FU - Bank of America

sevenoneeighty

escap,

I'm not sure you completely understand - but this isn't just a concept.
Yes, any company will invest in a place that is going to be profitable - that is good business practice. The issue is who can AFFORD the spaces to begin with and how they afford them: MONEY.

I'm not sure you are arguing my point...Small businesses are disappearing quickly in NY as we speak...

Also, expenses by larger corporation CAN and ARE paid with cash on hand...and revenues. No one is/was arguing that ATMs and Banks don't make money. It is one of the major ways properties are acquired - especially here in NY: cash is king and folks get outbid. I wish I could show you the lease negotiations....

escap

7180, I'm not sure we entirely disagree--it's more of a subtle difference. If you could "afford the spaces to begin with" but expected to lose money in the long run, you obviously wouldn't make the investment. Right? The key is that the business that makes the most profit in the long run, or at least expects to, is the one that can afford the highest rent. Period. This is just basic finance. Large corporations can often pay more than small businesses because they expect to generate far higher revenues on the property in question. How do you think they got all that cash in the first place? Again, if it's just cash balances that matter, why don't Microsoft and Exxon have stores all over Manhattan? They certainly have more cash than they need. But it is expected future profits at the site that is by far the most important, and yes, corporations are often more profitable than small businesses, especially in certain locations (but definitely not all).

Now, how do you make money in the long run? You provide people with something they need or want. So if large corporations can outbid small ones in some areas, it is because the products/services they sell are more aligned with the desires of the consumers in the area. Hence, the oft-repeated accusations that they add no value to an area or are "worthless" are way off base. As much as chains are an eyesore and a cultural whitewash, they are successful because they sell things people want, and they do it more efficiently than their competitors.

escap

One last attempt to sort out our differences simply and clearly:

You are looking at this from the side of the landlord, and your main point is "Whoever can make the highest bid, including cash upfront, will win the lease."

I have no argument with this. But I am looking at that bid from the tenant's side, and am saying, "Sure, I might have enough cash to outbid the next guy, but I am only going to use that cash if I expect to get the return I require on my investment."

Understood? Different perspective perhaps. If it's still not clear, then so be it. Good discussion either way.

cat

Subject: capitalism not so great and definitely not kind...

Legislation and regulation is the only way capitalism can be 'controlled.' It is not a kind system. I'm not sure how capitalism has made this country so great when all it seems to do is promote endless consumption, destruction of the environment, and dubious, mean spirited ethics in business, where the bulk of the money is kept in the hands of the few.

there is nothing wrong with a COMMUNITY deciding what it wants its community to LOOK like, feel like, and be.

Part of the problem is that developers and landlords (big landlords ) never seem to think they have enough money. & don't seem to care about the concept of community.

Even the person who owns the pork store on 5th Avenue also once owned that eccentric parking lot at 1st Street and 5th Avenue. If there was more of a premium put on retaining community flavor and if there wasn't such a high price put on real estate and making money, in my opinion, that would not now be a Commerce Bank.

Anonymous wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]How were they allowed to get away with that building in Park Slope?

It's called capitalism. A business has a right to open wherever they can legally want to open. What gives us the right to say which stores can open and which ones cannot. We need to vote with our dollars: if you don't want a business, simply do not patronize them. If everyone is truly against them, they will eventually close down. If they don't, then it only means many others have found their services to be beneficial to them.

SevenOneEighty wrote:
A colleague told me that Harlems is trying to get a zoning resolution passed in certain districts that makes Banks go to the SECOND floor of inline sites to keep from killing the streetscape and street life after 5pm...Anyone know more about this?

Why should the government be involved in dictating what business can do? Perhaps gays should wear blue hats (node to Borat). Tomorrow restaraunts most have locations only on the corner of streets. Politicians have better things to do. This problem is not a political one, it's an economic one. Don't want it, don't go there.

anonymous

cat wrote: Legislation and regulation is the only way capitalism can be 'controlled.'

You seem to be believe that Capitalism either needs to be or should be controlled. You are right that anti-market legislation and economic regulations are the only way that the free enterprise system can be controlled. But why would anyone want to do something so evil?

cat wrote: It is not a kind system.

