Yes, someone is paying for my 2% cash back card but it’s still a net benefit to me.
We (anyone/anywhere) could pass a law that said no more fees, and the credit card companies could instantly raise interest rates and end grace periods to compensate exactly. And then instead of cash back, they would have cards with much lower rates.
I don't see that anybody would be better or worse off, to first order. The difference is framing, and psychological response.
People look at stuff totally differently when it's divided into different buckets.
I don't think you can simplify it that much. If you end grace periods, the people that currently don't pay interest will suddenly be charged huge amounts. If you drastically lower the interest rates to make their costs match the old model, then other people that pay the card off slower will suddenly be paying much less than before.
It's easy enough to ban fees charged to the business, and force them to be charged to the customer, to make pricing more transparent and remove the silliness around rewards. But trying to replace fees with interest rates doesn't work, unless you set up some crazy nonlinear '''interest rate''' calculation.
They will be charged the same amount if the interest rates are set accordingly, it will just be explicit.
>other people that pay the card off slower will suddenly be paying much less than before
You say that as if their rate must remain, if not fixed, in a fixed ratio with others. I don't see why.
>trying to replace fees with interest rates doesn't work
You might be right. But I don't see why, and I think that if I can guess a little, people in the industry know much more and are smarter.
