Posted by Vic Smith on February 19, 2010, 4:41 pm
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:02:13 -0800 (PST), BigDog1
>wrote:
>> Â Â There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks were
>> trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Â Do you think
>> that maybe if they paid more than  .4 percent interest on a regular savings
>> account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be more tempted? Â I mean, we
>> are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Â Banks have no problem charging their
>> customers outrageous fees for everything from using another banks ATM,
>> overdraft fees, late fees, over limit fees or up to 29% interest on credit
>> cards, but seem surprised that we aren't racing to the bank to pour more
>> money into savings accounts. Â That isn't rocket science. Â I can remember
>> banks paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook saving account back in the 50's
>> and early 60's. Â If the banks weren't so damned greedy now people might
>> think about saving a little money. Â At today's interest rates you might as
>> well stuff it under your mattress.
>Well, your statement that it isn't rocket is correct, but not in your
>context. People who have to pay overdraft fees, late fees, and over
>limit fees lack discipline and are financially irresponsible. And
>anyone who is using a credit card with a 29% interest rate must have a
>pretty crumby FICO score.
>What's not rocket science is that if you live within your means, pay
>your bills on time, and plan your cash needs properly, you won't need
>to worry about any of those charges. And, as Michael pointed out, not
>saving in light of low interest is about as foolish a theory as I've
>ever heard (see my comment above).
I doubt he's personally worried about the fees.
His beef is with the low interest rates, which *do* discourage savings
*in a bank.*
If your getting hardly any return for your money there isn't much
difference in keeping it in a bank or under a mattress.
What you're all missing is that Wall Street guys are in charge of
monetary policy and interest rates.
The lower the interest rate in banks, the more likely people are to
gamble their money in the stock market, and keep the stock market
bubble inflated.
Of course they can say they want to keep rates down to avoid the
continuing wave of variable rate home loan foreclosures.
And that argument does hold some water.
The economy is between a rock and a hard place.
Current interest rates are an unnatural joke, and anybody who's been
around a while knows it.
--Vic
--Vic
Posted by Rod Speed on February 19, 2010, 10:32 pm
Vic Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:02:13 -0800 (PST), BigDog1
>> wrote:
>>> There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks
>>> were trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Do
>>> you think that maybe if they paid more than .4 percent interest on
>>> a regular savings account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be
>>> more tempted? I mean, we are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Banks
>>> have no problem charging their customers outrageous fees for
>>> everything from using another banks ATM, overdraft fees, late fees,
>>> over limit fees or up to 29% interest on credit cards, but seem
>>> surprised that we aren't racing to the bank to pour more money into
>>> savings accounts. That isn't rocket science. I can remember banks
>>> paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook saving account back in the
>>> 50's and early 60's. If the banks weren't so damned greedy now
>>> people might think about saving a little money. At today's interest
>>> rates you might as well stuff it under your mattress.
>>
>> Well, your statement that it isn't rocket is correct, but not in your
>> context. People who have to pay overdraft fees, late fees, and over
>> limit fees lack discipline and are financially irresponsible. And
>> anyone who is using a credit card with a 29% interest rate must have
>> a pretty crumby FICO score.
>>
>> What's not rocket science is that if you live within your means, pay
>> your bills on time, and plan your cash needs properly, you won't need
>> to worry about any of those charges. And, as Michael pointed out,
>> not saving in light of low interest is about as foolish a theory as
>> I've ever heard (see my comment above).
> I doubt he's personally worried about the fees.
> His beef is with the low interest rates, which *do* discourage savings
> *in a bank.*
> If your getting hardly any return for your money there isn't much
> difference in keeping it in a bank or under a mattress.
> What you're all missing is that Wall Street guys are in charge of
> monetary policy and interest rates.
Like hell they are.
> The lower the interest rate in banks, the more likely people are to
> gamble their money in the stock market, and keep the stock market
> bubble inflated.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> Of course they can say they want to keep rates down to avoid the
> continuing wave of variable rate home loan foreclosures.
'Wall Street guys' dont determine those interest rates either.
> And that argument does hold some water.
> The economy is between a rock and a hard place.
