Note that according to our media and popular culture guys like Matty Moroun - billionaire and the according to Forbes the 321st richest American, "create the wealth" and for that reason should be celebrated.
He owns the Ambassador Bridge linking Detroit and Windsor Ontario and also ownes several associated businesses, duty free shops etc. He also owns a lot of property in Detroit.
Our culture tells us that such people should be honored and celebrated because "they create the wealth". Without them the rest of us would be poorer. Attacks on them are generally motivated by jealousy we are told.
Reality tells a far different story. He's pretty much of a monopolist and an operator who is very good at playing the system. He is directly fighting a new bridge which would be financed partly with public money. This new bridge would a) increase the amount of traffic possible between Detroit and Canada, b) create many new jobs in the short run and retain some of those jobs for a long time, c) give the Ambassador Bridge much needed competition.
The Moroun family is fighting the new project tooth and nail and according to one source has threatened to "destroy" it completely. IE prevent the creation of new wealth.
Wait, I thought that entrepreneurs were in favor of competition. I thought they *created the wealth* by competing hard and welcoming new competition wherever and whenever it arises. In this case it looks a lot like Matty Moroun and his family are fighting to keep monopoly power. And it looks like that monopoly power has been instrumental in making Moroun and his family very very rich - at the *expense* of the rest of us. Of course he wants the gravy train to continue.
And the property he owns in Detroit? Slums mostly.
But remember, regardless of the facts, our popular culture tells us that these guys "create the wealth".
Sources:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/koch-backed_afp_admits_to_posting_fake_eviction_no_1.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matty_Moroun
http://www.mattymoroun.com/
http://buildthedricnow.com/2010/06/01/466/
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Why we don't have more progress in AI
1) Deep ambivalence in the public, elected officials and the elite (IE everyone) about whether it's good to have AI move forward in the first place. The diversion into talk about 'morality' and 'ethics' whenever AI discussed reveals this ambivalence. You don't get the same kind of discussion at a conference devoted to materials science. People are not afraid of a stronger beam in a bridge they way they are of 'better/smarter/more capable' AI.
2) Many vested interests would have a lot to lose from better/stronger AI so they can be counted on to be ambivalent at best towards the prospects of better AI.
Examples are the professions of:
Accounting
Law
Medicine
and many more.
Take Law for instance. Would it possibly be a benefit for many people to have some sort of a system that could understand natural language and answer (or at least start to answer) routine legal questions? Of course. And how would our legal profession feel about that. We can be quite certain that the legal profession would be ambivalent at best - and probably hostile to the whole enterprise.
Professions like law, medicine, and accounting are regulated and in order to practice in these fields you need some sort of standing (typically a degree and then you must pass one or more exams). How exactly would some AI entity gain the the standing to practice in these areas. This has not happened yet and is not likely to happen soon. Hence for AI to operate in these fields it has to be under the control (used as a tool) of a human provider. IE a law firm can use AI for legal research but you or me cannot. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html
Note that automating discovery has cost some firms lots of billable hours. How exactly would the legal profession feel about an online agent available to answer routine legal questions. Currently I would have to go to a law firm and pay a retainer (hundreds of dollars typically) just to attain the right to get a question answered.
To show how tenaciously (and effectively) professions can fight automation (much less AI) look at the Real Estate field. Ten to fifteen years ago the the prevailing feeling was that the traditional methods were doomed. Who would need/want the MLS system after the arrival of the internet. What would happen to 90% of the real estate agents out there charging 7% when people could just go online. Surely a website or a set of websites would disrupt the whole thing. But it's 2011 and the real estate field operates pretty much the way it did in 1980 and still charges 7%, the MLS system is not just alive but as dominant as ever and can only be accessed by a licensed real estate professional. Most tellingly, the typical real estate commission is the same as it has been for decades. See:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/real-estate-professionals/7423-whats-typical-realtor-commissions-5-6-a.html
7 percent (or maybe 6 if you really negotiate hard) was standard in 1980.
The MLS system was closed in 1980; you had to be an agent to get access. As of today (May 14, 2011) it still is: "Most MLS systems restrict membership and access to real estate brokers (and their agents) who are appropriately licensed by the state (or province); are members of a local board or association of realtors; and are members of the trade association" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Listing_Service#Limitations_of_access_and_Criticisms_of_MLS
Any entity (human or AI entity) needs interaction and feedback in order to progress but in most real world cases AI entities lack standing and hence cannot interact and get feedback directly. They have no 'agency' to act on their own and this in my opinion hobbles progress in AI.
