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

621–630 of 717 posts

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

#621

Post by aardvark179 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #612
aardvark179 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nah. Cash back is all comparatively large notes (£5, £10, £20) and it’s mostly smaller stuff you need for making change. It vastly reduced the amount of cash they needed on site, though it didn’t really help with the need for coins to make change with.

I’m not sure they even offer cash back these days, it has been so long since I asked, and the number of cash transactions has dropped massively over the last few years.

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

#622

Post by sokoloff »

rsaesha wrote: post #392
lazide wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, making it so you can’t buy anything without the gov’ts permission makes it not only more tempting for someone like Nazi’s to take over, but also much more effective for them to keep it and far more damaging when they’re in. Germany is a strongly ‘cash’ society partially because of this, but also because of what the Stasi did to East Germany. You really don’t want the folks in power to have even more of that kind…

A central payment system is absolutely not a tool of oppression. Case in point: don't like it? Don't use it. People are still free to not use it just like it even didn't exist. For everyone that chooses to, there is now an instant and free payment method. Where is the oppression? In your hypothetical scenario of nazis taking the gov, lets assume there is no central database. Nazis would go: ok banks give me your data…

That central electronic payment system is a problem if it causes the government to stop issuing and securing paper currency.

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

#623

Post by jasonjayr »

hakfoo wrote: post #561
jasonjayr wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CC's do get transaction information. Check out "Level 3 data" https://www.tidalcommerce.com/learn/what-is-level-3-data

As someone who has implemented code revolving around Level 3 data, the information provided is often of incredibly low quality. Many shopping carts don't bother sending the data, because they'd rather say "let's support 900 obscure payment platforms in a de-minimis way" than "let's support a handful WELL" Then there's actually getting the right information into the message to the processor. There's vague and inconsis…

I've done payments too, and I agree. But I'm assuming all the major retailers in the USA (Target/Walmart/Supermarkets) all do this. (And probably more with the data from the register not going through the CC machine).

Absent any information, I just assumed that any supermarket that can handle EBT/SNAP etc was sending transaction details anyway -- the computer will refuse or only partially pay the transaction if any items not elegible for benifits is on the order.

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

#624

Post by tchaffee »

kelnos wrote: post #602
tchaffee wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked a specific question and you refuse to answer it because your entire premise is based on not being able to know if someone is engaging in unethical behavior. That's premise is seriously flawed. The problem you're trying solve is caused by lack of competition and near monopoly players. The fix isn't to force those businesses to ignore ethics. The fix is hugely increasing the competition.

> your entire premise is based on not being able to know if someone is engaging in unethical behavior. That's premise is seriously flawed. No, it's not. It's literally the facts on the ground. Additionally, it's telling that you used the term "unethical" rather than "unlawful". Whether or not a credit card works should have nothing to do with someone's arbitrary ethics.

> It's literally the facts on the ground.

It's literally not. Your claim is that I suspect the local butcher sells meat rather than knowing that they sell meat. If my vegan friend doesn't want to do their accounting, that should be within his basic human freedoms. He's not the only accountant in town and the butcher will surely find an accountant who enjoys eating meat.

> Whether or not a credit card works should have nothing to do with someone's arbitrary ethics.

It shouldn't be illegal for someone to start a vegan credit card that only allows purchases at businesses that don't kill animals. More choice is better and you want to make all payment processors follow a one-size-fits-all rule. That's the opposite of the direction we should be pursuing.

The real problem is the near monopoly control of the handful of payment processing giants that currently exist. Fix that problem and increase the competition and offer more choice and you no longer needs to force payment processors to be neutral. Forced neutrality in the end means the government decides. Which makes sense in a handful of cases, but not when markets can do a better job.

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

#625

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…

> There is a massive difference between "unethical business" and "illegal business"

Can you explain the massive difference? For example, easy access to guns is legal in a handful of countries and illegal in most countries. Where it's legal to easily obtain guns but also illegal to buy alcohol on a Sunday, what does that imply in terms of ethics?

> As banks provide critical infrastructure,

There is no physical limitation - like a local electricity generator - that requires this "infrastructure" to be dominated by a few huge companies.

> the simple fact is that the bank doesn't know enough to make a meaningful distinction. It is simply impossible for a bank to know for a fact what a payment is for.

That's wrong. The bank reasonably knows what I'm buying from Porn Hub or the local butcher. Even if they don't know exactly what I'm buying, they do know how the local butcher generates the bulk of its profits.

What you're suggesting is that it be illegal to start a vegan credit card - only works at businesses where they don't harm animals. What we need instead is more choice, not less choice. Break up the near monopoly and reintroduce competition and you fix the actual problem - which is that a handful of payment processors can collude against a business or industry.

