Monday, October 3, 2011

What REALLY Happens When The Federal Government Gets Involved In Banks' Profits?

For those of you who (foolishly I'd claim) believed that the Dodd-Frank 'Financial Reform' bill would fix what caused our current economic problems, here's another reason to consider otherwise:
http://links.heritage.org/hostedemail/email.htm?h=7c5746c335f82a0c8fc040a0c45ccb5a&CID=9974621059&ch=D5404F3D06D14A0B26DB0AE15BCAD3F1

Durbin's stated purpose of his amendment to reduce debit card fees was to keep banks and other financial institutions from over-charging people for services. He thought it was ridiculous that banks could get away with charging so much for a debit card transaction so he got a law passed that reduced by some 80%(!) how much banks could charge businesses for that. What was the result, really?

Banks charged businesses less but did that reduce what businesses charge customers for using their debit cards? NO! Businesses kept the savings from the reduced debit card transaction fee and did NOT pass it on to us. Did Durbin's amendment reduce banks' and financial institutions' profits from such fees as he intended? Of course NOT! Now banks will get that fee directly from us instead of through businesses! So, customers now pay MORE, not less, banks and financial institutions make just as much as before and only businesses got the benefit. So much for watching our for average Amercians Mr. Durbin!

This is the kind of nonsense that happens when the government tries to regulate a business' profits. Businesses will either find a different way to keep their profits the same (or higher) or they'll stop making the less-profitable product. Government cannot regulate profit in a free economy. They think they can but they cannot. Make a product less profitable and businesses will find a way to restore the profit or they'll stop producing it. It's Econ 101 ... and, fundamentally, common sense which both seem completely lacking in Durbin and like-thinkers among progressives.

No comments: