Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why hate corporations?

Myrant
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 8:02:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Currently there are several anti-corporate protests going on. After watching the interviews I have the impression that these people really have no idea what they want but they want more of it now. Generally speaking, these guys really don't like corporations and want to destroy these entities. Would some anti-corporation guys or gals care to explain why these people want to destroy business? I would like to read your viewpoint, if you are anti-corporation.

No need for venom; just tell me why.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 8:08:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Class envy mainly. They see how much profits and the amount CEOs make and think they must be evil.

However, you can hate them for using rent seeking power in congress. How much of this is defensive lobbying or how much of this is rent seeking is difficult to estimate.

Also, even though I defend sweatshops, there are many practices that corporations participate in third-world countries that are despicable:
http://www.cracked.com...

Also small business owners are sore losers :p when people prefer Walmart over their store.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 8:26:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 8:19:31 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I hate bank of america because they find new and ridiculous ways to charge me late fees.

Nobody is forcing you to use bank of america.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 8:34:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 8:26:24 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 8:19:31 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I hate bank of america because they find new and ridiculous ways to charge me late fees.

Nobody is forcing you to use bank of america.

Doesn't stop me from hating them.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 8:45:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 8:34:29 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 8:26:24 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 8:19:31 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I hate bank of america because they find new and ridiculous ways to charge me late fees.

Nobody is forcing you to use bank of america.

Doesn't stop me from hating them.

So they give you a service that you desire and voluntarily agreed to do and you hate them for that?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 9:00:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
corporations aren't inherently bad, but many are run by bad people. theres three main things i don't like about corporations:

1. if they get big, they dominate the market to the point of suppressing competitors (ie amazon has over 90% of book sales)
2. heads of the company can make however much they want, many times at the expense of the employee (yes i understand an employee chooses to work there but many times the options are limited)
3. they can pretty much get away with any fraud they want as long as the person signed the paper; and contracts are purposefully long-winded and complicated so that the average person doesn't know what they are signing.

this could all be stopped if there were better regulations.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 9:10:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 9:00:45 AM, Lickdafoot wrote:
corporations aren't inherently bad, but many are run by bad people. theres three main things i don't like about corporations:

1. if they get big, they dominate the market to the point of suppressing competitors (ie amazon has over 90% of book sales)

Please provide some statistics about that. There are other forms of competition it has. Barns & Nobles is still a main competitor. Also, what is wrong with dominating the market, since amazon was able do the action by creating an efficient business model. As a result, Amazon has diversified competition between authors, because If you go to a typical retail store it will only have a few books. Go to amazon and you can find many different books.

2. heads of the company can make however much they want, many times at the expense of the employee (yes i understand an employee chooses to work there but many times the options are limited)

Actually, the salary of the head of the company is determined by the board of directors. They can't just "choose" their salary. Also, corporations compete for labor, so the "cost" of labor is determined by supply and demand. Corporations don't have much power to determine wages.

3. they can pretty much get away with any fraud they want as long as the person signed the paper; and contracts are purposefully long-winded and complicated so that the average person doesn't know what they are signing.

this could all be stopped if there were better regulations.

I actually have to agree with you somewhat on this one.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 9:27:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 9:10:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 9:00:45 AM, Lickdafoot wrote:
corporations aren't inherently bad, but many are run by bad people. theres three main things i don't like about corporations:

1. if they get big, they dominate the market to the point of suppressing competitors (ie amazon has over 90% of book sales)

Please provide some statistics about that. There are other forms of competition it has. Barns & Nobles is still a main competitor. Also, what is wrong with dominating the market, since amazon was able do the action by creating an efficient business model. As a result, Amazon has diversified competition between authors, because If you go to a typical retail store it will only have a few books. Go to amazon and you can find many different books.


it's not necessarily their fault; i buy books at amazon too, because all the normal bookstores (which was basically just borders) close by where closed down and amazon is a place i can buy them, and buy pretty much any book i want. but if it was regulated more so that they can only sell to a certain % of the market, even if it was a fairly large margin, it would be the best for everyone as a whole because more people would be able to find jobs in a retail book market. i'll get statistics and respond to the other question later as i have to go.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 9:35:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 9:27:29 AM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 10/7/2011 9:10:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 9:00:45 AM, Lickdafoot wrote:
corporations aren't inherently bad, but many are run by bad people. theres three main things i don't like about corporations:

1. if they get big, they dominate the market to the point of suppressing competitors (ie amazon has over 90% of book sales)

Please provide some statistics about that. There are other forms of competition it has. Barns & Nobles is still a main competitor. Also, what is wrong with dominating the market, since amazon was able do the action by creating an efficient business model. As a result, Amazon has diversified competition between authors, because If you go to a typical retail store it will only have a few books. Go to amazon and you can find many different books.


it's not necessarily their fault; i buy books at amazon too, because all the normal bookstores (which was basically just borders) close by where closed down and amazon is a place i can buy them, and buy pretty much any book i want. but if it was regulated more so that they can only sell to a certain % of the market, even if it was a fairly large margin, it would be the best for everyone as a whole because more people would be able to find jobs in a retail book market. i'll get statistics and respond to the other question later as i have to go.

