6 ms·
There’s a few types of checks you can send as payment to whoever. I kept asking why we needed a few different types and they all act in different ways. Some are
by kovek 7y ago
There’s a few types of checks you can send as payment to whoever. I kept asking why we needed a few different types and they all act in different ways. Some are “like cash”, some will “attempt to withdraw” the amount.
I had to ask the bank. I don’t see how else I was supposed to go about my payment when I was asked to send a check.
- kolinko 7y agoWell, the issue is with "when I was asked to send a check". In some (if not all) European countries we don't have checks any more. Someone just gives you a bank account number, you wire a transfer, and it's at the recipient within a second to a day at most. The transfers cost between €0 to €0.5, regardless of the amount. I was on a date a few days ago, a girl really wanted to pay for herself, but didn't have the cash, so she asked me for the bank account. I gave it to her via messenger, she wired me €30, it landed on my account instantly, to which I said that this is too much, and wired her €15 back. Yes, seriously :)
- brianwawok 7y agoYah bank transfers are a mess here, several dollars and minutes of work to do. On the other hand, things like venmo and the cash app are ubiquitous. I just went to lunch with a friend, forgot cash, asked him his phone number and shot a venmo for half in 10 seconds. So luckily we have some services that are filling the shortcoming of our banking industry..
- mixmastamyk 7y agoA rent-seeking third party probably selling your financial transaction data is not what I’d call lucky.
- brianwawok 7y agoIt beats the alternative. It’s no secret I sent someone $10 for lunch. I posted it to hacker news.
- marcus_holmes 7y agoI'm always amazed that US banks are so behind the curve with this. It's clearly possible to create a bank transfer facility that works quickly for zero cost. How come they don't? Checks have always been a major source of fraud. The rest of the world stopped using them and feels no need to go back. How come the US still uses them?
- C1sc0cat 7y agoIts to do with the early history of the USA and its federal structure. Some of the early presidents where totally against having any central bank at all
- astura 7y agoWe all want to, but there's an inertia problem. From some quick research there is approximately 6,799 banks in the US and 5,757 credit unions. That's over 12,500 entities that need to communicate with each other. It takes a massive political will (not to mention money) to update the legacy federal systems that tie it all together. Here's some more information: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/01/10/576879734/episode-489-the-invisible-plumbing-of-our-economy https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/01/10/576879734/epis... The UK has "over 300 banks" by comparison.
- mixmastamyk 7y agoIt's not that hard, and the absolute number is not that important, just that a majority decide to use it, forcing the rest. I'm guessing USicans just don't realize the world has moved on. Large countries tend to be isolating and the US is no exception.
- astura 7y agoI didn't say it was "hard," it's an inertia and funding problem. We know how better it is in other parts of the world, we aren't dumb.
- 7y ago