Follow
@dcdeejay well, it's kind of a no harm, no foul position.
It's not f**k everybody else since anyone not willing to play the game would still be entitled to complain if they're defrauded.
The problem with their proposal is that it's reactive and not proactive. In theory it's not so bad, but in practice there are very good reasons that the state decided not to go that way.
@volkris It is not "no harm, no foul" at all. It is f**k everybody else because unsuspecting consumers will ultimately bear the cost of fraudulent activity they have nothing to do with via higher rates & fees financial institutions would likely put in place to offset losses caused by their fraudulent deals.
The idea that the wealthy should be able to commit fraud amongst themselves because no 3rd party is directly impacted is ludicrous.