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

611–620 of 717 posts

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

#611

Post by LewisVerstappen »

wwweston wrote: post #545
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. There are other mechanisms to target illegal actions, such as sending the police to arrest the person. Those actions are guarded by due process and the right to trial. Using the financial system to target people is not.

But we're not talking about "using the financial system to target people." We're talking about whether it's worthwhile to say something like "hey, maybe we will not allow legal markets for some things (say, murder) in our society" on top of "maybe we will ban make some activities crimes (say, murder) themselves." Do you believe markets for murder should be legal?

We don’t allow markets for murder. I have no idea what you’re even going on about.

If you try to hire someone for murder, then the police will arrest you and throw you in prison.

Forcing every private company to operate as an additional police force, judge and jury is incredibly dumb and dangerous.

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

#612

Post by nonethewiser »

aardvark179 wrote: post #61
raincom wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost is not so much about paying armored trucks, but most banks don't want to deal with small businesses that deal with cash.

In the UK the banks are happy to deal with businesses paying cash, but there are fees, and if your holding cash on premises then you’ll need insurance, which means you’ll need a safe… The reason supermarkets offered cash back was that this allowed them to massively reduce the amount of cash held on site and thus reduce their insurance costs.

> The reason supermarkets offered cash back was that this allowed them to massively reduce the amount of cash held on site and thus reduce their insurance costs.

But wouldn’t this increase the amount of cash you need on hand to ensure you can make change and now give cash back?

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

#613

Post by tchaffee »

selcuka wrote: post #568
tchaffee wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not practical. You wouldn't be able to refute charges. Payment processors couldn't price in risk for sprcific industries. You've created more problems than you've solved.

> Payment processors couldn't price in risk for sprcific industries. That's about the business implications, not about moral ones as the comment I replied to was asking about. Completely different argument.

Forcing processors to be neutral and to not know their customers has both business and moral implications that both need to be included in the argument.

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

#614

Post by [deleted] »

menus wrote: post #519
faeriechangling wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is the problem that crypto solved for the most part, independence from a few oligopolistic PROCESSORS. While I am still not a "Buying literal digital currency is a sound investment" true believer, I feel recent events are making people keen to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the notion of decentralised crypto as a medium of exchange.

After watching Folding Ideas' video on crypto and NFT (1) I am less convinced that is decentralised. It goes over how crypto ended up becoming the very thing it swore to destroy (banks and oligopolies). Also anyone with the means can still do a 51% attack if they wanted. (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g

[deleted]

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

#615

Post by BlueTemplar »

gloryjulio wrote: post #513
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you typing like that? Use complete words please, we are not toddlers.

Because I am typing in the phone browser and it's not convenient? What's the problem with that? U haven't seen abbreviations before? U think toddlers type like this?

That was not a good excuse even for numeric keypad phones, thanks to widespread T9 (predictive text), and is an even worse excuse today with qwerty (albeit non-physical) keyboards with much smarter prediction.

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

#616

Post by tchaffee »

kelnos wrote: post #599
tchaffee wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you accept the payment and profit or can you refuse the transaction? A parent comment claimed we must process all transactions, legal or not.

But you don't -- and can't -- know that the payment is illegal. You merely suspect it, and since you are not a court of law, a judge, or a jury, you should have no business arbitrarily cutting off someone's ability to transact.

It's a thought experiment. The question is about a case in which you know for sure. It's a big world and this is likely to happen at least sometimes. If you don't want to play along with the thought experiment, no problem. But it's a useful and interesting question if you can.

And there are also cases in which you can clearly know something is illegal. Someone purchasing guns in a country where guns are not legal doesn't need a judge, jury, and court process for a payment processor to decide they don't want to be involved. It's not arbitrary. And your right to make purchases using a credit card is not a basic human right.

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

#617

Post by tchaffee »

kelnos wrote: post #598
tchaffee wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would willingly, knowingly, and personally process a transaction to kill someone? Not your problem, let the police discover it?

