Fantastic Rant ...

[Carol Haynes]

Don't you just love banks? Well no not really - but here is a template for dealing with them:

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Subject-Senior-moment-98-year-156464.S.39398197

[Stoic Joker]

While I've read it before, it was well worth reading it again.

[cyberdiva]

Thanks, Carol.  This made my day!  (Yeah, well, I don't really have a life.)

[zridling]

Incredible. Thanks for sharing!

[Carol Haynes]

Some are reporting it is apparently a fake - but nevertheless I love the sentiments 

[Stoic Joker]

nevertheless I love the sentiments

As do I. The nay sayers should really stop and think really hard about what they are doing. This woman should be wontedly willed into existence, given a name, and then publicized until every man, woman, and child on the planet knows it by heart. Her name (now a common household word) should then become the 8th dirty word you can't use on television and reserved for exclusive use on bank personnel when they are once again trying to stick it in to the elbow.

Places like Bank of America, which I just pulled out of last week because their constant fees were draining my savings account. They actually have the balls to charge me for using my money?!? Oh hell no.

I think they should erect a statue of this woman in the center of every town as a hero to the common man ... and then hang a banker from it, at least once a year ... Just until they (the banks) start catching on to the whole when enough is enough thing.

[cranioscopical]

I think they should erect a statue of this woman in the center of every town as a hero to the common man ... and then hang a banker from it

Personally I think the arm of the statue should be held aloft and the banker caused to adopt a fundamental position on that 

[4wd]

Personally I think the arm of the statue should be held aloft and the banker caused to adopt a fundamental position on that 

That could imply that the banker are mere puppets - personally I favour drawn and quartering.

[Renegade]

Banks are little more than legalized criminal institutions. They are amoral, deceitful, evil agencies.

Credit creation through fractional reserve banking essentially hands over the money supply to banks allowing them to print money. It moves sovereign currencies from the state to private banks. Today, there are no more sovereign currencies. The money is controlled by private interests. This is NOT in the best interests of the people of the state.

The overnight lending rate is obtained by temporarily stealing funds from people. When you transfer money, those funds take a few days to clear. During that time, the bank has control of that money. They then use it for overnight lending to profit from it. It does not belong to them, yet they profit from it and give nothing to the rightful owners.

The subprime mortgage crisis is yet another example of how irresponsible greed ran wild.

There is no end to the laundry list of evil there.

I have more respect for drug dealing and prostitution than for the financial industry. Drug dealers sell a product with everyone knowing full well what it is. Prostitutes sell a service under similar terms.

Banks and financial institutions on the other hand pimp out their services under false pretenses and conceal the true nature of their business. They are deceitful and evil.

[40hz]

Banks are little more than legalized criminal institutions. They are amoral, deceitful, evil agencies.

...

Banks and financial institutions on the other hand pimp out their services under false pretenses and conceal the true nature of their business. They are deceitful and evil.

@Renegade - love reading your words - and generally think the world of you - but c'mon...you've got to get the hyperbole under control a little better for 2011.  

While I've read it before, it was well worth reading it again.

Guess I did too. Snopes covered this "letter" previously. Link to it here.

Update: I now see the same Snopes link has begun showing up in the comments that follow the LinkedIn article starting yesterday.

Some are reporting it is apparently a fake - but nevertheless I love the sentiments  

Spot on! Just because it isn't real doesn't make it any less true. A subtle point that. But it's an important one.

[Renegade]

Banks are little more than legalized criminal institutions. They are amoral, deceitful, evil agencies.

...

Banks and financial institutions on the other hand pimp out their services under false pretenses and conceal the true nature of their business. They are deceitful and evil.

@Renegade - love reading your words - and generally think the world of you - but c'mon...you've got to get the hyperbole under control a little better for 2011. 

Ok, maybe a little bit of a stretch, but not much.

Using your money without your authorization (e.g. withhold it during transfers) to profit from is misappropriation of funds and is criminal. Well, actually the banks have made it all legal, so it's not technically criminal.


The credit sector revenue model shifted a while back. They used to make responsible loans to people that could pay the money back and then profit from the interest on the loans. Now, the industry makes its money from making loans to anyone at all and charging fees for usage and late charges. Bills conveniently don't get delivered on time, causing further late fees. i.e. They target people that cannot afford to borrow money, then keep them in a state of constant debt that they can never escape from, debt-slavery. How does that not count as evil, or at a very minimum as deceitful?

I'm only scratching the surface there.



For what it's worth, my wife is doing her PhD in Finance, and we don't agree on any of this stuff either.

[Stoic Joker]

While I've read it before, it was well worth reading it again.

Guess I did too. Snopes covered this "letter" previously. Link to it here.

Update: I now see the same Snopes link has begun showing up in the comments that follow the LinkedIn article starting yesterday.

Actually the snopes links and "It's a fake" battle cry was already in the LinkedIn comments (albeit far down the page) when I did the first post here right after Carol. I saw no point in raining on her parade, so I didn't mention it.

However I did (perhaps a bit too subtly) allude to it in my second post by saying "The nay sayers should really stop and think really hard about what they are doing. This woman should be wontedly willed into existence"...

[40hz]

For what it's worth, my wife is doing her PhD in Finance, and we don't agree on any of this stuff either.

Hmm...I've got my degree from management school, so I think I can understand why.  

