A Brief History Of ATMs
ATMs have been around for almost a quarter of a century, but fees, especially double fees, for using them are a more recent phenomenon.
When ATMs were introduced in the 1970s, they were set up only inside or immediately outside their banks' branch offices. They were seen by banks largely as a way of saving money, by reducing the need for tellers. Even with the relatively expensive computer technology of the late '70s and early 80s, the cost of processing deposits and withdrawals via ATMs proved to be less than the cost of training and employing tellers to do the same work.
To encourage customers to embrace the technology and overcome their trepidations about putting their checks into a machine's slot rather than a teller's hands, banks originally didn't charge customers any fees for using ATMs. (Indeed, in time, some banks started charging customers for not using ATMs, through so-called "human teller fees" - a charge for each time a customer uses a teller for a service that could be performed by an ATM.)
Banks that embraced the ATM profited handsomely, often growing far faster than old-fashioned banks in the effort to get business from ordinary Americans.
At first, a bank's ATMs could only be used by consumers who already had checking or savings accounts with that bank, through the bank’s "proprietary ATM network."
However, by the early 80s, banks began to take advantage of improvements in telecommunications technology and formed "shared ATM networks" with other banks, allowing customers of one bank to withdraw money by using ATMs of other banks. Banks paid other ATM owners "interchange" fees, to cover the marginal cost of the "off-us" transactions by its customers on the owner's machines. Banks paid the network a "switch" fee per transaction, plus an annual "membership" fee, to cover the costs of the network. Originally, these fees were not directly passed onto consumers.
After all, from the perspective of a bank, banks that joined the network could advertise that their customers could get access to their money from far more locations than those banks who didn't belong. Yet, the bank would not only not have to pay for tellers; it wouldn't have even have to pay for the cost of building and maintaining most of the extra ATMs from which customers could acce...
... middle of paper ...
...rile up public opinion even more.
What the future holds for ATM fees is uncertain. What is certain, though, is that even the original promoters of the ATM could not have imagined what a profit machine their invention would be 25 years later.
After all, in how many businesses could you get away with charging money for a service you once gave away, without markedly improving the quality of the service (even the latest ATMs can do little more than the "accept deposits", "transfer money between accounts", and "withdraw up to $300" that the ATMs of the late 1970s could do) . . . and despite the price of the underlying technology having dropped to a fraction of its original cost?
So much for making money the old-fashioned way . . . by earning it.
-- K.D. Weinert
K.D. Weinert is the Planning Director for the Fund for Public Interest Research. He began using ATM machines in 1975, starting with Bay Banks in Massachusetts, which merged with numerous local banks, then merged with Bank of Boston, then merged with Fleet Fleet-BankBoston has one of the most dominant ATM market shares in the country, controlling nearly two-thirds of all ATMs in Massachusetts.
to many people because the bank took over their life. ?The bank is something more than,it?s the
First, I will address Thomson’s decision to assume that a fetus is a person from the time of conception. I think she makes a wise choice in labeling a fetus as a person throughout pregnancy because this decision eliminates one controversy surrounding the morality of abortion. Were Thomson not to concede the issue regarding personhood, skeptics could focus on their issue with that single point and this disagreement could invalidate the rest of Thomson’s argument. Choosing to label all fetuses as people, with a right to life, prevents the opposition from dismantling Thomson’s argument from the very beginning. Once it is agreed upon that the fetus in Thomson’s scenario is a human at all stages of development, all those who read her essay have a common starting point, helping to prevent pre-determined bias.
“A Defense of Abortion” is a philosophy paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson in which the author argues for abortion, using several analogies to illustrate her points. In a move that separates this paper from the bulk of others on the same topic, Thomson grants at the start of the paper that a fetus has the right to life. She then proceeds to argue that although a fetus has a right to life, that right does not trump a woman’s right to her body. She concludes that abortion is an acceptable choice in a variety of circumstances.
Marquis solely believes that aborting the fetus at all costs is killing them. He is not interested in finding out whether or not the fetus is the person. He pursues his arguments on why we hold murder to be the worst crime and why would we hold it wrong to end the life of a permanently unconscious person. If the 23 year old woman Sue becomes pregnant due to her own fault, can she take care of a life? Let's say she has no one to help her take care of the child, no money, but doesn't want to live knowing that she put a daughter or son up for adoption because she couldn't take care of him or her. At this point, why is it still morally impermissible? Under any circumstance, the child cannot be cared for and will eventually end up dying due to lack of care. Sue is still technically killing the child by not giving the child the care it needs to live, so wouldn't that be the same as an abortion? Either way, the child ends up being killed based on the decision that the mother makes. If she decides to abort the child, she is not the one performing the duty, the doctor is. If she decides to keep the child, she is killing because she already understood the circumstance of having the child would lead to it
Stories of bank runs- tales of people running to withdraw all their cash from their accounts- may seem dramatic, almost theatrical to people today. But to people living in an economically unstable society, like the early twentieth century, they were an expected occurrence. The banks were independent rivals, the amount of currency in circulation was fixed, and there was no element of trust between the depositor and the bank. Abram P. Andrews, secretary of the National Monetary Commission in 1908 provided a vivid description of the banks' quandary at the time:
...anks while limiting that blame to a small number of specific banks that are not any specific listener’s bank.
