- This topic has 460 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
Wickedheart.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 20, 2010 at 9:31 PM #608177September 21, 2010 at 2:58 AM #607169
CA renter
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/14/385949/watch-for-changes-in-overdraft.html#ixzz109rf3EOD
September 21, 2010 at 2:58 AM #607258Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/14/385949/watch-for-changes-in-overdraft.html#ixzz109rf3EOD
September 21, 2010 at 2:58 AM #607812Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/14/385949/watch-for-changes-in-overdraft.html#ixzz109rf3EOD
September 21, 2010 at 2:58 AM #607920Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/14/385949/watch-for-changes-in-overdraft.html#ixzz109rf3EOD
September 21, 2010 at 2:58 AM #608237Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/14/385949/watch-for-changes-in-overdraft.html#ixzz109rf3EOD
September 21, 2010 at 3:25 AM #607179
CoronitaParticipant[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
yup
September 21, 2010 at 3:25 AM #607268CoronitaParticipant[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
yup
September 21, 2010 at 3:25 AM #607822CoronitaParticipant[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
yup
September 21, 2010 at 3:25 AM #607930CoronitaParticipant[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
yup
September 21, 2010 at 3:25 AM #608247CoronitaParticipant[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=Ren]
Anyone who gets upset about being charged fees for being overdrawn has other problems besides their bank. Unless you’re so young that you’re living in a frat house, no transaction should put you anywhere near a zero balance.Our investment accounts are with Schwab. We’ve had 99% great experiences with them, but the 1% definitely accelerated the gray hair. The only reason we didn’t leave them out of principle was because of the pain-in-the-ass factor of finding a replacement.[/quote]
Nobody is disputing that a large percent of the population has financial management problems. But isn’t is our society’s job to help them?
If someone has only $1 in the bank, and overdraws the account by mistake at McDonald’s, how is it to our society’s benefit to allow the bank to charge them $20 overdraft fee? Simply decline the transaction and be done with it.
To me, free basic banking is the same as free over-the-air broadcast and universal lifeline telephone. It wouldn’t be necessary if employers were required to pay in cash if the employees so chose.
When check payments are obligatory, banks get an automatic stream of customers which they prey upon.[/quote]
I believe you now have to “opt-in” to the Overdraft Protection Plan. I’ve received at least a couple of notices from Chase and US Bank regarding this (because we are NOT opting in). I think some of our other banks have sent these notices as well.
Looked it up, and yep…here it is:
The Federal Reserve Board issued new rules that will kick in July 1 giving consumers additional options regarding overdraft protection. Financial institutions won’t be able to automatically sign you up for overdraft services. As with any such change, there’s always some confusion. So the Fed has recently created an online publication on the new banking overdraft rules. I recommend, even in your information-overload state of mind, that you take the time to read the publication, particularly if you frequently use overdraft protection.
On http://www.federalreserve.gov, click on the link that says, “What You Need to Know: New Overdraft Rules for Debit and ATM Cards.” Once on the page you will find a summary of the new rules, including a sample of the notice you should be getting in the mail from your bank or other financial institution.
yup
September 21, 2010 at 3:51 AM #607184Participant[quote=KSMountain][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]
So you’re saying that we as citizens can somehow determine and then should attempt to enforce a “proper” amount of profit for businesses?
It’s my understanding that jewelry stores have tremendous markup on the products they sell…
Does that mean Ben Bridge and Jessup’s should be forced to give some or all of us free watch cleaning and repair, because they “make enough”?
Should we reduce their profits? Should we be able to say what they can charge, or be able to limit their markup, so that the “most vulnerable among us” aren’t victimized? [BTW, I’m one of them].
I mean really, they have watches there that are like 15,000 dollars. Let’s say their cost was $5000. That’s almost a criminal amount of markup! Shouldn’t we prevent jewelry stores from ripping folks off like that? Perhaps we shouldn’t even allow them to sell baubles that are so unnecessary and expensive.
For that matter, do we even need private jewelry stores? Couldn’t the government serve our wristwatch, necklace, ring and earring needs more fairly? Think how much cheaper things would be if we just took profit out of the picture.
