first democratic party debate. Discuss

[hodad]

o save the economy..

Deposit Banking is pretty straightforward, and could almost be made a function of the post office,,,

JR

PS: I agree the libertarian philosophy is not very practical when exposed to the real world circumstances..
[/quote}

You know the P.O. banking thing is something Eliabeth Warren advocates, right?  There's a lot that I think ordinary folks on the right and left can agree on, but the money in the middle does a very good job of keeping us apart.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You know the P.O. banking thing is something Eliabeth Warren advocates, right?  There's a lot that I think ordinary folks on the right and left can agree on, but the money in the middle does a very good job of keeping us apart.

Then I may need to rethink it...

How does she propose to manage lending? You don't just put the deposited money in a PO box.

If the money does not get recirculated into the local economy, you don't get the economic multiplier effect (fractional reserve banking ) and growth suffers (a little like now).

JR

 

[Pip]

Democratic/Socialism:

Democratic Governmental Principles with a Socialist Economic System. So there could be Republican/Socialism just as there can be Conservative/Liberalism. Arnold Schwarzenegger is someone who IMO is a Fiscal Conservative and a Liberal Moralist.

Non-Democratic/Socialism would be IMO what Leninist/Marxist approaches where. If you remove the spin and really look at the words it gets clearer.

Cambridge Business English Dictionary defines democratic socialism as "a set of ​political beliefs and ​principles ​supporting ​equal ​opportunities for everyone, under a fairly ​elected ​parliament."

So he (Sanders) didn't coin a phrase or give it a fancy name to demonize or elevate it.

 

[Pip]

You know the P.O. banking thing is something Eliabeth Warren advocates, right?  There's a lot that I think ordinary folks on the right and left can agree on, but the money in the middle does a very good job of keeping us apart.

Then I may need to rethink it...

How does she propose to manage lending? You don't just put the deposited money in a PO box.

If the money does not get recirculated into the local economy, you don't get the economic multiplier effect (fractional reserve banking ) and growth suffers (a little like now).

JR

The Postal Offices all over the world have always offered various forms of light banking options such as money orders. What it really is is an attempt to save a service industry that lost 5 Billion dollars last year. Stamps alone just ain't cutting it. I want you if you will to think of a world without your local Post Office  I would not want that (and mine stinks)!

 

[JohnRoberts]

You know the P.O. banking thing is something Eliabeth Warren advocates, right?  There's a lot that I think ordinary folks on the right and left can agree on, but the money in the middle does a very good job of keeping us apart.

Then I may need to rethink it...

How does she propose to manage lending? You don't just put the deposited money in a PO box.

If the money does not get recirculated into the local economy, you don't get the economic multiplier effect (fractional reserve banking ) and growth suffers (a little like now).

JR

The Postal Offices all over the world have always offered various forms of light banking options such as money orders. What it really is is an attempt to save a service industry that lost 5 Billion dollars last year. Stamps alone just ain't cutting it. I want you if you will to think of a world without your local Post Office  I would not want that (and mine stinks)!

The recent heavy losses suffered by the USPS are related to congress forcing them to speed up funding for their retirement accounts. So reported losses are not completely about current operations. While the cash cow of first class mail for paying bills has long since left the station.

Turning the USPS into a local bank might be the equivalent of getting into the horse harness business because the buggy whip business is failing... Banking is increasingly becoming a web/smart phone ap.

More centralization of consumer banking into a small handful of servicers is not a good thing either (IMO). Local banks serve a real purpose and their world is getting harder .  Walmart has tried to become a bank for a long time and has been prevented by the established players.

JR

 

[living sounds]

Democratic Socialism (or "Social Democrats") has been around in Europe for almost a century.  Unlike communism its nature is not revolutionay, but evolutionary - or democratic. Maintaining a certain level of equality is part of its goals, so some redistribution is part of the system, but private ownership, competition, freedom of speech, right of abode and the other basic rights and ideas we in the west take for granted are guaranteed. The public sector is comparably large, everything infrastructure tends to be run and owned by the government.

