| DR |
|
Skeptical Linkbot
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/05/07
|
|
Posts: 1181
|
|
Loc: UK
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Money grabbing bastards!
#265380 - 09/30/11 02:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| redk9258 |
|
Regular
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 3968
|
|
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Money grabbing bastards!
[Re: DR]
#265384 - 09/30/11 03:29 PM
|
|
|
Could change to a credit union too.
|
|
|
| DMala |
|
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
|
Posts: 3989
|
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Money grabbing bastards!
[Re: DR]
#265406 - 09/30/11 07:05 PM
|
|
|
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/business/banks-to-make-customers-pay-debit-card-fee.html?_r=2
>
> If that happens over here I'll have to find another way to pay for stuff when I go
> shopping.... hmmmmm.... I'm sure there used to be a way of paying for things with
> funds you actually have before debit cards.... hmmmmm
Assclown cocksuckers... They fucked everything up and now we get to pay for their mistakes.
I assume this is on actual debit transactions, though? My debit card works like a credit card, as well. I nearly always use it that way, anyway. It doesn't cost me anything, and I don't have to give my PIN out to the whole world.
|
|
|
GatKong |
|
Tetris Mason
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/20/07
|
|
Posts: 5907
|
|
Loc: Sector 9
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Then you're missing the bigger picture if you blame the banks.
[Re: DR]
#265439 - 10/01/11 09:22 AM
|
|
|
QUICK AND DIRTY:
The REAL problem isn't that your bank is going to charge you $5 for using your debit card...
This weekend new laws go into effect that brought about that change... new government intervention into the free-market...
The REAL problem is that the government has, once again, stuck it's big fat nose into free enterprise and instituted a bunch of new regulations that fuck with the free markets to serve... not the people... but the special interests who lined their re-election coffers.
==========================================
UGLY DETAILS THAT EXPLAIN THE QUICK AND DIRTY:
See... in a free market, banks got the novel idea of offering a convenient card people could use to spend their money, and they charged retailers to process that transaction... and in a free market retailers could have said no if the fee outweighed the benefit to the retailer... ever shopped somewhere where you can't use a debit card? They exist. But most retailers see the benefit of added customer flow from the convenience as outweighing the fee so they agree to pay it to get those customers. More customers, more money flows, more the economy turns, more jobs, more prosperity for all. Free markets, baby. Ingenuity = reward. (eta: shocker... also if enough retailers declined to pay the fee, guess what, banks would have lowered the fee to woo them back in... supply... demand... free markets).
But retailers wanted to be able to have their cake and eat it too, to be able to offer that convenieve to their customers without having to pay for it, so they hired lobbiests to "pressure" (i.e. bribe in legal ways, like campaign contributions) lawmakers to make new laws to alter the free markets in their favor.
Suddenly the gubment felt THEY know better than freedom of choice... so they set a limit on the fee banks can charge retailers... making it unprofitable to offer debit cards... unless they find an alternative way to make them profitable again... so they passed that loss to the card holder. Yes, the banks realize they will loose customers, but what good is an unprofitable customer... they ain't. So banks will downsize to some degree, some measurable amount of fewer bank cards will be held by those who refuse to pay the fee, so fewer customers will have access to that convenience, which will cut down on impulse buying.. you get the over all picture here... the economy will slow to some degree. Might not be huge amount, but it is yet another negative on the free-market economy, not a plus.
(eta: And ironically, now the retail associations are bitchin' because NOW they see their new bill they fought so hard for which passes the cost from themselves to the card-holder is going to cut into their retail sales since people will quit using the convenient debit cards to avoid the $5 fee that got passed to them from the retailer because the retailer's law they pushed for made it that way. They pissed in that bed, now they have to sleep in it, the dumb shits. But wait... now they are looking to enact more legislation to offset that oversight... more government will fix the problem, that's what we need, right?)
Why?
Because
Yet another regulation to strangle the shit out of what little remains of our free markets, which just slows the economy even more, killing even more jobs in the process...
Folks, quit electing "big government" butt-holes to office (specifically Dodd and Franks in this case).
The road to recovery is getting government the hell out of the way so the free markets can thrive again.
How many people get a new job when an unprofitable company downsizes?
So, shouldn't we be bitching about big government and special interests ruining our free economy?