PhD in finance huh? Pretty cool! And look at the bright side. She may someday go on to write one of those marvelous formulas that finally succeeds in crashing the entire banking and finance sector once and for all. (Why should the hedge funds have all the fun?)

Ever to Excel as they would say at my alma mater!

[Renegade]

PhD in finance huh? Pretty cool! And look at the bright side. She may someday go on to write one of those marvelous formulas that finally succeeds in crashing the entire banking and finance sector once and for all. (Why should the hedge funds have all the fun?)

I'll nickname her "John Galt" then.

[40hz]

PhD in finance huh? Pretty cool! And look at the bright side. She may someday go on to write one of those marvelous formulas that finally succeeds in crashing the entire banking and finance sector once and for all. (Why should the hedge funds have all the fun?)

I'll nickname her "John Galt" then.

Wow! An objectivist with a PhD in Finance? That will be a first...

[mahesh2k]

Is it just me or the link in first post is not working anymore ?

[Carol Haynes]

Still works here ... if you can't read it here it is quoted in full:

Article

Subject: Senior moment - A 98 year old woman in the UK wrote this to her bank.

The bank manager thought it amusing enough to have it published in the Times.
Dear Sir,

I am writing to thank you for bouncing my cheque with which I endeavoured to pay my plumber last month. By my calculations, three nanoseconds must have elapsed between his presenting the cheque and the arrival in my account of the funds needed to honour it. I refer, of course, to the automatic monthly deposit of my Pension, an arrangement, which, I admit, has been in place for only thirty eight years. You are to be commended for seizing that brief window of opportunity, and also for debiting my account £30 by way of penalty for the inconvenience caused to your bank.

My thankfulness springs from the manner in which this incident has caused me to rethink my errant financial ways. I noticed that whereas I personally attend to your telephone calls and letters, but when I try to contact you, I am confronted by the impersonal, overcharging, pre-recorded, faceless entity which your bank has become. From now on, I, like you, choose only to deal with a flesh-and-blood person. My mortgage and loan payments will therefore and hereafter no longer be automatic, but will arrive at your bank by cheque, addressed personally and confidentially to an employee at your bank whom you must nominate. Be aware that it is an offence under the Postal Act for any other person to open such an envelope.

Please find attached an Application Contact Status which I require your chosen employee to complete. I am sorry it runs to eight pages, but in order that I know as much about him or her as your bank knows about me, there is no alternative. Please note that all copies of his or her medical history must be countersigned by a Solicitor, and the mandatory details of his/her financial situation (income, debts, assets and liabilities) must be accompanied by documented proof. In due course, I will issue your employee with PIN number which he/she must quote in dealings with me. I regret that it cannot be shorter than 28 digits but, again, I have modelled it on the number of button presses required of me to access my account balance on your phone bank service. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Let me level the playing field even further. When you call me, press buttons as follows:

1. To make an appointment to see me.
2. To query a missing payment.
3. To transfer the call to my living room in case I am there.
4. To transfer the call to my bedroom in case I am sleeping.
5. To transfer the call to my toilet in case I am attending to nature.
6. To transfer the call to my mobile phone if I am not at home.
7. To leave a message on my computer (a password to access my computer is required.
A password will be communicated to you at a later date to the Authorized Contact.)
8. To return to the main menu and to listen to options 1 through to 8.
9. To make a general complaint or inquiry, the contact will then be put on hold, pending the attention of my automated answering service. While this may, on occasion, involve a lengthy wait, uplifting music will play for the duration of the call.

Regrettably, but again following your example, I must also levy an establishment fee to cover the setting up of this new arrangement.

May I wish you a happy, if ever so slightly less prosperous, New Year.

Your Humble Client

(Remember: This was written by a 98 year old woman; DOESN'T SHE MAKE YOU PROUD!)

[cmpm]

hm, well I think snopes is wrong in their closing remarks.

http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/takethat.asp

Saying that should this situation present itself, it's more the customers fault.
I have to disagree, seeing that my bank used for 5 years of service (so far) will cover any checks with insufficient funds (I can't remember if there is a limit) for a period of 7 days before any rejection or penalties.

[Stoic Joker]

hm, well I think snopes is wrong in their closing remarks.

http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/takethat.asp

Saying that should this situation present itself, it's more the customers fault.
I have to disagree, seeing that my bank used for 5 years of service (so far) will cover any checks with insufficient funds (I can't remember if there is a limit) for a period of 7 days before any rejection or penalties.

I was more than a bit irked by that rather unrealistic wise-crack also. The whole point of Electronic Deposit is it is supposed to be guaranteed and hassle free...Or at least that's what they tell you when you sign-up for it...

Back in the "Good Ol' Days"...There was also a courtesy practice of doing all the deposits first, and then the debits were done. Unfortunately that hampered their grubby fee collection claws too much so now they do it (backwards...) in what ever order they come to it in... (BS).

I had one shister credit card company that thought it would be a hoot to play games with the payment timing so they could jack my interest from 7% up to 30%. This was done under the rather foolish assumption that I would be a proper sheeple and just pay it... hehe ...Wrong. If they'd have just been a bit less gready...

Now I pay nothing, IMO they violated the spirit of the contract, and I have chosen to sever the relationship. 

[40hz]

+1
I am so sick of people who can always find it in their hearts to blame the victim. (Shame!)

Sad to see Snopes seems to be getting a little full of themselves too. I liked it more when they just reported the facts without feeling the need to make self-righteous editorial comments.