There have been and there are many sucessfull countries with a variant of democratic socialism as their economic policy. Scandinavian countries like Denmark are the classic example. Denmark has one of the highest tax burdens and a much higher percentage of people than in most other countries are government employees. Public debt is low, unemployment is low, the economy is doing very well. The precentage of green energy is among the highest in the world...


Actually, these days socialism rules supreme in the US. Socialism for the wealthy, of course. But it really looks like the tide is finally turning. Republicans are self-destructing and Democrats understand there's no point appeasing them. Bernie Sanders' message resonated the most with focus groups after the debate, and will resonate with voters far beyond the liberal base.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Democratic/Socialism:

Democratic Governmental Principles with a Socialist Economic System. So there could be Republican/Socialism just as there can be Conservative/Liberalism. Arnold Schwarzenegger is someone who IMO is a Fiscal Conservative and a Liberal Moralist.

Non-Democratic/Socialism would be IMO what Leninist/Marxist approaches where.

"Social Democracy" might be a more appropriate term. If you look that up on Wikipedia it might be a closer definition to what the policies are (I'm just judging by the terms now, not actual platform).

If you remove the spin and really look at the words it gets clearer.

People don't want that in the US. They want "Republican / Conservative / Right" and "Democrat / Liberal / Left". Therefore, since Communists certainly aren't "right", you will find them in the Democrat party.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Democratic Socialism (or "Social Democrats") has been around in Europe for almost a century.  Unlike communism its nature is not revolutionay, but evolutionary - or democratic. Maintaining a certain level of equality is part of its goals, so some redistribution is part of the system, but private ownership, competition, freedom of speech, right of abode and the other basic rights and ideas we in the west take for granted are guaranteed. The public sector is comparably large, everything infrastructure tends to be run and owned by the government.

There have been and there are many sucessfull countries with a variant of democratic socialism as their economic policy. Scandinavian countries like Denmark are the classic example. Denmark has one of the highest tax burdens and a much higher percentage of people than in most other countries are government employees. Public debt is low, unemployment is low, the economy is doing very well. The precentage of green energy is among the highest in the world...

If Bernie wants to be more like Denmark he could start by lowering the corporate tax rate to 23.5% but that competitive tax rate is a 21st century thing, and personal taxes there are still significant. We've inspected this before and they draw revenue from north sea oil and gas.  I complemented Denmark in the past for their targeted training programs to help unemployed qualify to get hired where the open jobs are. That said their unemployment rate is higher then US and GDP growth is currently negative (recession).

There is little expectation that Bernie will make it to the general election, unless Hillary ends up in jail because of her FBI email investigation, but then Biden would probably step up.  I don't see Bernie in my crystal ball. ( I didn't see Trump hanging in this long either).

JR

Actually, these days socialism rules supreme in the US. Socialism for the wealthy, of course. But it really looks like the tide is finally turning. Republicans are self-destructing and Democrats understand there's no point appeasing them. Bernie Sanders' message resonated the most with focus groups after the debate, and will resonate with voters far beyond the liberal base.

 

[hodad]

Turning the USPS into a local bank might be the equivalent of getting into the horse harness business because the buggy whip business is failing... Banking is increasingly becoming a web/smart phone ap.
JR

The demand might fade over time, but I think the idea is to address the needs of folks on fixed incomes, or those who can't or don't have regular bank accts.  It would probably hurt payday lenders (for whom I shed no tears) but likely have little or no effect on typical banking institutions.  And, as Pip pointed out,  many of us would be fairly screwed without a local PO--if limited banking operations help with the bottom line, then why not?

