Support NeoGAF

[KtSlime]

because their decisions (in a perfect world) are to be based on compassionate, rational thinking without biblical inferences being read into the Constitution during said decision making process.

I wish that is true, but yeah, the readings aren't as far right/wacko as the conservatives want, so they want to fuck up that part of the system and take control.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Pretty much. Weak consumer demand is killing jobs.

Come on America! Spend!

 

[Cyan]

I still don't see it. The tax would be after expenses, either on the salary the owner pays himself, or on profits from the investment.

61.4% of x million dollars is almost as good as 65%. 80% is almost as good as 85%. Either way, if it's profitable, it's profitable.

I can't think of a situation where I'd say "Fuck $800k, I'm not going forward with this unless I can make $850k."

Sorry, I was really unclear. I was thinking of wider market impacts that might affect profitability.

 

[GaimeGuy]

So it seems wells fargo is ending the rewards program for all debit cards and is going to begin testing a new $3 monthly fee for using a debit card. They'll be rolling out this fee for "testing" in Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington starting in October, since they can't charge retailers 44 cents anymore (only 21 cents) for debit card swipes.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

So it seems wells fargo is ending the rewards program for all debit cards and is going to begin testing a new $3 monthly fee for using a debit card. They'll be rolling out this fee for "testing" in Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington starting in October, since they can't charge retailers 44 cents anymore (only 21 cents) for debit card swipes.

{wistful remarks about nationalizing banking infrastructure}

 

[eznark]

So it seems wells fargo is ending the rewards program for all debit cards and is going to begin testing a new $3 monthly fee for using a debit card. They'll be rolling out this fee for "testing" in Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington starting in October, since they can't charge retailers 44 cents anymore (only 21 cents) for debit card swipes.

The return of the check!

 

[reilo]

I'm already fed up with Chase charging me $2 any time I use a non-Chase ATM on top of the non-Chase ATM charging anywhere from $2-3. I basically paid $5 every time I took money out of the ATM while on vacation last week because Chase did not operate in the area I was in.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I'm already fed up with Chase charging me $2 any time I use a non-Chase ATM on top of the non-Chase ATM charging anywhere from $2-3. I basically paid $5 every time I took money out of the ATM while on vacation last week because Chase did not operate in the area I was in.

You can just go to a Wal-mart/Grocery store and buy a pack of gum and pull some money out. I do it all the time.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

You can just go to a Wal-mart/Grocery store and buy a pack of gum and pull some money out. I do it all the time.

Most of the stores in my area don't let you do cash back anymore, or cap it around $20, so it's not usually an effective option for me. I just try to avoid using cash whenever possible.

 

[empty vessel]

To be fair, his proposal (if you want to consider an idea he tossed out as an actual proposal) doesn't sound like direct election, just that Judges would only be allowed to serve for a limited time. I have no idea how he thinks this makes them more accountable.

Hmm, Rick Perry or Alexander Hamilton? Who do I trust more?

That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. ...

There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.

Federalist No. 78.

Spoiler

I'm not entirely sure Hammy and his crew have been proven right in this regard.

 

[Chichikov]

So it seems wells fargo is ending the rewards program for all debit cards and is going to begin testing a new $3 monthly fee for using a debit card. They'll be rolling out this fee for "testing" in Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington starting in October, since they can't charge retailers 44 cents anymore (only 21 cents) for debit card swipes.

Good, fuck rewards programs.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Good, fuck rewards programs.

you're cheering for the $3 a month fee to use a debit card? :<

 

[Diablos]

So it seems wells fargo is ending the rewards program for all debit cards and is going to begin testing a new $3 monthly fee for using a debit card. They'll be rolling out this fee for "testing" in Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington starting in October, since they can't charge retailers 44 cents anymore (only 21 cents) for debit card swipes.

Wah fucking wah. I'm sure they can afford to charge 21 cents and not be pricks to their cardholders.

 

[eznark]

Hmm, Rick Perry or Alexander Hamilton? Who do I trust more?



Federalist No. 78.

Spoiler

I'm not entirely sure Hammy and his crew have been proven right in this regard.

I'm just saying, claiming they will be up for "re-election" (especially when federal judges aren't up for election in the first place) isn't really his position.

