4 ms·

I wouldn't want to have to ask them to do so, I'd seek out a bank that operates soundly. It's the difference between Wells Fargo (forced at gun point to take th

by shingen 15y ago

I wouldn't want to have to ask them to do so, I'd seek out a bank that operates soundly. It's the difference between Wells Fargo (forced at gun point to take the TARP money), and insolvent vile blackholes like Citi and Bank of America. I would rather my bank charge a profitable, common / historically normal interest rate, than go to the Federal Government (aka tax payers) seeking a bailout at a later date or collapsing into insolvency. For example, by keeping interest rates at 0% for so long, and driving 30 year mortgage rates down below 4%, the Federal Government is going to burden US tax payers for decades to come with hyper expensive (to the tax payer), money losing mortgages. No sane business would lend money at 4% for 30 years on something like a house after the disaster we've just been through and what's still occurring. Fannie & Freddie are going to keep costing tax payers tens of billions for many years to come as the Feds intentionally under price the market on mortgages. I don't think that's in any way sane or fair to tax payers.

mrich 15y ago
Well, last I checked Samsung, HTC, Motorola, HP, Dell, Asus didn't receive bailouts. We are talking about tech companies here - arguing that Apple does not care about profit is naive at best, as shown by my original argument. They could easily stay independent by other means. They care about their profit more, so that's why they don't lower their margins. As a public company, they don't have much leeway here - what do you think would happen when they come out saying at the next shareholder meeting "our customers are most important to us - half price on everything from now on!"
- shingen 15y ago
  Who's arguing that Apple does not care about profits? I've argued the exact opposite across numerous posts. They care about profits and it's in the best interests of their customers that they do. Which is exactly what I said in the parent. I'd argue that the best interest of the Apple customer is maximum value, not cheapest price. And that's exactly why their customers continue to buy like crazy at a high price point. IE what's best for the customer and what's best for Apple are not mutually exclusive, but rather they're fully integrated. Apple's customers would not be served by an Apple with 5% margins.

by shingen 15y ago

mrich 15y ago

Well, last I checked Samsung, HTC, Motorola, HP, Dell, Asus didn't receive bailouts. We are talking about tech companies here - arguing that Apple does not care about profit is naive at best, as shown by my original argument. They could easily stay independent by other means. They care about their profit more, so that's why they don't lower their margins. As a public company, they don't have much leeway here - what do you think would happen when they come out saying at the next shareholder meeting "our customers are most important to us - half price on everything from now on!"

shingen 15y ago
Who's arguing that Apple does not care about profits? I've argued the exact opposite across numerous posts. They care about profits and it's in the best interests of their customers that they do. Which is exactly what I said in the parent. I'd argue that the best interest of the Apple customer is maximum value, not cheapest price. And that's exactly why their customers continue to buy like crazy at a high price point. IE what's best for the customer and what's best for Apple are not mutually exclusive, but rather they're fully integrated. Apple's customers would not be served by an Apple with 5% margins.