Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda
Very noble I'm sure, and nothing at all to do with an interest in securing profits. 
Barclays was the only major bank active in South Africa under apartheid, even though most international finacial insititutions decided not to operate there, and followed internationally imposed sanctions.
It's nice Barclays is helping those poor Africans open a bank account.
Here's an example of them helping a nice Mr. Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
Barclays' millions help to prop up Mugabe regime | Money | The Observer
Banks and other finacial insitutions are primarily concerned with profits, first and foremost.
Morals come way down the bottom of their checklist. |
always nice to only look at one side of an argument.
Barclays offered services to many ex Pats etc in countries like Zimbabwe for many many years before any troubles began and having the infrastructure also supported locals building a solid financial stable platform for them. So Mugabe goes pear shaped, morals dictate that you have to consider both sides of a situation. would you have liked Barclays to immediately withdraw all services from its clients in these countries? That in itself would cause utter chaos if it was even possible. How do you 'suddenly' distribute all teh funds you hold? This is itself would completely destabilse the countries financial stasis. It would be catastrophic in itself.
Secondly, here we are today with everyone winging about Gordon interferringing in the Banking industry. HOw do you even begin to suggest that in that country teh Banks should interfere in the Politics of that country. Barclays didn't 'endorse' Mugabe anymore so than teh UK itself did. What it did was make a moral judgement on what it thought was best for its clients irrespective of the political situation.