Jim Ley

On Sat, 17 May 2003 10:45:23 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
wrote:

    >"Sjoerd" a écrit dans le message de news:
    >[email protected]...
    >> Bank transfer.
    >How do you put a bank transfer in an envelope?

You don't, you simply add a note telling the people that you have, if
you still feel the need to.

Jim.

Owain

"David Horne" wrote
    | I've never had a problem with any sort of direct debit. In the UK
    | there's a guarantee that protects you against the kind of problems you
    | mention.

A friend of mine once worked in the direct debits / mortgage payments
section of one of the major UK banks. She won't use direct debits for
anything if she can avoid it.

Another friend has DDs for everything and recently tried to change banks.
Every recipient of a DD payment had to be contacted; some would take a new
instruction by phone, others would post out a form, etc etc. Not all of them
could guarantee to take the new instruction by the start of the month she
wanted to change over all her payments.

Me, I write cheques. When the council tax people couldn't find my payment I
got a copy of the microfiche of the cheque (unfortunately my bank stopped
returning the cheques with the statement a few years ago) with the council's
stamp on the back, and was able to say to them "here's the honoured cheque,
it's your problem".

I don't even have a cash machine or debit card on my current a/c. If I want
cash I go to the bank with a cheque. It prevents impulse purchases, which
is a Good Thing :-)

Owain

Sjoerd

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > "Sjoerd" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > [email protected]...
    > > No. A cheque is sent to the benificiary, a bank
    > > transfer form (that we use a lot here) is sent
    > > to your bank.
    > A check ultimately is sent to your bank. It's an order to the bank to
give
    > someone else a certain amount of money, debited from your account. It's a
    > form of contract. Unless banks have stopped honoring customer orders in
the
    > Netherlands, I don't see how they can abolish checks.

Again, banks in the Netherlands never had cheques, except (guaranteed)
Eurocheques that were abolished a few years ago.
Not all countries use cheques. Some countries use bank transfers. When I
want to pay someone, I ask him his account number, fill out a form for my
bank including the recipient's account number, name and adress and send it
to my bank. Of course, in 99% of the cases the recipient sends you a
standardised form with all his details on it, and all I have to do is fill
in my bank account number, sign the form and send it to my bank.

Sjoerd



Sjoerd

Sjoerd

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > "Sjoerd" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > [email protected]...
    > > We never had any cheques except for the Eurocheques
    > > that were abolished 2 or 3 years ago.
    > Dutch banks do not honor written orders or promissory notes?

Sigh...we use BANK TRANSFERS, not cheques. A bank transfer is a written
order, but it is NOT A CHEQUE.

Sjoerd

Sjoerd

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
news[email protected]...
    > "Sjoerd" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > [email protected]...
    > > Bank transfer.
    > How do you put a bank transfer in an envelope?

It is a form. A piece of paper. Very easy actually to put in an envelope.

Sjoerd

European

On Sat, 17 May 2003 10:47:20 +0200, "Mxsmanic"
wrote:

    >"Sjoerd" a écrit dans le message de news:
    >[email protected]...
    >> No. A cheque is sent to the benificiary, a bank
    >> transfer form (that we use a lot here) is sent
    >> to your bank.
    >A check ultimately is sent to your bank. It's an order to the bank to give
    >someone else a certain amount of money, debited from your account. It's a
    >form of contract. Unless banks have stopped honoring customer orders in the
    >Netherlands, I don't see how they can abolish checks.
My God you are really boring, take your blinkers off and look beyond
the damn yankee banking system.
READ THE F****** posts and stop letting your own lack of experience,
lack of imagination and typical american arogant stupidity get in the
way of your education. The rest of the first world has moved on beyond
the antiquated cheque system.
THE DUTCH BANKS SCRAPPED CHEQUES SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

Your statement" I don't see how they can abolish checks." combined
with REALITY shows that the problem is not with the Dutch banking
system, and not with the accuracy of other peoples posts but with your
own knowledge perseption, information, intelligence, imagination and
reading powers.
Anyway, who gives a s**t what you can or cannot see. Your just a
[email protected]


I won't bother to explain all the advanced inovations in the Dutch
(and many European) banking systems in the last decade, but they are
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of the antiquated US system.