I'm already fed up with Chase charging me $2 any time I use a non-Chase ATM on top of the non-Chase ATM charging anywhere from $2-3. I basically paid $5 every time I took money out of the ATM while on vacation last week because Chase did not operate in the area I was in.

Seems like misplaced blame to me.

 

[empty vessel]

Good, fuck rewards programs.

Yep, if you don't want to pay the fee, go find a user-friendly credit union to do business with instead. They are collectives. Unlike with a bank, you don't exist to make the credit union money. You own the credit union.

I'm just saying, claiming they will be up for "re-election" (especially when federal judges aren't up for election in the first place) isn't really his position.

I didn't mean that to come off as a criticism of anything you said.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Good, fuck rewards programs.

What's your beef with them?

 

[KtSlime]

{wistful remarks about nationalizing banking infrastructure}

Why do we keep banks around again? Since they don't hold gold anymore, what's the point in having an added layer of infrastructure?

That and they are always closed when you need them to be open.

 

[Trojita]

Romney is dumb as shit. Bulldozing one of his, last time I checked eight, houses that is worth 12 million dollars, to quadruple its size, when you are trying to run for president and look like the common man?

 

[empty vessel]

What's your beef with them?

I don't know about Chichikov, but my beef with them is that they are anti-social and cost-shifting. The fees that banks and credit companies charge to merchants cause a general rise in prices. Everybody, even non-credit/debit card users, have to pay this increase. In this way, non-credit/debit card holders subsidize banks and credit card companies. That isn't good, but may be a necessary evil, and if that were all, then so be it. But banks and credit card companies have started to rely on fees to generate income as much on the actual credit lines they are extending and so actively began encouraging people to use cards by these rewards programs. These programs are strictly generated to increase card use and fees. The higher the percent of a merchant's sales are assessed fees, the higher prices rise.

In short, it's an anti-social (and non-capitalist) racket between banks/credit card companies and credit/debit card users to impose part of the cost of their enterprise on poorer people who don't use credit cards, i.e., it is a consciously designed externality generator, no different from dumping toxins in a river.

 

[reilo]

You can just go to a Wal-mart/Grocery store and buy a pack of gum and pull some money out. I do it all the time.

Yeah i have been doing that but when it's late and you're downtown where those stores aren't within walking distance, then you are SOL.

 

[KtSlime]

I don't know about Chichikov, but my beef with them is that they are anti-social and cost-shifting. The fees that banks and credit companies charge to merchants cause a general rise in prices. Everybody, even non-credit/debit card users, have to pay this increase. In this way, non-credit/debit card holders subsidize banks and credit card companies. That isn't good, but may be a necessary evil, and if that were all, then so be it. But banks and credit card companies have started to rely on fees to generate income as much on the actual credit lines they are extending and so actively began encouraging people to use cards by these rewards programs. These programs are strictly generated to increase card use and fees. The higher the percent of a merchant's sales are assessed fees, the higher prices rise.

In short, it's an anti-social (and non-capitalist) racket between banks/credit card companies and credit/debit card users to impose part of the cost of their enterprise on poorer people who don't use credit cards, i.e., it is a consciously designed externality generator, no different from dumping toxins in a river.

While I see what you are talking about, how much money does it actually cost the banking system to send a few electrons? Certainly they are making a hefty bit of money off of that 21 cents, and should have no need to charge additional fees. Now if they were to stop collecting that 21 cents and charge a 3 dollar monthly fee, that I could agree with, but doing both seems excessive.

 

[Chichikov]

you're cheering for the $3 a month fee to use a debit card? :<

I'm not cheering fees, I'm cheering the end of the reward program (thuogh my bet is that it's just a political move to get consumers angry at the latest swipe fee regulation).

I don't know about Chichikov, but my beef with them is that they are anti-social and cost-shifting. The fees that banks and credit companies charge to merchants cause a general rise in prices. Everybody, even non-credit/debit card users, have to pay this increase. In this way, non-credit/debit card holders subsidize banks and credit card companies. That isn't good, but may be a necessary evil, and if that were all, then so be it. But banks and credit card companies have started to rely on fees to generate income as much on the actual credit lines they are extending and so actively began encouraging people to use cards by these rewards programs. These programs are strictly generated to increase card use and fees. The higher the percent of a merchant's sales are assessed fees, the higher prices rise.

In short, it's an anti-social (and non-capitalist) racket between banks/credit card companies and credit/debit card users to impose part of the cost of their enterprise on poorer people who don't use credit cards, i.e., it is a consciously designed externality generator, no different from dumping toxins in a river.

Indeed.
Further reading:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/26/us-usa-fed-wealthtransfer-fed-idUSTRE66P56T20100726

Boston Fed: Credit card fees transfer wealth to rich
By Kristina Cooke
NEW YORK | Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:03pm EDT
(Reuters) - Credit card fees and rewards programs exacerbate income inequality by acting as a transfer of wealth from poor to rich, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study released Monday.

...

They found that about 83 percent of banks' revenue from credit card fees is obtained from cash payers "and disproportionately from low-income cash payers."

After accounting for rewards paid by banks, households who earn more than $150,000 annually receive a subsidy of $756 on average every year, while the households earning $20,000 or less pay $23.

​

More at the link.

 

[Cyan]

In short, it's an anti-social (and non-capitalist) racket between banks/credit card companies and credit/debit card users to impose part of the cost of their enterprise on poorer people who don't use credit cards, i.e., it is a consciously designed externality generator, no different from dumping toxins in a river.

That might be going a little far...

 

[Diablos]

Romney is dumb as shit. Bulldozing one of his, last time I checked eight, houses that is worth 12 million dollars, to quadruple its size, when you are trying to run for president and look like the common man?

I'm Mitt Romney.

I'm unemployed.

I'm looking for a job just like you.

I'm running for President.

And I'm going to bulldoze my $12 million house and remodel it. If I can do it without unemployment benefits, so can you, dirty poors!

 

[reilo]

I'm just saying, claiming they will be up for "re-election" (especially when federal judges aren't up for election in the first place) isn't really his position.



Seems like misplaced blame to me.

How is it misplaced blame when the closest Chase ATM at the time was three states over?

 

[empty vessel]

That might be going a little far...

You don't think that credit card companies consciously use rewards programs in order to generate fees? That seems obvious to me. Wouldn't that be the reason you would do it?

 

[eznark]

How is it misplaced blame when the closest Chase ATM at the time was three states over?

What stopped you from taking money out before the trip? That's what I do. F' paying fees on ATM transactions.

 

[reilo]

What stopped you from taking money out before the trip? That's what I do. F' paying fees on ATM transactions.

Because I don't like carrying all of that money in my pocket? FFS I was in East St Louis at that. Do you want to carry that much cash in that area?

If my credit card gets stolen, I can call my bank and have any future charges stopped and any fraudulant ones disputed. Good luck claiming back hundreds with your local police.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I don't know about Chichikov, but my beef with them is that they are anti-social and cost-shifting. The fees that banks and credit companies charge to merchants cause a general rise in prices. Everybody, even non-credit/debit card users, have to pay this increase. In this way, non-credit/debit card holders subsidize banks and credit card companies. That isn't good, but may be a necessary evil, and if that were all, then so be it. But banks and credit card companies have started to rely on fees to generate income as much on the actual credit lines they are extending and so actively began encouraging people to use cards by these rewards programs. These programs are strictly generated to increase card use and fees. The higher the percent of a merchant's sales are assessed fees, the higher prices rise.

In short, it's an anti-social (and non-capitalist) racket between banks/credit card companies and credit/debit card users to impose part of the cost of their enterprise on poorer people who don't use credit cards, i.e., it is a consciously designed externality generator, no different from dumping toxins in a river.

In the absence of laws that would allow merchants to pass the costs of card use directly to the users, there isn't much that can be done about that. It may be a little extreme, though, to say that a credit card company is engaging in behaviors akin to toxin dumping by attempting to induce people to use its product. I have trouble seeing the issue in the terms you paint it in because of its contingent nature--if we made it possible for everyone to use cards (there goes that national banking infrastructure again), the problem would merely be one of inflation.

I hope it will be very clear that I don't mean this at all in the right-wing knee-jerk nonsensical way, but I think your problem is really with capitalism.

