July 11, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Jim Murphy (7/11/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
I don't know if none of the best banks are US based, but most of the worst banks are US based.Do 'best banks' exist? Seems to me that all of them are evil personified.
If one of them is even slightly better than the rest, that'd make it the best. As I know some are worse than others, some must be better than others, therefore there is a best. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
July 12, 2011 at 12:04 am
Survived a day of walking around Cambridge without getting killed.
Helps I'm near Jesus Green, not much traffic 😉
July 12, 2011 at 12:08 am
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
Jim Murphy (7/11/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
I don't know if none of the best banks are US based, but most of the worst banks are US based.Do 'best banks' exist? Seems to me that all of them are evil personified.
If one of them is even slightly better than the rest, that'd make it the best. As I know some are worse than others, some must be better than others, therefore there is a best. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good.
I wouldn't say that there are best and worst banks, but rather pockets in them. I can't speak for non-US banks, although I had a Barclays account years ago and it wasn't better than the Chase one I had in the US.
I've had Wells Fargo for a decade and it's been up and down, with different people. We have accounts, investments, and mortgates with them, and different services have been up and down. Some are profit driven more than others. Some haven't implemented rules well, and some rules haven't been well understood. Lately the changes in finance rules haven't always made sense and have been annoying.
Seems like the drive for profits interferes in many business' ability to deliver good service.
July 12, 2011 at 12:15 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/12/2011)
Seems like the drive for profits interferes in many business' ability to deliver good service.
Yep. I find that the most service-friendly 'banks' are Credit Unions, however, they have THE WORST online banking apps. Argh! Although I hate Chase as a bank, I use them for most of my stuff because of the awesome online banking website, as well as the iPhone and iPad apps to match.
Jim Murphy
http://www.sqlwatchmen.com
@SQLMurph
July 12, 2011 at 1:40 am
What is the robbing of a bank compared to the FOUNDING of a bank?
– Bertolt Brecht
-- Gianluca Sartori
July 12, 2011 at 8:39 am
Gianluca Sartori (7/12/2011)
What is the robbing of a bank compared to the FOUNDING of a bank?– Bertolt Brecht
The "robbing" just takes your money, without having to deal with the regulations to legally take your money.
Edit: and after thinking for a little bit:
The founding of a bank makes the robbery legal. Plus it's not just a one time event. You get to rob hundreds/thousands of people daily - without repercussions. You also assume not one penny of risk. If you are robbed, the FDIC will pay you back. If you fail (bankruptcy), you get bailed, effectively robbing every US taxpayer (not only your customers).
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
July 12, 2011 at 9:28 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/12/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
Jim Murphy (7/11/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
I don't know if none of the best banks are US based, but most of the worst banks are US based.Do 'best banks' exist? Seems to me that all of them are evil personified.
If one of them is even slightly better than the rest, that'd make it the best. As I know some are worse than others, some must be better than others, therefore there is a best. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good.
I wouldn't say that there are best and worst banks, but rather pockets in them. I can't speak for non-US banks, although I had a Barclays account years ago and it wasn't better than the Chase one I had in the US.
I've had Wells Fargo for a decade and it's been up and down, with different people. We have accounts, investments, and mortgates with them, and different services have been up and down. Some are profit driven more than others. Some haven't implemented rules well, and some rules haven't been well understood. Lately the changes in finance rules haven't always made sense and have been annoying.
Seems like the drive for profits interferes in many business' ability to deliver good service.
Whereas my experience with Wells Fargo is that they stole $600 from me. Overcharged $600 in overdraft fees that weren't valid, the bank manager agreed with me that the fees weren't valid and should never have been charged, but told me he couldn't refund the fees or anything like that because "the computer won't let us". It was all in terms of "we're very sorry your money is gone and we took it, have a nice day".
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 12, 2011 at 9:38 am
GSquared (7/12/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/12/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
Jim Murphy (7/11/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
I don't know if none of the best banks are US based, but most of the worst banks are US based.Do 'best banks' exist? Seems to me that all of them are evil personified.
If one of them is even slightly better than the rest, that'd make it the best. As I know some are worse than others, some must be better than others, therefore there is a best. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good.
I wouldn't say that there are best and worst banks, but rather pockets in them. I can't speak for non-US banks, although I had a Barclays account years ago and it wasn't better than the Chase one I had in the US.
I've had Wells Fargo for a decade and it's been up and down, with different people. We have accounts, investments, and mortgates with them, and different services have been up and down. Some are profit driven more than others. Some haven't implemented rules well, and some rules haven't been well understood. Lately the changes in finance rules haven't always made sense and have been annoying.
