What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Transplanted Tiger Fan said:
This may be off-topic a bit, but a question for the economic whizzes out there in light of the "99%'er" movement that is getting a lot of press these days...

Knowing the power of “social media” (see Egypt), what would be the outcome of an organized popular revolt on the banking industry? For example, it won’t be long before someone in the "99%" movement figures-out that tie-dyed shirts, cardboard signs, and face paint isn’t getting the job done, and determines that a potentially-effective way to hurt the "Big Bad Bankers" is to disrupt their assets. A significant portion of a bank’s assets consists of the money deposited by their Customers... us.

If, by way of “social media”, a coordinated and targeted ‘run’ on a given bank’s assets were to be deployed (such as a mass-withdrawal), what would the result be on the economy? Would (could?) the targeted bank react by calling-in loans to make-up for the lost assets? Would such a coordinated tactic even be effective in attempting to hurt the "Big Bad Banker"?

Disclaimer: I am in no way suggesting nor encouraging a tactic such as this to be implemented against the "Big Bad Bankers", but I also acknowledge that I cannot be the only person with this thought. An individual with ethics that differ from mine may actually attempt to act on such a thought. I just want to be sure my 401k is properly allocated ahead of time! ;)
Click to expand...

You just got your wish.
 
Last edited:
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Twitch Boy said:
You just got your wish.
Click to expand...

FTFA: The protestors take issue with the Durbin Amendment, which is an addition to the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that caps the debit interchange fees banks can charge merchants.

Uh, no? They take issue with the Banks' responses to that amendment, not the amendment itself. Unless I'm off the rocker, the protestors are pro-regulation, not anti-regulation.
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

unofan said:
FTFA: The protestors take issue with the Durbin Amendment, which is an addition to the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that caps the debit interchange fees banks can charge merchants.

Uh, no? They take issue with the Banks' responses to that amendment, not the amendment itself. Unless I'm off the rocker, the protestors are pro-regulation, not anti-regulation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, TFA does a crappy job of explaining that.
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Article about anti-war protesters joining OWS.

I'm wary of this article. IMHO, you wanna know the single most powerful group of people these guys could have join? Returning Iraq-Afghanistan veterans. If a few thousand of those folks who are struggling to make ends meet join up, this thing will REALLY land itself in the public eye.

They need to be careful of how they interpret their anti-war sentiment so they don't alienate these people. Get the troops against you and it's over.
 
Last edited:
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

FlagDUDE08 said:
I predict that not even 10% of deposit totals go down in banks.
Click to expand...

Considering it costs most banks $400-500 a year to maintain each checking account, I think the fees are really meant to drive off the deadwood. If somebody is that price sensitive at $5/month, they are probably not worth most larger banks' time or money. Let them find a cheap credit union or local bank. Well while the local banks are still around, since Dodd-Frank will strangle a good number of them over the next few years.
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

The difference between Costco and B of A is that Costco didn't foreclose on a ton of people's homes and livelihoods illegally.

I have no idea why people go to retail banks. They are exorbitantly expensive. I am constantly plugging my credit union which is just as good as any retail bank and a hell of a lot cheaper. If you're in CO or MA and shopping, try Digital CU (DCU). They are awesome and essentially free to use, including a $10 monthly allowance for ATM fees from for-profit banks.
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

ScottM said:
Well while the local banks are still around, since Dodd-Frank will strangle a good number of them over the next few years.
Click to expand...

God bless the law of unintended consequences... I'm sure that'll mean even more government to defeat those big banks the make things even worse for the rest of us which will be the fault of the big banks (repeat cycle).
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Unofan: Many, MANY thanks for the response. I was under the impression that the “common folk” held a greater stake in a bank’s portfolio, and I was obviously wrong when considering the amount of wealth inherent to corporate holdings. I am wiser as a result, so thanks again!

Twitch Boy: Regarding the link - Wow!! I guess I should say I’m flattered, but... did <U><I>anybody</I></U> <U><I><B>NOT</B></I></U> see this coming?? Honestly... not my wish (but I know what you meant), just my idle/intellectual curiosity. I have a minimal understanding of how the banking world works, but like a good lemming I established a 401k early-on in my career and have a heavy vested interested in it, as well as that which may affect it. Not to mention, this whole 99%’er movement fascinates me, yet has me on-edge regarding the ultimate outcome – if any.


The morning-show talking-heads I heard today seem to have pretty-much nailed it. The 99%’er movement is far too disorganized to be effective. They have no <I><U>true</U></I> goal or objective, but instead have a quite diverse list of “wants”. I referenced “tie-dye shirts, cardboard signs, and face paint” in my original post. Having read some of those cardboard signs, I have <U>no</U> idea what these people <U><I>universally</I></U> stand for! It all appears to be a bunch of “rambling whining”, really.

Having attended the “Rally to Restore Sanity”, the signs in this 99%’er movement seem to resemble the signs on the Mall that day. Some hilarious, many original, a few ‘pathetic’, some with a valid point, some solely for the purpose of garnering attention. But the “Rally to Restore Sanity” was essentially organized in-jest by established comedians, and many, or at least most of us knew what to expect from that event, regardless of how spot-on the message and/or intention was. And I must say, I am quite proud to have been a part of it (despite the fact that the Metro ride made my daughter cry).

Now, before anyone rails me for discounting the significance of that Rally or its “ulterior intended purpose”, I acknowledge and fully appreciate/believe the content of Jon Stewart’s “Moment of Sincerity” speech. For those who haven’t heard it, look it up. Quite valid and appropriate <I>for the times</I>. Moving on...

This 99%’er movement simply cannot succeed without a well-defined objective. So what is it? Eat the rich? Socialism? “I got nothing better to do today than be loud and try to poop at McDonalds (without patronizing them)”? Who knows!!?

