Some things are best run by market forces, others by public body. Some others are amenable to either. I would say that in broad terms consumer goods or things that can be easily commodified work reasonably well in a market environment. Food, clothes, cars, houses, appliances are examples of easy commodities. Institutions like government, the security services, and public works in general would be inappropriate for a market setting. Health, education and the arts curiously seem to be able to go either way.

One sector of society I believe should be a public entity run by civil servant types is banking. Money is fundamentally about agreements. Bank notes are promissory i.e. they are pieces of paper with a promise written on them: ‘I promise to pay the bearer’ - in other words, an agreement. A loan, a mortgage, an insurance policy, these are all simply agreements made between parties. The job of the big institutions such as banks is above all else to keep score of all the agreements made.

Traditionally this was not so far removed from how it was. Banking was a service conducted in an atmosphere of urbanity. Bankers were straight players, safe hands, people who could be trusted not to run off with the dosh. A bank manager was a virtual cliche of dependability and prudence. Within a decade all changed. Banks are now thrusting exemplars of consumerism competing in tough markets trying to sell their ‘products’. Branches have been restyled as retail outlets. Staff are now recruited as sales people. Loans are products.

There is something just a bit ridiculous about this. An agreement is not a product. It is something negotiated between contributing parties. For it to be fair an element of equity has to be upheld. With agreements as products there is no negotiation and equity is reduced. Different terms are seen as just different products to be 100% predetermined by one side in the bargain - the bankers. The consumer has no real position here other than to choose another ‘provider’ who will be offering virtually identical ‘products’ in a similar manner. By doing this bankers tarnish the integrity at the heart of their own system.

Why so? Well I suppose just to get in on the consumerist act is part of it. Also because they can. This is the era of rampant capitalism and everyone wants a slice. Bankers are well placed. Traditionally they were dull and boring. No one with any flare would pursue such a career. In a pre-information society banking was a white-collar job for those without the talent or imagination to do better. But now from some marketing person’s abstraction has come the notion of banking as high-powered and exciting. Even they can be cool now. The contemporary fetish for commodity has allowed them to re-invent themselves as businesses who sell products in a competitive market. The cut and thrust of capitalism is fully theirs too. But it’s a deception not least to themselves. In fact they’re still just banks doing what they’ve always done: keeping the score. The scorekeeper shouldn’t be on the field. He should be on the touch watching the play.