 

[Pip]

As far as who will be there in the end..... as they say in Baseball that's why they play the games.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Turning the USPS into a local bank might be the equivalent of getting into the horse harness business because the buggy whip business is failing... Banking is increasingly becoming a web/smart phone ap.
JR

The demand might fade over time, but I think the idea is to address the needs of folks on fixed incomes, or those who can't or don't have regular bank accts.  It would probably hurt payday lenders (for whom I shed no tears) but likely have little or no effect on typical banking institutions.  And, as Pip pointed out,  many of us would be fairly screwed without a local PO--if limited banking operations help with the bottom line, then why not?

We have been discussing fractional reserve banking, and it's function in supporting economic growth and the quasi public/private federal reserve, with government oversight but not direct control, for years here.

An ugly unintended side effect of increased government regulation to "help protect consumers" is that regulatory burden increases the costs for banks, effectively making it too expensive to provide basic banking services for poor consumers.  On the other end of the scale it's hard to feel much sympathy for the large investment banks and another unintended side effect from the shotgun marriages performed to stave off the credit crisis in 2007-8 was to give these huge investment banks access to even more consumer deposits to trade with. I don't see an easy answer for this, and the stepped up regulation from Dodd-Frank only reveals that the regulators are not the smartest people in that room... while costs will get passed along to consumers, and regulatory burden gets used as competitive barriers against smaller mid-sized banks.  A real mess.

On top  of this the politicians refuse to extract government from the mortgage business by keeping Fannie and Freddie alive after multiple decisions to reduce public exposure and wind it down. For the moment they are throwing off profits that government happily captures and spends, but should that mortgage market turn sour again, us taxpayers will be exposed to ever more  liability than the last time. While some here don't remember double digit mortgage interest rates, they were normal for most of my adult life, Does anyone think housing and mortgages will get healthier when the fed starts raising interbank rates? (rhetorical it won't) 

I will lose the local post office literally across the street from my house when they eventually close it. I expect people without bank access to end up using variant debit cards (like entitlements now). Merchants will be motivated to accommodate them. (already are). 

JR

 

[Pip]

I just got out from under my megabank mortgage and switched it to the Employee Credit Union of the company I work for. The difference is already amazing. Yes its smaller and yes its not a full service bank but after 17 years with bankusmaximus its a breath of fresh air. Is that why there is constant legislation to remove these institutions not for profit status? They just should be leveled out to do what the for profit institutions do. I think not.

 

[mattiasNYC]

An ugly unintended side effect of increased government regulation to "help protect consumers" is that regulatory burden increases the costs for banks, effectively making it too expensive to provide basic banking services for poor consumers.

So where can we read up on how these costs directly tie into the banking services in question? I'm genuinely curious about this.

 

[JohnRoberts]

An ugly unintended side effect of increased government regulation to "help protect consumers" is that regulatory burden increases the costs for banks, effectively making it too expensive to provide basic banking services for poor consumers.

So where can we read up on how these costs directly tie into the banking services in question? I'm genuinely curious about this.

I work with a business news channel (CNBC) always running in the background while working during weekdays, I think I've heard this mentioned more than once. Upon reflection the low interbank interest rates may be more of a factor for low balance customers but they are additive. Savings accounts that are easier to service only pay a minuscule <<1% interest rate. 

Looking at my bank statements for checking accts I see  a few dollars of monthly charges with maybe $0.10 of interest credited.

I'll go on google and see what I find.

JR

[edit

Low-income people, young people, and minorities have seen a dramatic drop in the financial products and services available to them since the crisis.  Nearly one million people were shut out of mainstream banking completely from 2009 to 2011, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/09/26/dodd-franks-costs-will-be-paid-for-by-low-income-bank-customers/ 

I have heard more positive news from micro-lending programs, and even in 3rd world countries smart phones are being used to support banking transactions, so technology may be the answer to this.

[/edit]

[edit2] Didn't the government hand out a bunch of free phones? problem solved.[/edit]

 

[Pip]

An ugly unintended side effect of increased government regulation to "help protect consumers" is that regulatory burden increases the costs for banks, effectively making it too expensive to provide basic banking services for poor consumers.