I get the jist of their message on corporate greed - No man/woman is worth a $50million (arbitrary figure) salary. None. An owner of a company, maybe... after all, they are the one(s) who truly front the risk. But executive compensation is absolutely out-of-control. This, I believe, is the universal opinion of the 99%’er movement. But their request of the government to rectify the situation is a ‘slippery-slope’. To do so would not necessarily equate to the <U>pure</U> form of Socialism, but is heading in that direction, and is therefore impossible to address by means of government involvement.

The solution? – Public outcry is certainly effective... <B><U>to</U> <U>government</U>!!!</B> But the only effective means of change within the business world involves money [period]. Yes, the government can have an effect on the monetary nature of business, but not when the big ol’ “S-word” is being thrown-around! The 99%’ers are truly powerless in voice, and I fear the next tactic. Wiser heads must prevail.
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Completely agree with everything you said, Tiger Fan.

I can understand why the Occupiers are frustrated. I can even understand some of their hopes and dreams. But can someone please explain to me what the actual plan is for travelling from the current frustrations to that Utopian vision? Is there any other mechanism than a massive increase in government regulation of corporations? No amount of public discourse, regardless of how peaceful, intelligent and sincere, will cause corporations to willingly give up their power.

So what's the plan?
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

I went to the OccupyWallStreet.org site a few days ago, and I couldn't find a plan. So I started checking around and found a forum. Looking through the forum, I found a few people asking the question. It looks like some of the people on there answered those questions only to later remove/edit their reply (or the site owner/moderator did so) when others replied saying to not give an agenda, to not lockdown the movement with specific demands.

So other than the fact that people are mad at Wall Street, and others just like to protest because it's what they seem to do professionally, there doesn't seem to be an agenda.
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

St. Clown said:
So other than the fact that people are mad at Wall Street, and others just like to protest because it's what they seem to do professionally, there doesn't seem to be an agenda.
Click to expand...

From the signs and chants, it seems to run the gamut from ending the wars in the mideast, to statehood for the Palestinians, to worker rights to loan forgiveness to corporate "greed". More of a semi-organized biatch-fest, like "The View". IMHO the unions would send a stronger message if they pulled their pension fund assets from the big banks, and allowed their members to self-manage them. Or give them away to "the masses".
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

ScottM said:
IMHO the unions would send a stronger message if they pulled their pension fund assets from the big banks, and allowed their members to self-manage them. Or give them away to "the masses".
Click to expand...

What?
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

As the Occupy Wall Street protests spread from Lower Manhattan to Washington and other cities, the chattering classes keep complaining that the marchers lack a clear message and specific policy prescriptions. The message — and the solutions — should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention since the economy went into a recession that continues to sock the middle class while the rich have recovered and prospered. The problem is that no one in Washington has been listening.

At this point, protest is the message: income inequality is grinding down that middle class, increasing the ranks of the poor, and threatening to create a permanent underclass of able, willing but jobless people. On one level, the protesters, most of them young, are giving voice to a generation of lost opportunity.

The jobless rate for college graduates under age 25 has averaged 9.6 percent over the past year; for young high school graduates, the average is 21.6 percent. Those figures do not reflect graduates who are working but in low-paying jobs that do not even require diplomas. Such poor prospects in the early years of a career portend a lifetime of diminished prospects and lower earnings — the very definition of downward mobility.

The protests, though, are more than a youth uprising. The protesters’ own problems are only one illustration of the ways in which the economy is not working for most Americans. They are exactly right when they say that the financial sector, with regulators and elected officials in collusion, inflated and profited from a credit bubble that burst, costing millions of Americans their jobs, incomes, savings and home equity. As the bad times have endured, Americans have also lost their belief in redress and recovery.

The initial outrage has been compounded by bailouts and by elected officials’ hunger for campaign cash from Wall Street, a toxic combination that has reaffirmed the economic and political power of banks and bankers, while ordinary Americans suffer.

Extreme inequality is the hallmark of a dysfunctional economy, dominated by a financial sector that is driven as much by speculation, gouging and government backing as by productive investment.

When the protesters say they represent 99 percent of Americans, they are referring to the concentration of income in today’s deeply unequal society. Before the recession, the share of income held by those in the top 1 percent of households was 23.5 percent, the highest since 1928 and more than double the 10 percent level of the late 1970s.
Click to expand...
More at link
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

LynahFan said:
So, based on this article, it appears that the plan is to complain a lot about problems while chanting, "it's someone else's job to fix it."

I predict unprecedented levels of failure to accomplish anything.
Click to expand...

Whose job is it to pass laws and regulate industry?
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Here is the Declaration of Principles
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
Click to expand...

And the five rules they want enacted:

1. Corporations are not persons.
2. Money is not speech
3. Tax Financial Transactions
4. Tax all income as ordinary income
5. Declare a moratorium on foreclosures
Details at link
 
Re: Banks, Credit Unions, and Fees: Oh my!

Priceless said:
Here is the Declaration of Principles


And the five rules they want enacted:

1. Corporations are not persons.
2. Money is not speech
3. Tax Financial Transactions
4. Tax all income as ordinary income
5. Declare a moratorium on foreclosures
Details at link
Click to expand...

Well, at least those are concrete goals, even if #3 and #4 are the only ones with a snowball's chance of even entering serious debate.

If corporations were denied the rights to due process, jury trials, freedom from unreasonable searches, freedom of speech, etc, which all derive from their "personhood," would the government be footing the bill to re-train us for the resulting subsistence-agrarian society that would be the inevitable result? No investor in his right mind would put his money into a corporation that lacked those rights. If the protesters think things are bad now *with* the corporations, they obviously haven't really thought through what things would be like *without* them. Were we all really that much better off in 1811 than we are in 2011?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top