• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

More banks charging checking account fees, not RKBA related.

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
Of course they are. Dodd-Frank cut their Debit card service fees in half (savings which were supposed to be passed down from the merchant to the consumer. Damned if I've seen any savings, though). They're going to make up the lost revenue any way they can.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
forcing customers

Didn't get past this line, Banks are not forcing anybody to do anything.

Government should stay out of private business affairs.

My Bank doesn't charge me. But I only have a Bank because I am forced to by the state...otherwise I wouldn't use them.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Banks are not forcing anybody to do anything.

Government should stay out of private business affairs.

Agreed. They're not forcing anybody to do anything in the sense you mean.

However, I have no sympathy for the banks because in other ways they do force us.

Fractional reserve banking creates money out of thin air, inflating the money supply and causing price inflation. This destroys the value of our savings. Even 2% yearly price inflation across ten years adds up to more than 20% value just GONE on the savings set aside in the first year.

And, the banks play the Federal Reserve system game whereby we are all forced to use Federal Reserve Notes.

In years past, before there was a central bank, banks would issue their own notes/paper money. This was part of the fractional reserve banking game. They issued more notes than they had gold to cover it. When all the banks hold notes and checks from each and thus owe each other, you have an interlocking system of debt which works fine for the banks as long as none gets too carried away with issuing notes and loans. But, when a few in a region get carried away and issue too much and the debts are called in by other banks, then things start to collapse. The whole reason for a central bank is so that the individual banks can inflate evenly and no banks owe more than they can pay to other banks. Our Federal Reserve is no different. It sets the reserve requirements for all the banks in the system. It is institutionalized price inflation. It is institutionalized theft of our savings. It is institutionalized theft of our pay as prices increase faster than our paychecks.

Oh, we're forced alright.

I agree that government should stay out of private business. Government chartered the Federal Reserve. Thanks a lot, President Wilson. Also, in the early 1800's, say between 1820 and 1840, a number of US banks got into trouble by inflating too much. They shut their doors and refused to give out gold on demand. The government validated this action. Which is to say, the government confirmed the breach of contract. Lets say I'm holding a bank note that says pay to bearer ten dollars gold. Its a form of contract. Government sided with the banks allowing them to breach that contract, rather than making the banks pay until they went out of business, or putting them under court supervision and paying out whatever percentage on the dollar until they went totally broke and out of business, including the personal wealth of all the directors and shareholders.

There was another government trick around this time. Courts arbitrarily decreed that money you deposited in a bank was not your money anymore. So, when you loaned money to a bank by making a deposit, it was not really a loan and wasn't really your money anymore. Even though it was a so-called demand deposit. You see, if the government recognized it really was a demand deposit, you could demand it, and the government would have to protect your interests in its court decisions whenever a bank was about to go under. Rather than the government protecting the banks by letting them close for a few days or weeks, or more importantly letting them stay in business, which meant the same men could inflate and cause price inflation and risk more people's savings again.

You can learn more about this in the minority report of the gold commission from the 1980's, The Case for Gold. It is a thin book. Easy but very fascinating to read. Guess who was on the commission, dissented from the commission's so-called findings and co-authored the minority report? Ron Paul.

You can read it here: http://www.cato.org/case-for-gold/ I highly recommend taking the time. Highly.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Well fortunatley I do business with a credit union that hasn't charged any fees. they floated that idea of charging credit card fees, so I stopped using my credit card and began writing checks for the smallest amounts possible and using those as payment. the idea being it costs them far more money to process checks then debit cards. I don't think they ever cared though, they did retract the idea and pledge their checking would be free forever, so we'll see.

*I meant debit, not credit.

but SVG is right, banks can't compel you to do business with them. But it's getting harder to not have one, my last employer was looking at gettting rid of paying people in paper checks and most places these days pay by direct deposit
 

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
791
Location
Elizabethton, TN
Will customers switch banks?
Probably not.

HAH. I did. That's why I dropped Suntrust. It started out as a charge for having a premium account. They changed the requirements for waiving the fee without me noticing, then I quickly downgraded the account. Within less than a year I saw another fee-this time because they changed the required monthly transfer from checking to savings without me noticing. It was the last straw. I dropped them like a rock the next day because I was tired of changing my account setting to avoid fees.

Before I dropped Suntrust, though, I opened up a credit union account. I wasn't entirely impressed with their bill pay, so I opened up a brokerage/checking account with Charles Schwab. Schwab's bill pay is almost identical to Suntrust's, so when Suntrust charged that last fee less than a month after opening the Schwab account, I quickly changed my direct deposit and bill pay info over and closed the Suntrust accounts.

The credit union bill pay isn't unusable, so if Schwab ever starts charging maintenace fees, I'll just stick with the CU.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I the guberment wishes to regulate banks they are doing it wrong.

