7 ms·

This has nothing to do with credit cards and everything to do with the kind of people ruling this country, and the kind of systems we have to keep "electing" th

This has nothing to do with credit cards and everything to do with the kind of people ruling this country, and the kind of systems we have to keep "electing" them. If that case wasn't about AmEx, it would have been about some other random oligopolist, with the same outcome.

SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
It's at the point where I'm genuinely surprised to legislation that provides benefits to the consumer. On the rare occasions that it does appear, the first thing I wonder is "what's the angle".
- dd36 5y ago
  I don’t think the FCRA could come into existence today. It’s crazy that Republicans used to create pro-consumer regulations. We’re so far from that these days that it feels impossible absent some major shock like the CFPB after 2008.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    And look at how the CFPB is treated!
- teen 5y ago
  I guess it has to be both unprofitable and universally agreed upon
apahwa 5y ago
why is electing in quotes?
- nikitaga 5y ago
  Because US election system does not reflect the will of the population, or even the voting population. FPTP is a highly deficient system that results in the same two parties staying in power indefinitely, which is only marginally better than a single party state. So, I find it hard to blame the population for the politicians they elect in this case. US elections are a lot more constrained by the ruling class and the laws passed by said ruling class than in many European countries for example. USSR had elections too, you know. Doesn't mean there was any freedom or democracy.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    Also, the basic structure of the Senate means that a clear majority of the country is represented by a clear minority of Senators.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      That's the purpose of the Senate. The Senate is there to represent states, not people. The House is there to represent people. Both need to agree in order to get something done. This ensures that something that is passed is approved by a majority of people and a majority of states. Otherwise, without this proposition, the states might not have ratified the constitution - the states predate the nation, and the nation is a union of states. This method of government is called "Federalism".
      - TulliusCicero 5y ago
        You can have federalism without anti-democratic institutions like the Senate. If the Senate was abolished or starting apportioning senators by population, the US would remain federalist, because there'd still be plenty of powers devolved to the states. That's what makes it federalist.
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        No, you can't. The only way you can truly prevent states from having their interests overriden by a majority of the nation is to give them a direct role in the legislative process. Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's last thing we want. So when the three wolves invite the two sheep to join them in a democracy, the sheep wisely say "Not a democracy, but a federal union, with an upper house in which votes are allocated by species rather than population, then we will join your nation". Now the wolves may moan that this is anti-democratic, but they agreed to it, as that's the price paid for getting the sheep to join with the wolves. The sheep are the small states, and the wolves are the large states. So anti-democratic structures are good. But at the same time, giving the population input is also good. We want popular pressures to have a veto, but not to be able to force legislation onto states without their consent. Similarly, we want the states to have a veto but not to force their legislation onto the nation as a whole without the public's consent. This is the balance -- a mechanism to limit mob rule while also requiring mob consent. Seriously this is not some strange thing I should have to explain -- these issues were all debated during the discussions surrounding the adoption of the constitution, as you can read in the Federalist Papers. See especially no. 10. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-017... It is why we do not live in a democracy, but in a Federal Republic. The house is the hotbed of populism, that's where all the crazy stuff happens, and the senate is the moderating force that can filter it out. The house then has to moderate its positions and pass something that the states also consent to. And that's exactly how it's played out. The senate always moderates or blocks extremist measures coming out of the house. The founders were amazingly prescient. Moreover this obviously leads to better and more stable government. Control of the house flips from red to blue to red every 5-8 years. Now imagine a nation's entire base of laws constantly flipping back and forth that often. As an example, when the GOP controlled the house in 2017 they tried to pass a tax bill to completely eliminate the SALT deduction. The Senate moderated that to 10K max. Now the democrats control the house and they want to make it (effectively) unlimited again. The Senate will block that. In 2024, say when the GOP is back in control of the house, they will try to eliminate it again. The Senate will block that. The 2017 house eliminated Obama's ACA -- but the Senate blocked that. Just think of all the whipsaws in policy we would have if healthcare is massively reconfigured every 4 years. So you need to do more than just get 51% to redo healthcare in America. That's how it should be. Yes, it's anti-democratic, but thinking you can rewrite a nation's laws with 51% is foolishness. It's a recipe for secession and civil war. In other words, going from 49% to 51% doesn't mean you go from 0 to 100% power, but rather you have to settle for 48% of what you want, and then 51% of what you want. The removal of that discontinuity creates stability in government. It is intentionally, and wisely, anti-democratic, while also being intentionally, and wisely, anti-aristocratic. Both sides need to come to a compromise, and this stability is why our constitution has lasted as long as it has.
refurb 5y ago
You seem to think this was a bad outcome? The ability of a business to steer customers away from a credit card that charges the business high fees?
- discreteevent 5y ago
  It is a bad outcome. The high amex fees put up the price of coffee for all customers. Amex are making money from customers they don't even service. It's a scam and the business owner should encourage the customer to pay cash if possible.
  - refurb 5y ago
    I’m so confused. The ruling agrees with you? Edit: nope I was wrong, I read it the other way.
  - White_Wolf 5y ago
    I remember going to a restaurant in Belgium-Bruges(in 2015) that had the fees listed at every table. They were charging you the table cost + whatever fees were listed for your card. While I can't remember the fees I do remember that is was enough to make me decide I want to pay cash. I don't know if it's legal or not to do that but I found it an interesting quirk of the times we're in (and maybe the owner was pissed off).
    - Tarsul 5y ago
      Afaik it's not legal anymore to do this in Germany (and probably Belgium/EU?), or rather: It's illegal for the businesses to have different prices for different payment methods (a workaround are coupons for using certain payments, but probably only for special offers). As far as I remember PayPal was usually the most expensive payment method (compared to CC, bank transfer etc.).
      - quitit 5y ago
        Interesting Australia went in the opposite direction: per-type fees are A-ok, but they have the be the true fees. The problem was that vendors tended to make arbitrary minimum fees for using cards which in no way reflected the actual fees they were paying. Smaller stores were steering customers to cash as it was easier to under-declare earnings with cash. In response Amex in Australia reduced their fees to stores while simultaneously reducing the value of their awards points programmes (since those were ultimately funded by the fees being charged.) This also plays into application stores - since developers often don’t pass on fee reductions (such as the subscription fee reduction of 30%->15% after 1 year.)

