The fact is, as long as the financial system controls the political system, regulation will favor the banks. The only way for this system to be fixed starts at the ballot box.
The fact is, as long as the financial system controls the political system, regulation will favor the banks. The only way for this system to be fixed starts at the ballot box.
The Finance minister basically rubber stamped it.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/11/dijsselbloem-u...
If you can make the argument that specific regulations offer no benefit other than to protect larger businesses that's one thing. But "It's hard" isn't convincing enough to me.
A credit union doesn't have "profits" because it is tax-exempt. Like banks they can, and do, run surpluses, which they return to members in the form of above-market interest rates on deposits or as dividends. If they lost tax-exempt status, they would have to pay taxes on the surplus before returning it to members, like banks do on profits before returning it to shareholders.
Interest paid is tax deductible for banks, and dividends paid to demand deposit accounts (the way most credit unions distribute them) are deductible for mutual savings banks (the banks most similar credit unions without tax exempt status), so this tax treatment isn't as special as it seems.
Where are you going to find politicians to vote for who cannot be influenced by money? Not on your ballot, because the one-party-with-two-wings has effectively made it illegal to run a campaign as an alternative. Greens and Libertarians are kept from the debates, kept from the ballot with restrictive measures, and certainly aren't owning the machines that "count" the ballots and determine the elections. (The election fraud from 2000 has never gone away, it just stopped being headline news. It happens in a recent past political election one of the presidential candidates called my house on election night to report their observance of the fraud- in some cases the absolute number of votes they got went down as more votes were counted. A mathematical impossibility.)
I refuse to give up on democracy, just as I refuse to give up on America.
That's the fundamental difference which means that you can't simply go to the ballot box to fix something. You can go to the ballot box to support people who you believe share your values. Sometimes it works, oftentimes it doesn't.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the USA will ever become a real democracy, so we have to make the best of the system we currently have.
The US (by Constitutional form) is both a (representative) democracy and a (federal, and democratic) republic.
> Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the USA will ever become a real democracy
You seem to be using "real democracy" to mean "direct democracy", buy direct democracy is no more real than representative democracy. (And there's a good case to be made that the problems the US has with being an effective democracy are curable while remaining a representative democracy, and that the problems lie largely in the particular electoral system.)
Would? No such calculation is necessary because banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere - the opportunity for fleecing the masses with those sneaky & outrageous charges is just too delightful to pass up.
If people actually had a cheaper and better alternative, no one would keep paying those outrageous charges, and that's why the credit union 'had to be' "regulated"[1] to death.
Ever wonder why all banks charge roughly the same fees?
[1] "Regulation" is quite a double-speakey word. If you regulate an electric current, you make sure it isn't too strong, and that's where the word gets its positive connotation.
But when a government "regulates" anything, it's basically just coercion. "No, you can't offer people this beneficial service. You can't charge less for transfers. You can't give your customers debit cards" and so on.
> The only way for this system to be fixed starts at the ballot box.
Do you think politicians all over the world don't know that every single person on earth would rather not get fleeced with outrageous fees?
They all do, of course, and as evidenced by banks still raping us six ways from Sunday, they don't care.
Take any societal problem you see. Is there real evidence to show that they care? Whatever they tell you to get elected doesn't count, by the way. How often do politicians keep their promises?
Why would you think the solution to any problem would start at the ballot box?
You see things getting worse each year..
So do you not understand that voting doesn't actually solve anything?
Obviously, winning people over into participating in a pointless ritual doesn't help either, nor do the bribes a politician takes to fund the publicity necessary to win people over by lying to them.
Think about it.
2. Banks charge roughly the same fees for the same reason grocery stores charge roughly the same prices - competition.
3. Coercion is a straw man when considering government activity. Anything you don't like becomes coercive. I don't like that my roommate wakes up before me and disturbs my sleep - coercion! I like having subsidized education but not paying taxes - coercion! I like feeling safe with protected borders and the greatest fighting force ever assembled but not paying taxes or protecting people who don't look like me - coercion!
4. There is never a single solution, no silver bullet to resolve complex societal problems. I sympathize a bit with you here - what is the point of progressive reform when the system will adapt? Nothing structural will change, but will only shift. But at the same time, shouting down calls for representative change serve nobody either.
I also resent your use of 'rape' in that context.
That wasn't my claim. I said banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere, and that implies preventing competition.
One way to prevent competition is to make sure the cartel banks can't fail. It's difficult to compete with a business that gets handed unlimited amounts of other people's money when it's about to go bankrupt.
> Banks charge roughly the same fees for the same reason grocery stores charge roughly the same prices - competition.
Do you sincerely think banks couldn't charge less for their services? :) Because that's what it would take for competition to have resulted in the current price level, as anyone on HN should be able to understand.
I'll stop here now because I suspect you're not being honest.