|
You can blame the government for your new debit card fees |
 |
 |
|
Think Again - Brian's Personal Blog
|
|
Written by Brian Houser
|
|
Saturday, 15 October 2011 23:26 |
 The recent announcement that Bank of America will start charging a $5 monthly fee for users of debit cards is an excellent example of the unintended consequences of government actions. The gut reaction is to blame those greedy banks. But the banks are just responding to recent federal legislation. And once again legislators have proven they don't understand basic economics. The new $5 fee can be traced back to the Durbin amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that was signed into law June 21, 2010. The amendment sets the amount large banks (more than $10 billion in assets) can charge other banks for debit card transactions to 21 cents plus 5/100ths of a percent of the transaction amount (the fee for the average transaction of $38 would be 23 cents). This cap on interchange fees has been estimated to cost the banking industry $9.4 billion per year. And the folks in Washington figured the banks would just eat the cost. The banks, of course, must find a way to recoup the cost of debit transactions. They could raise fees across the board. But the fairest method is to charge the fees to the people using the cards. Doing it this way provides a can't lose situation for the banks: many consumers will suddenly find credit cards more attractive—and banks will profit handsomely since they not only enjoy higher interchange fees for credit cards but can charge account holders all sorts of penalties and interest. And once Congress sees how the bill has decimated debit card use, they'll repeal the rule, but by then the banks will have already converted many customers from debit to credit. The only way the banks can lose is if everyone gives up their debit cards and goes back to using cash for everything. Not likely—and impossible for online purchases. |
|
Last Updated on Saturday, 15 October 2011 23:29 |
|
|
A few things you should know about Facebook security |
|
|
|
Think Again - Brian's Personal Blog
|
|
Written by Brian Houser
|
|
Tuesday, 04 October 2011 14:25 |
 Recent updates to Facebook have left plenty of people confused and scared about which of their posts and activities are visible to others. Since the update, I've commonly seen comments like this: **Hey my FB friends, do me a favor: please hover over my name here, wait for the box to load
and then hover over the "Subscribe" link. Then uncheck the "Comments and likes" choice. I would
rather my comments on friends' posts not be made public. Thanks** Then repost if you don't
want your EVERY MOVE posted on the right for everyone to see! It's understandable that some people aren't happy many of their actions are now appearing in their friends' news tickers. If all your friends do happen to follow those steps, your actions won't show up in any news tickers. However, your updates are still available to your friends on your Wall, like they've always been. So, yes, removing your updates from the ticker makes them less obvious, but it doesn't hide them completely. |
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 04 October 2011 16:33 |
|
Fall 2011 TV series survival predictions |
|
|
|
Think Again - Brian's Personal Blog
|
|
Written by Brian Houser
|
|
Tuesday, 27 September 2011 12:37 |
|
I don't watch much TV anymore. And what I do watch, I typically do online while I'm doing other work on the computer. Lately I just haven't seen much quality programming that's worth my time. But I still like to catch the first few episodes of the new fall TV series to see if there's anything that might be worth following. So far this fall, I've caught the first episode of four new series and I'd like to give my predictions about their chances of success. Pan Am. Taking advantage of the popular 60's era nostalgia, a comparison to Mad Men is unavoidable. But while both series have an interesting setting and superb production values, Mad Men also has the key component of a variety of strong characters. Pan Am seems like all style and no substance and its espionage theme feels out of place with the melodramatic environment of air travel in the 60's. I'll be surprised if this one lasts beyond a few episodes. Person of Interest. The concept is a bit contrived (a machine that identifies a person about to be involved in a death), but once you get past that, it opens up an endless stream of possibilities for episode plots. Strong actors and a hot production team give this one a lot of potential. I think this has staying power for several seasons unless the writing team slacks off. Revenge. This is mostly a one-trick pony based around a woman who seemingly has a ton of patience and an urge for revenge that won't quit. Based on the pilot, the writers seem to have the skills for developing a story at the right pace, revealing just enough each episode while laying the groundwork for a whole new angle (the success of Lost's writers at this is what gave that series its staying power). But I'll be surprised if they can wring enough story out of this one to keep it from feeling stretched after a half season or so. Let's just hope it doesn't follow the fate of 2006's "The Nine" and get cancelled before it has a chance to complete the story arc. 2 Broke Girls. I'm saddened I won't be able to get back that 20 minutes of my life. Worst attempt at comedy I've seen in a while. I'll add to the list as additional series premiere. What do you think of this fall's new programs? |
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 13:39 |
|
|
The Parker Plan beats the Buffet Rule |
|
|
|
Think Again - Brian's Personal Blog
|
|
Written by Brian Houser
|
|
Monday, 03 October 2011 12:20 |
 I saw a story this morning about Napster co-founder Sean Parker recently giving a West Hollywood waitress a $5,000 tip. And it got me thinking, this may be a much better idea than Warren Buffet's call to raise taxes on the "rich" that is part of Obama's strategy. One of the problems with increasing taxes is that the money will inevitably go to inefficient and ineffective government programs. Some of it will go to further extend unemployment benefits to people looking for jobs that will never return. Those with some extra money could put it to good use by rewarding those who are providing excellent service. If enough people start giving out rewards, it will create extra incentive for people to do well and for even more people to enter those types of jobs. This way, we're rewarding people who are trying hard at their work rather than those slacking off or waiting for a job to magically come to them. And that big tip goes directly to the recipient (minus income taxes in most cases) rather than most of it getting lost in bureaucratic inefficiencies. |
|
Last Updated on Monday, 03 October 2011 13:03 |
|
The best candidate ever (and you've probably never heard of him) |
|
|
|
Think Again - Brian's Personal Blog
|
|
Written by Brian Houser
|
|
Monday, 26 September 2011 21:49 |
 During the previous election cycle, Ron Paul was the candidate that—no matter how much support he had—just couldn't get the attention he deserved. Ron Paul still has a strong mainstream media bias fighting against him, but this time around, his force is too much to ignore (and will be even more once Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann drop out of contention). This time, the guy that can't get any respect is Gary Johnson, the former two-term governor of New Mexico. And that's too bad, because he's by far the most interesting candidate out there. His frank, honest, consistent views are so refreshing. He is the complete opposite of "politics as usual". He holds many of the same liberty-oriented views as Ron Paul but he's also a pretty well-spoken, funny, and charismatic guy. Ron Paul's principles and record are rock solid, but looking presidential is not his strong suit. |
|
Last Updated on Monday, 26 September 2011 22:32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 11 |
