Languish.org

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110929-709314.html

I don't appreciate silly fees. I'll take my money elsewhere.

Quote--New fee will start in early 2012

--Bank looking to cushion revenue losses from credit card fee caps

--Durbin amendment takes effect Oct. 1


   By Andrew R. Johnson
   Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the largest U.S. bank by assets, plans to charge customers a $5 monthly fee for making debit card purchases starting early next year, according to an internal memo sent to bank executives Thursday.

The fee will apply to customers with various checking accounts during any month they use their debit card to make a purchase. The fee will not apply to customers who do not use their debit card to make a purchase or who only use it to make ATM transactions.

Bank of America is trying to cushion revenue losses it expects to incur from new caps on the fees merchants pay when a customer uses a debit card at their stores. In June, the Federal Reserve Board finalized rules capping such fees at 24 cents per transaction, compared with a current average of 44 cents.

Bank of America has said it expects the caps, which take effect Oct. 1, to erase $2 billion in revenue annually. Industrywide, the caps, which apply to banks with $10 billion and more in assets, could wipe out $6.6 billion in annual revenue for banks, according to an August report from Javelin Strategy and Research.

"The economics of offering a debit card have changed with recent regulations," a spokeswoman for Bank of America said in a statement Thursday.

The fee will apply to various consumer checking accounts but will not apply to customers in certain premium accounts, the bank's memo said.

"This new fee allows us to continue to offer the convenience of a debit card with the full range of added features customers have come to expect," including fraud protection and monitoring, special savings programs and other services, the bank's memo said.

Other banks have introduced or are testing new fees in response to the debit fee caps, which stem from a provision known as the Durbin amendment in last year's Dodd-Frank financial regulation overhaul legislation.

Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), said it will charge a $3 fee for debit and ATM cards in several states starting in October if customers use the cards to make a purchase under a pilot program.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) has been testing a fee in a small market in Wisconsin since February. Regions Financial Corp. (RF) and SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI) have also added monthly fees for some debit-card customers.

What, in your mind, would constitute a non-silly fee?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 01:18:39 PM
What, in your mind, would constitute a non-silly fee?

Maybe if all banks end up following them.

 :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 01:28:38 PM
:huh:

:huh:

Anyway, I realized I don't care. I think my account might be covered under the exceptions.

Stuff like this is why I use a credit union.

If Chase does this I am bailing.  Screw paying an extra $60.00 every year for no additional services.  Heck if they do it per debit card that would be $120.00.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 01:18:39 PM
What, in your mind, would constitute a non-silly fee?

A fee for a service I requested.  Not a fee retroactively added for no additional services.

Bank of America is trying to cushion revenue losses it expects to incur from new caps on the fees merchants pay when a customer uses a debit card at their stores. In June, the Federal Reserve Board finalized rules capping such fees at 24 cents per transaction, compared with a current average of 44 cents.

Bank of America has said it expects the caps, which take effect Oct. 1, to erase $2 billion in revenue annually. Industrywide, the caps, which apply to banks with $10 billion and more in assets, could wipe out $6.6 billion in annual revenue for banks, according to an August report from Javelin Strategy and Research. 

This increase seems due to unintended consequences of new regulations, which the govt is doing, thinking to save us consumers some money.  ;)   

I was going to warn you guys about this when Frank-Dodd/Durbin was passed, but figured nobody would listen.  With such a low cap in place for the interchange fees banks can charge merchants, banks aren't just going to take the loss in revenue & smile about it (I wouldn't expect lower prices in stores, either).  So banks are going to do annoying crap like this now that they have zero (possibly less than zero) incentive to offer debit cards to their customers.

Banks have to eat a lot of debit card fraud, and for some of them losing the interchange fees will turn debit cards into a huge liability.  So unless you keep a large balance in your checking account (about the worst place to put your money) or have other important account relationships with the bank, they may decide to just cancel your card.  I think a $5 monthly fee is the tip of the iceberg.

For now, the above only applies to banks with over $10 billion in assets but there are some short term ripple effects that may hurt the smaller financial institutions.  Plus, Visa and/or MasterCard could always bow to pressure from its larger member institutions and flatten the interchange rate across all its issuers.

But in the short term it may indeed make sense to move your accounts to Habbaku Federal Credit Union or some small bank.

Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2011, 01:48:27 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 01:18:39 PM
What, in your mind, would constitute a non-silly fee?

A fee for a service I requested.  Not a fee retroactively added for no additional services.

You can thank Messrs. Frank, Dodd, and Durbin plus all the other clowns (Democrat and Republican) who voted for the bill and/or amendment.

Quote from: Habbaku on September 29, 2011, 01:43:11 PM
Stuff like this is why I use a credit union.

I'd retreat to my credit union account but with no local branches - atm fees would be obnoxiously as well.

Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2011, 02:17:51 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on September 29, 2011, 01:43:11 PM
Stuff like this is why I use a credit union.

I'd retreat to my credit union account but with no local branches - atm fees would be obnoxiously as well.

My credit union gives ATM reimbursement.

Quote from: derspiess on September 29, 2011, 02:11:49 PM
You can thank Messrs. Frank, Dodd, and Durbin plus all the other clowns (Democrat and Republican) who voted for the bill and/or amendment.

Well those guys were not exactly first on my Christmas Card list as it was.

:lol:

Any Canadian Bank is much worse then that.

Quote from: derspiess on September 29, 2011, 02:08:18 PM
I was going to warn you guys about this when Frank-Dodd/Durbin was passed, but figured nobody would listen.  With such a low cap in place for the interchange fees banks can charge merchants, banks aren't just going to take the loss in revenue & smile about it (I wouldn't expect lower prices in stores, either).  So banks are going to do annoying crap like this now that they have zero (possibly less than zero) incentive to offer debit cards to their customers.

I saw news stories about Banks and other credit card vendors likely rising/creating fees in other services as regs were put on them. No surprise, and I doubt this is the first increase due to the new regs.

Quote from: Habbaku on September 29, 2011, 02:45:46 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2011, 02:17:51 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on September 29, 2011, 01:43:11 PM
Stuff like this is why I use a credit union.

I'd retreat to my credit union account but with no local branches - atm fees would be obnoxiously as well.

My credit union gives ATM reimbursement.

Mine, while lovely, does not. :(

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 29, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
:lol:

Any Canadian Bank is much worse then that.

Not really sure how that's supposed to be helpful. :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2011, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 29, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
:lol:

Any Canadian Bank is much worse then that.

Not really sure how that's supposed to be helpful. :hmm:

That it's pretty good & it's going to get much worse before it gets good again.

Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2011, 01:24:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 01:18:39 PM
What, in your mind, would constitute a non-silly fee?

Maybe if all banks end up following them.

Ok, so it's not a silly fee if it's a cartel? Gotcha.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 29, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
:lol:

Any Canadian Bank is much worse then that.

Yeah. I mean. Wtf. I pay about $10 per month for my debit account alone. Yanks have it too good.

Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2011, 03:26:40 PM
Ok, so it's not a silly fee if it's a cartel? Gotcha.

Well you've little room to complain or throw one's weight so to speak when everyone is doing it. Sort of like how most airlines here now charge for checked luggage.  Opposite side would be that airline which charges for carry-on baggage.

Quote from: Grey Fox on September 29, 2011, 03:24:53 PM
That it's pretty good & it's going to get much worse before it gets good again.

I hope things don't get so bad here that it becomes Canada. :x

Yeah, just think what might happen if you had a stable banking system in the US.

5/3 better not pull this shit or I'll pull my 70 dollar checking account from them.

Don't want no fees, don't want no taxes, don't want no regulations, don't want no government!   Christ is this litany ever so juvenile!  :bash:





G.

Quote from: Grallon on September 29, 2011, 07:44:17 PM
Don't want no fees, don't want no taxes, don't want no regulations, don't want no government!   Christ is this litany ever so juvenile!  :bash:





G.

We earned our money through our rugged individualism, no one is going to take it away from us.

Quote from: Grallon on September 29, 2011, 07:44:17 PM
Don't want no fees, don't want no taxes, don't want no regulations, don't want no government!   Christ is this litany ever so juvenile!  :bash:

These particular fees were caused by the people who want more government, more regulation, and more taxes, as long as it's someone else paying them.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 07:49:35 PM


These particular fees were caused by the people who want more government, more regulation, and more taxes, as long as it's someone else paying them.

By all means, lets let the banks do what they want.  Then all of them can end up like Washington Mutual.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2011, 08:00:35 PM
By all means, lets let the banks do what they want.  Then all of them can end up like Washington Mutual.

I'm very heartened to learn that capping debit card fees will prevent any further bankruptcies.  Perhaps it would make sense to eliminate federal deposit insurance now.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 08:04:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2011, 08:00:35 PM
By all means, lets let the banks do what they want.  Then all of them can end up like Washington Mutual.

I'm very heartened to learn that capping debit card fees will prevent any further bankruptcies.  Perhaps it would make sense to eliminate federal deposit insurance now.

You wish.  I'm suggesting that perhaps we shouldn't listen to the Free market fundamentalists when the smoke of the last financial inferno caused by their policies is still stinging our noses.  In other words, you, Greenspan, and Phil Gramm have done quite enough already.  We don't need advice right now.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2011, 08:19:04 PM
You wish.  I'm suggesting that perhaps we shouldn't listen to the Free market fundamentalists when the smoke of the last financial inferno caused by their policies is still stinging our noses.  In other words, you, Greenspan, and Phil Gramm have done quite enough already.  We don't need advice right now.

:lol: Kill Raz, Kill!.

No I don't wish.  For one thing, capping debit card fees does absolutely nothing to prevent banks going under.  That and similar "consumer protection" provisions of the financial services reform bill were included *not* to reduce the chances of bank insolvency but to throw meat to the populist idiots who were demanding that the banks be punished for committing evil and insisting that since Wall Street got so much free money (that they paid 15.5% on) that Main Street deserved some presents too.

If you think that reducing bank profitability somehow decreases their risk of insolvency you need to start again from the beginning.

