A Letter to US Bank

Dear US Bank,

Please go fuck yourselves.

Sincerely,

Steve

p.s. CEO Richard K. Davis, obviously a sonofabitch, can (probably) be reached at:

US Bancorp, The Office of the Corp. Secretary
Richard K. David, Chairman, President & CEO
800 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN. 55402

...Or try their corporate headquarters, at:

60 Livingston Ave
St. Paul, MN 55107

p.p.s. I think they've probably charged me, I don't know, $200 in overdraft fees by now, while initially telling me I could not have overdraft protection. (Haha stupid, say people who think banks are protagonists and people who don't know about money are wrong.)

The fun part about this:

I had them link up my checking and savings accounts to create overdraft protection the other day. This, they said, could have been done all along. They neglected to tell me that it would be a $10 fee. Despite the fact that the overdraft was actually an accident (I clicked the button to pay twice on my cell phone companies website) and hadn't actually gone through before the recipient agreed to refund it.

That's aggravating. What's more aggravating is this.

Writing this, I feel like an old man complaining about not understanding how to use a mouse or a keyboard. I don't care: the money/credit system in this country thrives on consumer ignorance, on the ignorance of people like me.

The point is, I didn't know, because it was never, by anybody, explained to me, that the bank doesn't have to allow a purchase that overdraws your account. That instead it does this on purpose, (as a hahahahaha "courtesy"), solely so that it can fleece more money (through fees on these "courtesy overdrafts") from people (like me!) who already don't know how to manage their money anyway.

Hence, ultimately, the cycle of debt and poverty that keeps this GDP up and running.

p.p.p.s. Let's look at the way we talk about things like this for a moment. The first comment on the website I linked to:

Wait a second...complicated and uneccessary? Depends on the person. I would certainly like to have that backup credit line, at $2 per my mistake, then $25-$34 fee. And let's not forget, overdrafting your bank account is customer mistake 99% of the time.

Easy, money-saving solution? Don't overdraft your account!

This (retarded) person completely misses the points that: 1. It's the bank's decision to let you overdraft your account, 2. After making this decision, they then charge you (the customer) (whose mistake the bank's decision somehow is) a fee -- for their decision.

This is a testament to the effectiveness of the propaganda system -- the thousands of messages a day about "liberty" and "individualism" and "personal responsibility" -- that a decision made by a powerful institution is in fact understood as a decision on the part of the person harmed by that institution.

Another point: One of the major tools of coercion, power, control is to give the victim of power a false sense of choice. So in this case: The retarded commenter thinks that being given a choice of a $2 fee (with an accompanying credit card that carries its own risks) instead of a $34 fee -- both fees, again, added because of a decision on the part of the bank, a decision that is, therefore, the responsibility of the bank, is somehow a good thing -- a generosity even!

p.p.p.p.s. This shifting of responsibility from the victimizer to the victim is really, I think, one of the fundamental bases of our whole society. Another example: A person arrested for possession of crack-cocaine is told "You shouldn't have done it if you weren't prepared to deal with the consequences." Of course, the consequences of smoking crack are pretty fucking severe: Let's start with desperate poverty and move on to psychological dissolution.

But: Being "arrested" (kidnapped) by "police," (armed men wearing gang colors) is not a consequence of smoking crack.

It's a consequence, rather, of a decision on the part of 1. the police officers in question 2. the police department heads or local politicians who assign patrols and so forth 3. the politicians who passed the law criminalizing cocaine. The cop decided to arrest the crackhead. The politician decided that casting himself as "tough on crime," an abstract nonsense-phrase which in reality means passing more laws which actually destroy the actual lives of actual people, was worth it to remain in power another 2, 4, or 6 years. But in no case are these people held accountable, or even described as being responsible. Ever.

The decisions and mistakes of common people are their responsibility.

The decisions of people in power are no one's responsibility: They are consequences of the actions of powerless people; they are acts of nature.