4 ms·

They are welcome to reduce cash back given on their credit cards or other means of increasing profits. Something tells me that the banks and credit card compani

They are welcome to reduce cash back given on their credit cards or other means of increasing profits. Something tells me that the banks and credit card companies will do just fine here with the additional cost of the audit. It's a tiny fraction of their budget, and should absolutely be done, even if it costs double what it saves consumers, as that money is much more valuable to the consumers and the companies can still very much exist, pay employees, and even make a nice profit, despite losing money by auditing regularly to comply with a regulation.

mrgordon 9y ago
Yep and if they reduce cashback then more people will get a superior cashback card from someone else leaving Citi worse off
- adjkant 9y ago
  As mentioned by others, all of these companies have to spend on this regulation it seems, so it should be an even playing field.
conanbatt 9y ago
> It's a tiny fraction of their budget, and should absolutely be done, even if it costs double what it saves consumers This is mind boggling. Its the equivalent to arguing in favor of burning assets. Why would you make people work on things that reduce value?
- adjkant 9y ago
  To ensure people are charged what they should be? I'm mind boggled that people are so centered on the business that they can't fathom a reason for anything beyond profit or other purely economic factors. To take this to ridiculousness, we wouldn't stop chasing murderers if we found out that it cost more to chase them than clean up the bodies after. It's because we care about murder beyond its net economic value. And no, I don't care about the specifics of "oh maybe people being more scared of getting murdered will decrease GDP". My point here is that this is a clear case where value is brought beyond economic value. Regulations are often too in this category, though obviously a bit less than law enforcement.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > To ensure people are charged what they should be? I'm mind boggled that people are so centered on the business that they can't fathom a reason for anything beyond profit or other purely economic factors. If you pay more than you would have, you wouldn't be paying what you have to, you are paying more. Its like putting an inspector on a bus to check tickets, but he gets the money from all the bus tickets collected. Missing the forest for the righteousness. > To take this to ridiculousness, we wouldn't stop chasing murderers if we found out that it cost more to chase them than clean up the bodies after. It's because we care about murder beyond its net economic value. And no, I don't care about the specifics of "oh maybe people being more scared of getting murdered will decrease GDP". My point here is that this is a clear case where value is brought beyond economic value. Regulations are often too in this category, though obviously a bit less than law enforcement. The comparison to murder would be for the state to kill everyone suspected of a crime so crime murders go really down.

mrgordon 9y ago

Yep and if they reduce cashback then more people will get a superior cashback card from someone else leaving Citi worse off

adjkant 9y ago
As mentioned by others, all of these companies have to spend on this regulation it seems, so it should be an even playing field.

conanbatt 9y ago

> It's a tiny fraction of their budget, and should absolutely be done, even if it costs double what it saves consumers This is mind boggling. Its the equivalent to arguing in favor of burning assets. Why would you make people work on things that reduce value?

adjkant 9y ago
To ensure people are charged what they should be? I'm mind boggled that people are so centered on the business that they can't fathom a reason for anything beyond profit or other purely economic factors. To take this to ridiculousness, we wouldn't stop chasing murderers if we found out that it cost more to chase them than clean up the bodies after. It's because we care about murder beyond its net economic value. And no, I don't care about the specifics of "oh maybe people being more scared of getting murdered will decrease GDP". My point here is that this is a clear case where value is brought beyond economic value. Regulations are often too in this category, though obviously a bit less than law enforcement.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > To ensure people are charged what they should be? I'm mind boggled that people are so centered on the business that they can't fathom a reason for anything beyond profit or other purely economic factors. If you pay more than you would have, you wouldn't be paying what you have to, you are paying more. Its like putting an inspector on a bus to check tickets, but he gets the money from all the bus tickets collected. Missing the forest for the righteousness. > To take this to ridiculousness, we wouldn't stop chasing murderers if we found out that it cost more to chase them than clean up the bodies after. It's because we care about murder beyond its net economic value. And no, I don't care about the specifics of "oh maybe people being more scared of getting murdered will decrease GDP". My point here is that this is a clear case where value is brought beyond economic value. Regulations are often too in this category, though obviously a bit less than law enforcement. The comparison to murder would be for the state to kill everyone suspected of a crime so crime murders go really down.