I have a Bank of America account. Rather than changing banks, I am going to stop using my debit card and just use my non-BOA credit card for all purchases and just pay it off every month.

Quote from: derspiess on September 29, 2011, 02:11:49 PM

You can thank Messrs. Frank, Dodd, and Durbin plus all the other clowns (Democrat and Republican) who voted for the bill and/or amendment.

Why would I do that?

Have you been following bank of america lately? It's down what, fifty percent since January? With an Eight billion dollar loss in July?

QuoteEven before introduction of the Durbin amendment's rules on debit fees, Bank of America's fee income was dropping at its deposits and card services units. The bank's deposits unit reported fee income of $1 billion in the second quarter of 2011, down 34 percent from $1.5 billion a year before.

Card services, which includes the bank's credit and debit card operations, reported fee income of $1.9 billion, down 23 percent from $2.5 billion in second quarter 2010.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/bankofamerica-debit-idUKS1E78S16Z20110929?type=companyNews

No, the economy probably has nothing to do with it. Tis Dodd Frank's doing!

So, foreign languishites, what do you guys pay to use your debit cards?

There was a period of time maybe 10+ years ago when I used a check card/debit card for purchasing, but by and large now I almost never use either.

I have an American Express card that I use for 95% of my card-based purchases, and a Visa credit card that I use in places that don't take the AmEx.

The reasons are legion:

1. While debit cards aren't as unprotected as some say, it is true that in the case of fraud your checking account is wiped out while the bank fixes it. With credit card fraud you just have a big debt ran up until the credit card company takes care of it, but you still have your "real" money and you're still going to be able to buy groceries and pay the mortgage while it gets straightened out. With credit cards, once it is straightened out they make you good in full. With some banks I know that at one point you might eat like the first $50 in loss due to fraud, but I can't remember if that's true anymore.

2. By doing all your card-based purchasing on a credit card, at the time you pay it off (in full) each month, it's basically just one payment from checking. So instead of having to actively worry about your checking account balance because you're running tons of small transactions per month, you're only hitting it with the one fat transaction once a month (plus a few utility bills and mortgage/loan payments you can't make with a credit card.) Some would counter that if you just keep a huge cushion of funds in your checking you don't need to actively worry about your balance. Well, I think keeping anything more than a minor cushion in checking is stupid, it's a bad place for money to live.

3. While minor, there are things like frequent flyer miles and etc you get for using a credit card.

There's really no reason to use a debit card for daily purchases.

Finally, anyone can get access to a great bank that gives you free ATM use anywhere and no bullshit fees: USAA. Yes, USAA is primarily used by military or retired military for auto insurance, but they have a personal banking unit that is open to anyone. You do need to have some military affiliation to get their auto insurance, but their banking is 100% open to anyone. I bank with USAA and this is the deal:

-They have one physical branch somewhere in Texas
-You can deposit checks or cash through the mail, they have prepaid envelopes for this. I probably wouldn't deposit cash through the mail, YMMV. That's the one hassle with the account is lack of easy ability to deposit cash.
-You can withdraw money from any ATM in the country and USAA charges 0 fees. However, as we all know, some (most) ATMs charge a fee on top of the fee your bank normally charges. Yes, you still get hit with that charge, however USAA will, at the end of the month, refund any such fees that you incurred. Further, there is a network of ATMs that are totally free to USAA users and when you withdraw w/a USAA card from these machines they won't even charge you that fee upfront. Most of these ATMs are in convenience stores (lot of Go-Mart and 7/11 have them.)
-Obviously any online purchases you wish to make are as easy as with any other bank.

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:01:21 PM

Quote from: derspiess on September 29, 2011, 02:11:49 PM

You can thank Messrs. Frank, Dodd, and Durbin plus all the other clowns (Democrat and Republican) who voted for the bill and/or amendment.

Why would I do that?

Have you been following bank of america lately? It's down what, fifty percent since January? With an Eight billion dollar loss in July?

QuoteEven before introduction of the Durbin amendment's rules on debit fees, Bank of America's fee income was dropping at its deposits and card services units. The bank's deposits unit reported fee income of $1 billion in the second quarter of 2011, down 34 percent from $1.5 billion a year before.

Card services, which includes the bank's credit and debit card operations, reported fee income of $1.9 billion, down 23 percent from $2.5 billion in second quarter 2010.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/bankofamerica-debit-idUKS1E78S16Z20110929?type=companyNews

No, the economy probably has nothing to do with it. Tis Dodd Frank's doing!

Are you suggesting that businesses set their prices so that profit will be a constant?

You also seem to have missed the part of the story that talks about other banks implementing monthly fees.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 09:11:10 PM
Are you suggesting that businesses set their prices so that profit will be a constant?

No, surely they would seek to maximize them, right? It's not clear why Dodd Frank standing on its own would play a role here, since nothing would have stopped them before Dod Frank's passage from implementing this sort of fee as well. One might as well conclude that banks are implementing debit card fees because the changes of any legislation stopping them are nil.

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:16:04 PM
No, surely they would seek to maximize them, right? It's not clear why Dodd Frank standing on its own would play a role here, since nothing would have stopped them before Dod Frank's passage from implementing this sort of fee as well. One might as well conclude that banks are implementing debit card fees because the changes of any legislation stopping them are nil.

:huh:

Exactly.  Nothing was stopping them from charging a monthly fee before the passage of Dodd Frank, which suggests Dodd Frank has something to with the decision.  More precisely, the fact that at 24 cents a debit they will lose money.

Maybe it's just me, but I would imagine that banks would like to make as much money as possible.

Prior to Dodd Frank, they could have charged merchants fees and also debit card holders a fee. Why didn't they?

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:22:28 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I would imagine that banks would like to make as much money as possible.

Prior to Dodd Frank, they could have charged merchants fees and also debit card holders a fee. Why didn't they?

They did charge debit card users a fee.  A per transaction fee. :mellow:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 09:29:58 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:22:28 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I would imagine that banks would like to make as much money as possible.

Prior to Dodd Frank, they could have charged merchants fees and also debit card holders a fee. Why didn't they?

They did charge debit card users a fee.  A per transaction fee. :mellow:

They charged the merchants the fee, right? Why did they not charge both the merchant and the card-holder a fee?

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:30:59 PM
They charged the merchants the fee, right? Why did they not charge both the merchant and the card-holder a fee?

Because of Dodd Frank? :unsure:

Don't really understand where you're trying to go.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 09:32:37 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:30:59 PM
They charged the merchants the fee, right? Why did they not charge both the merchant and the card-holder a fee?

Because of Dodd Frank? :unsure:

Don't really understand where you're trying to go.

Okay, let's presume that banks want to make as much money as they can. You'd agree with that, right?

Why were they not charging a fee prior to Dodd Fank for each transactions (charging merchants) and a fee to the cardholder ($5 a month).

They could have done both and made more money. Why didn't they?

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:33:37 PM
Okay, let's presume that banks want to make as much money as they can. You'd agree with that, right?

Why were they not charging a fee prior to Dodd Fank for each transactions (charging merchants) and a fee to the cardholder ($5 a month).

They could have done both and made more money. Why didn't they?

For the same reason they weren't charging a trillion dollar fee for each debit.  Price elasticity. 

And competition.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 09:36:02 PM
For the same reason they weren't charging a trillion dollar fee for each debit.  Price elasticity.

So, this is actually a terrible idea on Bank of America's part, and people will switch to the banks which aren't adopting this $5 a month fee?

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:36:41 PM
So, this is actually a terrible idea on Bank of America's part, and people will switch to the banks which aren't adopting this $5 a month fee?

It could be a terrible idea, but I doubt it.

BoA claims it will lose money on 24 cents/debit.  It's concievable that some other banks could keep 24 cents/debit as a loss leader and make up the difference in other fees, and that customers will a lot happier paying those (assuming Dodd Frank allows them) than monthly debit card fees.  Or it's possible that customers will be morons and switch banks without realizing that the new bank's fees are charging them for other things.

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:01:21 PM


So, foreign languishites, what do you guys pay to use your debit cards?

I can't remember if you are Brit or an American.  My debit card was provided to me by the local bank in town.  I don't think it is a subsidiary of any other national bank.  I know the State puts its money in that bank (at least when Democrats are in control, when Republicans are in control they put in the other local bank in town).  At least they used to.

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:36:41 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 09:36:02 PM
For the same reason they weren't charging a trillion dollar fee for each debit.  Price elasticity.

So, this is actually a terrible idea on Bank of America's part, and people will switch to the banks which aren't adopting this $5 a month fee?

You're being an idiot or a fucktard or a douchebag, your pick, maybe all three

Are you really as fucking stupid as you have acted the past few posts?

I make $.20 profit on every widget I sell. The government decides I can now only make a $.10 profit on every widget I sell, but they don't regulate the per-order surchage I can put on my sales, so I institute a $5 per order surcharge to recoup that lost profit.

Why wasn't I already charging that charge? Because it will lose me customers. Will it still lose me customers? Absolutely, but I'm estimating that it will still result in me being able to at least try and get back to the overall profit level I was at when I could make $.20 profit per widget.

Bank of America wasn't charging to use a debit card because they wanted you to use it all the time because they were making $.44 a transaction. Now that they can't make that anymore, the math becomes less great for them. They have a lot of liability with letting customers use debit cards. Further, there is some cost involved on their end, so that $.24 per transaction or whatever isn't pure profit. They never would have randomly added a $5 fee before because it would have lost them customers. Same as the widget surcharge fee.

Why are they considering it now? Well, they have people working for them who do an analysis. Based on the best information they have, they conclude that by adding the fee they will make x amount more money. That will be offset by Z, the amount of lost profit from customers who stop using or cancel their debit cards and customers who leave BoA entirely in anger. As long as Z isn't > X, then it was profitable.

It's the same reason Netflix raised prices, they had analysts who said "it will lose us this many customers but we will still make money and it gives us some long term advantages in certain areas." Just like the Netflix move, BoA could be wrong. Like any analyst, BoA's guys are making some assumptions based on good information from the past, the past doesn't predict the future. BoA could be fucking up with this, and it's always a gamble to fuck with your price, which is why, even if the analysis showed it would have been a net positive before Dodd-Frank BoA would have been hesitant to do it just because you don't fuck with your prices for no reason at all. But when your profit is being decreased for sure it might be time to take some risks to try and get some of it back.