But I'll just give one simple example which has been VERY widely used
for paying domestic and smaller commercial bills for at least 20 years
to my knowledge. It's so simple even you should be able to understand
it. It avoids 'the cheques in the post problem completely'.
It's called the accept giro. It's used as an alternative to the
directdebit system which many people do not like. It is used to pay
things like rent, electricity, telephone, mail order and even Internet
shops (selling physical goods).
This is a bank transfer form which is either sent to you (by post)
with your bill or specification, or is printed underneath the bill
itself.
You sign it, date it, write your account number on it and then give it
or send it to your bank. Some banks even give you prepaid envelopes to
make it even easier to send it to them. The bank then pays it from
your account and the recipient sees it appear on their bank account,
complete with a bill identifier and your name etc.
With the very efficient Dutch postal system and completely automatic
handling of acceptgiros the process only need take 3 or 4 days which
is fast enough for most purposes. As you have a choice of when to pay
and from which account/bank.
It is MUCH better system than cheques for paying bills and avoids the
problem of direct debits because you are fully in control.
It avoids the risk and extra time delay and extra administration that
the shopkeeper which enables hin to keep his costs to the customer as
low as possible.

Even in the last years of the cheques they were not often used for
over the count payments. People paid cash or with a debit card.
You have to remember (if you ever knew) that The Netherlands is a
small country with a high population density so there are very few
shops which are not a short walk away from a cash dispenser. (As an
Americun you might need to look up the word 'walk' in a dictionary ...
one foot in front of the other .. no car .. healthy exercise ..
instead of going to the Gym .. . get the idea?)


Credit Cards were never a part of everyday shopping in the Netherlands
(as in most of Europe and much of the non-US-infested parts of the
world). Their use took (and still takes) an excessive amount of time,
causes delays for other shoppers, gives extra costs to the shopkeeper
(4 to 5%), extra administration and the risk of a callback meant that
they were (and still are) hated by shopkeepers.
Shopkeepers in The Netherlands have a choice. They can charge a fair
price for their goods, and everybody pays with cash of a (practically)
free debit card system. OR they can assume that everybody will pay by
credit card and they put their prices up by 5% to cover the extra
costs. The Dutch do not pay out extra money if they can avoid it!
especially if it's a banking organisation which takes an extra 5% of
their hard-earned money.
Now perhaps you can understand why many people in Europe consider
Americuns who insist on using credit cards to pay for trivially small
items are the epitomy of the steroptype-proving anti-social stupid
Ugly American.

Your definition of (personal) cheque (or check in Americun) stinks.
This (bit of the) discussion was about cheques, but you are
desperately trying to avoid having to admit that you are wrong (and
you have been repeatedly proven wrong) by (unsuccesfully) attempting
to change the definition of a cheque to include any bit of paper with
an 'amount of money' written on it. You would probably include the
novelty toilet-paper with Euros printed on it in your definition.
Oh Sorry, I forgot, you probably can't image toilet-paper with a money
emblem printed on it because wiping your backside on a US dollar would
unAmericun, un patriotic, get you branded as al-Quaeda and get you
shipped off to Cuba. Mcarthy rides again.

I know you Americuns are not accustomed to believing what Europeans
tell you, and gullibly swallow every word of the bullshit that
eminates from the whitehouse propaganda and media machine.
but just to you give another chance.
TAKE YOUR BLINKERS OFF NOW.
READ THIS.

THE DUTCH BANKS SCRAPPED CHEQUES SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
AN ORDER TO YOUR BANK TO TRANSFER MONEY FROM YOUR BANK ACCOUNT TO
ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT CALLED A CHEQUE.

got it?
Yes? Then you can stop reading now.

Disagree?
My God, such arogance and stupidity.
You really have got a problem haven't you.

THE DUTCH BANKS SCRAPPED CHEQUES SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
AN ORDER TO YOUR BANK TO TRANSFER MONEY FROM YOUR BANK ACCOUNT TO
ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT CALLED A CHEQUE.

Still think that the Dutch use personal cheques?
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
YOU, Yes YOU, YOU YOU YOU ARE WRONG.
VERY WRONG.

Mark Brader

"Sjoerd" and "Mxsmanic" write:
    > > > Bank transfer.
    > > How do you put a bank transfer in an envelope?
    > It is a form. A piece of paper. Very easy actually to put in an envelope.

Okay, this is off-topic, but this sort of cultural comparison is one of the
reasons for travel, so let's continue with it.

A "check" or "cheque" as we know it works like this. Say I owe $60 to
John Doe. I make out a check, which is an order like this:

BANK OF PODUNK
Central Branch April 32, 2003

Pay to JOHN DOE $60.00 (sixty dollars)

Account 6666666 (signed) Mark Brader

My bank supplies check forms with my personal details already on
them, and magnetic ink numerals for simpler processing. I don't have
to use the forms -- plain paper will do -- but they'll charge me
extra if I don't.

