[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?

[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?

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]
I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one.[/quote]
Sure. Free banking is obviously a basic human right. If the banks (for no reason other than their sheer spitefulness and greed) won’t provide that for free, I guess the government will have to step in.

Is ATM access included in this vanilla account you envision? What about check (and bad check) processing? How about online access? What about face to face or telephone-based customer service? Who pays the salaries, facilities, equipment, and energy costs that are required to provide those services? The bank (and their shareholders) should just eat those costs?

There’s no such thing as something for nothing. What you’re really proposing is to give some folks an artificial free ride at the expense of some other folks.

I agree it would be nice if folks had a simple option available to them so they weren’t tempted to go to the check cashing and payday loan rapists. But I don’t agree it should be free.

Should banks be required to provide a minimum basic account at some nominal rate? Well at first blush that seems reasonable, but which banks? All banks? What rate? Who sets that? Is it the same in all states? What services are provided? In what languages must the customer service be provided? Is there a performance requirement for the servers behind the online banking? Who should be eligible?

I like flu’s approach better. Those guys pissed him off, so he left. The marketplace at work.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]
I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one.[/quote]
Sure. Free banking is obviously a basic human right. If the banks (for no reason other than their sheer spitefulness and greed) won’t provide that for free, I guess the government will have to step in.

Is ATM access included in this vanilla account you envision? What about check (and bad check) processing? How about online access? What about face to face or telephone-based customer service? Who pays the salaries, facilities, equipment, and energy costs that are required to provide those services? The bank (and their shareholders) should just eat those costs?

There’s no such thing as something for nothing. What you’re really proposing is to give some folks an artificial free ride at the expense of some other folks.

I agree it would be nice if folks had a simple option available to them so they weren’t tempted to go to the check cashing and payday loan rapists. But I don’t agree it should be free.

Should banks be required to provide a minimum basic account at some nominal rate? Well at first blush that seems reasonable, but which banks? All banks? What rate? Who sets that? Is it the same in all states? What services are provided? In what languages must the customer service be provided? Is there a performance requirement for the servers behind the online banking? Who should be eligible?

I like flu’s approach better. Those guys pissed him off, so he left. The marketplace at work.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]
I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one.[/quote]
Sure. Free banking is obviously a basic human right. If the banks (for no reason other than their sheer spitefulness and greed) won’t provide that for free, I guess the government will have to step in.

Is ATM access included in this vanilla account you envision? What about check (and bad check) processing? How about online access? What about face to face or telephone-based customer service? Who pays the salaries, facilities, equipment, and energy costs that are required to provide those services? The bank (and their shareholders) should just eat those costs?

There’s no such thing as something for nothing. What you’re really proposing is to give some folks an artificial free ride at the expense of some other folks.

I agree it would be nice if folks had a simple option available to them so they weren’t tempted to go to the check cashing and payday loan rapists. But I don’t agree it should be free.

Should banks be required to provide a minimum basic account at some nominal rate? Well at first blush that seems reasonable, but which banks? All banks? What rate? Who sets that? Is it the same in all states? What services are provided? In what languages must the customer service be provided? Is there a performance requirement for the servers behind the online banking? Who should be eligible?

I like flu’s approach better. Those guys pissed him off, so he left. The marketplace at work.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]
I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one.[/quote]
Sure. Free banking is obviously a basic human right. If the banks (for no reason other than their sheer spitefulness and greed) won’t provide that for free, I guess the government will have to step in.

Is ATM access included in this vanilla account you envision? What about check (and bad check) processing? How about online access? What about face to face or telephone-based customer service? Who pays the salaries, facilities, equipment, and energy costs that are required to provide those services? The bank (and their shareholders) should just eat those costs?

There’s no such thing as something for nothing. What you’re really proposing is to give some folks an artificial free ride at the expense of some other folks.

I agree it would be nice if folks had a simple option available to them so they weren’t tempted to go to the check cashing and payday loan rapists. But I don’t agree it should be free.

Should banks be required to provide a minimum basic account at some nominal rate? Well at first blush that seems reasonable, but which banks? All banks? What rate? Who sets that? Is it the same in all states? What services are provided? In what languages must the customer service be provided? Is there a performance requirement for the servers behind the online banking? Who should be eligible?

I like flu’s approach better. Those guys pissed him off, so he left. The marketplace at work.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]
I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one.[/quote]
Sure. Free banking is obviously a basic human right. If the banks (for no reason other than their sheer spitefulness and greed) won’t provide that for free, I guess the government will have to step in.

Is ATM access included in this vanilla account you envision? What about check (and bad check) processing? How about online access? What about face to face or telephone-based customer service? Who pays the salaries, facilities, equipment, and energy costs that are required to provide those services? The bank (and their shareholders) should just eat those costs?

There’s no such thing as something for nothing. What you’re really proposing is to give some folks an artificial free ride at the expense of some other folks.

I agree it would be nice if folks had a simple option available to them so they weren’t tempted to go to the check cashing and payday loan rapists. But I don’t agree it should be free.

