Capitalism Forces Bank Of America to Cancel New Fees

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Pressured BofA cancels debit card fee - UPI.com

Bank of America said Tuesday it was canceling plans to implement a monthly $5 fee for debit card accounts.

"We have listened to our customers very closely over the last few weeks and recognize their concern with our proposed debit usage fee," bank Co-chief Operating Officer David Darnell said in a statement.

"Our customers' voices are most important to us. As a result, we are not currently charging the fee and will not be moving forward with any additional plans to do so," he said in a three-sentence company statement.

 

[manifold]

Too bad it can't also force companies not to pollute.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Too bad it can't also force companies not to pollute.

But whatcha gonna do?

If consumers did to companies that pollute what we did to bank of america (take our business elsewhere and tell them it is because they pollute) it would

 

[manifold]

Too bad it can't also force companies not to pollute.

But whatcha gonna do?

If consumers did to companies that pollute what we did to bank of america (take our business elsewhere and tell them it is because they pollute) it would

If you slam the barn door closed after all the horses ran away, it doesn't bring them back.

 

[Bern80]

Unfortunately I think the end result of this is going to be yet another reason for banks to get stingy on loaning money. As usual the media did no service to the public in reporting this. Had they actually told the public why BoA was adding this fee they may chosen to bark up a different tree. It was yet another case of crony capitalism where retailers lobbied congress to pass a law limiting what banks could charge retailers for card transactions. They literally got it cut in half. Instead of using the free market to negotiate they decided to use government to simply pass a law. The banks were simply trying to make up the difference. Perhaps the consumers should inquire with the retailers as to whether the costs of their good are going to go down now that they don't have to pay the banks transaction fees. Anyone wanna bet any money on that one?

 

[Dragon]

Actually that was not capitalism. Unless you consider the Occupy movement to be capitalism.

 

[Bern80]

Actually that was not capitalism. Unless you consider the Occupy movement to be capitalism.

I don't know what you mean there. I don't know if your familiar with the term but crony capitalism isn't really capitalism at all. It is indeed what OWS is railing against in part. I think it's a big reason capitalism gets such a bad rap because people associate it with this back door deals with government, political favors, bailouts etc. But that isn't what capitalism and the free market are about or how their supposed to function. The free market should have little to no interference from government whether that be excessive regulations or political favors.

 

[Dragon]

What I mean is that a coordinated campaign by citizens to compel a corporation to change its behavior is not capitalism. It isn't government either, exactly, but it's closer to being government -- in that it is an exertion of the collective will, with a threat of force behind it -- than it is to being capitalism.

If a competitor had bought out BofA, and the new management had cancelled the proposed fees, then you could say that "capitalism" had ended them. But that's not what happened.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Actually that was not capitalism. Unless you consider the Occupy movement to be capitalism.

Not even close, nice try though.

Sending in letters/emails and taking your business to a local bank that doesn't charge fees is not the same as protesting in the street, destroying public property, and demanding that wealth be redistributed.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What I mean is that a coordinated campaign by citizens to compel a corporation to change its behavior is not capitalism. It isn't government either, exactly, but it's closer to being government -- in that it is an exertion of the collective will, with a threat of force behind it -- than it is to being capitalism.

If a competitor had bought out BofA, and the new management had cancelled the proposed fees, then you could say that "capitalism" had ended them. But that's not what happened.

Again it wasn't a coordinated campaign (wait is OWS coordinated?) it was a bunch of customers shopping elsewhere for their banking services and the loss of revenues and the potential loss of future revenues from their decisions that caused BOA to act.

 

[Ravi]

Poor PP, he can't stand the thought that the OWS crowd is no different than the BoA customers....in fact many of them are the same people.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Poor PP, he can't stand the thought that the OWS crowd is no different than the BoA customers....in fact many of them are the same people.

Huh?

He said that OWS sytle responses were what caused it. I said that customers moving their money elsewhere, aka captialism, is what did it.

Am I wrong are you telling me OWS pro capitalism? If you think it is I have many more questions about their signs, comments, and attitudes for you.

 

[alan1]

30 years ago, I had to write checks for all kinds of stuff--- electric bill, gas bill, water bill, phone bill, restaurants, purchases at any store I went to.
Now then, if 30 years ago, my bank had come to me and said, "Hey, we want to give you this card that looks exactly like a credit card, but instead of it being an actual credit card, it will just deduct those charges directly from your checking account. You can also use the card in an instant to get actual cash from your checking account at the bank or even at the grocery store. Oh, by the way, we want to charge you $2.50 a month for the card".
I would have jumped all over that. Only $2.50 a month for all that convenience? What a bargain.

