Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Alan Vanneman|3.10.09 @ 12:12PM|#
However lame the service at a nationalized Citibank would be, it wouldn't be as lame as the service at a bankrupt Citibank, now would it? And who kept Citibank from going out of business? Oh, that's right! The fucking federal government!
Taktix®|3.10.09 @ 12:14PM|#
However lame the service at a nationalized Citibank would
be, it wouldn't be as lame as the service at a bankrupt Citibank,
now would it?
That's why they have these things called "other banks."
Citizen Nothing|3.10.09 @ 12:15PM|#
"And who kept Citibank from going out of business? Oh, that's
right! The fucking federal government!"
And there we have the nub of the problem. Thanks, A.V. for your
clarity!
|3.10.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Let us be real-the Citibanks of the world have been able to
treat folks horribly for years and years precisely because they had
gotten so big and precisely because the legal and regulatory
framework was designed in their favor, including monstrous barriers
to entry.
Lots of reasonoids seem to forget that the growth and sheer size of
many multinational outfits, particularly in the banking and other
financial sectors, existed, in large part, because the law was made
and bent for them. It was not because of their ability to make a
superior mouse trap or their outstanding customer service.
Cool Cal|3.10.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Can someone explain to me what the real concrete problems with citibank are, and how exactly they treat people "horribly"? I'm willing to listen, but I've been a citibank customer for about ten years now and I've yet to be raped in the butt or any such thing. In fact, the one time I had an opportunity to be fucked over by the bank - someone got a hold of my pin # via a scam and took out well over the amount in my account at the time - they were amazingly accommodating. I swiftly got all my money back, and got a new account set up just as fast. So, I'd really like to know, is this all anecdotal evidence from just some rube, or do I just have really low expectations and do really good banks give free blow jobs with each deposit?
Lefiti|3.10.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Welcome to your future.
Fuck you, you right-wing fanatic fucks. I'm glad my future is
slipping out of your hands.
Dormouse|3.10.09 @ 12:38PM|#
This isn't something I normally say, but that would have been better with less cursing. It seems whoever made that never heard of subtlety.
|3.10.09 @ 12:58PM|#
CoolCal-
Try www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/citibank.htm
In addition, how about its requirement that one who presents a
citibank check for payment who is not an accountholder with
citibank must pay it $6.00 to cash the check and present one's
social security number?
Spambot|3.10.09 @ 1:23PM|#
"Lots of reasonoids seem to forget that the growth and sheer
size of many multinational outfits, particularly in the banking and
other financial sectors, existed, in large part, because the law
was made and bent for them. It was not because of their ability to
make a superior mouse trap or their outstanding customer
service."
Ummm actually I think most folks here of the libertarian mindset
understand perfectly this concept and it is the basis of why most
of us are not in favor of massive regulation because it does not
give "power to the people" as the average person that advocates for
these regs wants. It is a case of "don't throw me in the briar
patch" by large corps. They well understand how to use the govt. to
squeeze out the competition.
|3.10.09 @ 1:28PM|#
Actually Alan, YOU kept them in business. YOUR money, and mine and our kids', and our grandkids'. So when you tuck in your little ones tonight, thank them for helping keep Citi alive!
|3.10.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Libertymike: That's probably due to something I learned ages ago, when I had a somewhat dodgy employer who regularly wrote rubber checks. If you deposit a bad check, the bank says "Sorry, bad check, you don't really have that money in your account." But if you cash it, they're out the money and they have to go after whoever gave you the check, which is obviously more difficult. The fee is probably an attempt to cover that contingency.
Bronwyn|3.10.09 @ 2:00PM|#
PapayaSF, if the check is written on a citibank account, they know whether or not there are sufficient funds. Ergo, no need for the fee.
Seward|3.10.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Alan Vanneman,
Banks have been going bankrupt in this here republic for well over
two hundred years. The fact that we won't let these banks go under
is one of the most significant drags on our economy; we are simply
delaying the inevitable shake up, restructuring, etc. that would
come about after they leave the field (which they wouldn't really
do anyway - they'd be taken over by someone else in part or in
whole).
The surest way to make sure that the U.S. no longer has a banking
industry which is the world leader is to try to protect it from
change.
|3.10.09 @ 2:06PM|#
Right Bronwyn, except what are you gonna do? Threaten to close
your account? Not cash any more checks at Citibank?
The reason the banks charge that fee is to discourage you from
doing so. You're taking up teller time from the paying folks and
you're not making the bank any money. They'd rather have you go
deposit the money in your own bank, or just open an account there
to avoid the fee.
Bronwyn|3.10.09 @ 2:11PM|#
True...
My main bank-fee gripe is the monthly charge they levy on me for
using Quicken. BankOne - er, Chase - used to charge $10 or $15.
USBank charges $5, I think.
I'd love for someone to explain the justification for that.
|3.10.09 @ 2:14PM|#
I'd love for someone to explain the justification for
that.
It's the same explanation as most "Why are the charging me for
this?" questions. Because they can.
Bronwyn|3.10.09 @ 2:21PM|#
Yeah, and that's pretty much the explanation we were given when
we asked about it, too.
Why are you charging me to use software you neither created nor
provide?
"We just do."
Uhhhh huh
|3.10.09 @ 2:23PM|#
And who kept Citibank from going out of business? Oh, that's
right! The fucking federal government!
ummm so citi bank sucked and thank god the US government took it
over...cuz it would be horrible for a sucky bank to go out of
business?
Wow, Obama voters really are retarded
Nittany Cat|3.10.09 @ 2:34PM|#
"In addition, how about its requirement that one who presents a
citibank check for payment who is not an accountholder with
citibank must pay it $6.00 to cash the check and present one's
social security number?"
That's NOTHING!
I was living in Atlanta and gave my sister a check (for about 6
hours of work I did for Kelly Services) and SUNTRUST wouldn't let
her deosit it into her account unless I showed up in person and
provided ID. A fucking check for $60 from a global corporation
drawn on a major US bank being deposited in one of their own
customer's accounts (my sister's rich BTW).
Yo, fuck SunTrust!
Charles|3.10.09 @ 2:50PM|#
What's weird to me is that, as this video shows, everyone realizes as soon as the government gets their hands on something, it turns to pot. Yet, had Bush or Obama or whoever done the correct thing (sit back and let this recession ride itself out), the same people would be freaking out because the government refused to "do something."
Bronwyn|3.10.09 @ 3:04PM|#
I think the "do something" many Obama voters were looking for was, "pay my mortgage."
|3.11.09 @ 10:02PM|#
Anyone else remember the old Citibank ads (when it was just a NY bank, I think) with Rod Serling, talking about "The Nightmare of Banking?"
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245