3 ms·

"So, they'll continue paying politicians to ensure the status quo and collecting all kinds of fees/interest." I'm waiting for a politician to really go after t

"So, they'll continue paying politicians to ensure the status quo and collecting all kinds of fees/interest." I'm waiting for a politician to really go after the banks on this his very issue. Yes, we have other problems, but capping/eliminating fees would get my attention. There's only one Elisabeth Warren, and the Bankers are making her out to be out of touch with the way the system works? Could anyone imagine if the government let the banks suffocate in 2008? Sure Jamie Diamond's bank would have magically survived--according to that ego? The innovative competition that would have arose from the ashes might have been interesting? We will never know. Why do I feel these banks are in conclusion with fees?

Shivetya 11y ago
There is little wrong with fees, let alone interest. Considering how many banks and credit unions exist there is little excuse for not finding one that provides the services you want with a fee structure you accept. Credit unions usually provide the best value and membership rules are very flexible. Regulation on any industry cost that industry money. It also does not help when your in an industry which gets investigated for not providing services to many who cost you money to serve. The only concerns I have with fees is that they need to be always out front so that the customer is not caught unawares.
- msandford 11y ago
  > Considering how many banks and credit unions exist there is little excuse for not finding one that provides the services you want with a fee structure you accept. While it'd be great if that were true, it's by no means guaranteed. We have a choice in wireless carrier here in the US but still most folks aren't terribly pleased with theirs. Just because there are a lot of players it does not follow that you'll find one you like. There can be many players but other forces which prevent what you want from existing at all. Government regulations, "generally accepted practices", uncreative management, etc.
bsbechtel 11y ago
>> Could anyone imagine if the government let the banks suffocate in 2008? I've heard from multiple sources that Iceland let their banks fail, and they're actually doing better than most now. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/key-lesson-from-iceland-crisis-let-banks-fail.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/key-lesson-from-icela...
- Intermernet 11y ago
  Thanks, I've bookmarked that link. It's actually very interesting, and I'm surprised is hasn't been more widely discussed, or used as an example. Another link (from that article) straight from the IMF, with some more info: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2011/SurveyartF.htm http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2011/Surveyart...
- CHY872 11y ago
  That's very different; Iceland's total debt was tiny (compared) as it is a very small island (Iceland's debt was perhaps 1/12 the size of the debt held by Lehman Brothers). Very annoying if you had money stored in Iceland, but otherwise not a huge problem. The US letting its banks fail would possibly have brought down the entire economy, leading to a far, far more severe crisis. That's what the parent is speculating about.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Iceland did a combination of things. They put dirty politicians in jail, got better ones in office, seized the banking system, re-focused it on stable growth rather than greed, and knocked out fraudulent debts with laws. The U.S. could've done quite a bit of that. We could've even pitted Wall St's geniuses against each other by talking the companies and then offering financial incentives to those that help ensure bailout dollars only go to right place. And so on and so forth. Instead, here's hundreds of billions, don't tell us what you do with it, and criminal immunity. Some kind of "democracy" the U.S. is these days...
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    these fraudulent debts would be those UK pensioners and UK local government who had savings with the Icelandic banks.

Shivetya 11y ago

There is little wrong with fees, let alone interest. Considering how many banks and credit unions exist there is little excuse for not finding one that provides the services you want with a fee structure you accept. Credit unions usually provide the best value and membership rules are very flexible. Regulation on any industry cost that industry money. It also does not help when your in an industry which gets investigated for not providing services to many who cost you money to serve. The only concerns I have with fees is that they need to be always out front so that the customer is not caught unawares.

msandford 11y ago
> Considering how many banks and credit unions exist there is little excuse for not finding one that provides the services you want with a fee structure you accept. While it'd be great if that were true, it's by no means guaranteed. We have a choice in wireless carrier here in the US but still most folks aren't terribly pleased with theirs. Just because there are a lot of players it does not follow that you'll find one you like. There can be many players but other forces which prevent what you want from existing at all. Government regulations, "generally accepted practices", uncreative management, etc.

bsbechtel 11y ago

>> Could anyone imagine if the government let the banks suffocate in 2008? I've heard from multiple sources that Iceland let their banks fail, and they're actually doing better than most now. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/key-lesson-from-iceland-crisis-let-banks-fail.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/key-lesson-from-icela...

Intermernet 11y ago
Thanks, I've bookmarked that link. It's actually very interesting, and I'm surprised is hasn't been more widely discussed, or used as an example. Another link (from that article) straight from the IMF, with some more info: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2011/SurveyartF.htm http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2011/Surveyart...
CHY872 11y ago
That's very different; Iceland's total debt was tiny (compared) as it is a very small island (Iceland's debt was perhaps 1/12 the size of the debt held by Lehman Brothers). Very annoying if you had money stored in Iceland, but otherwise not a huge problem. The US letting its banks fail would possibly have brought down the entire economy, leading to a far, far more severe crisis. That's what the parent is speculating about.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Iceland did a combination of things. They put dirty politicians in jail, got better ones in office, seized the banking system, re-focused it on stable growth rather than greed, and knocked out fraudulent debts with laws. The U.S. could've done quite a bit of that. We could've even pitted Wall St's geniuses against each other by talking the companies and then offering financial incentives to those that help ensure bailout dollars only go to right place. And so on and so forth. Instead, here's hundreds of billions, don't tell us what you do with it, and criminal immunity. Some kind of "democracy" the U.S. is these days...
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  these fraudulent debts would be those UK pensioners and UK local government who had savings with the Icelandic banks.