- This topic has 378 replies, 43 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by
CardiffBaseball.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM #730695October 14, 2011 at 1:55 PM #730693
CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Because there are disorganized people in this world that really do want overdraft protection, because bouncing a check is more than $10…It’s more like $25-30 return check fee, and a blackmark about writing a bad check…People can always opt-out of overdraft protection if they so choose, but it’s there because it’s a service. If people don’t want to use the service and use the terms of the service, than opt out…[/quote]Not taking about returned check fee, but credit/debit card transactions.
Banks used to routinely decline transaction over the limit. That’s until they figured they could take advantage of people. That change was not that long ago.
In my opinion, a good society protects its most vulnerable citizens. It’s unconscionable to punish people who already don’t have anything. That’s why I support Elizabeth Warren.
Interesting documentary on the credit card industry:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/%5B/quote%5DAnd like I said, people don’t “need” to use debit cards if they don’t want to pay for it…Someone has to pay for the convenience (the machines, etc)…And if people don’t want overdraft protection, they don’t NEED it either. They can opt out…(whether it’s the overdraft protection to covered a bounced check or attempting to withdraw more from the atm then you have available…”
The most “vunerable” parts of society don’t “need” use these things…They can carry around cash…. People who can’t afford the fees or who do not want to pay for the fees can still conduct business without a debit card.
October 14, 2011 at 2:15 PM #730696scaredyclassic
ParticipantWhy do people laugh at sociology majors?
Sociology is fun, interesting and smart people study it.
In fact I’d say piggington itself is a bunch of armchair sociologists and our hive knowledge is incomprehensibly vast
October 14, 2011 at 2:23 PM #730698jstoesz
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz][quote=CA renter][quote=flu]And as I said, how is this NOT class warfare?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/13/occupy-movement-coming-encinitas/
An Encinitas version, called Occupy North County, is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. Saturday at Encinitas Boulevard and Coast Highway 101. For more information on that event, go to Facebook.com and search for Occupy North County.
The overall movement’s slogan is “We are the 99,” as a reference to the discrepancy of wealth between the top 1 percent of wage earners in the country compared to the rest. The demonstrators are demanding financial reform that deals with rising student loan debt, high unemployment, and tax rates.
…Pssss. Careful sdrealtor…They are coming to get you…..Better not break out the bubblies and sip them fine bottles of wine on the rooftop while you watch the protesters…Otherwise they might paint you as a target….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PiXDTK_CBY%5B/quote%5D
I have a better question. How is THIS not considered class warfare?
“Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the ’80s, ’90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html%5B/quote%5D
You just quoted a SOCIOLOGY professor from UCSC.[/quote]
And…?
There are all kinds of sources out there that show these same trends. What exactly are you trying to insiunate? That the middle and working classes have done as well as the top 1-5% in the past ~30 years? Show me a single piece of evidence that proves that assertion (if that’s what you’re trying to assert).[/quote]
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” You can spin a web based on selective stats, but let us deal with the real question here. There is no debating that there is a difference in the rich and poor, that much is obvious.
Why/how is it that ALL rich people have gotten all their money off the backs of the 99? Did all rich people get that way through ill gotten gains?
Furthermore, even if you can show that some rich people have screwed over the lower classes, how do you then justify government confiscation and redistribution as a moral solution? Do you not think that many rich people have provided an incredible service to their employees and deserve the money they have made, by providing gainful and productive employment for many? By what grounds do you justify confiscating money from those with proper earned gains? Because they simply have more money then you? That is hardly a moral justification.
If you steal from the rich to give to the poor, you are still a thief (even if you are blanketed in the authority of the government). Just because inequality exists does not logically lead to class warfare by the rich on the poor.
October 14, 2011 at 2:24 PM #730697Arraya
Participant“people” don’t laugh at sociologists. Right wing ideologues do because serious sociological study leads to certain conclusions that they don’t like. Sociology departments were countered with “think tanks”.
October 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM #730699briansd1
Guestjstoesz and flu, those usurious charges are not fees for service to pay for the machines and infrastructure.
Those usurious “fees” are entire billion-dollar business models.
That’s where your opinions don’t reconcile with science and data.
Notwithstanding the choices, the poorest of Americans are still being nickle and dimed and extorted. A decent society does not allow that to happen.
Banks are licensed to encourage proper allocation of capital and to encourage productivity in the economy. They should not be licensed to extort money from the most vulnerable of Americans.
