Sanders - Hit Everybody

[Kel Varnsen]

Just so I understand your post, you believe only disillusioned people believe that public education should exist?

Not what I said at all. Simply that the government cannot solve all problems and education is something the government generally thinks it can solve through intervention. In a lot of instances, it does harm students. Student loans is an example.

[Kel Varnsen]

Except no part of the tweet said that the government should make that decision for the banks. Also, "Telling banks (or any business) what they can and cannot charge for a service they provide is ridiculous" is just your political belief. Price ceilings are an incredibly common government regulation. This is particularly true in the banking industry. Have you ever heard of usury laws? I am just flabbergasted that someone would call that tweet "unbelievably stupid." The people reacting via Twitter are obviously very uninformed.

The guy is running for president and has routinely discussed actions he would take to tell businesses what to do. Hard to believe there is zero implication of government action there.

It's just my political belief? The mere discussion of politics requires I interject my political belief. My political belief is that the free market is the best method of allocation of goods and services.

My point still stands. Banks are already starting to erase the fees that come from using another bank's ATM. Without government interference.

[WuDrWu]

Why is it unbelievably stupid to be opposed to high ATM fees? The transaction cost to the bank is zero since it is all electronic. The one person who said it's cheaper than paying someone $15/hour to stand in a lobby seems to have the most out of touch theory. I've never had to go into a bank lobby and personally pay the teller's hourly rate. Banks make loads on interest. Bernie has always been against banks nickel and diming people through the fees.

I assume Ticketmaster is next with their "high convenience fees" based on the same rationale? (By the way if Bernie says the rate is high, but you don't, who's right?)

Since Bernie's got everything figured out, I look forward to his spreadsheet on what every job SHOULD pay.

We'll get these problems knocked out lickity split.

[jdshock]

Not what I said at all. Simply that the government cannot solve all problems and education is something the government generally thinks it can solve through intervention. In a lot of instances, it does harm students. Student loans is an example.

Just clarifying since you stated that the government usually made things worse in areas like education and the government's largest involvement in education is the fact that public education exists. Just like the government's largest involvement in racism was the civil rights act of 1964, which few have an issue with.

Fortunately, I think Bernie agrees with you about student loans being a terrible government policy.

It's just my political belief? The mere discussion of politics requires I interject my political belief. My political belief is that the free market is the best method of allocation of goods and services.

The discussion of politics requires your belief, but it can be done using objective information. Further, and more importantly, it can be done in a respectful manner. How many converts do you think that website is going to get by calling the tweet unbelievably stupid?

My point still stands. Banks are already starting to erase the fees that come from using another bank's ATM. Without government interference.

I guess this is where my issue lies. That just isn't true. ATM fees continue to rise. And that $4.35 figure is an average, which suggests Bernie's number at $5 is not "unbelievably stupid." Why would the article even include the tweet that said only strip clubs charge that high of a number? That's just bad journalism because they completely failed to support their point with any real data.

My argument is not pro-government-regulation-of-ATM-fees or con-government-regulation-of-ATM-fees (though I'd be happy to argue the merits of the regulation). The link was posted with no explanation to an article that said the tweet was "unbelievably stupid" and I still haven't gotten a response to why the tweet was "unbelievably stupid." Reasonable minds can disagree on the validity of government regulation regarding ATM fees. I pointed out one of the best examples of a similar regulation of the banking industry which has wide support.

[jdshock]

I assume Ticketmaster is next with their "high convenience fees" based on the same rationale? (By the way if Bernie says the rate is high, but you don't, who's right?)

Since Bernie's got everything figured out, I look forward to his spreadsheet on what every job SHOULD pay.

We'll get these problems knocked out lickity split.

Banks are a necessity and ticketmaster isn't. Give me a tougher argument.

I'm not smart enough to understand what you mean inside of the parentheses. I guess I just don't think it's unbelievably stupid to think the fees are high. I don't think it's unbelievably stupid to support the fees either, though. Stupid. But not unbelievably so.

Do you believe the ATM fee is a wage for the ATM? Maybe this is where everyone's confusion comes from. The tweet the guy had regarding $15 an hour for the teller, and now your question about what every job should pay.

[Kel Varnsen]

Just clarifying since you stated that the government usually made things worse in areas like education and the government's largest involvement in education is the fact that public education exists. Just like the government's largest involvement in racism was the civil rights act of 1964, which few have an issue with.

Fortunately, I think Bernie agrees with you about student loans being a terrible government policy.



The discussion of politics requires your belief, but it can be done using objective information. Further, and more importantly, it can be done in a respectful manner. How many converts do you think that website is going to get by calling the tweet unbelievably stupid?



I guess this is where my issue lies. That just isn't true. ATM fees continue to rise. And that $4.35 figure is an average, which suggests Bernie's number at $5 is not "unbelievably stupid." Why would the article even include the tweet that said only strip clubs charge that high of a number? That's just bad journalism because they completely failed to support their point with any real data.

My argument is not pro-government-regulation-of-ATM-fees or con-government-regulation-of-ATM-fees (though I'd be happy to argue the merits of the regulation). The link was posted with no explanation to an article that said the tweet was "unbelievably stupid" and I still haven't gotten a response to why the tweet was "unbelievably stupid." Reasonable minds can disagree on the validity of government regulation regarding ATM fees. I pointed out one of the best examples of a similar regulation of the banking industry which has wide support.

Did I call that tweet "unbelievably stupid"? I didn't, and I didn't post the link, so I don't need to defend that site. That seems to be the crux of your argument. I think he's implying that he desires to do something about it with government intervention (why else as a presidential candidate would he tweet that?), which is wrong.

Government intervention on racism and education is vastly different in 2016 than it was in 1964.

