And in 2007, as central banks in the United States and Europe aggressively cut interest rates, Mr. King stubbornly kept British rates fixed, arguing that any such loosening would unfairly reward bad banking behavior.
And it is why, last week, I found myself drawn to an article in the June issue of The Harvard Business Review that argued for a handful of simpler ways to restrain banking behavior.
"I am no apologist for British banking, but if this attempt to blame London succeeds it will give comfort to all the banks breaking the rules in the United States," said Mr. Mann, who is a member of the parliamentary committee that will broadly scrutinize British banking behavior after the Barclays episode.
While most bill pay options remain offline or are web-based (biller direct or online banking), behavior is changing.
Congress wants to empower the Treasury Department to prevent any country, government or financial institution that harbors crooks or does "not adhere to the higher standards of banking behavior" from taking part in the U.S. marketplace.
For one thing, the minus 0.1% rate is too small to change banking behavior.
Its general terms were mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, which imposed numerous regulatory changes on corporate and banking behavior in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.
The shift in consumer banking behavior has also tracked an overall stagnation in the federal money supply, making the change all the more significant.
David Gauke, a Conservative lawmaker and a junior minister in the finance ministry, criticized HSBC and said the case lifted the lid on poor banking behavior at the time.
And it has repeatedly used an argument that's also been made by the president and Treasury Secretary as well, as they've tried to explain away the inactivity: that bad banking behavior isn't necessarily criminal behavior.
