Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having signatures forged

Re:Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having... by TheSpiceIsLife on Saturday November 26, 2016 @01:40PM (#13045200)

You say "ordinary deposits with banks should be protected by the government", and then go on to say something to the effect of 'oh yeah, and these other things which I think are good, but screw big companies, then can get fucked'.

Which seems to translate, at least in my mind, to 'banks should be too big to fail, but only in the ways I like'.

It's not clear, under your scheme, how we would draw the line between companies that "should be aware" of the risks and how they would mitigate them? Do we have to have insurance policies against our bank deposits? But who pays for that?

Maybe I'm not reading with enough goodwill here though. Perhaps by "the government should protect" you mean to say something like 'there should be laws / regulations making it so that banks shonky investment dealings can't affect depositors accounts, at least for some class(es) of depositors' - in which case I agree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wells Fargo says customers gave up right to sue by having... by rwmj on Saturday November 26, 2016 @05:49PM (#13046415)

> Which seems to translate, at least in my mind, to 'banks should be too big to fail, but only in the ways I like'.

I didn't say any of that. Banks should never be too big to fail. The only question is which of the bank's account holders should the government preferentially bail out by printing money equivalent to the holders' deposits.

[ Parent | on HN ]