Current Events > Do overdraft fees contribute to inflation?

(+) Yeah! (+)

So basically there's no exchange of labor or goods. It's just like, "You inconvenienced me for not having money. Now give me $30 (or whatever the fee is)."

So that fee is pretty much called upon for nothing really. It's generating debt from nowhere. And then people pay it off when they get some money...but the banks are just causing money to be printed by doing that aren't they?

And by printing money, I don't mean printing in the same way someone can say some popular movie "prints money." I mean like literally printing new money that didn't come from labor or making something, etc.

What a ridiculous question. Banks don't print money the federal reserve does. You think when banks earn interest on their loans they are printing money lol.

CharlesBronson posted...

What a ridiculous question. Banks don't print money the federal reserve does. You think when banks earn interest on their loans they are printing money lol.

banks steal money.... they charge horrific amount of fees just to use em for anything.

example:
they once tried to charge me 45$ just to cash a 500$ check.
---

I mean printing money like they're causing it to be printed. I mean printing in the same way someone says "that movie prints money" but only partly. Like it causes money to be printed instead of just like, "prints money" as a replacement for "That movie is gonna make a lot of money."

Well I guess we could analyze it from another perspective and say that it sets anyone back $30+. So the banks get that money instead of some other part of the market that's more closely related to basic survival and living expenses. If these parts of the markets got their money instead of the banks, costs would go down for that stuff I think...and also there would be more jobs because there would be more money going into those other markets.

So the bank takes jobs away in that way, I believe. And then increases prices too in that way...and this leads to people needing to use the banks more because they're more desperate for cash.

Lots of things incur fees without a direct exchange of goods or service, however as existing money is being used to pay for them it isn't going to affect the value of money LOL

Sigh...I'm just gonna edit the op so it makes more sense.

8-bit_Biceps posted...

Well I guess we could analyze it from another perspective and say that it sets anyone back $30+. So the banks get that money instead of some other part of the market that's more closely related to basic survival and living expenses, which would bring costs down for that stuff I think...and also more jobs because there would be more money going into those other markets.

So the bank takes jobs away in that way, I believe. And then increases prices too in that way...and this leads to people needing to use the banks more because they're more desperate for cash.

lol this is an absurd thought process
---

Romulox28 posted...

8-bit_Biceps posted...

Well I guess we could analyze it from another perspective and say that it sets anyone back $30+. So the banks get that money instead of some other part of the market that's more closely related to basic survival and living expenses, which would bring costs down for that stuff I think...and also more jobs because there would be more money going into those other markets.

So the bank takes jobs away in that way, I believe. And then increases prices too in that way...and this leads to people needing to use the banks more because they're more desperate for cash.

lol this is an absurd thought process

How so? If people can afford more widgets, then more widgets have to be made. Producing more stuff takes more effort and that usually entails more jobs.

Andrew Yang'll tell you tonight, Dumbo (jk maybe later tho. too many people).

A checking account costs roughly $128 a year for a bank to maintain. If your rinky dink solo checking account overdrafts once the bank is still covering you at a loss at a hope that you will expand your relationship with them.

The ODR/P fees are considered deposit fee income, separate from deposit spread. Its part of a bank branchs revenue reporting, offset by the costs to run that branch.

Basically you have fees like that instead of the bank outright charging you for a service like your cable or internet provider.
---

Banking fees are a way for the bank to recoup money that it loses from other services. Overdrafting costs the bank money, the fee attempts to accommodate for this.
Thankfully, overdraft is always OPT IN, now.

But, TC, you're not entirely wrong to think that these types of fees are rent seeking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
---

CapnMuffin posted...

A checking account costs roughly $128 a year for a bank to maintain. If your rinky dink solo checking account overdrafts once the bank is still covering you at a loss at a hope that you will expand your relationship with them.

The ODR/P fees are considered deposit fee income, separate from deposit spread. Its part of a bank branchs revenue reporting, offset by the costs to run that branch.

Basically you have fees like that instead of the bank outright charging you for a service like your cable or internet provider.

Damn $128 a year? :O haha

LMAO they're getting all this interest though and shit from the loans they give out. And if everyone never got an overdraft again, they would just raise interest to make up for it and make as much as they could without people thinking they're ridiculous for it or burning them to the ground, or whatever.