Maybe corporate person-hood could be helpful. Perhaps a corporation could be formed with some sort of AI system as it's main component and then perhaps this entity could be given the license to practice law (or accounting or medicine) - given that a corporation is legally a person in some respects.
Some in the AI field may be thinking of a more general solution - something that could 'do it all' so to speak. My response would be to look at life: do we have one ultimate life form or do we have finches with specialized beaks, algae, killer whales and bighorn sheep. Living things evolve, adapt and fill in whatever space/niche they can. My feeling is that AI must do the same to make real progress. When it comes to 'higher order' human affairs that means practicing law, medicine, doing real estate transactions and so forth.
2) Many vested interests would have a lot to lose from better/stronger AI so they can be counted on to be ambivalent at best towards the prospects of better AI.
Examples are the professions of:
Accounting
Law
Medicine
and many more.
Take Law for instance. Would it possibly be a benefit for many people to have some sort of a system that could understand natural language and answer (or at least start to answer) routine legal questions? Of course. And how would our legal profession feel about that. We can be quite certain that the legal profession would be ambivalent at best - and probably hostile to the whole enterprise.
Professions like law, medicine, and accounting are regulated and in order to practice in these fields you need some sort of standing (typically a degree and then you must pass one or more exams). How exactly would some AI entity gain the the standing to practice in these areas. This has not happened yet and is not likely to happen soon. Hence for AI to operate in these fields it has to be under the control (used as a tool) of a human provider. IE a law firm can use AI for legal research but you or me cannot. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html
Note that automating discovery has cost some firms lots of billable hours. How exactly would the legal profession feel about an online agent available to answer routine legal questions. Currently I would have to go to a law firm and pay a retainer (hundreds of dollars typically) just to attain the right to get a question answered.
To show how tenaciously (and effectively) professions can fight automation (much less AI) look at the Real Estate field. Ten to fifteen years ago the the prevailing feeling was that the traditional methods were doomed. Who would need/want the MLS system after the arrival of the internet. What would happen to 90% of the real estate agents out there charging 7% when people could just go online. Surely a website or a set of websites would disrupt the whole thing. But it's 2011 and the real estate field operates pretty much the way it did in 1980 and still charges 7%, the MLS system is not just alive but as dominant as ever and can only be accessed by a licensed real estate professional. Most tellingly, the typical real estate commission is the same as it has been for decades. See:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/real-estate-professionals/7423-whats-typical-realtor-commissions-5-6-a.html
7 percent (or maybe 6 if you really negotiate hard) was standard in 1980.
The MLS system was closed in 1980; you had to be an agent to get access. As of today (May 14, 2011) it still is: "Most MLS systems restrict membership and access to real estate brokers (and their agents) who are appropriately licensed by the state (or province); are members of a local board or association of realtors; and are members of the trade association" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Listing_Service#Limitations_of_access_and_Criticisms_of_MLS
Any entity (human or AI entity) needs interaction and feedback in order to progress but in most real world cases AI entities lack standing and hence cannot interact and get feedback directly. They have no 'agency' to act on their own and this in my opinion hobbles progress in AI.
Maybe corporate person-hood could be helpful. Perhaps a corporation could be formed with some sort of AI system as it's main component and then perhaps this entity could be given the license to practice law (or accounting or medicine) - given that a corporation is legally a person in some respects.
Some in the AI field may be thinking of a more general solution - something that could 'do it all' so to speak. My response would be to look at life: do we have one ultimate life form or do we have finches with specialized beaks, algae, killer whales and bighorn sheep. Living things evolve, adapt and fill in whatever space/niche they can. My feeling is that AI must do the same to make real progress. When it comes to 'higher order' human affairs that means practicing law, medicine, doing real estate transactions and so forth.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Ted Williams and Carl Crawford
From
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/columns/story?columnist=edes_gordon&id=6366474
"In his first dozen games with the Boston Red Sox, Crawford has been paid more ($1.5 million) than Ted Williams is said to have been paid his entire career ($1.45 million, according to baseball-reference.com)."
Full article:
Friday, April 15, 2011
Updated: April 16, 3:01 AM ET
For Carl Crawford, now come the boos
By Gordon Edes
ESPNBoston.com
BOSTON -- He is not alone, of course. Not on a team that is 2-10, is collectively batting .224 and has five players in Friday night's starting lineup batting at the Mendoza Line (.200) or worse.
