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

171–180 of 465 posts

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

#171

Post by bumby »

klyrs wrote: post #121
bumby wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that they main point of ethics is providing a decision framework in the grey areas (if they were clear-cut, there would be no discussion). But that seems off-place here. It leads to the question about "when is it okay to steal?" There's an obvious "defense of necessity", but that doesn't stop at stealing someone's means to a living. If it's legal to steal food in a disaster, it doesn't matter if that food com…

It's important to discuss alternatives, teach problem solving, etc. But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This isn't something that I brought up with my kid, btw. He led the conversation, he was asking honest and innocent questions. Shutting the door in his face loses the opportunity to discuss nuanced ethics when he…

>But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you.

This is a misinterpretation of my point, though. When I brought up the "defense of necessity", it was a direct acknowledgement that sometimes stealing is ok (or is at least, the more moral action).

However, communicating vague heuristics based on shaky principles can set the ground for rationalization that leads to immoral behavior. When we read about abhorrent behavior (like in the featured article), it's more often than not the result of a line of rationalizations rooted in human biases rather than a principled moral stance. All I'm saying is the OP's guideline of "don't steal tools or a vehicle" isn't a particularly good first principle (for one, as the previous example shows, it could still result in starving).

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

#172

Post by kmeisthax »

_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.…

>When you apply for a mortgage you are informed in advance that it might be sold.

Ok, and where can I go get the mortgages that won't be sold and have comparable financing terms to the ones that do?

Oh wait, those don't exist (or cost way more)? Hmm. I see.

Here's the thing: free markets can only ever hope to work in a world where people have total freedom of association. If I can't take my business elsewhere, then I'm not dealing with a private corporation anymore. I'm dealing with government with extra steps.

Likewise, capitalism and free markets aren't interchangeable terms. Free markets are a system of resource allocation, and capitalism is just private ownership of an enterprise. There's been plenty of examples of brutally repressive regimes which still had private capital ownership, free markets be damned. Because free markets do not actually maximize profits for capitalist owners.

So I think it's fair to blame capitalism, even if there's some government floating around in there, too. Consider them joint-and-severally liable.

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

#173

Post by sitkack »

runako wrote: post #150

Wells Fargo is the worst repeat offender in American consumer financial services. There should be serious discussions around withdrawing their banking license. It's incredibly difficult to get a banking license in this country, and it does not serve the public good to have this predatory institution operating under the aegis of the American government. Pull their license, let some new entrants into the market.

Who went to jail for these crimes? People lost their houses and their transportation to work.

I am all for a corporate death penalty.

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

#174

Post by sieabahlpark »

pcorsaro wrote: post #166
__derek__ wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an inflated mortgage entering at the peak of the housing market We are well past the peak of the housing market.

Houses aren't selling in hours anymore, sure. A ton in my area are sitting for days, but prices haven't come down all that much.

No post body was provided.

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

#175

Post by kelipso »

azemetre wrote: post #120
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just watched a younger man bring his elderly and handicapped father into a Planet Fitness to take a shower because they were both homeless. I am homeless as well. That fine should all go to ending homlessness. And if you vote for the D or R you are voting for the same party; the O Party, as in Oligarchs.

I'm sorry but if one thing America should have learned over the last six years is that the two parties are nothing alike, equating them as the same and making a poor faith effort that voting is useless is extremely moronic.

It's like Maslow's hierarchy of needs...if you're wealthy enough, you can afford to distinguish between the two parties; if you're not, the two parties are the exact same.

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

#176

Post by ProAm »

twblalock wrote: post #69
kodyo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Customers freaking out and leaving would be awesome.

Destruction of jobs and services != justice.

> Destruction of jobs and services != justice.

But it does send a message to the broader industry. Sometimes a few rouge cancer cells can kill the entire host. And this is the second time around for them.

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

#177

Post by bob1029 »

runako wrote: post #150

Wells Fargo is the worst repeat offender in American consumer financial services. There should be serious discussions around withdrawing their banking license. It's incredibly difficult to get a banking license in this country, and it does not serve the public good to have this predatory institution operating under the aegis of the American government. Pull their license, let some new entrants into the market.

I agree their charter should effectively be revoked at this point. A de novo bank (i.e. being granted a new charter) is a near impossibility in the US. Something this difficult to obtain should be just as easy to lose.

Unfortunately, the FDIC can't just waltz in and shut down the whole damn bank without causing a nation-wide panic attack. Similar to failed banks, something like this would need to be dealt with using a special procedure to prevent bank runs.

I think the best course of action would be to vacate the Wells Fargo board (and all officers), replacing them with members sourced from other US financial institutions.

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

#178

Post by shitlord »

sizzle wrote: post #139
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 can’t even afford a home right now on a tech salary with sky high rent paying off my landlords 2% refi’d mortgage and student loans making it impossible at 6-7% fed interest rate hikes and inflated home prices after the insane COVID housing price bubble increase. I feel like life won’t start for another 5+ years for people like me, unless we gamble on being underwater on an inflated mortgage entering at the peak of…

If you're living in a tech hub and really want to own a home in the short term, get a remote job and move somewhere cheaper. It sucks, but these places aren't going to get cheaper anytime soon. Meanwhile there's plenty of property in the rest of the country that's more affordable. When the market recovers, you might be able to sell your home for a profit and move back.

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

#179

Post by dang »

obblekk wrote: post #46
dang wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one was later so we'll merge it hither. Thanks!

Out of curiosity, do you union upvoters set for merges, or something similar? Not sure if that would be good, just curious.

Happy to answer but I don't understand the question!

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

#180

Post by karaterobot »

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…

> I have a question, do people really protest in designated areas in the US?

No, people can protest wherever they want as a rule, under the freedom of assembly clause in the first amendment. It's pretty clear, and is well established (as are the exceptions). The wording of Article 12 in the E.U. fundamental rights charter is, by my reading, purposefully more restrictive than how the Supreme Court has generally interpreted "Freedom of Assembly" in the U.S., but I am not an expert on that.

In practice, you sometimes see things like "Free Speech Zones", which are indeed Orwellian, but also controversial and exceptional. You shouldn't think of them as the rule, because you also see things like the CHOP in Seattle.

Post reply on HN