able to drive a car?
Woman on disability leases a M6
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Get rid of deposit insurance. It takes away the need for banks to prove they will invest your money wisely. At least make the depositors feel some pain if the bank loses their money. Make FDIC only pay 90 cents on the dollar.
I don't understand this. You want your money NOT secured in your bank?? Why penalize yourself?, your already are getting shafted with the low 1-2% interest rate to use your money while you pay anywhere from 5 to 30% (depends on your credit)for using their money. So if the Bank fails you don't want your money back or only 90% of it?
Get rid of deposit insurance. It takes away the need for banks to prove they will invest your money wisely. At least make the depositors feel some pain if the bank loses their money. Make FDIC only pay 90 cents on the dollar.
I don't understand this. You want your money NOT secured in your bank?? Why penalize yourself?, your already are getting shafted with the low 1-2% interest rate to use your money while you pay anywhere from 5 to 30% (depends on your credit)for using their money. So if the Bank fails you don't want your money back or only 90% of it?
Yes, I want to feel the pain if I make a mistake and choose the wrong bank. I want wisdom, not security.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
able to drive a car?
Good point. If she's mentally capable of legally driving a car, she's mentally capable of legally purchasing a car.
BTW, right now, I don't think I'd keep any money in a bank if my money wasn't insured there! I actually think the federal insurance is necessary to guarantee consumer confidence in the banks.
able to drive a car?
Good point. If she's mentally capable of legally driving a car, she's mentally capable of legally purchasing a car.
BTW, right now, I don't think I'd keep any money in a bank if my money wasn't insured there! I actually think the federal insurance is necessary to guarantee consumer confidence in the banks.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
I actually think the federal insurance is necessary to guarantee consumer confidence in the banks.
What happened to having to earn the respect of customers, by being a good bank? When you socialize risk, soon nobody cares about it (tragedy of the commons), and they all work to get the highest rates of return no matter the consequences. welcome the mortgage crisis, and disabled women getting car loans.
A friend of mine once got a credit card issued in the name of his cat, "fluffy"
I actually think the federal insurance is necessary to guarantee consumer confidence in the banks.
What happened to having to earn the respect of customers, by being a good bank? When you socialize risk, soon nobody cares about it (tragedy of the commons), and they all work to get the highest rates of return no matter the consequences. welcome the mortgage crisis, and disabled women getting car loans.
A friend of mine once got a credit card issued in the name of his cat, "fluffy"
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Good point. If she's mentally capable of legally driving a car, she's mentally capable of legally purchasing a car.
I don't think that this is necessarily true. Anyone deemed mentally challenged has all rights afforded them as any other citizen, unless they're specifically restricted due to being a harm to themselves or others in those rights (I think I said that correctly as I recall it being written). OTOH, there is no assurance that the right to drive would be withheld from someone who had their right to enter contracts removed/restricted. Generally, there would be a guardian/advocate appointed for such matters.
You also don't have to be wrapped all that tight to get a license. Being crazy or "challenged" doesn't mean you can't navigate and operate a vehicle.
Good point. If she's mentally capable of legally driving a car, she's mentally capable of legally purchasing a car.
I don't think that this is necessarily true. Anyone deemed mentally challenged has all rights afforded them as any other citizen, unless they're specifically restricted due to being a harm to themselves or others in those rights (I think I said that correctly as I recall it being written). OTOH, there is no assurance that the right to drive would be withheld from someone who had their right to enter contracts removed/restricted. Generally, there would be a guardian/advocate appointed for such matters.
You also don't have to be wrapped all that tight to get a license. Being crazy or "challenged" doesn't mean you can't navigate and operate a vehicle.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
If she's mentally capable of legally driving a car, she's mentally capable of legally purchasing a car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwugutICBc4
If she's mentally capable of legally driving a car, she's mentally capable of legally purchasing a car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwugutICBc4
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
What happened to having to earn the respect of customers, by being a good bank? When you socialize risk, soon nobody cares about it (tragedy of the commons), and they all work to get the highest rates of return no matter the consequences. welcome the mortgage crisis, and disabled women getting car loans.
You're talking about a different country. We have lending laws to prevent the U.S. mortgage situation from happening here (not saying it won't affect us though!).
A bank is not a person; there's no "good" or "bad" when it comes to a corporation. They exist only to make money for its owners, and you never know when there might be a Kenneth Lay pulling strings behind the scenes!
I just think economic stability would be sacrificed by eliminating the insurance. I've heard bad things happen when everyone panics and withdraws their money at the same time. Plus, it seems there may be economic benefits in encouraging people to keep money in the bank instead of under their mattress. I think it's less about socializing risk than promoting stable economic prosperity.
What happened to having to earn the respect of customers, by being a good bank? When you socialize risk, soon nobody cares about it (tragedy of the commons), and they all work to get the highest rates of return no matter the consequences. welcome the mortgage crisis, and disabled women getting car loans.
You're talking about a different country. We have lending laws to prevent the U.S. mortgage situation from happening here (not saying it won't affect us though!).
A bank is not a person; there's no "good" or "bad" when it comes to a corporation. They exist only to make money for its owners, and you never know when there might be a Kenneth Lay pulling strings behind the scenes!
I just think economic stability would be sacrificed by eliminating the insurance. I've heard bad things happen when everyone panics and withdraws their money at the same time. Plus, it seems there may be economic benefits in encouraging people to keep money in the bank instead of under their mattress. I think it's less about socializing risk than promoting stable economic prosperity.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't think that this is necessarily true.
I knew I'd get a response to that one! I have no doubt that you're correct, and I know that a 16 or 17 year-old can also drive without being able to enter into a legal sales contract by themselves (in Canada, anyway). I'm really just saying that buying a car is not difficult, and I'd prefer that my safety on the road is not dependent on those who are incapable of handling that simple task!
I don't think that this is necessarily true.
I knew I'd get a response to that one! I have no doubt that you're correct, and I know that a 16 or 17 year-old can also drive without being able to enter into a legal sales contract by themselves (in Canada, anyway). I'm really just saying that buying a car is not difficult, and I'd prefer that my safety on the road is not dependent on those who are incapable of handling that simple task!
- Status
Similar threads