Seems like the drive for profits interferes in many business' ability to deliver good service.
Whereas my experience with Wells Fargo is that they stole $600 from me. Overcharged $600 in overdraft fees that weren't valid, the bank manager agreed with me that the fees weren't valid and should never have been charged, but told me he couldn't refund the fees or anything like that because "the computer won't let us". It was all in terms of "we're very sorry your money is gone and we took it, have a nice day".
"The Computer Won't Let Us" is ALWAYS a bullshit answer.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
July 12, 2011 at 9:45 am
Stefan Krzywicki (7/12/2011)
GSquared (7/12/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/12/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
Jim Murphy (7/11/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
I don't know if none of the best banks are US based, but most of the worst banks are US based.Do 'best banks' exist? Seems to me that all of them are evil personified.
If one of them is even slightly better than the rest, that'd make it the best. As I know some are worse than others, some must be better than others, therefore there is a best. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good.
I wouldn't say that there are best and worst banks, but rather pockets in them. I can't speak for non-US banks, although I had a Barclays account years ago and it wasn't better than the Chase one I had in the US.
I've had Wells Fargo for a decade and it's been up and down, with different people. We have accounts, investments, and mortgates with them, and different services have been up and down. Some are profit driven more than others. Some haven't implemented rules well, and some rules haven't been well understood. Lately the changes in finance rules haven't always made sense and have been annoying.
Seems like the drive for profits interferes in many business' ability to deliver good service.
Whereas my experience with Wells Fargo is that they stole $600 from me. Overcharged $600 in overdraft fees that weren't valid, the bank manager agreed with me that the fees weren't valid and should never have been charged, but told me he couldn't refund the fees or anything like that because "the computer won't let us". It was all in terms of "we're very sorry your money is gone and we took it, have a nice day".
"The Computer Won't Let Us" is ALWAYS a bullshit answer.
But since it works for 99% of customers...
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
July 12, 2011 at 9:48 am
Ya but for it to work on a programmer with mensa QI IQ now that's a feat all on its own!
July 12, 2011 at 9:55 am
Stefan Krzywicki (7/12/2011)
GSquared (7/12/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/12/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
Jim Murphy (7/11/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
I don't know if none of the best banks are US based, but most of the worst banks are US based.Do 'best banks' exist? Seems to me that all of them are evil personified.
If one of them is even slightly better than the rest, that'd make it the best. As I know some are worse than others, some must be better than others, therefore there is a best. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good.
I wouldn't say that there are best and worst banks, but rather pockets in them. I can't speak for non-US banks, although I had a Barclays account years ago and it wasn't better than the Chase one I had in the US.
I've had Wells Fargo for a decade and it's been up and down, with different people. We have accounts, investments, and mortgates with them, and different services have been up and down. Some are profit driven more than others. Some haven't implemented rules well, and some rules haven't been well understood. Lately the changes in finance rules haven't always made sense and have been annoying.
Seems like the drive for profits interferes in many business' ability to deliver good service.
Whereas my experience with Wells Fargo is that they stole $600 from me. Overcharged $600 in overdraft fees that weren't valid, the bank manager agreed with me that the fees weren't valid and should never have been charged, but told me he couldn't refund the fees or anything like that because "the computer won't let us". It was all in terms of "we're very sorry your money is gone and we took it, have a nice day".
"The Computer Won't Let Us" is ALWAYS a bullshit answer.
Of course it is. But my only recovery option at that point was a lawsuit. Not worth the aggravation. So I just spent the last 14 years telling literally thousands of people that Wells Fargo robbed me. It amuses me, and the negative marketing has definitely cost them more than I could have won in a lawsuit.
So I simply don't do business with them.
Not that it really matters, since all the banks are pretty much owned by the same small group of people anyway, and no matter who you bank with, the profits go to that select few.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 12, 2011 at 10:02 am
GSquared (7/12/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/12/2011)
GSquared (7/12/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/12/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
Jim Murphy (7/11/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (7/11/2011)
I don't know if none of the best banks are US based, but most of the worst banks are US based.Do 'best banks' exist? Seems to me that all of them are evil personified.
If one of them is even slightly better than the rest, that'd make it the best. As I know some are worse than others, some must be better than others, therefore there is a best. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good.
I wouldn't say that there are best and worst banks, but rather pockets in them. I can't speak for non-US banks, although I had a Barclays account years ago and it wasn't better than the Chase one I had in the US.
I've had Wells Fargo for a decade and it's been up and down, with different people. We have accounts, investments, and mortgates with them, and different services have been up and down. Some are profit driven more than others. Some haven't implemented rules well, and some rules haven't been well understood. Lately the changes in finance rules haven't always made sense and have been annoying.
