I decided to be "proactive" and tried to contact the bank. No email
access. The phone number didn't allow me to connect with a customer
representative. Happy day. I will strive to make a point of sharing
my opinions about this one way or another. Maybe our motto should be:
People have rights too! The "customer agreements" get longer every year.
So long, that it's not practical to even read most of them. I do not
think the new policy will help make the world a better place.
Maybe I'll short them $5 on my next deposit, and see whether they
correct it or not... : )
Corporations generally have a right to do business as they see fit ...
or in a manner, no matter how stupid or ill advised, that they can get away.
The customer only has a right to take their business elsewhere, so far.
The problem, as you are experiencing, starts soon after you get
Works briefly in your favor, then you idiots allow your elected
representatives to sell you out and you eventually get the phenomenon
know as "regulatory capture" ... always to the detriment of the consumer.
The banking and investment industry are perfect examples, as well as
cable and internet providers.
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:51:50 -0600, Swingman wrote:
And you assume they'd get better without regulation? What have you been
Government has been defined, correctly in my opinion, as a "necessary
evil". There's a reason why it's necessary - if you can't grasp that,
you live in a fantasy world.
It is not so much the regulation being the problem as the entity that is
regulating it. So effectively the regulation is a wash at best, you
"get on paper" from the regulation and loose money from the
inefficiency, incompetency, bureaucracy, and corruption of the
It would be far better to be regulated by a private entity.
Enjoyed that $9,513.75 that came out of the taxes that you _personally_
paid since 2008 that went to bail out the second most government
regulated industry in existence, not to mention all that interest you
get on your savings, and the fees you get soaked with, eh?
"Fantasy world", indeed ...
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:08:43 -0600, Swingman wrote:
And perhaps you didn't notice that it was the *relaxation* of regulations
that caused the banking/mortgage crisis?
And a lack of regulation that resulted in all those polluted Superfund
sites? Competition didn't seem to have any effect there.
A long time ago, Will Rogers said we had the best government money could
buy. Nothing has changed.
And all this time we thought it was the government guaranteeing loans to
those that absolutely did not qualify but because they could not keep up
with the Jones the government said give it to them anyway.
And again, let the private sector do the policing because no one is
proud of the results when the government jumps in the deep end.
What about things like the Staggers act? Regulation was sifleing the
railroads and relaxation of certain regulations allowed them to become
competitive and healthy.
Relaxing and implementing regulations is an ax. You can do surprisingly
good work with it, but you can also cut off the very thing you need to
This is kind of a naive view. It fails in two ways, one because
it ignores the reality of monopolies and collusion (so that it's
not always possible to "take one's business elsewhere"); and the
other because a business's profit motive generally doesn't align
with the public's desire for a clean and safe environment.
In an ideal world, regulation would exist only in so far as is
necessary to provide "an even playing field", where competing
businesses all had the same safety and enviromental standards
(so none had an advantage), and all truely did compete (so the
customer had a fair choice). In practice, governments are not
very good at identifying those boundries, and inertia tends to
keep regulations in place long after the need for them has
passed (by the same token, inertia tends to prevent regulation
being put in place until well after the need first appears -
something of a closing the barn door after the horse has left
Anyone interested in the subject would be well advised to
study the history of railroad regulation (since that was the
first industry regulated) from the creation of the ICC to
the Staggers act of 1980 that deregulated it (about 30 years
after the need for regulation had ended).
Jeezzus, you guys can run rabbit trails ...
Most here are well aware of the necessity for some form of "regulation",
what it entails, and the history thereof, and certainly don't need
preaching to in that regard.
My post specifically stated a reality of regulation in today's world,
that being "regulatory capture", perfectly manifested in the examples I
The only naivete exhibited thus far is in the disregard of that very
real phenomenon, and ignoring the subject totally in irrelevant epistles.
Not gonna happen until we start making corporate executives respect
people. As long as nerdhood is the ticket to success that's not going
to happen--used to be we taught people to be team players, now we don't
unless they're "jocks".
We do. Go down to the library and look at the US Code sitting on the
shelf (don't read it online, look at it on a shelf--I want you to see
the physical size of it). Quite a lot of that deals with "corporate
A lot of that sort of thing could be easily fixed by requiring that any
contract or change in a contract, in order to be valid, must be accepted
actively and explicitly, not passively by continuing to use a service.
Well, they added it to their "terms of service" (I think). I may
inquire at the local branch if they are going to *notify* customers of
the discrepancies found on the occasion that they keep the extra money.
You can read the new policy at the top of the first page (paragraph 'A')
below (you also be able to see that it's a "new policy"):
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.