postal banking

[HSKR]

Since neither one of us has actually addressed the original article, I'll go first. The first thought I had after reading it was "What happens to those private sector jobs if all of this was enacted?" Those evil banks, they steal all their customers money through interest and fines but at the same time they are paying a lot of middle class wages. So save the postal workers jobs at the cost of private sector jobs? Actually yea, I could see anyone who reads Salon agreeing with that.

did you read it? what private sector jobs are being threatened? maybe those of predatory banking? how many middles class wages are they paying? and i guess we should not even consider the net effect of those banks.

 

but those would still have a place. really, what private sector jobs are threatened by this? seems like postal banking would address those that have no access to banking or fall in the gap of not having access to a full fledged bank, but have good enough credit and means that they should not suffer the exorbitant interest rates of alternative banks.

 

but i guess you saw that this article was posted on salon, so that was enough for you.

 

"Another 24 million are “underbanked,” meaning they have a bank account but still use alternative services like check cashing stores, pawnbrokers or payday lenders."

 

 

It's pretty obvious who didn't read the article.

[tschu]

Since neither one of us has actually addressed the original article, I'll go first. The first thought I had after reading it was "What happens to those private sector jobs if all of this was enacted?" Those evil banks, they steal all their customers money through interest and fines but at the same time they are paying a lot of middle class wages. So save the postal workers jobs at the cost of private sector jobs? Actually yea, I could see anyone who reads Salon agreeing with that.

did you read it? what private sector jobs are being threatened? maybe those of predatory banking? how many middles class wages are they paying? and i guess we should not even consider the net effect of those banks.

 

but those would still have a place. really, what private sector jobs are threatened by this? seems like postal banking would address those that have no access to banking or fall in the gap of not having access to a full fledged bank, but have good enough credit and means that they should not suffer the exorbitant interest rates of alternative banks.

 

but i guess you saw that this article was posted on salon, so that was enough for you.

 

"Another 24 million are “underbanked,” meaning they have a bank account but still use alternative services like check cashing stores, pawnbrokers or payday lenders."

 

 

It's pretty obvious who didn't read the article.

"Won't someone stick up for the poor predatory lenders and payday advance services!"

 

If postal banking can offer the same service to people who need it or have never had the resources to learn to make the correct financial decisions (and this is huge, many people with money problems just don't know how to manage money at all) and offer those services at a very discounted rate, then I'm all for it.

 

It's not like private sector bank jobs are somehow more sacred than a government postal worker job. The difference is that the profits from banks all go to the 1%, not the middle class. And payday advance-type services cannot be good for the economy, sucking additional money out of a poverty-sticken lower class who doesn't know better. Thus, "predatory lending." A postal banking system would have no profits and, from the crazy salary that postal workers make, what would have been a profit for a predatory lender or for a 1% banking magnate is now redistributed to a middle class worker, while at the same time aiding a low-class worker who now has access to banking and much cheaper payday-advance type services. So yeah, I'd be totally fine with that.

 

Better yet, stress, at all levels of education from kindergarten through college, the right ways to manage money and the importance of having your finances under control and everyone would be better off.

[sd'sker]

Since neither one of us has actually addressed the original article, I'll go first. The first thought I had after reading it was "What happens to those private sector jobs if all of this was enacted?" Those evil banks, they steal all their customers money through interest and fines but at the same time they are paying a lot of middle class wages. So save the postal workers jobs at the cost of private sector jobs? Actually yea, I could see anyone who reads Salon agreeing with that.

did you read it? what private sector jobs are being threatened? maybe those of predatory banking? how many middles class wages are they paying? and i guess we should not even consider the net effect of those banks.

 

but those would still have a place. really, what private sector jobs are threatened by this? seems like postal banking would address those that have no access to banking or fall in the gap of not having access to a full fledged bank, but have good enough credit and means that they should not suffer the exorbitant interest rates of alternative banks.

 

but i guess you saw that this article was posted on salon, so that was enough for you.