A common Socialist/Communist/Interventionist falsehood. Capitalism is the only "kind" system because it is the only moral system. It is the system of free association and non-coercion. It is the social system based on peace and self-ownership. All other systems are based on theft and violence. To denigrate Capitalism in favor of some other one is to logically advocate theft and violence, and to elevate the actions of theft and violence to the level of moral actions and "kindness."

cat wrote: I'm not sure how capitalism has made this country so great…

This may not be your fault entirely as the education system of this country (NYC in particular) has been the most awful claptrap of Interventionist indoctrination this side of Moscow. It exists to ingrain propaganda designed to make children glorify the State. If you are now an adult the responsibility for educating yourself in the truth of history and economics falls to you.

cat wrote: …when all it seems to do is promote endless consumption…

Consumption can only occur with products that are produced. To have endless consumption one must have endless production to match that demand. Basic economics will inform you that there are three things to note in economic life: supply, demand, and price. As supply increases price goes down, as demand increases price goes up. Prices rising serves to limit the amount consumed, and therefore remains one of the most effective ways to limit consumption and preserve resources. The only way to have endless consumption in reality is to destroy the price system, the goal of Socialists and Communists. With the destruction of the price indicator prices are effectively $0. With low or no prices and unlimited demand supply will be diminished post haste. If your goal is to limit consumption then the tool to do it is the system of freely set prices.

cat wrote: …destruction of the environment…

In modern times the question of "environment" has become a basic and sacred tenet of thought. What has been left ambiguous is the definition of "environment." You seem to mean environment as in the biota of Earth independent of human beings, and regard it as valuable inherently without human valuators (indicating a subconscious or unadmitted hatred of humans and humanity). I use environment to mean my surroundings. Capitalism has done nothing but constantly improve and preserve my environment. Without it my environment would be covered in rocks, trees, dirt, mosquitoes, snow in the winter, boiling heat in the summer etc. I live in a modern home with appliances, indoor plumbing, heating in the winter, cooling in the summer, a bed, a blanket, a computer, etc. Amazing luxuries undreamed of by even the Pharaohs of Egypt, conveniences unmatched by even such modern monarchs as Queen Victoria. No. Capitalism improves my environment immeasurably.

As for the rest of the world independent of my purview Capitalism aids this as well. It is the system of private property, i.e. "mine and thine distinct," and as such it behooves private property owners to take the best care of their property possible. Destroying the private property system is tantamount to instituting a price of $0 and ushering in a tragedy of the commons. That truly destroys the environment.

cat wrote: …and dubious, mean spirited ethics in business, where the bulk of the money is kept in the hands of the few.

In a free and unhampered market having poor ethics will destroy you. In a market where there are protectionist acts and interferences in trade it pays to be unethical. To improve the situation remove the controls and let horrible companies fail. They will no longer have the ability to influence policy as governments will have no power to help them or hinder them, they cannot keep their customers when they cannot force competitors out of business with regulations that only they can afford. In the absence of State intervention there will return the tendency toward uniform wage rates/profits/prices among equals over time.

cat wrote: there is nothing wrong with a COMMUNITY deciding what it wants its community to LOOK like, feel like, and be.

There is something very wrong with pretending that a community can "decide" anything, apart from the individual decisions of its members. The capacity for decision making exists in the minds of individual human beings, not in collectives. If any other members of the community wish to initiate violence against me or my property then violence will be the response to them. If I decide I'd like to put an ATM in my house (or on my house), you will have no say in the matter. The look, feel, and existence of a community is a result of either the several independent decisions of the individuals working alone or voluntarily together, or of the coercion of overwhelming force on the part of those holding the reigns of power. From what I'm reading I see you'd like to hold those reigns of power over all who disagree with you. This is part of the reason that the fascist government of NYC deprives people of their most essential individual right: self defense, even in firearms.

cat

Subject: hmmm... floating balloons in the air?

I feel like your answer is very USA textbook. On top of that, you make many judgments and assumptions, taking great leaps off of what I wrote. I am wondering if you are using this as a tactic to divert the conversation from what it was to my having to defend *your* view of my beliefs, having taken grand leaps from what I stated. I don't know if this is really a conversation (via the internet) if the other person is doing this and clearly has a motivation to do so.

You believe our current economic system can actually flourish without regulation because it will somehow self regulate. I disagree. Most businesses are self regulated to a large degree now and government looks the other way to ensure their huge profits and it is a disaster. Where they are not (in case you are going to say they are and that is the problem...) is where we see extreme troubles.

