A Quote by Dan Schulman

The cost of money rises dramatically if you can't afford to keep it in a bank. — © Dan Schulman
The cost of money rises dramatically if you can't afford to keep it in a bank.
I had five dollars in the bank that I couldn't have for three days until they charged me another 15. Leaving me with -10. What does that mean? I don't even have no money any more. I wish I had nothing. But I don't have it. I don't have that much. I have not ten. Negative ten. I can't afford to buy something that doesn't cost anything. I can only afford to get something that costs you give me ten dollars.
It doesn't cost money to let people keep more of their own money. It costs money to spend money you don't have, but that's another issue.
Contrary to what most people think, bank money is much more important than state money. In Greece, for example, bank money makes up 84.26% of the total money supply.
I know it's different today than when I was growing up, and that's fine. But I have never been somebody, even when I was earning $19,000 a year, I never ran around whining and moaning about what things cost. What they cost was what they cost. And if I couldn't afford it, then I had to find a way to afford it or forget about it for now. It's just the way it was.
You do know it cost money to put a t-shirt on your back? You do know it cost money have a house? You do know it cost money to eat? Get money, don't let these people fool you.
Keep God in your heart like you keep money in the bank.
I try to collect money and I keep it in a special place called the bank. I collect a bunch of things called money, dollar bills, and I keep them in a safe under my bed.
To protect people's lives and keep our children safe, we must implement public-works spending and do so proudly. If possible, I'd like to see the Bank of Japan purchase all of the construction bonds that we need to issue to cover the cost. That would also forcefully circulate money in the market. That would be positive for the economy, too.
If bankers can push the loans and make more profits for the bank, they get paid higher bonuses. They often also get stock options. If the bank goes under, they get to keep all of these salaries and options - and the government will bail out the bank. These guys will take their money and run, which is pretty much what they're doing now.
If you only take money in the bank and never put money in the bank, you'll go broke.
Keep in mind that you don't need to be addicted to money in order to acquire it. You can prefer to have money; you will then be able to enjoy whatever money you receive, but your happiness will not be contingent on the size of your bank account.
Can't keep Love like money in the bank
I don't indulge in anything extravagant but I can't keep money in the bank.
When a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's deposit account by the amount of the loan. It does not take this money from anyone else's deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It's new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.
So: if the chronic inflation undergone by Americans, and in almost every other country, is caused by the continuing creation of new money, and if in each country its governmental "Central Bank" (in the United States, the Federal Reserve) is the sole monopoly source and creator of all money, who then is responsible for the blight of inflation? Who except the very institution that is solely empowered to create money, that is, the Fed (and the Bank of England, and the Bank of Italy, and other central banks) itself?
I completely agree with the concept that American citizens shouldn't expect that a failure of a bank would cost them money, or that it would hurt the economy.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!