Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 216 posts

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#111

Post by 18pfsmt »

mattmanser wrote: post #91
18pfsmt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize Google Checkout is often lamented on HN because it doesn't operate in many European countries? It is exactly for these reasons. Much like copyright laws are abused for business protection, so are regulations. Certainly within the US it would be better to have a federal license framework in order to minimize friction.

What, that Google doesn't have money to put up bonds or buy the necessary expertise? I don't get your point. More likely it's Yet Another Google Product They Can't Be Bothered To Finish (TM).

It's not about having enough money, but whether it is financially worth it. It's an ROI calculation that involves navigating several regulating bodies with what appears to be minimal payback. It certainly isn't a technical limitation.

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#112

Post by yequalsx »

dpatru wrote: post #70
potatolicious wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't go as far as to say all regulation stifles innovation. A completely unregulated market may very well stifle innovation also - i.e., when consumer trust of that market is so low as to discourage economic activity. That is a rather extreme case, though. I think the more relevant point is that all regulations have overhead - even ones that don't charge a $500K bond. This is something governments sometimes see…

An unregulated market will spawn entities that provide the services it needs. This includes security and trust. Insurance companies, for example, are entities that people trust to protect them against loss. Rating agencies are entities that people trust to provide risk assessment. The difference between non-coercive (private) entities and government is that non-coercive entities adapt better. So, for example, if you'…

In your statement:

"The difference between non-coercive (private) entities and government is that non-coercive entities adapt better."

it's not clear if you are equating non-coercive with private entities. If so you are very much wrong.

Private companies have killed, enslaved, tortured, kidnapped, etc. There are a tremendous amount of examples of private companies being coercive.

As to ratings agencies, some spectacularly demonstrated 3 years ago that they can fail and be captured (akin to regulatory capture) by other private entities.

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#113

Post by hammock »

tptacek wrote: post #84
randallsquared wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples from reality where [an unregulated market spawning entities that provide trusted rating services] has happened? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports

The question was not whether unregulated markets spawn "trusted rating services". It's whether society could function with private rating services in lieu of regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#As_logical...

Go back and read your exchange. It looks to me like he answered your question, and you're changing it now.

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#114

Post by yequalsx »

dpatru wrote: post #67
jrockway wrote: post #48

Doesn't all regulation stifle innovation? If I wanted to sell a homes in a skyscraper made of papier-mâché, building codes would prevent me from doing that. But that's not necessarily a bad thing: the first time someone leaves their soldering iron on while they're not using it, the building burns down and we have five hundred dead families on our hands. "Innovators" tend to think about the good aspects of their ideas…

Government regulation is in just about every case either not needed at all or better provided through non-coercive institutions. Since government innovates more slowly than private industries, government regulation tends to become outdated, going from common-sense prudence to arbitrary burden on innovation. For example, right now the Mississippi River in the US is flooding, destroying many homes. This is a huge loss…

You wrote:

"Since government innovates more slowly than private industries, government regulation tends to become outdated, going from common-sense prudence to arbitrary burden on innovation. "

The space program spawned a tremendous amount of innovation. Public research universities throughout the nation innovate on a grand scale. The internet is an example of government innovation.

Regulation does not reflect a lack of creativity. It reflects an acknowledgment of a problem and steps to address the problem. Sometimes side effects occur and are bad and the regulation needs to be reanalyzed. Sometimes there is regulatory capture (by private entities).

Government had to mandate the use of seatbelts. This led to airbags because after the government made safety an issue innovations were made in this area. They probably would have been made without government intervention but government got the ball rolling and the innovations occurred sooner as a result of government.

Regulations can be good, bad, or neutral. But talking about "non-coercive institutions" makes your view look extreme.

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#115

Post by scscsc »

pilif wrote: post #38

Here in Europe, PayPal (which is acting like a bank) had to get a banking license (like any other bank). As far as I know they didn't go bankrupt yet, so it can't be a wholly bad thing. If I drive a vehicle that acts like a car, I need a drivers license. If I run a service that acts like a bank I need a banking license. I really don't see a problem here.

Here is the problem: PayPal was born in the US. Among other things, probably because it was easier for them to do business there. PayPal couldn't have been concieved in Europe.

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#116

Post by hessenwolf »

tptacek wrote: post #108
hessenwolf wrote: post #17

Can't I just live as a shareholder in silicon valley, basing my limited company and shill directors in Alabama, and leasing the limited company software produced by my other company in California? Requirements: 2 limited companies. Licensing agreement. Alabama-based Non-executive directors (cousin Ed and Chuck).

Then your other company in California have to post the bond. The software has nothing to do with it.

The company in California produces software components. It is not involved in any financial transmissions whatsoever. That is my point.

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#117

Post by hessenwolf »

Duff wrote: post #77
jrockway wrote: post #48

Doesn't all regulation stifle innovation? If I wanted to sell a homes in a skyscraper made of papier-mâché, building codes would prevent me from doing that. But that's not necessarily a bad thing: the first time someone leaves their soldering iron on while they're not using it, the building burns down and we have five hundred dead families on our hands. "Innovators" tend to think about the good aspects of their ideas…

This is true -- the hardcore capitalist would argue that the plaster industry has been hamstrung by the quaint requirements from building code to use wood, steel and concrete in construction. There's a give an take here... the government has a perceived duty to protect the citizenry against bad actors, that that introduces a bias against sudden change aka "innovation". "Innovation" isn't always good -- just like to s…

I think stifles competition is more concerning than stifling innovation per se.

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#118

Post by jbooth »

pyre wrote: post #29
zackattack wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's that flawed. Would you elaborate?

Trustworthiness is not tied to money, the ability to make large sums of money, or the ability to convince others to loan you money/invest in you.

Yeah, but "ability to pay a court-ordered settlement" correlates pretty highly with having some cash reserves.

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#119

Post by dantheman »

yequalsx wrote: post #112
dpatru wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An unregulated market will spawn entities that provide the services it needs. This includes security and trust. Insurance companies, for example, are entities that people trust to protect them against loss. Rating agencies are entities that people trust to provide risk assessment. The difference between non-coercive (private) entities and government is that non-coercive entities adapt better. So, for example, if you'…

In your statement: "The difference between non-coercive (private) entities and government is that non-coercive entities adapt better." it's not clear if you are equating non-coercive with private entities. If so you are very much wrong. Private companies have killed, enslaved, tortured, kidnapped, etc. There are a tremendous amount of examples of private companies being coercive. As to ratings agencies, some spectacu…

In the short run private entities may do horrible things, it takes time for information to travel through the system. But if we're comparing private to government - government definitely takes the cake on environmental destruction and causing human misery.

Re: In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

#120

Post by jeffb »

lutorm wrote: post #73
dublinclontarf wrote: post #26

And so we have one more reason to use Bitcoin.

... whose exchange rate against the dollar has gone up by a factor of 6 over the past weeks? If you had any debt nominated in Bitcoin, you'd be screwed.

You wouldn't be screwed if your business operates in Bitcoins, and your customers pay you in Bitcoins. If you take out a loan for 100 Bitcoins, you will still owe 100 Bitcoins, regardless of the USD exchange rate.

If you aren't dealing in USD, it doesn't matter how much value the USD loses.

Similarly, if you had debt denominated in USD, it wouldn't matter how much value the Zimbabwe Dollar or Weimar Republic Mark lost in hyperinflation. Your debt burden would be the same amount of USD. It just depends on your frame of reference.

Post reply on HN