Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 6 of 42 Publications by Todd J. Zywicki
TOTM In a recent commentary at Forbes.com, former Clinton administration economist Robert Shapiro argues that some 250,000 jobs would be created, and consumers would save $27 billion annually, by reducing the interchange fee charged to merchants for transactions made by consumers using credit and debit cards.
In a recent commentary at Forbes.com, former Clinton administration economist Robert Shapiro argues that some 250,000 jobs would be created, and consumers would save $27 billion annually, by reducing the interchange fee charged to merchants for transactions made by consumers using credit and debit cards. If true, these are some incredible numbers.
Read the full piece here.
Popular Media Fresh off of its enactment this summer of new regulations on consumer credit card terms, some in Congress want to go further—to impose a national . . .
Fresh off of its enactment this summer of new regulations on consumer credit card terms, some in Congress want to go further—to impose a national usury ceiling on credit card interest rates and limits on interchange fees (the price that credit card issuers charge to merchants that accept their cards). That caps on interest rates harm consumers is well understood. But price controls on interchange fees would also result in consumers paying more and getting less.
ICLE Issue Brief A blog symposium hosted by Truth on the Market (www.truthonthemarket.com) and sponsored by the International Center for Law and Economics (www.laweconcenter.org).
A blog symposium hosted by Truth on the Market (www.truthonthemarket.com) and sponsored by the International Center for Law and Economics (www.laweconcenter.org).
TOTM In my first post I argued that consumers as a group would likely be made worse off as a result of artificially imposed reductions in interchange fees. . . .
In my first post I argued that consumers as a group would likely be made worse off as a result of artificially imposed reductions in interchange fees. This post considers a second line of attack—that even if consumers overall would be made no better off (or even worse off) as a result of regulating interchange fees, Congress should intervene in the name of “fairness” to regulate interchange fees. This “fairness” argument, however, is a red herring, especially when advanced by merchants purporting to speak for consumers. Indeed, the sincerity of the merchants’ concern is belied by their own behavior.
TOTM Although the mechanisms vary, legislation pending before Congress on interchange has a basic central purpose—to reduce interchange fees, either indirectly or directly. If adopted, these . . .
Although the mechanisms vary, legislation pending before Congress on interchange has a basic central purpose—to reduce interchange fees, either indirectly or directly. If adopted, these efforts will likely succeed in their intended goal of reducing interchange fees. But they will also likely have substantial unintended consequences that will prove harmful to consumers and competition and will roll-back the innovation in the credit card market over the past two decades.
Scholarship Abstract The creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (“CFPA”) is a very bad idea and should be rejected. The proposal is not salvageable . . .
The creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (“CFPA”) is a very bad idea and should be rejected. The proposal is not salvageable and cannot be improved in substance or in form. The foundational premise of the CFPA is that a failure of consumer protection, and specifically irrational consumer behavior in lending markets, was a meaningful cause of the financial crisis and that the CFPA would have or could have averted the crisis or lessened its effects. To the contrary, there is no evidence that consumer ignorance or irrationality was a substantial cause of the crisis or that the existence of a CFPA could have prevented the problems that occurred. The CFPA is likely to do more harm than good for consumers. In this article, we highlight three fundamentally problematic truths about the CFPA: (1) The CFPA is premised on a flawed understanding of the financial crisis, (2) the CFPA will have significant unintended consequences, including but not limited to reducing competition, consumer choice, and availability of credit to consumers for productive uses; and (3) the CFPA creates a powerful bureaucracy with undefined scope, risking expensive and wasteful regulatory overlap at both the federal and state levels without any evidence of its own expertise in the core areas it is designed to regulate.