The limit on interchange fees isn't all that banks are looking to recoup money on, the big one is that debit cards made it a lot easier to overdraw your account and pay the bank $35 for the privilege. It takes a bit more incompetence to bounce a check or accidentally withdraw too much money from the ATM. The loss of overdraft fees is a big hit to banks, and those fees are really most of the reason banks have been offering free checking and free debit cards for years. The more accounts opened the more money they made off those fees as long as those accounts had debit cards. Now that the money is gone we are moving back to the 80s and early 90s when most / every bank charged a minor fee to have an account, because without those fees your paltry checking account is doing very, very little for the bank.

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:36:41 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 09:36:02 PM
For the same reason they weren't charging a trillion dollar fee for each debit.  Price elasticity.

So, this is actually a terrible idea on Bank of America's part, and people will switch to the banks which aren't adopting this $5 a month fee?

I don't think so. Most people are reluctant to switch banks because the actual or perceived costs of switching (you usually have to set up a new account, file a bunch of papers, change your periodic payment orders, etc.) act as a succesful deterrent. I don't see anyone except the very poor* see $5 a month worth the hassle (and the very poor may fear switching banks as they may fail to get a credit rating allowing them to get a new credit card).

From that perspective, I think this is a brilliant move on BoA's part - they just hit the sweet spot where people would grumble but pay.

*Or bitches with too much time on their hands who would switch just on principle, but people like garbon are, thankfully, not very numerous.

Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2011, 04:08:01 AMI don't think so. Most people are reluctant to switch banks because the actual or perceived costs of switching (you usually have to set up a new account, file a bunch of papers, change your periodic payment orders, etc.) act as a succesful deterrent. I don't see anyone except the very poor* see $5 a month worth the hassle (and the very poor may fear switching banks as they may fail to get a credit rating allowing them to get a new credit card).

From that perspective, I think this is a brilliant move on BoA's part - they just hit the sweet spot where people would grumble but pay.

*Or bitches with too much time on their hands who would switch just on principle, but people like garbon are, thankfully, not very numerous.

People will 100% certainly switch banks over it. Just like when Netflix raised their prices, I can guarantee you analysts at BoA have already crunched numbers to arrive at an estimate of how many will switch banks over it. I do believe they will come out ahead, especially because BoA is getting a lot of press for this but a lot of our banks are now charging these fees. Several of the banks in my area now have $7-10 "monthly service fees" for checking accounts. You can get an exemption on those fees by having a certain "average daily balance" or by agreeing to do >$100 in direct deposits to that account monthly, but those fees are becoming part of consumer banking.

And people will 100% certainly not switch over it as well.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 06:45:29 AM
And people will 100% certainly not switch over it as well.

I'm sorry I forgot the internet still went down into the basements of the world, or I wouldn't have been surprised at such an inane, stupid comment.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 30, 2011, 06:21:14 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2011, 04:08:01 AMI don't think so. Most people are reluctant to switch banks because the actual or perceived costs of switching (you usually have to set up a new account, file a bunch of papers, change your periodic payment orders, etc.) act as a succesful deterrent. I don't see anyone except the very poor* see $5 a month worth the hassle (and the very poor may fear switching banks as they may fail to get a credit rating allowing them to get a new credit card).

From that perspective, I think this is a brilliant move on BoA's part - they just hit the sweet spot where people would grumble but pay.

*Or bitches with too much time on their hands who would switch just on principle, but people like garbon are, thankfully, not very numerous.

People will 100% certainly switch banks over it. Just like when Netflix raised their prices, I can guarantee you analysts at BoA have already crunched numbers to arrive at an estimate of how many will switch banks over it. I do believe they will come out ahead, especially because BoA is getting a lot of press for this but a lot of our banks are now charging these fees. Several of the banks in my area now have $7-10 "monthly service fees" for checking accounts. You can get an exemption on those fees by having a certain "average daily balance" or by agreeing to do >$100 in direct deposits to that account monthly, but those fees are becoming part of consumer banking.

Well, ok I was as usualy speaking in hyperbole, but the fact is less people will imo switch over this than they did with Netflix for reasons I mentioned. Retail banking services are considered some of the least elastic when it comes to customer switching.

Well, it's not just switching. Some non-negative number of people will opt out of having the Visa/Mastercard branded debit cards, and go back to just having an ATM card which is still being offered fee-free. The truth of the matter is though, unless you're a high net worth individual, Bank of America, under the new rules, probably doesn't care if you have a debit card and may even desire you not to have one.

I have free checking with Wells Fargo, grandfathered over from Wachovia. Sounds like the account type isn't available anymore for new customers though.

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:01:21 PM
So, foreign languishites, what do you guys pay to use your debit cards?

Zilch. I don't know of any bank which charges for using debit cards.

I guess they figure"Hey-Warren Buffett buys 6% of our company, and we still get flushed down to six bucks a share. Can't get any worse!"

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2011, 09:29:58 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2011, 09:22:28 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I would imagine that banks would like to make as much money as possible.

Prior to Dodd Frank, they could have charged merchants fees and also debit card holders a fee. Why didn't they?

They did charge debit card users a fee.  A per transaction fee. :mellow:

Faelin is right in that the per-transaction interchange fee was paid by the merchant.  Yi is right in the sense that some banks have been charging their customers for PIN debit transactions (i.e., the "Debit" option at the terminal) because prior to Durbin, banks made a lot more money from signature debit (i.e., the "Credit" option at the terminal) than they did from PIN debit.  But this was more to push you toward using the "Credit" option than anything else.

My bank both punished me for PIN debit transactions (like a $.50 per transaction fee) and rewarded me for signature debit transactions (1 airline mile per every $2 spent).  I think I'll still get miles for the remainder of 2011.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 30, 2011, 08:27:09 AM
Well, it's not just switching. Some non-negative number of people will opt out of having the Visa/Mastercard branded debit cards, and go back to just having an ATM card which is still being offered fee-free. The truth of the matter is though, unless you're a high net worth individual, Bank of America, under the new rules, probably doesn't care if you have a debit card and may even desire you not to have one.

Exactly.  If you just have a checking account with B of A, keep a relatively small balance, but do a lot of debit card transactions, then you were probably a valuable customer for them prior to Durbin.  Post-Durbin, you're a liability as much as anything, unless they think they can get you to buy more of their products (loans, lines of credit, money market accounts, etc.)

Isn't Wells Fargo instituting a similar fee pretty soon?

I wish my credit union had more branches, but even still: god, I love my credit union. :wub:

Quote from: fahdiz on September 30, 2011, 11:21:24 AM
Isn't Wells Fargo instituting a similar fee pretty soon?

I wish my credit union had more branches, but even still: god, I love my credit union. :wub:

Yes to both of the above.

My credit union sent out a mass e-mail this morning :

QuoteThere has been recent news coverage about banks implementing monthly checking fees and even monthly debit card fees. Some members have been asking whether LGE is doing that too. The answer is a resounding "no." There are no monthly checking fees here, nor special fees for having a debit card.

LGE is owned by you, the members. There are no stockholders or paid directors requiring profits. After covering expenses and regulatory capital requirements, all earnings go back to you in the form of lower fees and better rates than you will typically find in a bank.  And we continue to be federally insured and well capitalized.

We know that many of our members have checking accounts elsewhere. If you are finding yourself having to pay monthly maintenance or debit card fees at another institution, consider an LGE High Rate Checking Account, still the best value around, paying a much higher rate than you will find most places, and with no monthly maintenance or debit card fees.

:)

Badass.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 30, 2011, 08:12:47 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2011, 06:45:29 AM
And people will 100% certainly not switch over it as well.

I'm sorry I forgot the internet still went down into the basements of the world, or I wouldn't have been surprised at such an inane, stupid comment.

Your statement is as true and useful as mine.  I can say with 100% certainty that some people out of several million will do something, be it post a stupid post on an online forum or die with in six months.

Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2011, 01:16:09 PMI'll take my money elsewhere.

BofA's online banking site is down.  :lol:

 :lol:  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Only some are down. You can still go to online banking. :P

Man, the market is just flushing BAC down the drain today. $5.85 as I write this...


I want to laugh at them and enjoy it, but all I can muster is pity.

Quote from: Habbaku on September 30, 2011, 11:54:06 AM

Quote from: fahdiz on September 30, 2011, 11:21:24 AM
Isn't Wells Fargo instituting a similar fee pretty soon?

I wish my credit union had more branches, but even still: god, I love my credit union. :wub:

Yes to both of the above.

My credit union sent out a mass e-mail this morning :

QuoteThere has been recent news coverage about banks implementing monthly checking fees and even monthly debit card fees. Some members have been asking whether LGE is doing that too. The answer is a resounding "no." There are no monthly checking fees here, nor special fees for having a debit card.

LGE is owned by you, the members. There are no stockholders or paid directors requiring profits. After covering expenses and regulatory capital requirements, all earnings go back to you in the form of lower fees and better rates than you will typically find in a bank.  And we continue to be federally insured and well capitalized.

We know that many of our members have checking accounts elsewhere. If you are finding yourself having to pay monthly maintenance or debit card fees at another institution, consider an LGE High Rate Checking Account, still the best value around, paying a much higher rate than you will find most places, and with no monthly maintenance or debit card fees.

:)

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

My credit union is charging me a buck load in maintenance fee tho. :bleeding:

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2011, 12:01:12 PM
My credit union is charging me a buck load in maintenance fee tho. :bleeding:

Then switch?

Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 12:01:56 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2011, 12:01:12 PM
My credit union is charging me a buck load in maintenance fee tho. :bleeding:

Then switch?

No real differences across the 7 instutions available.

Quote from: Habbaku on September 30, 2011, 11:54:06 AM

Quote from: fahdiz on September 30, 2011, 11:21:24 AM
Isn't Wells Fargo instituting a similar fee pretty soon?