October 14, 2011 at 2:32 PM #730700ParticipantPeople do not laugh at sociology, but they do laugh at many sociologists. It is probably one of the most important skils/understandings modern man can learn. Many if not most problems people come across in life are sociological.
Many academic sociologists on the other hand, have a very warped understanding of society. I very much doubt the faculty of social science team at UC Santa Cruz is well grounded in reality. sociology is so open to confirmation bias it makes economics look like simple math.
October 14, 2011 at 2:37 PM #730701GuestSociology and psychology are fun to study. And they reveal interesting things about human nature.
As we already know, humans are not perfectly rational, even in the aggregate as economists like to claim.
Humans have psychological weaknesses that can easily be exploited.
October 14, 2011 at 2:40 PM #730702Participant[quote=briansd1]jstoesz and flu, those usurious charges are not fees for service to pay for the machines and infrastructure.
Those usurious “fees” are entire billion-dollar business models.
That’s where your opinions don’t reconcile with science and data.
Notwithstanding the choices, the poorest of Americans are still being nickle and dimed and extorted. A decent society does not allow that to happen.
Banks are licensed to encourage proper allocation of capital and to encourage productivity in the economy. They should not be licensed to extort money from the most vulnerable of Americans.[/quote]
I heard the Iphones 4s has a profit margin of over 50%. Is that abusive too? Can you imagine a bank with that kind of profit margin (JP morgan just quoted 17.5%)?
Brian, it is time for people (and banks) to pull up their big boy pants.
October 14, 2011 at 2:44 PM #730703an
Participant[quote=jstoesz]“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” You can spin a web based on selective stats, but let us deal with the real question here. There is no debating that there is a difference in the rich and poor, that much is obvious.
Why/how is it that ALL rich people have gotten all their money off the backs of the 99? Did all rich people get that way through ill gotten gains?
Furthermore, even if you can show that some rich people have screwed over the lower classes, how do you then justify government confiscation and redistribution as a moral solution? Do you not think that many rich people have provided an incredible service to their employees and deserve the money they have made, by providing gainful and productive employment for many? By what grounds do you justify confiscating money from those with proper earned gains? Because they simply have more money then you? That is hardly a moral justification.
If you steal from the rich to give to the poor, you are still a thief (even if you are blanketed in the authority of the government). Just because inequality exists does not logically lead to class warfare by the rich on the poor.[/quote]
Nicely put. I totally agree. I might not be in that 1%, but I want to be them, not take money away from them. Of course, if they got their money through illegal means, then yes, they should be punished. But guys like Zuckerberg/Page/Brin/etc who recent got their wealth did not do it by stealing from the 99%.October 14, 2011 at 2:47 PM #730704GuestBanks have a special government granted monopoly in dealing with money. The primary purpose of banks should be to benefit society, not their shareholders.
The main argument for having banks is that their existence accrue more benefits to society than their non-existence. For some banks, that’s highly debatable.
October 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM #730705Guest[quote=AN] But guys like Zuckerberg/Page/Brin/etc who recent got their wealth did not do it by stealing from the 99%.[/quote]
They and Warren Buffett support the Buffett Rule.
October 14, 2011 at 2:55 PM #730706ParticipantCharity is too often a facade of scoundrels
October 14, 2011 at 3:11 PM #730707Guest[quote=AN] I might not be in that 1%, but I want to be them, not take money away from them. [/quote]
It’s interesting that those who want be rich don’t support the Buffett Rule. But Warren Buffett himself supports the Buffett Rule. Who’s the better judge of fairness and equity here?
October 14, 2011 at 3:13 PM #730708CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]jstoesz and flu, those usurious charges are not fees for service to pay for the machines and infrastructure.
Those usurious “fees” are entire billion-dollar business models.
That’s where your opinions don’t reconcile with science and data.
Notwithstanding the choices, the poorest of Americans are still being nickle and dimed and extorted. A decent society does not allow that to happen.
Banks are licensed to encourage proper allocation of capital and to encourage productivity in the economy. They should not be licensed to extort money from the most vulnerable of Americans.[/quote]
I think we’re deviating from the intent of this post…But last time…Again, brian…What part of “optional service” is not clear? When did using a debit card become a first amendment right? I know we live an a self-entitled society now… But when did modern day conveniences (when there are plenty of 0 cost alternatives ) become a right and not a privilege?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.