It's unprofitable everywhere.
Creating everything to provide "banking services" in buildings that already exist is effectively "opening postal banks".
It's unprofitable everywhere.
I don't understand this Bernie Bro talk with Nathan. He was a Bernie Bro the same way Rush Limbaugh was when he said to vote for Bernie to hurt Clinton and the same way all the right were Bernie Bros at the convention with their crocodile tears for him not getting the nomination.
It's not supposed to be profitable. I mean places that would still be unprofitable and thus closed off after your suggested privatizing.
I'd have to take your word for it, I have no memory of his posting behavior prior to his becoming a posterboy for insecure white males. I just assumed he was on board with Bernie's liberal populism and went Trump out of anger when he lost the nomination.
Well, no. The real estate is already taken care of. Any additional staffing would be limited, certainly less than opening an entirely new business.
This is like saying McDonald's "effectively opened up thousands of coffee shops" when they added McCafe.
I don't remember either, but he seems a dittohead everywhere other post so dittohead Bernie fan is most likely what he was then too.
Yes, I already recognized the existing property. They need more than additional staffing.
They "effectively" did do that. You wouldn't say that because it sounds weird for a number of reasons. They previously had coffee. They are already in food and beverage so this just seems like an enhancement of what they already do.
up to one third of Americans don't. what are their options?
We can't treat remote rural Americans like second class citizens at the mercy of Amazon/FedEx/UPS.
Or can we?
I love how all these defenders can't bring themselves to mention the names of the companies they are defending: payday and le lenders, shady AF banks and credit card companies.
I wouldn't care if first class stamps were $2 as long as I didn't get piles of junk mail every time I open the mailbox. I have a big locking mailbox on the house in San Antonio and in 2 days time there is so much junk mail in there the mailman cant cram anymore in so I have to make special trips out there to empty it.
Should people with a recent history of slow or non payment be guaranteed low interest credit from your postal bank?
"The most recent survey was administered in June 2017 in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau, collecting responses from more than 35,000 households. The survey provides estimates of the proportion of U.S. households that do not have an account at an insured ins ution, and the proportion that have an account but obtained (nonbank) alternative financial services in the past 12 months."
The survey shows the number of people that unbanked/underbank. That doesn't mean they don't have access to banks and credit unions.
Only 9% of the unbanked listed inconvenient locations as a reason and 2% listed it as the main reason.
The main reason they list is that they do not have enough money to keep in account.
We are having a discussion. Saying I'm "anti citizen" is just empty words. Calling me names isn't productive. Have fun with that though.
Privatizing the Post Office would be disastrous to consumers, tbh... as much money as you think they're bleeding, wait until Fedex and UPS cartelize postal sending and start closing off all the rural post offices.
On the same note, Postal Banking made sense when the Post Office was extremely profitable, and could backstop large sums without needing large federal cash infusions, but not at this time.
Interest rate limits -- yes
Postal banking -- uh, no
I could get behind some interest limits as well tbh
Or perhaps there is another solution to people get Hoodwinked into massive interest loans that are impossible to pay back. I don't know all the alternatives but what some companies get away with is unacceptable.
The argument for supporting Post Banking is the fact that private banks are 'too big to fail' and it goes beyond perception.
We're now as taxpayers basically living on the premise that we'll fund to bail out any bad gambles by banks, so there's really no incentive for them not to lend like crazy. The last crisis basically just put some damping on it, but under the current rules, and the lack of meaningful regulation, it's bound to happen again.
So if government is already technically backstopping all the credits, then why should we have a middle man profiting with fees, etc?
Hadn't thought it through, tbh. Short of prejudicial carve outs for depositors it might have other, more mundane utilities, like connecting people to a form of payment and a savings account.
Postal banking is plain vanilla banking like we used to have in the 20th century. If the government will implicitly prop up Goldman and Citibank, is there not a suitable crumb from the dinner table for the mouse underneath it?
As if the privatization of prisons, education, and healthcare system haven't been a disaster . Muh "free market"
A hard interest rate cap is dumb. Peg it to a limit about the Fed Funds rate.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)