How do you do that though? You can't force consumers to shop at another place. The only way you can do that is to raise the price of books, so that consumers are forced to shop at another place. Or you break amazon up into smaller companies, which is a basic infraction of property rights. Also, since you are lowering their return on capital, it basically disincentives investing and takes away the benefits from economics of scale.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 9:35:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 8:08:30 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Class envy mainly. They see how much profits and the amount CEOs make and think they must be evil.

However, you can hate them for using rent seeking power in congress. How much of this is defensive lobbying or how much of this is rent seeking is difficult to estimate.

Also, even though I defend sweatshops, there are many practices that corporations participate in third-world countries that are despicable:
http://www.cracked.com...

Also small business owners are sore losers :p when people prefer Walmart over their store.

CIA: "Hello?"

United Fruit: "BANANAS blah blah blah OUR LAND blah blah PEASANTS blah blah COMMUNISTS!"

CIA: **click**

United Fruit: "Hello? Hello?"

**Hears explosions in background, takes cover**

Gotta love Cracked, lol.

Read more: The Awful Truth Behind 5 Items Probably On Your Grocery List | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Myrant
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:33:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 9:00:45 AM, Lickdafoot wrote:
corporations aren't inherently bad, but many are run by bad people. theres three main things i don't like about corporations:

1. if they get big, they dominate the market to the point of suppressing competitors (ie amazon has over 90% of book sales)
2. heads of the company can make however much they want, many times at the expense of the employee (yes i understand an employee chooses to work there but many times the options are limited)
3. they can pretty much get away with any fraud they want as long as the person signed the paper; and contracts are purposefully long-winded and complicated so that the average person doesn't know what they are signing.

this could all be stopped if there were better regulations.

Ok, got it. What are all these people protesting and what is they want? Does anyone know?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:25:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 8:19:31 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I hate bank of america because they find new and ridiculous ways to charge me late fees.

The fees are a product of the Dodd-Frank legislation that prohibited the fees from being charged to merchants. Somebody has to pay for the service. There a lot more of that coming as Dodd Frank cuts off the traditional sources of income to banks.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:39:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So killing people who try to steal your land is bad?

Why does it matter if they are elected? It doesn't matter if gang rapists win a local election does it?

As for the 1928 thing, I have no idea whether the strike was peaceful in the first place. When I looked at the Coca Cola killing a while back that people talk about a killing, for example, it definitely wasn't (forcible factory occupation), though I'll withhold judgment on this one.

Cruelty to dogs? Why should I care?

I'm pretty sure any workers can plainly see that pesticides are being used. If they don't try to find out which ones, laborer emptor.

Now the Nestle bit, that looks like a problem, f*** Nestle.

1. if they get big, they dominate the market to the point of suppressing competitors (ie amazon has over 90% of book sales)
Unless that number is 100% no competitors have been suppressed.

2. heads of the company can make however much they want, many times at the expense of the employee (yes i understand an employee chooses to work there but many times the options are limited)
The options are even more limited when people have no incentive to make moar, better companies.

3. they can pretty much get away with any fraud they want as long as the person signed the paper; and contracts are purposefully long-winded and complicated so that the average person doesn't know what they are signing.
If you don't understand something don't sign it. Presenting a contract is not what "Fraud" means.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:47:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 12:25:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/7/2011 8:19:31 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I hate bank of america because they find new and ridiculous ways to charge me late fees.

The fees are a product of the Dodd-Frank legislation that prohibited the fees from being charged to merchants. Somebody has to pay for the service. There a lot more of that coming as Dodd Frank cuts off the traditional sources of income to banks.

You know what is funny? Another aspect of the Durbin amendment is that it allowed retailers to refuse debit cards for purchases under X dollars. So now on the front of our little snack Kiosks at work, there is a sign that says "we no longer accept debit card transactions under $10." Sucks (since they were over charging us to begin with), but hey, that is part of the new law, they can do that. But the part that bugs me is that they also say on them "This is because congress passed the Durbin Amendment which raises the cost of debit card transactions by over 250%." In otherwords, this is a company saying "blame congress for our greed."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:48:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 12:39:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

3. they can pretty much get away with any fraud they want as long as the person signed the paper; and contracts are purposefully long-winded and complicated so that the average person doesn't know what they are signing.
If you don't understand something don't sign it. Presenting a contract is not what "Fraud" means.

