If you’ve logged on to this blog more than once or twice over the last few years, you’ve noted my disdain for unnecessary regulation. You’ve also noted that my reasoning for such angst is rooted in a pretty simple premise: the unintended consequence of our government officials attempting to help us (when help isn’t needed) usually equates to increased costs to the consumer. Two costs are the result: Hard costs come directly from the consumers’ wallet; and soft costs come in the adverse effect on the quality of life for the community in which we live. Honestly, sometimes government regulation is a solution in search of a problem.
All kidding aside, the housing market needs a shot of adrenaline. Because housing sales serves as the pebble in the pond and creates countless ripples to either positively or negatively impact the economy, it just makes sense that we need to jumpstart people buying houses.
What if the 1 percent fought back? What if the target of the “Occupy Wall Street” group’s angst and disgust boycotted back? How might they do that? Why would they? What would they do to fight back…stop their country club membership to ensure that groundskeepers and clubhouse attendants would suffer? Well, kind of. They could stop going to their favorite restaurant.
It has been one month since the enactment of U.S. Senator Richard Durbin’s ill-guided legislation regarding interchange rate reductions to debit card issuers (banks and credit unions). As painful as it is to re-visit, you might remember that Senator Durbin aligned himself with his retail buddies in a battle against banks. His primary motive was to get debit card costs reduced at the check-out lanes – or so that was the ruse portrayed. Somehow, the retailers convinced enough of the other misinformed legislators to vote the same. In the name of consumer benefit, retailers would pass the cost savings on to consumers by lowering prices. Remember? We were going to get lower prices: all hail, Senator Durbin!