3 ms·
"Then again, we don't need the government to punish them. We just need account holders to close their accounts. If people are not willing to do this, why should
by maxxxxx 8y ago
"Then again, we don't need the government to punish them. We just need account holders to close their accounts. If people are not willing to do this, why should the government that represents those people get involved?"
Because we have decided that it's easier for everybody if we set standards for businesses so we can trust them to act ethically. When you go to a restaurant you generally can be confident that you won't get poisoned. So if you are a Wells Fargo customer you should be able to trust that you don't get screwed over.
It's not realistic to put the burden of monitoring business practices on the individual person. If you ever have dealt with buying a house or medical stuff you should know that understanding the transactions completely would probably be a full time job. That's why we have regulations and laws so people can spend their time more productively.
- bogomipz 8y ago>"It's not realistic to put the burden of monitoring business practices on the individual person. If you ever have dealt with buying a house or medical stuff you should know that understanding the transactions completely would probably be a full time job. That's why we have regulations and laws so people can spend their time more productively." I think the point the OP is making is that when the regulatory regime fails to protect customers by taking action against a company with such frequent and glaring violation there is something that can be done as a last resort - voting with your feet. Clearly regulators haven't instilled any real fear into this toxic dump of a bank.
- maxxxxx 8y agoI guess some of the Twitter outrage that goes to people who have used a wrong word should go to Wells Fargo.