Also, directly from the Ally Bank website:

[Cdizzle]

Banks are a necessity and ticketmaster isn't. Give me a tougher argument.

ATMs most certainly are not a necessity.

[jdshock]

Did I call that tweet "unbelievably stupid"? I didn't, and I didn't post the link, so I don't need to defend that site. That seems to be the crux of your argument. I think he's implying that he desires to do something about it with government intervention (why else as a presidential candidate would he tweet that?), which is wrong.

Absolutely, without a doubt, the crux of my argument is that it's not unbelievably stupid to tweet that. I just didn't get why the article was funny or correct or whatever it was trying to be. I still haven't gotten a response from the poster whom I quoted. You hopped in to defend it when my only question asked why it was unbelievably stupid.

Government intervention on racism and education is vastly different in 2016 than it was in 1964.

Maybe, but that's absolutely the most involved the government has ever been in the racism debate, and I'm not sure of any sweeping legislation regarding racism that has occurred in 2016.

Also, directly from the Ally Bank website:

Sure, one anecdotal piece of evidence from an online bank that has 1/50th of the customers of Bank of America. That's not a response to the industry data I cited.

Regardless, this is my last post on this topic. We aren't going to convince each other, and it's not a particularly exciting debate. My issue was with the article, and you seem to agree since you confirmed you did not call the tweet unbelievably stupid.

[WuDrWu]

ATMs most certainly are not a necessity.

Exactly my point. They are a convenience, and should be able to charge whatever they want, or don't want to, to garner more business.

My question in parenthesis was a tad snarky...my point being, who decides the price is high? Me? You? Bernie? And what makes any of us "right"?

If you don't like it, don't use it. I abhor those ATM fees. But if I need cash for something at the last minute, I am happy they are readily available and willing to pay the fee.

[jdshock]

ATMs most certainly are not a necessity.

ATMs are a necessity when banks charge fees for lobby transactions too. See e.g., http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/bank-teller-fees-how-much-it-costs-talk-to-live-person

The issue is how easy it is for banks to collude and charge identical fees. Free market logic would suggest fees would fall as consumers ran to banks with the fewest fees, but as I posted a few posts ago, fees are continuing to increase. In the face of collusion in a necessary industry, regulation makes a lot of sense.

[Cdizzle]

Frankly, until interest rates rise, banks are about the same amount of necessity as are ATMs.

There is a reason there are 17 mattress stores on Rock Rd in Wichita, between Kellogg and 37th street.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Did I miss something? Are ATMs not a convenience that costs the bank money? Surely the machines don't just show up for free and then do self-maintenance.

If a bank has a business model where they utilize an ATM fee to cover the cost of all these "mini-banks", why is that unacceptable?

Given all that we know about Bernie, it is obvious that he wants to utilize federal power to make these charges illegal. I agree that Bernie's comments were indeed unbelievably stupid. Actually, I take that back. It is Bernie Sanders. Those comments were "believably" stupid.

[wufan]

Here's an article from money that argues that banks are charging more for services due to the lost revenue from new regulations. The new regulations were brought into play as banks were lending money to those without good credit. Banks were lending money to those without good credit as the government regulations changed and required it. Just a little more regulation should solve that problem!

[jdshock]

Here's an article from money that argues that banks are charging more for services due to the lost revenue from new regulations. The new regulations were brought into play as banks were lending money to those without good credit. Banks were lending money to those without good credit as the government regulations changed and required it. Just a little more regulation should solve that problem!

This is certainly a more interesting debate. I can't find your link, though, and I'd love to read the article. I've never heard the argument that banks were lending money to bad debtors because of government regulations. If anything, I've only ever heard the exact opposite. The lack of government regulations is what allowed rating agencies to reclassify subprime lending as a worthwhile investment which allowed the banks to keep doing the lending, package it, and then sell it.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

jdshock, you should read this. In fact, everyone should. Yes, many poor lending practices were precisely DUE TO government regulations. Once again, the government tried to "help" the poor and instead made things much worse for not only them, but all of us by creating a crisis that should have never happened, at least not nearly at the scale that it did.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html

On a parallel track was the Community Reinvestment Act. New CRA regulations in 1995 required banks to demonstrate that they were making mortgage loans to underserved communities, which inevitably included borrowers whose credit standing did not qualify them for a conventional mortgage loan.

To meet this new requirement, insured banks–like the GSEs–had to reduce the quality of the mortgages they would make or acquire. As the enforcers of CRA, the regulators themselves were co-opted into this process, approving lending practices that they would otherwise have scorned. The erosion of traditional mortgage standards had begun.

Shortly after these new mandates went into effect, the nation’s homeownership rate–which had remained at about 64% since 1982–began to rise, increasing 3.3% from 64.2% in 1994 to 67.5% in 2000 under President Clinton, and an additional 1.7% during the Bush administration, before declining in 2007 to 67.8%. There is no reasonable explanation for this sudden spurt, other than a major change in the standards for granting a mortgage or a large increase in the amount of low-cost funding available for mortgages. The data suggest that it was both.

Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.

True Story:

Government in the 90s: Poor people don't own homes. Home ownership is good. This is unfair. Let's make it fair. Fair is good.

*New laws and regulations go into effect and poor people are now able to get mortgages too*

Banks: But half the time they won't pay them back

Gov: You hate poor people? Shut up and do what we say

President Bush in the 2000s: Hey Congress, this is looking bad. Trouble is coming.

Congress: Blah blah blah, I'm not listening to you.

*Crash*

Media and Dems for next decade: Look what Bush did!!!!!!!! He was President. It was his fault! Republican policies crashed us. Thank God Obama has brought us back from the horrible Bush economy.