I wish my credit union had more branches, but even still: god, I love my credit union. :wub:

Yes to both of the above.

My credit union sent out a mass e-mail this morning :

QuoteThere has been recent news coverage about banks implementing monthly checking fees and even monthly debit card fees. Some members have been asking whether LGE is doing that too. The answer is a resounding "no." There are no monthly checking fees here, nor special fees for having a debit card.

LGE is owned by you, the members. There are no stockholders or paid directors requiring profits. After covering expenses and regulatory capital requirements, all earnings go back to you in the form of lower fees and better rates than you will typically find in a bank.  And we continue to be federally insured and well capitalized.

We know that many of our members have checking accounts elsewhere. If you are finding yourself having to pay monthly maintenance or debit card fees at another institution, consider an LGE High Rate Checking Account, still the best value around, paying a much higher rate than you will find most places, and with no monthly maintenance or debit card fees.

:)

My Credit Union has now done this sort of statement as well.

Banks are only out to fuck you.

Quote from: Josephus on October 03, 2011, 01:00:43 PM
Banks are only out to fuck you.

Yep. Want proof? Rogers Corp has stated they will apply to form a Bank.

Doom is upon us.

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2011, 12:12:10 PMMy Credit Union has now done this sort of statement as well.

Every year, my credit union sends applies excess money generated to the members' accounts. So you might get an extra percent on your savings account or whatever. It's nice :)

My credit union is for the families of employees or former employees of a large pharmaceutical company. :D

I used to have an account at a credit union for employees at my grandfather's company.

Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 11:58:36 AM
Credit Unions are a stellar example of successful social democrat principles in action :)

That they are.  Primarily because they're based on voluntary cooperation rather than coercion.  :)

Quote from: Habbaku on October 03, 2011, 04:26:09 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 11:58:36 AM
Credit Unions are a stellar example of successful social democrat principles in action :)

That they are.  Primarily because they're based on voluntary cooperation rather than coercion.  :)

Indeed :cheers:

It almost suggests that it's worthwhile to voluntarily engage in other forms of socialist organization.

My mother just sent an e-mail to all us kids about this - telling us to look into getting a debit card from our credit union. Tomorrow she is to inquire as to whether or not we are part of the exceptions to BofA's new policy. :D

Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 05:08:20 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on October 03, 2011, 04:26:09 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 11:58:36 AM
Credit Unions are a stellar example of successful social democrat principles in action :)

That they are.  Primarily because they're based on voluntary cooperation rather than coercion.  :)

Indeed :cheers:

It almost suggests that it's worthwhile to voluntarily engage in other forms of socialist organization.

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.  :hug:

Since credit unions are, by and large, far better than banks, why does anyone use banks, at least for personal accounts?

Advertising.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 03, 2011, 10:42:13 PM
Since credit unions are, by and large, far better than banks, why does anyone use banks, at least for personal accounts?

Well banks certainly have better geographic reach. Also aren't a lot of credit unions more exclusive - as in you have to fit specific criteria in order to be allowed to join (whether that be location based or company affiliation based - extended to kin).

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2011, 10:59:31 PM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 03, 2011, 10:42:13 PM
Since credit unions are, by and large, far better than banks, why does anyone use banks, at least for personal accounts?

Well banks certainly have better geographic reach. Also aren't a lot of credit unions more exclusive - as in you have to fit specific criteria in order to be allowed to join (whether that be location based or company affiliation based - extended to kin).

Ah, that makes some sense. I've heard some credit unions are now open to anyone, but I suppose having a nearby office is pretty important.

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2011, 10:59:31 PM
Well banks certainly have better geographic reach. Also aren't a lot of credit unions more exclusive - as in you have to fit specific criteria in order to be allowed to join (whether that be location based or company affiliation based - extended to kin).

This seems to be the case in the US. It wasn't so in Canada. There credit unions collectively had a national reach, although each credit union individually was local. Some were very good, some quite terrible.

Of course, Canada also doesn't have local banks like here.

5.25 per share.

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

Up to $60 per year per card doesn't seem like it'll do much to offset any actual loss from card charges, especially when factoring in potential loss of customers.  It sounds more like a disincentive to me, and I've been hearing some rumblings that BoA might be doing it to convince customers on the borderline to carry a balance on a Bank of America credit card.

Also, something that's always confused me: retail banks charge low-balance people an arm and a leg when they're orders of magnitude more likely to need to count pennies.  The regressivity is insane, much steeper than any tax regressivity in the United States.  I understand the rationale is that the low-balance customers are high-risk, but by waiving the fees for high-balance account and putting the operation fees on the shoulders of the high-risk, low-balance accounts, aren't the banks basically taking a big gamble and making it even bigger?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 04, 2011, 09:20:40 AM
I understand the rationale is that the low-balance customers are high-risk,

Risk of what?

I believe the rationale is that the high balance customer is loaning the bank money for free, which the bank can turn around and loan out with interest. So they are already off-setting their service costs.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 04, 2011, 09:06:05 AM
5.25 per share.

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

:lmfao:

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

Quote from: Habbaku on October 03, 2011, 09:55:00 PM
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.  :hug:

In which case, it ain't socialism.

Nice try, Jakie :)

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2011, 09:57:02 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 04, 2011, 09:06:05 AM
5.25 per share.

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

:lmfao:

Let all the banks fail, let credit unions take over. :yeah:
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.   :cool:

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.

Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 10:17:36 AM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2011, 09:57:02 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 04, 2011, 09:06:05 AM
5.25 per share.

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

:lmfao:

Let all the banks fail, let credit unions take over. :yeah:
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.   :cool:

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.

Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 11:58:36 AM
Credit Unions are a stellar example of successful social democrat principles in action :)

Hey Socialism is great so long as it is voluntary.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2011, 10:19:31 AM

Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2011, 10:17:36 AM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2011, 09:57:02 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 04, 2011, 09:06:05 AM
5.25 per share.

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

:lmfao:

Let all the banks fail, let credit unions take over. :yeah:
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.   :cool:

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.   :cool:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2011, 09:32:36 AM
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 :D

Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2011, 10:12:12 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on October 03, 2011, 09:55:00 PM
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.  :hug:

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.

Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 02:25:44 PM
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...

Also known as freedom of association.

Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 02:25:44 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 03:01:45 PMNo.  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.

Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 03:51:10 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 03:01:45 PMNo.  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.

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. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:01:50 PM
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.

Quoteedit: damn you depriess and your shorter answer.

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

Sorry :P

Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2011, 04:15:49 PM
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.

I dont know if the NDP was ever part of the SI. Maybe Josephus can help us with that.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:30:25 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2011, 04:15:49 PM
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.

I dont know if the NDP was ever part of the SI. Maybe Josephus can help us with that.

They are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International#Member_parties

Interesting.  You taught me something today.

Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2011, 04:52:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:30:25 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2011, 04:15:49 PM
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.

I dont know if the NDP was ever part of the SI. Maybe Josephus can help us with that.

They are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International#Member_parties

Apparently the GOP is part the same international coalition as the crazy Hungarian party that bothers Tamas.  Neat.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2011, 05:15:51 PM
Apparently the GOP is part the same international coalition as the crazy Hungarian party that bothers Tamas.  Neat.

:o. SCANDAL

Alright alright, social democratic.

Point is, if organizing for the common good rather than the pursuit of profit is a good idea in banking - the most capitalist of fields - then it may be a good idea in other areas as well.

Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Alright alright, social democratic.

Point is, if organizing for the common good rather than the pursuit of profit is a good idea in banking - the most capitalist of fields - then it may be a good idea in other areas as well.

I think you are overselling what a credit union is.  In a lot of ways credit unions operate just like banks.

Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Alright alright, social democratic.

Point is, if organizing for the common good rather than the pursuit of profit is a good idea in banking - the most capitalist of fields - then it may be a good idea in other areas as well.

Banking the most capitalist of fields?  Yeah, no.  Pretend I made a bad Martiphor here to show that it isn't.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 07:48:10 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Alright alright, social democratic.

Point is, if organizing for the common good rather than the pursuit of profit is a good idea in banking - the most capitalist of fields - then it may be a good idea in other areas as well.

I think you are overselling what a credit union is.  In a lot of ways credit unions operate just like banks.

If so, then banks should operate like credit unions, since apparently most credit unions don't charge the fees banks do.

But then, I guess someone has to pay for your CEO's yachts.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2011, 07:58:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 07:48:10 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 04, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Alright alright, social democratic.

Point is, if organizing for the common good rather than the pursuit of profit is a good idea in banking - the most capitalist of fields - then it may be a good idea in other areas as well.

I think you are overselling what a credit union is.  In a lot of ways credit unions operate just like banks.

If so, then banks should operate like credit unions, since apparently most credit unions don't charge the fees banks do.

But then, I guess someone has to pay for your CEO's yachts.

Where are the customer's CEOs. :mad:

BofA still having website problems. Either there's a very serious IT problem there (and a completely inept DR plan) or something fishy is going on.

Now Citi:

Quote
Citi announces new fees on checking accounts


The fees keep coming. Citi is the latest big bank to slap customers with a round of fee hikes. This time, on its checking accounts.

Starting in December, customers who hold its mid-level Citibank Account will be charged $20 a month if they fail to maintain a minimum balance of $15,000 in their combined accounts. Previously, account holders had to carry a minimum balance of $6,000.

At the same time, customers who have the bank's EZ Checking account will start being charged $15 a month if they don't carry a minimum balance of $6,000. Citi (C) says it is phasing out the EZ Checking package, which currently carries no monthly fee, and is instead offering customers either the Citibank Account or its Basic Banking account, which also carries a fee.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2011, 07:58:35 PM
If so, then banks should operate like credit unions, since apparently most credit unions don't charge the fees banks do.

Actually here credit unions do charge fees very similar to banks.  There are some differences like the Directors are appointed by the members rather than the shareholders but I dont really see much difference there - the members are effectively the shareholders.

Credit Unions will sometimes fund projects the banks might not fund.  But they are not giving their money away.  If the projects are not financially sound the credit unions will still refuse to fund.

