Pretty amazing

[bushwacked]

Why is everything always a conspiracy? If the fed is guaranteeing monies in a savings account it seems to me there is a pretty straight forward reason for them wanting people to use said accounts as they were intended.

 

ETA: It seems to me these rules may encourage saving not discourage it.

Edited February 21, 2011 by bushwacked

[Brentastic]

How are they discouraging people from having a savings account? Well, at least those who are actually using them as vehicles to save money as opposed to pretending they're checking accounts.

 

Oh, and kindly answer my question about how this is any different than Buy and Hold being cheaper to use than, say E-trade but more restrictive. Or do you think that's an outrage as well?

Comparing Buy and Hold/E-trade to a banking account is pointless. Apples to oranges comparison because the system revolves around banking and the easibility of banking services (direct deposit, debit cards, online banking etc...). Sure the principal is the same but nobody needs an E-trade account to efficiently make transactions on their day-to-day living expenses. Investing is an added luxury banking in today's world is basically necessary. But the reliance on banks doesn't have to be necessary - it's been made that way over time and now the banks are abusing that reliance. Imagine what would happen if 10 million Americans (or even more) stopped using banks to make transactions? The banks would lose their leverage. Right now we are being taken advantage of and until we force the power out of their hands it's just going to get worse. That's the bread and butter of the whole scam - they make our lives appear to be easier, quicker and more abundant (TVs, ipods, gadgets) while they strip liberty from us one law at a time right under our noses. If our lives are littered with meaningless material possessions and meaningless efficiencies (that support their money system) we won't notice the real motives nor the stripped liberty. Basically, we all need to wake up. And one easy way to start is by pulling money out of the banking system on a mass level.

[i_am_the_swammi]

We have a savings account that we make maybe 1 withdrawl from per month, if that. We also have a checking account that we use for everyday purchases, bill paying, etc.

 

Seems a smart move for the banks that customers don't get the higher interest rate that a savings account generates if they are not going to use it as such Why on earth would anyone be making more than 4 withdrawls per month from a savings account?

[Brentastic]

From your post:

 

 

I called and found out that this limit does not count toward the 6 transactions you are 'allowed'. But there is a separate limit of 4 ATM withdrawals per month. Still a limit and still a crock of chit. It's MY money so why is there any limit at all?

[detlef]

Comparing Buy and Hold/E-trade to a banking account is pointless. Apples to oranges comparison because the system revolves around banking and the easibility of banking services (direct deposit, debit cards, online banking etc...). Sure the principal is the same but nobody needs an E-trade account to efficiently make transactions on their day-to-day living expenses. Investing is an added luxury banking in today's world is basically necessary. But the reliance on banks doesn't have to be necessary - it's been made that way over time and now the banks are abusing that reliance. Imagine what would happen if 10 million Americans (or even more) stopped using banks to make transactions? The banks would lose their leverage. Right now we are being taken advantage of and until we force the power out of their hands it's just going to get worse. That's the bread and butter of the whole scam - they make our lives appear to be easier, quicker and more abundant (TVs, ipods, gadgets) while they strip liberty from us one law at a time right under our noses. If our lives are littered with meaningless material possessions and meaningless efficiencies (that support their money system) we won't notice the real motives nor the stripped liberty. Basically, we all need to wake up. And one easy way to start is by pulling money out of the banking system on a mass level.

Nor does anyone need a savings account that acts like a checking account. So the comparison is absolutely valid. The bank is not at all restricting how you use your money because they have a vehicle available to you that allows you unlimited access to your funds as often as you want. It's called a checking account. Like Buy and Hold, they also have something that may appeal to you if you have funds that you're not going to be so active with. And it pays you better money, but you have to play by the rules if you want that.

 

Hell, they have other accounts that are even more restrictive, called CDs. Those must really, really piss you off. I mean, you can't even get to your money at all without a steep penalty. I mean, talk about a scam! Because this is the land of the free and the brave, what we should have access to is accounts that pay higher interest rates that are high because you and the bank agree the money is going to be in there for at least a year, only you can take it out any time. That's what we need.

 

And what's up with IRAs? What I want is a tax-sheltered retirement account that I can have access to at any time without penalty.

