Bank service fees have virtually doubled in the eight years from 1995 and
2003, from $16.4 to $32.6 billion.3 Interestingly, fees from overdraft protection
programs (also called “nonsufficient funds” or “NSF” fees) have risen so
dramatically that they may now represent the preponderance of all such fee
income for banks and credit unions.4 NSF income for banks and/or credit
unions can amount to up to 50% of total consumer checking account revenue.5
One recent analysis estimates that such NSF fees account for more than half
— roughly $18.8 billion — of the service-fee income derived by America’s
banks and credit unions.6 An independent consultant estimates that banks
collected $22 billion in overdraft fees in 2003.7 Virtually all banks now
impose NSF fees.8
Google: Contrasting Payday Loans. Click for the PDF file in the fourth link down.
"The largest check cashing chain (EZ: and by extension, payday lending) in the United States if funded by Wells Fargo." 0:23:42 "...Wells Fargo also funds Cash America..." 0:24:14 Mike Hudson, an investigative journalist goes into more detail about the conflict of interest, beginning at 26:30
YouTube: Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lending - for full length movie.
In using the phrase,
"let the accounts fall out of balance", I am describing exactly what happens with over-draft fees. I'm not attributing a false term. I am simply being honest because that is precisely what happens when people incur over-draft fees.
In using the word,
unethical, I am also being quite accurate in using that adjective to describe what the banks are doing. Using the sources cited, above, one can conclude a dual relationship constituting a conflict of interest occurring, in that banks have very clearly created conditions favorable to them which allows their customers' accounts to acquire a negative balance condition. Ergo, it is
not in the bank's interest for their customers to keep consistent, positive balances in their bank accounts.
Taking the above into account, it is therefor easily concluded that the banks have no interest, what-so-ever, in implementing a punitive measure to curb their customer's irresponsible behavior. Rather, the banks are, in fact, utilizing a coercive economic measure as a method to consistently generate more income. And that, my little coaster, is absolutely
amoral.I can already see one of you shills making some ginned up allegation of plagiarism, whether it's because I didn't use Chicago or MLA citation or simply because the excised material constitutes a disproportionate amount of content in relation to my own writing. Regardless, the fact that you're trying to parse semantics with me is definitely amusing as well as indicative of a salient and consistent feature in your arguments: You have nothing else to back up your assertions but faulty linear conjecture which utterly fails to address the scope of what you're even arguing for.