I suppose you could (probably legitimately) say “banks are different’. But once you start down that path, where do you stop? What other industries might we be able to convince ourselves that we should get involved in or privatize? Food production? Medical equipment? Insurance? Aerospace and Defense? Energy?[/quote]
Let me just start off with one of my most controversial positions: compensation SHOULD be regulated if the persons involved are protected by corporate or other limited-liability protections (funny how they don’t seem to have a problem with this *govt* protection!). If someone feels personally entitled to the profits, then they have to take all the losses personally as well — no bankruptcy protection either, BTW. Time to tie risk and reward together.
Our banking system is an integral part of our national infrastructure. Most businesses and people rely on it to transact business. As we were told repeatedly during the banking “crisis,” if the banking system fails, all business stops. Something this important should be highly regulated or controlled by the government.
In areas where people NEED a particular good or service, I believe the govt should regulate or control that market and serve the best interests of society (not the few elite) at all times.
BTW, the TARP is just the icing on the cake. The biggest bailouts came in the form of asset purchases and debt guarantees. Then there are the GSE mortgages and the FHA guarantees (we have still to see what the losses on these will be, we won’t know for many years). This runs into the **trillions** of dollars.
This is from November 2009, when it was up to three TRILLION dollars:
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
———–Sorry, but nobody **needs** an expensive watch, and the failure of a watch shop (or all of them, for that matter) would not affect us like the failure of our banking system. It’s not even close to being comparable.
September 21, 2010 at 3:51 AM #607273Participant[quote=KSMountain][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]
So you’re saying that we as citizens can somehow determine and then should attempt to enforce a “proper” amount of profit for businesses?
It’s my understanding that jewelry stores have tremendous markup on the products they sell…
Does that mean Ben Bridge and Jessup’s should be forced to give some or all of us free watch cleaning and repair, because they “make enough”?
Should we reduce their profits? Should we be able to say what they can charge, or be able to limit their markup, so that the “most vulnerable among us” aren’t victimized? [BTW, I’m one of them].
I mean really, they have watches there that are like 15,000 dollars. Let’s say their cost was $5000. That’s almost a criminal amount of markup! Shouldn’t we prevent jewelry stores from ripping folks off like that? Perhaps we shouldn’t even allow them to sell baubles that are so unnecessary and expensive.
For that matter, do we even need private jewelry stores? Couldn’t the government serve our wristwatch, necklace, ring and earring needs more fairly? Think how much cheaper things would be if we just took profit out of the picture.
I suppose you could (probably legitimately) say “banks are different’. But once you start down that path, where do you stop? What other industries might we be able to convince ourselves that we should get involved in or privatize? Food production? Medical equipment? Insurance? Aerospace and Defense? Energy?[/quote]
Let me just start off with one of my most controversial positions: compensation SHOULD be regulated if the persons involved are protected by corporate or other limited-liability protections (funny how they don’t seem to have a problem with this *govt* protection!). If someone feels personally entitled to the profits, then they have to take all the losses personally as well — no bankruptcy protection either, BTW. Time to tie risk and reward together.
Our banking system is an integral part of our national infrastructure. Most businesses and people rely on it to transact business. As we were told repeatedly during the banking “crisis,” if the banking system fails, all business stops. Something this important should be highly regulated or controlled by the government.
In areas where people NEED a particular good or service, I believe the govt should regulate or control that market and serve the best interests of society (not the few elite) at all times.
BTW, the TARP is just the icing on the cake. The biggest bailouts came in the form of asset purchases and debt guarantees. Then there are the GSE mortgages and the FHA guarantees (we have still to see what the losses on these will be, we won’t know for many years). This runs into the **trillions** of dollars.
This is from November 2009, when it was up to three TRILLION dollars:
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
———–Sorry, but nobody **needs** an expensive watch, and the failure of a watch shop (or all of them, for that matter) would not affect us like the failure of our banking system. It’s not even close to being comparable.
September 21, 2010 at 3:51 AM #607827Participant[quote=KSMountain][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]
So you’re saying that we as citizens can somehow determine and then should attempt to enforce a “proper” amount of profit for businesses?
It’s my understanding that jewelry stores have tremendous markup on the products they sell…
Does that mean Ben Bridge and Jessup’s should be forced to give some or all of us free watch cleaning and repair, because they “make enough”?
Should we reduce their profits? Should we be able to say what they can charge, or be able to limit their markup, so that the “most vulnerable among us” aren’t victimized? [BTW, I’m one of them].