By environment, and you know this is what I mean -- I am referring to the health of our environment, which is our planet, which supports our own lives and the lives of the ecosystem and the animals and wildlife that inhabit the land with us. Without a healthy environment - land, air, water, ecosystem, our lives are precarious.

Capitalism is non coercion? Really now?? It is peace? I just don't agree.
All evidence points otherwise.

Please don't speak down to me as if I am some poor child with mistaken ideas. Assumption again -- I am not a product (a "child") of the NYC education system and even if I was, again grand generalization and sweeping judgment you have put forth there. It seems that you are ingrained in the notion that capitalism is great and will defend it very vigorously when all evidence is pointing to the fact that the system is failing us. If you mean it is "great" because of the great American Dream, I feel that is a myth in many ways. Look at education, homelessness and poverty, the # of people in jail, etc. in our country - compared to other places - while many people are doing quite well and very affluent, the figures in this country around these issues are astonishingly sad.

You have decided that I hate people because I care about the environment. Huh? How did you take this great leap? Based on your experiences with people or based on the fact that this viewpoint helps you in arguments? It's like floating a balloon in the air so everyone looks at the balloon instead of keeping their eyes focused on what is in front of them. My statement was that there has been destruction of the environment. Why would you reframe my views unless you were baiting... ? which sorry to say seems the point of your post.

You only believe certain things are "luxuries" because we all are conditioned to believe we can't live without certain things. How do we know what we think when we are programmed in so many ways ? Most people will say that their lives, despite all these modern "improvements" and conveniences are incredibly hectic... they are 'stressed" ... there are so many depressed people in this country ... clearly there is a global climate change and yet, you think it's all fine. You don't want to see it otherwise.

Private property owners are not taking the best care of their environment(using the word from your reference point). Corners are cut to save money. We hear about this every single day.

I think you also misinterpret perhaps purposefully (and again read into what I am saying, make assumptions and judgments - which is not helpful in a dialogue because then it becomes about disputing these items. Which may be a tactic on your part) the idea of community and you believe apparently that individualism reigns supreme. Again, I think we are conditioned to believe this. But then you state that my idea of community would be to "hold reigns of power over all who disagree with you." Huh?? To subvert what I was saying and the meaning of community is really low. But, again, it also feels like propaganda to me because for whatever reason you believe the system 'as is' is benefitting you.

There's not much more I can say because we are so far apart in our beliefs but please reconsider your idea that the system will work to the benefit of all left to its own devices and that the individual wishes are always better than those of the community. There's a book called "The Pursuit of Loneliness" that I think sums up a lot of what you are saying and looks at the Great American Dream and Americans' wish (whether through advertising and government structures) to live more isolated lives and where that comes from.

I do believe the government has fascist tendencies. We have agreement there but probably for different reasons.

Anonymous wrote: [quote=cat]Legislation and regulation is the only way capitalism can be 'controlled.'

You seem to be believe that Capitalism either needs to be or should be controlled. You are right that anti-market legislation and economic regulations are the only way that the free enterprise system can be controlled. But why would anyone want to do something so evil?

cat wrote: It is not a kind system.

A common Socialist/Communist/Interventionist falsehood. Capitalism is the only "kind" system because it is the only moral system. It is the system of free association and non-coercion. It is the social system based on peace and self-ownership. All other systems are based on theft and violence. To denigrate Capitalism in favor of some other one is to logically advocate theft and violence, and to elevate the actions of theft and violence to the level of moral actions and "kindness."

cat wrote: I'm not sure how capitalism has made this country so great…

This may not be your fault entirely as the education system of this country (NYC in particular) has been the most awful claptrap of Interventionist indoctrination this side of Moscow. It exists to ingrain propaganda designed to make children glorify the State. If you are now an adult the responsibility for educating yourself in the truth of history and economics falls to you.

cat wrote: …when all it seems to do is promote endless consumption…

Consumption can only occur with products that are produced. To have endless consumption one must have endless production to match that demand. Basic economics will inform you that there are three things to note in economic life: supply, demand, and price. As supply increases price goes down, as demand increases price goes up. Prices rising serves to limit the amount consumed, and therefore remains one of the most effective ways to limit consumption and preserve resources. The only way to have endless consumption in reality is to destroy the price system, the goal of Socialists and Communists. With the destruction of the price indicator prices are effectively $0. With low or no prices and unlimited demand supply will be diminished post haste. If your goal is to limit consumption then the tool to do it is the system of freely set prices.