On that article posted by Chichkov: The inequality at play there troubles me, I'm just not sure that attacking credit card fees really addresses the problem--it seems like it might be more productive to focus on getting poorer people into the banking system.

 

[eznark]

Because I don't like carrying all of that money in my pocket? FFS I was in East St Louis at that. Do you want to carry that much cash in that area?

If my credit card gets stolen, I can call my bank and have any future charges stopped and any fraudulant ones disputed. Good luck claiming back hundreds with your local police.

Fair enough. I choose to carry around fat stacks of Hamilton's and risk the small % chance of getting mugged, you choose the 100% likelihood of fees.

unrelated:

 

[jamesinclair]

The return of the check!

Its the most insane thing of it all.

Cheques, which require storage, transportation and human processing

= Free!


Debit cards, which require a few electrons to move around = 44 cent cost

WTF?

 

[eznark]

Its the most insane thing of it all.

Cheques, which require storage, transportation and human processing

= Free!


Debit cards, which require a few electrons to move around = 44 cent cost

WTF?

lol at checks remaining free

 

[GaimeGuy]

lol at checks remaining free

 

[Macam]

Most of the stores in my area don't let you do cash back anymore, or cap it around $20, so it's not usually an effective option for me. I just try to avoid using cash whenever possible.

Well, if you want to avoid contributing to Chase's bottom line after gouging you, it may be better to use cash than credit going forward.

I've gone largely cash only and shifted over to credit unions. I'm with empty vessel and eznark on those points.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Republican candidate dilemma ...

On election night 2010, Republican strategists conducted a poll that asked GOP voters...which issue had been most important in deciding their vote. Fifty-four percent said jobs and the economy, versus 10 percent who said the deficit and federal spending.

This month, after months of fights over budgets, continuing resolutions, and the debt ceiling, the Republican pollsters asked another simple question: "Which is more important -- reducing government spending or creating jobs?" Sixty-five percent said creating jobs, versus 30 percent who said reducing spending.

Going to be hard to run on the idea that government can't create jobs, when your own constituency wants a plan on jobs. I have a feeling a plan that revolves around simply cutting regulations and taxes won't be a sufficient answer.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Well, if you want to avoid contributing to Chase's bottom line after gouging you, it may be better to use cash than credit going forward.

I've gone largely cash only and shifted over to credit unions. I'm with empty vessel and eznark on those points.

But cash is really annoying to carry around. #firstworldproblems

 

[Cyan]

You don't think that credit card companies consciously use rewards programs in order to generate fees? That seems obvious to me. Wouldn't that be the reason you would do it?

Oh, of course! The programs are designed both to entice consumers, expanding the user base, and to get people to use their cards more frequently, generating more in merchant fees.

What I balk at is the "consciously designed externality" thing. I don't think any of these programs were designed specifically to transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy. That's a perhaps inevitable effect, but not an intended one.

Its the most insane thing of it all.

Cheques, which require storage, transportation and human processing

= Free!


Debit cards, which require a few electrons to move around = 44 cent cost

WTF?

Why do text messages cost money, etc. It's entirely based on what the market will bear.

 

[reilo]

Fair enough. I choose to carry around fat stacks of Hamilton's and risk the small % chance of getting mugged, you choose the 100% likelihood of fees.

Sure, but that "mugging percentage" is not a static number and it is completely elastic/relative depending on your location.

You obviously might feel safe enough in your day-to-day activities to carry around a bunch of cash for your daily transactions. At the time, I didn't, and in my daily life, I don't.

 

[eznark]

Sure, but that "mugging percentage" is not a static number and it is completely elastic/relative depending on your location.

You obviously might feel safe enough in your day-to-day activities to carry around a bunch of cash for your daily transactions. At the time, I didn't, and in my daily life, I don't.

So Chase was providing you a service for which you felt a need for, yet you also think that service should be free?

+10 to entitlement

 

[empty vessel]

In the absence of laws that would allow merchants to pass the costs of card use directly to the users, there isn't much that can be done about that. It may be a little extreme, though, to say that a credit card company is engaging in behaviors akin to toxin dumping by attempting to induce people to use its product. I have trouble seeing the issue in the terms you paint it in because of its contingent nature--if we made it possible for everyone to use cards (there goes that national banking infrastructure again), the problem would merely be one of inflation.

