Bounced
Now appearing on tavern signs in southern Montana: bad check lists. That's right, instead of advertising their attractions or wishing passers-by a nice day, at least two places have decided to post the names of people who've bounced checks in their establishments.
Seems to me like a strange way to advertise (and isn't that what you're supposed to do with a sign?). It doesn't exactly make me feel welcome. But I'm assuming the owners know what they're doing: they've decided to forego the advertising because bad checks (and the associated fees) are costing them so much money.
So here's what I don't get: where are banks in all this? Why do these check-bouncers still get to open accounts? Why do the *recipients* of the bad checks get punished? A check, after all, represents a bank's promised substitute for cash. When Joe writes Jack a bad check, Joe and his bank have violated that promise in defrauding Jack. But the bank passes along all of its costs -- half of them to Jack!
Seems to me a bank that promised no fees for the victims of bad checks would garner a whole lot of business (from these taverns at least). And if no bank is willing to do that? Then they must be taking advantage of a monopoly situation. . . which means they need to be regulated. Why can't Montana's so-called economic developers pursue such simple though unglamorous ways to improve local business, rather than cheerleading for really dumb big ideas?
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
Seems to me like a strange way to advertise (and isn't that what you're supposed to do with a sign?). It doesn't exactly make me feel welcome. But I'm assuming the owners know what they're doing: they've decided to forego the advertising because bad checks (and the associated fees) are costing them so much money.
So here's what I don't get: where are banks in all this? Why do these check-bouncers still get to open accounts? Why do the *recipients* of the bad checks get punished? A check, after all, represents a bank's promised substitute for cash. When Joe writes Jack a bad check, Joe and his bank have violated that promise in defrauding Jack. But the bank passes along all of its costs -- half of them to Jack!
Seems to me a bank that promised no fees for the victims of bad checks would garner a whole lot of business (from these taverns at least). And if no bank is willing to do that? Then they must be taking advantage of a monopoly situation. . . which means they need to be regulated. Why can't Montana's so-called economic developers pursue such simple though unglamorous ways to improve local business, rather than cheerleading for really dumb big ideas?
What do YOU think? Drop a line to info@johnclaytonbooks.com. To receive these posts via email, write to johnclaytonoutreach-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. (You need not put any text in the message.)
