Public Money by right - direct experiences please!

[psholtz]

There is no risk of the check being bad.

The check is being cashed at the bank upon which it is drawn.

The bank can check whether or not it is good (and it is good) right then and there.

In a general case, though, there is no reason for me to underwrite the risk associated w/ bad checks. Or, if the bank wishes me to underwrite this risk, I can do so at the terms I discussed above ($2,000 up-front processing fee, and 15,000% compounded continously on the face value of the check while we're waiting for the bank's check to clear). Making sure the check clears is the bank's responsibility, not mine. Do you know why? b/c if it were up to me, I would do it the plain and simple way: I'd call up the issuing bank on the which the check is drawn, do a quick funds verification, and decide right then and there whether or not the check can be paid.

I'd have the whole thing done and settled in 5 minutes.

Just think how much $$ I'd save the bank in interest alone, doing it my way(!) (per the terms I specified above).

But that's not how the bank does it.

Instead, the bank insists on doing their way.. their own, cumbersome, error-prone, 3-4 day long verification/check clearing procedure, and -- amazingly -- these criminals are asking me to underwrite the risk associated w/ this process(!)

Blasphemy!

I do not assume responsibility for things over which I have no control.

This is a basic, absolutely basic law of responsibility, and it's not one that I'm going to violate at the behest of some common knave such as yourself, who can do no better than resort to petty insults when legal arguments fail you.

What the banks are doing is something akin to this: there's a plane crash, but instead of the airline company (or FAA) getting sued for negligence, it's the (surviving) passengers on the plane who are sued(!!), and or their surviving family members! Why? b/c obviously it was THEIR fault that the plane crashed, no?? Because banking is shrouded in a layer of mystery, people don't realize that the scam the banks are running on them is just this simple, and just this outrageous. Yet the scam becomes evident if people just stop for a moment and think about it.

Hell, it's great work if you can find it.

Getting back on point, so far as the bank is concerned, it's only responsibility is to see that I get paid, regardless of the cost to the bank. If the check is bad, that's a problem between the bank and the person who wrote the check, not a problem between me and that person.

If this is such a problem for banks (and I don't think it is; the problem for banks is the toxic sludge they've built up for themselves in the derivatives market), then maybe banks should stop issuing flimsy commercial paper??

Biblically, we're not even really supposed to be using paper money/checks anyway: Even shlemah vatsedek yiheyeh-lach eyfah shlemah vatsedek yiheyeh-lach (But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have) (Deut 25:15) To the extent that we do use commerical paper, it should take the form of cheques (i.e., pre-paid financial instruments like cashier's cheques, traveler's cheques, postal money orders, warehouse receipts, etc) rather than checks (i.e., post-paid financial instruments, which carry a non-zero risk of non-payment and over which we are currently arguing).

The former is a much more responsible manner of payment than the later.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by psholtz

There is no risk of the check being bad.

The check is being cashed at the bank upon which it is drawn.

The bank can check whether or not it is good (and it is good) right then and there.

In a general case, though, there is no reason for me to underwrite the risk associated w/ bad checks. Or, if the bank wishes me to underwrite this risk, I can do so at the terms I discussed above ($2,000 up-front processing fee, and 15,000% compounded continously on the face value of the check while we're waiting for the bank's check to clear). Making sure the check clears is the bank's responsibility, not mine. Do you know why? b/c if it were up to me, I would do it the plain and simple way: I'd call up the issuing bank on the which the check is drawn, do a quick funds verification, and decide right then and there whether or not the check can be paid.
You are quite delusional. It isn’t going to happen. Having you arrested for disturbing the peace and trespassing that could happen. The bank refusing to cash anything for you could also happen.

I'd have the whole thing done and settled in 5 minutes.

Just think how much $$ I'd save the bank in interest alone, doing it my way(!) (per the terms I specified above).

But that's not how the bank does it.

Instead, the bank insists on doing their way.. their own, cumbersome, error-prone, 3-4 day long verification/check clearing procedure, and -- amazingly -- these criminals are asking me to underwrite the risk associated w/ this process(!)
As is their right.

Blasphemy!

I do not assume responsibility for things over which I have no control.
I doubt seriously if you assume responsibility for things you can control either.

This is a basic, absolutely basic law of responsibility, and it's not one that I'm going to violate at the behest of some common knave such as yourself, who can do no better than resort to petty insults when legal arguments fail you.
Nothing petty about the truth.

