Posted: 10/27/2011 12:28:34 PM EDT
|
Just got an email saying they are going from $1.00 to $1.20 thank to rising cost of taking credit and debit cards. I wonder what type of regulations could have possibly caused that? |
|
Quoted:
Banks are pricegouging eveyone on everything. The regulations have less to do with it than the unmitigated greed of the banksters. If that was true, new banks would pop up everywhere offering cheaper rates. eta: heck, I'd start a bank if I thought there was money to be made in it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Banks are pricegouging eveyone on everything. The regulations have less to do with it than the unmitigated greed of the banksters. I think someone never heard of Dodd-Frank. I've heard of it. Have you heard of getting 5% interest on your savings account? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Banks are pricegouging eveyone on everything. The regulations have less to do with it than the unmitigated greed of the banksters. I think someone never heard of Dodd-Frank. I've heard of it. Have you heard of getting 5% interest on your savings account? lolwut? |
|
Quoted:
Maybe somebody can chime in and let us know if there are different fees merchants are being charged to make up for the cap on the debit transactions. Not really a big change, in my experience. I work for a retailer and we haven't seen much of a change in the cc processing fees. I wonder if the $1 rental was a less profitable option for Redbox, but they used that price as somewhat of a loss leader while they built their infrastructure and got a large customer base. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Banks are pricegouging eveyone on everything. The regulations have less to do with it than the unmitigated greed of the banksters. I think someone never heard of Dodd-Frank. I've heard of it. Have you heard of getting 5% interest on your savings account? lolwut? 1. Banks fucked up royally 2. Banks got bailed out by the federal government (thank you, President Bush, for TARP!) 3. Banks got more assistance from the Federal Reserve, which drove interest rates down to zero so banks could make more by charging relatively high rates on mortgages and other loans 4. Banks no longer need or want "retail" savers to waste their time and energy on piddly-ass deposits 5. Banks therefore have jacked up transaction fees across the board. 6. Result: you, as a saver/customer, get fucked up the ass This is largely the same thing the Tea Party formed to protest. It's not an OWS issue, it's not a Democratic talking point, it's not even a Republican issue. Anyone who is incapable of understanding this is an absolute fucking illiterate fool. If Bernanke were not driving down interest rates by printing money, rates would be significantly higher both for lending AND ON SAVINGS. Instead of banks finding new ways to screw you, they would be paying you for the privilege of borrowing your money for reinvestment. Compare Iceland to Ireland. One letter difference, one decision difference, one economic recovery vs. one continued (and likely permanent) stagnation. |
|
Quoted:
1. Banks fucked up royally 2. Banks got bailed out by the federal government (thank you, President Bush, for TARP!) 3. Banks got more assistance from the Federal Reserve, which drove interest rates down to zero so banks could make more by charging relatively high rates on mortgages and other loans 4. Banks no longer need or want "retail" savers to waste their time and energy on piddly-ass deposits 5. Banks therefore have jacked up transaction fees across the board. 6. Result: you, as a saver/customer, get fucked up the ass This is largely the same thing the Tea Party formed to protest. It's not an OWS issue, it's not a Democratic talking point, it's not even a Republican issue. Anyone who is incapable of understanding this is an absolute fucking illiterate fool. If Bernanke were not driving down interest rates by printing money, rates would be significantly higher both for lending AND ON SAVINGS. Instead of banks finding new ways to screw you, they would be paying you for the privilege of borrowing your money for reinvestment. Compare Iceland to Ireland. One letter difference, one decision difference, one economic recovery vs. one continued (and likely permanent) stagnation. What planet do you live on? Mortgage rates are at an all time low. How are banks "charging relatively high rates" on mortgages? Do you really think 3.5% is "relatively high"? And how does the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates eliminate competition between banks? You do realize that banks have to compete with each other in regards to interest rates and fees, right? If you think they're just raising fees to be price gouging, why aren't you starting a bank with lower fees and interest rates so that you can rake in some money? The sad thing is, most people here agree with you on the issues of TARP and a lot of the banking regulations that have been implemented over the last few years. But your actual argument is completely wrong, which shows a clear misunderstanding of how banking works, and is completely devoid of any actual economic sense. ETA: I just realized this is the Redbox thread. What does this have to do with Redbox? Banks don't set credit card fees. Processing companies and credit card companies set credit card fees? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Banks fucked up royally 2. Banks got bailed out by the federal government (thank you, President Bush, for TARP!) 3. Banks got more assistance from the Federal Reserve, which drove interest rates down to zero so banks could make more by charging relatively high rates on mortgages and other loans 4. Banks no longer need or want "retail" savers to waste their time and energy on piddly-ass deposits 5. Banks therefore have jacked up transaction fees across the board. 6. Result: you, as a saver/customer, get fucked up the ass This is largely the same thing the Tea Party formed to protest. It's not an OWS issue, it's not a Democratic talking point, it's not even a Republican issue. Anyone who is incapable of understanding this is an absolute fucking illiterate fool. If Bernanke were not driving down interest rates by printing money, rates would be significantly higher both for lending AND ON SAVINGS. Instead of banks finding new ways to screw you, they would be paying you for the privilege of borrowing your money for reinvestment. Compare Iceland to Ireland. One letter difference, one decision difference, one economic recovery vs. one continued (and likely permanent) stagnation. What planet do you live on? Mortgage rates are at an all time low. How are banks "charging relatively high rates" on mortgages? Do you really think 3.5% is "relatively high"? And how does the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates eliminate competition between banks? You do realize that banks have to compete with each other in regards to interest rates and fees, right? If you think they're just raising fees to be price gouging, why aren't you starting a bank with lower fees and interest rates so that you can rake in some money? The sad thing is, most people here agree with you on the issues of TARP and a lot of the banking regulations that have been implemented over the last few years. But your actual argument is completely wrong, which shows a clear misunderstanding of how banking works, and is completely devoid of any actual economic sense. ETA: I just realized this is the Redbox thread. What does this have to do with Redbox? Banks don't set credit card fees. Processing companies and credit card companies set credit card fees? It is insanely high when the banks are GETTING their capital at 0% to 0.25% from the Fed.  It's a little bit harder than "o hai guise, i is starting bank."
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Banks are pricegouging eveyone on everything. The regulations have less to do with it than the unmitigated greed of the banksters. If that was true, new banks would pop up everywhere offering cheaper rates. eta: heck, I'd start a bank if I thought there was money to be made in it. You should do some research on banks & starting one. There is money to be made in it. Alan Greenspan said in 2009 that if he was 50 years younger he would start a bank right now due to the enormous profits to be made. This was after the banking crisis happened. You obviously have limited knowledge on what it actually takes to start banks. How much they profit and failure rates of banks. It will take you 10+ million dollars and a couple of years once you open your door. Once its open the failure rate is insanely low. 1 in 1000. Opening banks isn't the easiest thing in the world to do. They are very profitable though. You should also read about wal-mart. And they're many unsuccessful attempts to start banks. |