Another modestly brilliant idea from Bernie Sanders:
In fact, Sanders’s idea is quite sensible. “Postal banking”—which just means that post offices run savings accounts, cash checks, and perform other basic financial services—is common in most of Asia and Europe, and only about 7 percent of the world’s national postal systems don’t offer some bank-like services. Postal banking is a really good way to reach people who haven’t had access to standard savings accounts. One estimate figures that more than 1 billion people have used post offices for making deposits.
The reason why this would be so useful in the U.S. is that somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of the population has to rely on check-cashing or payday-lending services, which in some places charge usurious rates that send people into spirals of recurring debt. Mehrsa Baradaran, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law and the author of How the Other Half Banks, touched on the promise of postal banking in a book excerpt published in The Atlantic last week:
The basic idea of modern postal banking is a public bank offering a wide range of transaction services, including financial transactions, remittance, savings accounts, and small lending. These institutions would remain affordable because of economies of scale and because of the existing postal infrastructure in the U.S. Plus, in the absence of shareholders, they would not be driven to seek profits and could sell services at cost.
In her essay, Baradaran made the point that the Federal Reserve helps struggling banks through temporary credit crunches—so why doesn’t the government treat struggling individuals the same way? It’s not unheard of in the U.S.; in 1910, William Howard Taft introduced a postal-savings system for new immigrants and the poor that lasted until 1967. Today, it’d be a huge relief for people without access to banks
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/bernie-sanders-lets-turn-post-offices-into-banks/411589/
And given the Postal Service's well known financial woes due to less "snail mail" it would also be a way for the UPS to generate a modest amount of extra revenue (at rates far less then what payday lenders and check cashing services are presently extorting from mostly lower income individuals).
A win-win.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is common in Africa too. It gives otherwise failing postal services something to do and also has the greatest reach (the postal service has more offices in rural areas than anyone else and often serves communities ignored by the banks.).
is common in most of Asia and Europe,
Here in SA some of the large retailers also offer basic banking services.
Cell phone banking is also popular and can provide banking services for lower rates and to more people than traditional banks.
We have this thing called the internet, where if I get a check in the mail or whatever I just scan it on my cell phone and it goes right to my bank account....also I do all my other transactions from home.
I don't doubt the 3rd world countries get a leg up from going to the post office for banking, but I don't see the need for it today in a modern up to date society.
Plus, have you ever been to the post office? The lines can be intolerable as is, how do you plan to add banking to that mess?
Adding banking would take a herculean effort to add to the postal infrastructure and not worth it. It would be a giant step backward.
This ain't Asia or Africa.
Originally posted by FishHead111You do realize that a lot of people don't have bank accounts? This is a bit dated but:
We have this thing called the internet, where if I get a check in the mail or whatever I just scan it on my cell phone and it goes right to my bank account....also I do all my other transactions from home.
I don't doubt the 3rd world countries get a leg up from going to the post office for banking, but I don't see the need for it today in a modern up t ...[text shortened]... infrastructure and not worth it. It would be a giant step backward.
This ain't Asia or Africa.
About 28% of households earning less than $15,000 don't have bank accounts, according to the study. While that's a much larger percentage than the 8.2% national unbanked rate,
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/14/pf/bank-account-states/index.html
You are exaggerating the difficulties and ignoring the obvious benefits (one of which would be ensuring that there is a Post Office).
Originally posted by no1marauder8% of the population does't have a checking or savings account....but to cash their welfare checks or whatever they must have a family member that does.
You do realize that a lot of people don't have bank accounts? This is a bit dated but:
About 28% of households earning less than $15,000 don't have bank accounts, according to the study. While that's a much larger percentage than the 8.2% national unbanked rate,
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/14/pf/bank-account-states/index.html
You are exaggerati ...[text shortened]... and ignoring the obvious benefits (one of which would be ensuring that there is a Post Office).
I don't see that as a reason to spend trillions making our post offices banks for them, I don't think they would take advantage of that service either.
Banks are all over the place, there is no reason to think they'd go running to a post office instead .
Originally posted by FishHead111Jesus, you're an idiot. Read something besides amren and stormfront for a change.
8% of the population does't have a checking or savings account....but to cash their welfare checks or whatever they must have a family member that does.
I don't see that as a reason to spend trillions making our post offices banks for them, I don't think they would take advantage of that service either.
Banks are all over the place, there is no reason to think they'd go running to a post office instead .
People without bank accounts normally have to use check cashing services which charge fees far higher than banks. That's yet another way this system makes it more expensive to be poor.
It wouldn't cost "trillions"; somehow the country managed to do it for over 50 years in the 20th Century. In all probability, charging a modest fee for such services would increase Postal Service revenue (which is sorely needed).
Originally posted by FishHead111Look at it as a bail out for the Post Office.
8% of the population does't have a checking or savings account....but to cash their welfare checks or whatever they must have a family member that does.
I don't see that as a reason to spend trillions making our post offices banks for them, I don't think they would take advantage of that service either.
Banks are all over the place, there is no reason to think they'd go running to a post office instead .
Last year the government run Post Office lost about $8.5 billion. In the next 10 years it is projected to lose about $238 billion.