cat wrote: …destruction of the environment…

In modern times the question of "environment" has become a basic and sacred tenet of thought. What has been left ambiguous is the definition of "environment." You seem to mean environment as in the biota of Earth independent of human beings, and regard it as valuable inherently without human valuators (indicating a subconscious or unadmitted hatred of humans and humanity). I use environment to mean my surroundings. Capitalism has done nothing but constantly improve and preserve my environment. Without it my environment would be covered in rocks, trees, dirt, mosquitoes, snow in the winter, boiling heat in the summer etc. I live in a modern home with appliances, indoor plumbing, heating in the winter, cooling in the summer, a bed, a blanket, a computer, etc. Amazing luxuries undreamed of by even the Pharaohs of Egypt, conveniences unmatched by even such modern monarchs as Queen Victoria. No. Capitalism improves my environment immeasurably.

As for the rest of the world independent of my purview Capitalism aids this as well. It is the system of private property, i.e. "mine and thine distinct," and as such it behooves private property owners to take the best care of their property possible. Destroying the private property system is tantamount to instituting a price of $0 and ushering in a tragedy of the commons. That truly destroys the environment.

cat wrote: …and dubious, mean spirited ethics in business, where the bulk of the money is kept in the hands of the few.

In a free and unhampered market having poor ethics will destroy you. In a market where there are protectionist acts and interferences in trade it pays to be unethical. To improve the situation remove the controls and let horrible companies fail. They will no longer have the ability to influence policy as governments will have no power to help them or hinder them, they cannot keep their customers when they cannot force competitors out of business with regulations that only they can afford. In the absence of State intervention there will return the tendency toward uniform wage rates/profits/prices among equals over time.

cat wrote: there is nothing wrong with a COMMUNITY deciding what it wants its community to LOOK like, feel like, and be.

There is something very wrong with pretending that a community can "decide" anything, apart from the individual decisions of its members. The capacity for decision making exists in the minds of individual human beings, not in collectives. If any other members of the community wish to initiate violence against me or my property then violence will be the response to them. If I decide I'd like to put an ATM in my house (or on my house), you will have no say in the matter. The look, feel, and existence of a community is a result of either the several independent decisions of the individuals working alone or voluntarily together, or of the coercion of overwhelming force on the part of those holding the reigns of power. From what I'm reading I see you'd like to hold those reigns of power over all who disagree with you. This is part of the reason that the fascist government of NYC deprives people of their most essential individual right: self defense, even in firearms.

escap

Guest,

I'm torn as to how to jump in on this marvelous turn in the conversation. Part of me wants to say, "Hey, don't you know I'm the token capitalist on this message board? Quit usurping my role!" Another part of me wants to say, "Yeah! Finally an ally in my quest to break the stranglehold of the ideology of Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Stalin and Mugabe on Park Slope, Brooklyn!" Perhaps with other like you out there we can avoid the 1984 scenario that so many area residents seem to be rushing to embrace. Another part of me wants to say, "Who is John Gault?" I mean, seriously, did you just read Atlas Shrugged or what? And why not sign in? Why lurk mysteriously under the Guest anonymity? People might even think I'm you (the mods can confirm that I'm not!). Anyway, that was quite the ideological diatribe. =D> =D>

Cat, if you think capitalism is so evil, I think it would do you some good to visit some countries where there is no capitalism. Sorry--for all their welfare trappings, Denmark, Sweden and France are all free-market economies, in many ways far more so than the U.S. Go all out, visit a real non capitalist country, and then ask what socialism does for communities, the environment, peace and prosperity. Controlled economies abound on this planet, and none of them is prosperous, peaceful or happy. Please spend some time in one, witness the staggering human suffering, and then please consider toning down your hard-line anti-capitalist rhetoric.

nice dude

banks are people too.

doctorj

I used to believe in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Until I discovered stealing from the poor and investing with the rich. You know it makes sense.

doctorj

escap wrote:
I have no argument with this. But I am looking at that bid from the tenant's side, and am saying, "Sure, I might have enough cash to outbid the next guy, but I am only going to use that cash if I expect to get the return I require on my investment."

