The Instigator
bkearney
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

NDP Government proposed ATM Fee Cap

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 552 times Debate No: 45192
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

bkearney

Con

Government regulations on ATM fee's, making them capped at a Maximum of $0.50 is not fair. Everyone should be able to choose how much they charge for a service without politicians interference.
I personally never use ATM's due to the high cost, and I wish everyone would follow my regiment on bank fees (but do what you like). However I still think that kind of control is not fair as everyone has the choice to either use, or not use a service for a given price.
Wylted

Pro

It is fair to cap bank fees. Let's discuss why.

1. Bankers have conspired with the government to create an oligarchy.

A group of the biggest bankers in the country meet in absolute secrecy in 1910 on Jeckyl Island to create the federal reserve system[1]. The purpose was to take control of America's financial system and destroy competitors. We can tell what their goals were by examining the results of their actions. Before the federal reserve act the countries largest banks had control over 29% of the whole banking industry after that they had control of 90% of all banking institutions[2]. If these banks are going to use politicians to gain control over the entire industry and the countries monetary system the least they can do is accept some regulations to repay the favor.

[1] http://whale.to...
[2] http://criminalbankingmonopoly.wordpress.com...

My opponent offered very minimal arguments in round 1 so I will do the same. I'm looking forward to his replies.
Debate Round No. 1
bkearney

Con

I must add this argument applies to Canadian government. We Canadians do know that the US financial system has its share of problems, and with our relations with our neighbours to the south we both feel economic impacts together. I think we are on a much better system north of the border as other countries look our our economic policy as an example.

My argument is not tackling the depths of our financial systems. It is simply the issue of government control on businesses. Should coke be regulated at one dollar a can from a vending machine?

It just does not make sense that if I were to own an ATM machine (which I don't by the way) I can't choose how much I want to charge to provide the service.

ATM's are simple convenience, and optional to use. No one ever told you you have to use the machine and pay the fees. It is your own choice to carry cash, or use whatever method of payment you wish.

It should be a free market where price is driven by supply and demand. If people were not willing to pay atm fees, would the price not drop? The cost of using the ATM is what it is because it is the balance that produces the most profit to the provider. Any more expensive and less customers would use the ATM, any less expensive the same number of customers would use the ATM and reduce profit.

People need to make their own proper choices. It should not be up the the government to regulate a free market. I pay zero bank fees because I have made that choice, and every other canadian can follow suit if they wish.
Wylted

Pro

I'm sorry. I made a mistake thinking you were talking about the American banking system. The use of the term ATM. I was under the impression it was referred to as an ABM in Canada.

I won't defend pricing regulations in general because each particular situation is different. I will just stick with discussing the regulation of prices on Canadian banks. The banking industry in Canada is a little different then in America, but certain similarities exist.

The Canadian banks have used the government to eliminate their competition[1]. The Canadian banks were literally handed billions of dollars by the government[2]. The banks have created an oligarchy for themselves[3]. There is no way that the banks can just use the government instead of fair competition to kill their competition, and receive over 100 billion dollars and then be expected not to be regulated. In their "bailout" hey received $3400 per person in bailout money. They already got $3400 from you for providing nothing. The least they can do is have some low ATM fees.

Sources

[1]http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca...
[2]http://www.cbc.ca...
[3]http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(banks)

I urge my opponent to please put up a well thought out argument in his final round, So that I have something to respond to.
Debate Round No. 2
bkearney

Con

bkearney forfeited this round.
Wylted

Pro

My opponent opted out of round 3. So I will also.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
bkearneyWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was disappointing as Con did not meet the BOP. As such points have to go to Pro, I would have liked to seen a stronger debate as I think some of Pros arguments could have been fiercely contended, i.e. Eustace Mullins. Conduct points got to Pro, as Con forfeited the last round. Sources go to Pro as Pro cited sources.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
bkearneyWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win, FF.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
bkearneyWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to prove his resolution and made arguments which were based by his own opinions where as Pro provided reasonable explanations which were backed by sources. Con lost conduct for the forfeit.