Here’s a question. If you hand cash to a bank teller to deposit into your account, then go to an ATM and withdraw that money, wouldn’t you think that money is there for you to withdraw? Ha! Deposits often post after withdrawals to ensure a fee on the unsuspecting. And then there was the ATM that allowed you to withdraw more than you had in the account (guess calculating balance minus withdrawal is too complicated to program) thus incurring a fee.

You’ve got to hand it to the bankers. (Actually, we pretty much already have.) They blow themselves and the economy up while paying themselves grotesquely large salaries. Then, working with government officials, they figure out multiple ways to get taxpayers and customers to fund their recapitalization. […] And how does the industry that has received so much largesse from taxpayers repay the public? By jacking up fees for basic services. According to Bankrate.com, the average surcharge for using a money machine rose from $1.78 in 2007 to $1.98 in 2008. It’s probably higher now. Last week, when I stopped payment on a check, I was astonished to find the charge was $32—about what it costs to sponsor a child for a month through Save the Children. Meanwhile, consumer complaints about being hit with massive and repeated overdraft fees have led to threats of congressional action.

The reality is that banks feel they have no other choice. Newsweek’s Steve Tuttle recently argued that the outrage over overdraft fees is overdone because people incur them only when they spend money they don’t have. Of course, banks are in the business of enabling just that sort of activity. They lend money to businesses and consumers to spend on stuff—cars, factories, houses—for which they can’t pay cash. The problem for the banks is that the demand for that core business of spending money you don’t have is way down.

---