In the wake of Goldman Sachs émigré Greg Smith’s op-ed, any doubts you may have had about the deep desire of Wall Street to strip you of your money should be erased. Every one has heard about boiler rooms like the one described in CFTC v. Crown Colony Commodity Options, Ltd, 434 F.Supp. 911 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), where the boss roamed the room telling the sellers “the mooch has your money in his pocket”. At Goldman Sachs, which has a long history of screwing its clients, investors aren’t mooches, they’re “muppets”, but the goal is the same, to get their hands on your wallet.
So, why is the Fed pursuing policies that push people into the arms of these wolverines? Interest rates are near zero after inflation, and the Fed plans to keep them that way for years to come. All those people who scrimped and saved for decades to support their retirements are screwed. Sarah Bloom Raskin, a member of the board of governors of the Fed, addressed this issue in a speech earlier this month. She admits that low interest rates harm savers. Interest income is down by 25% since the recession began. She offers two justifications. Some families benefit from low interest rates, she said, because they can borrow cheaply, or refinance their mortgages at low rates. But who wants to borrow? And who says that banks are lending, or permitting refinancing?
Second, Raskin says it isn’t a big deal about those stupid savers, because only 7% of household assets are held directly in bank accounts, money market funds or bonds. I’d estimate that figure at about $13 trillion, based on recent figures from the Fed’s Flow of Funds report, page 106 (.pdf). That is a huge pile of money producing next to nothing in returns.
Won’t people be discouraged from savings? No, says Raskin. People need to save and they know it. They don’t have any choice but to take the rates that are available. She says it’s good that these rates are low:
Moreover, it is important to remember that the way that households’ savings get channeled into productive capacity is that businesses have to be willing to use those funds to invest in expanding their plants and starting new businesses. Raising interest rates now would dampen those incentives.
This is cruel. The people who scrimped and saved for retirement get screwed, intentionally. This argument is the basis of our economic policy. Free trade is good, even though one group of people, factory workers, get screwed while investors and people who managed to keep their jobs reap the benefits. Low taxes are good for rich people, even though another group of people, teachers, police, firefighters, road construction and maintenance workers and others, lose their jobs or take pay cuts. Notice how the group that gets protected is the rich. Screw everyone else.
The process of screwing the middle class includes assaulting their pensions. For decades, workers in both the private sector and the public sector have traded current income for pension to make retirements bearable. In the private sector, money was sucked out under the bizarre theory that the plans were over-funded. In other cases, the companies underfunded, and then bankrupted on them, leaving the workers with reduced pensions from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Then the entire idea of pensions was replaced with the even more bizarre notion that people would save for their own retirements, and would do a great job of investing. In the public sector, years of low taxes and patched-up budgets reduced contributions below proper funding levels.
In both cases, pension fund managers tried to make up the losses by chasing returns. They threw more money at alternative investments, like private equity funds, hedge funds, and real-estate mortgage backed securities. Screwed again, for the benefit of Wall Street. Now, all over the country, pension plans are unable to meet their obligations to the innocent workers who counted on them for a comfortable retirement. But the rich got lower taxes, and more money.
Apparently Bloom and the Fed think we should all invest in the stock market. Your best hope is the face-ripping jerks on Wall Street. As part of this solution, House Republicans passed a bill making it easier and safer to cheat investors in new companies.
Everyone on Wall Street has been found not guilty of financial crimes by the Obama Administration, which operates under White House due process: no annoying the judicial branch with icky trials. Just the causal tossing of the middle class into their clutches. This will work out great for the rich, who own all the stock, and were running out of greater fools. Why don’t you just cut out the middle man and send the money directly to the Forbes 400?




42 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
I’m going to express skepticisim of this argument. ‘Small savers’ have been a fixture of winger economic rhetoric for decades, right behind ‘job creators’ and ‘entrepreneurs’. Working people tend to be net debtors and the rich will by definition be net savers, so higher interest rates have the effect of redistributing resources upward. Also, in the present fiscal environment higher interest rates would tend to drive unemployment up even further, which is both undesirable in itself and also for the effect of even more severely disciplining workers who do retain their jobs.