JPMorgan Chase is one of the largest and best known banks in the banking industry. JP Morgan Chase is a global financial service firm with operations in over 50 countries. With a CEO who is known as one of the banking industries top leaders it is obvious why they are in the top 10 of the fortune 500. Although JP Morgan Chase bank is one of the leaders in the industry I believe they are a long way away from being the most innovative bank around. Banks can be one of the most targeted locations for robberies which is why I find it important for them to protect their customers and themselves. Utilizing computerized bankers would be a good start to safety within their branches. Money should not be kept on the floor of any bank to avoid unnecessary situations.
Judith Jarvis Thomson's controversial essay: A Defense of Abortion, takes an imaginative approach to the debate of abortion being impermissible, making her paper one of the most reprinted essays of philosophy. Thomson uses atypical examples to combat the most common reason for abortion being unjust: the fetus being human and the mother having responsibility for it. It has been said to be the best possible defense of abortion, however, is Thomson’s argument unbreakable and not open to criticism? Thomas initially seemingly strengthens her argument by accepting the most common criticism of abortion and uses absurd radical analogies unseen of before. Does Thomson’s imaginative way of reasoning, specifically her acorn and violinist thought experiments,
In this analogy, Thomson describes a situation involving a really small house, a person, and a rapidly growing child. The child keeps growing and becoming larger and larger; the house cannot support such growth and the person in it is being crushed. Eventually the walls of the house will explode and the person in the house will die. The child, however, will just complete his or her growth and walk out of the house in perfect conditions. The person represents the woman, the house represents her body, and the growing child represents the fetus. From this analogy, it is evident that as the fetus grows and completes his or her nine months of growth, the woman is dying in the process. Thomson does not believe that the woman, knowing that she has a health condition that will kill her if she goes through with the pregnancy, should just sit and wait until the pregnancy kills her based on the fact that it would be immoral for her to abort. According to Thomson, it would be morally permissible for the woman to abort the baby based on her right to self-defense. Although Thomson states that, “in this case there are only two people involved, one whose life is threatened, and one who threatens it. Both are innocent: the one who is threatened is not threatened because of any fault, the one who threatens does not threaten because of any fault” (43), she does not believe that because both the woman and fetus are innocent, this should allow for no action to be taken or that they have equal say in the matter. Thomson believes the woman should exercise her right to protect her life from the fetus threatening it because she is the owner of her body, not the fetus. Once again, this supports her argument that the woman’s right to decide what to do with her body outweighs the fetus’ right to
Judith Jarvis Thompson takes a pro-choice stance using examples or viewpoints that are easily relatable to demonstrate her point on the subject of abortion. While the examples she uses are unlikely to occur, they are understandable. Our
Throughout Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion there are multiple points that analyze and evaluate different perceptions and arguments of a concept that oppose abortion based on the premise that a fetus is considered a person from the moment of conception. These distinct points are all expressed through scenarios of thought experiments such as, the violinist, Henry Fonda, and people-seeds. Within the violinist thought experiment, Thomson utilizes a situation in which an individual is kidnapped and plugged into a violinist’s circulatory system without consent to extract poisons from the blood of both people. From this setup, the argument becomes apparent that even though an individual has the right to the decisions within their body such as the
Thomson suggests that abortion is morally permissible in some cases like: abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother and where pregnancy stems from rape. The conclusions that Thomson gives about pregnancies due to rape are: The fetus has no right to a person’s body and no injustice to the fetus by removing it from her body. We have to remember that Thomson believes, “The right to life consists not in the right not be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly” (Thomson 57). This is what Thomson believes the right to life amounts to. If this is true, then abortions are morally permissible in some cases. For example the violinist case shows that the violinist has the right to life and so you are not allowed to act unjustly towards him by unplugging yourself, which would kill him. If you do not kill him unjustly you won’t be violating his right to life. So in the end you would not be doing the violinist justice. We can compare the violinist case to the acts of mothers using abortion due to rape. In the violinist argument kidnapping is morally wrong; rape is morally wrong. The hospital stay would last nine months; the pregnancy would last nine months. The violinist is an innocent human being; the fetus is an innocent human being. Unplugging from the violinist is amounting to killing the violinist; aborting the pregnancy amounts to killing the fetus. In other words, if the mother does not want the baby plugged into her, it is permissible for the mother to unplug herself from the baby. By this example the raped mother had not given the fetus the right to her own body for the use of food and
This confinement Gilman uncovers through writing the short story is what tends to lead to the mental health issues of the women like Jane and Gilman herself. More importantly, the literary work The Yellow Wallpaper becomes a symbol of meaning for the women living during the time because women reading the short story can relate to each other. Moreover, some describe The Yellow Wallpaper by replying, “It was not intended to drive people crazy, but to save people from being driven crazy, and it worked” (Why
In Thompson’s book “A Defense of Abortion”, it is clear to the us that Thompson believes that abortion is morally permissible given certain circumstances. One circumstance is rape. To defend her claim, Thompson provides us with unconscious violinist analogy. Since you were kidnapped and forced to aid the unconscious violinist, unplugging from him and killing him is morally permissible. Therefore, abortion is morally just if the fetus was conceived without consent, such as with rape. Regardless of the dire situation for the violinist, it is the mere fact that you were forced; therefore, you serve no obligation to keeping the unconscious violinist alive. However, I believe that is not the case, and there’s a major flaw that invalidates Thompson’s
Due to the absolute transparency of the market, customers can compare the services of various banks easily. If customers are not dissatisfied with the products or services offered by a bank, they can change their bank easily than in the real bank-client