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

Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 717 posts

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#461

Post by throwaway14356 »

colinsane wrote: post #443
jevgeni wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The knots HN ties itself into bashing "EU regulations", but then easily deciding to impose arbitrary regulations on payment companies is a sight to behold.

if you took a thousand people who adhere to different ethics and polled them on questions of ethics, would you expect the net responses to adhere to any consistent ethics even if each individual's responses did?

I want to see a system where those who dont get what they want are compensated. Then we can all max out our unreasonablness.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#462

Post by noduerme »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #213
ricksebak wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you apply for a loan, especially a mortgage, the lender could ask to see your outgoing cash flow statements. Which wouldn’t get into receipt-level detail, but could still potentially allow the lender to discriminate against you. A person with habitual transactions at a casino or liquor store could be perceived as high risk and the lender could jack up the interest rate for that person. I have no clue if lenders _a…

They could, but for the vast majority of people they won't. Credit scores exist so that they don't have to. Credit card company rolls up your behavior into a number, and passes that to a credit agency like Experian, and they pop a number out to anyone who asks. No one is asking for outgoing transactions unless you're trying to buy a business or are getting a non-standard loan for something

The vast majority of people don't have to pass intensive government background checks or face potential rejection during a political vetting process. (And I'm talking about in the United States, where questions raised about personal peccadillos during this process wouldn't necessarily result in the sort of watchlisting they would in most nonwestern countries).

The fear of having oneself audited is the main reason more people don't run for office.

Yes, some narcissistic maniacs have managed to slip through by portraying themselves as victims of witch hunts, but the average married person will not run for office if it means their spouse will find out they went to a strip club.

Everyone is susceptible to blackmail. The digital trail of expenditures is the key to letting the people with access to that data remain in power.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#463

Post by tchaffee »

stale2002 wrote: post #448
tchaffee wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to limited infrastructure resourcess, water and utility companies are a near monopoly which is why they need these types of regulations. There is no physical limitations to the number of possible payment processors so the actual fix is more competition and more companies. No need for neutrality regulations when you have thousands of companies competing.

Ok got it, so this means that your previously statement, where you said "My basic human freedoms should include the right to not do business with a hate group for example", is not true, or not your full opinion. You actually think that there are certain situations where it is OK to force basic utilities to transact with everyone. You just disagree where exactly the line is. But at the end of the day, yes you also agr…

Interested in the topic but not interested in your aggressive style and putting words in my mouth and telling me what I believe. You can have the last word if you'd like.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#464

Post by caeril »

dahart wrote: post #436
red-iron-pine wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the basis for this advice? "The GoBeRmEnT Is GoNa TrAcK YoU" Listen, you got a cell phone, and chances are that's going to give away far, far more than data that your credit card company holds on to. They're just going to have a line -- "Food Lion, [Date] $88.23" -- not detailed list of your purchases. Meanwhile if you use a membership card at any sort of grocery store, they absolutely will associate it with…

It’s not the government that concerns me, it’s the corporations. And I don’t think it’s a contest or even matters if cell phones give more data. I’m worried about both.

No corporation can point a gun at my head and force me into a steel cage.

No matter how evil and corrupt a given corporation is, it could never be as bad as a government.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#465

Post by clnq »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #428
Seattle3503 wrote: post #13

My concerns about a cashless society are the power it hands to a few oligopolistic credit card processors. Look at what happened to Pornhub. Regardless of whether you think Pornhub was in the wrong, it is striking that a business was cut off from global financial system by a small number of credit card companies. This was done without due process and under no countries laws. That should scare us at least a little.

> ... without due process is due process applicable? has the supreme court established if a vendor is free to turn down business? (i do not claim to know the answer, but i believe there was some recent such issue they saw)

I mean... due process, by definition, is process that is due. Due process exists in the legal context (especially judicial), but also ethical/moral. Different schools of ethics have a lot to say about ethical due process before depriving someone of liberties.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#466

Post by tchaffee »

crote wrote: post #454
tchaffee wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not claiming payment processors are moral. I'm asking if the freedom to refuse unethical business should be your right. I was responding to the position of a parent comment that processors should accept even illegal transactions. Of course you contact the police in the situation I described. Do you accept the payment though or do you refuse the transaction? You keep avoiding a specific yes or no question.

