the government has made sure that there is little to distinguish banks. i.e. there simply arent better accounts to be promoted over worse ones, given the particular angle of the critique you are making. i.e. rules surrounding extension of credit.
consider.
hypothetical; if the government regulated the apple industry, and over time the quality of apples fell, until whatever large farm you bought apples from, they tasted horrible. would there be a profit making business in pointing out where non-existant tasty apples can(t) be bought?
Whether regulations increase or decrease the variety of suppliers in a market is I think highly debateable. If my rule about overly large companies being forced to split (see earlier posts) was in force then I suggest that it would lead to more variety than without the rule.
no, regulation is standardizing, thats designing in homogeneity. i.e. in our hypothetical you would enforce a rule that lead to many competing brands of poor quality apples. and if any one apple provider hit on great tasting apples, and started eating up market share, its lazy competitors would bitch to the regulator, and that would be the end of that.
You still don’t understand that value is subjectively determined, that different people value things differently. Once you understand this extremely simple and intuitive concept you will understand that all of your so-called arguments actually support free market economics. The fact that a consumer is willing to pay 0-20$ for a product, and yet only pays 5$, shows you how efficient and beneficial the market is. Sure, a producer may find someone who’s willing to pay 10$,15$, 20$(max), but even then, the consumer paid only what he was willing to pay. The fact that the vast majority pays far less than they’re actually willing to pay only supports market economies. You’re definition of a “scam” is one where a consumer may pay as much as he’s willing to pay, as opposed to the far more likely case where he pays far less.
And you still haven’t answered any of my questions.
This theory is completely refuted by facts. Never has government regulations increased competition; not in the railroad industry, airline industry, car industry, ect, ect.
And seeing as the FDIC insures everyone’s deposits- there’s no real reason for people to care what their banks are up to, government creates the moral hazard by guarantee that nothing will go wrong.