So where can we read up on how these costs directly tie into the banking services in question? I'm genuinely curious about this.

I work with a business news channel (CNBC) always running in the background while working during weekdays, I think I've heard this mentioned more than once. Upon reflection the low interbank interest rates may be more of a factor for low balance customers but they are additive. Savings accounts that are easier to service only pay a minuscule <<1% interest rate. 

Looking at my bank statements for checking accts I see  a few dollars of monthly charges with maybe $0.10 of interest credited.

I'll go on google and see what I find.

JR

CNBC eh?! I will also maybe steer this discussion back towards its origin. I work in the major (not for long with all the wire cutting and after broadcast re-viewing) network broadcast industry. It is a for-profit medium dispensary. Cable news channels like CNBC are again for-profit entities that posture like they are informative but all they are is churning the news, that in this case you can watch on any ticker app,  so that you'll watch the adds. There is a thing inside the industry called the Bartiromo-Effect, when the now FOX talking head talks about a stock it goes up,  she is known as the Money-Honey (misogynistic to say the least). She is actually a good reporter that is obsessively committed to her job, and gets great interviews, but that's not why shes working at this level alone, its because people watch see adds and invest.

Most people do not have the time to invest their money themselves, its a full time gig,  that's why they go to a company or person who is doing that kind of work full-time. The bond issues are safe but somehow usually fall when all the other forms of investing rise the stock game has always paid off big when you win, the commodities industry even more so and if you have big bucks and ice-water in your veins there is always the land of hedge funds.

Banks are tied to the rate of interest offered by the Federal Reserve Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System). The Stock Exchange and other investment options than banking are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission). I have always found it interesting that the institution that watches our immediate and potentially non-corporate invested money and the banking world,  as stated by someone earlier,  where poor people keep their money, is a public/private agency operating  "independent within the government". That also is a repository for all bank monies, both profit and not-for-profit, so that they can lend it to other potentially competing banks? But the SEC is a fully actuated branch of the Federal Government and they just watch the so called "public offerings"corporate big money and Wall Street etc....

The FED has also become so powerful that they have an affect on all systems of finance and the world economy.


You can say that banks are a bad investment but I say they are no investment. The term "Savings and Loans" should be"Holdings and Loans". The banks are literally just holding pens for money that then feeds some weird back-room pseudo mega-bank loan shark that then kicks back(and not a whole lot if you ask me) to its board of governors appointing committee, AKA the government. So in essence big commercial banks claim that they need to charge you fees for their operating costs and to remain competitive but they aren't really in business for us, it's profit! Mean while  the alternative to for-profit banking the Federal Credit Union are not-for-profit banks that charge almost no fees but are in constant defense mode from PAC Fund attacks trying to remove their non-profit status, they too have use of the FED money as well so their in the game but at reduced cost to us. But sadly not everyone has access to these as they are usually limited to the group who started them and their affiliations.

The SEC on the other hand lets the corporate investment world run just this side of balls-out (and the level of corporate wrongdoing seems to be at an all time high)  and if you've got the bucks you can get a horse in that race. The fee system in the SEC watched world is also exclusively profit for the company an individual or corporation contracts with to invest their monies and manage their annuities and 401k's etc... Yes they pay taxes on the profit they make but isn't it interesting that we the people can walk into a bank and plop down money in hopes that it will have some growth while it sits there (safely FDIC insured) but we need to go to a BROKER and pay them to get into the big races or sit at a computer with an online trading account and get "discounted access"!!!

That is one of the things Bernie Sanders is bringing to the fore.

 

[mattiasNYC]

An ugly unintended side effect of increased government regulation to "help protect consumers" is that regulatory burden increases the costs for banks, effectively making it too expensive to provide basic banking services for poor consumers.

So where can we read up on how these costs directly tie into the banking services in question? I'm genuinely curious about this.

