to act on it.
This is a good example of why the banks need to be de-powered. Or to >>>>>>>>enable
some real competition.
As the article points out one needs to mine to get the minerals you need
to
go green.
It is indeed a crazy world.
As above we do know that.
Some will strongly disagree with that but they are on the climate change >>>>>>>scamAs above, we don't know that . . .
bandwagon.
As above, read it.
I suspect that petrol / service stations have not proved sufficiently >>>>>>robust in the competitive market developed mostly during the term of >>>>>>the Labour-led governments - Luxon prefers cartels like the >>>>>>electricity companies and supermarkets that can make easy profits - >>>>>>but so probably do the banks.
Read the article, clearly you have not.
Luxon is correct, the banks that are doing this are wrong on several >>>>>>>levels.
- They have no right to judge what their customers do for a living >>>>>>>(provided
it
is legal).
They will be judging whether the company is a good risk to lend to - >>>>>>and whether services such as credit card outlets can be justified in >>>>>>remote locations. Generally everyone would prefer not to work in a >>>>>>competitive market that keeps profit margins low, but has it crossed >>>>>>your mind that this is really just our market economy working for once >>>>>>as it is supposed to work?
Then you explain why they cannot just decide not to increase lending
to a particular sector.
Perhaps they just think that is in theirRead the article, get help with your comprehension and when you finally >>>understand the very straightforward logic, go and put your sackcloth back on.
interests in maximising profits - what law or rule are they breaking? >>>Who said they are breaking any law? Read the damn article.
Yes he was, highly competitive, perhaps in the top handful of competitive >>>>>businesses. You really need to get out and meet people.
Luxon has of course never worked in a market that was highly >>>>>>competitive;
Abuse gone
- They have no right to force their customers to take non-financial >>>>>>>actions.
- It is none of their business.
The banks have not tried to force anyone to take any actions - they
are just indicating an area where they are unlikely to accept >>>>applications for loans.
Abuse gone
Abuse gone
Pathetic cowardly rhetoric from Rich also gone. He hates losing.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:03:32 |
| Calls: | 9,809 |
| Calls today: | 11 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,190,267 |