2 ms·

The point where "hate" enters the equation is where the bank uses my deposit to make money and do not adequately reward me. They then, when not stopped by regu

by tertius 11y ago

The point where "hate" enters the equation is where the bank uses my deposit to make money and do not adequately reward me. They then, when not stopped by regulation, lend to those who cannot afford to pay back, predation. You can claim amorality, I don't buy it. Therefore the 'multiplier' rewards/encourages bad behaviour in an arational world. We can't get mad at the multiplier, only at those who are rewarded by it. Fair and moral reward is the only option, even if it means less reward in the short term.

fennecfoxen 11y ago
> the bank uses my deposit to make money and do not adequately reward me. So go use your money elsewhere. If you do business with a group like Vanguard and meet some modest minimums, you can buy and sell bond funds from a variety of asset classes for free, and you can see exactly how much of your returns they take - for instance, VGSH, which charges 0.10% on a 0.70% yield, or VCIT, which charges the same on a 2.28% yield. Of course, you lose your 100% guaranteed return and the use of that money with checks and ATMs and debit cards, but there you go, that's the stuff you didn't want to pay for. > the 'multiplier' rewards/encourages bad behaviour in an [irrational] world. You're blaming a measurement for bad behavior. That's all the multiplier is, just a measurement of lending activity. If you find fault with banks being predatory then any ability for any group to lend any money at all under any circumstances presents the same incentives. If you're upset with the existence of a multiplier you basically want to ban lending. The real funny part, though, is that even when you seem to think that most of any bank's business is predatory and deserving of hate, you have the chutzpah to turn around complain that you're not getting a big enough cut. Do you have real principles or do you just hate banks? Decide, now. > Fair and moral reward is the only option In practice, whenever this statement gets turned into Politics it's basically a call for elected politicians (Bernie Sanders and friends) to decide who deserves to get money -- a paean to central planning, never mind the economic stupor and corruption it ultimately engenders. The sad thing is, it doesn't help. Even payday lenders, everyone's favorite punching-bag and icons of Predatory Lending, earn pathetic rates of return, typically in the neighborhood of 3%. And central planning gives you things that contribute substantially to crises, like when the government had FMAE and FMAC buy up millions of subprime loans without question as part of a program to extend more credit to minorities. But no one pays attention to history, so we're doomed to repeat it.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  If I really hated the banks, I would make big deposits, wait a couple weeks, then go into a local branch and take it all out as cash. I would do it in a one-party consent state, so that I could record everything. The instant any bank fails to allow immediate cash withdrawal for my demand deposit, I would run to the local TV news, turn over my video, and then run down to the courthouse to file a civil suit as I gleefully await a bank run. But I don't hate the banks. I just think they're full of amoral profit-maximizers that will consistently place their own welfare above those of their "customers". If you lower your expectations a bit, you can do business with any bank quite comfortably. It's almost like dealing with Comcast, or AT&T. Expect the worst from them at the outset, and you can only be pleasantly surprised if they do better.
inawarminister 11y ago
Thank G-d for Shari'a Banking. My money is my money (minus their fees, which is alright to me) Or you can deposit your money as a lend TO the bank (and get profit of that)

by tertius 11y ago

fennecfoxen 11y ago

> the bank uses my deposit to make money and do not adequately reward me. So go use your money elsewhere. If you do business with a group like Vanguard and meet some modest minimums, you can buy and sell bond funds from a variety of asset classes for free, and you can see exactly how much of your returns they take - for instance, VGSH, which charges 0.10% on a 0.70% yield, or VCIT, which charges the same on a 2.28% yield. Of course, you lose your 100% guaranteed return and the use of that money with checks and ATMs and debit cards, but there you go, that's the stuff you didn't want to pay for. > the 'multiplier' rewards/encourages bad behaviour in an [irrational] world. You're blaming a measurement for bad behavior. That's all the multiplier is, just a measurement of lending activity. If you find fault with banks being predatory then any ability for any group to lend any money at all under any circumstances presents the same incentives. If you're upset with the existence of a multiplier you basically want to ban lending. The real funny part, though, is that even when you seem to think that most of any bank's business is predatory and deserving of hate, you have the chutzpah to turn around complain that you're not getting a big enough cut. Do you have real principles or do you just hate banks? Decide, now. > Fair and moral reward is the only option In practice, whenever this statement gets turned into Politics it's basically a call for elected politicians (Bernie Sanders and friends) to decide who deserves to get money -- a paean to central planning, never mind the economic stupor and corruption it ultimately engenders. The sad thing is, it doesn't help. Even payday lenders, everyone's favorite punching-bag and icons of Predatory Lending, earn pathetic rates of return, typically in the neighborhood of 3%. And central planning gives you things that contribute substantially to crises, like when the government had FMAE and FMAC buy up millions of subprime loans without question as part of a program to extend more credit to minorities. But no one pays attention to history, so we're doomed to repeat it.

logfromblammo 11y ago
If I really hated the banks, I would make big deposits, wait a couple weeks, then go into a local branch and take it all out as cash. I would do it in a one-party consent state, so that I could record everything. The instant any bank fails to allow immediate cash withdrawal for my demand deposit, I would run to the local TV news, turn over my video, and then run down to the courthouse to file a civil suit as I gleefully await a bank run. But I don't hate the banks. I just think they're full of amoral profit-maximizers that will consistently place their own welfare above those of their "customers". If you lower your expectations a bit, you can do business with any bank quite comfortably. It's almost like dealing with Comcast, or AT&T. Expect the worst from them at the outset, and you can only be pleasantly surprised if they do better.

inawarminister 11y ago

Thank G-d for Shari'a Banking. My money is my money (minus their fees, which is alright to me) Or you can deposit your money as a lend TO the bank (and get profit of that)