Would? No such calculation is necessary because banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere - the opportunity for fleecing the masses with those sneaky & outrageous charges is just too delightful to pass up.
If people actually had a cheaper and better alternative, no one would keep paying those outrageous charges, and that's why the credit union 'had to be' "regulated"[1] to death.
Ever wonder why all banks charge roughly the same fees?
[1] "Regulation" is quite a double-speakey word. If you regulate an electric current, you make sure it isn't too strong, and that's where the word gets its positive connotation.
But when a government "regulates" anything, it's basically just coercion. "No, you can't offer people this beneficial service. You can't charge less for transfers. You can't give your customers debit cards" and so on.
> The only way for this system to be fixed starts at the ballot box.
Do you think politicians all over the world don't know that every single person on earth would rather not get fleeced with outrageous fees?
They all do, of course, and as evidenced by banks still raping us six ways from Sunday, they don't care.
Take any societal problem you see. Is there real evidence to show that they care? Whatever they tell you to get elected doesn't count, by the way. How often do politicians keep their promises?
Why would you think the solution to any problem would start at the ballot box?