Banks and their "fees"

[Townsend]

I'm with you.  I cannot understand why anyone would use anything other than a credit union for a personal account ever.  It is such a NO brainer that it literally astounds me the amount of effort and attention people expend dealing with a bank at all - example, this discussion.  How many man hours have been put in just with this talk about bad bank activity.  

I guess it is pretty bad if you're showing angst about it and don't even have an account with one.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I guess it is pretty bad if you're showing angst about it and don't even have an account with one.

I have no angst - just amazement - it's the poor, sad people at BofA and BOK that are suffering all the angst.  I got out of the bank goofy-loop a long time ago (about 1975) - for the reasons that are now making all the national headlines and grist for this topic.  (I have bank accounts at F & M.)

[Townsend]

I have no angst - just amazement - it's the poor, sad people at BofA and BOK that are suffering all the angst.  I got out of the bank goofy-loop a long time ago (about 1975) - for the reasons that are now making all the national headlines and grist for this topic.  (I have bank accounts at F & M.)

1975

[heironymouspasparagus]

1975

Oklahoma Central Credit Union.

[Townsend]

How Visa Courted Nancy Pelosi, Hoping to Forestall Swipe-Fee Changes

Even when the credit-card giant couldn't persuade the then–House speaker to oppose credit-card reform in 2008, her campaign coffers, a former aide, and her husband's stock portfolio were rewarded.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/14/how-visa-courted-nancy-pelosi-hoping-to-forestall-swipe-fee-changes.html

[Conan71]

How Visa Courted Nancy Pelosi, Hoping to Forestall Swipe-Fee Changes

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/14/how-visa-courted-nancy-pelosi-hoping-to-forestall-swipe-fee-changes.html

Ahh, so now I can add Pelosi, D-Visa to Dodd, D-Countrywide, Biden, D-MBNA, and Frank, D-Freddie up his Fannie

I thought it was only greedy 'publicans who are running interference for banksters.

[Townsend]

Ahh, so now I can add Pelosi, D-Visa to Dodd, D-Countrywide, Biden, D-MBNA, and Frank, D-Freddie up his Fannie

I thought it was only greedy 'publicans who are running interference for banksters.

Well the article actually said all that happened and they still passed the laws against the fees.

She might've shut them down 100% if they hadn't margarined her husband's muffin.

[nathanm]

I thought it was only greedy 'publicans who are running interference for banksters.

I believe the whole OWS thing is largely about how neither party represents the interests of the people. I don't like the Dems much, but their track record is slightly better than the Republicans in two ways. One, some of them aren't diametrically opposed to the economic policies we require to get out of this slump. Second, getting paid doesn't always get the donor everything the donor wants. It's an infuriatingly slight difference, but the first is vitally important at present.

Find me a Republican who doesn't think that the solution to our present economy is more tax cuts and you may well find me speaking well of a policy prescription that came from a Republican. Find me a Republican who isn't to the right of that iconoclast of the right wing Friedrich Hayek and you may well find me supportive of a Republican.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Find me a Republican who doesn't think that the solution to our present economy is more tax cuts and you may well find me speaking well of a policy prescription that came from a Republican. Find me a Republican who isn't to the right of that iconoclast of the right wing Friedrich Hayek and you may well find me supportive of a Republican.

Every one of them wants to bring back waterboarding torture as a method of national policy.  Ahhhh...a nation of war criminals....gotta love it!

[Conan71]

Find me a Republican who doesn't think that the solution to our present economy is more tax cuts and you may well find me speaking well of a policy prescription that came from a Republican. Find me a Republican who isn't to the right of that iconoclast of the right wing Friedrich Hayek and you may well find me supportive of a Republican.

Coburn seems to be the only one brave enough...

I mentioned this on another thread, but I don't have a problem with tax cuts when there is some sort of quantifiable behavior tied to them: like specific job creation numbers which will grow the tax base.  Gratuitous tax cuts for the sake of saying "Look we cut your taxes" doesn't always result in job growth.  When President Obama agreed to extend the Bush era tax cuts, I also said it was put up or shut up time for the theory that extending the cuts would create jobs.  If the CBO is correct that unemployment will remain in the 9% range through 2012, then I think we can say these tax cuts did not work.

It's entirely possible though that there really are other factors at work that business finds the Obama administration policies are simply not business-friendly enough for them to start hiring again and the only way we see growth is with a GOP White House in 2013.

[nathanm]

It's entirely possible though that there really are other factors at work that business finds the Obama administration policies are simply not business-friendly enough for them to start hiring again and the only way we see growth is with a GOP White House in 2013.

I think it's more likely that they're not hiring because of a persistent lack of demand, both thanks to consumers still being overleveraged and being about done with tax-break funded capex. I'm sure the Eurozone crisis isn't helping anything, either. If business really is failing to expand purely because they don't like the President, despite there objectively being less in the way of new regulation than even under Bush, we need to oust the milquetoast bastards. I don't know about you, but there are a few board elections I get to vote in. (not that it really matters, since it's the retirement fund managers and hedge funds who have the vast majority of the votes)

Governance in this country in general is completely screwed. Corporate governance is, in some ways, even worse than public governance. At least the politicians claim to be thinking 10 years out. Most public company CEOs and board members don't even pretend to care about anything past the next quarter or two. Worse, they keep voting themselves huge pay increases despite us shareholders not seeing any results.

And those tax cuts you don't mind so much? They're making the problems of corporate governance everybody's problem. We can't get away from paying for their mistakes. Much like the common complaint about government, actually.

[Conan71]

And those tax cuts you don't mind so much? They're making the problems of corporate governance everybody's problem. We can't get away from paying for their mistakes. Much like the common complaint about government, actually.

You did catch the point that I think tax cuts should be tied to specific job creation performance, right?  Not tax cuts for the sake of quid pro quo or bolstering profits if the profits are not ploughed back into new jobs.

[nathanm]

You did catch the point that I think tax cuts should be tied to specific job creation performance, right?  Not tax cuts for the sake of quid pro quo or bolstering profits if the profits are not ploughed back into new jobs.

Sure, but if/when they fail to produce the desired results, we're already out the money. That's not to say that I think your position is untenable or anything. I agree that if we're going to attempt to use tax policy to change behavior the benefits need to be tied to performance metrics. It still doesn't change that we're all paying for failed corporate governance.

[Conan71]

Sure, but if/when they fail to produce the desired results, we're already out the money. That's not to say that I think your position is untenable or anything. I agree that if we're going to attempt to use tax policy to change behavior the benefits need to be tied to performance metrics. It still doesn't change that we're all paying for failed corporate governance.

That's when you make them pay back the tax cuts if jobs aren't created, or maintained for X amount of time.  I think I've worked on commission/bonus for so many years that I can't think outside that performance-based pay mindset 

[Red Arrow]

Most public company CEOs and board members don't even pretend to care about anything past the next quarter or two.

Harvard Business School thinking.