I mail it to John. He takes it to the Bank of Punkeydoodle Corners,
where he has an account. They pay him $60 (or depending on their
policies and his credit rating, maybe they allow a credit of $60 in
his account but freeze his access to the money for a few days) and
send the check to the Bank of Podunk. They deduct $60 from my account
6666666 and transfer the money electronically to the Bank of Punkey-
doodle Corners.

In North America checks commonly read "pay to the order of" instead
of "pay to"; this means that John Doe has the right to sign over the
check to a third party. In Britain, on the other hand, checks are
commonly "crossed", which effectively makes the meaning "pay only
into the account of".

We don't do "bank transfers" much here, but I would expect them to
involve going to the bank that the money was being transferred from
(unless you were a business and had arrangements to do it regularly),
and usually a sizable fee.

Your turn, Sjoerd.
--
Mark Brader | "But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, econ-
Toronto | omists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of
[email protected] | Europe is extinguished for ever." --Edmund Burke, 1790

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Sjoerd

"Mark Brader" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > "Sjoerd" and "Mxsmanic" write:
    > > > > Bank transfer.
    > > > How do you put a bank transfer in an envelope?
    > > It is a form. A piece of paper. Very easy actually to put in an
envelope.
    > Okay, this is off-topic, but this sort of cultural comparison is one of
the
    > reasons for travel, so let's continue with it.
    > A "check" or "cheque" as we know it works like this. Say I owe $60 to
    > John Doe. I make out a check, which is an order like this:
    > BANK OF PODUNK
    > Central Branch April 32, 2003
    > Pay to JOHN DOE $60.00 (sixty dollars)
    > Account 6666666 (signed) Mark Brader
    > My bank supplies check forms with my personal details already on
    > them, and magnetic ink numerals for simpler processing. I don't have
    > to use the forms -- plain paper will do -- but they'll charge me
    > extra if I don't.
    > I mail it to John. He takes it to the Bank of Punkeydoodle Corners,
    > where he has an account. They pay him $60 (or depending on their
    > policies and his credit rating, maybe they allow a credit of $60 in
    > his account but freeze his access to the money for a few days) and
    > send the check to the Bank of Podunk. They deduct $60 from my account
    > 6666666 and transfer the money electronically to the Bank of Punkey-
    > doodle Corners.
    > In North America checks commonly read "pay to the order of" instead
    > of "pay to"; this means that John Doe has the right to sign over the
    > check to a third party. In Britain, on the other hand, checks are
    > commonly "crossed", which effectively makes the meaning "pay only
    > into the account of".
    > We don't do "bank transfers" much here, but I would expect them to
    > involve going to the bank that the money was being transferred from
    > (unless you were a business and had arrangements to do it regularly),
    > and usually a sizable fee.
    > Your turn, Sjoerd.

Ok, just for the fun of it.

Say I owe EUR 60 to Jan Smit. I ask him for his account number (businesses
have their account number on their invoices) with any bank (I don't need to
know which bank as the Dutch banks have a unique account number structure),
fill out a bank transfer form (preprinted form with my name, address, and
all kinds of fancy codes already preprinted) so I only have to write 1) Jan
Smit's account number, 2) his name and 3) sign it. My bank gives me free
postage-paid envelopes so after filling out the form I send it to my bank,
they debit my account and credit Jan Smit's account (if Jan Smit has his
account with another bank the banks have a fancy interbank system to get the
money from my bank to his bank).

For 99% of the invoices I receive, I get the invoice with a bank transfer
form attached to it. This is a standardized form with all of the recipients
data preprinted, and if I have a "relation" with the business (say the phone
bill), all my data (name, address, my bank account number) also preprinted.
I just sign and send the form to my bank, see above.

So once a month or so I usually pay my bills. I used to have 10 or 15 of
these pre-printed forms, sign them, put them all into an envelope and send
it off. Now, I do almost everything with direct debit (allowing the
recipient to take the money out of my account) The Dutch banks have a
system whereby I can always reverse a direct debit, no questions asked. So
even when I don't agree with a direct debit I just call my bank, ask them to
reverse the payment, and the next day I am credited again.

The advantage that I see in our system vs the US/Canadian system is the
saving of the postage. I have visited US friends and saw them write their
checks, and they usually were mailing 10 or 15 envelopes to the various
recipients.