The Post Office is the largest civilian employer next to Walmart, thus they are too big to fail. So do you want to bail them out now or wait a few years?
So put them in charge of banking. What could poooooossibly go wrong?
Originally posted by whodeyHow is it a "bail out" to allow them to provide banking services?
Look at it as a bail out for the Post Office.
Last year the government run Post Office lost about $8.5 billion. In the next 10 years it is projected to lose about $238 billion.
The Post Office is the largest civilian employer next to Walmart, thus they are too big to fail. So do you want to bail them out now or wait a few years?
So put them in charge of banking. What could poooooossibly go wrong?
Yes do tell what could go wrong.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are adding business to the Post Office as letter carries slowly go way of the Dodo.
How is it a "bail out" to allow them to provide banking services?
Yes do tell what could go wrong.
More importantly, you are increasing their employee base and dependence of people on a failed institution, thus insuring they become like GM. Any time they want a bail out they can expect one cuz they are just too big to fail
Who will argue with more jobs? I mean who can find work in this failed economy?
Originally posted by whodeyWho can find work? About 85 to 95 percent of people who are looking for it depending on the measure you are using.
You are adding business to the Post Office as letter carries slowly go way of the Dodo.
More importantly, you are increasing their employee base and dependence of people on a failed institution, thus insuring they become like GM. Any time they want a bail out they can expect one cuz they are just too big to fail
Who will argue with more jobs? I mean who can find work in this failed economy?
Originally posted by whodeySince no government funds of any kind are being provided it is not a "bail out".
You are adding business to the Post Office as letter carries slowly go way of the Dodo.
More importantly, you are increasing their employee base and dependence of people on a failed institution, thus insuring they become like GM. Any time they want a bail out they can expect one cuz they are just too big to fail
Who will argue with more jobs? I mean who can find work in this failed economy?
Most people want to retain the Postal Service so they can get mail even if it is less used than it was previously. That requires that it has opportunities to raise revenues in other areas besides mail. On the flip side, there are a lot of lower income people who would benefit from being able to cash a check or maintain a savings account at a PO rather than pay the gouging fees that check cashing businesses charge or maintain the balances that most banks insist on. The plan benefits both consumers and the Postal Service and wouldn't cost the government a penny.
Postal banking postal shmanking, the people that don't have bank accounts or internet won't use the post office either.
They are screwed up people.
It doesn't get any easier or more convenient than what we have now and saying "derhhh the post office should be banks too" is retartet.....the losers that are on the fringe wouldn't spend an hour in line at the post office either. Hell, maybe we should make Circle K and 7-11's banks too, maybe that's what the dummies need.
God. What is wrong with you?
Originally posted by FishHead111Yes, what possible benefits to an economy could there be from people having better access to banking services?
Postal banking postal shmanking, the people that don't have bank accounts or internet won't use the post office either.
They are screwed up people.
It doesn't get any easier or more convenient than what we have now and saying "derhhh the post office should be banks too" is retartet.....the losers that are on the fringe wouldn't spend an hour in line ...[text shortened]... ircle K and 7-11's banks too, maybe that's what the dummies need.
God. What is wrong with you?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow much better can it get?
Yes, what possible benefits to an economy could there be from people having better access to banking services?
My God how much easier does it have to be to make you happy?
Should we have banks on every corner or at every mailbox?
The people who don't use banks or internet service won't use them at a post office either, so the suggestion is a childish "wahhh wahhh people aren't being baby-sitted and catered to enough" complaint.
Swear to God it's like arguing with 6 year olds on this site.
"OMG there are banks only every mile or so away, jeez i want it to be better like in Nigeria where the post office 10 miles down the dirt road is a bank too derhhhhhhh."
Originally posted by FishHead111Learn something:
Postal banking postal shmanking, the people that don't have bank accounts or internet won't use the post office either.
They are screwed up people.
It doesn't get any easier or more convenient than what we have now and saying "derhhh the post office should be banks too" is retartet.....the losers that are on the fringe wouldn't spend an hour in line ...[text shortened]... ircle K and 7-11's banks too, maybe that's what the dummies need.
God. What is wrong with you?
Between 2008 and 2013, some 2,000 bank branches were shut down in the United States. Ninety-three percent of those were in lower-income communities. Without normal banks, these communities have been at the mercy of check cashers and payday lenders, who charge rates and fees far higher than any normal institution. The result is a predatory system that helps keep low-income people in a crushing cycle of debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you know, half the population couldn’t access $400 within a month to meet some emergency needs. Right? Your tire needs to be fixed. Your kid is in the hospital, and you have some bill. You don’t have that money, you have to borrow from someone. And if you don’t have friends and family, you have to go to a payday lender. And you pay somewhere from 300 to 2,000 percent APR. So by the time all is said and done, you’ve not only, you know, paid back that initial principal, but 10 times, 20 times the principal. And so, this is something that not only doesn’t help people, but it ends up turning a temporary cash crunch into a financial disaster.
And not to mention a whole slew of other services that’s just not available to people [without] banking accounts. For example, to just use your paycheck, you have to pay, a lot of times, 10 percent of your money just to cash it, and then another, you know, couple dollars to turn it into a money order to pay your bills.
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/30/how_the_other_half_banks_how