02 Nov 11
Originally posted by no1marauderNothing about regulations. If you haven't read the Eichenwald book I recommended earlier, I strongly urge you to. It gives you the complete picture. The SEC approved the accounting gimmicks which were a large part of the Enron collapse.
"Complicit" in they didn't regulate enough. But people like you scream if there are any regulations that upset the "stream of revenue" of such companies.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYour comments are not factual. I find it hard to believe that you aren't joking actually. Are you really comparing transaction fees to usury? On a related note, weren't we supposed to see a drop in prices at the register when bank fees were capped? I guess we can look into that next. An economy has no purpose. It is what it is. You haven't upset me. I find you quite amusing, actually.
Grow up; your posts sound like a ten year old. I guess I got another poster here upset. BOO HOO.
My comments stand and remain factual. Banks exist in economies because of the government and would not exist without it. This particular bank even more so (if possible). Usury used to be a "revenue stream" if allowed by law, but when it wa ...[text shortened]... agnificent wisdom" to someone as apparently dim as you, but it's really common sense.
Originally posted by dryhumpEconomies are man-made creations not some natural phenomena; if this one has no purpose we should design a better one that fulfills the purpose I gave.
Your comments are not factual. I find it hard to believe that you aren't joking actually. Are you really comparing transaction fees to usury? On a related note, weren't we supposed to see a drop in prices at the register when bank fees were capped? I guess we can look into that next. An economy has no purpose. It is what it is. You haven't upset me. I find you quite amusing, actually.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can LYAO all you like (it's amazing that you still have an A with the number of times you L it O), but that does not invalidate my point.
There is little "free market" in banking (it's an oligopoly in the US) and banking has been heavily regulated for 80 years (just not enough). Crowing about the "free market" in banking gets a LMAO!
Yes, banks are regulated, but not all aspects of banks are government controlled. Things like ATM fees and monthly charges are governed by the free market.
You probably remember that until the mid 1990s, most banks charged monthly fees for checking accounts or at least made you maintain a minimum balance or direct deposit to avoid it. What changed that? I'll tell you what, an internet based bank out of Atlanta called "Netbank." they came on the scene and announced completely free checking and no minimum balance. They said they were doing this because they did not have the expense of maintaining branches. But sure enough, faced with the competition, most other banks followed suit. That's why you can get free checking with no minimum balance at most banks today; certainly not because of any government regulation.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76Well figure it out for yourself. After the repeal of Glass-Stegall and the resultant wave of mergers, the share of the financial deposits held by the five largest banks just about doubled. And:
You can LYAO all you like (it's amazing that you still have an A with the number of times you L it O), but that does not invalidate my point.
Yes, banks are regulated, but not all aspects of banks are government controlled. Things like ATM fees and monthly charges are governed by the free market.
You probably remember that until the mid 1990s, most banks ...[text shortened]... no minimum balance at most banks today; certainly not because of any government regulation.
The GAO report found that large institutions—those with more than $1 billion in assets—on average charged more for the majority of fees than midsized or small institutions—those with assets of $100 million to $1 billion and less than $100 million, respectively. “The history is that the larger the banks, the higher the fees, the less competitive pressure,” said Fox. “But consumers still have choices—they can use credit unions and community banks.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2008/11/11/getting-a-handle-on-bank-fees/
Of course, consumers are now taking up on those choices though changing banks isn't always the easiest thing to do if you're elderly or don't have a car for example (the biggest banks have the most branches obviously).
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat's a "branch"?
Well figure it out for yourself. After the repeal of Glass-Stegall and the resultant wave of mergers, the share of the financial deposits held by the five largest banks just about doubled. And:
The GAO report found that large institutions—those with more than $1 billion in assets—on average charged more for the majority of fees than m ...[text shortened]... elderly or don't have a car for example (the biggest banks have the most branches obviously).
I'm kidding, of course. But in an era wherein you can make deposits with an iphone app and withdrawals at any ATM and virtually everything can be done by mail or electronically, I'm not too worried about big banks dominating because they have so many branches.
