Buckdog

Buck,

Wanna know how to say NO to the bankers of our nation? Stop using the banks. Or, rather, stop using ATMs. This is how you deal with a problem in a capitalist society.

The banks don't owe you anything. If you're stupid enough to get so ripped off thats your problem for choosing a bank who charges user fees - some don't. The banks don't owe you free ATM service. If you want to use an ATM, you pay for it. If you think that $1.50 is exorbitant, don't use the ATM. It's VERY, VERY SIMPLE.

Hi leftdog,

I happen to strongly disagree with "olaf".

A true proponent of economic liberties, as many on the right claim, should question the special treatment that Canadian banks receive. The Canadian Government decided that it was better to engage in "protectionist" measures for Canadian banks, than to open them up to competition. One questions whether they'd be able to stand up to Bank of America and Wachovia. Can you imagine if Scotia Bank stopped charging for a chequing account?

The use of ATMs is only but a small part of the larger picture. What about Interact, Chequing, userfees, and the list goes on? To limit it to a simple "don't use ATMs" message greatly misses the larger picture.

That's my two cents, for it's worth.

There's never been a change in favour of the bankee that wasn't brought about by either regulation or competition from banks attempting to gain new accounts after protests about shoddy banking treatment.

Like...the recent RBC situation exposing the bank's American butt kissing by refusing/closing American money accounts to Canadians with dual citizenship in countries dubbed 'suspect' the US of A. (and then the Americans berate people switching to Euros as a world currency?? pasta fazoo) RBC spun fast to find a substitute formula once Snuggles the media mouse asked whyyyyy, whyyyy are you discriminating against Canadians? on camera.

Oi! protests in the UK got banking fees eradicated. They didn't even wait for the imminent legality.

As for existing in the modern world without banks, no, I can't exist without banks unless I go completely offgrid and hide the cash my employer gives me each paycheque (yeah, like /that/ will happen in 99% of employment) in a convenient sunken pot.

Not having an account is how those nice free-market "between paycheque" loan stores make their usurious little profits, since they also cash paycheques for those who haven't got a regular account. These helpful niche market providers are often under investigation for usury. Why just this last August 'A-OK Payday Loans' was convicted of taking illegal interest on a loan in the guise of...exorbitant fees. 'Processing fees' and 'Deferral fees'.

ATMs have come to us in Canada at a far, faster rate than in the US, because we have stable, nationally instituted regulated banks to support the system. They have replaced banking hours, staff and the need to be lined up at the branch for hours to make sure one has cash when the bank is closed.

Canadians love their ATMs, as the entire economy does, since our point of sale purchases are much convenienced by carrying a plastic card rather than lots of l'argent to lose/be robbed of. With no effect on debt. Cash in. Cash out. Not a cheque. Not a promissory. Not a credit card. Moneymoneymoney on the barrelhead.

Just no paper in between. E-cash. How much more money do you think would need to be printed if everyone had to resort to it instead of e-debit? At what cost to the taxpayer? Seems Canadian consumers are doing their bit to improve the national economy and cut costs, coast to coast to coast.

But the banks don't owe me anything? Hell, yeah, the banks /do/ owe me. They owe me an honest accounting, every damn day my money is working for them. They're using my money to make themselves money without they themselves losing money. They /want/ my money to make them money. They want my money to make them money with the least return possible to me of money that should go to them.

I want to pay my bills and have a safe, progressive delivery system for my purchasing and saving power without actually, you know, having to make a physical trip to the bank branch, every bloody time. It's a little game we play. It's even kinder to the environment when it means less driving.

Oddly, Banks forget they don't get far without client accounts, so they have historically risen to levels of hubris on the greenbacks of their power and needed deflating time to time. By the genpop /and/ by government. And the words "run on the bank".

Voting with your feet is an option in consumer choice in this country (in urban centres at least), but only after VOICING a dissenting opinion. The bank is building on your money. Just seems to work better to dissent, get reasons for unrepentance and make sure everyone knows what the issue is.

Canadian Banks can change and can fix things after positive dissent. They have precedent. The UK is a big precedent. If they can defend the expenses, let them lay it out.

If they can't...I think this is a simmering resentment in the country and has been for a few years now.

The ironic twist of the knife is the Tories saying "hey...that's not a bad idea.."

Buck,

I think the buggers should be publically shamed and have this nonsense put right in their face?

Was that a question? And the only way to put it right in their face is to not provide them with your business.

Also, I happen to strongly disagree with "canadian tar heal".

A true proponent of economic liberties, as many on the right claim, should question the special treatment that Canadian banks receive.

I do.

The use of ATMs is only but a small part of the larger picture. What about Interact, Chequing, userfees, and the list goes on? To limit it to a simple "don't use ATMs" message greatly misses the larger picture.

But we're not talking about the "larger picture" here. We're talking about a specific policy which is effectively saying that banks should provide a service to non-customers for free. This is what I oppose.

Now, with the other aspects (interac, checking, etc.), the same principle should apply. Either a) choose a bank with fees you deem to be fair; b) don't use a bank.

There are other options out there, some banks don't charge user fees at all, for example. Who are you to decide what is a fair price for a service you are voluntarily paying for? Is the cost of an iMac fair? A cup of coffee at Starbucks? A pair of jeans? What other goods and services should we set a price for?

Hi Olaf,

I'm not sure we're talking past one another.

But we're not talking about the "larger picture" here. We're talking about a specific policy which is effectively saying that banks should provide a service to non-customers for free. This is what I oppose.

I haven't spoken to the issue of whether a particular should or should not be free. Thus, the statement above does not relate to my point.

Either a) choose a bank with fees you deem to be fair; b) don't use a bank.

The argument presupposes a lot about the bank market in this country. The reality of choosing among different banks based on services and charges is incredibly small. Moreover, there are little to no substitutes (eg, credit unions, savings and loans, etc.). And the barriers to entry are so high that it is extremely unlikely that a new competitor could truly compete, much less affect the charges and services of the existing banks.

In short, the choice proposed above does not amount to much of a choice. This is not a situation where normal market forces apply. Arguing for a free market requires a change to the current protectionist system.

In contrast, you might argue from the extreme left in arguing that the Government should step in further. I'm not sure that I could faithfully make such an argument, since I disagree with this approach almost as much as I do with the current system.