Also, when their is insufficient balance or a problem with the cheque, in
the US/Canadian system if I understand correctly the payers bank will
contact the recipients bank which will contact the recipient who will
contact the payer. In our system, the payers bank will just contact the
payer.

Sjoerd

Sjoerd

"Mark Brader" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > "Sjoerd" and "Mxsmanic" write:
    > > > > Bank transfer.
    > > > How do you put a bank transfer in an envelope?
    > > It is a form. A piece of paper. Very easy actually to put in an
envelope.
    > Okay, this is off-topic, but this sort of cultural comparison is one of
the
    > reasons for travel, so let's continue with it.
    > A "check" or "cheque" as we know it works like this. Say I owe $60 to
    > John Doe. I make out a check, which is an order like this:
    > BANK OF PODUNK
    > Central Branch April 32, 2003
    > Pay to JOHN DOE $60.00 (sixty dollars)
    > Account 6666666 (signed) Mark Brader
    > My bank supplies check forms with my personal details already on
    > them, and magnetic ink numerals for simpler processing. I don't have
    > to use the forms -- plain paper will do -- but they'll charge me
    > extra if I don't.
    > I mail it to John. He takes it to the Bank of Punkeydoodle Corners,
    > where he has an account. They pay him $60 (or depending on their
    > policies and his credit rating, maybe they allow a credit of $60 in
    > his account but freeze his access to the money for a few days) and
    > send the check to the Bank of Podunk. They deduct $60 from my account
    > 6666666 and transfer the money electronically to the Bank of Punkey-
    > doodle Corners.
    > In North America checks commonly read "pay to the order of" instead
    > of "pay to"; this means that John Doe has the right to sign over the
    > check to a third party. In Britain, on the other hand, checks are
    > commonly "crossed", which effectively makes the meaning "pay only
    > into the account of".
    > We don't do "bank transfers" much here, but I would expect them to
    > involve going to the bank that the money was being transferred from
    > (unless you were a business and had arrangements to do it regularly),
    > and usually a sizable fee.

Just saw your remarks about a "sizeable fee". In addition to my earlier
post, this system here is absolutely free for me. I pay nothing. The bank
will take some value days (so they debit my account one or two days earlier
than that they credit Jan Smit's account) but that's all the costs I "pay".

Sjoerd

David Horne

Owain wrote:

    > A friend of mine once worked in the direct debits / mortgage payments
    > section of one of the major UK banks. She won't use direct debits for
    > anything if she can avoid it.

I'm sorry she feels that way. She may have seen some horror stories with
DDs. I've never had a problem with one of them, or cancelling them.

    > Another friend has DDs for everything and recently tried to change banks.
    > Every recipient of a DD payment had to be contacted; some would take a new
    > instruction by phone, others would post out a form, etc etc. Not all of them
    > could guarantee to take the new instruction by the start of the month she
    > wanted to change over all her payments.

Well, changing bank accounts is a hassle, I agree, but that would be the
same in many cases. If I changed my account, I'd have to contact all the
various places that pay directly into _my_ account, so it's not just DDs
that are affected. Certainly, there have been moves to make the process
easier, but if I was changing my principle account, I'd leave an overlap
of a month or so while all the DDs were taken care of on the old one.

    > Me, I write cheques. When the council tax people couldn't find my payment I
    > got a copy of the microfiche of the cheque (unfortunately my bank stopped
    > returning the cheques with the statement a few years ago) with the council's
    > stamp on the back, and was able to say to them "here's the honoured cheque,
    > it's your problem".

Well, again, I've lived in two different council areas since moving from
the US. I've never once written a cheque to them. I made a simple phone
call in each case, took about 2 minutes, and I was set up with DD. When
I moved from one place to the other, I called up the first council and
cancelled. Took, again, a couple of minutes. No problems, and that was
with a council which has become notorious for bad management.

I don't criticise you for the way you deal with your affairs, as that's
not my place or business. Speaking personally, I just couldn't abide
with the hassle of writing out cheques for all the things I need to.
Then, add the cost of postage, and the fact that many companies (for
example, BT, the main phone company in the UK) give you slight discounts
for paying by DD, or in the case of others charge _extra_ if you don't
use it (a distinction without a difference perhaps!)- it just strikes me
as too much hassle.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Mxsmanic

"European" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > My God you are really boring, take your blinkers
    > off and look beyond the damn yankee banking system.