DO you read all contracts you sign? Better yet, do you think people are rational enough to figure out the best loan option when banks purposely make the language as complicated as possible or try to get others to pick the choice that is worse for the consumer but good for the bank.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:50:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 9:00:45 AM, Lickdafoot wrote:
corporations aren't inherently bad, but many are run by bad people. theres three main things i don't like about corporations:

1. if they get big, they dominate the market to the point of suppressing competitors (ie amazon has over 90% of book sales)

"Amazon has not reached 50 per cent yet, and is still far from that range where all titles are concerned." http://seekingalpha.com...

A monopoly is bad for consmers if they both charge high prices and prevent competition from entering the market. Amazon clearly does neither, so what's your problem? If they raised their prices, Barnes and Noble would stomp them.

There are no significant examples of monopolies among major US corporations. Microsoft was edging up on domination of computer operating systems, but Apple is now a formidable competitor and Android is making a run. So name something.

2. heads of the company can make however much they want, many times at the expense of the employee (yes i understand an employee chooses to work there but many times the options are limited)

Consider Jack Welch, the former head of General Electric. He increased the value of GE to shareholders by about $90 billion. So why was it a bad deal for GE shareholders to have paid him perhaps $1 billion over the years? You cannot argue that a less-well-paid guy could have done the same, because there are plenty of people who try and fail. The number of extremely high paid execs is small. The same is true of rock stars, actors, and athletes. They are all well paid because that's what the market says they are worth.

3. they can pretty much get away with any fraud they want as long as the person signed the paper; and contracts are purposefully long-winded and complicated so that the average person doesn't know what they are signing.

Notice that we had strong laws against fraud and government auditors personally visited Bernie Madoff. So what is your evidence that regulation is a cure? We need laws against fraud, but government enforcement is ineffective. We should have independent certifications, similar to UL certifying safety. Having the government pretend to do the job causes investors to falsely trust the system, which is why Madoff scammed so many people.

No entrepreneur want s to compete against a crook. They are eager to blow the whistle. It's unresponsive and inefficient regulation that's the problem. Europe is redundantly regulated. So have they had problems? Only worse than the US.

I'd be happy to debat this whole subject with anyone who thinks they have a case.
Myrant
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 7:41:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 11:50:30 AM, Kinesis wrote:
What protests are you talking about specifically? The Occupy Wall Street protests?

Sure, there are several going on but that is the most visible. The appearance is that nearly ever left wing group is protesting on a varity of subjects none of which seem to make sense.

They all seem to want the government to take over the corporations. Which to me seems like having a bear guard the sheep as opposed to a wolf. The wolf isn't good but the bear is much worse. I have a hard time believing that these people actually think the government would do better.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 8:04:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 8:19:31 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I hate bank of america because they find new and ridiculous ways to charge me late fees.

Um, My bank doesn't charge me late fee's. I never make late payments.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 1:22:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 12:48:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 12:39:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

3. they can pretty much get away with any fraud they want as long as the person signed the paper; and contracts are purposefully long-winded and complicated so that the average person doesn't know what they are signing.
If you don't understand something don't sign it. Presenting a contract is not what "Fraud" means.

DO you read all contracts you sign?
I read the headers of the unimportant internetty ones to get a sample large enough to have confidence I'm dealing with the same sort of lawyers (and read every word of the privacy policy if I'm giving them any important info), and I read through the important ones (like loans and such) fully.

Better yet, do you think people are rational enough to figure out the best loan option when banks purposely make the language as complicated as possible or try to get others to pick the choice that is worse for the consumer but good for the bank.
They do what now? The important parts of my student loans anyway, confirmed when I read the contract, were summarized quite neatly on the page before the contract. Prime plus X to Prime plus Y dependent on score, the following discounts for the following behavior, the following requirements, if you qualify for this one stay away from that one it will cost more, etc. Is Wells Fargo just weird (And Chase and the couple others I looked at?)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 1:26:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Now, when I went to get gummint loans on the other hand.... those are a lot messier. One law says you're fully, permanently liable, the other says liability under the following conditions, one says something about a special deferment I might qualify for but it's unclear whether it's still applicable or what the financial impacts are, one says I can't even defer payments of one of the loans at all, another says I have to apply specially to do so, yet in fact the page it referred to contained nothing of the sort... my gummint loans have already changed hands from Sallie Mae to being directly owned by the DOE to being "managed" by Sallie Mae again...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:14:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nobody is forcing you to use bank of america.

