Credit card 'protections' versus bank bailouts

Maybe it's just me, but the federal government has done 'stress tests' of banks to see what kind of assets they need to have to remain viable. They've also bailed out many banks who were deemed 'too big to fail.'

Almost all banks offer credit cards on which they make a profit (if they didn't make a profit, they wouldn't be offering them). That profit comes from interest and fees that they impose, charging higher fees/interest to those with riskier credit - a common practice everywhere.

The federal government (because it's such an expert at living within its budget and ensuring enough income to cover its debt) tells banks they need to have more resources, assets and income.

But they also tell the banks that they're charging too much in fees and interests on their credit cards and that they need to change/reduce those charges. This will reduce and, in some cases, eliminate certain profits that the banks rely upon for profitability.

These two actions are in direct contradiction.

How does this make any sense?

Unfair credit card practices and terms?

Okay - so maybe I just don't get it, but I fail to understand several things about the Lucas County Commissioner's resolution regarding credit card terms.

First of all, since when did Ohio's county commissioners gain the authority to tell the Federal Reserve what to do? And, other than placating a special interest group that is advocating for changes in the law, is this just a way to pile on publicity for them and for State Treasurer Richard Cordray who is running this year for Attorney General following Marc Dann's resignation?

As for the 'substance' of the resolution, how are credit card terms unfair? If a credit card has a term or rule or fee you don't like, you don't have to continue with that card. If you don't like a change in fees, stop using the card. There are so many credit cards available these days - and many are willing to negotiate their terms or interest rates - so it's not like you have only limited choices.

And if you continue using your card despite your dissatisfaction with the fees or terms, how is that 'unfair'????

Or are they saying that most people who use credit cards are too stupid to understand the terms and impact of the fees or how they work? If that is the case, then the solution isn't more regulation and restrictions on the market, it's to better educate children so they can handle such complicated transactions in the future. But that would require admitting that our public schools (and parents?) aren't educating our kids well enough for them to function in today's world - and we couldn't have that, now, could we?

And if the populace is so dumb as to not be able to understand credit cards, the solution isn't to have government step in with more regulation - maybe, instead, government can ban stupid people from applying for such cards. Or maybe we can just ban stupidity in general?

These kinds of meaningless resolutions have always irritated me and I opposed many such pointless votes when I served as a Commissioner. But with the current makeup of the Lucas County BCC, don't expect such reason and common sense any time soon. Instead, we'll get 'feel-good' actions that do nothing to really help the economic environment in the county.