not to mention that taxpayers paid for the electronic banking system under the guise of the Strategic Defense Iniative (Star Wars) and the Russian boogeyman. Where did you think interac/instant credit card transactions and the internet came from?
Canada envy, amid a global meltdown
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
So, in order for someone to buy a car we'll ask you to sell your house to finance it. Or if you want to use your house as security you first have to sell it. We'll assume all assets are worth nothing until converted to cash and placed in a vault.
You think they haven't been paid for yet? I bet they have and yet the cost of do a transaction hasn't gone down, has it? I realize they have maintenance costs n stuff, but I saw something one time where the costs were added up and balanced against the amount of money raked in by the banks and it is a pretty massive difference.
You would be surprised how much money owners of white machines don't make. Many go belly up. It isn't cheap to hire armoured car services. What do you think Brinks or Loomis would charge if they delivered cash like an ice cream truck?
Then how can they be thieves if that's all you need to do? Their services aren't forced on anyone? How would you save up if the world worked only on a dollar per gold in vault system? All of the pure gold extracted from the planet isn't much more than 100 cubic feet lumped together. You wouldn't have any. How would we pay for all of the gold wars?
Why would the banks be making such huge profits when almost everyone else is only making moderate profit if they aren't profiteering?
I pretty much disagree with this. Our society is based on money and its handling, so it follows that people are usually the wiser to use what meager benefit they can from it. I can't see Pattison stashing his dough away in his mattress. If all you have is $10 then it's prudent to keep it in your jeans. If you like to have $5K or $10K cash then it's more prudent to keep it in a bank or credit union or something.
Most banks no longer charge this Les. Where those charges come in are twofold. If you withdraw funds from a bank other than your own (say CIBC when your funds are in the Royal) you will be charged the $1.50 per transaction. If you use an ATM at a place like a garage or corner store or a mall, your charges are more likely to be $3.00 per transaction. Our bank allows one free transaction at another bank per month so they refund the charge.
Whatever. My point is that if they walloped us once a year for what they charge in service fees for this, that, and the other thing, we'd squawk like seagulls, so they wheedle little biys from wherever and whenever they can.
Besides that, I have the usual complaint that their lending rates are too high and savings rates are ridiculouly low in comparison.
If you don't think banks are profiteers, that is your prerogative, but it looks to me like the evidence is against you.
Gilbert, Kreskin is right, bank services aren’t forced on anyone. Really, other than a checking account (and one credit card), everything else is optional, one can very well do without.
You think ATM charges are too high? Well, don’t use ATM machines, nobody forced you to. We got along very well before ATM machines came into existence.
The problem is that people want all kinds of services (ATM machine, debit card, overdraft protection etc.) and they grumble when they have to pay for it.
As to whether ATM charges are high, I don’t know, I have never used an ATM machine (or a debit card); I don’t see any use for it. However, banks are entitled to make profit with ATM machines, why shouldn’t they? Banks are not charities, they are in the business to make money.
And they seem to be doing a very good job of what they are supposed to do, to make money for the shareholders. In the process, they also help shore up the economy.
If you don't think banks are profiteers, that is your prerogative, but it looks to me like the evidence is against you.
I don’t understand Gilbert, why shouldn’t bank make profits? Do you think they are in it for charity? Sure they make profit, they charge what the market will bear.
I don’t understand Gilbert, why shouldn’t bank make profits? Do you think they are in it for charity? Sure they make profit, they charge what the market will bear.
What choice do you have when the single bank in yet another small community closes and the nearest bank is thirty miles away? The buck-and-a-half troll fee is cheaper than the gas to get there....
Definition of profiteer (which seems to have escaped a few people here):
"one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency" -Merriam-Webster
"a person who makes excessive profits, esp. by charging exorbitant prices for goods in short" - Collins
"a person who makes excessive profits at the expense of the public " - The Free Online Dictionary
"one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency" -Merriam-Webster
"a person who makes excessive profits, esp. by charging exorbitant prices for goods in short" - Collins
"a person who makes excessive profits at the expense of the public " - The Free Online Dictionary
Good point. sounds like a Bank or an Insurance company to me. I believe in free enterprise and a capitalist system. But not, "economic rape" and the profits being posted by the banking community are akin to rape
Gilbert, exorbitant, excessive it is all a matter of perspective isn’t it? What may be exorbitant in your opinion may not be exorbitant in my opinion.
Besides, I don’t think Canadian banks are making any more profit than other similarly well managed companies of similar size. So who decides if it is exorbitant or excessive?