Simply, it's a private business, and it's not up to Jack Layton to decide what is or isn't a fair price to charge for the service they provide. No one is forced to incur the catastrophic injustice of a $1.50 user fee; you can take money out at your own bank's machine, keep your money in a bank that doesn't charge user fees, or even in a box under your bed, for all I care. I know Jack would love to personally decide what is or isn't a fair price for all private goods and services, but, tragically, we can't send him back in time to the miraculous economic and social triumph of the Soviet Union...1) Once, just fucking once, I'd looooooove to see a Conservative engage an NDP proposal without the bogeyman of the Soviet Union. I mean, I could spend a day educating the Blogging Tories about how Social Democrats were historically just as opposed to Lenin as the rest of society (mainly because we were first in front of the firing squads) but the reality is it doesn't matter -- we're "left", ergo we must all yearn for the days of GOSPLAN and the Gulag Archipelago. Clearly.
(Note to Olaf: I've never compared Stephen Harper to Hitler, because aside from anything else it's innacurate and offensive. Try returning the courtesy.)
The sad thing is, Olaf really isn't the worst offender. He's making a joke, but his brethren see that argument as holy writ.
2) For clear social and historical reasons, banking has always, always, always been heavily regulated. There's a little thing called "usury", not to mention margin calls, fractional reserve rules, and the entire edifice of central banking that keeps the economy going. Banks are simply not allowed to charge too little interest or too much. And here's the kicker -- bankers love it that way. They get unchallenged power over money and the economy in exchange for some rules that they should probably have come up with on their own.
Meanwhile, the whole idea that the government has no role in prices is absurd. The government keeps tinkering with things like taxes, investment rules, competition law, in order to keep prices low for consumers. (In theory.) Why? Because consumers are also voters, and they like low prices. Savvy politicians do this thing called "pandering", and it's no surprise that Flaherty says he's taking this ATM thing seriously.
So how about this, people: if you think a tiny, teeny-weeny, fraction-of-a-percent change in the way banks do business is going to cause the collapse of capitalism in Canada, make your case in detail. Otherwise, stop embarrassing yourselves.
6 comments:
John,
The Soviet Union bogeyman is annoying at times... even for me... except when I use it... then I'm surprisingly cool with it.
The government keeps tinkering with things like taxes, investment rules, competition law, in order to keep prices low for consumers.
There's a difference between tinkering with taxes and laws, and demanding that a company deliver a service for free without providing any compensation.
Give me a precedent where a business has to provide a service for free to a customer that is not theirs, and I may consider the proposal.
However, simply suggesting that the government is involved in the economy (which is undeniable) doesn't make it clear that the government should be in this case.
Notably, you didn't make one argument for the ATM plan, other then by saying that banking is already regulated, which no one denies. Do you think it's a good idea?
"Give me a precedent where a business has to provide a service for free to a customer that is not theirs, and I may consider the proposal."
"Free" as in zero cost? Doesn't exist. But free as in zero cost to the customer? Bell is required to give unimpeded passage to phone calls over its backbone lines, without charging extra, even if the person is not subscribed to them.
I have to step out, but there's more coming on this, I assure you.
Oh, and if you're cool with it then I'm gonna start making the Harper = Hitler comparisons anyway.
"doesn't make it clear that the government should be in this case."
I think John's Bell situation is quite relevant.
Now, as I said on the hotstove last night, allowing the government to dictate things like this are part of the cost they pay for holding protected status, ensured by government regulation and law, which allows them to year after year make record profits.
If they really want to fight this, I for one won't blink about allowing foreign competition. Competition which will be good for consumers.
Do you think the Banks will want to face real competition, or allow the government to say "now ATM fees" as part of the deal to keep their protected status?
John,
Bell is required to give unimpeded passage to phone calls over its backbone lines, without charging extra, even if the person is not subscribed to them.
Is there an alternative to either "backbone" lines or Bell Canada, in this situation? By the way, you could lie and make up whatever you want about the phone industry and I would believe you because I'm completely ignorant about the whole thing. For the record, phone companies are slightly different, as there is usually one or at most two main providers in any given region (I believe), and so they're nearly monopolies in many cases (again, I believe).
Oh, and if you're cool with it then I'm gonna start making the Harper = Hitler comparisons anyway.
Go nuts! Also, I should note that Steve at Far and Wide prefers the Harper = Stalin analogy, based their authoritarian similarities. Just don't put all your eggs in a single mass murdering dictator basket, is all I'm saying.
"By the way, you could lie and make up whatever you want about the phone industry and I would believe you because I'm completely ignorant about the whole thing."
Must.. resist...
Seriously, I'll be square with you, and when I don't know squat, I'll let you know.
Post a Comment