Swamped by consumer complaints about excess fees, sudden interest rateincreases, indecipherable fine print, debt-ridden college students and a deluge of solicitations for even more credit, lawmakers are racing to putnew restrictions on card companies, seizing on an issue with overwhelming popular and political appeal.
2009年5月13日星期三
经济危机下，两起政府试图干预私企的行为
Neighbors Use Food Stamps, Not Costco
订阅：
博文评论 (Atom)
博文
The Senate measure would prohibit companies from raising interest rates on existing balances unless a card holder was 60 days behind, and then would require the rate to be restored to its previous level if payments were on time for six months. Consumers would have to be notified of rate increases 45 days in advance. Companies would not be allowed to charge late fees if they were late in processing a payment.
回复删除Statements would have to be mailed 21 days before payment was due. It would be more difficult to provide cards to those under age 21. Rates on new accounts could not be increased within the first year, and promotional rates would have to be in force for at least six months. Gift cards would have to be good for at least five years.
回复删除如果信用卡供应方的行为真的需要改变，真的没有满意消费者，那么应该是信用卡公司接收到消费者的信息而自动改正
回复删除但是，现在国会立法去干预交易，是否说明市场，至少是信用卡市场不完美，供给方的自然垄断力量，交易成本，不正当竞争等等导致消费者意愿得不到满足；还是国会的干预是多余的，是违背市场的，是要被市场惩罚的，市场会受供需力量拉到未干预状态？
又或者说，每个信用卡公司按自己的利益最大化行为，会导致金融体系的系统风险？这和亚当斯密的看法不一样吗？其实不是的，亚当斯密只说了实业，并没有说金融体系。他认为实业中企业家按自己的利益最大化行为，势必会把自己的东西做得更好，去交易，去卖个好价钱（所以，他反对不正当竞争，如限制市场准入，如坑害竞争对手）
而在金融体系内，参与者，特别是供给方，按自己的利益最大化行为，疯狂借贷，以银行为例，把贷款证券化转给其他人，这算是利益最大化的行为吧，导致的是，风险确实被传到别人那边去了，但是风险却增大了，因为没有钱的人进入了金融体系。当大家都以为自己已经把风险传出去的时候，其实大家都有风险，而且更大了，为什么？因为没有人来控制风险总量了。如果每个金融机构的风险只能自己承担（没有保险，没有证券化，没有二手交易），那么各个公司自会控制自己的风险的，系统风险就不会抬高。在有保险机构（存在多头交叉担保），有MBS，有二手交易（股票的二级市场）的情况下，确实增加了流动性，也就增加了价格，但是这是“虚”的，但是这种“虚”，却是一种“实”的基础，比如说上市公司在股票市场融资；实以虚为基础，金融体系整一个务虚主义（邓小平同志确实有一次理论工作务虚会，1979年3月30日）
更为重要的是：
回复删除In nearly two days of Senate debate so far this week, not one senator has stepped forward to defend the card companies or blame consumers who have run up substantial credit card debt for causing some of their own problems.
The popularity of tighter restrictions on credit card issuers has certainly not been lost on the White House, where internal polls show near universal support for new rules
The key to the strong Senate prospects for the legislation was an agreement between Mr. Dodd and Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee.
回复删除“Credit card contracts are unclear, at best, and thoroughly confusing at worst,” Mr. Shelby said on Tuesday. “Card issuers raise rates for unclear reasons, use billing methods that consumers do not understand and assign fees and charges without warning. This bill seeks to remedy this.”
如果说哪个行业需要永远监管，这个行业就是金融行业。
回复删除从供给方看，市场准入门槛，行业内企业的联合垄断是很严重的（银行间同业拆借市场）
从需求方看：转换成本高
医药行业也要监管
从供给方看，市场准入门槛，而且需求方的需求大部分由供给方自己觉得，我说开什么药就开什么药
从需求方看：转换成本高，而且压根不了解自己消费的药品、接受的服务
教育行业也要监管
公有的当然要管；私有的，供给方会把教育当做纯粹的服务，但是教育是关系民族未来的大事
从需求方看，转换成本高，信息不对称
劳动力市场也要监管
因为从供给方看，供给曲线是垂直，我们单个人只能提供Q=1
非产品、服务的市场都要监管，产品、服务行业，只需要在市场试错出一个产品时，及时取缔就可以了。