Instead of telling the banks what fees/charges they cannot bill for they should provide them a list of what they CAN bill for.

But then politicians would have to say "yeah, we approved that" and take responsibility for bank fees ... something they don't want to do.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I the guberment wishes to regulate banks they are doing it wrong.

Instead of telling the banks what fees/charges they cannot bill for they should provide them a list of what they CAN bill for.

But then politicians would have to say "yeah, we approved that" and take responsibility for bank fees ... something they don't want to do.


No, you don't understand.

The government is in bed with the banks.

The government long ago could have held bankers toes to the fire and held bankers responsible for the excesses of fractional reserve banking and all its attendant economic problems. It is against government's interests to do so--the government wants to borrow vast amounts of money so it can spend more than it takes in. The existing banking system provides that to government. This is why Obama, despite his lies about hope, change, and the little guy appointed thirteen big bankers to his administration (at last count a year ago).

Government doesn't regulate the banking system unless the banking system asks for it.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
No, you don't understand.

The government is in bed with the banks.

Oh I understand. I also understand that it has to be to a certain degree .. our currency is tied to nothing anymore .. so they need these "money-dealers" to peddle their wares. They are like drug dealers in their function.

Why else is it against the law for the people to create their own currency if they so choose?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Agreed. They're not forcing anybody to do anything in the sense you mean.

However, I have no sympathy for the banks because in other ways they do force us.

Fractional reserve banking creates money out of thin air, inflating the money supply and causing price inflation. This destroys the value of our savings. Even 2% yearly price inflation across ten years adds up to more than 20% value just GONE on the savings set aside in the first year.

And, the banks play the Federal Reserve system game whereby we are all forced to use Federal Reserve Notes.

In years past, before there was a central bank, banks would issue their own notes/paper money. This was part of the fractional reserve banking game. They issued more notes than they had gold to cover it. When all the banks hold notes and checks from each and thus owe each other, you have an interlocking system of debt which works fine for the banks as long as none gets too carried away with issuing notes and loans. But, when a few in a region get carried away and issue too much and the debts are called in by other banks, then things start to collapse. The whole reason for a central bank is so that the individual banks can inflate evenly and no banks owe more than they can pay to other banks. Our Federal Reserve is no different. It sets the reserve requirements for all the banks in the system. It is institutionalized price inflation. It is institutionalized theft of our savings. It is institutionalized theft of our pay as prices increase faster than our paychecks.

Oh, we're forced alright.

I agree that government should stay out of private business. Government chartered the Federal Reserve. Thanks a lot, President Wilson. Also, in the early 1800's, say between 1820 and 1840, a number of US banks got into trouble by inflating too much. They shut their doors and refused to give out gold on demand. The government validated this action. Which is to say, the government confirmed the breach of contract. Lets say I'm holding a bank note that says pay to bearer ten dollars gold. Its a form of contract. Government sided with the banks allowing them to breach that contract, rather than making the banks pay until they went out of business, or putting them under court supervision and paying out whatever percentage on the dollar until they went totally broke and out of business, including the personal wealth of all the directors and shareholders.

There was another government trick around this time. Courts arbitrarily decreed that money you deposited in a bank was not your money anymore. So, when you loaned money to a bank by making a deposit, it was not really a loan and wasn't really your money anymore. Even though it was a so-called demand deposit. You see, if the government recognized it really was a demand deposit, you could demand it, and the government would have to protect your interests in its court decisions whenever a bank was about to go under. Rather than the government protecting the banks by letting them close for a few days or weeks, or more importantly letting them stay in business, which meant the same men could inflate and cause price inflation and risk more people's savings again.

You can learn more about this in the minority report of the gold commission from the 1980's, The Case for Gold. It is a thin book. Easy but very fascinating to read. Guess who was on the commission, dissented from the commission's so-called findings and co-authored the minority report? Ron Paul.

You can read it here: http://www.cato.org/case-for-gold/ I highly recommend taking the time. Highly.

Great post I'll read that book. I have no sympathy for banks either.

Well fortunatley I do business with a credit union that hasn't charged any fees. they floated that idea of charging credit card fees, so I stopped using my credit card and began writing checks for the smallest amounts possible and using those as payment. the idea being it costs them far more money to process checks then debit cards. I don't think they ever cared though, they did retract the idea and pledge their checking would be free forever, so we'll see.

*I meant debit, not credit.

but SVG is right, banks can't compel you to do business with them. But it's getting harder to not have one, my last employer was looking at gettting rid of paying people in paper checks and most places these days pay by direct deposit

Try being self employed, it is almost impossible to run a business without a bank, the State and the Feds want to track you. So in addition to the crimes listed by Citizen, it is a way to sidestep the practically non existent 4th amendment when it comes to doing business as a sole proprietor.
 
Top