January 30

Before I get to the example, look at Capital 1. Last Sept., their interest rate for savings account was 2%. Then 2.15% Oct., 2.15% last Nov., hit 3% last December. Currently at 3.3%.

Then, look at Chase bank, their savings interest rate is .01%, Bank of America .03%. This means Capital 1 is paying >100x more interest than Chase. Therefore, banks like Chase are making a lot of money right now? What should be more same to me - is the interest people are paying banks for a loan like for homes, so. And Capital 1 is more of an on-line bank, with fewer branches, so they can afford to pay higher interest imo. Chase bank having too many branches is a lot of employees (and assistant managers etc) to pay for. So, I'm predicting banks like Chase are actually making revenue now. Could be from recent lawsuits they lost historically too.

Also note that, a month ago, both banks interest for 5 year CDs was > than 4 years CD > 2 and 1 years. Recently, both banks changed that, so now, the 2 year CD is higher interest than 5 year CDs. To me, that means banks are predicting interests will go down almost as soon as the Federal Reserve stops raising interest rates. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Or the banks paying high interest rates on savings are desperate for some liquidity, even if it comes at a loss. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are making apples-to-apples comparisons for the type of account? There may be factors that make the accounts different (overdraft protection, minimum balance requirements, checking vs. savings, maximum withdrawal limits, debit card, etc. etc. etc.) that may account for the difference in interest rates; in other words rather than charging fees for certain services, the Chase account may simply provide less interest, but more service level with the account. The Capital One account may be more "bare bones" and offer less benefit to the customer in terms of features, which is why the bank offers higher interest rates. --Jayron32 13:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, many banks are making a fortune right now on certain types of savings account. Effectively, they are borrowing that money at near-zero rates, and can loan it out at the same rates they could loan money they borrowed at much higher money market rates. Given that some other FDIC-insured banks are offering 3% on similar accounts, banks like Chase are at a great advantage here, due in part to customer inertia and in part to people who wish to hold together one or another deal where they get certain benefits (waived fees, etc.) in exchange for maintaining some minimum balance in a tied savings account.
2. The situation where shorter-term interest rates are higher is called an "inverted yield curve"; you might want to read that article. Yes, it means they think interest rates will go down, most likely because they expect a recession. - Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for #2, Capital 1 just offered a 5% CD for 11-months, which is higher than their 12-month CD. I'm hoping the 2-year CDs go up though. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

And what are the losses of the Japanese in the war with the Americans? Just the same wiki says 1.1 million to 1.5 million Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons that have been exhaustively explained to you in reply to your previous queries about casualty figures, the range of 1.1–1.5 million is the best figure that anyone can estimate. It is impossible to be more precise than this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your "1.1M - 1.5M" figure in Pacific War which, as mentioned several times previously, makes it very hard to reply in detail when we have no idea what you're looking at. But, in the linked article, you can follow the reference to the secondary source that gives a figure of some 2.1M Japanese military deaths for the period 1937-1945.

Anyway, broad ranges have a couple of major sources. One is uncertainty in the estimates (such as seen in casualty estimates for the area bombings of Japanese cities). Another is uncertainty in scope (such as whether starvation deaths due to military blockade are classified as combat deaths). In either case, the ranges we present in articles should be in accordance with available reliable sources. "In my opinion, XYZ is the correct number", as per one of your previous comments in a Ref Desk question, is not an appropriate basis for proposing change. — Lomn 14:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are just 1.1 million Japanese who "died in battle" with the Americans. And already on the page "Losses in World War II" it is written that 1,555,000 Japanese died in the Asia-Pacific region, which fits better with the figure of 2.3 million killed in the war of 1937-1945. 190k killed in the war with China in 1937-1941, 2.1 million in the Pacific War, of which 300k killed in Soviet captivity + 265k killed in the war with China in 1941-1945, taking into account that in total 455k Japanese were lost in the war with China, subtract 190 in between 1937-1941, it turns out that in the war with the United States, the Japanese lost 1.5 million dead Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in the many references available at World War II casualties#endnote_Japan, which uses information from a 1949 report by the Japanese government to provide a more detailed assignment of responsibility for Army casualties. (I do not know what "Losses in World War II" page you are referencing; the closest search result is for equipment losses such as vehicles) — Lomn 19:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to point out that, despite the impression that Hollywood may have given, it wasn't the Americans alone who were at war with Japan. Australians were out there fighting the Japanese too, often in the same place and at the same time as Americans, as were soldiers from many other countries. I don't know how the numbers can be perfectly separated. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to find out how many Japanese were killed by an American bullet, in fact, the Americans did the main work, while the losses of the Americans are 8 times lower. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at Japanese casualties by theater in the data at the bottom of the Pacific War page. According to Japanese medical data, approximately 2/3 of their deaths during the war were from non-battle causes; these were especially severe in cases where Japanese forces were totally isolated from resupply by Allied air and naval blockades. Generally speaking the ratio of actual battle casualties was approximately 1:1 or at most 1:2 in the Allies' favor. Due to the character of island fighting there wasn't enough room for the Allies to use their advantage in maneuver and the Japanese were heavily dug in. The Pittsburgher (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Я имел ввиду, что американцы именно убитыми потеряли в 8 раз меньше чем японцы. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why the sudden switch to Russian? --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’m accidental, but nevertheless, as I understand it, it was in the war with the USA that the Japanese lost 1,5 million killed by 1,1M army and 0,4M fleet Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate says your Russian comment means "I meant that the Americans lost 8 times less than the dead than the Japanese". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle deaths against the US were probably in the 500,000 range (30% of Army deaths and, as a guess, 50% of Navy deaths). US battle deaths were about 100,000 and nonbattle deaths ~40,000. But the reason why Japanese battle deaths were higher was because they had nowhere to evacuate their wounded; they all died. The Japanese Navy additionally suffered catastrophic damage from US submarines and also among land-based personnel in the Philippines and Okinawa. On the other hand, the Americans could afford to have wounded and sick personnel evacuated back to the Hawaii or even the US mainland. Except for very early in the war, there were no circumstances where US forces were trapped on an island under siege. Because of this, it's more appropriate to compare overall Allied battle casualties against Japanese killed and prisoners; only comparing deaths to deaths paints an inaccurate picture of the fighting in the Pacific theater.The Pittsburgher (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]