But Carl Crawford was the one advertised as the game-changer, the left fielder being paid on average more than any of his illustrious predecessors in Fenway Park, including Manny Ramirez. More? In his first dozen games with the Boston Red Sox, Crawford has been paid more ($1.5 million) than Ted Williams is said to have been paid his entire career ($1.45 million, according to baseball-reference.com).
So, Crawford is the biggest target and the player at whom Red Sox fans are now directing boos, a sound foreign to him during the nine seasons he spent with the Tampa Bay Rays.
Carl Crawford's .137 BA is not what fans were expecting. He has only seven hits in 51 at-bats.
"They have to boo," he said after Friday night's 7-6 loss to the Toronto Blue Jays, in which he went hitless in five at-bats, including a three-strike punchout in the ninth that ended with him swinging at a pitch that bounced in front of the plate.
"I'm playing real bad; we're playing real bad," Crawford said. "You definitely understand. You can't be upset about that. You kind of feel their frustration a little, but we're frustrated, too."
So far, Crawford's Red Sox experience has been The Nightmare on Lansdowne Street. He now is 51 at-bats into his Sox career and he has seven hits. One has gone for extra bases. The average is .137. He has scored three runs and knocked in one. He couldn't look more uncomfortable at the plate. The ump cost him an infield hit in his first at-bat Friday, but with Jacoby Ellsbury on third and one out in the seventh, Crawford managed just a shallow fly to left.
He also came up short on Travis Snider's game-tying double in the sixth, a ball that hit above him on the left-field scoreboard. He admitted afterward he might have been able to catch it.
At the plate, he is so at sea, he might as well be the USS Crawford.
Manager Terry Francona said he looked "a little bit jumpy," which is kinder than saying he looks painfully and totally out of sync.
"I thought he beat out that ball in the first inning," Francona said of Crawford's bid for an infield hit, which replays appeared to show he had won in a photo-finish race with pitcher Brett Cecil to the bag at first.
"I know he didn't hit it good," Francona continued, "but it's amazing how something like that [helps]. You go out to left field and you're 1-for-1 and you're feeling OK about yourself."
“
They have to boo. I'm playing real bad; we're playing real bad. You definitely understand. You can't be upset about that. You kind of feel their frustration a little, but we're frustrated, too.
” -- Red Sox left fielder Carl Crawford
Instead, it's impossible to imagine Crawford feeling anything but miserable. The Sox had essentially two days off, with a rainout Wednesday and a scheduled off day Thursday. Crawford was asked whether he thought about baseball during that time or tried to avoid thinking about it.
"You think about baseball a little bit," Crawford said. "You get your mind off it a little bit, try to relax as much as you can."
But at the plate, Crawford looks like he's mainlining Red Bull, swinging at pitches far out of the zone, fouling off pitches that he should be hitting off the wall, rolling over on way too many pitches and beating them into the ground.
"I'm still battling right now," he said. "Obviously I'm not getting the results I want, but I got to keep battling."
The Sox caught a break Friday night when umpires overruled a home run call on Adam Lind's first-inning drive that veered just right of the Pesky Pole and called it foul. Had the call stood, the Jays would have led 3-0. Instead, the Sox built a 3-0 lead on home runs by Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis, who has 15 walks but had not yet gone deep until he deposited one in the center-field camera well.
But Clay Buchholz walked five batters in just five-innings plus, and the Jays pulled off a hit-and-run and a double steal in a four-run seventh inning, the runs all coming at the expense of Bobby Jenks, who heard boos, too.
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/columns/story?columnist=edes_gordon&id=6366474
"In his first dozen games with the Boston Red Sox, Crawford has been paid more ($1.5 million) than Ted Williams is said to have been paid his entire career ($1.45 million, according to baseball-reference.com)."
Full article:
Friday, April 15, 2011
Updated: April 16, 3:01 AM ET
For Carl Crawford, now come the boos
By Gordon Edes
ESPNBoston.com
BOSTON -- He is not alone, of course. Not on a team that is 2-10, is collectively batting .224 and has five players in Friday night's starting lineup batting at the Mendoza Line (.200) or worse.
