Bank Underground, the blog written by Bank of England staff

As objectionable as such behavior might be, I find the understated names pretty amusing.

> The fact that banks technically face no limits to instantaneously increasing the stocks of loans and deposits does not, of course, mean that they do not face other limits to doing so. But the most important limit, especially during the boom periods of financial cycles when all banks simultaneously decide to lend more, is their own assessment of the implications of new lending for their profitability and solvency. By contrast, and contrary to the deposit multiplier view of banking, the availability of central bank reserves does not constitute a limit to lending and deposit creation. This, again, has been repeatedly stated in publications of the world’s leading central banks.

I get that banks provoke regular crises, so there are many that could be referred to, but I can't imagine this article was referring to the 2000 tech bubble.

(Can't complain about eg German banks too much in that regard. But the British banks are really the scum of the earth as far as `not being evil' to poorer customers is concerned..)

This is not a case of greater protection for "small people".

a) event that may trigger this protection is very rare

b) "small people" are getting shafted with excessive fees all the time

So no, you don't.

How about keeping agreements between bank and client clear and short? Richer clients don't get caught on those, poorer do.

Not to mention how banks now push European Countries to get rid of cash so they can earn more by bank accounts/transfer fees.

    > Do you know of a bank that has robbed from the small
    > people? I work in finance

Now you could split hairs here, and say that rather than technically robbing their clients, the banks involved merely cheated them, but as you follow with:

    > there's tremendous protection for the small people
    > in everything we do

Matt Taibbi sums it up nicely, so rather than paraphrase him, I'll just quote him:

    > > about two-thirds of all subprime loans between
    > > 2000 and 2007 were made to people who already
    > > owned their homes. The targets were often
    > > elderly, in particular men and women of color.
    > > Visiting loan officers convinced these borrowers
    > > to use the homes they'd poured their savings into
    > > their whole lives as ATM machines.

    > > The pitch was: refinance your home, and get a
    > > little extra spending money each month! Lots of
    > > people went for it. But there was mischief hidden
    > > in the fine print of many of these "refi" deals,
    > > which often quickly exploded. Before long, the
    > > now-departed agent's promises would evaporate into
    > > a toxic quicksand of debt, unforeseen penalties
    > > and foreclosure.

    > > "80-year-old African-American resident of the
    > > Baltimore area with a 714 credit score and a
    > > rock-solid credit file who received a subprime
    > > loan instead of a prime loan, and who was not told 
    > > that she may have qualified for a prime loan with
    > > better terms."
    > > "By the time she realized she had an
    > > adjustable-rate mortgage, and not the fixed rate
    > > she thought, it was too late,"

Tell me again about those protections for the small people? They sound great.

[0] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-line-that-may-...

[1] http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-07-12/news/bs-md-ci-we...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html

Banks moved LIBOR at will (sometimes for sushi), affecting all customers of banks.