Forum Post: Divide and Conquer!
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 2 p.m. EST by emeflag
(88)
from Flagstaff, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Banks, like all corporations, have one and only one goal: maximize profits for their share holders -and- generate as much income as possible for their CEO and top level management. They view their customers as little more than sources of revenue. In order to maximize profits, they will not hesitate to incur whatever costs and fees on their customers that they think they can get away with. So we continue to be nickel-and-dimed to death. The recent decision of BOA to charge $5 to use a debit card is an excellent example.
Well here is an opportunity to divide and conquer. Why not tell BOA that their recent fees are unacceptable to the 99%. The 99% has millions of accounts with BOA. The 99% could choose to boycott BOA until they change their ways. Move your accounts to more reasonable banks. Protest and threaten BOA with boycott until they change their ways. The consumer has tremendous power to institute change if they are willing to refuse to do business with greedy corporations.
The reason why banks should have free checking has nothing to do with saving people money. Free checking will draw more people into a bank and those people will likely get their loans, savings, ect through that bank that was generous enough to give them a free checking account. Derp.
Banks used to offer free checking because they could take your money and lend it to others at a higher interest rate. However, the banks have gotten more greedy and are always looking for more ways to get money from their customers. Divide and Conquer, boycott BOA
This is also truth. It all comes down to one thing: Free checking was and is not offered to save people money. Its there to make the bank money in anyway possible.
I stopped banking with BofA about 2 years ago. I used to tell customers to use BofA and would put BofA first in line when giving customer's loan options. When I was laid off in 2008 due to the financial crisis, BofA turned its back on me. So, other than what they are doing now, I actually have past issues with them. I have stopped many people I know from switching to BofA when Wachovia made the full switch to Wells Fargo. None of them are with BofA and 2 of them actually commented to me about how happy they are that they did not switch to BofA.
Certainly BOA can charge any fees they like and customers can take their business elsewhere. That is exactly why a collective boycott (terminating accounts) by the 99% would give a loud and clear message to BOA that they should consider their customers best interest when making decisions about a new fee. Perhaps the CEO might have to take a cut in pay if their new fews would be eliminated.
When you put fees on things like using a debit card or pulling a statement for your account, you are slapping your customer in the face.
I believe the main reason so many still bank with BofA is due to the fact that they have ATM's everywhere. They have succeeded in making their customers co-dependent. It will mean more discipline/organization but well worth it.
No need to go back to them when they change their ways... Credit unions are better.
I have done far more to give BofA EXACTLY the treatment they have given me. hehehe.......
Bank of America is not forcing anybody to bank with them. It takes an hour or two to pull your money out and move it to your local credit union. They should be and are free to charge whatever they like and the consumer is also free to choose who they bank with. Obama wants to legislate and govern this economy to death. He simply does not understand free capitalism. He needs to go, along with the vomit-inducing three stooges Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor.
On a micro level, you're absolutely right.
On the macro, the problems arise when corporations hold undue sway over government. A government is for the people, not to hinder or help corporations. Free capitalism means Bank of America should make it on it's own merits, not receive bailout money.
If it fails, someone else takes its place and, hopefully, does a better job.
I agree with you 100%. The citizens did not and do not support bailouts. But the government did them anyway. The government 'of the people' is on its death bed.