Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Communism
more like socialism
This is a government program to help very private banks protect their very private profits. You can hate communism and socialism but that should involve knowing what they are, or at least what they aren’t.
NP. I think the pp’s point is that banks should be charging the risky people fees to offset their risky mortgages and protect their own private profits that way. Interest rates and fees have always been a function of risk since that’s how the banks protect their investments. It shouldn’t be responsible people paying more fees for this, even if risky people still pay fees as well like they should.
This point can’t be made credibly by shouting out social systems designed to not enrich private banks.
To your point, private banks have since their inception taken advantage of blocked or limited access to bank resources in minority and poor communities to charge usurious fees to these communities for basic banking services. This has been the subject of decades of litigation. It has allowed banks to amass fortunes, while maintaining higher income clients by offering them better rates. Banks make money however the law allows them, as well as through extralegal ways until available laws are enforced. If you identify people being treated unfairly by a bank, that means there is a group of even richer people benefiting from that policy. Banks benefit when each group focuses anxiety on supposed unfair gains to the people below them instead of massive gains to the people above them. Look up! [/quote
None of the above is true. What even is a “private bank.” This is just silly. Do you know what the ECOA is? CRA? TILA? Humda?