Should banks be required to provide a minimum basic account at some nominal rate? Well at first blush that seems reasonable, but which banks? All banks? What rate? Who sets that? Is it the same in all states? What services are provided? In what languages must the customer service be provided? Is there a performance requirement for the servers behind the online banking? Who should be eligible?

I like flu’s approach better. Those guys pissed him off, so he left. The marketplace at work.

[KSMountain]

But wait. I live near the beach and I see police cars every night come and kick people out to close down the beach after 10.

That is evidently constitutional.

Would they not be able to talk to people who arrived by boat after 12?

What if the cops suspected they were carrying dope? Are they allowed to search the boat?

Would we have to say, “They couldn’t stop a boat with a sufficiently large group of people, because that is clearly an immigration-related action the local police can’t take”.

But what if it’s human trafficking, and the people aren’t even willing passengers?

Don’t the police in that case have an obligation to protect the exploited?

Also how should we deal with a case where both people and drugs are being transported in the same panga…

[KSMountain]

But wait. I live near the beach and I see police cars every night come and kick people out to close down the beach after 10.

That is evidently constitutional.

Would they not be able to talk to people who arrived by boat after 12?

What if the cops suspected they were carrying dope? Are they allowed to search the boat?

Would we have to say, “They couldn’t stop a boat with a sufficiently large group of people, because that is clearly an immigration-related action the local police can’t take”.

But what if it’s human trafficking, and the people aren’t even willing passengers?

Don’t the police in that case have an obligation to protect the exploited?

Also how should we deal with a case where both people and drugs are being transported in the same panga…

[KSMountain]

But wait. I live near the beach and I see police cars every night come and kick people out to close down the beach after 10.

That is evidently constitutional.

Would they not be able to talk to people who arrived by boat after 12?

What if the cops suspected they were carrying dope? Are they allowed to search the boat?

Would we have to say, “They couldn’t stop a boat with a sufficiently large group of people, because that is clearly an immigration-related action the local police can’t take”.

But what if it’s human trafficking, and the people aren’t even willing passengers?

Don’t the police in that case have an obligation to protect the exploited?

Also how should we deal with a case where both people and drugs are being transported in the same panga…

[KSMountain]

But wait. I live near the beach and I see police cars every night come and kick people out to close down the beach after 10.

That is evidently constitutional.

Would they not be able to talk to people who arrived by boat after 12?

What if the cops suspected they were carrying dope? Are they allowed to search the boat?

Would we have to say, “They couldn’t stop a boat with a sufficiently large group of people, because that is clearly an immigration-related action the local police can’t take”.

But what if it’s human trafficking, and the people aren’t even willing passengers?

Don’t the police in that case have an obligation to protect the exploited?

Also how should we deal with a case where both people and drugs are being transported in the same panga…

[KSMountain]

But wait. I live near the beach and I see police cars every night come and kick people out to close down the beach after 10.

That is evidently constitutional.

Would they not be able to talk to people who arrived by boat after 12?

What if the cops suspected they were carrying dope? Are they allowed to search the boat?

Would we have to say, “They couldn’t stop a boat with a sufficiently large group of people, because that is clearly an immigration-related action the local police can’t take”.

But what if it’s human trafficking, and the people aren’t even willing passengers?

Don’t the police in that case have an obligation to protect the exploited?

Also how should we deal with a case where both people and drugs are being transported in the same panga…

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1][quote=KSMountain]Grandview in Leucadia…
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/06/panga-lands-leucadia-15-illegal-suspects-held/
[/quote]

An SB1070 type law would do nothing to stop such immigration.

In this case, existing laws and enforcement did the job quite well.[/quote]

Ah, but those were just the boats we detected…

Let’s play this scenario out a bit:
Say the city of Del Mar was having an issue, and decided to have policemen question anyone coming ashore by boat after midnight.

Would that policy be unconstitutional?

If not, what makes 1070 different?

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1][quote=KSMountain]Grandview in Leucadia…
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/06/panga-lands-leucadia-15-illegal-suspects-held/
[/quote]

An SB1070 type law would do nothing to stop such immigration.

In this case, existing laws and enforcement did the job quite well.[/quote]

Ah, but those were just the boats we detected…

Let’s play this scenario out a bit:
Say the city of Del Mar was having an issue, and decided to have policemen question anyone coming ashore by boat after midnight.

Would that policy be unconstitutional?

If not, what makes 1070 different?

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1][quote=KSMountain]Grandview in Leucadia…
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/06/panga-lands-leucadia-15-illegal-suspects-held/
[/quote]

An SB1070 type law would do nothing to stop such immigration.

In this case, existing laws and enforcement did the job quite well.[/quote]

Ah, but those were just the boats we detected…

Let’s play this scenario out a bit:
Say the city of Del Mar was having an issue, and decided to have policemen question anyone coming ashore by boat after midnight.

Would that policy be unconstitutional?

If not, what makes 1070 different?

[Author]

Posts