Seems like the drive for profits interferes in many business' ability to deliver good service.
Whereas my experience with Wells Fargo is that they stole $600 from me. Overcharged $600 in overdraft fees that weren't valid, the bank manager agreed with me that the fees weren't valid and should never have been charged, but told me he couldn't refund the fees or anything like that because "the computer won't let us". It was all in terms of "we're very sorry your money is gone and we took it, have a nice day".
"The Computer Won't Let Us" is ALWAYS a bullshit answer.
Of course it is. But my only recovery option at that point was a lawsuit. Not worth the aggravation. So I just spent the last 14 years telling literally thousands of people that Wells Fargo robbed me. It amuses me, and the negative marketing has definitely cost them more than I could have won in a lawsuit.
So I simply don't do business with them.
Not that it really matters, since all the banks are pretty much owned by the same small group of people anyway, and no matter who you bank with, the profits go to that select few.
True, the whole banking system in the US is broken. Apparently nearly every large bank has been guilty of fraud in the housing bubble. I have no idea how this will all resolve.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
July 12, 2011 at 10:12 am
WayneS (7/12/2011)
Gianluca Sartori (7/12/2011)
What is the robbing of a bank compared to the FOUNDING of a bank?– Bertolt Brecht
The "robbing" just takes your money, without having to deal with the regulations to legally take your money.
Edit: and after thinking for a little bit:
The founding of a bank makes the robbery legal. Plus it's not just a one time event. You get to rob hundreds/thousands of people daily - without repercussions. You also assume not one penny of risk. If you are robbed, the FDIC will pay you back. If you fail (bankruptcy), you get bailed, effectively robbing every US taxpayer (not only your customers).
Yeah, but that gets into the definitions of "law" and "government".
Law can most accurately be defined as the set of rules that can be enforced through a credible threat of unretaliable death. I.e.: Without arrest, there's no law, and without a credible threat of violence possibly culminating in death, there's no arrest, and if arrest can be safely/successfully avenged, there's no credible threat. Every time you vote in favor of a new law, you are threatening to kill your neighbors if they don't do things your way. It really is as simple as that at its core.
Government can most accurately be defined as the aggregate irresponsibility of a group of people. I.e.: It is those things which the governed people refuse to be personally responsible for, and don't generally trust their neighbors to be responsble for either, unless it's backed by law (see above).
Given those definitions, it's not a long reach to: "Banking is the incorporation of refusal to take responsibility for one's own money".
Since all of it is irresponsibility enforced through violence, is it any wonder it's a messy subject?
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 12, 2011 at 10:20 am
GSquared (7/12/2011)
WayneS (7/12/2011)
Gianluca Sartori (7/12/2011)
What is the robbing of a bank compared to the FOUNDING of a bank?– Bertolt Brecht
The "robbing" just takes your money, without having to deal with the regulations to legally take your money.
Edit: and after thinking for a little bit:
The founding of a bank makes the robbery legal. Plus it's not just a one time event. You get to rob hundreds/thousands of people daily - without repercussions. You also assume not one penny of risk. If you are robbed, the FDIC will pay you back. If you fail (bankruptcy), you get bailed, effectively robbing every US taxpayer (not only your customers).
Yeah, but that gets into the definitions of "law" and "government".
Law can most accurately be defined as the set of rules that can be enforced through a credible threat of unretaliable death. I.e.: Without arrest, there's no law, and without a credible threat of violence possibly culminating in death, there's no arrest, and if arrest can be safely/successfully avenged, there's no credible threat. Every time you vote in favor of a new law, you are threatening to kill your neighbors if they don't do things your way. It really is as simple as that at its core.
Government can most accurately be defined as the aggregate irresponsibility of a group of people. I.e.: It is those things which the governed people refuse to be personally responsible for, and don't generally trust their neighbors to be responsble for either, unless it's backed by law (see above).
Given those definitions, it's not a long reach to: "Banking is the incorporation of refusal to take responsibility for one's own money".
Since all of it is irresponsibility enforced through violence, is it any wonder it's a messy subject?
This only holds true if taking thoughts to their logical extremes, thinking of a long cascade of what might happen if you take the worst choice each time in a long iteration of choices. There's also the idea of the social compact and responsibility. Some people do do things because they consider them the right thing to do, not just because they're threatened. In addition, there's how you'll be perceived by friends, neighbors, relatives, etc... if you violate a particular law. The violence aspect of it is a long way from most laws, especially ones that don't require immediate police intervention to protect others from violence.