The mistake the banks made was that they gave me a card that does all that for free. If they would have charged me $2.50 a month 25-30 years ago, I'd think $5.00 now was still a bargain.
If the phone company had given free cell phone service to anybody with a home phone 20+ years ago, we'd all be pissed about paying a cell phone bill today.
I guess the phone companies are smarter than the banks.

 

[Ravi]

Poor PP, he can't stand the thought that the OWS crowd is no different than the BoA customers....in fact many of them are the same people.

Huh?

He said that OWS sytle responses were what caused it. I said that customers moving their money elsewhere, aka captialism, is what did it.

Am I wrong are you telling me OWS pro capitalism? If you think it is I have many more questions about their signs, comments, and attitudes for you.

Nah, I'm telling you that democracy wins in the end.

 

[Bern80]

What I mean is that a coordinated campaign by citizens to compel a corporation to change its behavior is not capitalism. It isn't government either, exactly, but it's closer to being government -- in that it is an exertion of the collective will, with a threat of force behind it -- than it is to being capitalism.

If a competitor had bought out BofA, and the new management had cancelled the proposed fees, then you could say that "capitalism" had ended them. But that's not what happened.

That actually seems to me that it IS capitalism in action. You might like to equate OWS to government, but they're not government. They have no legal authority over anything. They are essentially a group of organized consumers voicing their displeasure over how corporations operate. That is EXACLTY how capitalism works. Consumers freely choosing what business they do business with. As consumers and Americans they have the right to say whatever they like about those businesses, they have the right to organize into a bigger voice against (or for) those businesses. So long as the government remains out of it as it has so far it is actually a pretty shining example of the free market and capitalism at work.

 

[Dragon]

Again it wasn't a coordinated campaign (wait is OWS coordinated?) it was a bunch of customers shopping elsewhere for their banking services and the loss of revenues and the potential loss of future revenues from their decisions that caused BOA to act.

Yes, it absolutely WAS a coordinated campaign. Where have you been? And yes, Occupy is highly organized and coordinated; stop believing the spin and lies.

That "bunch of customers" didn't make spontaneous, unrelated decisions. This was a deliberate, organized campaign.

 

[Dragon]

That actually seems to me that it IS capitalism in action. You might like to equate OWS to government, but they're not government. They have no legal authority over anything. They are essentially a group of organized consumers voicing their displeasure over how corporations operate. That is EXACLTY how capitalism works.

Seems to me you're focusing on the wrong end here. Also you're defining "capitalism" in terms of your own ideals rather than its on-the-ground reality.

Capitalism is an economic system that focuses on and favors the accumulation of capital. It is characterized by private ownership of the means of production, for-profit commercial ventures, and a majority of the population that serves the profits of the owners of capital through work-for-hire (as opposed to slavery or serfdom which characterized feudal economies, or worker-owners which would characterize decentralized socialism). A bit technical perhaps but that's what capitalism is. It really has nothing to do with "free markets," which can exist in any sort of economic system (customers being a universal).

It's true that Occupy and the movement to pull money from the big banks made use of the free market to force this change, but that doesn't mean it was capitalism that did it. It was still a popular movement, a collectively-made decision and the use of a boycott or threatened boycott to enforce that decision.

You should also not make the mistake of thinking that Occupy is against the free market; no significant part of the movement is. A minority of it (probably) is against capitalism and would prefer a socialist economy; all of it is against the specific capitalist economy we have, but probably a majority would prefer a somewhat different economy that could still be called capitalist. But even the socialist wing is still in favor of a free market.

 

[Bern80]

Again it wasn't a coordinated campaign (wait is OWS coordinated?) it was a bunch of customers shopping elsewhere for their banking services and the loss of revenues and the potential loss of future revenues from their decisions that caused BOA to act.

Yes, it absolutely WAS a coordinated campaign. Where have you been? And yes, Occupy is highly organized and coordinated; stop believing the spin and lies.

That "bunch of customers" didn't make spontaneous, unrelated decisions. This was a deliberate, organized campaign.

I agree. This is a deliberate, organized campaign. But I have never seen a more accurate reflection of the phrase 'never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers' than I have in the OWS crowd. It's been going on a few weeks now. Does anyone know what they want yet? What is it exactly they want Wall Street to do and how exactly is whatever they want going to make their lives better?

 

[Dragon]

I agree. This is a deliberate, organized campaign. But I have never seen a more accurate reflection of the phrase 'never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers' than I have in the OWS crowd. It's been going on a few weeks now. Does anyone know what they want yet? What is it exactly they want Wall Street to do and how exactly is whatever they want going to make their lives better?