Edited February 21, 2011 by detlef

[wiegie]

I called and found out that this limit does not count toward the 6 transactions you are 'allowed'. But there is a separate limit of 4 ATM withdrawals per month. Still a limit and still a crock of chit. It's MY money so why is there any limit at all?

Concerning the idea that it's "your money": When you put funds into a savings account, you have basically traded your cash for a different type of asset. In this case, the asset you have acquired is somewhat less liquid than cash, but pays a higher return. As Detlet said, if you don't like the rules, keep your cash under your mattress instead of "buying" savings account assets.

[Brentastic]

We have a savings account that we make maybe 1 withdrawl from per month, if that. We also have a checking account that we use for everyday purchases, bill paying, etc.

 

Seems a smart move for the banks that customers don't get the higher interest rate that a savings account generates if they are not going to use it as such Why on earth would anyone be making more than 4 withdrawls per month from a savings account?

 

Why on earth would anyone other than the owner of funds (me) be allowed to put a limit on how much of those funds I can use? Especially when the holder (bank) of the funds is making an exponential amount of money on my funds and essentially stealing all of our money (in the form of inflation) without our consent?

 

It's partly the fault of the people for allowing this thievery to escalate into what it is now and the further we get from the inception point (creation of the Federal Reserve) the further from the truth we get and as a result most of the population believes that the current system is necessary and right. It's also a concerted effort by the banks and law makers because they condition us to accept this injustice and have been doing so for a long time. That's why I'm so damn persistent in spreading the truth and getting people to realize how far we've regressed as a people and how much liberty we've lost. The current system didn't evolve naturally, it was created by greedy evil men and we the people have been indoctrinated into this system. What robots like Bushwacked call 'conspiracy theories' are really just rational, critically thinking people asking questions and challenging what the mainstream says is true. What I've been saying about the Fed and the banking system is backed up by facts. If you can look at the information absent of your indoctrinated bias, you should be able to rationally deduce what I'm constantly preaching. That's why there is the tea party (not endorsing it, btw) and several other groups that are challenging the system. Because rational people have done their homework and realize there is a severe injustice going on in this country and all others. The revolts in the middle east are a precursor of what's to come world-wide (American included). Ive been talking about this stuff for over a year and the evidence is mounting every day.

[wiegie]

Why on earth would anyone other than the owner of funds (me) be allowed to put a limit on how much of those funds I can use?

As I said above, you don't own the funds anymore, you own savings account assets. They can put whatever rules they want to on them. (Hell, check the fine print in your account and you'll probably find that they don't actually have to allow you to convert your savings account assets into cash for 30 or 60 days after you request a withdrawal.)

[General Itals]

Had this happen to me about 10 years ago when I was still in school. Was using a savings account to disburse money to different accounts and got bit a couple of times. After my second $16 fee on my .325% interest bearing account, I closed it and just went to a second checking account.

 

Went in and talked to a banker (not a teller), and got three different explanations from three different guys. One said the reg was in place to prevent Osama from withdrawing too much money, the next said it was to protect the bank from large withdrawls and the last told me I should use the savings account as it was intended. They all sounded like idiots.

 

I might be able to buy some of the arguments about it being meant to encourage savings if the limits applied to all withdrawls, not just certain types. For what it's worth, I don't believe this is some big conspiracy, just a senseless regulation among a myriad of them.

[detlef]

Why on earth would anyone other than the owner of funds (me) be allowed to put a limit on how much of those funds I can use? Especially when the holder (bank) of the funds is making an exponential amount of money on my funds and essentially stealing all of our money (in the form of inflation) without our consent?

 

It's partly the fault of the people for allowing this thievery to escalate into what it is now and the further we get from the inception point (creation of the Federal Reserve) the further from the truth we get and as a result most of the population believes that the current system is necessary and right. It's also a concerted effort by the banks and law makers because they condition us to accept this injustice and have been doing so for a long time. That's why I'm so damn persistent in spreading the truth and getting people to realize how far we've regressed as a people and how much liberty we've lost. The current system didn't evolve naturally, it was created by greedy evil men and we the people have been indoctrinated into this system. What robots like Bushwacked call 'conspiracy theories' are really just rational, critically thinking people asking questions and challenging what the mainstream says is true. What I've been saying about the Fed and the banking system is backed up by facts. If you can look at the information absent of your indoctrinated bias, you should be able to rationally deduce what I'm constantly preaching. That's why there is the tea party (not endorsing it, btw) and several other groups that are challenging the system. Because rational people have done their homework and realize there is a severe injustice going on in this country and all others. The revolts in the middle east are a precursor of what's to come world-wide (American included). Ive been talking about this stuff for over a year and the evidence is mounting every day.

You're confusing the difference between what should be allowed and what you think is not a very good deal. But whether or not it's a good deal is not the argument. You are basically arguing that banks should not be able to create savings vehicles that you don't think are a good deal. I mean, right now a typical savings account is somewhere around what? 1.5%. Let's say it is. So, according to you, that rate is so low that you should have unlimited access to your money. So, basically, you think a checking account should pay 1.5%. Because that's what you're describing. That's cool. Go find it.

 

But let's just say that was the case. That you could get 1.5% for your money in a checking account. OK, if a bank came to you and said, "I see you have a lot of money in your checking account earning only 1.5%. We have this other account that actually pays 3%, but you can only make 6 withdrawals per month. Maybe you could push some of your extra money into that account and make some more money." Would you do it? Or would you just kind of do it. As in, sign up, get the better rate, and then scream bloody murder when they remind you that part of the deal for why you get paid a higher rate is that you can only make 6 withdrawals.

 

Hell, let's say checking pays 5% and restricted use accounts pay 10%. The numbers themselves don't matter. Just the fact that one is bigger than the other and comes at the expense of some liquidity.

 

The irony is that I don't actually completely disagree with your theories that a bunch of evil dudes are running this show and control everything to their benefit. Again, maybe all rates are laughably low in general because of some sort of collusion. If I found out that was the case, it would not be the most surprising thing I ever learned. But that is not the discussion. The discussion is whether someone should be allowed to offer different kinds of accounts, some that pay more than others but with restricted liquidity. It baffles me that you can't see this.

Edited February 21, 2011 by detlef

[Brentastic]

Had this happen to me about 10 years ago when I was still in school. Was using a savings account to disburse money to different accounts and got bit a couple of times. After my second $16 fee on my .325% interest bearing account, I closed it and just went to a second checking account.

 

Went in and talked to a banker (not a teller), and got three different explanations from three different guys. One said the reg was in place to prevent Osama from withdrawing too much money, the next said it was to protect the bank from large withdrawls and the last told me I should use the savings account as it was intended. They all sounded like idiots.

 

I might be able to buy some of the arguments about it being meant to encourage savings if the limits applied to all withdrawls, not just certain types. For what it's worth, I don't believe this is some big conspiracy, just a senseless regulation among a myriad of them.

Well all the laws written are part of the same plan (conspiracy) which is to enslave citizens of nations by forcing them to work to support a system created by bankers. A system that consolidates wealth from dollar savers/earners into the hands of the bankers via debt monetization and the fractional reserve system. Every child born has a debt attached to them from previous generations and they will be forced to work the rest of their lives in a system in order to pay the interest on this debt. The world is driven by power and money and to think anything else is driving this system is being naive. If you're not one of 'them' then you're a victim. There are more of 'us' than 'them' and we can decisively re-gain leverage by learning the truth and then implementing mass non-compliance.

[Brentastic]

You're confusing the difference between what should be allowed and what you think is not a very good deal. But whether or not it's a good deal is not the argument. You are basically arguing that banks should not be able to create savings vehicles that you don't think are a good deal. I mean, right now a typical savings account is somewhere around what? 1.5%. Let's say it is. So, according to you, that rate is so low that you should have unlimited access to your money. So, basically, you think a checking account should pay 1.5%. Because that's what you're describing. That's cool. Go find it.