I hope it will be very clear that I don't mean this at all in the right-wing knee-jerk nonsensical way, but I think your problem is really with capitalism.

It isn't with capitalism at all. It is with an arrangement between participants of an enterprise (buyers and sellers in a particular market) to place part of the cost of that enterprise on nonparticipants. It is quintessentially anti-capitalist. You can also factor in that the fees are higher than other industrialized (non-banana republic) countries and imposed by virtual monopolies if it helps. Banks and credit card companies do not need to be making a profit on credit card infrastructure at the expense of non-card users.

Why do you think the costs of credit cards should be spread around? It's one thing to accept this principle when it comes to public services, but it's another thing to endorse it when private companies are the beneficiary. I really don't think giving poor people credit cards that they are incentivized to use frequently is the solution.

When you take a step back from this whole situation (and let's disregard the externality effects entirely by pretending everybody has and uses a card with equal frequency), you still have a situation in which it is reasonable to question whether these virtual monopolies are charging reasonable fees. Fees should reflect the true cost of credit card infrastructure. Otherwise, all goods and services are inflated solely to benefit credit card companies. It acts as a siphon on the whole economy.

I think we should seriously consider whether credit card infrastructure is a public good and take it out of the hands of private companies entirely.

 

[reilo]

So Chase was providing you a service for which you felt a need for, yet you also think that service should be free?

+10 to entitlement

They already receive a ton of money for the various activities I do through their system, so ugh, yes? Besides, it was the other bank/ATM that provided the service. Not them. Chase charged me money for not doing business with them! It was a fee of detriment, not convenience.

 

[eznark]

I think we should seriously consider whether credit card infrastructure is a public good and take it out of the hands of private companies entirely.

Well knock me over with a feather

They already receive a ton of money for the various activities I do through their system, so ugh, yes? Besides, it was the other bank/ATM that provided the service. Not them. They charged me money for not doing business with them! It was a fee of detriment, not convenience.

You drew down on your account, which is with them, remotely. They allowed you to do so. It's a fee of both convenience and yes, also meant to affect behavior.

 

[Chichikov]

Why do text messages cost money, etc. It's entirely based on what the market will bear.

Collusion.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Well knock me over with a feather

*tickles eznark with feather*

 

[reilo]

You drew down on your account, which is with them, remotely. They allowed you to do so. It's a fee of both convenience and yes, also meant to affect behavior.

It costs them nothing to do so. That has been very well established every time I use their card since they do not charge me anything per transaction. In fact, they get a nice profit of $.21 every time I do use my card!

 

[Cyan]

Collusion.

Heh, well sure. But ultimately it's because people will pay it.

 

[eznark]

It costs them nothing to do so.

That has precisely nothing to do with absolutely anything.

 

[reilo]

Heh, well sure. But ultimately it's because people will pay it.

Until recently, was there any other choice? It's why direct IM programs are becoming more widespread and popular (Blackberry Messenger, FB Messenger being a separate app now, etc) which overcome the SMS system by sending the data like you would ping a website.

SMS cost money because there wasn't an alternative. That's changing. Hence why telecom companies are changing their plans to get the most money out of it while they still can. See AT&T only having one SMS plan now at $20/mo.

That has precisely nothing to do with absolutely anything.

In a discussion about being charged excessive fees for services that cost the companies zero dollars to operate, it doesn't? Okaaay.

I also love it when you completely ignore all my other points. Let me see that feather, GaimeGuy.

 

[empty vessel]

Why do text messages cost money, etc. It's entirely based on what the market will bear.

The market will bear a lot more when part of the cost is paid unwittingly by non-market participants.

Well knock me over with a feather

Do you oppose the interstate highway system?

 

[Chichikov]

Heh, well sure. But ultimately it's because people will pay it.

People would've not paid for it if they had the option.

But they don't due to -
a. price fixing.
b. hard to escape contracts.

You can't explain the current price of text messages by the willingness of the people (insofar that it's lower than the absolute maximum they're willing to pay).