You know something? I have been shaking my head in exasperation at that oft-repeated "What do they want?" question, knowing that the movement has been saying, quite clearly, what is wanted from the very beginning. But now, with a few words, you have finally clarified for me why you and others don't understand. THANK YOU for that!

"What is it exactly that they want Wall Street to do?"

Why, nothing, really! It's the government that they want to change. The reason why the protest is centered in New York is to illustrate the fact that big business is exerting too much influence over the government. The central disease of our political system at this time is corporate money calling the shots, rather than the choice of voters. Everything else flows from that.

The reason you don't understand, is because you think of Wall Street and Washington as being independent entities. If that were true, it would not make any sense to try to influence Washington through a protest in New York City. But since they are NOT independent entities, but a single entity in which Wall Street pulls the strings and Washington passes and enforces the laws that Wall Street demands, there is no such contradiction.

At the same time, as this recent dustup with BofA shows, it is possible sometimes to exert direct popular pressure on corporations to get them to change egregious behavior. But that's really just a sideshow. The real target is Washington.

 

[Bern80]

I agree. This is a deliberate, organized campaign. But I have never seen a more accurate reflection of the phrase 'never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers' than I have in the OWS crowd. It's been going on a few weeks now. Does anyone know what they want yet? What is it exactly they want Wall Street to do and how exactly is whatever they want going to make their lives better?

You know something? I have been shaking my head in exasperation at that oft-repeated "What do they want?" question, knowing that the movement has been saying, quite clearly, what is wanted from the very beginning. But now, with a few words, you have finally clarified for me why you and others don't understand. THANK YOU for that!

"What is it exactly that they want Wall Street to do?"

Why, nothing, really! It's the government that they want to change. The reason why the protest is centered in New York is to illustrate the fact that big business is exerting too much influence over the government. The central disease of our political system at this time is corporate money calling the shots, rather than the choice of voters. Everything else flows from that.

The reason you don't understand, is because you think of Wall Street and Washington as being independent entities. If that were true, it would not make any sense to try to influence Washington through a protest in New York City. But since they are NOT independent entities, but a single entity in which Wall Street pulls the strings and Washington passes and enforces the laws that Wall Street demands, there is no such contradiction.

At the same time, as this recent dustup with BofA shows, it is possible sometimes to exert direct popular pressure on corporations to get them to change egregious behavior. But that's really just a sideshow. The real target is Washington.

And THANK YOU you said exactly what I expected you would say and confirmed my suspiccion as to what they are after. I'm sorry but OWS is just such an accurate reflection of how horrible liberals are at solving problems. Most of the time the goal isn't so bad. It's the solutions they came up with that are absolute head scratchers. (i.e. the problem with health care is it's too expensive and insurance companies are screwing people over, "i know how to fix that! we'll make everyone buy their product!"). I mean where's the face palm emoticon when you need it?

The fact is I AGREE with OWS wanting to extricate corporate america from government, but humor me for second and look at it this way. When it comes tax time every year don't you take advantage of every deduction, exemption and credit you possibly can? Don't you take every legal measure you can to keep as much money in your own pocket as you can? People do what is in their own financial best interests. You can hardly blame Wall Street for doing exactly what every one of us does. Currently it is legal for all of these political corporate favors to exist. If you want it to end the legality of it is what needs to change and the only body that make something that is legal, illegal is the government.

Again, being honest, yeah I do know what OWS wants. I figured they want exactly what you said they want. But look at it from a purely objective problem solving point of view. We both agree on the problem. So what is the best way to extricate corporate america from government? To me that would be making the corporate influence over washington that is currenly legal, illegal. Wall Street can't do that, so what's the point in barking up their tree? You can't blame them for serving their own financial best interests when you would do the same. It's like blaming your pet dog for getting fat. The only way he gets fat is if his master keeps feeding him. You want him to not be fat, master has to stop feeding him. And master doesn't know to stop feeding him and that it's actually bad for the dog if know one pipes up and tells him.

That's why i'm slightly suspicious about the OWS movement and what they want. Because the practical solution to what they say is the problem is so obvious it's hard to believe that many people could miss it. I think it's also possible you're looking at a large group of whiners that don't like rich people for no other reason than their own envy and feel entitled to a lifestyle that someone else worked for. Because if they were really serious about changing what you say is the problem and what they say is the problem, they would pull out of wall street and march their asses about 200 miles to the south. Maybe then they'd really get something done.