But Carl Crawford was the one advertised as the game-changer, the left fielder being paid on average more than any of his illustrious predecessors in Fenway Park, including Manny Ramirez. More? In his first dozen games with the Boston Red Sox, Crawford has been paid more ($1.5 million) than Ted Williams is said to have been paid his entire career ($1.45 million, according to baseball-reference.com).
So, Crawford is the biggest target and the player at whom Red Sox fans are now directing boos, a sound foreign to him during the nine seasons he spent with the Tampa Bay Rays.
Carl Crawford's .137 BA is not what fans were expecting. He has only seven hits in 51 at-bats.
"They have to boo," he said after Friday night's 7-6 loss to the Toronto Blue Jays, in which he went hitless in five at-bats, including a three-strike punchout in the ninth that ended with him swinging at a pitch that bounced in front of the plate.
"I'm playing real bad; we're playing real bad," Crawford said. "You definitely understand. You can't be upset about that. You kind of feel their frustration a little, but we're frustrated, too."
So far, Crawford's Red Sox experience has been The Nightmare on Lansdowne Street. He now is 51 at-bats into his Sox career and he has seven hits. One has gone for extra bases. The average is .137. He has scored three runs and knocked in one. He couldn't look more uncomfortable at the plate. The ump cost him an infield hit in his first at-bat Friday, but with Jacoby Ellsbury on third and one out in the seventh, Crawford managed just a shallow fly to left.
He also came up short on Travis Snider's game-tying double in the sixth, a ball that hit above him on the left-field scoreboard. He admitted afterward he might have been able to catch it.
At the plate, he is so at sea, he might as well be the USS Crawford.
Manager Terry Francona said he looked "a little bit jumpy," which is kinder than saying he looks painfully and totally out of sync.
"I thought he beat out that ball in the first inning," Francona said of Crawford's bid for an infield hit, which replays appeared to show he had won in a photo-finish race with pitcher Brett Cecil to the bag at first.
"I know he didn't hit it good," Francona continued, "but it's amazing how something like that [helps]. You go out to left field and you're 1-for-1 and you're feeling OK about yourself."
“
They have to boo. I'm playing real bad; we're playing real bad. You definitely understand. You can't be upset about that. You kind of feel their frustration a little, but we're frustrated, too.
” -- Red Sox left fielder Carl Crawford
Instead, it's impossible to imagine Crawford feeling anything but miserable. The Sox had essentially two days off, with a rainout Wednesday and a scheduled off day Thursday. Crawford was asked whether he thought about baseball during that time or tried to avoid thinking about it.
"You think about baseball a little bit," Crawford said. "You get your mind off it a little bit, try to relax as much as you can."
But at the plate, Crawford looks like he's mainlining Red Bull, swinging at pitches far out of the zone, fouling off pitches that he should be hitting off the wall, rolling over on way too many pitches and beating them into the ground.
"I'm still battling right now," he said. "Obviously I'm not getting the results I want, but I got to keep battling."
The Sox caught a break Friday night when umpires overruled a home run call on Adam Lind's first-inning drive that veered just right of the Pesky Pole and called it foul. Had the call stood, the Jays would have led 3-0. Instead, the Sox built a 3-0 lead on home runs by Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis, who has 15 walks but had not yet gone deep until he deposited one in the center-field camera well.
But Clay Buchholz walked five batters in just five-innings plus, and the Jays pulled off a hit-and-run and a double steal in a four-run seventh inning, the runs all coming at the expense of Bobby Jenks, who heard boos, too.
Prison Job Trumps Harvard Degree
Prison Job Trumps Harvard Degree
Published May 01, 2011 | The Wall Street Journal
Roughly 2,000 students have to decide by Sunday whether to accept a spot at Harvard. Here's some advice: Forget Harvard. If you want to earn big bucks and retire young, you're better off becoming a California prison guard.
The job might not sound glamorous, but a brochure from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations boasts that it "has been called 'the greatest entry-level job in California' -- and for good reason. Our officers earn a great salary, and a retirement package you just can't find in private industry. We even pay you to attend our academy." That's right -- instead of paying more than $200,000 to attend Harvard, you could earn $3,050 a month at cadet academy.
It gets better.
Training only takes four months, and upon graduating you can look forward to a job with great health, dental and vision benefits and a starting base salary between $45,288 and $65,364. By comparison, Harvard grads can expect to earn $49,897 fresh out of college and $124,759 after 20 years.
