Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#21

Post by ehnto » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 3:35 PM UTC

terminous wrote: post #9

> "I deal only with my regulars … I refuse strangers." > ‘They are mostly strangers to us, and we just have to play it by ear in deciding whether to accept a cheque’, said an official.” Sounds like a recipe for discrimination and inequality, which isn't mentioned in either article.

1970s Ireland was very homogenous, which is to say white. It wasn't until the 90s that immigration began flowing in the other direction to a meaningful degree. So while I agree with you, it was unlikely a problem at the time.

Although that doesn't cover gender or class discrimination so I suppose that was still an issue.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#22

Post by wodenokoto » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 3:38 PM UTC

The article really wants to imply that because this worked, we shouldn't be afraid of "too big to fail", but it doesn't dare say that and kinda of ends up sitting between two chairs.

"I'm not saying that banks crashing isn't bad, but it wasn't a problem for Ireland to have banks disappear"

but the thing is, according to the article, trust in banks never disappeared, neither did the banks. People kept writing cheques against their bank accounts. There was a clear expectation that banks would open with all money intact and cheques would be processed.

That is a very different scenario from a bank failing.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#23

Post by NikolaNovak » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 3:39 PM UTC

The link is extremely light on detail so in skeptical

1. What was the extent of the strike? Did salaries still get deposited? Did inter company transfer go through? Did exchanges stay open? Did lines of credit for businesses small and large stay open?

2. The whole "we knew who had money and we didn't deal with strangers" makes me suspect there's a whole other side of this particular story.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#24

Post by corethree » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 3:50 PM UTC

tekla wrote: post #14

becquerel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The class divide isn't based around an arbitrary salary, or specific job positions. It's whether you have hire/fire powers and you make money off of other people's labour, rather than selling your own. Hollywood actors and famous football players are often very rich, but they sell their labor to get by. They don't own the means of production

> They don't own the means of production They literally own the means of production, their bodies and minds. No one is forcing them to sign contracts for a million dollar salary, they can do the exact same acting/athelete-ing with a $100 smartphone.

Relax AI are now in the verge of evening the playing field for actors. Athletes not yet, unless we have AI starting to generate completely made up sporting events.

The later is extremely possible given how much data there is and how similar it all is.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#25

Post by harpiaharpyja » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 3:50 PM UTC

wodenokoto wrote: post #22

The article really wants to imply that because this worked, we shouldn't be afraid of "too big to fail", but it doesn't dare say that and kinda of ends up sitting between two chairs. "I'm not saying that banks crashing isn't bad, but it wasn't a problem for Ireland to have banks disappear" but the thing is, according to the article, trust in banks never disappeared, neither did the banks. People kept writing cheques…

This is a huge equivocation by TFA. When we think of banks failing we typically think of situations where banks can no longer honor deposits.

What the article describes is nothing of the sort. It was a strike, which is a breakdown of operations, not insolvency.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#26

Post by digdugdirk » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 3:50 PM UTC

booleandilemma wrote: post #20

becquerel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The class divide isn't based around an arbitrary salary, or specific job positions. It's whether you have hire/fire powers and you make money off of other people's labour, rather than selling your own. Hollywood actors and famous football players are often very rich, but they sell their labor to get by. They don't own the means of production

It's whether you have hire/fire powers and you make money off of other people's labour I think creating a hierarchy of managers and workers is just another tool that the people with power use to control everyone else. Surely my direct manager has more in common with me than the CEO? Am I wrong to think this? Wouldn't the CEO see both managers and their teams as mere workers?

100% correct. That was the gist of my original point. In Corporate America, unless you're in the C-suite or sitting on the board, you're not in the club. The corporate ladder makes it seem as though the middle management levels are on the path to being upper class, but they're in the same position as everyone else. They just drive a nicer car while doing so.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#27

Post by corethree » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

wodenokoto wrote: post #22

The article really wants to imply that because this worked, we shouldn't be afraid of "too big to fail", but it doesn't dare say that and kinda of ends up sitting between two chairs. "I'm not saying that banks crashing isn't bad, but it wasn't a problem for Ireland to have banks disappear" but the thing is, according to the article, trust in banks never disappeared, neither did the banks. People kept writing cheques…

How were bankers not skinned alive?

If someone owes you or I money and then suddenly they go on strike there will be a vicious reckoning.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#28

Post by mlyle » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

version_five wrote: post #11

terminous wrote: post #9

> "I deal only with my regulars … I refuse strangers." > ‘They are mostly strangers to us, and we just have to play it by ear in deciding whether to accept a cheque’, said an official.” Sounds like a recipe for discrimination and inequality, which isn't mentioned in either article.

Right, much better for everybody to be screwed in the name of equity.

While keeping something running via an informal system is better than nothing, and most people might be okay... if you're just kinda shifty looking or unpopular at the moment in your local pub and have a much harder time than everyone else, that's not exactly great.

That is, it's not only the common experience that matters, but the outliers too. The basic tools of society should be available even if you're ugly, annoying, or a minority.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#29

Post by barrkel » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 3:58 PM UTC

Back in the 90s in Ireland, my mother would occasionally cash a cheque at the pub - if it's not crossed payee a/c only, the bearer can generally cash it themselves.

Going further back, pubs were the local shops for general dry goods, particularly in rural communities. I recall some dusty window displays in some pubs even in the 1980s, when I was a kid.

Re: Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

#30

Post by RecycledEle » Sun, Oct 01, 2023, 4:02 PM UTC

booleandilemma wrote: post #20

becquerel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The class divide isn't based around an arbitrary salary, or specific job positions. It's whether you have hire/fire powers and you make money off of other people's labour, rather than selling your own. Hollywood actors and famous football players are often very rich, but they sell their labor to get by. They don't own the means of production

It's whether you have hire/fire powers and you make money off of other people's labour I think creating a hierarchy of managers and workers is just another tool that the people with power use to control everyone else. Surely my direct manager has more in common with me than the CEO? Am I wrong to think this? Wouldn't the CEO see both managers and their teams as mere workers?

I see the divide as being between those of us who created wealth by working vs. those who do not create wealth and instead play zero sum and negative sum games.