Nope, it will recover fine, just like it did the last time you clowns
completely imploded the entire world financial system.
> Current interest rates are an unnatural joke, and
> anybody who's been around a while knows it.
You're a joke.
Posted by Camellia Sinensis on February 20, 2010, 4:57 pm
> wrote:
>> There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks
>> were
>> trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Do you think
>> that maybe if they paid more than .4 percent interest on a regular
>> savings
>> account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be more tempted? I mean,
>> we
>> are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Banks have no problem charging their
>> customers outrageous fees for everything from using another banks ATM,
>> overdraft fees, late fees, over limit fees or up to 29% interest on
>> credit
>> cards, but seem surprised that we aren't racing to the bank to pour more
>> money into savings accounts. That isn't rocket science. I can remember
>> banks paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook saving account back in the
>> 50's
>> and early 60's. If the banks weren't so damned greedy now people might
>> think about saving a little money. At today's interest rates you might
>> as
>> well stuff it under your mattress.
> Well, your statement that it isn't rocket is correct, but not in your
> context. People who have to pay overdraft fees, late fees, and over
> limit fees lack discipline and are financially irresponsible. And
> anyone who is using a credit card with a 29% interest rate must have a
> pretty crumby FICO score.
Actually, my post said nothing about how poorly people were managing their
money and then being socked with high interest rates or late fees--my
original post used those amounts to point out the disparity of the way the
banks pay interest and the way they charge interest (and fees). The news
story said they banks were trying to think up ways to get people to save
money in their banks. I just found it an incredibly stupid question on the
banks' part. If the banks could pay 4 1/2% interest back in the 50's and
60's when they weren't charging an arm an a leg in fees and interest rates
and still made a decent profit, why the horrid gouging and usury that is
going on now? Greed, plain and simple. I live within my means and have an
excellent credit score, but there is no way in hell I am going to tie up
$5,000 or $10,000 for six month to a year in a CD that is paying around 1%.
Just a couple of years ago I had several CD's rolling over every few months
and was making a tidy sum on them. Fat chance of doing that now. I am
making more money off my credit card awards than I am on my savings account.
I pay off the credit card in full every month, so I don't pay any interest,
but when my rewards level hits $200, I can get a check for $250. That is a
better deal than the lousy interest paid on even the money market saving
account where I keep my "cushion."
> What's not rocket science is that if you live within your means, pay
> your bills on time, and plan your cash needs properly, you won't need
> to worry about any of those charges. And, as Michael pointed out, not
> saving in light of low interest is about as foolish a theory as I've
> ever heard (see my comment above).
Posted by Balvenieman on February 19, 2010, 4:46 pm
> If the banks weren't so damned greedy now people might
>think about saving a little money. At today's interest rates you might as
>well stuff it under your mattress.
Be patient. As I type this, the Presidential Liar is researching
ways to put banks out of business.
XML site map
>> Â Â There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks were
>> trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Â Do you think
>> that maybe if they paid more than  .4 percent interest on a regular savings
>> account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be more tempted? Â I mean, we
>> are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Â Banks have no problem charging their
>> customers outrageous fees for everything from using another banks ATM,
>> overdraft fees, late fees, over limit fees or up to 29% interest on credit
>> cards, but seem surprised that we aren't racing to the bank to pour more
>> money into savings accounts. Â That isn't rocket science. Â I can remember
>> banks paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook saving account back in the 50's
>> and early 60's. Â If the banks weren't so damned greedy now people might
>> think about saving a little money. Â At today's interest rates you might as
>> well stuff it under your mattress.
>Well, your statement that it isn't rocket is correct, but not in your
>context. People who have to pay overdraft fees, late fees, and over
>limit fees lack discipline and are financially irresponsible. And
>anyone who is using a credit card with a 29% interest rate must have a
>pretty crumby FICO score.
>What's not rocket science is that if you live within your means, pay
>your bills on time, and plan your cash needs properly, you won't need
>to worry about any of those charges. And, as Michael pointed out, not
>saving in light of low interest is about as foolish a theory as I've
>ever heard (see my comment above).