How Goldman Sachs’ Bet on Obama Paid Off
A Brief History Of Goldman Sachs, The Most Hated Bank In The World -
Public hatred of Goldman, fuelled by modern mass media, has intensified, but it would be naive to believe the banks’ character has fundamentally changed. Although there was nothing on the same scale as its nefarious role in the 2007 Financial Crisis, Goldman has been involved in controversy ever since it was founded by the German-born Jew Marcus Goldman in 1869. In 1929 for example, Goldman sponsored a pyramid scheme disguised as a mutual fund, which collapsed causing 42,000 investors to lose $300 million.
Then, in 1970, came the Penn Central catastrophe in which a default on short-term paper marketed by Goldman produced damage claims exceeding the bank’s net worth. In the late 1980s, Goldman’s head of risk arbitrage, Robert Freeman, was sent to jail for insider trading. And during the same period, Goldman was implicated in an illegal scheme to prop up insolvent businesses operated by the corrupt Czech-born newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell.
“The reality is that the firm has been in and out of trouble throughout its whole existence and has constantly been pushing the edge of the envelope,” said William D. Cohan, a former investment banker and the author of Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule The World.
The Difference? Now the have Obama:
7/16/10: Obama’s SEC gives Golden Sacks a “Get out of jail free” card on fraud:
Goldman Sachs was fined $550 Million for duping customers. We do not need to recap the charges in detail. Goldman helped hedge fund manager John Paulson pick toxic waste sure to go bad for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that Goldman would sell to its own patsy clients. Goldman and Paulson then bet against the clients. Since Paulson had picked “assets” guaranteed to go bad, it was a sure bet that Paulson and Goldman would win and that Goldman’s clients would lose. Oh, and by the way, although Goldman let Paulson meet the patsies, Goldman never told the patsies that Paulson arranged the deals and would win when they failed. Business as usual on Wall Street. In the SEC’s settlement, Goldman agreed that this was “incomplete information”—ie the patsies might have liked to know that Goldman and Paulson worked together to ensure the bets were rigged and the patsies would lose. Duh. For Goldman it was a tiny slap on the wrist—it still controls the Obama administration, with its moles, Timmy Geithner and Larry Summers still in charge of fiscal policy, thus prepared to funnel whatever money is necessary to prop up their firm—and the fine amounts to just 14 days of Goldman’s earnings. Time to celebrate—which Goldman did, as its stock rallied on the news that it had been found to have screwed its customers. Is there a better reason to party?
8/31/11:
And now, in a story that got pretty much lost amid all the other breaking news in late August, Goldman honcho Lloyd Blankfein just hired a new lawyer to help him through the ongoing Department of Justice investigations of possible wrongdoing. According to the New York Times , that lawyer, Reid Weingarten, was once a Justice Department employee, where he worked “with another young prosecutor, Eric H. Holder. Mr. Holder, now the attorney general of the United States, remains one of Mr. Weingarten’s closest friends.”
Nice move.
Oh, and it was recently revealed that the Securities and Exchange Commission has been shredding documents related to past investigations, making it vastly harder for present or future investigators to connect the dots between past and present misconduct.
And the chance for justice against Goldman? Not much, but this case should prove educational at least:
Criminal Indictment of Former Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Alleges “Scheme to Defraud”; Other Current and Former Goldman Sachs Employees Under Investigation, Including Henry King and “Mr. X”
SAN FRANCISCO, Mar 16, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — The founders of Marvell Technology Group, Sehat Sutardja and Weili Dai, filed a claim in the San Francisco office of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Goldman Sachs and two account executives, alleging Goldman Sachs manipulated the 2008 financial crisis to defraud the two Silicon Valley executives of several hundreds of millions of dollars. At that time, Mr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai were one of Goldman’s largest Private Wealth Management group clients on the West Coast.
——————
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-08/wall_street/31134859_1_squid-costumes-goldman-sachs-great-vampire-squid
http://www.correntewire.com/obamas_sec_gives_golden_sacks_get_out_jail_free_card
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/preeti-vissa/obama-goldman-sachs_b_942633.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/founders-of-marvell-technology-group-are-among-the-largest-victims-of-greed-at-goldman-sachs-2012-03-16-181590
One notes, masaccio, that both the economic and the legal system protect, first and foremost, money and power.
Yet, even a protected $tatus Quo has no “future” except by becoming more repressive if civil society is being intentionally and deliberately destroyed.
If a few are ALWAYS to big too fail and, CONSEQUENTLY, too big to jail, then the many will be always be victimized and, consequently, increasingly reduced in their rights …
When the one group does not understand when “enough IS enough”, then the other must dare to refuse to “take” anymore.