 

"Another 24 million are “underbanked,” meaning they have a bank account but still use alternative services like check cashing stores, pawnbrokers or payday lenders."

 

 

It's pretty obvious who didn't read the article.

i think i did address the 24 million underbanked. but i am unsure how certain i am of the private sector job loss you are concerned with.

 

but i guess we better protect the predatory banks to save jobs, even though there is a large population that only utilize those banks because they have no other options.

 

how many jobs do those banks provide? would many be lost? like i said, they would still have a place. what is the net effect on the economy of jobs lost vs. preventing unnecessary bankruptcy? seems like a net gain without losing much, if anything.

 

is preventing unnecessary bankruptcy really worth threatening the bottom line of predatory banks? i guess not, for some.

[sd'sker]

"Won't someone stick up for the poor predatory lenders and payday advance services!"

 

If postal banking can offer the same service to people who need it or have never had the resources to learn to make the correct financial decisions (and this is huge, many people with money problems just don't know how to manage money at all) and offer those services at a very discounted rate, then I'm all for it.

 

It's not like private sector bank jobs are somehow more sacred than a government postal worker job. The difference is that the profits from banks all go to the 1%, not the middle class. And payday advance-type services cannot be good for the economy, sucking additional money out of a poverty-sticken lower class who doesn't know better. Thus, "predatory lending." A postal banking system would have no profits and, from the crazy salary that postal workers make, what would have been a profit for a predatory lender or for a 1% banking magnate is now redistributed to a middle class worker, while at the same time aiding a low-class worker who now has access to banking and much cheaper payday-advance type services. So yeah, I'd be totally fine with that.

exactly. what little money they have is going to insane interest rates or bankruptcy lawyers rather than to buying consumer goods, which is the best way to create jobs and support the economy.

 

and this is not about people who deserve high interest rates because they are financially irresponsible. this is for people who can handle debt, but have no options other than predatory banks. you know, the people that fall into that gap.

[HSKR]

Since neither one of us has actually addressed the original article, I'll go first. The first thought I had after reading it was "What happens to those private sector jobs if all of this was enacted?" Those evil banks, they steal all their customers money through interest and fines but at the same time they are paying a lot of middle class wages. So save the postal workers jobs at the cost of private sector jobs? Actually yea, I could see anyone who reads Salon agreeing with that.

did you read it? what private sector jobs are being threatened? maybe those of predatory banking? how many middles class wages are they paying? and i guess we should not even consider the net effect of those banks.

 

but those would still have a place. really, what private sector jobs are threatened by this? seems like postal banking would address those that have no access to banking or fall in the gap of not having access to a full fledged bank, but have good enough credit and means that they should not suffer the exorbitant interest rates of alternative banks.

 

but i guess you saw that this article was posted on salon, so that was enough for you.

 

"Another 24 million are “underbanked,” meaning they have a bank account but still use alternative services like check cashing stores, pawnbrokers or payday lenders."

 

 

It's pretty obvious who didn't read the article.

i think i did address the 24 million underbanked. but i am unsure how certain i am of the private sector job loss you are concerned with.

 

but i guess we better protect the predatory banks to save jobs, even though there is a large population that only utilize those banks because they have no other options.

 

how many jobs do those banks provide? would many be lost? like i said, they would still have a place. what is the net effect on the economy of jobs lost vs. preventing unnecessary bankruptcy? seems like a net gain without losing much, if anything.

 

is preventing unnecessary bankruptcy really worth threatening the bottom line of predatory banks? i guess not, for some.

 

So every bank is predatory according to what you just posted. From the mega NYC based bank to the small town family owned bank. Those 24 million are still customers of banks and you don't think there would be any effect if 24 million customers were gone from that industry. Interesting. Changing the font size still doesn't change that fact.