I mean really, they have watches there that are like 15,000 dollars. Let’s say their cost was $5000. That’s almost a criminal amount of markup! Shouldn’t we prevent jewelry stores from ripping folks off like that? Perhaps we shouldn’t even allow them to sell baubles that are so unnecessary and expensive.
For that matter, do we even need private jewelry stores? Couldn’t the government serve our wristwatch, necklace, ring and earring needs more fairly? Think how much cheaper things would be if we just took profit out of the picture.
I suppose you could (probably legitimately) say “banks are different’. But once you start down that path, where do you stop? What other industries might we be able to convince ourselves that we should get involved in or privatize? Food production? Medical equipment? Insurance? Aerospace and Defense? Energy?[/quote]
Let me just start off with one of my most controversial positions: compensation SHOULD be regulated if the persons involved are protected by corporate or other limited-liability protections (funny how they don’t seem to have a problem with this *govt* protection!). If someone feels personally entitled to the profits, then they have to take all the losses personally as well — no bankruptcy protection either, BTW. Time to tie risk and reward together.
Our banking system is an integral part of our national infrastructure. Most businesses and people rely on it to transact business. As we were told repeatedly during the banking “crisis,” if the banking system fails, all business stops. Something this important should be highly regulated or controlled by the government.
In areas where people NEED a particular good or service, I believe the govt should regulate or control that market and serve the best interests of society (not the few elite) at all times.
BTW, the TARP is just the icing on the cake. The biggest bailouts came in the form of asset purchases and debt guarantees. Then there are the GSE mortgages and the FHA guarantees (we have still to see what the losses on these will be, we won’t know for many years). This runs into the **trillions** of dollars.
This is from November 2009, when it was up to three TRILLION dollars:
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
———–Sorry, but nobody **needs** an expensive watch, and the failure of a watch shop (or all of them, for that matter) would not affect us like the failure of our banking system. It’s not even close to being comparable.
September 21, 2010 at 3:51 AM #607935Participant[quote=KSMountain][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]
So you’re saying that we as citizens can somehow determine and then should attempt to enforce a “proper” amount of profit for businesses?
It’s my understanding that jewelry stores have tremendous markup on the products they sell…
Does that mean Ben Bridge and Jessup’s should be forced to give some or all of us free watch cleaning and repair, because they “make enough”?
Should we reduce their profits? Should we be able to say what they can charge, or be able to limit their markup, so that the “most vulnerable among us” aren’t victimized? [BTW, I’m one of them].
I mean really, they have watches there that are like 15,000 dollars. Let’s say their cost was $5000. That’s almost a criminal amount of markup! Shouldn’t we prevent jewelry stores from ripping folks off like that? Perhaps we shouldn’t even allow them to sell baubles that are so unnecessary and expensive.
For that matter, do we even need private jewelry stores? Couldn’t the government serve our wristwatch, necklace, ring and earring needs more fairly? Think how much cheaper things would be if we just took profit out of the picture.
I suppose you could (probably legitimately) say “banks are different’. But once you start down that path, where do you stop? What other industries might we be able to convince ourselves that we should get involved in or privatize? Food production? Medical equipment? Insurance? Aerospace and Defense? Energy?[/quote]
Let me just start off with one of my most controversial positions: compensation SHOULD be regulated if the persons involved are protected by corporate or other limited-liability protections (funny how they don’t seem to have a problem with this *govt* protection!). If someone feels personally entitled to the profits, then they have to take all the losses personally as well — no bankruptcy protection either, BTW. Time to tie risk and reward together.
Our banking system is an integral part of our national infrastructure. Most businesses and people rely on it to transact business. As we were told repeatedly during the banking “crisis,” if the banking system fails, all business stops. Something this important should be highly regulated or controlled by the government.
In areas where people NEED a particular good or service, I believe the govt should regulate or control that market and serve the best interests of society (not the few elite) at all times.
BTW, the TARP is just the icing on the cake. The biggest bailouts came in the form of asset purchases and debt guarantees. Then there are the GSE mortgages and the FHA guarantees (we have still to see what the losses on these will be, we won’t know for many years). This runs into the **trillions** of dollars.
This is from November 2009, when it was up to three TRILLION dollars:
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
———–Sorry, but nobody **needs** an expensive watch, and the failure of a watch shop (or all of them, for that matter) would not affect us like the failure of our banking system. It’s not even close to being comparable.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.