Credit Unions pay dividends to their members but that is the same way a bank pays dividends to its shareholders (btw I realize our American readers might not remember when banks paid dividends  :P). Granted shareholders have to pay for their shares but they also get to participate in an equity gain as well (again something that our American friends might not remember).

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
Interesting.  You taught me something today.

Really?  I've taunted forum lefties (mostly Josephus, but also Sasks) with the Socialist International connection a good half dozen times.

Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 12:47:10 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
Interesting.  You taught me something today.

Really?  I've taunted forum lefties (mostly Josephus, but also Sasks) with the Socialist International connection a good half dozen times.

I dont recall. :Embarrass:

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 12:45:49 PM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2011, 07:58:35 PM
If so, then banks should operate like credit unions, since apparently most credit unions don't charge the fees banks do.

Actually here credit unions do charge fees very similar to banks.  There are some differences like the Directors are appointed by the members rather than the shareholders but I dont really see much difference there - the members are effectively the shareholders.

Mine doesn't charge any checking account fee. I think there's a $2 international ATM charge, but no charge for using a wrong domestic ATM (but the ATM will charge one). Might be overdraw fees - I've never done that so I don't know. Point is, most credit unions can apparently get by without charging a fee for using their institution.

QuoteCredit Unions will sometimes fund projects the banks might not fund.  But they are not giving their money away.  If the projects are not financially sound the credit unions will still refuse to fund.

Hey, if banks had done that during the housing bubble, this mess wouldn't be nearly so big!

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 01:21:34 PM
Mine doesn't charge any checking account fee. I think there's a $2 international ATM charge, but no charge for using a wrong domestic ATM (but the ATM will charge one). Might be overdraw fees - I've never done that so I don't know. Point is, most credit unions can apparently get by without charging a fee for using their institution.

My bank doesnt have any checking fees on my account either.  I also dont pay any ATM fees if I use their machine.  So I am not sure that the point you are trying to make is valid.  However I do understand that the banking system in the US is different than here.

Quote
Hey, if banks had done that during the housing bubble, this mess wouldn't be nearly so big!

Again an underlying weakness of your whole financial system of lacking appropriate regulation.  I dont know if this hit the news in the US but there was a big dust up recently between the head of the Bank of Canada and one of your major investment banks on that issue.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 01:29:23 PM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 01:21:34 PM
Mine doesn't charge any checking account fee. I think there's a $2 international ATM charge, but no charge for using a wrong domestic ATM (but the ATM will charge one). Might be overdraw fees - I've never done that so I don't know. Point is, most credit unions can apparently get by without charging a fee for using their institution.

My bank doesnt have any checking fees on my account either.  I also dont pay any ATM fees if I use their machine.  So I am not sure that the point you are trying to make is valid.  However I do understand that the banking system in the US is different than here.

Quote
Hey, if banks had done that during the housing bubble, this mess wouldn't be nearly so big!

Again an underlying weakness of your whole financial system of lacking appropriate regulation.  I dont know if this hit the news in the US but there was a big dust up recently between the head of the Bank of Canada and one of your major investment banks on that issue.

Maybe Canadian banks are less corrupt and better run. -_-
Our banks' business model seems to be to rely on government handouts, spend all their profits on shareholders and CEO compensation, and charge exorbitant fees.

Quote from: Jacob on October 03, 2011, 05:08:20 PM

It almost suggests that it's worthwhile to voluntarily engage in other forms of socialist organization.

Indeed.  :cheers:

Citibank is following with fee hikes. Seems like a steep fee hike.   <_<

Quote


http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/04/pf/citi_fee/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2
Citi hikes fees on checking accounts
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The fees keep coming. Citi is the latest big bank to slap customers with a round of fee hikes. This time, on its checking accounts.
Starting in December, customers who hold its mid-level Citibank Account will be charged $20 a month if they fail to maintain a minimum balance of $15,000 in their combined accounts. Previously, account holders had to carry a minimum balance of $6,000.


At the same time, customers who have the bank's EZ Checking account will start being charged $15 a month if they don't carry a minimum balance of $6,000. Citi (C (C, Fortune 500)) says it is phasing out the EZ Checking package, which currently carries no monthly fee for balances over $1,500, and is instead offering customers either the Citibank Account or its Basic Banking account, which also carries a fee.

Last month, Citi said it is hiking the fee on its Basic Banking account from $8 to $10. Customers will be able to avoid paying the $10 fee by either maintaining a minimum balance of $1,500 or by making one direct deposit and one automatic online payment through their checking account each month, said Citi.
Currently, account holders must make five transactions per month in order to avoid paying the fee and there is no minimum balance requirement.

Citi's fee hikes come just days after Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) announced it would charge a $5 fee for debit card purchases. Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Sun Trust and Regions Financial (RF, Fortune 500) have all also rolled out similar fees in select markets in recent weeks.

"The regulatory environment has changed a great deal -- particularly with the Durbin Amendment -- and we're seeing the results of that now," said Claes Bell, banking reporter with Bankrate.com. Going forward, "we're going to see more large national banks announce fees."
With the new regulation that caps how much revenue banks can get from the swipe fees they collect from merchants, banks must look for other ways to cover that lost income, explained Nessa Feddis, vice president and senior counsel of the American Bankers Association.
"We don't expect to pay nothing to ride the train, it's the same thing with a checking account," she said.
Bank accounts: Get a fair shake, not a shakedown
Citibank said it chose not to charge a debit card fee because its customers did not want it. "There's a reason why we structured it this way," said Catherine Pulley, spokeswoman for Citi. There are also no hidden fees, Pulley added, and customers will benefit from free online bill pay and free access to non-Citi ATM machines.
While the majority of checking accounts were free last year, less than half now come without a price tag, according to a recent study from bank-comparison site Bankrate, which looked at 243 interest and 238 non-interest accounts.
Like Citi's new offerings, 92% of checking accounts have fee waivers, meaning that if you can meet certain financially requirements, most checking accounts are -- or could become -- free.
This story was updated at 3:01 p.m. on October 5 to include the current minimum balance requirement for EZ Checking accounts.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2011, 07:48:10 PMI think you are overselling what a credit union is.  In a lot of ways credit unions operate just like banks.

The key part is that it operates not for profit, but for the benefits of the membership.

When I was being raised by 70s Scandinavian socialists it was heavily about co-operatives, collectives and so on - things organized by the people, for the people. Credit Unions fit perfectly within that paradigm, so to me it's a clear example of socialist organization.

That you guys want to say that credit unions are perfectly rational and useful does not really make them any lest socialist in their organizing principles in my view, even if the differences between them and shareholder owned banks are not that big in your opinion.

When the board is elected in a credit union (and decisions are made about the allocation of surpluses) it's one member one vote, not one share one vote.  Personally, I think that's a pretty significant difference and significantly reduces the power of capital in that context (i.e. it's much less capitalist).

One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

So would those large banks that took bailouts be socialist organizations?  :hmm:

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 07:04:47 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

So would those large banks that took bailouts be socialist organizations?  :hmm:

The word you are looking for is 'SMART' organizations.

Or uh...mercantilist?

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.

I agree.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2011, 07:04:47 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

So would those large banks that took bailouts be socialist organizations?  :hmm:

No.

Quote from: Jacob on October 05, 2011, 06:27:57 PM
When the board is elected in a credit union (and decisions are made about the allocation of surpluses) it's one member one vote, not one share one vote.  Personally, I think that's a pretty significant difference and significantly reduces the power of capital in that context (i.e. it's much less capitalist).

This is why I think you are overplaying it.  Most of the major decisions are made by the board.  Just like a bank.  This isnt a collective in the way you have described it.  Although it might make members want to be members if it is marketed that way...

Italy's banks are getting hammered now by the raters. Here's some trivia: Bank of America's original name---Bank of Italy.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 07:31:40 PMThis is why I think you are overplaying it.  Most of the major decisions are made by the board.  Just like a bank.  This isnt a collective in the way you have described it.  Although it might make members want to be members if it is marketed that way...

In most socialist organizations in my experience, decisions are also made by a group of elected decision makers be they delegates, board members, special committees or whatever.

Do you really consider it a defining feature of socialism that all decisions are made by member/population wide votes?

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

Don't be absurd.  This definition would leave out the Kibbutz, which were explicitly socialist (and stated that's what they were).

Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 11:52:09 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 07:31:40 PMThis is why I think you are overplaying it.  Most of the major decisions are made by the board.  Just like a bank.  This isnt a collective in the way you have described it.  Although it might make members want to be members if it is marketed that way...

In most socialist organizations in my experience, decisions are also made by a group of elected decision makers be they delegates, board members, special committees or whatever.

Do you really consider it a defining feature of socialism that all decisions are made by member/population wide votes?

What I am questioning is your characterization that a credit union a "socialist" organization.  By your wide definition a corporation is a socialist organation because decisions are made by an elected group of decision makers (The Board of Directors) and implemented through special committees or delegates of the Board - the executive team and their delegates.

You said that you thought that membership was created differently because shares had to be purchased.  But so do memberships in Credit Unions.  You raise the spectre of concentration of ownership in corporations but generally widely held corporations - the ones you love to hate - are more widely held then credit unions.

I am beginning to wonder what it is that you think Socialism is.  It is a model of government in which there is no private enterprise and all modes of production are controlled by the State.

In the post communist world people like to soft pedal what socialism is.  I aint buying.

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

You keep repeating it. It doesn't make it any more correct.

It does rather highlight some of the communication difficulties around the subject. When you (and I suppose many Americans) hear the word "socialism" you think "state coercion". When I (and I think many West Europeans) hear it we think "collective organization for the good of the group with profit being at best a secondary concern."

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 11:55:21 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

Don't be absurd.  This definition would leave out the Kibbutz, which were explicitly socialist (and stated that's what they were).

I am wondering where the Kibbutz first got the land on which it was based.  I seem to recall that some were founded by wealthy donors but I think that some where also created by grants from the government.  To the extent a Kibbutz was the creation of the State i am not sure he is incorrect.

They predate the state of Israel.  In the US, businesses get land grants.  That doesn't make them socialist.

Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 12:02:32 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

You keep repeating it. It doesn't make it any more correct.

It does rather highlight some of the communication difficulties around the subject. When you (and I suppose many Americans) hear the word "socialism" you think "state coercion". When I (and I think many West Europeans) hear it we think "collective organization for the good of the group with profit being at best a secondary concern."

:huh: wut

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 12:10:10 PM
They predate the state of Israel.  In the US, businesses get land grants.  That doesn't make them socialist.

I seem to remember that Israel not only granted land but had something to do with the establishment of some  -  but you are probably correct.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 12:00:27 PMWhat I am questioning is your characterization that a credit union a "socialist" organization.

It's a co-operative organization, and the notion of co-operatives are central to socialism. Witness how totalitarian socialist societies implemented co-operatives to replace private ownership and witness how individual socialists of non-totalitarian bent continually organize themselves into collectives and co-operatives.

In collectives and co-operatives the means of production are controlled by the workers/ residents/ users. That's one of the core tenets of socialism (more so than state control, witness the various schisms between different factions of socialists).

QuoteBy your wide definition a corporation is a socialist organation because decisions are made by an elected group of decision makers (The Board of Directors) and implemented through special committees or delegates of the Board - the executive team and their delegates.

My definition does revolve around elected decision makers, but around the goals of the organization (serve the workers/ residents/ users vs generate profit for shareholders) and the distribution of power delegating power (one worker/ resident/ user has one vote vs the number of votes being determined by the amount of voting shares held, i.e being determined by capital).

So no, a corporation is not a socialist organization by my definition.

QuoteYou said that you thought that membership was created differently because shares had to be purchased.  But so do memberships in Credit Unions.

But you can only ever purchase one voting share. One member = one vote.

QuoteYou raise the spectre of concentration of ownership in corporations but generally widely held corporations - the ones you love to hate - are more widely held then credit unions.

I'm raising no spectres and I certainly don't hate corporations. You're mistaking me for someone else. I'm merely pointing out that credit unions and other co-operative organizations are quintessentially socialist in their organizing principles. This makes it amusing when die-hard anti-socialists laud them.

QuoteI am beginning to wonder what it is that you think Socialism is.  It is a model of government in which there is no private enterprise and all modes of production are controlled by the State.

I'm glad you're wondering; I'll endeavour to explain.

There's more than one strain of socialism. Social Democrats aren't not-socialists because they don't believe in total state control of all modes of production.

Like I've stated previously, I think the core of the socialist organizing principle is egalitarian control of the means of production by the workers and users (as opposed to control by capital).

Now, if you're a totalitarian socialist you believe that the socialist organizing principle should be applied across society completely (and you run into the problems that comes with delegating total power); if you're a revolutionary, you think that socialist organization should be implemented through revolutionary change. But it's entirely possible to believe that worker/ user control is a good thing without requiring either revolution nor totalitarianism, and that's still socialism; maybe it isn't in your text book, but it is by the lived experience of millions.

If we start a farm (lets call it... say... a kibbutz) and everyone on it has an equal vote in how the place is run and how the resources are employed (though they may delegate decision making power) and have an equal share in the fruits of production, that is a socialist organization even if we refrain from trying to influence how the state at large is run. Similarly, if we found a housing co-operative where every resident has a say in how the place is run and how resources are managed, that is socialist. And if we found a credit union where every member can have only one share and profits are redistributed to members and workers then that is socialist. Even if we're not trying to bring about totalitarian socialism in the state through means of revolution.

QuoteIn the post communist world people like to soft pedal what socialism is.  I aint buying.

Even in the pre-post-Communist world there were socialists who disagreed with totalitarian socialism (i.e. Communism).

There's a long history of workers co-operatives, communes and collectives that considered themselves socialist, that were (and is) considered socialists by the society around them; there is a long history of socialist organizers who focused on creating these sorts of organizations. There are strains of socialism that's all about organizing like this because they believe that's how to transform society into the kind of state controlled Socialism you describe (because everyone will be convinced by the example, natch).

I can see why you dismiss it as "not-socialism", since unlike revolutionary totalitarian socialism it actually kind of makes sense. But it doesn't actually make it not-socialist.

But you know what, I don't really care whether you agree that collectives, co-operatives and unions (credit or otherwise) are socialist. If you think they're rational and that they make sense, that's good enough to be honest. There are other useful and rational ways to organize economic activity than to focus purely on capital generating more capital (Capitalism); if we agree on that there is no substantial argument to be had (though we can go on about definitions of socialism at length on Languish because it's entertaining).

Quote from: The Brain on October 06, 2011, 12:35:06 PM:huh: wut

:lol:

Okay maybe not. Maybe only some socialist Western Europeans.

Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 12:02:32 PMIt does rather highlight some of the communication difficulties around the subject. When you (and I suppose many Americans) hear the word "socialism" you think "state coercion". When I (and I think many West Europeans) hear it we think "collective organization for the good of the group with profit being at best a secondary concern."

No idea about other countries or languages, but in German, the word "Sozialismus" is exclusively used for the political ideology.

Quote from: Zanza on October 06, 2011, 12:51:33 PMNo idea about other countries or languages, but in German, the word "Sozialismus" is exclusively used for the political ideology.

Yeah, but the political ideology that is Socialism in Germany is not solely about state control of the means of production is it?

Jacob, I think I am just going to have to leave at you have a very different idea about what socialism is than I do.

There are a lot of volunteer non profit organizations in our society most of which would reject the notion they are socialist.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 01:00:18 PM
Jacob, I think I am just going to have to leave at you have a very different idea about what socialism is than I do.

Fair enough.

QuoteThere are a lot of volunteer non profit organizations in our society most of which would reject the notion they are socialist.

Well, if the volunteer NPOs aren't there for the sake of the members but to serve others, then I don't think they're socialist either (unless there are other reasons to call them that).

Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 01:24:14 PM
Well, if the volunteer NPOs aren't there for the sake of the members but to serve others, then I don't think they're socialist either (unless there are other reasons to call them that).

Then you should rethink your view of Credit Unions - much of their mandate is not to serve their members but the community at large.  For example one of the major credit unions in this city is heavily involved in the financing of social housing.  The people who live in those social housing units are not members (or at least I would be very surprised if they were) and the social housing is run by a number of other non profit organizations.  I know for a fact that at least one of the people on the board of one of those organiziations is not a member of the credit union but deals with a bank. ;)

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 11:55:21 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

Don't be absurd.  This definition would leave out the Kibbutz, which were explicitly socialist (and stated that's what they were).

Kibbutz members can call themselves socialists and it can be a "socialist organization" in the sense that it reflects their beliefs or even operating principles.  But unless you consider a kibbutz itself to be a state or quasi-state (which maybe some were/are, dunno) it's still a private organization as long as it's not government owned or controlled.

If I'm wrong, then the kibbutz would be the exception to the rule ;)

I suppose 19th century American business was socialist as well.  We never had a capitalist economy.  Business got free stuff from the government (like railways getting land), and often could coerce people with their own police.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 03:13:15 PM
I suppose 19th century American business was socialist as well.  We never had a capitalist economy.  Business got free stuff from the government (like railways getting land), and often could coerce people with their own police.

:huh:

Never heard of the Coal and Iron Police?  Hell Union Pacific has a police force.  My mom got a ticket from them once.  Judge threw it out because he had never heard of a Union Pacific police before.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 03:42:05 PM
Never heard of the Coal and Iron Police?  Hell Union Pacific has a police force.  My mom got a ticket from them once.  Judge threw it out because he had never heard of a Union Pacific police before.

We still have the CP Police (Canadian Pacific Railway) and CN Police.  Very odd outfits, since they're the only legally recognized private police force that I know of in this country.  That is to say they're not mere security guards - they have full peace officer status.

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2011, 03:53:04 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 03:42:05 PM
Never heard of the Coal and Iron Police?  Hell Union Pacific has a police force.  My mom got a ticket from them once.  Judge threw it out because he had never heard of a Union Pacific police before.

We still have the CP Police (Canadian Pacific Railway) and CN Police.  Very odd outfits, since they're the only legally recognized private police force that I know of in this country.  That is to say they're not mere security guards - they have full peace officer status.

Dont forget about the Port Police - you inlander.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 01:57:19 PMThen you should rethink your view of Credit Unions - much of their mandate is not to serve their members but the community at large.  For example one of the major credit unions in this city is heavily involved in the financing of social housing.  The people who live in those social housing units are not members (or at least I would be very surprised if they were) and the social housing is run by a number of other non profit organizations.  I know for a fact that at least one of the people on the board of one of those organiziations is not a member of the credit union but deals with a bank. ;)

I don't see how that is relevant to what I'm talking about.

If the the residents of a housing organization all have equal power in determining the governance of their group, by virtue of being residents, then I'd consider the organization to be organized along socialist lines. Whether they deal with a bank or not isn't really relevant. If some NPO (or a credit union) runs social housing and the NPO determines how the housing is managed that's nice and charitable, then that housing project is not run along socialist lines.

Similarly, if all the workers of a farm benefit equally from the production of the farm and have an equal say in how it's run, then it's organized along socialist lines in my view; this is true even if the farm collective engages in non-socialist activities.

That's my view, anyhow. I get that you don't agree with it and that's cool, but the example you gave above is sort of orthogonal to my point: the members own the credit union, everyone has one vote, capital is not priviliged in the decision making -> socialist principles.

Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2011, 05:55:57 PM
If the the residents of a housing organization all have equal power in determining the governance of their group, by virtue of being residents, then I'd consider the organization to be organized along socialist lines. Whether they deal with a bank or not isn't really relevant. If some NPO (or a credit union) runs social housing and the NPO determines how the housing is managed that's nice and charitable, then that housing project is not run along socialist lines.

Similarly, if all the workers of a farm benefit equally from the production of the farm and have an equal say in how it's run, then it's organized along socialist lines in my view; this is true even if the farm collective engages in non-socialist activities.

That's my view, anyhow. I get that you don't agree with it and that's cool, but the example you gave above is sort of orthogonal to my point: the members own the credit union, everyone has one vote, capital is not priviliged in the decision making -> socialist principles.