[HSKR]

Since neither one of us has actually addressed the original article, I'll go first. The first thought I had after reading it was "What happens to those private sector jobs if all of this was enacted?" Those evil banks, they steal all their customers money through interest and fines but at the same time they are paying a lot of middle class wages. So save the postal workers jobs at the cost of private sector jobs? Actually yea, I could see anyone who reads Salon agreeing with that.

did you read it? what private sector jobs are being threatened? maybe those of predatory banking? how many middles class wages are they paying? and i guess we should not even consider the net effect of those banks.

 

but those would still have a place. really, what private sector jobs are threatened by this? seems like postal banking would address those that have no access to banking or fall in the gap of not having access to a full fledged bank, but have good enough credit and means that they should not suffer the exorbitant interest rates of alternative banks.

 

but i guess you saw that this article was posted on salon, so that was enough for you.

 

"Another 24 million are “underbanked,” meaning they have a bank account but still use alternative services like check cashing stores, pawnbrokers or payday lenders."

 

 

It's pretty obvious who didn't read the article.

"Won't someone stick up for the poor predatory lenders and payday advance services!"

 

If postal banking can offer the same service to people who need it or have never had the resources to learn to make the correct financial decisions (and this is huge, many people with money problems just don't know how to manage money at all) and offer those services at a very discounted rate, then I'm all for it.

 

It's not like private sector bank jobs are somehow more sacred than a government postal worker job. The difference is that the profits from banks all go to the 1%, not the middle class. And payday advance-type services cannot be good for the economy, sucking additional money out of a poverty-sticken lower class who doesn't know better. Thus, "predatory lending." A postal banking system would have no profits and, from the crazy salary that postal workers make, what would have been a profit for a predatory lender or for a 1% banking magnate is now redistributed to a middle class worker, while at the same time aiding a low-class worker who now has access to banking and much cheaper payday-advance type services. So yeah, I'd be totally fine with that.

 

Better yet, stress, at all levels of education from kindergarten through college, the right ways to manage money and the importance of having your finances under control and everyone would be better off.

 

 

I couldn't agree more!!!! I would add it needs to start at home as well. I was fortunate enough to have parents who were great examples to me as well.

 

Got to ask you how familiar you are with credit unions? You mention that all the bank profits go to the 1%. Credit unions don't have a 1%. They have managers and staff and after expenses are paid for, profits go back to the customers via lower rates and fees. I bring it up because while we still have accounts at a bank we recently joined a credit union and have been very happy with them. In fact we moved our auto loan over and it will save us about $1000 over the life of the loan. If you don't like the 1%ers making loads of money off of you, I would suggest looking into a credit union. Yes, yes, I know, it almost sounds like socialism.

[sd'sker]

So every bank is predatory according to what you just posted. From the mega NYC based bank to the small town family owned bank. Those 24 million are still customers of banks and you don't think there would be any effect if 24 million customers were gone from that industry. Interesting. Changing the font size still doesn't change that fact.

that is not even remotely close to what i posted. what i said is that there is a gap in their service that the fill with predatory banks (i.e. payday advances, dollar loan centers, etc.). it would be nice if they had other options than predatory banks to fill the gaps in their banking.

[sd'sker]

Got to ask you how familiar you are with credit unions? You mention that all the bank profits go to the 1%. Credit unions don't have a 1%. They have managers and staff and after expenses are paid for, profits go back to the customers via lower rates and fees. I bring it up because while we still have accounts at a bank we recently joined a credit union and have been very happy with them. In fact we moved our auto loan over and it will save us about $1000 over the life of the loan. If you don't like the 1%ers making loads of money off of you, I would suggest looking into a credit union. Yes, yes, I know, it almost sounds like socialism.

i always wonder why banks are not nationalized. the gov't sets the interest rates, insures individual bankers, and has all the liability when banks fail. it seems like a natural institution to nationalize.

[HSKR]

So every bank is predatory according to what you just posted. From the mega NYC based bank to the small town family owned bank. Those 24 million are still customers of banks and you don't think there would be any effect if 24 million customers were gone from that industry. Interesting. Changing the font size still doesn't change that fact.

that is not even remotely close to what i posted. what i said is that there is a gap in their service that the fill with predatory banks (i.e. payday advances, dollar loan centers, etc.). it would be nice if they had other options than predatory banks to fill the gaps in their banking.