Yeah, lets bitch about the banks, because being a profitable business should be a crime, and we need more laws like the one that goes into effect this weekend to strangle the shit out of the free market economy even more than it already is. I'm tired of having a job working for a healthy company.
Edited by Gatinho (10/01/11 10:15 AM)
|
|
|
italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Then you're missing the bigger picture if you blame the banks.
[Re: GatKong]
#265444 - 10/01/11 03:23 PM
|
|
|
That little story works, if you weren't taking about banks. I hate regulations and government interference as much as anyone, but banks are a PRIME example of why regulations are needed.
"What is that Mr Jones? Your 3.9% APR credit card was three days late? Sorry, but due too your gross negligence we have re-negotiated your terms. Your APR is now 29.99%. Sorry." ( Imagine if they could do this with your mortgage? They didn't even need you to be late to do this until recently. )
"Mr.Jones, We have arbitrarily decided that a $5 ATM fee will now be standard across all ATMs. And your checking account must have a $500 minimum starting Tuesday or you will be assessed penalties."
Or my favorite, banks that payed TARP fund back with loans. Sometimes loans from other government backed programs. At higher rates mind you. Why? "We can't operate under TARP regulations." (read: We're too big to fail, help us...but we don't want any terms on that help.") Or take practices like Citigroup splitting into two companies and shoveling most of their bad loans into one company, and you have yourself a pretty picture painted. You have one company (Citicorp - the good debt) which is running exactly as they did before the bail out, and one company (Citiholdings - the crap debt) which was being sold to a French company. Now Citicorp continues on with clean books, business as usual with no watchful eye, solvent and bigger/badder than ever. Citiholdings has managed to bite the hand that 'saved' them by shoving all of it's questionable 'Now Government backed' debt into someone else's off shore portfolio, and killing off thousands of jobs in the process.
Yeah..The banks problem isn't "free-market." If anything, the banks are a prime example of how free market gets abused.
> QUICK AND DIRTY:
>
> The REAL problem isn't that your bank is going to charge you $5 for using your debit
> card...
>
> This weekend new laws go into effect that brought about that change... new government
> intervention into the free-market...
>
> The REAL problem is that the government has, once again, stuck it's big fat nose into
> free enterprise and instituted a bunch of new regulations that fuck with the free
> markets to serve... not the people... but the special interests who lined their
> re-election coffers.
>
>
> ==========================================
>
> UGLY DETAILS THAT EXPLAIN THE QUICK AND DIRTY:
>
> See... in a free market, banks got the novel idea of offering a convenient card
> people could use to spend their money, and they charged retailers to process that
> transaction... and in a free market retailers could have said no if the fee
> outweighed the benefit to the retailer... ever shopped somewhere where you can't use
> a debit card? They exist. But most retailers see the benefit of added customer flow
> from the convenience as outweighing the fee so they agree to pay it to get those
> customers. More customers, more money flows, more the economy turns, more jobs, more
> prosperity for all. Free markets, baby. Ingenuity = reward. (eta: shocker... also if
> enough retailers declined to pay the fee, guess what, banks would have lowered the
> fee to woo them back in... supply... demand... free markets).
>
> But retailers wanted to be able to have their cake and eat it too, to be able to
> offer that convenieve to their customers without having to pay for it, so they hired
> lobbiests to "pressure" (i.e. bribe in legal ways, like campaign contributions)
> lawmakers to make new laws to alter the free markets in their favor.
>
> Suddenly the gubment felt THEY know better than freedom of choice... so they set a
> limit on the fee banks can charge retailers... making it unprofitable to offer debit
> cards... unless they find an alternative way to make them profitable again... so they
> passed that loss to the card holder. Yes, the banks realize they will loose
> customers, but what good is an unprofitable customer... they ain't. So banks will
> downsize to some degree, some measurable amount of fewer bank cards will be held by
> those who refuse to pay the fee, so fewer customers will have access to that
> convenience, which will cut down on impulse buying.. you get the over all picture
> here... the economy will slow to some degree. Might not be huge amount, but it is yet
> another negative on the free-market economy, not a plus.
>
> (eta: And ironically, now the retail associations are bitchin' because NOW they see
> their new bill they fought so hard for which passes the cost from themselves to the
> card-holder is going to cut into their retail sales since people will quit using the
> convenient debit cards to avoid the $5 fee that got passed to them from the retailer
> because the retailer's law they pushed for made it that way. They pissed in that bed,
> now they have to sleep in it, the dumb shits. But wait... now they are looking to
> enact more legislation to offset that oversight... more government will fix the
> problem, that's what we need, right?)