Well first you differentiated groups that are set up to benefit others as not being socialist.  I pointed out that Credit Unions fall neatly into that category and told you why.  Now you seem to be making the argument that Credit Unions only benefit their members.  But they dont - for the reasons I already gave.  If Credit Unions were to only benefit their members then they would pool their money and only lend to members or at the very least maximize their profits from lending to outsiders so as to benefit their members.  Credit Unions do neither of these.

Quote from: derspiess on October 06, 2011, 02:07:49 PMKibbutz members can call themselves socialists and it can be a "socialist organization" in the sense that it reflects their beliefs or even operating principles.  But unless you consider a kibbutz itself to be a state or quasi-state (which maybe some were/are, dunno) it's still a private organization as long as it's not government owned or controlled.

If I'm wrong, then the kibbutz would be the exception to the rule ;)

And that's the crux of our different perceptions, I think. For you socialism apparently must be instituted on a state level (and must be coercive?). For me, the principles of socialism can be applied on a smaller scale than state level (and does not need to be coercive).

On the substance of the matter we actually agree; it can be a very useful form of organization on a smaller scale (i.e. credit unions). You don't consider it socialism, I do. Oh well, it's not the first time semantics have triggered differences like this :)

Anyhow, it's not just the kibbutzim that were the exception - Europe (and even North America - though there they're better known as "hippy communes" - not that all "hippy communies" were/ are organized along socialist lines, but some of them are) was rife with those sort of groups though the kibbutzim were some of the most successful ones.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2011, 06:00:10 PMWell first you differentiated groups that are set up to benefit others as not being socialist.  I pointed out that Credit Unions fall neatly into that category and told you why.  Now you seem to be making the argument that Credit Unions only benefit their members.  But they dont - for the reasons I already gave.  If Credit Unions were to only benefit their members then they would pool their money and only lend to members or at the very least maximize their profits from lending to outsiders so as to benefit their members.  Credit Unions do neither of these.

Are you saying that if a socialist organization participates in a capitalist economy in any way, or if it engages in charity, it is no longer socialist? Then of course it's impossible for an organization to be socialist except in a pure socialist society. But I don't think that's the case.

If the means of production - say a herd of cows - are controlled jointly by a community of milk drinkers and cow-herds that's organized along socialist lines, and it doesn't become less socialist because they sell some of the excess milk to a neighbouring town or because they lend some of the cows to a race-cows-for-charity event.

If the profit from selling the excess milk is distributed according to capital investment, and if the primary shareholders are neither cow-herds nor drinkers of the milk in question then that's not organized along socialist lines, but rather capitalist lines. This is true whether or not the milk company is engaged in charity events or not.

I don't know, I think that distinction is pretty clear, and I think credit unions are much closer to the first than the second. Hence "organized along socialist lines".

The important distinction to me Yakie is that the majority of credit union members can't coerce any behavior from a minority.   If a member doesn't like the way loans are being made or profits distributed they can yank their money and take it to a competitor.

So?

State socialism does rely on coercion. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:05:28 AM
State socialism does rely on coercion.

Yes and no. Anything done at the state level relies on coercion. The same is true for a typical capitalist state - you are coerced by a number of laws and restrictions (e.g. you are punished for taking something the state considers someone else's property).

But you are free to leave the state and move elsewhere whether it is a socialist or a capitalist one.

Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2011, 03:16:48 AM

But you are free to leave the state and move elsewhere whether it is a socialist or a capitalist one.

:blink:

Quote from: The Brain on October 08, 2011, 03:33:22 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2011, 03:16:48 AM

But you are free to leave the state and move elsewhere whether it is a socialist or a capitalist one.

:blink:

Cuba has a rubber raft ferry service to the Florida Keys.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:05:28 AM
State socialism does rely on coercion.

States rely on coercion.  Socialist, Capitalist, Feudal, what ever.

I'm in agreement with Raz.  :Embarrass:

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 03:42:05 PM
Never heard of the Coal and Iron Police?  Hell Union Pacific has a police force.  My mom got a ticket from them once.  Judge threw it out because he had never heard of a Union Pacific police before.

LOL WUT

I would laugh my ass off if I got a ticket from the Union Pacific police. They have to be glorified rent-a-cops, right?

EDIT: Railroad police are certified state law enforcement officers with investigative and arresting powers both on and off railroad property if authorized by the state they are operating within. They also have interstate authority pursuant to federal law (Title 49, United States Code, Section 28101. Under Public Law 110-53 SEC. 1526. (RAILROAD SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS)), Railroad police powers' have been expanded to include railroads other than the officer's employing agency. All of the states in Union Pacific's 23 state system authorize full police authority, except for Minnesota and Wyoming, which do not grant authority to railroad police at all.

What the fuck, private corporations have their own police forces that are actually police? What the fuck.

So start your own railroad with a police force.

Quote from: Maximus on October 08, 2011, 10:08:59 AM
So start your own railroad with a police force.

Do you think the government will hand me billions of dollars a year in subsidies to prop up the model railroad running from my beer fridge to my couch, complete with a private police force?  :hmm:

Quote from: Martinus on October 08, 2011, 06:18:42 AM
I'm in agreement with Raz.  :Embarrass:

Thought you might be happy to be on the winning team for once.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 05:05:35 AM
States rely on coercion.  Socialist, Capitalist, Feudal, what ever.

Sure.  And voluntary organizations do not.  Boy Scouts, PTA, credit unions, whatever.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 03:13:15 PM
I suppose 19th century American business was socialist as well.  We never had a capitalist economy.  Business got free stuff from the government (like railways getting land), and often could coerce people with their own police.

That's crony capitalism, not socialism. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 01:46:38 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 05:05:35 AM
States rely on coercion.  Socialist, Capitalist, Feudal, what ever.

Sure.  And voluntary organizations do not.  Boy Scouts, PTA, credit unions, whatever.

So?  Voluntary organizations rely on state coercion to function.  A bank or a Credit Union doesn't do much good if people can just steal from it.

Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2011, 02:25:15 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2011, 03:13:15 PM
I suppose 19th century American business was socialist as well.  We never had a capitalist economy.  Business got free stuff from the government (like railways getting land), and often could coerce people with their own police.

That's crony capitalism, not socialism.

The Capitalism espoused by GOPtards, whatever you want to call it.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 02:55:18 PM
So?  Voluntary organizations rely on state coercion to function.  A bank or a Credit Union doesn't do much good if people can just steal from it.

:lol:  OK, if the protection of private property is socialism then we're all socialists. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:01:28 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 02:55:18 PM
So?  Voluntary organizations rely on state coercion to function.  A bank or a Credit Union doesn't do much good if people can just steal from it.

:lol:  OK, if the protection of private property is socialism then we're all socialists.

My point is that coercion is not a good indicator of socialism since all systems use some form of coercion.  Except for theoretical non existent economies like anarchism or communism.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 03:22:05 PM
My point is that coercion is not a good indicator of socialism since all systems use some form of coercion.  Except for theoretical non existent economies like anarchism or communism.

I don't disagree, and I doubt anyone else will.  Now if we can only get Jake to agree that voluntary organizations don't fit in the commonly accepted definition of socialism because they lack the coercive aspect then we can kick in the kumbaya.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:33:53 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 03:22:05 PM
My point is that coercion is not a good indicator of socialism since all systems use some form of coercion.  Except for theoretical non existent economies like anarchism or communism.

I don't disagree, and I doubt anyone else will.  Now if we can only get Jake to agree that voluntary organizations don't fit in the commonly accepted definition of socialism because they lack the coercive aspect then we can kick in the kumbaya.

He and I will agree if the voluntary organizations exist in a land with out laws to coerce.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 03:44:03 PM
He and I will agree if the voluntary organizations exist in a land with out laws to coerce.

So we're back to all forms of government of socialist.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:47:57 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 03:44:03 PM
He and I will agree if the voluntary organizations exist in a land with out laws to coerce.

So we're back to all forms of government of socialist.

No, we are at all forms of government are coercive.  I don't know why you seem to think that socialism is uniquely coercive.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 04:20:34 PM
No, we are at all forms of government are coercive.  I don't know why you seem to think that socialism is uniquely coercive.

The first possible reason that comes to mind is because I don't.

Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
One more time:  if it's done without government ownership or coercion, it ain't socialist.  I know the cooperative aspects of credit unions appeal to your socialist sensibilities, but don't get carried away.

:huh:   I am taking it that you don't know what "socialist" means, rather than that you are simply ignoring what it means.  Socialism is a belief system; one element of it can be political beliefs, but one can hold socialist beliefs and carry out socialist actions without reference to politics, government, or coercion in any way. Do some research.  I think you will be surprised at what you learn, if you don't stop at bumper stickers.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 04:23:23 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 04:20:34 PM
No, we are at all forms of government are coercive.  I don't know why you seem to think that socialism is uniquely coercive.

The first possible reason that comes to mind is because I don't.

Then why do you keep harping on it not being socialist because it's not coercive?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 04:38:09 PM
Then why do you keep harping on it not being socialist because it's not coercive?

Sigh.

Socialism is generally considered a form of government.  Jake is trying to argue that voluntary organizations such as credit unions are socialist.  I'm arguing that they are not because, unlike socialist governments, they lack the ability to coerce behavior from members.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 04:41:36 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 04:38:09 PM
Then why do you keep harping on it not being socialist because it's not coercive?

Sigh.

Socialism is generally considered a form of government.  Jake is trying to argue that voluntary organizations such as credit unions are socialist.  I'm arguing that they are not because, unlike socialist governments, they lack the ability to coerce behavior from members.

Ah, I see the problem.  Socialism is not really a form of government any more then Capitalism is.

I think we're done.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 04:45:06 PM
I think we're done.

When you start learning what words mean, we can start again.  But I think if you do this the bridge will be gaped.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 04:50:10 PM
But I think if you do this the bridge will be gaped.

:o

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 04:41:36 PM
Sigh.

Socialism is generally considered a form of government.  Jake is trying to argue that voluntary organizations such as credit unions are socialist.  I'm arguing that they are not because, unlike socialist governments, they lack the ability to coerce behavior from members.