It's not a "Yankee banking system"; the concept of promissory notes and bank
orders (bills of exchange, generally speaking, which order a bank to pay
money to some third party on behalf of one of its clients) predates the
founding of the United States by nearly a thousand years.

    > READ THE F****** posts and stop letting your own
    > lack of experience, lack of imagination and typical
    > american arogant stupidity get in the way of your
    > education.

Your emotions seem to be in control. I do not find emotion persuasive in
discussion.

    > The rest of the first world has moved on beyond
    > the antiquated cheque system. THE DUTCH BANKS SCRAPPED
    > CHEQUES SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

All of the world's banks still honor customer orders, unless they
contractually decline this service.

    > Your statement" I don't see how they can abolish
    > checks." combined with REALITY shows that the problem
    > is not with the Dutch banking system, and not with
    > the accuracy of other peoples posts but with your
    > own knowledge perseption, information, intelligence,
    > imagination and reading powers.

Your personal attack is not relevant to the matter at hand.

What I do see is that many people don't realize the fundamental nature of a
check. I know this to be fairly widespread, because many people write bad
checks without realizing the consequences and without understanding exactly
what they are signing.

    > Anyway, who gives a s**t what you can or cannot see.

Apparently you do, given the length of your post and the vehemence of your
attacks.

    > I won't bother to explain all the advanced inovations
    > in the Dutch (and many European) banking systems in
    > the last decade, but they are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
    > ahead of the antiquated US system.

I'm not sure why you believe this to be some sort of European/U.S.
difference. The U.S. did not invent banking, common law, or contract law.
All of these principles are at least European in origin, and often go back
beyond the Europeans.

    > This is a bank transfer form which is either sent
    > to you (by post) with your bill or specification,
    > or is printed underneath the bill itself.

The bank transfer form is a type of check. Read what it actually says, and
you'll see. That's why you have to sign it--it's an order to the bank.

    > The bank then pays it from your account ...

It does this because it has been provided with a signed order from you.
It's the equivalent of a check.

It sounds as though you've been deceived by appearances. Just because an
interbank payment transfer form doesn't look like a traditional check
doesn't mean that it is fundamentally any different.

    > It is MUCH better system than cheques for paying
    > bills and avoids the problem of direct debits
    > because you are fully in control.

It's essentially identical to a check, except that the "check" is already
filled out and requires only a date and signature.

    > As an Americun you might need to look up the word
    > 'walk' in a dictionary ...

Walk is an English word; most Americans thus know what it means.

    > Credit Cards were never a part of everyday shopping
    > in the Netherlands (as in most of Europe and much of
    > the non-US-infested parts of the world).

Credit cards are used extensively in France, as they are faster and easier
than writing checks, and are better adapted to purchases than cash for
non-trivial amounts of money.

    > Their use took (and still takes) an excessive
    > amount of time, causes delays for other shoppers,
    > gives extra costs to the shopkeeper (4 to 5%), extra
    > administration and the risk of a callback meant that
    > they were (and still are) hated by shopkeepers.

Shopkeepers in France appear to love them. It's possible to pay by credit
card in a few seconds, which is at least as fast as cash and much faster
than any type of check or other bank order.

    > The Dutch do not pay out extra money if they
    > can avoid it!

Yes, I've heard about the (non-)spending habits of Dutch tourists visiting
France. They are well known for it.

    > ... especially if it's a banking organisation which
    > takes an extra 5% of their hard-earned money.

What is the nominal VAT rate in the Netherlands?

    > Now perhaps you can understand why many people
    > in Europe consider Americuns who insist on using
    > credit cards to pay for trivially small items are
    > the epitomy of the steroptype-proving anti-social stupid
    > Ugly American.

Not in France. Many French people do the same thing, using a credit card to
pay for only five or six euro in purchases.

    > Your definition of (personal) cheque (or check in
    > Americun) stinks.

It's a legal definition. Most people don't understand the legalities of
checks.

    > I know you Americuns are not accustomed to believing
    > what Europeans tell you ...

I don't believe what I'm told when I know it to be incorrect. I don't know
how Americans in general behave, although I think that most of them manage
to behave with considerably more decorum than you've shown in your post.

Is your behavior typical of the Dutch?

Mxsmanic

"Mark Brader" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > In North America checks commonly read "pay to
    > the order of" instead of "pay to"; this means
    > that John Doe has the right to sign over the
    > check to a third party. In Britain, on the
    > other hand, checks are commonly "crossed", which
    > effectively makes the meaning "pay only into
    > the account of".