I work with a business news channel (CNBC) always running in the background while working during weekdays, I think I've heard this mentioned more than once. Upon reflection the low interbank interest rates may be more of a factor for low balance customers but they are additive. Savings accounts that are easier to service only pay a minuscule <<1% interest rate. 

Looking at my bank statements for checking accts I see  a few dollars of monthly charges with maybe $0.10 of interest credited.

I'll go on google and see what I find.

JR

I'm asking because  we all know that fees charged by a company aren't necessarily directly related to actual expenses, and after accounting and tweaking it's all sort of a gray area.  So I honestly have a hard time seeing how banking regulation yields large costs for the banks which in turn have to be passed on to the consumer.

We're talking about a sector where they've been given, as a whole, monopoly on the creation of monetary wealth (out of nothing), all while being allowed to invest stored assets. Since they can't be trusted, just like any other capitalist entity, regulation seems entirely fair. And since it's the backbone of the economy I don't see another way out of it barring allowing them to fail so that more responsible banks are allowed to thrive.

 

[Pip]

An ugly unintended side effect of increased government regulation to "help protect consumers" is that regulatory burden increases the costs for banks, effectively making it too expensive to provide basic banking services for poor consumers.

So where can we read up on how these costs directly tie into the banking services in question? I'm genuinely curious about this.

I work with a business news channel (CNBC) always running in the background while working during weekdays, I think I've heard this mentioned more than once. Upon reflection the low interbank interest rates may be more of a factor for low balance customers but they are additive. Savings accounts that are easier to service only pay a minuscule <<1% interest rate. 

Looking at my bank statements for checking accts I see  a few dollars of monthly charges with maybe $0.10 of interest credited.

I'll go on google and see what I find.

JR

I'm asking because  we all know that fees charged by a company aren't necessarily directly related to actual expenses, and after accounting and tweaking it's all sort of a gray area.  So I honestly have a hard time seeing how banking regulation yields large costs for the banks which in turn have to be passed on to the consumer.

We're talking about a sector where they've been given, as a whole, monopoly on the creation of monetary wealth (out of nothing), all while being allowed to invest stored assets. Since they can't be trusted, just like any other capitalist entity, regulation seems entirely fair. And since it's the backbone of the economy I don't see another way out of it barring allowing them to fail so that more responsible banks are allowed to thrive.

Poorly invest profit and when they screw the pooch they need bail-outs. That is the point they are not watched (regulated) well and they are usually in over their respective heads. How about we limit institutions of certain skill sets to what they are good at by regulating them again to what access they had prior to the Reagan and Company deregulation of the "Savings and Loan" industry and start there. This was brought about basically due to inflation and once again bad real estate deals beyond these small and if you ask me big banks abilities. Banks that do home mortgages have no business getting involved with large corporate land and buildings deals. That is a special breed of investors territory for a reason. When in a capitalist structure  one can be killed by the sword of debt. But if you think this kind of person has what it takes Donald Trump is running for office!

Failing leads to bail-out and deregulation to bolster a badly regulated system again "to big to fail" http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/42

http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/43

 

[JohnRoberts]

An ugly unintended side effect of increased government regulation to "help protect consumers" is that regulatory burden increases the costs for banks, effectively making it too expensive to provide basic banking services for poor consumers.

So where can we read up on how these costs directly tie into the banking services in question? I'm genuinely curious about this.

I work with a business news channel (CNBC) always running in the background while working during weekdays, I think I've heard this mentioned more than once. Upon reflection the low interbank interest rates may be more of a factor for low balance customers but they are additive. Savings accounts that are easier to service only pay a minuscule <<1% interest rate. 

Looking at my bank statements for checking accts I see  a few dollars of monthly charges with maybe $0.10 of interest credited.

I'll go on google and see what I find.

JR

I'm asking because  we all know that fees charged by a company aren't necessarily directly related to actual expenses, and after accounting and tweaking it's all sort of a gray area.  So I honestly have a hard time seeing how banking regulation yields large costs for the banks which in turn have to be passed on to the consumer.

