3 ms·

Eh, the bitching over credit cards is tiresome. Cash is expensive for businesses too - they have to pay to transport it securely, keep it safe, deal with cashi

Eh, the bitching over credit cards is tiresome. Cash is expensive for businesses too - they have to pay to transport it securely, keep it safe, deal with cashiers' errors, etc. And at the end of the day, cash consumers spend less than payments by electronic means. Now, what should a very efficient electronic system cost? Very little, a few tenths of a percent. But it doesn't, merchants charge the fees that businesses will pay for that convenience, even begrudgingly, because access to the millions of consumers with credit cards is worth it. If Silicon Valley wants to disrupt the business, do it. It is possible to come in and take on an established industry. But so far I'm less than impressed with the payment start-ups that are out there, and imho all they're doing is introducing yet more fragmentation. Sorry, I have no interest in paying with my phone - especially not with Snapchat. My Chase Sapphire card doesn't run out of batteries, and I get lots of cool perks with it.

RivieraKid 11y ago
It's a natural monopoly market, making a better product is not enough.
- dpweb 11y ago
  3% is not price gouging. First, they spent decades building up their networks. You are paying for indemnity. People forget about the power of purchase protection. I can pay with a card and feel safe I will not get screwed by a merchant. Merchants are scared of chargebacks, so they rarely screw the customer. Card payment is vastly superior to cash payment the fees are not out of line.
  - needusername 11y ago
    > 3% is not price gouging. First, they spent decades building up their networks. Except the fee goes to the issuer and not the network. > You are paying for indemnity. People forget about the power of purchase protection. I can pay with a card and feel safe I will not get screwed by a merchant. Merchants are scared of chargebacks, so they rarely screw the customer. Then the cardholder should pay for this, certainly not the merchant. > Card payment is vastly superior to cash payment the fees are not out of line. 3% is out of line for incrementing an integer in one mainframe and decrementing it in an other mainframe with virtually not risk.
  - wycx 11y ago
    If 3% is not gouging, then why can European payment networks operate charging an order of magnitude less? I do not think they are running their networks as charity.

RivieraKid 11y ago

It's a natural monopoly market, making a better product is not enough.

dpweb 11y ago
3% is not price gouging. First, they spent decades building up their networks. You are paying for indemnity. People forget about the power of purchase protection. I can pay with a card and feel safe I will not get screwed by a merchant. Merchants are scared of chargebacks, so they rarely screw the customer. Card payment is vastly superior to cash payment the fees are not out of line.
- needusername 11y ago
  > 3% is not price gouging. First, they spent decades building up their networks. Except the fee goes to the issuer and not the network. > You are paying for indemnity. People forget about the power of purchase protection. I can pay with a card and feel safe I will not get screwed by a merchant. Merchants are scared of chargebacks, so they rarely screw the customer. Then the cardholder should pay for this, certainly not the merchant. > Card payment is vastly superior to cash payment the fees are not out of line. 3% is out of line for incrementing an integer in one mainframe and decrementing it in an other mainframe with virtually not risk.
- wycx 11y ago
  If 3% is not gouging, then why can European payment networks operate charging an order of magnitude less? I do not think they are running their networks as charity.