Is your bank screwing you? You may never find out

[someoneyouknow]

As the march towards deregulation picks up steam, the newest target is a database compiled under Dodd-Frank which records every consumer complaint against banks, lenders and other financial institutions. Financial lobbyists are greasing the paws of the government so this database can soon be hidden from view.

One Republican representative put it this way:

"Is the purpose of the database just to name and shame companies? Or should they have a disclaimer on there that says it's a fact-free zone, or this is fake news? That's really what I see happening here," Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., said at a congressional hearing this month.​

A financial industry lobbyist lamented:

"Once the damage is done to a company, it's hard to get your reputation back," responded Bill Himpler, executive vice president of the American Financial Services Association, a trade group representing banks and other lenders. "Something needs to be done."​

Obviously the thing to do is to hide the fact you're screwing your customers. After all, when your reputation is on the line, doing the right thing should be furthest from your mind. What is paramount is to hide your misdeeds.

Remember, these are the same criminals who were robo-signing mortgages when Bush was around and received parts of the $700 billion of taxpayer money so they could pay out their bonuses. Why should they be held accountable for their actions?

https://www.apnews.com/d3b492915ca7457ca643ecd9a0d954f5/Public-window-on-financial-complaints-could-be-closing-soon

 

[Iceprincess12]

Credit union

 

[BotanyBoy]

Remember, these are the same criminals who were robo-signing mortgages when Bush was around and received parts of the $700 billion of taxpayer money so they could pay out their bonuses. Why should they be held accountable for their actions?

The same reason most (D)'s including Obama and Clinton both support and work for those same scum bags.

Oh I forgot it's ok when (D)'s are doing it.

 

[oggbashan]

Is your bank screwing you?

Yes it is. That's what banks do and always have done. That's how they make profits.

As mentioned above - use a Credit Union except when you can't avoid using a bank. That way you'll be screwed less, but you will still be screwed.

 

[jaF0]

"Lips don't lie"

Yeah, they do. Especially clown lips.

I'm not sure I would trust the Suits at a CU anymore than Suits anywhere else. Suits are thieves everywhere. Suits NEVER look out for YOU.



I use Everbank. I'm sure their Suits are thieves too just like everywhere else, but so far I haven't had any direct complaints.

 

[Chris_Michael]

If everybody went to their bank at the same time to withdraw all their money, the banks would not be able to pay out.

If I remember correctly.

Banks take 100% of your money.
10% goes in the vault
90% goes out to loans for profit

 

[srgreene]

....

One Republican representative put it this way:

"Is the purpose of the database just to name and shame companies? Or should they have a disclaimer on there that says it's a fact-free zone, or this is fake news? That's really what I see happening here," Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., said at a congressional hearing this month.​

...

Obviously the thing to do is to hide the fact you're screwing your customers. After all, when your reputation is on the line, doing the right thing should be furthest from your mind. What is paramount is to hide your misdeeds.

Remember, these are the same criminals who were robo-signing mortgages when Bush was around and received parts of the $700 billion of taxpayer money so they could pay out their bonuses. ...]

I notice you didn't in any meaningful way address Rep Laudermilk's opinion. You simply posit an absurd alternative, thereby imputing your own agenda's motives to the unknown representative.

And let's see, "when Bush was president". Well Bush inherited laws that were considerably relaxed under Clinton so as to almost coerce banks into forgoing normal underwriting standards. When he made noises about reigning in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- long standing servants of government dressed up in the guise of public companies, Democrats on the Hill scuttled that idea pronto.

In order words, your comment is, like most of what you have to say, utterly useless- and mindless- propagandizing.

 

[srgreene]

Anyone interested in a well-reasoned analysis of the banking crisis that hit the United States- and reverberated around the world- in the first decade of this century would be well served by reading the following

"The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure"

by John A. Allison, retired CEO of BB&T bank, published by McGraw Hill. In the book, he explains the dire effects of government incentives on the real estate market and how government regulations only make things worse. I will quote the penultimate paragraph of the book:

"Capitalism is good because it is consistent with human nature. Capitalism 'works' (that is, results in a higher standard of living) because it is good. Proper governments support individual rights and economic freedom while preventing the use of force and fraud."

To which I might add, "and not much else".

Allison, in a brief book of about 250 pages, persuasively argues his case. Allison has the advantage of being ever so much more knowledgeable and insightful than "someoneyouknow".

 

[someoneyouknow]

Anyone interested in a well-reasoned analysis of the banking crisis that hit the United States- and reverberated around the world- in the first decade of this century would be well served by reading the following

"The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure"

by John A. Allison, retired CEO of BB&T bank, published by McGraw Hill. In the book, he explains the dire effects of government incentives on the real estate market and how government regulations only make things worse. I will quote the penultimate paragraph of the book:

"Capitalism is good because it is consistent with human nature. Capitalism 'works' (that is, results in a higher standard of living) because it is good. Proper governments support individual rights and economic freedom while preventing the use of force and fraud."

To which I might add, "and not much else".

Allison, in a brief book of about 250 pages, persuasively argues his case. Allison has the advantage of being ever so much more knowledgeable and insightful than "someoneyouknow".

The man conflates two distinct topics and you call him knowledgeable.

A) Capitalism is consistent with human nature in that it rewards those who are willing to do whatever it takes to get rich. Not necessarily be successful, but rich. This results, as we saw with our phone system and before that, our rail system, in people literally being killed because someone didn't like the competition. It was only because of the government using regulation to break up monopolies, which inherently result from unrestricted capitalism, that we now have competition (except for broadband access).

B) I have yet to see any recent government in this country support individual rights. In fact, we have seen a serious decline in individual rights every time a Republican administration says it's going to make government smaller, and in general, government continues to restrict individual rights.

Which has nothing to do with capitalism since capitalism is about economics. It's very definition:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market​

Further, the last line is very telling: while preventing the use of force and fraud. In other words, capitalism has by its very nature, an inherent bias towards force (see above) and fraud because the entire objective in a capitalist society is to accumulate wealth, and what way better than to do so either by force or fraud. Or both.

Witness the fraud perpetrated by Wells Fargo when they created millions of fake accounts in their customers names, or the financial industry which was robo signing mortgage documents without performing due diligence. The government did not tell them to do this so why did they do this? Because the government gave them the very freedom they wanted. And what did they do with that freedom? Commit fraud.