|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 25 2018 08:15 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 25 2018 06:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 25 2018 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 25 2018 05:25 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 25 2018 05:18 a_flayer wrote:On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away Maybe they'll order some furniture for their 4th house so I can work for another week at my current job making furniture? Trickle down, right? Or maybe they'll make poor people cough up just a few more dollars a month instead. Bank of America Corp. has eliminated a free checking account popular with some lower-income customers, requiring them to keep more money at the bank to avoid a monthly fee. SourceThe future is looking mighty guillotinesque to me. I think you may have missed the entire discussion about how most bank charge these sort of fees and how those economics work. Banks make money off of offering free checking accounts. The change with free checking accounts simply allows them to make even more money off of those with the least to give and some more off of those who can meet the requirements. So it makes something profitable, more profitable by screening out those that are benefiting more than they may contribute (this is the "pro" everyone focused on) but it also increases the profits off those right on the edge and shoves them down if they make a mistake or unforeseen circumstances arise. It's a popular thing for banks to do, but it doesn't make it not an asshole move. There are fairly significant overhead costs for a bank associated with a 'free' checking account. The bank needs to have branches, ATM's, customer service reps and other employees. Sounds like you're trying to disagree without disagreeing with anything? As P6 said, it's more that this cost structure is not very transparent. A retail bank is probably making very little money (they may even be losing money) or individual checking accounts. Most of their actual profit comes from other products, like mortgages, loans and business services. You know those other services are why they have most of the overhead right? If bank branches primary purpose was to service checking accounts they would have been replaced with ATM's already. EDIT:I feel like this previous fact and that processing plastic is significantly cheaper than processing checks (overhead) is lost on people. My point is that you're incorrectly framing fees on checking accounts as the bank squeezing money out of individuals. What's 'free' to individuals actually costs the bank something, and charging account fees is to cover those costs which they used to simply eat. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of a primary purpose of a bank from. Think of it more like a grocery store, which sells all sorts of things even though some things make them more money than others.
I see you as framing this completely wrong.
Of course there are costs to providing a service. But the banks had a profitable model, then they were like "how can we make this more profitable", then they figured out if they stop providing this service to the people who they make the least off (from lending, but a lot from fines) and putting a bunch of people on the edge it would be more profitable.
This comes at the direct cost to those people and some trinket for people who it doesn't effect and a massive profit for the bank.
As to the purpose of a bank it's more like a gas station and checking is gas.
|
It's important to note that the original point, that all this would disappear if only we used cash instead, is completely false. Cash has hidden costs just like anything else; in fact I suspect they are higher than for cashless transactions.
Cash costs money to design, protect against forgery, print, secure, count, transport, record. It's naive to act like there aren't overheads involved. If anything, cash overheads are both higher than cashless overheads and even more opaque to the customer. In fact, a large chunk of them are charged to public money, either directly via mints etc. or indirectly via public law enforcement/security.
I would be very surprised if a completely cashless society turned out to be less efficient than a completely cash-based society.
|
|
|
Why would we believe otherwise? Of course Trump would ask that and will never understand why it’s a huge problem to do that.
|
This might be the first "I don't recall" I've seen coming from Trump (at least in a while). I think his lawyers may have actually gotten through to him.
|
On January 25 2018 09:13 Belisarius wrote:
It's important to note that the original point, that all this would disappear if only we used cash instead, is completely false. Cash has hidden costs just like anything else; in fact I suspect they are higher than for cashless transactions.
Cash costs money to design, protect against forgery, print, secure, count, transport, record. It's naive to act like there aren't overheads involved. If anything, cash overheads are both higher than cashless overheads and even more opaque to the customer. In fact, a large chunk of them are charged to public money, either directly via mints etc. or indirectly via public law enforcement/security.
I would be very surprised if a completely cashless society turned out to be less efficient than a completely cash-based society.
