OT: Chase sucks………………….fees fees fees fees fees fees

[Coronita]

delete

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]

But don’t forget that with fractional reserve lending, they are making many times the going rate on our deposits.

If we had full reserve banking, I could see charging people for the service provided by a bank, but with fractional reserve banking, they are already making enough money to pay for all the costs and then some. It wouldn’t be as profitable as it’s been these past couple of decades, but banking is, in itself, unproductive, and should be a much smaller part of our economy.

If the banks can’t cut it, then perhaps our financial infrastructure is important enough to be handled by the Treasury. After all, we don’t really need private banks — especially if they are going to privatize all the profits while foisting their losses on the taxpayers all the time, do we?[/quote]

I agree with you CA renter. The banks are subsidized the the Federal Reserve and all of us already. They should provide certain services for free as part of the social compact.

Let’s bring down the bank’s profits to the 16% share that existed previously.

A bank fee not paid by the consumer is money that can be spent in the other parts of economy to support more productive business activities.

As CA renter said, banking is only a means to facilitate economic activity. By itself, banking is unproductive.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]

But don’t forget that with fractional reserve lending, they are making many times the going rate on our deposits.

If we had full reserve banking, I could see charging people for the service provided by a bank, but with fractional reserve banking, they are already making enough money to pay for all the costs and then some. It wouldn’t be as profitable as it’s been these past couple of decades, but banking is, in itself, unproductive, and should be a much smaller part of our economy.

If the banks can’t cut it, then perhaps our financial infrastructure is important enough to be handled by the Treasury. After all, we don’t really need private banks — especially if they are going to privatize all the profits while foisting their losses on the taxpayers all the time, do we?[/quote]

I agree with you CA renter. The banks are subsidized the the Federal Reserve and all of us already. They should provide certain services for free as part of the social compact.

Let’s bring down the bank’s profits to the 16% share that existed previously.

A bank fee not paid by the consumer is money that can be spent in the other parts of economy to support more productive business activities.

As CA renter said, banking is only a means to facilitate economic activity. By itself, banking is unproductive.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]

But don’t forget that with fractional reserve lending, they are making many times the going rate on our deposits.

If we had full reserve banking, I could see charging people for the service provided by a bank, but with fractional reserve banking, they are already making enough money to pay for all the costs and then some. It wouldn’t be as profitable as it’s been these past couple of decades, but banking is, in itself, unproductive, and should be a much smaller part of our economy.

If the banks can’t cut it, then perhaps our financial infrastructure is important enough to be handled by the Treasury. After all, we don’t really need private banks — especially if they are going to privatize all the profits while foisting their losses on the taxpayers all the time, do we?[/quote]

I agree with you CA renter. The banks are subsidized the the Federal Reserve and all of us already. They should provide certain services for free as part of the social compact.

Let’s bring down the bank’s profits to the 16% share that existed previously.

A bank fee not paid by the consumer is money that can be spent in the other parts of economy to support more productive business activities.

As CA renter said, banking is only a means to facilitate economic activity. By itself, banking is unproductive.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]

But don’t forget that with fractional reserve lending, they are making many times the going rate on our deposits.

If we had full reserve banking, I could see charging people for the service provided by a bank, but with fractional reserve banking, they are already making enough money to pay for all the costs and then some. It wouldn’t be as profitable as it’s been these past couple of decades, but banking is, in itself, unproductive, and should be a much smaller part of our economy.

If the banks can’t cut it, then perhaps our financial infrastructure is important enough to be handled by the Treasury. After all, we don’t really need private banks — especially if they are going to privatize all the profits while foisting their losses on the taxpayers all the time, do we?[/quote]

I agree with you CA renter. The banks are subsidized the the Federal Reserve and all of us already. They should provide certain services for free as part of the social compact.

Let’s bring down the bank’s profits to the 16% share that existed previously.

A bank fee not paid by the consumer is money that can be spent in the other parts of economy to support more productive business activities.

As CA renter said, banking is only a means to facilitate economic activity. By itself, banking is unproductive.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]

But don’t forget that with fractional reserve lending, they are making many times the going rate on our deposits.

If we had full reserve banking, I could see charging people for the service provided by a bank, but with fractional reserve banking, they are already making enough money to pay for all the costs and then some. It wouldn’t be as profitable as it’s been these past couple of decades, but banking is, in itself, unproductive, and should be a much smaller part of our economy.

If the banks can’t cut it, then perhaps our financial infrastructure is important enough to be handled by the Treasury. After all, we don’t really need private banks — especially if they are going to privatize all the profits while foisting their losses on the taxpayers all the time, do we?[/quote]

I agree with you CA renter. The banks are subsidized the the Federal Reserve and all of us already. They should provide certain services for free as part of the social compact.

Let’s bring down the bank’s profits to the 16% share that existed previously.

A bank fee not paid by the consumer is money that can be spent in the other parts of economy to support more productive business activities.

As CA renter said, banking is only a means to facilitate economic activity. By itself, banking is unproductive.

[KSMountain]

I’ve heard many of the banks were actually forced to take the TARP money against their will, and that much of it has been paid back, is that true?

[KSMountain]

I’ve heard many of the banks were actually forced to take the TARP money against their will, and that much of it has been paid back, is that true?

[KSMountain]

I’ve heard many of the banks were actually forced to take the TARP money against their will, and that much of it has been paid back, is that true?

[KSMountain]

I’ve heard many of the banks were actually forced to take the TARP money against their will, and that much of it has been paid back, is that true?

[KSMountain]

I’ve heard many of the banks were actually forced to take the TARP money against their will, and that much of it has been paid back, is that true?

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]I’ve heard many of the banks were actually forced to take the TARP money against their will, and that much of it has been paid back, is that true?[/quote]

Regardless of the bank being forced to take TARP money, banks have special licensing and benefit from access to zero percent money from the Fed. The least they could do is provide some free services for the special privileges they enjoy.

Big banks also enjoy free insurance in that being too-big-to-fail, they know they can blackmail the government into bailing them out if worse comes to worse. Other business don’t enjoy such privileges.

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]I’ve heard many of the banks were actually forced to take the TARP money against their will, and that much of it has been paid back, is that true?[/quote]

Regardless of the bank being forced to take TARP money, banks have special licensing and benefit from access to zero percent money from the Fed. The least they could do is provide some free services for the special privileges they enjoy.

Big banks also enjoy free insurance in that being too-big-to-fail, they know they can blackmail the government into bailing them out if worse comes to worse. Other business don’t enjoy such privileges.

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]I’ve heard many of the banks were actually forced to take the TARP money against their will, and that much of it has been paid back, is that true?[/quote]

Regardless of the bank being forced to take TARP money, banks have special licensing and benefit from access to zero percent money from the Fed. The least they could do is provide some free services for the special privileges they enjoy.

Big banks also enjoy free insurance in that being too-big-to-fail, they know they can blackmail the government into bailing them out if worse comes to worse. Other business don’t enjoy such privileges.

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]I’ve heard many of the banks were actually forced to take the TARP money against their will, and that much of it has been paid back, is that true?[/quote]

Regardless of the bank being forced to take TARP money, banks have special licensing and benefit from access to zero percent money from the Fed. The least they could do is provide some free services for the special privileges they enjoy.

Big banks also enjoy free insurance in that being too-big-to-fail, they know they can blackmail the government into bailing them out if worse comes to worse. Other business don’t enjoy such privileges.

[Author]

Posts