I think you're not placing much emphasis on the factor of time until return, deepness of pockets, and how capital intensive the business. If the business plan calls for making a greater return averaged over 15 years but a loss the first 5 including aggressive pricing, renovation or other capital improvements, time to grow market share, and outbidding for long-term leases, then compared with someone who needs to break even the first year and every year to stay afloat, your small guy is generally at a serious disadvantage. The first 3-5 years might consist of driving the smaller competition to the wall, then having an entrenched position and large market share from which to milk higher profits on average over the lifetime of the investment. I also think that new markets can be created by ex nihilo by clever advertising for products and services that previously didn't exist, and that medium-to-large players are more likely to have the depth of ingenuity, resources, and marketing muscle to create those desires and new habits in consumers. This is only partially offset by the value of local knowledge and community customer loyalty. I think what we have seen in recent decades is a shift towards the chains on average; no way will they ever win outright, as there will always be niche and boutique players, but globalization, mass production, falling logistics costs, standardization, turn-key solutions, economies of scale, have helped tip the balance from small business to large for a whole range of stuff people buy. i.e. there are simply more franchises and chains around the world than there used to be, at the sacrifice of some less efficient or less dependable operations, but also some more diverse or hand-tailored small-cap shallow-pocketed players.

escap

*sigh* Et tu, Dr J?

Well, if you look through some of my posts you'll see that I did allow for some caveats along the lines of what you are suggesting. And I certainly agree that large companies may have huge advantages in economies of scale, brand-name creation, greater efficiency and all those other things you mentioned, but such things are legitimate advantages that add value to the consumer, and my point was that the business that adds the most value to the consumer is the one that can pay the highest rent. So nothing along these lines contradicts anything I said.

You make only one point that contradicts mine--your point about being able to sustain up front losses. Fair enough, but we are talking about the particular issue of small businesses like a bakery vs. an ATM or cell phone store, not huge, capital-intensive endeavors like a Wal-mart or Whole Foods. Wal-mart is not trying to rent out the space where your local butcher operates, for example. And I highly doubt the cell phone stores, Starbucks, etc. that are competing for those spaces are expecting to take large losses up front the way you describe, nor are they generally seeking any kind of monopoly status. So sorry, no dice!! [-X

carnivore

escap wrote: Fair enough, but we are talking about the particular issue of small businesses like a bakery vs. an ATM or cell phone store, not huge, capital-intensive endeavors like a Wal-mart or Whole Foods. [-X

Funny, I thought we were talking about small businesses vs. Bank of America.

ic96

As an FYI, you can read about Bank of America's environmental initiatives here. How many corporations have an Environment section to their website!?!

http://www.bankofamerica.com/environment/

The bank’s environmental highlights include:

• - The company is building the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park in Manhattan, which will be the world’s most environmentally sound sky scraper.
  - The company is also building a 32-story office tower in Charlotte, which will be one of the most environmentally sound office towers in the Southeast.
  - The company has set aggressive, voluntary goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the company 9% by 2009 through the reduction of its energy consumption. On track to achieve this target, the company reduced electric consumption by 4% through 2005 by taking steps such as monitoring and controlling energy consumption in many bank buildings across the franchise.
  - The Bank gives a $3000 reimbursement to all Associates who buy hybrid cars.
  - From 2000-2005, the company reduced operational paper usage 32% even as its customer base grew 24%.
  - Annually, the bank recycles nearly 50,000 tons of paper, effectively recycling more paper than it uses for internal operations.
  - The bank has an industry-leading paper procurement policy that furthers paper reduction and recycling, addresses illegal logging, promotes sustainable forest practices and protects endangered forests.
  - The company offers online banking customers the option of electronic statements in place of paper, for which more than 5 million customers have signed up. Additionally, for every paper statement suppressed, Bank of America donated $1 to The Nature Conservancy’s reforestation programs, up to a total donation of $500,000.
  - Bank of America has comprehensive policies covering forestry and biodiversity issues that prohibit the bank from financing projects that would destroy primary moist tropical rainforests, certain endangered forests or from financing companies involved in illegal logging.
  - Bank of America works with its energy and utility customers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their operations.
  - Through Community Development Banking, Bank of America has financed the construction of notable “green” buildings including 1400 Fifth Avenue, NYC–the largest "green," affordable mixed-use condominium development in the United States.

I did this research in 5 minutes. It's not like it's hard to find out there either.

doctorj

ic96 wrote: As an FYI, you can read about Bank of America's environmental initiatives here. How many corporations have an Environment section to their website!?!

Those that don't yet, soon will. The scramble to greenwash every corporate website in the world has begun.