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

#626

Post by tchaffee »

wheeeeeeeeee wrote: post #474
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.

In this hypothetical situation you've set up in which Visa somehow knows that one of their billion+ payments is for the contract killing of another human, then no, it's probably better to not let the payment go through. However I find the argument you're posing apparently in favor of allowing a business like Visa to decline transactions on ethical grounds to be missing some important rigor. It's honestly kind of bori…

> 1. Can we agree that the rules applied to a multinational corporation with billions in income utilized by hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis to exchange legal currency for goods and services should be different than the rules governing the bakery down the street?

Yes. The core of the problem is the near monopoly that the small list of current payment processors have. As an aside, these companies have less global control than someone from the US or Europe might think.

2. If yes, then within the context of multinational financial corporations, what is "ethical"?

A vegan credit card is entirely reasonable. Any ethical stance you want to take is reasonable. As long as you fix the actual monopoly problem.

3. Who decides what that definition is for a multinational financial corporation?

It shouldn't matter if you fix the actual problem.

Etc.

Solving the actual problem instead of the perceived problem very often answers a bunch of doubts all at the same time.

> I'd like to circle back to contract killing and ask what damn right does Visa have to limit one's freedom to run a contract killing business?

The same right that I have to not be a contract killer. If your contract killing business can't find enough suppliers - be that the killers themselves or the payment processor - then that's a problem that no one should be compelled to solve. You don't have a basic human right to run any business you choose and force others to be suppliers to your business.

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

#627

Post by tchaffee »

kelnos wrote: post #603
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.

You accept the payment, absolutely. It should not be your responsibility to do the required due process to ensure that a decision to deny the transaction is actually fair and correct. And more than that, I don't want to have to trust an unaccountable private corporation with that responsibility.

> You accept the payment, absolutely.

So it should be illegal to start a vegan payment processor? Breaking up the current near-monopoly and giving you more choice would give the maximum possible freedom to everyone including you.

> unaccountable private corporation with that responsibility.

That's the beauty of a functioning market. With lots of choice the corporation must either be accountable or lose your business. The real problem is that you currently don't have much choice due to a non-existent market with almost no real competition for business.

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

#628

Post by YmiYugy »

onionisafruit wrote: post #116
arcticbull wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take this opportunity to advocate for 'payment network neutrality' - given their importance in the economy, I agree payment processors should be required to process all lawful transactions, by law. We should require this of any national payments processor in the US at the federal level - or state, I'm looking at you, CA and NY.

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.

Limiting access and monitoring financial services is one of the most powerful tools against organized crime, terror and corruption, tax evasion etc. So yeah, I think the lawful part is crucial. There is of course lot's of room for discussions about what should be legal.

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

#629

Post by tchaffee »

kelnos wrote: post #604
tchaffee wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

What does "give them more competition" mean? The fact that the landscape looks like it does is a strong suggestion that more competition might not actually be viable. Another possible solution to banks having so much power is to regulate them more. I know a lot of libertarian types don't like that answer, but it is a valid answer.

> What does "give them more competition" mean?

It means you have far more choices in who to give your business to. For example, in a big city you can eat at thousands of restaurants. Or cook at home. However, I cannot choose from thousands of payment processors. With more payment processors competing for my business, I would get a better product and more choice.

> Another possible solution to banks having so much power is to regulate them more. I know a lot of libertarian types don't like that answer, but it is a valid answer.

I'm firmly not libertarian. Not even close. But I don't like to pull out the regulation stick until we see that more competition and a functioning market can't solve the problem. Since these transactions are now all digital, the potential for highly functioning markets has barely been explored.

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

#630

Post by tchaffee »

kelnos wrote: post #605
wheeeeeeeeee wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this hypothetical situation you've set up in which Visa somehow knows that one of their billion+ payments is for the contract killing of another human, then no, it's probably better to not let the payment go through. However I find the argument you're posing apparently in favor of allowing a business like Visa to decline transactions on ethical grounds to be missing some important rigor. It's honestly kind of bori…

I think you hit the nail on the head with the assertion that the contract killing example is boring and doesn't really expose any of the grey areas or nuance that is necessary to really think about this issue. But even ignoring ethics, I don't think multinational corporations should be unilaterally deciding on questions of law, either. I don't think they will ever make legal determinations based on any sufficient amo…

Forcing companies to neutrally process all transactions is in itself a decision around ethics. You're not ignoring ethics. You're pushing for your own ethics around payment processing.\

> I don't think multinational corporations should be unilaterally deciding on questions of law,

They aren't really. Deciding to refuse a payment is not jail time. The business can also accept cash.

Post reply on HN