WAGE INFLATION is now the problem Biden is being blamed for!

[QP!]

You are 100% free to disagree with this but this is the one of the better rebuttals I've seen to the proposed legislation (and better than I can state it). If you disagree with this I'm open to hearing why if you desire to share.



How The Biden Administration’s ‘Junk Fee’ Policies Will Hurt Consumers...

I understand the varied arguments and am more familiar with this area of the market then most are.

What i am NOT saying is that there cannot be too much regulation that could harm the market.

What i am saying is YOU offered a 'reflexive ...it is bad because it is regulation' retort with no back up, and simply saying ' it is bad because its regulation' is not enough.

The article, which i had seen prior, does not offer any specifics but speaks to generalities on how 'any' controls could POTENTIALLY harm the market. We know they potentially can, but that is NOT a reason to not do them. You need specifics to make that argument.

If generalities are enough then they can be applied to every single gov't regulation over ANY and ALL businesses.

And it big business, their lobbyists and shills who echo that, each and every time WITHOUT specifics.

The Credit Card industry, within Banking overall, is one of the highest profit centers in most banks. So any argument that lowering the Penalty fees such that they generate $2.5B instead of $10B being the straw that breaks the banks back in being able to offer this product, or that they would otherwise ledn less, is suggesting there is no more margin or profit in the system and these fees are so crucial to that.

We should not buy it and more than big business who are making gauging profits now, would claim if you try to move them back to more normal margins (and profits) pre pandemic, would harm service.

Any more than we should buy that if the Trump tax cuts were repealed to the uber rich and corporations, they would all take their jobs elsewhere harming society.


it is ALWAYS the same cry, but just different version.

 

[cawacko]

I understand the varied arguments and am more familiar with this area of the market then most are.

What i am NOT saying is that there cannot be too much regulation that could harm the market.

What i am saying is YOU offered a 'reflexive ...it is bad because it is regulation' retort with no back up, and simply saying ' it is bad because its regulation' is not enough.

The article, which i had seen prior, does not offer any specifics but speaks to generalities on how 'any' controls could POTENTIALLY harm the market. We know they potentially can, but that is NOT a reason to not do them. You need specifics to make that argument.

If generalities are enough then they can be applied to every single gov't regulation over ANY and ALL businesses.

And it big business, their lobbyists and shills who echo that, each and every time WITHOUT specifics.

The Credit Card industry, within Banking overall, is one of the highest profit centers in most banks. So any argument that lowering the Penalty fees such that they generate $2.5B instead of $10B being the straw that breaks the banks back in being able to offer this product, or that they would otherwise ledn less, is suggesting there is no more margin or profit in the system and these fees are so crucial to that.

We should not buy it and more than big business who are making gauging profits now, would claim if you try to move them back to more normal margins (and profits) pre pandemic, would harm service.

Any more than we should buy that if the Trump tax cuts were repealed to the uber rich and corporations, they would all take their jobs elsewhere harming society.


it is ALWAYS the same cry, but just different version.

I don't work in the banking industry so I'm not going to pretend to speak as some insider but while $2.5B or $10B are obviously big numbers stock prices, valuations and ultimately bonuses are based on going forward revenue. Executives who are incentivized to increase growth aren't going to simply accept the gov't putting a cap on what they can charge and the corresponding risks associated. I felt the author articulated well the risks and how banks would respond. And at the end of the day the people who will be hurt are the ones the legislation professes to be helping.

You are correct that we can't 100% predict market reaction to this legislation. But understanding economics and history gives us good insight. Not economics related but an analogy pops into mind that if you're going out partying (drinking) tonight I can't guarantee you won't feel great in the morning but there's a really good chance that will be the result.

(FWIW, i'm not attempting to be an ideologue and saying that ALL legislation is bad.)

 

[QP!]

I don't work in the banking industry so I'm not going to pretend to speak as some insider but while $2.5B or $10B are obviously big numbers stock prices, valuations and ultimately bonuses are based on going forward revenue. Executives who are incentivized to increase growth aren't going to simply accept the gov't putting a cap on what they can charge and the corresponding risks associated. I felt the author articulated well the risks and how banks would respond. And at the end of the day the people who will be hurt are the ones the legislation professes to be helping.

You are correct that we can't 100% predict market reaction to this legislation. But understanding economics and history gives us good insight. Not economics related but an analogy pops into mind that if you're going out partying (drinking) tonight I can't guarantee you won't feel great in the morning but there's a really good chance that will be the result.

(FWIW, i'm not attempting to be an ideologue and saying that ALL legislation is bad.)

what the article explained is a generic talking point.

It would apply equally to ANY and ALL bank fees or NSF charges or other and 'how it COULD harm XYZ' if you reduce it'.

Whether the NSF is $X or raised to 10X the next day or raised to 100X the following day, ANY and ALL attempts to stop it being raised or regulate it and bring it down, would be subject to the article argument.

That is why it is generic and meaningless as i could apply easily now to ANY future fees situation and the attempt to regulate it without even reading the specifics of what is being proposed.


If you do not think so, make up a situation for fees being raised, any that you want and present it here, and i will use the article language to counter it and you will see.

They are empty template talking points. Lazy.

 

[QP!]

The Trumpys cannot understand that the wealthy think about you like you rightys do about minorities. Thinking Trump cares about you is so silly. He cares about nobody, but Daffy Donald. Rightys vote against their own interests election after election.
Inflation was caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It took oil and food off the market. More money chasing fewer goods is inflationary. The idea that an infrastructure bill created inflation is inane. The inflation was in every industrial country and others that relied on Russia and Ukraine goods.
Trump was talking about the infrastructure bill repeatedly, but could not get it passed.

And yes, a lot of inflation is a result of that war. Good point.

 

[serendipity]

WRONG.

And i am going to start addressing you now as someone who has a a very basic reading and comprehension of the topics you read but little ability to apply any levels of deeper thinking to it as everything you repeat are shallow, empty talking points, i think you believe.

No economist would make the argument for unfettered, unlimited profiteering being 'for the greater good' as your post ascribes with its constant 'the amount does not matter... any gov't intervention in profit taking will harm the market'.

again you lack nuance and balance. I am not saying the bank should work for free. OF course healthy profits are needed. But your view that the simple act of the gov't getting involved by default harms the market is provable false.

Cwackers can runs rings round you, racist cunt!!