DW
Well, ones point of view depends on where you sit.
The virtue view is that “good” folks have a lot of savings and deserve high rates of return so they can die and be fondly remembered by the inheritors for not touching the principal.
The debtor view is that rich are the ones with money on loan who want to make your life more miserable by charging you higher interest rates.
As to the Federal Reserve Report you link to, the number you have for “savings” of $13 trillion is hard to come up with given $58.5 T of net worth for the nation of which 7% is bank accounts, money market funds or bonds – or about 3.5 to $4 T of such assets. Indeed the $4 T seems to cross check with the flows information given the need to re-up your CD’s yearly.
As to pension funds – I told many many pensions funds that the long term rate was 5 to 6% and chasing higher “equity” returns in order to tell me to use a higher rate of return in the analysis, knowing that such higher rate meant the company paid less into the plan so the cost of the worker was less, was a fools game. But the rich and corporate did not want to pay workers directly or via contributions for fringe benefits – and they were faced with laws and Society of Actuaries ethical rules that prohibited me from using a rate that could not be justified – albeit optimistic – in some way, so they chased bad investments that Wall Street said provided better risk adjusted returns and did not listen to the actuarial advice.
Fixed it for you, Ms. Baskin.
This is a bad argument, for a number of reasons.
First, raising interest rates now would be guaranteed to stifle what little economic growth we have and drive up unemployment.
Second, as sgoat pointed out, higher interest rates generally redistribute income upward for precisely the reasons described.
Third, banks are not actually unwilling to refinance houses and finance new purchases. All that has really changed is that the standards have returned to a prudent and normal level.
Fourth, bank saving rates and Treasury bonds have never had particularly good returns. That’s because they carry a microscopic risk of default short of general economic and political collapse (which nukes all your savings and investments anyhow). Anything better requires more risk.
I remember the days of savings and loan regulation in the 1960s. Interest rates were pegged: 3% for savings, 6% for mortgages. And had been for quite a while, George Bailey.
The killer of the economy right now is the 20%+ credit card rates that keep people in servitude to the credit card companies. OK, if you want <1% savings rates, how about getting the credit card rates down to 6%. Risk is not the reason for the high rates because the high rates increase the risk of default and long legal squabbling because of the credit card legislation passed (with Democratic help, thank you Joe Biden) during the George W. Bush years.
DW–
It seems ‘enough is enough’ is beyond the comprehension of the 1% . . . but sadly, the 99% obviously have not ‘got it’ yet, either. Hopefully, the sleeping giant will awaken, without violence, and refuse to take it anymore. I fear, though, if the slumber continues there will be so many who don’t know any other way (loss of freedoms, loss of rights, historical precedents) that the giant can no longer be roused to action.
To add to what PierceNichols said:
Fifth, disincentivizing saving is exactly the macroeconomic policy you want to conduct to alleviate a demand shortage like the one we remain mired in, and demand shortages without question hurt the non-rich more than the rich (indeed, the rich are empowered by high unemployment even as everyone else suffers).
Sixth, the real policy problem we have is that “savings”, “IRAs”, “401Ks”, etc. are defined contribution plans rather than defined benefit plans, meaning that the individual — untrained in financial planning — takes on all the risk for their own retirement, and yet the US is increasingly using them for their retirement plans. If everyone had pensions, then your argument would be about well-off people versus very well-off people, and there would clearly be no reason to institute a price floor in such a situation.
Seventh, as alluded to in the previous point, what you are asking for explicitly is the institution of a price floor for those who earn money off of their money rather than through labor. Yes, it’s nice when people can have more in retirement than the actual value that they saved when they saved it, but that’s not a nice-enough sort of thing to justify instituting a price floor, which is one of the worst/most inefficient sorts of market distortions. It would be better for the government to just give money directly to the poor in their retirement or even for it to increase social security payouts than what you’re suggesting, as people who really care about making above-inflation returns on their investments can do so by going out on the market and taking risks.
I support the argument that super-low interest rate are bad. I disagree with those who say there are no small savers, only small debtors and big savers. Many of course have no opportunity to save. Others can, but choose not to. Those of us who can and do save in CD’s, bond funds (whether 401K, IRA, or just plain savings) were used to several percent – 4, 5 , 6 – now it’s 1, or a fraction of 1 percent. We don’t trust the stock market, no so much becuase it’s risky, but because it’s been rigged by the same banksters and captured government that’s rigging interest rates. I work for a credit union. It’s the small saver of the banking world. It takes in deposits, loans as much out as members will borrow, and invests the rest in VERY safe fixed-income ways. We’ve already been warned the next several years will be very tough, tightening belts severely, because, guess what, it’s investments have now rolled-over into new notes that pay almost nothing. If the credit union goes crazy with risk and crashes it doesn’t get bailed out. It gets shut down, the officers get investigated for screwing up, and I lose my job.
Just to emphasize it because I didn’t as much as I could have: Just because you get used to accruing generous interest on your savings doesn’t mean that you should be guaranteed such a thing. If you want people to have defined benefits in retirement, then the only way to achieve that is through defined-benefit retirement plans. Any plan at all that has people directly or indirectly investing their savings (or otherwise assuming the risks for their savings returns themselves) ultimately will have everyone’s retirements be left up to the whims of the market or in tension with distorting the entireties of our financial markets for their benefit, or some combination thereof. It is necessary to divorce savings and retirement benefits from risk absolutely if that’s what you want to happen in practice, not just institute half measures like price floors on investment returns.
This intentional policy is just one aspect of a bag of tricks called “financial repression”. The primary function of the Federal Reserve is to, unbeknownst to the general public, pay off the National Debt. Wars are always paid for in this manner. The Federal Reserve controls both the rate of inflation and interest rates. Whenever interest rates are intentionally held lower (artificially)than the rate of inflation, there is a wealth transfer from savers to debtors, including and especially the government. “By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” John Maynard Keynes
This is why if you’re anti-war, you should be anti-Federal Reserve. The Fed is the mechanism by which governments pay for war. It’s a wealth transfer from grandma and grandpa to the military industrial complex.
I don’t agree. There are a whole lot of people who are seriously injured by long-term low interest rates, including older people who shouldn’t be in the stock market shark tank, and people saving for college for their kids.
In addition a huge slice of people in the middle upper income categories have substantial amounts of cash looking for safety. All of them are being forced to take more risk than they want to or should have to.
“Goldman has been involved in controversy ever since it was founded by the German-born Jew Marcus Goldman in 1869.”
So you slipped in the gratuitous “Jew”, congratulations. That makes you a first class ( something the mods won’t allow me to say )
But it does let one know that the rest of your reply is not worth reading.
The 7% figure is Raskin’s. My number came from the balance sheet section of the flow of funds report related to households and nonprofit organizations. I added “deposits” to “credit market instruments” and rounded down.
No one’s being forced to do anything and no one is entitled to accruing risk-free interest on their savings. If they want a safe savings, they can easily find above-inflation rates in CDs and government bonds.
As to your other point, note that many people planned for a future that depended on their savings and pensions. Both are sacrificed to protect others, primarily the rich.
As to borrowers, in this environment, we should expect that their rates would be lower. They aren’t. Credit card debt and student loan debt are not coming down. Most people have already refinanced their homes if they can, but many cannot because they are underwater.
As far as I can see, in this arena, the very rich are reaping most of the rewards.
Above which inflation rate? Where can I find safe savings above the inflation rate of those things low income people must pay for. (And locked in 4 years and beyond cd’s are not safe give the risk of higher inflation later.
A guaranteed 5% credit union savings rate up to $10,000 would help a lot of retirees. How much would that bust the budget?
And what about people who don’t want to buy anything now, but want to displace consumption temporally, as Keynes would say? They are screwed.
Of course, as Keynes pointed out, what is good for one is not likely to be great if everyone does it. The point, as I see it, is that by pursuing solely monetary policies in a liquidity trap, one group is unnecessarily sacrificed for another. That would not happen if we were pursuing sound policies, like cramdown, and fiscal solutions, including taxing the rich and direct hiring for infrastructure, at least not to the extent of the current policy.
WW2 put everyone to work who wanted to work. We now have WW3 (in the form of climate change)looming. This is either a disaster or a golden opportunity, our choice.
We need to be on wartime footing right now. The whole world, but particularly the high energy cosumming countries needs to be on war footing now.
If we put the money we throw at the MIC to work on conservation and renewable energy, we wouldn’t need the military to go to war for oil.
If you’re going to exclude CDs with periods of longer than four years outright, then inflation-protected government bonds are the way to go. Unfortunately for savers, Treasury Inflation Protected Securities are currently negative for periods of shorter than 10 years, but that’s just what the market is like right now.
