The Bulletin editorializes today that lowering the transaction fees was probably not going to be passed on to the consumer. Therefore -- I guess -- the banks should keep them? Because they've shown such a tendency lately to pass on savings?
Besides being totally illogical and reliably conservative and establishmentarian, this whole thought process totally whiffed the point.
So the retailers won't pass along the savings?
I never thought they would. Call me callow, but it never occurred to me. I always figured it was about banks overcharging the retailers, not the consumer. Just to be clear, these were not charges to the consumer, they were charges to the retailers.
Forgive me for saying so, but it isn't ALWAYS about the consumer.
I hate to tell you, but sometimes when I make money, or save money, I actually keep it.
Shocking, I know.
It's a system I've heard tell is called "Capitalism." You know, where a guy going to work every day actually earns a profit by -- gasp, charging the consumer.
So there you have it -- a 'real' conservative viewpoint.
If I may, I'll turn this around to illustrate.
I never once thought to raise my prices no matter how high the fees got. I never once asked someone to use a debit instead of a credit card or vice versa. I never once turned down a credit card because someone didn't buy enough with it, or put a minimum. (I did mutter a few times that the cost of the transaction nullified the profit -- and a few times I actually gave the person the item in question, because it was a wash...)
It was the "Cost Of Doing Business." I just accepted it, and didn't try to weasel more money out of the customer.
It never occurred to me.
I ate the costs, and moved on.
As far as I'm concerned, "Cost of Doing Business" went down very, very, very slightly.
Big deal.
Meanwhile, the banks lost their first battle. Of course, it was the first time their opponent was Walmart.
That's how much I love the banks, theseadays. I'm rooting for Walmart over them.
Besides being totally illogical and reliably conservative and establishmentarian, this whole thought process totally whiffed the point.
So the retailers won't pass along the savings?
I never thought they would. Call me callow, but it never occurred to me. I always figured it was about banks overcharging the retailers, not the consumer. Just to be clear, these were not charges to the consumer, they were charges to the retailers.
Forgive me for saying so, but it isn't ALWAYS about the consumer.
I hate to tell you, but sometimes when I make money, or save money, I actually keep it.
Shocking, I know.
It's a system I've heard tell is called "Capitalism." You know, where a guy going to work every day actually earns a profit by -- gasp, charging the consumer.
So there you have it -- a 'real' conservative viewpoint.
If I may, I'll turn this around to illustrate.
I never once thought to raise my prices no matter how high the fees got. I never once asked someone to use a debit instead of a credit card or vice versa. I never once turned down a credit card because someone didn't buy enough with it, or put a minimum. (I did mutter a few times that the cost of the transaction nullified the profit -- and a few times I actually gave the person the item in question, because it was a wash...)
It was the "Cost Of Doing Business." I just accepted it, and didn't try to weasel more money out of the customer.
It never occurred to me.
I ate the costs, and moved on.
As far as I'm concerned, "Cost of Doing Business" went down very, very, very slightly.
Big deal.
Meanwhile, the banks lost their first battle. Of course, it was the first time their opponent was Walmart.
That's how much I love the banks, theseadays. I'm rooting for Walmart over them.