>
I think the analogy still holds here.I really don't think so.
Let me tell you a little story.
Banks have offered checking accounts (now usually via debit cards) for a long time. Everyone understood how they worked, and if you wrote a check, it would be refused payment if you didn't have enough money in your account. This is the classic bounced check, and the merchant would be angry with you.
Fast forward to the 2000's. Banks changed the rules, and now (unless you explicitly disallow it) if your check was going to bounce, they will instead charge you an overdraft fee. Even if your account was in the negative by one cent.
All in the name of profit, because the fee would be like $35. And of course, this hit the poorest people the most. And let's not talk about check cashing services, which really screw over the people.
Now if banks stopped there, that would be one thing.
However, one of the "innovations" that Wells Fargo came up with (it was innovated for the profit margin, for a little while) was to re-order transactions any way they saw fit.
Suppose you have $5 in your checking account. This morning, you deposit $50, and in the afternoon, you withdraw $30, secure in the knowledge that you have $55 in your account. Seems safe, right? You're doing the right thing, and playing by the rules, you'll still have $25 left. You are still out and about, so later, you take out another $5 for a meal. No problem, you still have $20 left.
But Wells Fargo changed the rules. They decided that all the transactions coming in on the same day could be ordered (serialized in database terminology) in whatever order they decided. So they would process the $10 withdrawal first, charge you a $35 overdraft fee, and then apply the deposit, leaving you at -$10. Then, when you take out another $5, this is allowed, but because you're already negative, they charge you another overdraft fee, so now you're sitting at -$50.
That is innovation in the modern age of the financial industry.