My question for you is, why is the institution of this price floor preferable to just having the government give money to people who need it?
The gummint gives lots of money to those who don’t need it,the banksters. Lends them money at no interest so they can buy govt bonds with it. I guess I would like it if the gummint would give me that kind of a deal.
No, Keynes would probably say that they could simply save their money and not profit off of that act.
Pursuing primarily monetary policy is the problem here, you are absolutely correct, but without adequate fiscal policy, allowing interest rates to be low makes more sense. And, as I was saying above, there would be no moral dilemma here at all if people could fund their retirements off of defined benefit plans rather than assuming the risks of their savings themselves, so the focus here should be on fiscal policy and the social safety net, not on raising a price floor that affects absolutely everything.
My Credit Union is buying up credit card debt in exchange for loans at 5% interest and is paying CDs (4 years) a glorious interest rate of 1.76%. We have turbulence in the Bernanke Twist, eh?? The Credit Union is also trying to help people to refinance their mortgages at the lower interest rates. Just saying.
That’s a separate Fed policy, and definitely one that should be ended. If the Fed charged banks the “near zero after inflation” interest rates described in thise piece rather than sub-zero-after-inflation rates, then they wouldn’t be able to do that. And, obviously, those rates aren’t passing on to anything else anyway, which is proof that the rate that banks are charged and the rate that banks charge aren’t directly connected.
95 year old worked full time all her working life. Saved and invested for retirement. Owned a home. Sold that home for living funds. Lost on investments. Bought CDs for income. She can earn 2%? She is a conservative Republican by faith. A faithful Episcopalean. They eat their own dude. My stepmom. My sis was on the 25% credit card routine while working for a bank lifetime. She would not do it any other way no matter what we said. Others have no choice. The lend to own industry controls.
Totally agree MCMurphy. The financial planners are bubbling their investors into risky stocks as real estate is upside down, interest rates don’t pay and are herded into stock markets. It is no longer a free market. The sting is on.
Well done…thank you for that erudite explanation, very revealing.
Fabulous idea. It should work just great if people can stay off their credit cards going forward.
More defined-benefit retirement would certainly ease the anxiety of those presently earning less-than-zero after inflation on savings. Single-payer, covering-all-expenses healthcare, likewise. Eliminate the military industrial complex, we could put all that energy and resources to use dealing with global warming, and be home free. But we are currently seeing those goals slipping away rather than approaching. This thread is on small savers (persons and businesses) being screwed by the rich and their kept government. It’s true, we are being screwed by the rich and thier kept government, and we shouldn’t be. We should be aable to earn a modest return on savings that are loaned to borrowers by our credit unions, neighborhood banks, etc; just like it used to work.
The key sentence (IMO) in your essay, masaccio, reads:
The question may seem to be begging for an answer, but in truth none is necessary. The fact that such policies are in force and are broadened or expanded daily is answer enough. In fact, I’d suggest that asking the question creates the opportunity for the thievery to continue while the “muppets [and marks]” distract themselves (ourselves?) trying to first divine the intentions of those whose hands are in our pockets.
And if you think it’s bad now, just wait until bankers and Villagers launch into a fauxtrage over being bested by Sweden in the race to become a “cashless” society. I’ve called out “cashless” because it’s a rhetorical wedge. As a wedge, it deliberately inverts the “burden/benefit” relationship that results when a multi-trillion dollar economy is – by policy – forced to adopt banker-owned, banker-operated credit and debit facilities for every single legitimate (and illegitimate) transaction. Once inverted, “cashless” policy “advocates” can exploit the very real fear that cash-holding intransigents will be electronically and mechanically prohibited from “participating” in the economy. Witness the effectiveness of the international banker/bureaucrat termination of credit/debit facilities to Wikileaks.
And if you are addicted to social “media”, be sure to “friend” your bankers, mortgage lenders, loan officers and many other such agencies because failing to do so is, not will be, is being captured and tallied in databases across the intertubes. Failure to do so may make you (your family, your business, …) vulnerable to a financial “DOS” assault or other less obvious and hostile tactic. In this case, witness the “terms of service” attached to payment cards that, in almost all cases, reserve the right for the issuer to “reclaim” unspent nickels, dimes, quarters and larger sums on cards unused for ill-defined durations or that fail to meet minimum balance requirements. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had a Treasury agent stop by to “reclaim” the coins in my loose change jar.