What the banks are doing is something akin to this: there's a plane crash, but instead of the airline company (or FAA) getting sued for negligence, it's the (surviving) passengers on the plane who are sued(!!), and or their surviving family members! Why? b/c obviously it was THEIR fault that the plane crashed, no?? Because banking is shrouded in a layer of mystery, people don't realize that the scam the banks are running on them is just this simple, and just this outrageous. Yet the scam becomes evident if people just stop for a moment and think about it.
I’m sorry that the intricacies of dealing with a bank baffle you, but then I suspect that is your normal state.

Hell, it's great work if you can find it.

Getting back on point, so far as the bank is concerned, it's only responsibility is to see that I get paid, regardless of the cost to the bank. If the check is bad, that's a problem between the bank and the person who wrote the check, not a problem between me and that person.
Again, wrong, the bank is not in the business of losing money on bad checks, and it gets to set the rules on how they are handled subject to the rules the comptroller and Congress set down.

If this is such a problem for banks (and I don't think it is; the problem for banks is the toxic sludge they've built up for themselves in the derivatives market), then maybe banks should stop issuing flimsy commercial paper??
Again, the bank did not issue the check if it came from your employer, unless you are saying you were paid by a cashier’s check, at which point we are speaking about something different, but the bank still gets to make the rules.

Biblically, we're not even really supposed to be using paper money/checks anyway: Even shlemah vatsedek yiheyeh-lach eyfah shlemah vatsedek yiheyeh-lach (But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have) (Deut 25:15) To the extent that we do use commerical paper, it should take the form of cheques (i.e., pre-paid financial instruments like cashier's cheques, traveler's cheques, postal money orders, warehouse receipts, etc) rather than checks (i.e., post-paid financial instruments, which carry a non-zero risk of non-payment and over which we are currently arguing).

The former is a much more responsible manner of payment than the later.

***********

[psholtz]

This thread is degrading (at least from one side of the aisle) into a name-calling fest, and I see no reason to continue down that path, nor to detract from the main theme of public money v. private credit.

I'll simply say that if banks are not in the business of losing business on bad checks (i.e., post-paid financial instruments), perhaps they should get back in the business of making money on good cheques (i.e., pre-paid financial instruments)

The latter is a more responsible way to conduct business, and is more in line w/ Biblical teaching.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by psholtz

This thread is degrading (at least from one side of the aisle) into a name-calling fest, and I see no reason to continue down that path, nor to detract from the main theme of public money v. private credit.

I'll simply say that if banks are not in the business of losing business on bad checks (i.e., post-paid financial instruments), perhaps they should get back in the business of making money on good cheques (i.e., pre-paid financial instruments)

The latter is a more responsible way to conduct business, and is more in line w/ Biblical teaching.

There is no risk of the check being bad.

The check is being cashed at the bank upon which it is drawn.

Notorial Dissent is a troll. He is smart enough to have figured that out all along. That the boss's bank already knows the risk is nil.

He has been playing you on that misdirection for pages now.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Notorial Dissent is a troll. He is smart enough to have figured that out all along. That the boss's bank already knows the risk is nil.

He has been playing you on that misdirection for pages now.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Yes, I noticed the trolling a while ago.

Still, I enjoy the mental gymnastics..

I'll try not to feed the trolls as much in the future.. LOL..

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Yes, I noticed the trolling a while ago.

Still, I enjoy the mental gymnastics..

I'll try not to feed the trolls as much in the future.. LOL..

The guy (gal?) is a Quatloser. One can learn from mental gymnastics. I was comparing him/her to Shoonra, a career law librarian and assuming him/her not worth the trouble.

I play a lot of chess - mental gymnastics. Once you learn the rules, there is really nothing more to learn but mental gymnastics.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

***********
he bank is not in the business of losing money on bad checks,

Heaven forbid ! They might have to run the printing press for another .001 second!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by indio007

Heaven forbid ! They might have to run the printing press for another .001 second!

June 24, 2008 -- Money being pulled out of New York City banks

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20080624


WMR's United Nations sources report that there has been a sudden rush in requests for foreign exchange wire transfer requests from New York City banks. The sudden demand for transferring funds abroad has resulted in a 24 to 48-hour processing delay due to the sheer volume of requests.

Foreign employees at the United Nations are transferring their money from accounts at the United Nations Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) and other New York City banks, both domestic and foreign-owned, and the move has been sudden.

There has been no explanation for the sudden wire transfer activity, although the rumor mill suggests fears of a sudden economic collapse and/or a U.S. and Israeli military attack on Iran, which could touch off a wider regional conflict.