However there's a vital layer of ambiguity in that story which made it more confusing for everyone involved: Coutts is a long standing "private bank" which makes a point of not serving everyone, only HNWIs, and Farage fell into both the "not rich enough" and "too politically exposed" categories.
> The current situation in the US is shameful, and while part of that shame should fall on the politicians and regulators, much of it rightly falls on the banks themselves
Like the lack of consumer protection and public safety in the US, at some point you have to accept that the public are also ultimately responsible through the ballot box. US financial control systems are driven firstly by the catch-all "war on terror", which since 9/11 has been used to justify any and all authoritarianism with public support, war on drugs ditto (despite state level legalization!), and thirdly evangelical support for Operation Choke Point.
The Farage situation hardly applies as an example, if at all.
From the linked Wikipedia page:
> NatWest, the owner of Coutts, initially claimed that he failed to meet the Coutts eligibility criteria of holding £1,000,000 or more in his account, following the expiry of his mortgage. NatWest instead offered him an account with the retail side of the bank.
So it's hardly a case of debanking a random Joe. It was only a higher-end account that was closed for not keeping the requirements for keeping it, and Farage was offered a normal account.
"After Farage went to the press about the closure, it was discovered that Coutts had closed Farage's account as they deemed him to be "at best seen as xenophobic and pandering to racists". Following media attention, the NatWest CEO, Dame Alison Rose, resigned."
And of course, debanking is not used against any "random Joe", it is a weapon to make sure the random Joe stays nothing more than a random Joe and does not express his opinions or reaches for any political influence not sanctioned by the bankers.
> It was later revealed that Farage's account was closed in part as Coutts felt that his beliefs and values did not align with theirs. In an internal dossier, Coutts wrote that he "is at best seen as xenophobic and pandering to racists" and considered a "disingenuous grifter".
I almost wrote about that case, but my post was getting long enough already. He was denied the fancy account he had and offered a basic account. Obviously you can have concerns about that (and note that this was a scandal, and ultimately brought down that bank's CEO), but it's certainly orders of magnitude less bad than being denied access to the banking system entirely.
> at some point you have to accept that the public are also ultimately responsible through the ballot box
Up to a point. Abusing some small minority is a well known failure mode of democracy, especially if you can paint that minority as bad people. And arguing that the public shouldn't be outraged about this because the public obviously approved of it is circular and backwards. Who do you even vote for to express outrage at debanking? It seems like the sort of thing that the CFPB should be stepping in to stop, so you vote D, but if you believe what the article wants you to believe (you shouldn't) then the problem is FINCEN so maybe you vote R and hope they dismantle it? IDK, flip a coin?
This did not avoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage_Coutts_bank_scand...
However there's a vital layer of ambiguity in that story which made it more confusing for everyone involved: Coutts is a long standing "private bank" which makes a point of not serving everyone, only HNWIs, and Farage fell into both the "not rich enough" and "too politically exposed" categories.
> The current situation in the US is shameful, and while part of that shame should fall on the politicians and regulators, much of it rightly falls on the banks themselves
Like the lack of consumer protection and public safety in the US, at some point you have to accept that the public are also ultimately responsible through the ballot box. US financial control systems are driven firstly by the catch-all "war on terror", which since 9/11 has been used to justify any and all authoritarianism with public support, war on drugs ditto (despite state level legalization!), and thirdly evangelical support for Operation Choke Point.