>
> Why?
>
> Because
>
> Yet another regulation to strangle the shit out of what little remains of our free
> markets, which just slows the economy even more, killing even more jobs in the
> process...
>
> Folks, quit electing "big government" butt-holes to office (specifically Dodd and
> Franks in this case).
>
> The road to recovery is getting government the hell out of the way so the free
> markets can thrive again.
>
> How many people get a new job when an unprofitable company downsizes?
>
> So, shouldn't we be bitching about big government and special interests ruining our
> free economy?
>
> Yeah, lets bitch about the banks, because being a profitable business should be a
> crime, and we need more laws like the one that goes into effect this weekend to
> strangle the shit out of the free market economy even more than it already is. I'm
> tired of having a job working for a healthy company.
|
|
|
| GatKong |
|
Tetris Mason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/20/07
|
|
Posts: 5907
|
|
Loc: Sector 9
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Ugh, how did I get on the side of defending a bank?
[Re: italie]
#265448 - 10/01/11 05:07 PM
|
|
|
Yes, there are times when abuses occur in the free market...
But then so the government should say... let US mess it up for you since you're doing such a good job of messing it up for yourself?
I grudgingly find myself on the side of the banks in this, but your examples aren't good ones for a couple reasons...
Your example of banks trying to bundle and get rid of bad debt... ignores where that bad debt came from. Free markets would not have encouraged the banks to loan to people who were at high risk to default on their loans... but government intervention REQUIRED banks to loan money to high risk borrowers. Your example is just another where government intervention in the free market created the mess.
As far as the credit card rate one... its a 'reasonable' example of abuse and lots of people got caught up in those... of their own accord. Nobody made them borrow money on a card... nobody made them accept a card with such terms of service wherein any late payment would jack up the rate to ridiculous levels. In this case, the government stepped in to save unwary borrowers from their own bad decisions... arguably the 'right' thing to do, but a slippery slope to let the government 'know best' for you.
Better would be for people to learn to 1. Avoid credit card card debt 2. Read their terms of service. 3. Pay their bills on time to avoid the penalty clauses and 4. Don't borrow more money than you can realistically pay back. But, now you don't have to... the government will protect you from yourself... and so Americans are free to run up their cards to levels they'll never be able to pay back... but at a 'fair' rate as enforced by the government. What we need now is more regulation to limit your credit so you don't run it up so high?
At the end of it all, the consumer doesn't HAVE to take out a mortgage they can't afford, they don't HAVE to run up credit card debt they can't afford... but now our government will educate you you to be a smarter consumer enable your bad decisions by requiring banks to deal with your stupidity.
Look what you made me do... now I'm on the bank's side. That's just wrong. 
ETA: In thinking about the government interventions in these cases, a better use of government would have been to do a better job of educating the consumer, perhaps by...
1. Requiring a meaningful consumer education course in high school.
2. Require the consumer to obtain a certification before allowing them to borrow money for the first time. Require it again when they borrow large amounts for the first time (mortgage). While it is still an intrusive government intervention, it would create a better educated borrowing consumer without altering the free markets, backing bad loans, bailing out failing banks from bad loans, and rock an economy to its core.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Edited by Gatinho (10/01/11 05:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
A penny saved is... not much. (nt)
[Re: GatKong]
#265456 - 10/01/11 08:25 PM
|
|
|
> A penny saved is a penny earned.
A penny saved is... not much. (nt)
|
|
|
| italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Ugh, how did I get on the side of defending a bank?
[Re: GatKong]
#265462 - 10/01/11 09:26 PM
|
|
|
> Your example of banks trying to bundle and get rid of bad debt... ignores where that
> bad debt came from. Free markets would not have encouraged the banks to loan to
> people who were at high risk to default on their loans... but government intervention
> REQUIRED banks to loan money to high risk borrowers. Your example is just another
> where government intervention in the free market created the mess.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOOOOOAAAAA.....The banks are by no means innocent here, and FREELY gave away shitty credit lines. There was a huge market for sub prime lending in all financial sectors, and everyone wanted a piece of the action. The big banks knew there was a pool of little guys who would take on the big risk assets if things got a little scary. Problem was things got scary to quickly, with too waaay to many people playing the same game. Remember, these are the same banks who lowered minimums and raised maximums on credit lines to encourage borrowers to spend more. Banks are dirty evil things, out for profits. That is it.