If you think banks, creditors and other billing agencies all-too-common practice of summarily and abruptly changing “bill due dates” is offensive if not criminal then you might want to think of today as “the salad days” when considering the relationship between citizens, their earnings and the financial services industry.
“Defined-benefit retirement” = social security. Why do you think they’re going after it so hard?
Yesterday for the first time I saw an article pondering how the folks retiring in the next 5-8 years were going to exist on the financial resources available to them. A few of these may have pensions and/or social security, but as time goes on, fewer and fewer retirees do.
How many folks are sitting down and calculating just how much that munificent $30,000, or even $100,000 they have squirreled away in their 401(k) is actually going to PAY to them??
I’m surprised that this has received so little attention.
Book Salon up with Rasmus Kleis Neilsen’s Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns hosted by Benjamin Kallos
So what’s the plan, masaccio? Do we wring our hands, moan “Poor me!”, curl up into a ball and die? Do we arm ourselves, find the mofos, gun ‘em down and take back our stuff? I’m running out of energy for outrage! Our politicians are exactly equal to the fat-cat business tycoons, so electing another batch of lobbyists surely won’t change anything. Elections are all bogus. If we’re not having a revolution, what are we doing? Capitulating to the billionaires??
I agree with everything your saying. I put some of my savings into a CD a few yrs. ago and found out that I’d been “caged.” The CD I took out was really nothing more then a high risk stock fund. I can’t touch my money now for 4 more yrs. if I do I’ll really get whacked because the money is all in stocks. I was told I could make up to 8% on the fund but the truth is the fund managers will never allow that. Instead, they’ll maybe give me the going % rate if they’re nice. The only good feature of this so called CD is in 4 yrs. no matter what I can redeem my entire principle. Its nothing more then a clever scam to freeze or cage people’s money in such a way that they can’t use it and get nothing. I feel like a fool for falling for it. My own bank pushed this product on me. It pisses me off.
Right now, interest rates are negative after taxes and inflation. So the only choices savers have is to lose money or to take more risks than are justified in saving for retirement, college or other long-term needs. Savers have to accumulate more than is needed just to get where they want to be.
The only people who can save effectively are those with debt, who can pour cash into paying off their debts, reducing their costs.
In both cases current consumption is off the table. Savers are just another group being sacrificed to save the rich.
Welcome to the new retirement plan of the 2000′s: suicide at 75.
indeed, with Beethoven’s Pastorale playing in the background and a tranquil IMAX quality display of a field of daffodils fluttering in the summer’s breeze swaddling your dimming vision.
This message of serenity was brought to you by the Soylent family of “organic” biscuits and other fine “foods”.
masaccio, I totally support your thesis. People have very short memories indeed. The entire middle class got shunted into dependency on all the tricks Wall Street and the Fed had to make everyone think in THEIR terms. It’s very like what has happened with housing. The basic structure of retirement savings has been co-opted, and so many comments on your thread demonstrate the groupthink that was precisely what the sharks intended. Those who disagree with you haven’t reached bottom yet; they will.
I would recommend, but there is no recomment button at the top, so I’ll just yell loudly – “RECOMMEND!”
My outofwork son put his unemployment check into a savings account. He carefully subtracted from it to meet his daily needs. No apartment of course, but he has to live with someone so he’s going from friend to friend. The bank shafted him by letting him withdraw without telling him he had reached a diminished limit and then hitting him with its hidden fees, no interest of course, and overdraft charges. This is reality. It’s not IRA’s and moving your money and playing the market. It’s poor ordinary folk getting ripped off.
Shame on all you people who think it’s perfectly fine to do business this way. Shame on you.
Very good post, wphurley. I had saved that wolverine bit as well, because that is the heart of the matter. I don’t understand why we can’t recommend this post – I rarely can connect Sundays, other commitments, and this is much more important than what is currently on Monday’s offerings at FDL in my opinion.
Thank you very much for this, masaccio. I think it is a very important subject. As a low income person I find it more and more difficult to do daily transactions. No longer is a simple check adequate; I must carry more cash than I like to if I am to avoid my checks being treated as if they were credit cards. And for elderly people in general, you know that is not a safe practice. (If I wanted a credit card I would get one. Who gave stores the right to treat my checks that way and zap right into my account? I didn’t. Who does it benefit? Not me.) And the government is not helping; rather they prop up criminal enterprises masquerading as banks and let them continue to prey on the vulnerable, using them for unemployment compensation as has been mentioned on these forums.