response 25 of 56:

Jan 10 11:50 UTC 2005

(I'd love to see the personal finances of some of those advising 
Grex.)

Yes, we could pay the treasurer for this time.  Counting driving, 
parking, banking and return, that's about an hour a renewal.  Four 
times a year.  $80 to the treasurer.  $28 for Grex. 

response 27 of 56:

Jan 10 16:23 UTC 2005

A five-year CD paid about 5% at the time and the penalty for early withdrawal
was not very high and after half a year or so you would be ahead even if you
withdrew early.  I thought the objection was to the lack of insurance but some
people also felt it would be immoral to withdraw early.  

response 29 of 56:

Jan 10 18:03 UTC 2005

You pay tax on it and any penalty fees the bank has. That's the sum of it.

response 31 of 56:

Jan 10 21:50 UTC 2005

[this, by the way, let me remind you, is because of the rude things mary said
to cross that made him <s>resign</s> from staff, but it can only come out now,
when he doesn't have anything PERSONAL riding on it.].

response 35 of 56:

Jan 11 03:10 UTC 2005

Regarding #32; Hey, please apply that advice to yourself!

response 37 of 56:

Jan 15 09:39 UTC 2005

mary remmers is a kerl

response 39 of 56:

Jan 17 23:23 UTC 2005

They can't wrap their brains around the fact that supporting anti-restoration
of the valerie and jep items was truly immoral and unethical. It's an
Orwellian definition issue they need to work through.

response 41 of 56:

Jan 18 04:01 UTC 2005

I completely don't understand what jp2 is talking about.

(1)  Grex didn't crash.
(2)  If it had crashed, how would that have proved which empirical claim?

Before I attempt to explain why people might think that "breaking a CD"
would be immoral or inethical, I should note that I personally don't think
that it would be.  However, I like to think I have some capacity of under-
standing points of view different from my own, so I'll try to help you out.

Let's say two party's agree to a contract.  Party A later invokes a clause
in the contract the consequences of which are seriously detrimental to
party B.  Has party A acted in a manner immoral or inethical.

Business logic says "no".  Party B agreed to the contract, and has nothing
to complain about so long as party A is within the terms of the contract.

Personal logic isn't so clear.  Whatever business logic says, party B is
likely to stop regarding party A as a friend.  Party B may feel stabbed
in the back.

The question of which kind of logic applies to which situation is frequently
difficult.  Personally, even in my business dealings, I do not care to push
my own advantage too far at the expense of others.  My concept of an ideal
business deal is one where everyone wins.  Some people, however, go much
further than I in prefering to apply what I called "personal logic" to all
their dealings.  I think that end of the spectrum is where the idea that
things like "breaking a CD" is immoral come from.

Personally, I think in this particular instance, it just doesn't apply.
The bank wrote the CD contract.  I'd be astonished if there is any clause
in it that isn't advantageous to them.  Withdrawing early for some penalty
is just exercising one of the options the bank offered you at the time you
signed the contract.  If they didn't offer that option, very likely they'd
sell many fewer of them.

So, I don't agree with this particular way of thinking, but I do, in a way,
admire it.

response 43 of 56:

Jan 18 15:53 UTC 2005

I think the penalty was something like losing half a year's interest on the
amount withdrawn.  So if you got a 5 year CD and withdrew some money after
a year, and it was paying 5%, and a savings account was paying 2.5%, you
would be even.  If the CD paid 3% and savings 0.5%, you would be way ahead.
If a current CD pays 3% and a savings account 1%, withdrawal after 1 year
instead of 5 would net you .5% more than leaving it in savings.  (3% minus
1.5% = 1.5% as opposed to 1%).  What are current rates and someone please
correct me if the half year is wrong.  

I thought the major objection was lack of insurance on the investment.
Or something of the sort - some escape clause that the bank tells me has never
been using, in case of national emergencies.

response 45 of 56:

Jan 19 02:21 UTC 2005

I guess Jamie and you are in my blindspot, because I understand neither his
comment nor your explanation of it.

response 47 of 56:

Jan 19 03:55 UTC 2005

The best test of any theory is its predictive power.

response 49 of 56:

Jan 23 16:27 UTC 2005

Why does anyone want to kill the CD?  Isn't it an investment?