Columnists Ahoy 2

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20111202,0,966733.column

David Lazarus addresses a very interesting new policy created by Chase for credit card users. The new policy changes the traditional Credit Card limit to an "access line." This line increases the availability of money to the credit card user and features a more "adjustable" limit. Lazarus' perspective on the policy is that its a tool to manipulate the credit card users. As the economic conditions take higher and higher tolls on consumers, they become more cautious in their spending. With so many more people reigning in their debt, the banks are taking a hit. Lazarus believes that this new "access line" is Chase's way of trying to make spending more "attractive" to consumers. By removing some of the penalties that come with overcharging, people are more likely to throw themselves further into debt. Although Chase's spokesperson, Paul Hartwick, denies the claims and states that this new policy is not intended to be an incentive for consumers to come into more debt, but merely to encourage consumers to bank with Chase, Lazarus asserts that if that were true than there were other, more logical, ways to do that, such as lowering interest rates.

Lazarus outlines his argument by first putting the policy in an economic context. He explains that with the constant economic strains on consumers, they have "become savvier at managing their money." Then, Lazarus clearly states his opinion that banks are "making it easier for people to run up balances on their credit cards." Because Lazarus began by explaining the pressures put on the banks to compensate for the losses due to the consumer's digging themselves out of debt, his assessment seems fairly logical. Lazarus continues to develop his point by explaining the policy and the trouble it can cause spenders, saying that people are more willing to overspend because "a credit access line probably would allow you to do so without any difficulty or penalty." By using two sources in his opinion, David Robertson and Paul Hartwick, each supporting either side of the argument, Lazarus' argument gains credibility. Lazarus addressed Chase's obsequious intentions by quoting Hartwick's claim that, "'We simply want customers to choose to do more of their spending with us'," and then refuted his argument claiming that "If that were the case, though, the bank could have offered other incentives, such as lower interest rates.''