The drilling rigs are not cheap. Having them sit idle will cost millions and millions of dollars. There is demand for them elsewhere in the world. They will contract out to other companies operating in other countries. When the moratorium is lifted in 6 months, there won't be any available rigs to be had which means no jobs either.
Yes, banks are capable of stopping it, but since all those excess fees go to them, why should they? There's a thousand things which could be done to make micro-payments work, but the banks aren't particularly interested in them since they profit quite a bit out of the current system.
Why would they?
I contend that a bank that rakes its customers over the coals in the manner in which you described would quickly have no customers. Word would spread incredibly quickly in today's information age that bank x royally screwed person y and customers would remove their money in droves.
Since the amount of money that a bank can loan is tied to the amount of "reserves" they have on hand, a bank that had any significant number of withdrawals (say 5-10%) would very quickly have its balance sheets become negative rendering the bank insolvent as currently outstanding loans exceed the bank's capital requirements which justify those loans.
Banks compete fiercly for customers with the cost to attract a new customer being quite high. While on the surface it might seem that having more revenue from service charges and fees would be in the best interest of bank x, it clearly would not be worth the tarnished reputation of allowing its customers to be wiped out by some nefarious prankster sending micro-payments.
My point is that sure, banks like to charge fees and penalties, but I think I given compelling reasons why they would be interested in limiting/eliminating the ability of the above mentioned nefarious prankster from wiping someone out.
Every time a law is passed people lose freedom. While each individual law may seem to be reasonable and well-intentioned, the cumulative effect of law upon law upon law is quite restrictive. Additionally, laws are frequently perverted to mean things and to enforce things that they were never intentioned to. Look at abuses of the DMCA, the Patriot act and I am sure countless others that don't come to mind just this moment.
Should sending someone money in small enough chunks that they lose money instead of gaining it be illegal. Almost certainly. Is it actually against any existing law, I'm not entirely sure. Probably one of he many digital loopholes that will eventually get filled by the law. There have been many of them, and the somewhat reactionary ways in which they were filled have been half of what caused this battle in the first place.
I am sorry, buy why should this be illegal? Why should any respectable government waste everyone's time writing yet another pointless ineffectual over-engineered law that will eventually be abused as it evolves into some sort of tyranical restriction. Why don't banks and other organizations that allow micro-payments simply set a minimum transfer amount such that the amount transferred to the recipient must be positive after any fees are subtracted? Or they could make the sender pay the transfer amount (since in any sort of commerce this cost would be built into the product anyway) OR let the recipient specify (via an account setting) the minimum amount that they will accept as a payment. There are countless ways to avoid negative transfers without getting governments and laws involved. If this happened to me, I would complain to the bank, not the government! If the bank were to be unwilling to provide relief, they must not want me as a customer.
Of course, you have to remember that all of this over-engineering costs money. The more money a hospital spends on bulletproofing EHR, the more they have to charge patients or cut corners elsewhere in order to remain profitable. At some point for any system, be it EHR or any other, this process becomes unsustainable as no one could afford the services of the hospital.
Some may see this as a reason why for profit hospitals are bad and why the government should run things. It really wouldn't change. The government is currently effectively bankrupt. We borrow billions from other countries and the Federal Reserve prints up the shortfall causing currency inflation. When our debt becomes so large that our credit rating falters, other countries will be less and less inclined to finance our debts which will bring more inflation as the Fed continues to print the shortfall. Why do people think that the government's budget is any different from a household budget? How long can you keep spending more than you earn and stave off bankruptcy?
The fact of the matter is that a for profit organization has the most incentive to build the most effective and efficient system for dealing with their core business. Of course, governmentrules and regulations and the organizations' leadership (if inept) can stymie this process.
It's clearly not your company's core business to make their own patch cables. It may be fun for you to wittle down your own toothpics from lincoln logs but if it's not in your job description it ain't going to fly. Seriously, just buy the damn stuff and do what your boss has asked.
Sorry, but most companies aren't in the business of any sort of IT as part of their core business. IT enables their core business, but it is overhead. Whether or not making your own IT cables is cost effective or not is one thing, but it definitely falls under IT. If I took your comment to its logical conslusion I would ask, "Why should his company have a network since networks clearly aren't part of his company's core business?"
Why is it that nowadays any significantly high profile criminal activity has been reclassified as terrorism? I thought that terrorist acts were supposed to invoke terror in the pursuit of some political end by blowing up/killing buildings/planes/hostages, the idea being that a population would be in so much fear (terror) that they would pressure their government to give in to the demands of the terrorists.
The answer is that there are probably too few of the above classification of terrorists to actually have a war against (as in the war on terror) here in the United States. Those in control need to expand the definition of terror so as to actually have something to have war against. Why have a war on terror at all? Many people are willing to cede their liberty and freedom to catch terrorists of the ilk that perpetrated 9/11 (a la the war on terror) and the government is using that sentiment with regards to the newly reclassified definition of terrorist (pretty much anyone they don't like that they are willing to label as terrorist...protesters, constitutionalists, libertarians etc etc etc. See Missouri's MIAC report which associated supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr, three presidential candidates all espousing constitutional government)being associated with terrorists. The Bush administration (and now Obama administration) has taken full advantage of the flexibility of the term "terrorist" to assault personal freedoms on an unprecedented scale.
If you see the scales of freedom tipping in the wrong direction, get involved. There are left and right leaning organizations that are trying to restore our freedom:
American Freedom Campaign
The Pen
DownsizeDc.org
The Campaign for Liberty
Restore the Republic
Young Americans for Liberty
Engage the scientific method sections of your brains and challenge the assertions of those inciting the global warming hysteria. Perhaps humans are damning the planet with CO2, perhaps they aren't...but educate yourselves rather than take Al Gore's word for it.
Umm, why are they asking the government for help on this? If they want google to pay for news then they should charge google for the news. Why does the government have to get involved?
We gave them money because if AIG fails, two huge things go down with them. First, Europe's big banks all of them (who used AIG to get cheap insurance--they'd suddenly need new equity on the order of 30-50 billion). Second, money market funds who would be facing much larger losses then they did with Lehman after all of AIG's derivative counterparties get first cut unsecured lenders would take huge haircuts, likely leading to several funds "breaking the buck" and a run on their virtual banks. Since sending $200 billion to AIG is much cheaper than dealing with the carnage those events would cause, the government holds its nose and hopes for the best.
Ok, so AIG is an insurer that insured the mortgage risk of the big banks. All AIG is doing with the bailout money is paying it out to banks in fulfillment of insurance policies. So in effect AIG is the middleman where the government gives money to AIG who then pays it to Citi and BofA and whatever other banks (including foreign banks) took out policies. Why couldn't we have just let AIG fail and bail out these banks as necessary (for those who contend that it was necessary) since thats basically what we are doing anyway?
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.