3 ms·

> the banks would probably calculate that it would be cheaper and easier to manipulate the regulatory environment to inhibit credit unions than to compete on ho

> the banks would probably calculate that it would be cheaper and easier to manipulate the regulatory environment to inhibit credit unions than to compete on honest terms Would? No such calculation is necessary because banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere - the opportunity for fleecing the masses with those sneaky & outrageous charges is just too delightful to pass up. If people actually had a cheaper and better alternative, no one would keep paying those outrageous charges, and that's why the credit union 'had to be' "regulated"[1] to death. Ever wonder why all banks charge roughly the same fees? [1] "Regulation" is quite a double-speakey word. If you regulate an electric current, you make sure it isn't too strong, and that's where the word gets its positive connotation. But when a government "regulates" anything, it's basically just coercion. "No, you can't offer people this beneficial service. You can't charge less for transfers. You can't give your customers debit cards" and so on. > The only way for this system to be fixed starts at the ballot box. Do you think politicians all over the world don't know that every single person on earth would rather not get fleeced with outrageous fees? They all do, of course, and as evidenced by banks still raping us six ways from Sunday, they don't care. Take any societal problem you see. Is there real evidence to show that they care? Whatever they tell you to get elected doesn't count, by the way. How often do politicians keep their promises? Why would you think the solution to any problem would start at the ballot box?

webjprgm 11y ago
It starts before the ballot box, winning over voters. And that takes money.
- ethbro 11y ago
  It realistically starts and stops at the Supreme Court. Unless they change their "money is free speech" decision, the US stays with a free market political system.
- sukulaku 11y ago
  You know they pretty much always break their promises, and you understand that your vote doesn't bind them in any way. You see things getting worse each year.. So do you not understand that voting doesn't actually solve anything? Obviously, winning people over into participating in a pointless ritual doesn't help either, nor do the bribes a politician takes to fund the publicity necessary to win people over by lying to them. Think about it.
huac 11y ago
1. Banks are not state-maintained. You can argue that 'too big to fail' means government support for them, but support is not control. 2. Banks charge roughly the same fees for the same reason grocery stores charge roughly the same prices - competition. 3. Coercion is a straw man when considering government activity. Anything you don't like becomes coercive. I don't like that my roommate wakes up before me and disturbs my sleep - coercion! I like having subsidized education but not paying taxes - coercion! I like feeling safe with protected borders and the greatest fighting force ever assembled but not paying taxes or protecting people who don't look like me - coercion! 4. There is never a single solution, no silver bullet to resolve complex societal problems. I sympathize a bit with you here - what is the point of progressive reform when the system will adapt? Nothing structural will change, but will only shift. But at the same time, shouting down calls for representative change serve nobody either. I also resent your use of 'rape' in that context.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sukulaku 11y ago
  > Banks are not state-maintained. You can argue that 'too big to fail' means government support for them, but support is not control. That wasn't my claim. I said banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere, and that implies preventing competition. One way to prevent competition is to make sure the cartel banks can't fail. It's difficult to compete with a business that gets handed unlimited amounts of other people's money when it's about to go bankrupt. > Banks charge roughly the same fees for the same reason grocery stores charge roughly the same prices - competition. Do you sincerely think banks couldn't charge less for their services? :) Because that's what it would take for competition to have resulted in the current price level, as anyone on HN should be able to understand. I'll stop here now because I suspect you're not being honest.

webjprgm 11y ago

It starts before the ballot box, winning over voters. And that takes money.

ethbro 11y ago
It realistically starts and stops at the Supreme Court. Unless they change their "money is free speech" decision, the US stays with a free market political system.
sukulaku 11y ago
You know they pretty much always break their promises, and you understand that your vote doesn't bind them in any way. You see things getting worse each year.. So do you not understand that voting doesn't actually solve anything? Obviously, winning people over into participating in a pointless ritual doesn't help either, nor do the bribes a politician takes to fund the publicity necessary to win people over by lying to them. Think about it.

huac 11y ago

1. Banks are not state-maintained. You can argue that 'too big to fail' means government support for them, but support is not control. 2. Banks charge roughly the same fees for the same reason grocery stores charge roughly the same prices - competition. 3. Coercion is a straw man when considering government activity. Anything you don't like becomes coercive. I don't like that my roommate wakes up before me and disturbs my sleep - coercion! I like having subsidized education but not paying taxes - coercion! I like feeling safe with protected borders and the greatest fighting force ever assembled but not paying taxes or protecting people who don't look like me - coercion! 4. There is never a single solution, no silver bullet to resolve complex societal problems. I sympathize a bit with you here - what is the point of progressive reform when the system will adapt? Nothing structural will change, but will only shift. But at the same time, shouting down calls for representative change serve nobody either. I also resent your use of 'rape' in that context.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sukulaku 11y ago
> Banks are not state-maintained. You can argue that 'too big to fail' means government support for them, but support is not control. That wasn't my claim. I said banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere, and that implies preventing competition. One way to prevent competition is to make sure the cartel banks can't fail. It's difficult to compete with a business that gets handed unlimited amounts of other people's money when it's about to go bankrupt. > Banks charge roughly the same fees for the same reason grocery stores charge roughly the same prices - competition. Do you sincerely think banks couldn't charge less for their services? :) Because that's what it would take for competition to have resulted in the current price level, as anyone on HN should be able to understand. I'll stop here now because I suspect you're not being honest.