what happened to insightful cartoons?

[Dejavu]

50 years old and still pretty keen on the importance of freedom.

 

[Raesvelg]

Entertaining in the blindness of its application, if nothing else.

 

[Tristam Green]

Youtube - Bastion of Freedom, Light of Hope, place for ads during videos.

 

[Raesvelg]

For me it was a certain irony in an obvious anti-Socialism/Communism tract being co-opted in the way that it was, now pushing... Libertarianism.

That's... still an -ism.

I also find it amusing when the annoying pop-ups contend that the reason domestic jobs are moving out of the country has to do with excessive government regulation. Which, in some industries, has an element of truth, but for the most part even there, it's an issue of wages. You can simply pay people in other countries less to do the same work.

Or that by getting in bed with the government, unions somehow lessened their power. Lots of funny things in those pop-ups.

 

[Morcheeba]

I rather enjoyed seeing "see they didn't keep their money in banks, you shouldn't either' which I have wanted to do for many many years. I hate the idea that these institutions have my money locked away. That they can lock it or lose it, skim from the top over and over for merely having it in their bank, but I'm given no other option because I need my cheques cashed. To bring my cheque to a cash center they would take a percentage on every $100. Just so I can have the money I have worked for, the money I have already paid taxes out of. I really never fully understood how that's right never mind fair. I'm given NO option but to allow random businesses the right to take my money after the government takes their share.

><

I have felt this way a looong time, I want to keep my money under my mattress, I trust to that more than I do banks.

 

[Raesvelg]

I have felt this way a looong time, I want to keep my money under my mattress, I trust to that more than I do banks.

If you were to abolish banks, you would also abolish loans. You are, of course, free to find a financial institution with terms more to your liking. But banks definitely serve a vital role in the economic system.

 

[Dejavu]

lol i guess i should have watched it with the annotations on... truthfully they always annoy me so i turned them off before the video started and it was a link that was forwarded to me by a friend. I actually do think that some money should be kept in banks, but at the same time some should be kept at home, some should be kept in hard goods(gold) and most should be properly invested... That is called diversification of risk.

This way if dollar crashes u have gold, house burns u have everything else, stocks dip u have everything else... etc. There is no perfect way to protect your money the best think you can do is limit your exposure to any one form of risk.

 

[Morcheeba]

If you were to abolish banks, you would also abolish loans. You are, of course, free to find a financial institution with terms more to your liking. But banks definitely serve a vital role in the economic system.

Oh I'm well aware lol. I just don't see why our hand is forced. It's another monopoly to me. There are certain things I feel we should have rights with, and right to our 'cash' literally is one of them, once the taxes are deducted.. it's all ours, but the system doesn't allow that as an option.

Mortgages and car loans aside, there are many that could do without banks.

BTW.. I always thought those types of cartoons were interesting. I remember seeing many. As a child though it was the colours and mockery, it was the parents that it was directed towards lol

 

[Raesvelg]

That's a problem with the system of cheques (checks) more than the system of banks, per se. Ideally it's a problem we can move past in the next 10-20 years or so.

The reason banks charge money for the cashing of checks (depending on the given institution, of course, my bank does not under most circumstances) is that the bank is assuming an element of risk by doing so. At the time the check is cashed, the bank does not necessarily know if the account it is being drawn from contains enough cash to cover the value of the check, or whether the entity holding the account can cover any necessary overages/penalties if it does not.

The issue of fees in banking is a sticky one, of course. The technical justification is above. Much like other justifications, it's really only an excuse to do something the bank loves to do, which is squeeze whatever money it can out of any particular operation.

Ultimately we're moving towards a society which, while not cashless per se, will be one in which the banks information systems are sufficiently interconnected that any given bank can know exactly the balance of your account instantly anywhere in the country, if not the world. So cashing a check will have a lot fewer reasons to justify extra fees, if that should be your desire.

Which is not to say that they won't levy them anyway, of course.

 

[Morcheeba]

That's a problem with the system of cheques (checks) more than the system of banks, per se. Ideally it's a problem we can move past in the next 10-20 years or so.

The reason banks charge money for the cashing of checks (depending on the given institution, of course, my bank does not under most circumstances) is that the bank is assuming an element of risk by doing so. At the time the check is cashed, the bank does not necessarily know if the account it is being drawn from contains enough cash to cover the value of the check, or whether the entity holding the account can cover any necessary overages/penalties if it does not.

The issue of fees in banking is a sticky one, of course. The technical justification is above. Much like other justifications, it's really only an excuse to do something the bank loves to do, which is squeeze whatever money it can out of any particular operation.

Ultimately we're moving towards a society which, while not cashless per se, will be one in which the banks information systems are sufficiently interconnected that any given bank can know exactly the balance of your account instantly anywhere in the country, if not the world. So cashing a check will have a lot fewer reasons to justify extra fees, if that should be your desire.

Which is not to say that they won't levy them anyway, of course.

This is very true.

Cheques are a risk. Pieces of paper with questionable value attached, much like cash itself, what with fraudulent bills lol.

I see the reasoning behind the fees, what I fight with is the fact that it's not an option to be paid in cash. Even knowing that that in itself poses a threat to the government taxes. They can't enforce taxing people if it's not regulated by an employer. It would be up to the individual to claim their taxes, and that could just get out of hand. We'd be backtracking, the tax man would literally be knocking at our doors lol.

My bank charges fees all the time, service fees are a bit out of hand, unfortunately there aren't others to choose from that differ much at all. Except of course trust companies, there's only one that I know of.

Just another thorn in my side really, it burns me when things happen. I've had my bank charge a fee on a balance that was waiting for bill payment making the funds go NSF ultimately costing me an additional $40. I can't even keep sufficient track of the fees I'm charged.

 

[Chasym]

At my job we get pay cards that act like debit cards, and on pay day our checks are loaded directly onto the card so we can use it anywhere without having to pay an extra fee to get it cashed somewhere and without having to use a bank