Bank of America To Charge $5 Monthly Fee For Debit Card Usage

[HisMajestyBOB]

5.25 per share.

Soon, one share of BAC won't be enough to keep a checking account open for a month.

Let all the banks fail, let credit unions take over.
For areas where credit unions don't exist yet,  they can set up new regional/local ones.

[derspiess]

I have never denied it and, in fact, heartily encourage things like cooperatives, profit-sharing agreements, worker-ownership, etc..  I just despise any government force (outside of contract enforcement) coming in to make things that way. 

In which case, it ain't socialism.

Nice try, Jakie

[Barrister]

5.25 per share.

Soon, one share of BAC won't be enough to keep a checking account open for a month.

Let all the banks fail, let credit unions take over.
For areas where credit unions don't exist yet,  they can set up new regional/local ones.

Or y'all can follow the Alberta model and set up a Treasury Branch - a 'bank' that is owned and operated by the provincial government which competes with both banks and credit unions.   

It amuses me to no end that this relic of 1930s social credit thinking continues to this day, and even apparently thriving.  It's about the only example I can think of a Crown corporation that can and does effectively compete with the private sector.

[HisMajestyBOB]

5.25 per share.

Soon, one share of BAC won't be enough to keep a checking account open for a month.

Let all the banks fail, let credit unions take over.
For areas where credit unions don't exist yet,  they can set up new regional/local ones.

Or y'all can follow the Alberta model and set up a Treasury Branch - a 'bank' that is owned and operated by the provincial government which competes with both banks and credit unions.   

It amuses me to no end that this relic of 1930s social credit thinking continues to this day, and even apparently thriving.  It's about the only example I can think of a Crown corporation that can and does effectively compete with the private sector.

We'd fuck it up
Either it'd be horribly corrupt and mismanaged, or if it was successful it'd be privatized and sold to cronies. Then given preferential legislation.

[Valmy]

Credit Unions are a stellar example of successful social democrat principles in action

Hey Socialism is great so long as it is voluntary.

[Barrister]

5.25 per share.

Soon, one share of BAC won't be enough to keep a checking account open for a month.

Let all the banks fail, let credit unions take over.
For areas where credit unions don't exist yet,  they can set up new regional/local ones.

Or y'all can follow the Alberta model and set up a Treasury Branch - a 'bank' that is owned and operated by the provincial government which competes with both banks and credit unions.   

It amuses me to no end that this relic of 1930s social credit thinking continues to this day, and even apparently thriving.  It's about the only example I can think of a Crown corporation that can and does effectively compete with the private sector.

We'd fuck it up
Either it'd be horribly corrupt and mismanaged, or if it was successful it'd be privatized and sold to cronies. Then given preferential legislation.

ATB (Alberta Treasury Branch) showed retained earnings of $1.9 billion in 2011.   

[derspiess]

Risk of what?

Overdrawing their account, writing bad checks, debit card fraud, etc. 

I'm sure BofA is more than happy to see some of their low-balance account-holders leave over this $5 fee.  What they probably didn't expect was all this negative publicity.  Should have let someone else take the lead

[Jacob]

I have never denied it and, in fact, heartily encourage things like cooperatives, profit-sharing agreements, worker-ownership, etc..  I just despise any government force (outside of contract enforcement) coming in to make things that way. 

In which case, it ain't socialism.

Nice try, Jakie

Democratic socialism requires no more government force than any other form of democratic organization.

In other words, it is.

[Valmy]

Democratic socialism requires no more government force than any other form of democratic organization.

In other words, it is.

Oh wow so it is...Libertarian Socialism...

[Maximus]

Also known as freedom of association.

[crazy canuck]

Democratic socialism requires no more government force than any other form of democratic organization.

No.  Democratic socialism requires such things as expropriation of private enterprise (that is the socialism part ).  Other forms of democratic government do not.

[Jacob]

No.  Democratic socialism requires such things as expropriation of private enterprise (that is the socialism part ).  Other forms of democratic government do not.

That's kind of weird, because none of the Social Democrat parties I'm aware of have that as part of their platform.

[crazy canuck]

No.  Democratic socialism requires such things as expropriation of private enterprise (that is the socialism part ).  Other forms of democratic government do not.

That's kind of weird, because none of the Social Democrat parties I'm aware of have that as part of their platform.

You are equating Social Democracy with Democratic socialism.  I dont think that is accurate.  You might recall that the NDP recent had a big debate over this very issue when they tried to remove the word "socialism" from their constitution.

Democratic Socialism is by definition the creation of a socialist state through the democratic process. A socialist state requires the state to own the modes of production.  The way that would be done is through expropriation with or without compensation.

Many Social Democratic parties deny that they are Democratic Socialists - see again the debate that recently occured within the NDP.

edit: damn you depriess and your shorter answer.

edit edit: damn you depriess for removing your shorter answer.

[derspiess]

Pulled my post 'cuz I didn't see Jake confuse Democratic Socialism with Social Democracy. 

Social Democracy is a softer version for sure, but IMO at absolute best it would be indifferent towards a private organization like a credit union. 

[derspiess]

You are equating Social Democracy with Democratic socialism.  I dont think that is accurate.  You might recall that the NDP recent had a big debate over this very issue when they tried to remove the word "socialism" from their constitution.

Were they also talking about dropping out of the Socialist International?  Because it always annoys me when people bristle at being called Socialists when their party is in the SI.

edit: damn you depriess and your shorter answer.

edit edit: damn you depriess for removing your shorter answer.

Sorry