Reminds me of a tour I took of a Shell oil refinery in the early 90s. They explained they'd implemented a new Green Policy. To them, that meant painting those huge petroleum storage towers green instead of white. Unfortunately, that meant greater absorption of heat from the sun, and thus higher emissions of volatile hydrocarbons to the atmosphere. But people we're happier, because they were green.

michaelkeys

Carnivore wrote: [quote=escap]Fair enough, but we are talking about the particular issue of small businesses like a bakery vs. an ATM or cell phone store, not huge, capital-intensive endeavors like a Wal-mart or Whole Foods. [-X

Funny, I thought we were talking about small businesses vs. Bank of America.
There you go Carny, perpetuating "the stranglehold of the ideology of Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Stalin and Mugabe on Park Slope, Brooklyn!"
Sorry, but what rubbish.

And then cries of "Foul!" arise if the offended--but equally sophomoric--party retorts with some variation on "greedy, capitalist pig". Which in turn is answered with sweeping generalizations of hypocrisy and...oh, just give me a break.

PS: PSCP (Park Slope Communist Party) meeting this week. We haven't decided on a location yet, but I'm sure we'll just intimidate some struggling businessperson and forcefully take over their locale so we can finalize our plans to overtake the neighborhood in the name of the party. Be well, comrade.

pitu

MichaelKeys wrote:
PS: PSCP (Park Slope Communist Party) meeting this week. We haven't decided on a location yet, but I'm sure we'll just intimidate some struggling businessperson and forcefully take over their locale so we can finalize our plans to overtake the neighborhood in the name of the party. Be well, comrade.

perhaps a church, synagogue, or mosque?
:twisted:

michaelkeys

pitu wrote: [quote=MichaelKeys]
PS: PSCP (Park Slope Communist Party) meeting this week. We haven't decided on a location yet, but I'm sure we'll just intimidate some struggling businessperson and forcefully take over their locale so we can finalize our plans to overtake the neighborhood in the name of the party. Be well, comrade.

perhaps a church, synagogue, or mosque?
:twisted:
Even better.

doctorj

MichaelKeys wrote: [quote=pitu][quote=MichaelKeys]
PS: PSCP (Park Slope Communist Party) meeting this week. We haven't decided on a location yet, but I'm sure we'll just intimidate some struggling businessperson and forcefully take over their locale so we can finalize our plans to overtake the neighborhood in the name of the party. Be well, comrade.

perhaps a church, synagogue, or mosque?
:twisted:
Even better.

Are Groucho-Marxists welcome in your exclusive club?

pitu

(sigh)
they are known for refusing to belong to any club that would have them...

escap

MichaelKeys wrote:
There you go Carny, perpetuating "the stranglehold of the ideology of Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Stalin and Mugabe on Park Slope, Brooklyn!"
Sorry, but what rubbish.

And then cries of "Foul!" arise if the offended--but equally sophomoric--party retorts with some variation on "greedy, capitalist pig". Which in turn is answered with sweeping generalizations of hypocrisy and...oh, just give me a break.

PS: PSCP (Park Slope Communist Party) meeting this week. We haven't decided on a location yet, but I'm sure we'll just intimidate some struggling businessperson and forcefully take over their locale so we can finalize our plans to overtake the neighborhood in the name of the party. Be well, comrade.

Hahaha, come on now, I'm assuming you can distinguish btwn my genuine ideological ranting and my just messing with you ranting. This one was the latter, naturally. Perhaps I should lay on the sarcasm thicker...

pitu

escap wrote:
Hahaha, come on now, I'm assuming you can distinguish btwn my genuine ideological ranting and my just messing with you ranting. This one was the latter, naturally. Perhaps I should lay on the sarcasm thicker...

escap, you're SO fond of the ranting that it all becomes one at this point -- I don't bother to wade in to find out which version you're putting out
(but that explains to the board why you might make sense every once in a while)

dw438

All I can say is having two ATM's outside a subway entrance is briiliant!
Than again, having a pizza joint on the other entrance is good, too, though not at times for the waist line.

wally

2.00 atm fee? Yikes. The ATM fee in the ATM at the McD's on 9th is only 99cents.....

I agree - they probably are looking to attract people to their bank (ie the big branch on 5th) and it IS convenient to have a real ATM on 7th up there but after my recent experiences with BofA as a credit card company (they bought MBNA which wasn't stellar to begin with), I would never use them as a bank.