I don't know about you, but virtually all banks in my area offer no-fee checking accounts. I really can't think of any banking fees I pay except if I use a different bank's ATM. Lack of regulation has hurt the industry because it's allowed absurd investment in and repackaging and selling of worthless securities. I agree with that 100%. But by nobody's reckoning can the state of bank fees be considered a failure on anybody's part.
03 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquack"Talent" is not worth anything if you don't use it, or you use it malevolently. When I say "talented" I mean someone who can run a business well. That is, make a (long-term) profit and secure its long-term existence. Not going around pillaging the company and stealing from others with the "talent" to keep it hidden for a while.
You did not offend me. I am simply amazed that you believe that people with high degrees and high skills are untalented. The fact that some people use their talents dishonestly does not mean that they are untalented (perhaps they are even more morally culpable because they could have used lucrative and useful skills properly) or that most people with si ...[text shortened]... ishment. I just think you'd be overestimating the values of the skill sets you are foregoing.
It seems you get the wrong impression about what I think of people with a law degree. While getting one is not terribly difficult as you well know, knowledge of law is vital to running a company so a board of directors should have some lawyers. I even said so literally; scroll up and look again. But if I had the last say, I sure as heck would not put any MBAs in it. Instead, I'd put people in there who know the company well, preferably people who have had experience in the lower ranks (and did not rise up by sucking up, although this is very hard to accomplish), and maybe some engineers if it's a technology company. The most important thing about leadership - by far - is knowledge.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76You get charged for using another bank's ATM? Wow, you're getting ripped off.
What's a "branch"?
I'm kidding, of course. But in an era wherein you can make deposits with an iphone app and withdrawals at any ATM and virtually everything can be done by mail or electronically, I'm not too worried about big banks dominating because they have so many branches.
I don't know about you, but virtually all banks in my area offer no-fee che ...[text shortened]... ody's reckoning can the state of bank fees be considered a failure on anybody's part.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think you are strongly underepresenting the difficulty of achieving and the value of advanced degrees. Those with them needed great talent to get into school and had the talents augmented by their education. While working your way up may give you some very job specific skills, the ability to understand the world globally and make financial decisions does not come from menial jobs. Large companies look for certain types of people, despite their cost, because they correctly understand their value. It would be far cheaper to just promote lesser skilled people from within, but experience has shown it simply does not work.
"Talent" is not worth anything if you don't use it, or you use it malevolently. When I say "talented" I mean someone who can run a business well. That is, make a (long-term) profit and secure its long-term existence. Not going around pillaging the company and stealing from others with the "talent" to keep it hidden for a while.
It seems you get the w ...[text shortened]... technology company. The most important thing about leadership - by far - is knowledge.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by quackquackI have an advanced degree.
I think you are strongly underepresenting the difficulty of achieving and the value of advanced degrees. Those with them needed great talent to get into school and had the talents augmented by their education. While working your way up may give you some very job specific skills, the ability to understand the world globally and make financial decisions ...[text shortened]... ust promote lesser skilled people from within, but experience has shown it simply does not work.
What experience has shown it does not work? (given a conscious effort to weed out those who are sucking up rather than performing)
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraInteresting article in the Journal arguing that these college kids in debt should be blaming not Wall Street for not giving them jobs, but the colleges for promising them jobs if they ran up huge tuition debts.
I have an advanced degree.
What experience has shown it does not work? (given a conscious effort to weed out those who are sucking up rather than performing)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204394804577010080547122646.html
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76I have to agree to a certain extent; I mean if you really want a job, go study chemical engineering or something rather than psychology.
Interesting article in the Journal arguing that these college kids in debt should be blaming not Wall Street for not giving them jobs, but the colleges for promising them jobs if they ran up huge tuition debts.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204394804577010080547122646.html
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76Yes. I find it quite decadent that in a period of affluence and plenty, suddenly half the population is "depressed" or has some kind of other "disease". Just (wo)man up, sheesh.
Right, because there are so few crazy people out there requiring psychological services.
😉