Now I'm not sticking up for the government by any means, but it was the private sector that caused this. The government hasn't done much good in resolving the issue, but I'm not sure there is anything they can do.
> As far as the credit card rate one... its a 'reasonable' example of abuse and lots of
> people got caught up in those... of their own accord. Nobody made them borrow money
> on a card... nobody made them accept a card with such terms of service wherein any
> late payment would jack up the rate to ridiculous levels. In this case, the
> government stepped in to save unwary borrowers from their own bad decisions...
> arguably the 'right' thing to do, but a slippery slope to let the government 'know
> best' for you.
Agreed, people did this to themselves, and it is a slippery slope. As mentioned above though, this was the INTENT by creditors. Lock in customers with enticing minimum, large maximums, ans secure them as customers for life. Everyone had a hand in making it happen, but it happened exactly as orchestrated by the banks.
> Better would be for people to learn to 1. Avoid credit card card debt 2. Read their
> terms of service. 3. Pay their bills on time to avoid the penalty clauses and 4.
> Don't borrow more money than you can realistically pay back. But, now you don't have
> to... the government will protect you from yourself... and so Americans are free to
> run up their cards to levels they'll never be able to pay back... but at a 'fair'
> rate as enforced by the government. What we need now is more regulation to limit your
> credit so you don't run it up so high?
>
> At the end of it all, the consumer doesn't HAVE to take out a mortgage they can't
> afford, they don't HAVE to run up credit card debt they can't afford... but now our
> government will educate you you to be a smarter consumer enable your bad decisions by
> requiring banks to deal with your stupidity.
>
> Look what you made me do... now I'm on the bank's side. That's just wrong.
I'm agreeing with most of that. Seriously, I think people are retarded. The government had to do something though, because telling the nation "You fucked yourself" wasn't a viable option. Left unchecked it would have tanked our economy in months instead of the years its taking now.
>
> ETA: In thinking about the government interventions in these cases, a better use of
> government would have been to do a better job of educating the consumer, perhaps
> by...
> 1. Requiring a meaningful consumer education course in high school.
> 2. Require the consumer to obtain a certification before allowing them to borrow
> money for the first time. Require it again when they borrow large amounts for the
> first time (mortgage). While it is still an intrusive government intervention, it
> would create a better educated borrowing consumer without altering the free markets,
> backing bad loans, bailing out failing banks from bad loans, and rock an economy to
> its core.
>
> A penny saved is a penny earned.
I agree here too, but this is a day late (or a decade...) and a dollar short (or a trillion...). Economy is hanging by a thread. Banks orchestrated the "cause", consumers carried out the effect. There might not be any saving it either.
|
|
|
|
Re: A penny saved is... not much. (nt)
[Re: Mojo2000]
#265464 - 10/01/11 10:02 PM
|
|
|
Take care of your pennies and the dollars follow themselves...
There are several things that caused the recent depression.
1) Government requirements to loosen requirements on loans. This was done to encourage people to buy homes. They even created lenders of last resort to make sure it would happen. The governments mistake was thinking no one would abuse the system. They had changed the rules. The banks also realized they could loan money to anyone and pocket the fees (which are substantial) then sell the loan to the bank of last resort or someone else stupid enough to take it and pocket those fees too. The banks of last resort freaked out until they figured out they could 'pool' the loans and have 'zero' risk they sell the risk pools back. They did this by getting number 2 enacted (thru lobbyist pressures).
2) removal of the last of the 1930s laws that prohibited them from playing in the commodities markets.
Nobody ever really asked where did the late 90s bubble money come from? That was some *crazy* amount of money being thrown around. Where did that come from? There are not that many angel investors out there. It came from the banks and their recently loosened terms on what they could invest in. They were allowed to do that to make it easier for them to give out loans. Why would they be investing in risky things like that? Because they could offset the risky thing (loans) with a non risky thing (oil/gold/silver commodities). Which is the basic way a hedge fund works.
The 2008 crash really was an echo of the 2000 one. But worse as the real reason for the 2000 crash was never really addressed.
