Common Sense vs. Belief -- It's the liquidity Stupid

Reader comment on: Amalgamated Versus RiteCheck

Submitted by Joseph Coleman (United States), Aug 13, 2012 15:45

Grateful to this blog for pointing out the unconscious prejudice operating in the Times story. Another omission is the misleading conflation of deposits with check cashing. When a bank 'accepts' your deposit, they do not provide immediate funds availability for the check. They will give you access to the amount of funds already available in your account, but not for the check deposited. One cannot compare a 'free' deposit against the immediate unconstrained funds that result from a check cashing transaction.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
Oh Amalgamated! [417 words]Ellie KesselmanAug 14, 2012 16:43
⇒ Common Sense vs. Belief -- It's the liquidity Stupid [81 words]Joseph ColemanAug 13, 2012 15:45
Double Skewering [20 words]John GillisAug 6, 2012 17:45
Check Cashers fear no bank [56 words]Ed RossAug 6, 2012 15:40
↔ re: moneyorders
[w/response] [78 words]		Moses TeitelbaumAug 7, 2012 14:50
↔ Exploitation of the proletariat [321 words]Ellie KesselmanAug 13, 2012 04:45

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Common Sense vs. Belief -- It's the liquidity Stupid by Joseph Coleman

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.