Do you truly believe that when you'd make the decision to categorize a transaction as such, that decision would hold up in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, every time? If not, then you have no place making it. And I would argue that even if you do, you still have no place making it, as unaccountable private corporations should not be given the ability (or requirement) to enforce law. Certainly we can legally require…

> Do you truly believe that when you'd make the decision to categorize a transaction as such, that decision would hold up in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, every time? If not, then you have no place making it

What if I want to start a vegan credit card that only allows payments to vegan businesses? You're saying that should be illegal?

The best compromise is to not have a compromise and fix the actual problem instead of trying to fix side effects: make it far easier for companies to enter the payment processing space. With thousands of payment processors you'll very likely be able to find a company that is willing to process your credit card payments for vegan porn.

The real problem is a few huge players with near monopoly control.

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

#618

Post by tchaffee »

kelnos wrote: post #600
tchaffee wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I asked is specific: if you know the money is for a hit job will you still accept the business and take your fee or is there a moral line you personally won't cross? Yes, it's the job of the police to investigate but do you want the freedom to not engage in business that you consider evil?

And I think what many of us in this thread object to is that your specific question is irrelevant, because it's hypothetical and unrealistic. You do not know the money is for a hit job. You just don't. You may think that's what it's for, but you don't actually know , and you -- as a random employee (or worse, algorithm) of Payments R Us, Inc. -- should have no business playing judge and jury. As for moral lines you a…

> do you think it's ok for a company to deny another company access to a big chunk of the financial system for entirely legal activities

A vegan credit card that only works at vegan companies should not be illegal.

> to a big chunk of the financial system

Here's the actual problem! We have a handful of giant payment processors that make up a near monopoly. That's the problem you want to fix. More competition and more choices (e.g. vegan credit card) means you'll for sure find a way to pay for your vegan porn.

> That person could be working at Payments R Us

I'm not talking about employees making a decision. I'm talking about the owners of a payment processing company being able to decide on a policy that is applied to all customers.

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

#619

Post by tchaffee »

synecdoche wrote: post #582
tchaffee wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I asked is specific: if you know the money is for a hit job will you still accept the business and take your fee or is there a moral line you personally won't cross? Yes, it's the job of the police to investigate but do you want the freedom to not engage in business that you consider evil?

Attacking a significant part of someone's ability to function in society instead of attacking the the perceived injustice itself on its merits, by informing law enforcement, who's job is to carry out due process, suggests lack of confidence in the merits, or lack of trust in the justice system. It doesn't seem to argue for fairness, unless the one arguing for it accepts being at the receiving end of the argument.

> Attacking a significant part of someone's ability to function in society

I never said to attack the ability of someone to function in society. That's a side effect of a near monopoly. The actual problem is that a handful of companies control payment processing so it's easy for them to act together. The fix is more freedom not less freedom: far more companies that process payments and more choice. This allows companies to choose who they do business with and customers to find a payment processor who allows the types of purchases they like to make.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a payment processor to refuse to allow gun purchases. Or that it should be illegal to start a vegan credit card. Likewise it's not unreasonable for a payment processor to accept even very high risk businesses and make that their claim to fame. The fix in this case is to break up the monopoly and reintroduce competition.

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

#620

Post by tchaffee »

kelnos wrote: post #601
tchaffee wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never claimed the near monopoly of current processors is moral. My claim is easy: we have the right to conduct a business according to our ethics.

In many jurisdictions, the electric utility is a private corporation. Is it ok for the power company to turn off power for a business they think is immoral, like, say, a strip club? Obviously it's not; laws prevent that sort of thing. So at this point we agree (as a society at least) that some businesses should not be allowed to conduct business according to their ethics, but instead must do business with anyone who…

> In many jurisdictions, the electric utility is a private corporation. Is it ok for the power company to turn off power for a business they think is immoral, like, say, a strip club? Obviously it's not; laws prevent that sort of thing

This is due to a physical limitation. Payment processors have no such physical limitation.

> I would argue that payment processors are approaching utility-like levels of essential use in our society,

Correct. And the problem is not that they are utility-like essential. But that they are a near monopoly. There is zero reason for payment processors to be a near monopoly and that's the actual problem that needs fixing.

Post reply on HN