What?! A "right" to make a profit?! Last time I checked a business is supposed to EARN a profit. No business has a "right" to a profit. Profit is EARNED and it is a privilege to have customers and EARN their business. Talk about having a sense of entitlement: http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/05/news/economy/bank_of_america_moynihan/index.htm No business has an "inherent right" to "a certain amount of profit." I guess these big banks somehow think they no longer have to earn their keep and business, that somehow they are "above" or different from other businesses who have and must continue to earn their profits and customers. I think some customers are waking up and switching banks. Customers should never put up with this sort of arrogant attitude from a business. There are other banks under the same laws and regulations as the big banks who do not have to charge these extra fees and are able to still turn a profit. Sounds like these big banks don't want to earn their keep and are just making excuses.
Oh, my, they said make instead of earn. How terrible. You want to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about it, tell your elected officials who changed the banking industry and prevent them from EARNING the profits they have been earning. It has to be made up one way or another and this is how it will be made up. Every time the government sticks its nose into business it creates problems.
BS, nothing prevented those big banks from EARNING their profits as evidenced that customers are switching to banks who do make a profit and are under the same regulations as the big banks and yet still don't charge those fees. You make it sound like customers should just give away their money to big banks while the big banks offer very little in return and offer no real value at all to customers. The big banks simply have an arrogant attitude with a sense of entitlement that somehow they have a "right" to make a profit. They have no right to make a profit. They have to EARN it like everybody else does. No more free passes to the big banks who got bailed out and who absolutely hate the idea of having to EARN their profits like everybody else and who spurn necessary regulation that no longer allows them a free pass. Other banks make a profit, don't charge those fees and are under the same regulations as the big banks. Time for the big banks to drop the attitude and start EARNING their way. The problem here is not regulation and their is plenty of evidence to back that up. The problem is the big banks arrogant sense of entitlement that somehow they don't have to EARN their profits like the other banks. Again, the other banks are under the same regulations, turn a profit and don't charge those fees. Time for the big banks to start competing and offer quality services and products again. If they can't do that then they will just continue to lose market share to their competition and possibly face going out of business.
Speaking as a small business owner myself, if I displayed that arrogant entitlement attitude towards my customers that the big banks displayed towards their customers, I would lose ALL my customers and I would probably have a hell of a time getting new customers because word of mouth certainly can do a lot of harm to a business once you start developing a bad reputation because then people won't want to do business with you. I would probably be out of business. In a real business operation, THE CUSTOMER IS KING and nobody has a right to a profit. Everything is earned. Nothing comes easy. It's not easy getting customers and then when you get those customers you have to keep them if you want to stay in business and that's not easy either. And it costs more money to replace lost customers than it does to keep current customers happy and lord knows no business wants to pay the costs of customer attrition. That's why the CUSTOMER IS KING. Customers can put you out of business in a minute. Really, the big banks just have the wrong attitude and they feel they no longer have to EARN their customers just because they are big banks who have politicians bought off. Those big banks were bailed out by the taxpayers and the taxpayers did not have to bail those big banks out of a mess that was their own making.
You completely missed my point. The blame goes to the government for sticking their nose in and as usual screwing things up. Banks are there to make a profit but since the government changed the rules, causing them to lose a source of funds, that money will be made up somewhere. Blame the correct parties involved, the government.
If a business doesn't make a profit, it goes under. There is no right to a certain amount of profit, but there is also no right to have a business succeed. Personally, I think BOA will change their tune on that fee. It will end up hurting their profitability as customers turn away from them in droves.
The point is moot. The statement was taken out of context. The purpose of business is twofold: *make a product others want *generate a profit "Rights" was a poor word choice, but IMO this debate is frivolous.
Well looks like the Big Banks are backpedaling now on their increased fees in the face of customer revolts. I thought the big banks were out of line and pretty arrogant. Good thing the customers put them back in their place. I guess these Big Banks forgot the one important principle of business: The Customer is King. But it seems they got a swift reminder. Here is the article: http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/01/pf/bank_of_america_debit_fee/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
Does the government have a right to prevent a business from making a profit by excessive regulation or simply taking whatever they want? Please keep in mind that President Obama has said he wants to bankrupt the coal companies and Rep. Waters said banks should be taxed into bankruptcy. When you have socialists it's hard to deal with reality. "Moynihan stopped short of criticizing President Obama who earlier this week said to ABC that banks don't have an "inherent right" to a "certain amount of profit." President Obama is the champion of strawman debaters. No one said banks had a right to "a certain amount of profit". Do they have a right to make a profit if they can? Hell, yes. Should President Obama quit lying? Hell, yes, but it won't happen. But, President Obama does know that people should know when they've earned enough. Let's see, President obama hasn't earned enough and neither has Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi. Aaargh!
Does the government have a right to prevent a business from making a profit by excessive regulation or simply taking whatever they want? Keep in mind that President Obama said he hopes to bankrupt the coal companies and Rep. Waters proposed taxing the banks into bankruptcy.
And my prediction was correct: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...by-8-billion/2011/11/02/gIQANqWgfM_story.html
The banks did this to themselves. They wouldn't be getting regulated a little more right now if they didn't make bad loans to people they knew who wouldn't be able to pay those loans back and then got a bail out by we the taxpayers. Now, they are facing a customer revolt because they have the audacity to want to charge additional fees in light of their past unethical business dealing and the fact they got bailed out by the taxpayers. The banks engaged in unethical businesses practices and then had the audacity to continue to engage in unethical business practices after getting bailed out and thus faced a customer revolt and were forced to back down from those fees. Part of good business practices is the Customer is King and the banks did not honor that and thought they were above this principle. They were wrong. Banks did ALL this to themselves and they have only themselves to blame. They chose to engage in bad business practices and now it is coming back to haunt them. I have no sympathy for banks who think they are above having to practice ethical business practices or are above having to engage in win/win deals with customers and clients. I don't blame those in the customer revolt. I would rather take my money and put it under a pillow before I paid any bank those fees.