As a California prison guard, you can make six figures in overtime and bonuses alone. While Harvard-educated lawyers and consultants often have to work long hours with little recompense besides Chinese take-out, prison guards receive time-and-a-half whenever they work more than 40 hours a week. One sergeant with a base salary of $81,683 collected $114,334 in overtime and $8,648 in bonuses last year, and he's not even the highest paid.
Sure, Harvard grads working in the private sector get bonuses, too, but only if they're good at what they do. Prison guards receive a $1,560 "fitness" bonus just for getting an annual check-up.
Most Harvard grads only get three weeks of vacation each year, even after working for 20 years -- and they're often too busy to take a long trip. Prison guards, on the other hand, get seven weeks of vacation, five of them paid. If they're too busy racking up overtime to use their vacation days, they can cash the days in when they retire. There's no cap on how many vacation days they can cash in! Eighty officers last year cashed in over $100,000 at retirement.
The cherry on top is the defined-benefit pension. Unlike most Harvard grads working in the private sector, prison guards don't have to delay retirement if their 401(k)s take a hit. Prison guards can retire at the age of 55 and earn 85% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives. They also continue to receive medical benefits.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/01/prison-job-trumps-harvard-degree/#ixzz1LAHqFtBI
Published May 01, 2011 | The Wall Street Journal
Roughly 2,000 students have to decide by Sunday whether to accept a spot at Harvard. Here's some advice: Forget Harvard. If you want to earn big bucks and retire young, you're better off becoming a California prison guard.
The job might not sound glamorous, but a brochure from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations boasts that it "has been called 'the greatest entry-level job in California' -- and for good reason. Our officers earn a great salary, and a retirement package you just can't find in private industry. We even pay you to attend our academy." That's right -- instead of paying more than $200,000 to attend Harvard, you could earn $3,050 a month at cadet academy.
It gets better.
Training only takes four months, and upon graduating you can look forward to a job with great health, dental and vision benefits and a starting base salary between $45,288 and $65,364. By comparison, Harvard grads can expect to earn $49,897 fresh out of college and $124,759 after 20 years.
As a California prison guard, you can make six figures in overtime and bonuses alone. While Harvard-educated lawyers and consultants often have to work long hours with little recompense besides Chinese take-out, prison guards receive time-and-a-half whenever they work more than 40 hours a week. One sergeant with a base salary of $81,683 collected $114,334 in overtime and $8,648 in bonuses last year, and he's not even the highest paid.
Sure, Harvard grads working in the private sector get bonuses, too, but only if they're good at what they do. Prison guards receive a $1,560 "fitness" bonus just for getting an annual check-up.
Most Harvard grads only get three weeks of vacation each year, even after working for 20 years -- and they're often too busy to take a long trip. Prison guards, on the other hand, get seven weeks of vacation, five of them paid. If they're too busy racking up overtime to use their vacation days, they can cash the days in when they retire. There's no cap on how many vacation days they can cash in! Eighty officers last year cashed in over $100,000 at retirement.
The cherry on top is the defined-benefit pension. Unlike most Harvard grads working in the private sector, prison guards don't have to delay retirement if their 401(k)s take a hit. Prison guards can retire at the age of 55 and earn 85% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives. They also continue to receive medical benefits.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/01/prison-job-trumps-harvard-degree/#ixzz1LAHqFtBI
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Response to bank fee article
http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/04/citibank-to-pay-small-checks-first.html
The idea that a reason for processing checks from biggest to smallest is to make sure “important” things like mortgages are covered is ridiculous.
1) Typically ALL checks in a daily batch are covered REGARDLESS of the order they are processed in. Lets do an example: the balance is $100 and two checks come in and both are covered: one for $101 and the other for $25. If you process the $101 first there will be 2 bounce fees, if the $25 check is processed first there is only one fee. The consumer would only get a “benefit”, if the bank could ONLY cover one of the two and had to CHOOSE which one (and then correctly chose the most important one). But typically (like 99% of the time) ALL checks in a daily batch are covered, and the “biggest first” rule typically does nothing but give the bank extra fee income. The key thing is this: does the bank need/intend to CHOOSE which from a batch to cover and which to NOT cover: only then could there be a benefit to the consumer by CHOOSING the biggest.
If the bank was really concerned with the consumer’s welfare they would arrange the checks from SMALLEST to LARGEST if all were going to be covered, and ONLY in the case where a CHOICE had to be made, cover the biggest first. Well maybe….read on.
