Mike the Mad Biologist

I Endorse the No Depositor Left Behind Act

Posted by Mike on March 12, 2011
(5)
More »

Ok, so it’s not real. But this is an awesome proposal and post by a teacher:

I have used a bank many times. I have a checking account and a savings account (although I do admit I haven’t added anything to my savings account for the past fifteen years since my pay has been frozen.) Nevertheless, the fact that I have made deposits, written checks, and I understand in theory the concept of a savings account makes me uniquely qualified to reorganize your operations.

I love that. Anyway, the proposal:

In a program I will call NDLB (No Depositor Left Behind) all banks will from this day on be ranked and given a grade based on their average customer bank balance….

In order to win the future, it is my belief as a self-stated expert that ALL depositors must hit certain benchmarks by 2014. Your bank will be monitored for progress towards these goals.

Here are the benchmarks:

By 2011, 60% of your depositors must have at least $100,000 in their savings accounts.

By 2012, 75% of your depositors must have at least $500,000 in their savings accounts.

By 2013, 90% of your depositors must have at least $750,000 in their savings accounts.

By 2014, 100% of your depositors must have at least $1,000,000 in their savings accounts.

We believe these are reasonable benchmarks that will ensure all depositors our constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We the people standing in line at the bank reserve the right to increase these benchmarks any time we feel we don’t have enough money.

And it has a very good enforcement mechanism:

Having your failing grade posted in the newspaper along with directions to the nearest successful bank.

Cutting the number of workers in your bank in half and doubling the workload for everyone else who is left.

Meeting every Thursday before the bank opens with experts randomly chosen from the drive through line to discuss any data about why your bank is underperforming.

Closing underperforming banks and reopening them with better performing workers from successful banks that have hit the benchmarks (or people we find in line at the unemployment line), whichever we find easier.

A percentage of the banks’ deposits will be set aside for randomly chosen experts to meet to figure out how the heck to get your depositors to their benchmarks. Since we anticipate that will be a very difficult job, we experts may have to meet in places like Hawaii where it is a known fact that it’s easier to think.

But I loved this:

This is not meant in any way to be punitive. We realize that in some areas of the country it will be tough to get your depositors to the stated benchmarks due to unemployment, and poverty. But we must stress that there are no excuses. We believe in you as bankers and we believe in depositors’ innate ability to grow their bank accounts. No matter how tough it gets, you must remember that our future is at stake. This is for the pride of our country. It is simply unacceptable to let America’s depositors fall behind depositors in other countries. We know you will join everyone in happily doing your part to win that future.

As the kids used to say, read the whole thing.

(5)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 feralboy12
    March 12, 2011

    And while we’re at it, let’s make sure the depositors learn ALL the theories on how compound interest adds up, and let each one form their own opinion on how much money they have in their accounts.

  2. #2 Jakub Barabas
    March 13, 2011

    I cannot help but notice some possible flaws with this proposal. In the event that this was to go through, it would cause insurmountable strain on banks that are already in the hole. Nowadays, wherever we go we see banks that are continuously struggling. All of our local community banks have seemed to fail and not to mention large banks that have also failed. We only see a couple big name banks left. Your proposal will not necessarily harm these large giants that not to mention already get insurmountable amounts of bailout money. No. Instead, your proposal will negatively strike the local banks that are already low in numbers, but are at the core of our financial situation. It is these small banks that allow each local community to survive. When the recession hit, it was these banks that were affected first, failed, and in turn affected the people. This proposal would only attack the small banks again, and in turn attack the people again. The benchmarks proposed are completely out of proportion. In addition, this plan will eventually lead to monopolization of banks. This is not for America in anyway. This will not help the people; it will do more harm than good.

  3. #3 NJ
    March 13, 2011

    JB @ 2:

    I cannot help but notice some possible flaws with this proposal.

    I cannot help but notice some possible flaws in your understanding of written language. Please read this, followed by this, then re-read the subject of the original post. Your assignment will be a mea culpa post. You’re welcome.

  4. #4 Paul Murray
    March 14, 2011

    I say: give everyone (*everyone*) a post-office bank account: no fees charged, no interest paid. Simply a place to park your money. One ATM card for free. Replacement cards also for free. Other banks will admit this bank access to their ATM networks by law. They may charge fees for ATM use, but must display what those fees will be (here in Oz, it’s $2).

    Lets see how they do paying out a piddling .25% interest on savings accounts then.

  5. #5 Silent Service
    March 14, 2011

    NJ,

    You have to spell it out for JB in plain language. I don’t think he’s up on the NCLB laws.

    JB,

    It’s a joke. Laugh and move along. :)