 

But let's just say that was the case. That you could get 1.5% for your money in a checking account. OK, if a bank came to you and said, "I see you have a lot of money in your checking account earning only 1.5%. We have this other account that actually pays 3%, but you can only make 6 withdrawals per month. Maybe you could push some of your extra money into that account and make some more money." Would you do it? Or would you just kind of do it. As in, sign up, get the better rate, and then scream bloody murder when they remind you that part of the deal for why you get paid a higher rate is that you can only make 6 withdrawals.

 

Hell, let's say checking pays 5% and restricted use accounts pay 10%. The numbers themselves don't matter. Just the fact that one is bigger than the other and comes at the expense of some liquidity.

I'm arguing the principle.

 

My point is that we need to detach ourselves from the complacency that's allowing our liberties to be taken away.

[detlef]

I'm arguing the principle.

 

My point is that we need to detach ourselves from the complacency that's allowing our liberties to be taken away.

The principle that banks don't pay enough interest in general or that they should not be allowed to sell savings vehicles with restricted liquidity.

 

Because if you're saying rates are just too low in general, harping on the fact that banks offer accounts that pay more than others but restrict liquidity is a very strange way of making that point.

 

And if you're talking about the latter, then you're the one who is taking my liberties away because you're saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to sell something that I may want to buy.

[MrTed46]

We have a savings account that we make maybe 1 withdrawl from per month, if that. We also have a checking account that we use for everyday purchases, bill paying, etc.

 

Seems a smart move for the banks that customers don't get the higher interest rate that a savings account generates if they are not going to use it as such Why on earth would anyone be making more than 4 withdrawls per month from a savings account?

 

A savings account pays your interest per day for this reason. You lend them money daily that is why they pay you interest.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Why on earth would anyone other than the owner of funds (me) be allowed to put a limit on how much of those funds I can use?

 

Uh, because once you deposit those funds, they are the banks funds, and they are paying you a higher rate than a checking account to use them.

 

if you want more liquidity, look into a checking account, which offers you a lower interest rate, but more options on moving your cash.

 

pretty simple

[bpwallace49]

Uh, because once you deposit those funds, they are the banks funds, and they are paying you a higher rate than a checking account to use them.

 

if you want more liquidity, look into a checking account, which offers you a lower interest rate, but more options on moving your cash.

 

pretty simple

 

Agreed.

[Brentastic]

Uh, because once you deposit those funds, they are the banks funds, and they are paying you a higher rate than a checking account to use them.

 

if you want more liquidity, look into a checking account, which offers you a lower interest rate, but more options on moving your cash.

 

pretty simple

Tell me any other borrowing-lending situation where the borrower sets the parameters? If I went into a bank to get a loan but only on my stipulations, I'd get laughed out of the building, yet this is what is happening with consumers who keep their money in banks. Keep in mind that the bank is borrowing your money and then making more money using your money. Any lender who allows the borrower to determine the parameters of the agreement is foolish, but it's happening to every individual who has a bank account. Sorry to say but anyone who defends these actions is not thinking rationally and is conditioned to believe this is how things work. They only work that way because people have been complacent enough to allow this gross injustice. Your thinking is too narrow - view this problem from another angle and see if you conclude the same results. Like in my loan example above - it makes no sense to give leverage to the borrower. In fact it's anti-logical.

[wiegie]

Tell me any other borrowing-lending situation where the borrower sets the parameters?

corporate bonds, for one

[wiegie]

Also, according to Brent's logic, banks should be able to call up any person with a mortgage and demand to be paid every cent that is currently owed to them. It is, of course, their money... to not allow them to get all of it back whenever they want is to deny them their liberty. Right, Brent?

[Brentastic]

Also, according to Brent's logic, banks should be able to call up any person with a mortgage and demand to be paid every cent that is currently owed to them. It is, of course, their money... to not allow them to get all of it back whenever they want is to deny them their liberty. Right, Brent?

Apples to oranges. People with mortgages aren't able to use the fractional reserve system to re-distribute their mortgage loan into interest bearing loans. Mortgage borrowers also don't name the price of borrowing unlike the bank who establishes the interest you receive on your loan to them. Plus I'm not arguing the contract, I'm trying to get people to realize the leverage doesn't have to be on the side of the banks. It's the partly the people's fault for letting it get to this point.