Jophiel wrote:
This does give good evidence though that once a business is drawing blood from you, they'll never voluntarily accept less as shown by retailers making no move to lower their prices to reflect these savings for them.
And by "drawing blood" you mean "charging what the market will bear for their goods and services". You get that if these banks thought they would lose more (profitable) business by shifting these fees in this way than they'll gain in profits by charging them, they wouldn't do it. And loud protestations from individuals on an online forum aside, they know better than you do what their customers will really do on whole.
Quote:
A good lesson for when people claim "Just remove this or that restriction and it's the consumer who'll benefit!"
What you meant to say is that it's a good lesson for when people claim "Just
add this or that restriction and it's the
consumer who'll benefit!". No one makes the claim you are repeating Joph. The supply side argument is wholly different. It says that removing restrictions will make business more profitable
for the businessman, who will then turn around and invest in more business, hire more people, and in the case of banks, hand out more loans, to more people, giving them opportunities to themselves achieve the American Dream(tm).
We on the right warn that adding restrictions will only cause those businesses to shift where they get their money. Which is... wait for it...
exactly what happened.