We're talking about a sector where they've been given, as a whole, monopoly on the creation of monetary wealth (out of nothing), all while being allowed to invest stored assets. Since they can't be trusted, just like any other capitalist entity, regulation seems entirely fair. And since it's the backbone of the economy I don't see another way out of it barring allowing them to fail so that more responsible banks are allowed to thrive.

I have better things to than research for you, but it is public information how many bodies the big banks have had to hire to deal with regulatory requirements.

A heightened regulatory environment is here to stay, that much seems clear. So how are banks and bank management teams coping?
They are hiring more employees, buying software, scrutinizing vendors for compliance and focusing more and more on the business of complying with regulations, in addition to running the bank. Preston Kennedy, the CEO of $200 million asset Bank of Zachary, in Zachary, Louisiana, says he spends one-third of his time on compliance and regulations. “The regulations are now the table stakes,’’ he says. “If you want to go outside in the winter, you have to wear a coat. If you want to be a banker, you have to abide by a lot of regulations. ”

  http://www.bankdirector.com/issues/regulation/what-banks-are-doing-now-to-handle-compliance/ 

Small banks are getting squeezed, big banks use this as a competitive advantage and pass along the costs.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

An ugly unintended side effect of increased government regulation to "help protect consumers" is that regulatory burden increases the costs for banks, effectively making it too expensive to provide basic banking services for poor consumers.

So where can we read up on how these costs directly tie into the banking services in question? I'm genuinely curious about this.

I work with a business news channel (CNBC) always running in the background while working during weekdays, I think I've heard this mentioned more than once. Upon reflection the low interbank interest rates may be more of a factor for low balance customers but they are additive. Savings accounts that are easier to service only pay a minuscule <<1% interest rate. 

Looking at my bank statements for checking accts I see  a few dollars of monthly charges with maybe $0.10 of interest credited.

I'll go on google and see what I find.

JR

CNBC eh?! I will also maybe steer this discussion back towards its origin. I work in the major (not for long with all the wire cutting and after broadcast re-viewing) network broadcast industry. It is a for-profit medium dispensary. Cable news channels like CNBC are again for-profit entities that posture like they are informative but all they are is churning the news, that in this case you can watch on any ticker app,  so that you'll watch the adds. There is a thing inside the industry called the Bartiromo-Effect, when the now FOX talking head talks about a stock it goes up,  she is known as the Money-Honey (misogynistic to say the least). She is actually a good reporter that is obsessively committed to her job, and gets great interviews, but that's not why shes working at this level alone, its because people watch see adds and invest.

I remember when she first started out and she was kind of naive, but she has learned by osmosis over the years just from interviewing real businesspeople.  Maria was always more the pretty face, used to open doors into the mostly male dominated executive suites. (I'd talk to her too but she's married now). There are a few of the pretty girls who happen to have actual economics chops, but for TV that is just icing on the cake.

I see CNBC breaking actual news on the air from time to time, but these days news is money... I think Dow Jones may have been hacked recently just to get news a few minutes (seconds?) faster...High speed trading is death by a thousand cuts to the market and a tax on buy and hold investors.

Most people do not have the time to invest their money themselves, its a full time gig,  that's why they go to a company or person who is doing that kind of work full-time. The bond issues are safe but somehow usually fall when all the other forms of investing rise the stock game has always paid off big when you win, the commodities industry even more so and if you have big bucks and ice-water in your veins there is always the land of hedge funds.

I pay a broker but I do not take any advice from him... I use him to get good execution on trades, free research, and the higher trade cost discourages me from churning my own account. I am not smart enough to time the market, even though I have been active in the market on and off since the 1960's . Mostly on the last few decades. 

Banks are tied to the rate of interest offered by the Federal Reserve Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System). The Stock Exchange and other investment options than banking are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission).

SEC just got slammed for using only their own in house judges to decide cases, no wonder they won like 90%.  ???