> freedom to refuse unethical business There is a massive difference between "unethical business" and "illegal business". As banks provide critical infrastructure, they should absolutely not be allowed to refuse business they consider "unethical", just like a power company should not be allowed to cut someone off because they think they are behaving "unethically". As to "illegal business", the simple fact is that the…

Banks don't know what you're paying for at Porn Hub?

Banks do know enough to price in risk. And there is your problem. They must be allowed to price in risk and if they are allowed to do that they can effectively deny business by making the price too high.

PayPal isn't a bank but does payments. The real problem is there aren't enough alternatives like that. The solution to banks having so much power is to give them more competition.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#467

Post by onionisafruit »

wwweston wrote: post #222
onionisafruit wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further and remove the "lawful" from that. If you pay me $50 it shouldn't matter to the payment processor whether I gave you a painting or a blow job in return.

Would you feel differently for someone hired to break into your home and retrieve valuables or information? Or perhaps hired to perform a hit on the life of someone you care about? Transactional sex might not be something you want people drawing lines around with financial regulation, but usually people have a line.

I am unconcerned about that. I don’t think there are people who would murder or steal from me if only paypal would let their payment go through.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#468

Post by noduerme »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #314
noduerme wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what are the main benefits of going fully cashless One piece of advice I got a long time ago, from a family member in politics: Don't put your groceries on a credit card. Especially if you buy junk food or alcohol. Obviously the same goes for bars, tobacco, strip clubs, gun purchases[0], and lots of other perfectly legal things that you might not want being counted up if you ever run for office. At the systemic lev…

Well many (not sure if all) strip clubs are basically legal brothels that run on cash specifically because a) they are (usually) in with local organized crime and b) so when the girls get their "tips" they can't be scrutinized about what service they provided to acquire it.

I know a lot of women who work at or have worked at strip clubs (including my partner of many years). While there's sometimes an organized crime element, those are often the safer ones for girls to work at. The blanket statement that they're "legal brothels" is far from the truth. In fact, most will fire girls for any sort of illegal contact, onsite or offsite, with customers. I've heard myriad stories of girls being fired for selling services.

That said, your comment doesn't deserve downvotes, because this very much depends on where you live. It's true that some of them are as crooked as you say. I can usually tell within a minute of walking into one. And if that's been your experience then I can't blame you for holding that perception. But I don't think it's true over all in America.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#469

Post by lazide »

stale2002 wrote: post #444
lazide wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster was noting there is historic precedent for parties to charge punitive fees to the point it’s defacto banned for things they don’t like. It would be challenging to stop without mandating some explicit formula too, which can be gamed.

> The poster was noting there is historic precedent for parties to charge punitive fees to the point it’s defacto banned Obviously, the answer is to disallow that. And if people break the law, and do it anyway, by trying to be "clever" then a judge and jury can punish them. This punishment works especially well, with this thing called "discovery", in which the legal system can parse through your internal communicatio…

The reason that it is the way it is now is because people want it that way. So good luck with that.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#470

Post by missedthecue »

ledgerdev wrote: post #370
Seattle3503 wrote: post #13

My concerns about a cashless society are the power it hands to a few oligopolistic credit card processors. Look at what happened to Pornhub. Regardless of whether you think Pornhub was in the wrong, it is striking that a business was cut off from global financial system by a small number of credit card companies. This was done without due process and under no countries laws. That should scare us at least a little.

I also feel strongly we need some sort of semi-local payment system that connects merchants, local banks and customers. Sending a payment to my local municipality should not involve wall street.

I think there's a lot of value in a big payment network. It is very convenient to be able to take my Visa card across the country, or to another continent, and it's accepted everywhere.
Post reply on HN