True in France also, and in most of Europe, I believe. They still must be
endorsed when presented, but they can only be endorsed to the credit of a
bank for deposit.

    > We don't do "bank transfers" much here, but I
    > would expect them to involve going to the bank
    > that the money was being transferred from
    > (unless you were a business and had arrangements
    > to do it regularly), and usually a sizable fee.

They are called TIPs (Transferts Interbancaires de Paiement) in France.
Large companies use them to facilitate payment. They are essentially
pre-written checks, ordering the bank to deduct money from your account and
pay it into the account of the companies in question. You must still date
and sign the TIP to make it legally binding upon the bank, and you must
still have funds on hand in your account to cover the order (otherwise it is
still fraud, just as with any other bad check).

marko

On Sun, 18 May 2003 10:28:51 +0100,
[email protected] (David Horne) wrote:


    >I don't criticise you for the way you deal with your affairs, as that's
    >not my place or business. Speaking personally, I just couldn't abide
    >with the hassle of writing out cheques for all the things I need to.
    >Then, add the cost of postage, and the fact that many companies (for
    >example, BT, the main phone company in the UK) give you slight discounts
    >for paying by DD, or in the case of others charge _extra_ if you don't
    >use it (a distinction without a difference perhaps!)- it just strikes me
    >as too much hassle.

esp with council tax and BT bill you can actually pay it at the post
office. I know what you saying about the discount (for paying by DD.)
But some people come to a post office to buy a stamp to post it, yet
they could of just paid it there with the cheque and save themselves
20-28p postage stamp. (and they will have a receipt to say it has been
paid straight away.

Jim Ley

On Sun, 18 May 2003 10:48:25 +0200, "Sjoerd"
wrote:

    >Say I owe EUR 60 to Jan Smit. I ask him for his account number (businesses
    >have their account number on their invoices) with any bank (I don't need to
    >know which bank as the Dutch banks have a unique account number structure),
    >fill out a bank transfer form (preprinted form with my name, address, and
    >all kinds of fancy codes already preprinted) so I only have to write 1) Jan
    >Smit's account number, 2) his name and 3) sign it.

I assume you can also set this up over the phone or internet?
avoiding the postal system and the instantaneous (or at most a few
days when interbank) transfer are the key advantages of the system (as
well of course as a recipient not having to do anything with the
cheque - the 1 I've recieved in the last 2 years took me 3 months to
pay in to my bank and it travelled the world in between...

Jim.

Greg Byshenk

Sjoerd wrote:

    > The advantage that I see in our system vs the US/Canadian system is the
    > saving of the postage. I have visited US friends and saw them write their
    > checks, and they usually were mailing 10 or 15 envelopes to the various
    > recipients.

And, it is not necessary to use the post at all. When I must fill
out a giro, I just drop it in the slot at the bank provided for that
purpose. Dutch post is quite efficient, but it is simpler still not
to bother at all.

Another advantage to the Dutch system is that makes on-line or
electronic banking much simpler, as there is nothing to "set up"
except the actual on-line access to one's account. There are no
special arrangments needed between the account holder and his/her
creditors, as is the case in the US. When I use on-line banking, I
simply fill out a transfer order on-line, and it works in exactly the
same way as a "normal" paper transfer.

As someone who currently uses both the Dutch and US systems, I
consider the Dutch system to be superior.


In the US system:

I recieve a bill from XYZ, and write a cheque. I place it in the
mail, and after one (or more) day(s), XYZ recieves the cheque. XYZ
then processes the cheque interally over the course of one (or more)
day(s), and delivers it the their bank. Their bank then accepts the
cheque (but normally does _not_ yet credit the account of XYZ), and
processes the cheque of the course of one (or more) day(s). After
this processing and contacting my bank, XYZs bank sends the cheque
to my bank and my bank does an electronic transfer of funds from my
account to that of XYZ.

In the Dutch system:

I receive a bill from XYZ. I fill out a tranfer form and mail or
deliver it to my bank. The next business day (normally), my bank
processes the transfer and immediately transfers the funds from
my account to that of XYZ.

In each case, the end result is exactly the same: an electronic
funds transfer from my account to that of XYZ, based on a form
signed by me authorizing the transfer. Under the Dutch system, I
give that form directly to my bank and the transfer is accomplished.
Under the US system, that form must take a long and roundabout
journey -- but that journey is ultimately to the same destination and
ultimately achieves the same result.

One of these systems is much simpler and more efficient, and I
don't think there can be any doubt as to which system that is.


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
hate spam?