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

The Long Shadow of Checks

bitsaboutmoney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#71

Post by Klonoar »

bloaf wrote: post #70
Klonoar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more than a few people who value what he writes but find the overall "winding path" of style to be very grating to read.

This is like criticizing someone's technical ability after they finished a Bob Ross painting course. The point was joyful self-expression. You can go make your own painting with no happy little trees if you want.

> This is like criticizing someone's technical ability after they finished a Bob Ross painting course.

...no, it's a simple comment about a writing style. You don't need to try and make it out to be anything else.

It's very normal to still interact with things in life that aren't exactly how you'd want them to be. The overall net value of their content has spoken for itself over and over.

> You can go make your own painting with no happy little trees if you want.

Yet I won't, because I still want to read their content. That's the entire point.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#72

Post by rkeene2 »

nradov wrote: post #69
timerol wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I write you a $500 check and you accept it for $500 cash (or $500 of goods), you are extending me credit. You don't actually know that my account has the $500 until you cash the check. Someone has to pay that $500, even if I only have $100 in my account. And if I read the article right, the bank is legally required to take the loss.

No, banks aren't required to honor bad checks. They reject checks all the time for insufficient funds (bouncing). Some banks offer overdraft protection to checking account holders so that checks won't bounce (within some limit) but that's a separate feature.

A bit off-topic from the original thread, but if you use a Debit card (only validated on the Visa network) it's possible for a merchant to issue an "Advice" without any kind of Authorization (or even after a failed Authorization) in which they will debit your account even if you lack the funds.

Your only option there (as a banking provider) is to debit the account (even if it causes the balance to go negative) or eat the loss, and then manually dispute the charge.

It's not (yet) clear to me who ends up responsible for this -- but I suspect it's the bank side.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#73

Post by stvltvs »

peter_l_downs wrote: post #10
r2_pilot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually kind of boring in this case, per Wikipedia: "In law, uttering is synonymous with publication, and the distinction made between the common law offences was that forgery was the fabrication of a forged instrument (with the intent to defraud) and uttering was the publication of that instrument (with the intent to defraud)."

The distinction is a fact, but I haven't been able to find the _reason_ for the distinction, which I'm hoping is quite charming!

My guess is that it allows the prosecution of both the forger and the one who uses the forgery, the utterer I suppose, in cases where they are different individuals.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#74

Post by ska »

stevenjgarner wrote: post #5

> “Clearing” is a magic finance word. Clearing a check refers to completing the process which the check agrees to: the writer sees money leave their account and the person depositing the check sees it enter theirs. This is much more complicated than it sounds in this quick gloss. Just because the writer of the check sees the funds of their check leave their account, this does not mean the recipient of the check has c…

This is also why you can end up with an extended hold on a deposited check.

Consider for example personal check issued between banks in two countries. There may not be a formal complete resolution process, so funds are released to you only after your bank is reasonably certain that the other bank is going to honor it, or more likely, not going to ask for it back.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#75

Post by astrange »

drsopp wrote: post #11
secabeen wrote: post #6

The compelling thing for me still with checks is that the banks take on nearly all the costs of processing them, and what costs are imposed on the customer are fixed, and do not scale with the amount of money being transferred. It's possible to do fixed-cost transfers using other systems (PayPal, Venmo, etc.) but it always feels like those transfers are only tolerated, and they really want to push you to their other…

> the banks take on nearly all the costs of processing them Not for me. I live in Norway. I suddenly became an absent party of a class action lawsuit in the USA. The settlement came in the form of a check. A small amount, maybe around $50. But the cost of cashing it in Norway was more than the value!

You could sell a picture of it to someone in the US.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#76

Post by lmm »

toasterlovin wrote: post #60
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to wade into a continental dispute, but weren't gas pumps in the US also fill-then-pay until maybe 10-15 yr ago? I find it strange that you now have to basically guess about how much it will cost and then authorize a purchase up to that amount, instead of, you know, paying for however much actually got pumped (at today's price).

You typically authorize payment with a card before pumping, then the final amount is captured by the gas station after you're done. You only have to guess the amount if you're paying cash or if the pump card reader is broken and you have to pay inside. It's the same concept as paying for a meal at a sit down restaurant: they authorize your card for the check amount plus some extra, then you write in the tip on the re…

> It's the same concept as paying for a meal at a sit down restaurant: they authorize your card for the check amount plus some extra, then you write in the tip on the receipt, then the restaurant captures the correct amount later (at least, that's historically how it works, many restaurants are shifting to payment terminals where it's all done at once).

You what? That's bizzare.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#77

Post by ska »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #49
paulddraper wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I am perplexed by the fill-now-pay-after European gas pumps. I suppose something like that can only exist in a high trust environment.

Not trying to wade into a continental dispute, but weren't gas pumps in the US also fill-then-pay until maybe 10-15 yr ago? I find it strange that you now have to basically guess about how much it will cost and then authorize a purchase up to that amount, instead of, you know, paying for however much actually got pumped (at today's price).

Really you are authorizing some amount above what you will need, but only getting charged what you pump. I guess they consider that anyone who is actually going to overrun their card limit isn't too worrisome to annoy.

Not so long ago it was common enough in some places to have to go inside, give them X cash, then pump, then come back inside to get change - they would set the pump to only dispense up to X. It's basically that system digitized.

If you go back far enough the only record was on the pump itself, so it was either full service, or trust people would come in a pay what they pumped. People did just drive off sometimes in that case, but at least in the full serve case, you still had their gas cap and plate number, which was a disincentive.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#78

Post by astrange »

reaperducer wrote: post #13

The longer you live, and the more things you do, the more you realize that checks are still alive and well. You still need checks for: Charitable donations - Many charities maximize every penny, and electronic contributions eat into that. Paying my accountant - Good accountants make every penny count, and aren't interested in tithing from their revenue to credit card companies. Tipping the paper boy Tipping the doorm…

> Making IRS payments without a fee

This one is actually kinda convenient for credit card point churning. For one thing, if you overpay you know you'll get it back.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#79

Post by devilbunny »

MikeTheGreat wrote: post #51
stevenjgarner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His proclivity for sesquipedalianism, manifested in the substitution of "infelicity" for the more pedestrian "misfortune," may have been an artifice to inveigle the reader into a divergent mode of cogitation.

OK, 1) This is awesome :) and 2) How much of this is you, and how much is ChatGPT? (Or a thesaurus?) Still, I tip my hat to you! :)

They are unusual words, but not really obscure. I have always liked “inveigle”.

Probably just someone who likes to read older books. There have been a lot of so-called inkhorn terms in English; some made it into common use, some remained but are rare, some died on the vine.

Re: The Long Shadow of Checks

#80

Post by robocat »

Keegs wrote: post #43
Klonoar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more than a few people who value what he writes but find the overall "winding path" of style to be very grating to read.

I know it’s not the case but sometimes it feels like he’s trying to channel Matt Levine. Doesn’t matter, like you said his blog and now newsletter are fantastic.

Levine consistently makes the most boring subject interesting: and I don't find it obvious how he does it.

Certainly some of his subject matter is truly turgid (even Matt fails to make me interested in Musk's antics).

Post reply on HN