2) The notion that the biggest check is the “most important” to the consumer is suspect. What is “most important” is subjective and varies depending on circumstances. And it’s really none of the banks business, it’s the individual consumer’s business. Maybe a struggling person is 3 months behind on the electric bill and it’s about to be cut off but the check to cover that is not the biggest in the daily batch. Maybe a small check is a deposit for some very important purchase. Do any of the banks try to determine the nature of a check (such as is it for a mortgage or rent, or electricity) and take that into account when arranging the order? Of course not! Because this “biggest first” policy has nothing to do with protecting consumers and has everything to do with generating fee income for the banks.
In cases of fraud or identity theft the perpetrator typically writes out pretty big check(s) (or other big debits). Given the “biggest first” policy of most banks these would be the FIRST ONES HONORED. Not very consumer friendly.
Additionally, why not credit deposits first then look at checks and other debits. If the objective was consumer protection (as the banks absurdly claim) that is what they would do.
I actually wrote some of the software to do this kind of processing at a large bank so I know just how corrupt and rigged the whole game is. Everything is done to “maximize fee income” and s*c&^%%%ew the consumer. Especially those consumers who are hurting and on the edge already. Not that banks care about that – such people are just easy fodder for looting.
I agree with Lorenzo, the fair way to do it is to process in check number order. That way the consumer can write out his most important checks first and that will influence which get covered first. Also banks should credit deposits FIRST prior to processing checks.
But none of these changes will be widespread without a lot of pressure and hard work on the part of consumer advocates.
Remember that most bank accounts these days are in large public banks who exist fundamentally to make money for their shareholders. They do not exist for the benefit of their account holders, their mission is to make money for their shareholders.
The idea that a reason for processing checks from biggest to smallest is to make sure “important” things like mortgages are covered is ridiculous.
1) Typically ALL checks in a daily batch are covered REGARDLESS of the order they are processed in. Lets do an example: the balance is $100 and two checks come in and both are covered: one for $101 and the other for $25. If you process the $101 first there will be 2 bounce fees, if the $25 check is processed first there is only one fee. The consumer would only get a “benefit”, if the bank could ONLY cover one of the two and had to CHOOSE which one (and then correctly chose the most important one). But typically (like 99% of the time) ALL checks in a daily batch are covered, and the “biggest first” rule typically does nothing but give the bank extra fee income. The key thing is this: does the bank need/intend to CHOOSE which from a batch to cover and which to NOT cover: only then could there be a benefit to the consumer by CHOOSING the biggest.
If the bank was really concerned with the consumer’s welfare they would arrange the checks from SMALLEST to LARGEST if all were going to be covered, and ONLY in the case where a CHOICE had to be made, cover the biggest first. Well maybe….read on.
2) The notion that the biggest check is the “most important” to the consumer is suspect. What is “most important” is subjective and varies depending on circumstances. And it’s really none of the banks business, it’s the individual consumer’s business. Maybe a struggling person is 3 months behind on the electric bill and it’s about to be cut off but the check to cover that is not the biggest in the daily batch. Maybe a small check is a deposit for some very important purchase. Do any of the banks try to determine the nature of a check (such as is it for a mortgage or rent, or electricity) and take that into account when arranging the order? Of course not! Because this “biggest first” policy has nothing to do with protecting consumers and has everything to do with generating fee income for the banks.
In cases of fraud or identity theft the perpetrator typically writes out pretty big check(s) (or other big debits). Given the “biggest first” policy of most banks these would be the FIRST ONES HONORED. Not very consumer friendly.
Additionally, why not credit deposits first then look at checks and other debits. If the objective was consumer protection (as the banks absurdly claim) that is what they would do.
I actually wrote some of the software to do this kind of processing at a large bank so I know just how corrupt and rigged the whole game is. Everything is done to “maximize fee income” and s*c&^%%%ew the consumer. Especially those consumers who are hurting and on the edge already. Not that banks care about that – such people are just easy fodder for looting.
I agree with Lorenzo, the fair way to do it is to process in check number order. That way the consumer can write out his most important checks first and that will influence which get covered first. Also banks should credit deposits FIRST prior to processing checks.
But none of these changes will be widespread without a lot of pressure and hard work on the part of consumer advocates.
Remember that most bank accounts these days are in large public banks who exist fundamentally to make money for their shareholders. They do not exist for the benefit of their account holders, their mission is to make money for their shareholders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)