I am quoting this just to preserve it, because some day you are going to deny ever saying anything so silly.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 08, 2011, 04:51:28 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 04:50:10 PM
But I think if you do this the bridge will be gaped.

:o

A little "p" goes a long way.

I think a lot of socialist thinkers would be surprised to hear someone say that socialism is a form of government.  It's an ideology with enormous variances in degree and application, and an ideology that has found wide acceptance throughout the entire world.

Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2011, 05:30:22 PM
I think a lot of socialist thinkers would be surprised to hear someone say that socialism is a form of government.  It's an ideology with enormous variances in degree and application, and an ideology that has found wide acceptance throughout the entire world.

Indeed.  In fact, I have never before heard the argument that, under the various Labor governments, the UK was not using the parliamentary form of government.

Quote from: grumbler on October 08, 2011, 05:52:03 PM

Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2011, 05:30:22 PM
I think a lot of socialist thinkers would be surprised to hear someone say that socialism is a form of government.  It's an ideology with enormous variances in degree and application, and an ideology that has found wide acceptance throughout the entire world.

Indeed.  In fact, I have never before heard the argument that, under the various Labor governments, the UK was not using the parliamentary form of government.

I heard that when the Labor government took over in 1945 people were calling the US state department to ask if that meant that Britain had gone communist.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 05:12:20 PM
A little "p" goes a long way.

Just so long as it stays out of the pool.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2011, 03:33:53 PM
I don't disagree, and I doubt anyone else will.  Now if we can only get Jake to agree that voluntary organizations don't fit in the commonly accepted definition of socialism because they lack the coercive aspect then we can kick in the kumbaya.

No dice. Socialism is not solely concerned with the organisation of the state. A socialist farming collective or a socialist housing co-op or a socialist commune are not not-socialist because they lack the coercive powers of the state. And neither is a credit union not-socialist because it lacks the power of the state. Not being a totalitarian state is not enough proof to show that an organisation is not socialist.

Red Dawn

Quote from: Jacob on October 09, 2011, 01:36:56 AM
No dice. Socialism is not solely concerned with the organisation of the state. A socialist farming collective or a socialist housing co-op or a socialist commune are not not-socialist because they lack the coercive powers of the state. And neither is a credit union not-socialist because it lacks the power of the state. Not being a totalitarian state is not enough proof to show that an organisation is not socialist.

You're right, the coercion argument doesn't work.

The argument that does work I think is that credit unions are not socialist because they do not take the need of their members into account when distributing profits.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2011, 03:50:00 AM
The argument that does work I think is that credit unions are not socialist because they do not take the need of their members into account when distributing profits.

Not sure why the bolded bit is relevant. 

A better argument might be that credit unions don't produce for the benefit of the membership.  In other words, that their "production" decisions are based on market demands more than member demands.  That might be more "pure" than Jacob demands to meet the threshold of "socialist" though.  Certainly the argument that something is "impurely" socialist isn't the same as the argument that it isn't socialist at all.

An interesting example f a corporation like, but also unlike, a credit union is USAA.  Because I have my insurance with them, I can bank with them as well.  They are run largely by retired military types (elected by the membership on a one-person-one-vote basis), and only active and former military members can join.  The members are the owners, and all "profits" are distributed to the members.  Loans are available to members only.  Both the insurance company and its associated bank are top-rated.  To me, this seems largely a socialist setup.  All the decisions are nominally based on which options best serve the members.  "Profit"-making is not a significant factor - profit is a byproduct of the necessity to maintain enough cash reserves to pay the insurance obligations in a major outlay year, and when the year isn't a big outlay year the association distributes the excess.  Even the reserve pool, however, is owned by the members and not the association; that portion of the members' equity is just not liquid (though I would get it if I were to terminate my membership).

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 08, 2011, 04:51:28 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2011, 04:50:10 PM
But I think if you do this the bridge will be gaped.

:o

:lol:

...And they've decided to drop the $5 fee. Don't have a news story on it yet but hey.


My guess: They figured once they did it the others would too. But the others saw what happened to BAC and decided not to follow.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2011, 12:03:17 PM
...And they've decided to drop the $5 fee. Don't have a news story on it yet but hey.


My guess: They figured once they did it the others would too. But the others saw what happened to BAC and decided not to follow.

The other banks' Boards of Directors were taught the lesson of "If BAC decided to jump off a cliff, would you do it too?" by their mothers.

That's odd. You'd figure by now anyone that would care enough to leave over the 5 dollar fee would be gone by now. Or are the hoping for a "New Coke" type of deal.

Quote from: HVC on November 01, 2011, 12:06:18 PM
That's odd. You'd figure by now anyone that would care enough to leave over the 5 dollar fee would be gone by now.

Unfortunately, I think you've grossly misjudged the ratio of the average American's ability to complain to the average American's level of laziness.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2011, 12:03:17 PM
...And they've decided to drop the $5 fee. Don't have a news story on it yet but hey.


My guess: They figured once they did it the others would too. But the others saw what happened to BAC and decided not to follow.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/11/01/141903688/bank-of-america-dropping-plan-for-5-monthly-debit-card-fee?ft=1&f=1001

Now lookee here.

Quote
Bank Customers Flee to CUs
By Ed Roberts
NOV 3, 2011 10:40am EDT

WASHINGTON — An estimated 650,000 consumers have closed their bank accounts and opted for credit union membership over the past four weeks, according to CUNA, bringing the approach to Saturday's Bank Transfer Day to a crescendo.

In a survey of 5,000 of its credit union members CUNA estimates that at least 650,000 consumers across the nation have joined credit unions since Sept. 29, the day Bank of America unveiled its now-rescinded $5 monthly debit card fee. Also during that time, CUNA estimates that credit unions have added $4.5 billion in new savings accounts, likely from the new members and existing members shifting their funds.

The survey results also show that more than four in every five credit unions experiencing member growth since Sept. 29 attributed the growth to consumer reaction to new fees imposed by banks, or a combination of consumer reactions to the new bank fees plus the social media-inspired "Bank Transfer Day," Nov. 5.

"These results indicate that consumers are clearly making a smarter choice by moving to credit unions where, on average, they will save about $70 a year in fewer or no fees, lower rates on loans and higher return on savings." said CUNA President Bill Cheney.

Cheney said the growth is particularly noticeable at larger credit unions (those with $100 million or more in assets, which account for about 20% of all credit unions – but count about 80% of all credit union members). The CUNA survey shows that more than 70% of these credit unions reported they have seen growth in memberships and deposits since Sept. 29.

According to a Time blurb about banking fees, large US banks lose an average of $80 a year on checking accounts.

Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 12:11:38 PM
Unfortunately, I think you've grossly misjudged the ratio of the average American's ability to complain to the average American's level of laziness.

Thankfully, enough got off their butts and moved their accounts to credit unions that I don't have to.  :D

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2011, 09:45:35 PM
According to a Time blurb about banking fees, large US banks lose an average of $80 a year on checking accounts.

That doesn't sound like much.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2011, 10:25:43 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2011, 09:45:35 PM
According to a Time blurb about banking fees, large US banks lose an average of $80 a year on checking accounts.

That doesn't sound like much.

$80 per checking account.  Not $80 on all of them together.

Oh.  Well I only have one checking account, so they should be fine.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2011, 03:41:22 PM
Now lookee here.

Quote
Bank Customers Flee to CUs
By Ed Roberts
NOV 3, 2011 10:40am EDT

WASHINGTON — An estimated 650,000 consumers have closed their bank accounts and opted for credit union membership over the past four weeks, according to CUNA, bringing the approach to Saturday's Bank Transfer Day to a crescendo.

In a survey of 5,000 of its credit union members CUNA estimates that at least 650,000 consumers across the nation have joined credit unions since Sept. 29, the day Bank of America unveiled its now-rescinded $5 monthly debit card fee. Also during that time, CUNA estimates that credit unions have added $4.5 billion in new savings accounts, likely from the new members and existing members shifting their funds.

The survey results also show that more than four in every five credit unions experiencing member growth since Sept. 29 attributed the growth to consumer reaction to new fees imposed by banks, or a combination of consumer reactions to the new bank fees plus the social media-inspired "Bank Transfer Day," Nov. 5.

"These results indicate that consumers are clearly making a smarter choice by moving to credit unions where, on average, they will save about $70 a year in fewer or no fees, lower rates on loans and higher return on savings." said CUNA President Bill Cheney.

Cheney said the growth is particularly noticeable at larger credit unions (those with $100 million or more in assets, which account for about 20% of all credit unions – but count about 80% of all credit union members). The CUNA survey shows that more than 70% of these credit unions reported they have seen growth in memberships and deposits since Sept. 29.

I recall reading something about a day being planned for lots of people to drop big banks en masse....maybe the 5th of November? Did anything come of that?

Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2011, 12:41:40 AM
I recall reading something about a day being planned for lots of people to drop big banks en masse....maybe the 5th of November? Did anything come of that?

Where did you read that?  The article you quoted, maybe?

Quote from: Habbaku on November 15, 2011, 12:51:48 AM

Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2011, 12:41:40 AM
I recall reading something about a day being planned for lots of people to drop big banks en masse....maybe the 5th of November? Did anything come of that?

Where did you read that?  The article you quoted, maybe?

:lol:

Which is why I brought it up, I have read stuff about it before hand and seeing it here jogged my memory. The article is being very general and speaking of the last few weeks, it mentions the day but not what came exactly of it.0

That's probably because the article you claim to have read, but seem to have forgotten within the last 15 minutes, was written on November 3rd.  Like it says.  In the article you claim to have read.

Which is why I'm asking....

Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Transfer_Day#Credit_unions_realize_increased_revenues

Between September 29, the day that Bank of America announced it's (now defunct) monthly fee for debit card transactions, and November 2, credit unions received $4.5 billion in funds and 650,000 new customers, which equated to a 50% increase in new accounts.[15][16] CUNA claimed that on November 5, 2011 alone, approximately 40,000 people joined credit unions, with credit unions realizing $80 million in new account funds.