But in order fill those gaps you are at the same time taking away 24 million customers away from regular banks resulting in lost business and lost jobs at those banks. There isn't an industry on the planet that could lose 24 million customers and not cut jobs.

[HSKR]

Got to ask you how familiar you are with credit unions? You mention that all the bank profits go to the 1%. Credit unions don't have a 1%. They have managers and staff and after expenses are paid for, profits go back to the customers via lower rates and fees. I bring it up because while we still have accounts at a bank we recently joined a credit union and have been very happy with them. In fact we moved our auto loan over and it will save us about $1000 over the life of the loan. If you don't like the 1%ers making loads of money off of you, I would suggest looking into a credit union. Yes, yes, I know, it almost sounds like socialism.

i always wonder why banks are not nationalized. the gov't sets the interest rates, insures individual bankers, and has all the liability when banks fail. it seems like a natural institution to nationalize.

 

Even though I threw out the socialism card I sure hope you aren't using credit unions as good example for nationalizing banks. Credit unions are still private businesses run locally and not buy government bureaucrats. If a credit union does bad business, people pull their money and it goes under (see the 80's). If a Nationalized bank does bad business it turns into another USPS.

[sd'sker]

Even though I threw out the socialism card I sure hope you aren't using credit unions as good example for nationalizing banks. Credit unions are still private businesses run locally and not buy government bureaucrats. If a credit union does bad business, people pull their money and it goes under (see the 80's). If a Nationalized bank does bad business it turns into another USPS.

what happens when banks do bad business?

[sd'sker]

But in order fill those gaps you are at the same time taking away 24 million customers away from regular banks resulting in lost business and lost jobs at those banks. There isn't an industry on the planet that could lose 24 million customers and not cut jobs.

why would they lose them outright? it seems those customers would just use postal banking to fill the gaps in the service that their usual banks do not provide for them. from my understanding, postal banking would not replace their regular banks, just provide them the services that they would otherwise have to seek predatory banks for. short term loans and the like.

[tschu]

I couldn't agree more!!!! I would add it needs to start at home as well. I was fortunate enough to have parents who were great examples to me as well.

 

Got to ask you how familiar you are with credit unions? You mention that all the bank profits go to the 1%. Credit unions don't have a 1%. They have managers and staff and after expenses are paid for, profits go back to the customers via lower rates and fees. I bring it up because while we still have accounts at a bank we recently joined a credit union and have been very happy with them. In fact we moved our auto loan over and it will save us about $1000 over the life of the loan. If you don't like the 1%ers making loads of money off of you, I would suggest looking into a credit union. Yes, yes, I know, it almost sounds like socialism.

 

Yeah, I'm familiar with credit unions. They're great if you get into business with a good one. And no, it's certainly not socialism.

[HSKR]

Even though I threw out the socialism card I sure hope you aren't using credit unions as good example for nationalizing banks. Credit unions are still private businesses run locally and not buy government bureaucrats. If a credit union does bad business, people pull their money and it goes under (see the 80's). If a Nationalized bank does bad business it turns into another USPS.

what happens when banks do bad business?

 

 

They go out of business, well that is unless it looks bad politically then they are deemed "too big to fail" and get bailed out with taxpayer money.

[HSKR]

But in order fill those gaps you are at the same time taking away 24 million customers away from regular banks resulting in lost business and lost jobs at those banks. There isn't an industry on the planet that could lose 24 million customers and not cut jobs.

why would they lose them outright? it seems those customers would just use postal banking to fill the gaps in the service that their usual banks do not provide for them. from my understanding, postal banking would not replace their regular banks, just provide them the services that they would otherwise have to seek predatory banks for. short term loans and the like.

Why would they stay? There would be no reason to stay with private banks when they can get lower rates and fees from a government run system that private banks could not be competitive with.