"The whopping rate increase is First Premier's way of complying with the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. Among other provisions, that law prohibits fees of more than 25% above a card's credit limit. First Premier has been offering an account with a $250 limit and annual fees of $256. By law the latter figure must come down to $75. To compensate for the lost $181 in fees, the bank is raising the rate by 70% of $250, or $175, a year."
As the anonymous author points out,
"Banks can't be expected to give money away, even if Congress is in the habit of doing just that. Unlike lawmakers, banks and other businesses can collect revenues only by offering something of value in return."
Hmmm". Whom does Congress habitually give money away to? Certainly not ordinary citizens. Why, banks of course banks like First Premier. Deposit-taking interest-charging banks want their cake and to eat it too. And they won't stop there - they also want yours.
Money can't buy you love, but it can buy you food, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare all the basics of living a good life that
free market capitalism can offer. So what is the price of freedom? 79%.
To be truly "free" in America, you need access to credit for almost everything. The ordinary citizen-borrower is caught in a trap. How free
are you when you can't have your phone turned on, apply for job, or buy a car to get to work without "good credit?"
"Freedom" in America's credit-trapped economy comes at a very high price. Thus some folks go for the 79% as a last resort. Hungry banks sit in wait, ready to pick at the bones of the economically wounded. For a price, credit card companies will happily devour you alive legally and with impunity. Like good ole' WSJ reports, they can't be expected to do it for nothing that is strictly the job of the Federal Reserve.
(Riddle #1: What is the difference between banking in 2010 United States and loan sharking? One is legal and the other is not.)
The Fed lending rate gives you a clue on how Bank of America, Citibank, and Wells Fargo managed to "repay" the government while continuing to swim in billions of dollars of unpaid debt.
In addition to "borrowing" at zero percent, banks are legally allowed to move "toxic assets" (money-losing debts) "off balance sheet." This would be akin to calculating your net worth by ignoring your entire loan, credit, and mortgage debt and counting only assets. In the dualistic system created since TARP, somehow you are in the red and your bank is in the black.
Oddly enough this arrangement is loosely called the "free market." Although there is nothing "free" about being forced to pay unlimited interest rates--especially not if the scales are tilted unfairly in one direction. Banks don't have to pay their debts, but they sure as hell expect you to pay yours.
Credit in ancient times, according to historian Paul Millet, began as "a process of neighborly reciprocity in rural societies." Long before "consumer societies" or money itself was invented, there was credit. Citizens traded their own labor (as well as that of their children and spouses) and their land to have access to credit, becoming enslaved and impoverished in the desperate effort to survive. Sound familiar?
In 1763 B.C. in the Ancient Mesopotamian city of Ur, only a few years and few miles away from King Hammurabi, Dumuzi-gamil "the grain supplier to the King" acted as an ancient banker.
The Temple under the King Rim-Sin collected rents (modern equivalent of taxes) from all citizens. Clay tablets written in cuneiform reveal that Dumuzi-gamil borrowed 250 grams of silver minas from the Temple and promised to repay 297.3 grams in five years an annual interest rate of 3.78%. Over the five year period, Dumuzi made a personal fortune by lending at rates as much as 20% per month to distressed farmers and fisherman unable to pay Temple rents or to feed their families.