I have always found it interesting that the institution that watches our immediate and potentially non-corporate invested money and the banking world,  as stated by someone earlier,  where poor people keep their money, is a public/private agency operating  "independent within the government". That also is a repository for all bank monies, both profit and not-for-profit, so that they can lend it to other potentially competing banks? But the SEC is a fully actuated branch of the Federal Government and they just watch the so called "public offerings"corporate big money and Wall Street etc....

The FED has also become so powerful that they have an affect on all systems of finance and the world economy.

The interesting recent shift is that global central bankers are copying the US fed trying to sync up world business cycles, right now we are slightly ahead of the world wrt recent cycle, but when we finally(?) raise interest rates the dollar will get stronger wrt rest of the world and exports will fall off even more.

We are already shipping more empty containers to China because they don't even want to buy our scrap metal these days.
=====
Are you conflating the federal reserve (private with public oversight) and SEC (pure government regulators). I find the whole federal reserve structure archaic, but really do not trust government middle managers with those levers. It's bad enough watching the federal reserve, building bubbles from interest rates that are too low too long.  Monetary policy can only do so much (pushing on a string).

You can say that banks are a bad investment but I say they are no investment. The term "Savings and Loans" should be"Holdings and Loans". The banks are literally just holding pens for money that then feeds some weird back-room pseudo mega-bank loan shark that then kicks back(and not a whole lot if you ask me) to its board of governors appointing committee, AKA the government. So in essence big commercial banks claim that they need to charge you fees for their operating costs and to remain competitive but they aren't really in business for us, it's profit! Mean while  the alternative to for-profit banking the Federal Credit Union are not-for-profit banks that charge almost no fees but are in constant defense mode from PAC Fund attacks trying to remove their non-profit status, they too have use of the FED money as well so their in the game but at reduced cost to us. But sadly not everyone has access to these as they are usually limited to the group who started them and their affiliations.

The SEC on the other hand lets the corporate investment world run just this side of balls-out (and the level of corporate wrongdoing seems to be at an all time high)  and if you've got the bucks you can get a horse in that race. The fee system in the SEC watched world is also exclusively profit for the company an individual or corporation contracts with to invest their monies and manage their annuities and 401k's etc... Yes they pay taxes on the profit they make but isn't it interesting that we the people can walk into a bank and plop down money in hopes that it will have some growth while it sits there (safely FDIC insured) but we need to go to a BROKER and pay them to get into the big races or sit at a computer with an online trading account and get "discounted access"!!!

That is one of the things Bernie Sanders is bringing to the fore.

Good luck with Bernie, he is just punching all the populist buttons (IMO), but what would I know?  8)

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I'm asking because  we all know that fees charged by a company aren't necessarily directly related to actual expenses, and after accounting and tweaking it's all sort of a gray area.  So I honestly have a hard time seeing how banking regulation yields large costs for the banks which in turn have to be passed on to the consumer.

We're talking about a sector where they've been given, as a whole, monopoly on the creation of monetary wealth (out of nothing), all while being allowed to invest stored assets. Since they can't be trusted, just like any other capitalist entity, regulation seems entirely fair. And since it's the backbone of the economy I don't see another way out of it barring allowing them to fail so that more responsible banks are allowed to thrive.

I have better things to than research for you, but it is public information how many bodies the big banks have had to hire to deal with regulatory requirements.

It's not that you have to research it for me, it's that I don't trust that you're right. Having a news blurb pass you by while you're doing something else isn't the same thing as an in-depth analysis. It doesn't even resemble analysis. It's just accepting whatever a media outlet tells you.

Why wouldn't someone complain about regulation on a pro-capitalist media outlet? Of course banks want less regulation so they can get away with more crap, and of course the intelligent thing to do is to charge regular customers and blame the state for those costs in the hope that the customers will elect representatives who will deregulate. To what degree the regulations are actually bad for society as a whole and specific groups of consumers isn't clear at all judging from the odd complaint by a banker.