Banking isn't simply the refusal to take responsibility for one's money either, any more than having someone else service your car is a refusal to take responsibility for your safety on the highway. Banks (in theory) offer a service in exchange for the "use" of your money. In realty, we've moved beyond that to a point where banks are holding your money and making it easier for you to use it in exchange for fees.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
July 12, 2011 at 10:39 am
Stefan Krzywicki (7/12/2011)
GSquared (7/12/2011)
WayneS (7/12/2011)
Gianluca Sartori (7/12/2011)
What is the robbing of a bank compared to the FOUNDING of a bank?– Bertolt Brecht
The "robbing" just takes your money, without having to deal with the regulations to legally take your money.
Edit: and after thinking for a little bit:
The founding of a bank makes the robbery legal. Plus it's not just a one time event. You get to rob hundreds/thousands of people daily - without repercussions. You also assume not one penny of risk. If you are robbed, the FDIC will pay you back. If you fail (bankruptcy), you get bailed, effectively robbing every US taxpayer (not only your customers).
Yeah, but that gets into the definitions of "law" and "government".
Law can most accurately be defined as the set of rules that can be enforced through a credible threat of unretaliable death. I.e.: Without arrest, there's no law, and without a credible threat of violence possibly culminating in death, there's no arrest, and if arrest can be safely/successfully avenged, there's no credible threat. Every time you vote in favor of a new law, you are threatening to kill your neighbors if they don't do things your way. It really is as simple as that at its core.
Government can most accurately be defined as the aggregate irresponsibility of a group of people. I.e.: It is those things which the governed people refuse to be personally responsible for, and don't generally trust their neighbors to be responsble for either, unless it's backed by law (see above).
Given those definitions, it's not a long reach to: "Banking is the incorporation of refusal to take responsibility for one's own money".
Since all of it is irresponsibility enforced through violence, is it any wonder it's a messy subject?
This only holds true if taking thoughts to their logical extremes, thinking of a long cascade of what might happen if you take the worst choice each time in a long iteration of choices. There's also the idea of the social compact and responsibility. Some people do do things because they consider them the right thing to do, not just because they're threatened. In addition, there's how you'll be perceived by friends, neighbors, relatives, etc... if you violate a particular law. The violence aspect of it is a long way from most laws, especially ones that don't require immediate police intervention to protect others from violence.
Banking isn't simply the refusal to take responsibility for one's money either, any more than having someone else service your car is a refusal to take responsibility for your safety on the highway. Banks (in theory) offer a service in exchange for the "use" of your money. In realty, we've moved beyond that to a point where banks are holding your money and making it easier for you to use it in exchange for fees.
The social compact doesn't require law any more than law requires a social compact. The definition I gave is specific to the subject of law, not to the subjects of ethics, morality, social compacts, groupthink, peer pressure, et al. All of these are related, but my definition was specific to law.
The vast majority of people do not require violence to keep them doing things responsibly and reasonably. They also don't need governments and laws to tell them what to do.
For example, for a few years, the state of Montana had a posted daytime speed limit of "Reasonable and Prudent". It actually said that on the signs. The vast majority of people drove in a responsible fashion and had no problems. They eventually had to move to an 85 MPH limit on the highways because a few people took that non-specific "suggestion" and drove at unsafe speeds, endangering themselves, other drivers, and the profits of insurance companies (that one mattered most when it came to lobbying and getting the new law put into place). In other words, there was no need for a law, just a suggestion, except for a few people.
On the point of banking and government both being abnegations of personal responsibility, I probably need to define the word "responsibility" as I am using it. It is essentially the recognition of being totally at cause over all effects created on a subject.
If you take a car to a mechanic, and he breaks something such that it causes one of your passengers to die, do you recognize yourself as having been the sole and only cause of that effect? Of course not. You sue the mechanic. Or the family of the dead passenger does, if that's more applicable.
If you break the care yourself while "fixing" it, and that passenger dies because of this, do you sue the company that sold you the tools you used? Probably not. Unless you live in California, of course.
And yet, in both cases, it was your judgement and action that ultimately lead to a person's death. The exchange of money and contract legally removes your responsibility in the case where the car was messed up by the mechanic. Legally. But the definition of responsibility I'm using here doesn't recognize that.
It gets complicated fast, because of course the mechanic is, from his perspective, responsible for it too. This doesn't deny that. But that doesn't reduce one's own responsibility in any way. (Which brings in the subject of "blame" as differentiated from "responsibility", but that's a whole discussion all by itself.)
If you use a different definition, then my definitions of government and law are no longer valid, of course. You'll need to provide the ones you find most useful on the subject.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 27,946 through 27,960 (of 66,815 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply