Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 465 posts

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#61

Post by pksebben »

kodyo wrote: post #44
Meekro wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you mean, but what's the alternative? How should you behave if you're exempt from normal social boundaries because of your personal tragedy? Shout at random people? Throw things? Punch some guy in the face? Seems to me it's better to try and be kind, and treat others right despite your horrible situation. The person you're treating cruelly because of your personal trauma could easily be going through a tra…

Banks would rightly collapse if people took their business to credit unions. No random violence required.

the issue is that it's really, really hard to get that message out to everyone and have them understand the importance and the reasoning.

to paraphrase Frank Herbert, it is the mark of a human that they will remain in the trap, that they can kill the hunter and thus remove a threat to their species.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#62

Post by aschearer »

obblekk wrote: post #9

I feel so much cognitive dissonance realizing that there are hard working people literally losing their home and shelter wrongly while I might be sitting across from them at any time, expecting them to behave within normal social boundaries. Imagine a family with a new born, working 50+ hours at a physically demanding job, making $80k/yr combined, and then losing their home for no reason... and then being expected to…

A long time ago someone wrote, "they have nothing to lose but their chains" and predicted massive social upheaval as a result. That person felt this was an inevitable consequence of capitalism and its tendency to concentrate wealth. I suspect they were imagining people like in your example, only worse off.

Maybe redirecting that anger against another segment of society is a way to avoid social upheaval while maintaining the status quo? That anger does seem prone to being co-opted, though.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#63

Post by justin66 »

twblalock wrote: post #22
silisili wrote: post #17

Why is it -always- Wells Fargo. There are thousands of banks out there, and Wells Fargo is not even close to being the biggest. But why are they in the news every year for some illegal dealings? It feels like they should be broken up or something at this point.

The other banks are better at not getting caught. Wells Fargo has more scrutiny too, because of some previous times they got caught. BofA or Citi or Chase are no different, they are just better at getting away with it.

The last time they had a big-ticket punishment [0] for their psychotic corporate behavior, it was because they had created millions of fraudulent accounts. There is no way to keep that quiet or "get away with it," they just assumed they would not be meaningfully punished.

What you've posted is completely wrong, but it's the answer to a question I had, which was why the fuck does anyone still bank with Wells Fargo? There must be a lot of people cynical enough to think all banks are that bad.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scan...

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#64

Post by silisili »

throwayyy479087 wrote: post #48
silisili wrote: post #17

Why is it -always- Wells Fargo. There are thousands of banks out there, and Wells Fargo is not even close to being the biggest. But why are they in the news every year for some illegal dealings? It feels like they should be broken up or something at this point.

Ghetto Loans for Mud People should have resulted in the corporate death penalty.

I had to Google that one. Why would anyone do business with these people?

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#65

Post by dimitrios1 »

kodyo wrote: post #44
Meekro wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you mean, but what's the alternative? How should you behave if you're exempt from normal social boundaries because of your personal tragedy? Shout at random people? Throw things? Punch some guy in the face? Seems to me it's better to try and be kind, and treat others right despite your horrible situation. The person you're treating cruelly because of your personal trauma could easily be going through a tra…

Banks would rightly collapse if people took their business to credit unions. No random violence required.

Credit unions are all the rage when the economy is roaring, but they are typically the first to run into issues or fold on first sight of troubled waters. Their history is full of examples of having to be rescued by the federal government, including all the times commercial banks had to be rescued.

The main difference in my view is struggling commercial banks get absorbed, where as struggling credit unions close.

I am not sure which one is better, but I am wary of all the calls to go all in on credit unions. They've been available for almost a century now. They have a noble goal in that they've always tried to serve those in need, but I am not sure they are the solution.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#66

Post by cool_dude85 »

mrtksn wrote: post #58
obblekk wrote: post #9

I feel so much cognitive dissonance realizing that there are hard working people literally losing their home and shelter wrongly while I might be sitting across from them at any time, expecting them to behave within normal social boundaries. Imagine a family with a new born, working 50+ hours at a physically demanding job, making $80k/yr combined, and then losing their home for no reason... and then being expected to…

I have a question, do people really protest in designated areas in the US? I know sometimes there are riots but from what I can see on the media it looks like people gather somewhere close to the subject and chant and wave banners. I find it strange because in Europe the norm is to disturb the daily life. Farmers spray policemen with milk, train operators stop working, the younger and more anarchist ones burn cars an…

In the US, the police (and people not involved in the protests) will happily beat you up, run you over, or shoot and kill you for disruptive protests.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#67

Post by feet »

mrtksn wrote: post #58
obblekk wrote: post #9

I feel so much cognitive dissonance realizing that there are hard working people literally losing their home and shelter wrongly while I might be sitting across from them at any time, expecting them to behave within normal social boundaries. Imagine a family with a new born, working 50+ hours at a physically demanding job, making $80k/yr combined, and then losing their home for no reason... and then being expected to…

I have a question, do people really protest in designated areas in the US? I know sometimes there are riots but from what I can see on the media it looks like people gather somewhere close to the subject and chant and wave banners. I find it strange because in Europe the norm is to disturb the daily life. Farmers spray policemen with milk, train operators stop working, the younger and more anarchist ones burn cars an…

In the US I bet any farmer who sprays police with milk would be instantly shot

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#68

Post by pksebben »

_skel wrote: post #36
Analemma_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example number ten thousand of why the "vote with your dollars and don't do business with them" defense of capitalism fails completely in practice.

> Example number ten thousand of why the "vote with your dollars and don't do business with them" defense of capitalism fails completely in practice. Example number ten thousand of how everything bad is blamed on "capitalism." It's a lazy, shallow, knee-jerk reaction that is plaguing this site and ought to be forbidden by the guidelines. When you apply for a mortgage you are informed in advance that it might be sold.…

your analysis of the situation as being interchangeable is rendered invalid by the story you're responding to, and claiming "you should have read the fine print" is clearly bad faith in an era where EULAs are a half mile long. Also, to say "don't buy it if you don't like it" ignores a whole ton of a nuanced and complex situation, where there might not be better alternatives.

I would be more than happy to discuss why it is some of us have beef with capitalism, if you're open to a level headed discussion.

The idea that a free market allows the creation of opportunity and choice is powerful, but what I think many of us have seen happen is that a free market doesn't remain free, as wealthier interests will move to cement power through use of funds. The banks are the most prone example of this I can think of.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#69

Post by twblalock »

kodyo wrote: post #50
twblalock wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would you break up Wells Fargo into a subset of businesses that had a chance of surviving on their own? This is especially bad for a bank. Customers would freak out and leave. I can't find a single historical example of a bank breakup that didn't result in the destruction of the entire business.

Customers freaking out and leaving would be awesome.

Destruction of jobs and services != justice.

Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers

#70

Post by _8j50 »

obblekk wrote: post #9

I feel so much cognitive dissonance realizing that there are hard working people literally losing their home and shelter wrongly while I might be sitting across from them at any time, expecting them to behave within normal social boundaries. Imagine a family with a new born, working 50+ hours at a physically demanding job, making $80k/yr combined, and then losing their home for no reason... and then being expected to…

It is with bitterness and misery people learn that sometimes violence is neccessary.
Post reply on HN