Point is, much like any other company, they want your money. More money for the banks = less money going toward tomatoes, toasters, tires, brooms, vacuum cleaners, clothes, and other basic sort of shit people need to live comfortably.

CharlesBronson posted...

What a ridiculous question. Banks don't print money the federal reserve does. You think when banks earn interest on their loans they are printing money lol.

While they don't print money, they do still create it. When a bank loans out money, it doesn't have to actually have all of the money it is loaning out, the remainder is created from nothing.
---

Just raise interest

- What is prime rate
---

No, overdraft fees help reduce inflation not increase it. Take an economics class before making such absurd statements.

CharlesBronson posted...

No, overdraft fees help reduce inflation not increase it. Take an economics class before making such absurd statements.

You should take a class about how to support your position, otherwise nothing happens in the conversation...its just time wasted. You only live once. Stop wasting our time.

This topic is causing my IQ to drop.
---

ArchiePeck posted...

Lots of things incur fees without a direct exchange of goods or service, however as existing money is being used to pay for them it isn't going to affect the value of money LOL

But does it even matter that money exists? Say tomorrow they print more bills. From one point tomorrow to the next there will be a change in dollar bills without any change in resources...say from one nano second to the next nano second in which the bill is finally completely printed.

What happened in that small amount of time? Nothing happened at that precise instant the bill was printed. Everything that causes bills to be printed, happens before the bills are printed. So I dont really think that the fact that a bill is used directly to pay something off at some instance in time is relevant at all. I think calling upon people to pay for something because you have the power to make them pay extra, leads to less money being circulated elsewhere. So elsewhere suffers. If elsewhere gets less money then it will charge more to make up for it, and as strategically and surreptitiously as possible.

Feelin those IQ points going up?

I'm now a vegetable after that post.
---

Funny thing is once you put enough money in the bank they stop charging you maintenance, overdraft and ATM fees.
---

If theres no effect from overdraft fees, then what would be the effect if there were no overdraft fees at all and people had their tens of billions of dollars to spend? We should assume that does nothing to the economy? Hahaha

LOL a drop in demand for a product causes the price of that product to decrease not increase. Do you not know what supply and demand is?

CharlesBronson posted...

LOL a drop in demand for a product causes the price of that product to decrease not increase. Do you not know what supply and demand is?

Oh gee thx for proving my point, Russian.

If people go out and buy all this stuff I said, like vacuum cleaners and clothes, etc., and theyre no longer in high demand, because they have enough of what they need, then as you just said...prices will drop. Thats the opposite of inflation, you fuckin Jerry Bruckheimersmeagle

8-bit_Biceps posted...

CharlesBronson posted...

LOL a drop in demand for a product causes the price of that product to decrease not increase. Do you not know what supply and demand is?

Oh gee thx for proving my point, Russian.

If people go out and buy all this stuff I said, like vacuum cleaners and clothes, etc., and theyre no longer in high demand, because they have enough of what they need, then as you just said...prices will drop. Thats the opposite of inflation, you fuckin Jerry Bruckheimersmeagle

lol enjoy your moderation anyways you're the one that said a drop in demand causes the price to increase re-read your posts before criticizing someone lol

CharlesBronson posted...

8-bit_Biceps posted...

CharlesBronson posted...

LOL a drop in demand for a product causes the price of that product to decrease not increase. Do you not know what supply and demand is?

Oh gee thx for proving my point, Russian.

If people go out and buy all this stuff I said, like vacuum cleaners and clothes, etc., and theyre no longer in high demand, because they have enough of what they need, then as you just said...prices will drop. Thats the opposite of inflation, you fuckin Jerry Bruckheimersmeagle

lol enjoy your moderation anyways you're the one that said a drop in demand causes the price to increase re-read your posts before criticizing someone lol

Never used those words. You could point out the actual words I used though so that this conversation may save those users who seem to lose IQ points easily.

8-bit_Biceps posted...

CharlesBronson posted...

8-bit_Biceps posted...

CharlesBronson posted...

LOL a drop in demand for a product causes the price of that product to decrease not increase. Do you not know what supply and demand is?

