Live data from Hacker News

How Bank of America Gave Away My Money

soraven.com

241–250 of 261 posts

Re: How Bank of America Gave Away My Money

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it puts Obama on "the right" and Stalin on "the extreme right". that sounds correct to me. you should actually read it and think about why it is constructed that way. if your first reaction to seeing a perspective you're unfamiliar with is "that's la-la land extremist" then you might have a bias problem.

What makes you think I'm not familiar with the far left perspective? I'm very familiar with it. If you think putting communist dictator Joseph Stalin on the extreme right means you have a nuanced, holistic view of the left-right spectrum then yes, you're a moonbat extremist. You'll note that right wing extremists will do a similar trick, and claim Hitler was a leftist.

please, hear me out. you're already defensive and dismissive and I'm asking you to suspend that for a minute and think about it.

where did you learn that Stalin is left wing? Who told you that? Is it because the USSR was nominally communist (in some strange version of communism in which totalitarian state capitalism is the actual system, anyway) and so any leader of nominally communist nation is left wing because communism is left wing?

Now compare the actual policies and actions of Stalin to the policies and actions of other leaders that he is most similar to. I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Stalin's regime was a brutal, repressive, totalitarian dictatorship. A lot like Hitler's regime actually.

Now when you're drawing a political spectrum do you think we ought to pay attention to abstract statements about ideology or should we pay more attention to policies and actions? Is a political spectrum best organized by abstract ideology (in which case, yes, Nazism is left wing, it was a socialist party after all) or by what actually happened?

What's more "moonbat"? Putting two similar leaders (Hitler and Stalin) on opposite ends of a spectrum or putting them near each other on that spectrum?

There's really only one flaw with the chart that I linked. It's that it continues to use the terms "left" and "right" even though it has rearranged groupings to match policies and actions. Would you feel differently about it if instead of left it said "liberation" and instead of right it said "domination"?

Re: How Bank of America Gave Away My Money

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What translation did you get this wording from? It's not found in KJV (old school Protestants ), Douay Rheims, NIV(mega churches, some Baptists, many others), or NASB (mainly used by Catholics) translations.

It's not a translation. It's an allusion. Commonly used by evangelicals. You're over thinking it.

Source please?

I grew up in an evangelical home and went to church every Sunday - and have never heard of "may his tribe increase" aside from that poem.

Re: How Bank of America Gave Away My Money

#243

I wrote the blog post. It turns out writing a blog post works better than talking to the bank beyond simple catharsis. Just got a call from someone from Bank of America's social media team who credited the money back to my account. Thanks for all the suggestions here!

We see this all the time. Pretty frustrating that you need to create a PR fuss for issues to be addressed.

Re: How Bank of America Gave Away My Money

#246
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no question the CFPB has helped some consumers resolve disputes. The parent's complaint was about the death of small banks. That has been caused directly by the cost to comply with new regulations.

Banks (including small banks) frequently make errors that they stubbornly resist resolving without a gun to their head. Hence, the regulation that kills many of them. If they were capable of self-regulating to a reasonable degree, the political pressure to create those regulations never would have existed. If you can't afford to fix your mistakes, you shouldn't be in business in the first place. That is the fatal fla…

That's certainly an interesting take. In all of my dealings with small banks, it was always easy to get an EVP on the phone to sort out problems. That's now virtually impossible dealing with large banks. Frequently I find that even people whose titles indicate they should have power to solve small problems frequently don't. They need to get committee approvals for anything that isn't already governed by their procedure manual. As with any organization, as banks get bigger and bigger, they have less ability to self-regulate and quickly fix mistakes.

BTW, it's not that anyone who has problems with things like the CFPB is necessarily ANTI-REGULATION. It's just hard to grasp how much regulation exists if you're not involved in this industry. And you need to consider the consequences of this kind of regulation. You can't complain that banks are too big to fail if you're simultaneously implementing regulation (even with the best of intentions) that is directly driving banks to get bigger and bigger.

Re: How Bank of America Gave Away My Money

#247
post #59

They have failed to pay back billions, much less $3k. Do not do business with any organization on this list: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

From your own source, the government _made_ about 2 billion off of the BofA bailout. This includes the 2 billion write-off of TARP funds they gave to the home mortgage group. Not defending BofA, just saying your source material doesn't make the point you think it does.

You are correct, thank you I read the last update wrong. I personally still attempt to not do business with these organizations for multiple reasons.

Re: How Bank of America Gave Away My Money

#248
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks (including small banks) frequently make errors that they stubbornly resist resolving without a gun to their head. Hence, the regulation that kills many of them. If they were capable of self-regulating to a reasonable degree, the political pressure to create those regulations never would have existed. If you can't afford to fix your mistakes, you shouldn't be in business in the first place. That is the fatal fla…

That's certainly an interesting take. In all of my dealings with small banks, it was always easy to get an EVP on the phone to sort out problems. That's now virtually impossible dealing with large banks. Frequently I find that even people whose titles indicate they should have power to solve small problems frequently don't. They need to get committee approvals for anything that isn't already governed by their procedu…

> That's certainly an interesting take. In all of my dealings with small banks, it was always easy to get an EVP on the phone to sort out problems. That's now virtually impossible dealing with large banks. Frequently I find that even people whose titles indicate they should have power to solve small problems frequently don't. They need to get committee approvals for anything that isn't already governed by their procedure manual. As with any organization, as banks get bigger and bigger, they have less ability to self-regulate and quickly fix mistakes.

The EVP (or at least someone with that title) basically told me their records were correct and to pound sand. It was escalated pretty quickly when I made it clear I had a full record of my previous contacts with the bank (including a bank employee agreeing in writing I had cancelled the application) and the dollar amount was large enough I was not going to let it go.

> BTW, it's not that anyone who has problems with things like the CFPB is necessarily ANTI-REGULATION. It's just hard to grasp how much regulation exists if you're not involved in this industry. And you need to consider the consequences of this kind of regulation. You can't complain that banks are too big to fail if you're simultaneously implementing regulation (even with the best of intentions) that is directly driving banks to get bigger and bigger.

Honestly, I'd rather have _well regulated banks_ than no big banks. I don't care if some bank has 15% of the market. I care that there are at least enough competitors (10+) in the market for it to be a competitive market.

But yeah, from my perspective the CFPB is really just a separate arbitration process that keeps people from having to go to court to dispute issues + some post-2008-meltdown regulations. Sure, some problem are excessive but 90% of them likely are not.

Re: How Bank of America Gave Away My Money

#250
BOA is probably the worst institutions I've ever dealt with and I never even opened an account with them.

I did get to close one I had with them though and that was a very good day for me because I was among the very 1st of many here who did the same and I got to watch what happened to them here from start to end.

They came to Branson Missouri and bought out a well loved local bank where I had my business account. I closed it as soon as I found out. As the new management came and started enforcing BOA policy people learned fast that I and a few others familiar with them weren't bullshitting about them.

Soon, the long time employees of the old bank started leaving because they weren't willing to piss their friends and neighbors for BOA and, of course, they told everyone why they left. Most went to work for one of the several other local banks here, and all their close friends and family moved their money with them.

When the last of those employees were gone everyone here started moving their accounts over to one of the still locally owned banks and in just a few years BOA didn't have hardly anyone left here to screw so they closed their doors and left town.

I will always admire my neighbors here for that. I knew people who let that bank abuse them for decades out in Los Angeles and I could never, not for the life of me, understand why.

Post reply on HN