You haven't specified what ends you are maximizing in your "efficiency" argument. Total cost? Total transactions? GDP (total transactions not offset by use of tax revenue)? Production? Change in inequality? Number of small businesses? Diversity of banks and competition in the market place? Targeted ad revenue based on completely tracked purchasing histories? Freedom from targeted ads? Surveillance efficiency?
|
Clearly cost. This is the original statement:
On January 25 2018 05:22 Plansix wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I would prefer more banks charge fees for their services directly. Many of their “free” services are paid for by pushing the costs to other aspects. Like debit card fees. If those were tacked on to the price of all of our purchases, we would use cash far more. But instead we are unaware the charge even exists and we assume everything costs nothing.
My point is that "we assume everything costs nothing" applies as much to cash as it does to cashless.
Cashless transactions have both pros and cons. But "if we just used cash banks wouldn't need to charge us fees" is nonsense. Cash transactions still cost someone money, those costs are just rarely charged at point-of-sale.
|
I think what P6 is saying, is that cash-only isn't going to a shareholder's bonus at the end of the day, but taken from everyone.
|
Boyd is a Trump appointee. But, DoJ. So he's "deep state" now.
|
|
|
United States43274 Posts
|
On the second meeting they passed a motion to make Pizza day Thursday.
|
And because of that silly text message, some GOP "lawmaker", a real leader of the nation, went on national TV and accused the FBI of having an actual secret society. Because someone in secret FBI societies, would totally text about it to her boyfriend.
I mean, why are we even looking at this woman text her boyfriend about her social life?
Between this crazy nonsense, and the news about the FBI investigating the NRA for taking foreign (Russian) money to use in political campaigns (not just Trump), I'm definitely getting the feeling that the GOP's ever-wavering cover for Trump is more than just politics. Something is seriously off with some of these people. Nunes is supposed to be recused from this investigation, not writing memos about it to Alex Jones and the Russian-bot army, and that he refuses to show to the DoJ or the Senate. Absolutely crazy.
|
The DOJ is fed up with Nunes bullshit and him going all mob justice on the DOJ/FBI.
|
On January 25 2018 11:23 Plansix wrote:
The DOJ is fed up with Nunes bullshit and him going all mob justice on the DOJ/FBI.
DOJ, FBI, Senate Intel Committee. Refuses to share it with any of them. I guess Burr and Trump's FBI appointee are both members of the deep state. What fraction of the hashtag support for releasing his memo comes from Russian bots on Twitter? 50%?
|
I love that he used his clearance to draft this memo that half of congress can't see and is waving it around to discredit the FBI, but won't let the FBI see it. Trump shill to the last.
|
On January 25 2018 11:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 11:23 Plansix wrote:
The DOJ is fed up with Nunes bullshit and him going all mob justice on the DOJ/FBI. DOJ, FBI, Senate Intel Committee. Refuses to share it with any of them. I guess Burr and Trump's FBI appointee are both members of the deep state. What fraction of the hashtag support for releasing his memo comes from Russian bots on Twitter? 50%?
prob not
https://thedailybeast.com/source-twitter-pins-releasethememo-on-republicans-not-russia
|
|
|
On January 25 2018 11:08 Leporello wrote:And because of that silly text message, some GOP "lawmaker", a real leader of the nation, went on national TV and accused the FBI of having an actual secret society. Because someone in secret FBI societies, would totally text about it to her boyfriend. I mean, why are we even looking at this woman text her boyfriend about her social life? Between this crazy nonsense, and the news about the FBI investigating the NRA for taking foreign (Russian) money to use in political campaigns (not just Trump), I'm definitely getting the feeling that the GOP's ever-wavering cover for Trump is more than just politics. Something is seriously off with some of these people. Nunes is supposed to be recused from this investigation, not writing memos about it to Alex Jones and the Russian-bot army, and that he refuses to show to the DoJ or the Senate. Absolutely crazy.
i mean, this is for the benefit of the cheese pizza = child pornography crowd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
