[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Not a Republican, but really your post, where you throw around the word “retarded” for others while stating the things you do, is just too much to let pass.
Are you actually unaware that when borrowing money, a borrower is not forced to pick a particular lender? Let alone forced to take the loan?
If he is paying for example 30%, it is because:
-
He is voluntarily agreeing to pay it (or perhaps is so damn stupid that even though the APR is plainly listed he doesn’t have a clue that high interest involved, but if so that is his fault), and
-
He has cheated others by borrowing from them and not repaying, and therefore has a truly crappy credit rating.
Somehow you analyze this as the person being “robbed” !
Do you know what “robbed” means?
You are aware that a further part of the reason he cannot obtain a loan, in this case, at less than 30% is because there is a competitive market of lenders each seeking to obtain business by offering the most attractive deal possible that they are still confident on, on average, making money?
You find something wrong with this?
You are aware that in fact very many credit card companies and divisions are losing money despite these high rates due to the deadbeats such as the one you’re so outraged “has” to pay 30% to get any credit at all? (“Has” being in quotes because no one is forcing him to take the loan.)
You are aware that banks are private companies?
You are aware that anyone who meets given requirements can start their own bank? There are such things as local banks started by local people.
You do know that larger banks are owned by shareholders, who either voluntarily choose to buy the stock as personal direct decision or do so as a result of voluntarily empowering another person to make the decision for them. These shareholders voluntarily choose to have the directors be the authority over the company, and (if choosing to have voting stock) vote on the directors.
Your idea that no one is “boss” of these companies (or has the right to be, except Obama of course, not exactly sure just what your attempted point was) is just beyond belief.
Really, where do you get off calling others “retarded”? If nothing else surely that is not constructive commentary?
I am sorry the word RETARTED offended you Mr. Roberts. I do not know what else to call it when some one does not act in their own best interest[/quote]
Not offended: it is a matter of how such things can be posted as you wrote while saying that of others.
Wow!!!
Where do you get this?
Either that this formula exists for what profit should be, or an idea that banks make a profit ANYTHING LIKE 50% of what their deposits are?
You do realize that large banks have hundreds of billions of dollars in deposits, maybe more, but do not have profits anything like 50% of those figures?
Where do you get this “supposed to” from?
Someone is supposed to, by force, make this happen, instead of voluntary transactions?
Really where do you get your stuff.
So the situation of bank and its customers, engaging voluntarily in transactions according to terms agree to by all – except of course those customers that default – constitutes “robbery” according to you. The profits are not rightfully theirs, according to you, regardless of all interactions being voluntarily agreed to.
Not correct.
So you mean if someone is such a bad customer – such a high risk due to having defaulted on other loans – it should be a crime for anyone to lend him money? Regardless that both he and the lender would like to do so?
Or do you mean that lenders should be forced at the point of a gun to lend him money cheaper despite not wanting to do so due to the high risk that he’ll default again, and it’s just not worth the risk for a lesser percentage than that.
Yes, you could.
And publically-traded is not the same as publicly owned. In many, probably most cases, publicly-traded companies are held by private individuals, whether directly or via for example funds that they have have chosen to purchase, not by any public entity. They are not owned by the public. If you have no ponied up your own money you have no say.
It really is not your business. You seem to think the bank is “public” and therefore your business, but if it is doing for its customers as agreed and everything is consensual and voluntary, you have no legit beef.
Other than the fact you have ideas of what others ought to be allowed to make, pulled out of your head.
No, it’s the irony. Not that your post is “retarded,” but so exceedingly misinformed, yet you label those who disagree with you so quickly and heavy-handedly.