Oh gee thx for proving my point, Russian.

If people go out and buy all this stuff I said, like vacuum cleaners and clothes, etc., and theyre no longer in high demand, because they have enough of what they need, then as you just said...prices will drop. Thats the opposite of inflation, you fuckin Jerry Bruckheimersmeagle

lol enjoy your moderation anyways you're the one that said a drop in demand causes the price to increase re-read your posts before criticizing someone lol

Never used those words. You could point out the actual words I used though so that this conversation may save those users who seem to lose IQ points easily.

8-bit_Biceps posted...

If elsewhere gets less money then it will charge more to make up for it

lol what do you have to say for yourself now lol

Two different contexts.

The first context is about the banks taking your money via overdraft fees. So I said that companies (lets stick with clothes because I mentioned those already...clothing companies) will charge more to make up for it. Yes, I said that, but this context doesnt account for people buying clothes.

In the second context, Im talking about demand going down because people already have clothes. In the first instance demand stays where it is because it doesnt factor in people having appeased their need / desire for clothes.

8-bit_Biceps posted...

Two different contexts.

The first context is about the banks taking your money via overdraft fees. So I said that companies (lets stick with clothes because I mentioned those already...clothing companies) will charge more to make up for it. Yes, I said that, but this context doesnt account for people buying clothes.

In the second context, Im talking about demand going down because people already have clothes. In the first instance demand stays where it is because it doesnt factor in people having appeased their need / desire for clothes.

enough of your incoherent blabbering if people didn't need to buy clothes it would mean that the population wasn't growning and economic growth would be zero.

CharlesBronson posted...

8-bit_Biceps posted...

Two different contexts.

The first context is about the banks taking your money via overdraft fees. So I said that companies (lets stick with clothes because I mentioned those already...clothing companies) will charge more to make up for it. Yes, I said that, but this context doesnt account for people buying clothes.

In the second context, Im talking about demand going down because people already have clothes. In the first instance demand stays where it is because it doesnt factor in people having appeased their need / desire for clothes.

enough of your incoherent blabbering if people didn't need to buy clothes it would mean that the population wasn't growning and economic growth would be zero.

Yep. There it is. I won.

Obviously there will never be a time when no one is buying clothes, but certainly there can come a time when less clothes are bought (and demand for them goes down) if they ever had the buying power to satisfy not only their need to stay warm and covered, but also their fashion sensibilities a little...By that I mean that of course if people have the extra cash, then most of them will go out and try to buy clothes that make them feel a little better about themselves, or express themselves more specifically, etc. They will want to be a little extra, you know.

Then there will of course be some frugal people who will just buy whatever they need to replace clothes that are old or stained or torn, etc. So again, I'm not talking about achieving some absolute collective adequacy for volume of clothes...but certainly demand can go down via less overall desire for clothes due to having bought more.

8-bit_Biceps posted...

CharlesBronson posted...

8-bit_Biceps posted...

Two different contexts.

The first context is about the banks taking your money via overdraft fees. So I said that companies (lets stick with clothes because I mentioned those already...clothing companies) will charge more to make up for it. Yes, I said that, but this context doesnt account for people buying clothes.

In the second context, Im talking about demand going down because people already have clothes. In the first instance demand stays where it is because it doesnt factor in people having appeased their need / desire for clothes.

enough of your incoherent blabbering if people didn't need to buy clothes it would mean that the population wasn't growning and economic growth would be zero.

Yep. There it is. I won.

Obviously there will never be a time when no one is buying clothes, but certainly there can come a time when less clothes are bought (and demand for them goes down) if they ever had the buying power to satisfy not only their need to stay warm and covered, but also their fashion sensibilities a little...By that I mean that of course if people have the extra cash, then most of them will go out and try to buy clothes that make them feel a little better about themselves, or express themselves more specifically, etc. They will want to be a little extra, you know.

Then there will of course be some frugal people who will just buy whatever they need to replace clothes that are old or stained or torn, etc. So again, I'm not talking about achieving some absolute collective adequacy for volume of clothes...but certainly demand can go down via less overall desire for clothes due to having bought more.

no you lost the more money banks make the more money they can lend out to businesses which lowers prices now enough of your silly examples