They still have not put back the regulations that were enacted to stop a 1930s style crash. The 2008 one was almost the same thing. The dodd-frank act put little bits and pieces of it back (and added in it own spin). But not all of it. It also created large amounts of burden on the gov to regulate it. It is unclear at this time if what was enacted will help. (shakes magic 8 ball) 'Outlook not so good'
|
|
|
|
Re: Then you're missing the bigger picture if you blame the banks.
[Re: GatKong]
#265478 - 10/02/11 03:56 AM
|
|
|
Hmmm... how it works in Germany (and most of Europe IIRC):
Your bank account is usually fully free of charge, if you get a certain amount of money in each month (i.e. a normal paycheck). Doing transactions and account management online? Free. what you have to pay for; is if you are to lazy to retrieve your account status monthly from a printer in the bank office. Then it's send to you and you'll have to pay the postage.
Getting cash from the ATM? it's free if it's a) your own bank's ATM b) if your bank belongs to a cash group (which mostly are, and ATMS that are free for you in both senses are common). And free over the WHOLE country, not just one or some federal states.
Paying with your debit card? It's free for the customer. Maybe the merchant restricts to minimum amount of purchase to 10EUR because of the debit transaction fee imposed by the bank on the merchant, but remember: getting cash is free, and almost all people here pay either cash or debit.
On the other side, credit cards or PayPal cost you additional fees because the banks are very greedy regarding such methods of payment, and milk the merchants.
I am strangely amused why in the US, fucks up so many (simple) things and procedures... be it cellphone plans or bank account / transaction handling / shopping online or in-store / digital cable / ensurances /etc. As an end-customer, you are getting ass-fucked every day.
But being as the banks are greedy suckers, it's not really keeping me wondering why your Gov wanna curb the fees.
Because that's actually what keeps merchants over here in DE accepting credit cards more: the fees that are imposed on them from the banks are substantially higher than in the US.
...44 cents for a simple electronic transaction? That's called "vampirism" in my eyes. Shit. Are the electrons moving through gold wire, or what? Another reason to not have a residential address in the US.
It's not regulating itself if the market is free, that's simply neo-liberal nonsense that was repelled several times during the last decades.
|
|
|
|
Re: Money grabbing bastards!
[Re: DR]
#265483 - 10/02/11 04:43 AM
|
|
|
Sooner or later all this shit is going to collapse onto itself. Wait and see non believers.Judgement day is coming and all the bankers and lawyers and those people who keep putting those adverts in my door will 
|
I’m convinced Mario is a hobo.
He wakes up everyday in the same clothes, runs around in sewers, and collects coins for a living.
At the end of the day, he uses the coins to buy mushrooms
|
|
|
Re: Then you're missing the bigger picture if you blame the banks.
[Re: CrapBoardSoftware]
#265510 - 10/02/11 07:02 PM
|
|
|
That was how it USED to work here...
Then some MBA decided they can slice and dice a few extra fees here and there... As one guy I used to work with said 'they pay those guys a lot of money to part you from yours'.
What you hear now is 'use credit unions'. Why is that? Because most of them are still using the very system you described.
The *big* banks were hemorrhaging money. They were looking for any way to keep their stock price up. To sustain growth they had to start charging for things that were once free. This was because the easy money (loaning money out and getting a percentage) basically stalled out for 2 years. The rates are near 0 due to the Fed keeping the 30 year rates very low. Making loaning money not very profitable (hence the stringent requirements to get one these days)
It is like the cable company. The only way once they saturate the market to sustain growth is to raise rates. Which they do like clockwork every year.
Also I am not surprised those systems cost a lot to run. I know a few people who work with these systems. They talk about 20-40k in SERVERS (not including desktops) for just the locations they work in. These banks went on an acquisition binge so now they have 10 banks worth of servers, computers, and support people to try to consolidate and try to turn into one system. They have a serious mess on their hands.
|
|
|
| DR |
|
Skeptical Linkbot
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/05/07
|
|
Posts: 1181
|
|
Loc: UK
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Then you're missing the bigger picture if you blame the banks.
[Re: CrapBoardSoftware]
#265537 - 10/03/11 02:54 PM
|
|
|
> Hmmm... how it works in Germany (and most of Europe IIRC):
Same for the UK as Germany.
|
There is no sin except stupidity.
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
Money grabbing bastards!
Reply
[Re: 