Doesn't stop me from hating them.

So they give you a service that you desire and voluntarily agreed to do and you hate them for that?:

B of A, along with Wells Fargo and several other large banks, are charging people a $25 fee if they don't have a minimum of a $1,2500.00 deposit once a month.

Nobody signed up for that, and you can bet that Bank of America will not be my bank because of their ridiculous nickle and dime tactics.

Having said that, yes, he should leave BofA is he's not happy.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:32:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't hate the company Rolex, I simply do not buy their overpriced garbage.

As long as there are other banks that find a sneakier way to cover their fees without ticking people off, why get upset?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:58:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 2:14:23 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nobody is forcing you to use bank of america.

Doesn't stop me from hating them.

So they give you a service that you desire and voluntarily agreed to do and you hate them for that?:

B of A, along with Wells Fargo and several other large banks, are charging people a $25 fee if they don't have a minimum of a $1,2500.00 deposit once a month.
*Checks Wells Fargo Account Statement, and fee schedule

I see no such fee. The only fee I've been charged recently is a 17 cent foreign transaction fee. (Did not realize that company was Polish, meh.)

The only 25 dollar item I see in recent fee updates is an "account research fee," up from 20 dollars. I don't know what that entails, but it says on their website that it's charged only when you request such account research.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:43:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 1:26:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now, when I went to get gummint loans on the other hand.... those are a lot messier. One law says you're fully, permanently liable, ...

Student loans from the government cannot be cancelled by bankruptcy. Every private loan is wiped out by going bankrupt, but Big Brother has no sense of humor.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:56:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 3:43:11 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/8/2011 1:26:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now, when I went to get gummint loans on the other hand.... those are a lot messier. One law says you're fully, permanently liable, ...

Student loans from the government cannot be cancelled by bankruptcy. Every private loan is wiped out by going bankrupt, but Big Brother has no sense of humor.

Private student loans can't be wiped out by bankruptcy either, actually.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 4:03:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 2:58:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:14:23 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nobody is forcing you to use bank of america.

Doesn't stop me from hating them.

So they give you a service that you desire and voluntarily agreed to do and you hate them for that?:

B of A, along with Wells Fargo and several other large banks, are charging people a $25 fee if they don't have a minimum of a $1,2500.00 deposit once a month.
*Checks Wells Fargo Account Statement, and fee schedule

I see no such fee. The only fee I've been charged recently is a 17 cent foreign transaction fee. (Did not realize that company was Polish, meh.)

The only 25 dollar item I see in recent fee updates is an "account research fee," up from 20 dollars. I don't know what that entails, but it says on their website that it's charged only when you request such account research.:

They may not have implemented it yet, or Wells Fargo isn't one of the banks that is beginning to charge clients for not having enough money in their account (which, of course, is completely counterintuitive).

http://industry-news.org...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 4:08:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The real issue seems to be the question of who is at greater fault here? The banks are getting a little ridiculous with their nickle and diming schemes, but then, stricter financial regulation from Uncle Sam has been implemented which is squeezing the banks too.

The only true thing we can conclude, however, is that the little guy on Main Street is being affected by the war between Wall Street and the Washington.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 4:35:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 4:03:15 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:58:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:14:23 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Nobody is forcing you to use bank of america.

Doesn't stop me from hating them.

So they give you a service that you desire and voluntarily agreed to do and you hate them for that?:

B of A, along with Wells Fargo and several other large banks, are charging people a $25 fee if they don't have a minimum of a $1,2500.00 deposit once a month.
*Checks Wells Fargo Account Statement, and fee schedule

I see no such fee. The only fee I've been charged recently is a 17 cent foreign transaction fee. (Did not realize that company was Polish, meh.)

The only 25 dollar item I see in recent fee updates is an "account research fee," up from 20 dollars. I don't know what that entails, but it says on their website that it's charged only when you request such account research.:

They may not have implemented it yet, or Wells Fargo isn't one of the banks that is beginning to charge clients for not having enough money in their account (which, of course, is completely counterintuitive).

http://industry-news.org...

There's nothing counterintuitive about account fees being waived for larger deposits in a fractional reserve banking system. It's perfectly rational when the costs of account maintenance are the same and they have less money to loan out and get interest from.

The difference between account fees for total deposits under 1500 dollars and not having a monthly direct deposit of 1,2500 dollars (the comma wasn't even in the right place, I'm giving it how you gave it, I dunno wtf that means!) is enormous.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.