SturgeonsLaw 5y ago

It's at the point where I'm genuinely surprised to legislation that provides benefits to the consumer. On the rare occasions that it does appear, the first thing I wonder is "what's the angle".

dd36 5y ago
I don’t think the FCRA could come into existence today. It’s crazy that Republicans used to create pro-consumer regulations. We’re so far from that these days that it feels impossible absent some major shock like the CFPB after 2008.
- xxpor 5y ago
  And look at how the CFPB is treated!
teen 5y ago
I guess it has to be both unprofitable and universally agreed upon

apahwa 5y ago

why is electing in quotes?

nikitaga 5y ago
Because US election system does not reflect the will of the population, or even the voting population. FPTP is a highly deficient system that results in the same two parties staying in power indefinitely, which is only marginally better than a single party state. So, I find it hard to blame the population for the politicians they elect in this case. US elections are a lot more constrained by the ruling class and the laws passed by said ruling class than in many European countries for example. USSR had elections too, you know. Doesn't mean there was any freedom or democracy.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  Also, the basic structure of the Senate means that a clear majority of the country is represented by a clear minority of Senators.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    That's the purpose of the Senate. The Senate is there to represent states, not people. The House is there to represent people. Both need to agree in order to get something done. This ensures that something that is passed is approved by a majority of people and a majority of states. Otherwise, without this proposition, the states might not have ratified the constitution - the states predate the nation, and the nation is a union of states. This method of government is called "Federalism".
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      You can have federalism without anti-democratic institutions like the Senate. If the Senate was abolished or starting apportioning senators by population, the US would remain federalist, because there'd still be plenty of powers devolved to the states. That's what makes it federalist.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        No, you can't. The only way you can truly prevent states from having their interests overriden by a majority of the nation is to give them a direct role in the legislative process. Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's last thing we want. So when the three wolves invite the two sheep to join them in a democracy, the sheep wisely say "Not a democracy, but a federal union, with an upper house in which votes are allocated by species rather than population, then we will join your nation". Now the wolves may moan that this is anti-democratic, but they agreed to it, as that's the price paid for getting the sheep to join with the wolves. The sheep are the small states, and the wolves are the large states. So anti-democratic structures are good. But at the same time, giving the population input is also good. We want popular pressures to have a veto, but not to be able to force legislation onto states without their consent. Similarly, we want the states to have a veto but not to force their legislation onto the nation as a whole without the public's consent. This is the balance -- a mechanism to limit mob rule while also requiring mob consent. Seriously this is not some strange thing I should have to explain -- these issues were all debated during the discussions surrounding the adoption of the constitution, as you can read in the Federalist Papers. See especially no. 10. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-017... It is why we do not live in a democracy, but in a Federal Republic. The house is the hotbed of populism, that's where all the crazy stuff happens, and the senate is the moderating force that can filter it out. The house then has to moderate its positions and pass something that the states also consent to. And that's exactly how it's played out. The senate always moderates or blocks extremist measures coming out of the house. The founders were amazingly prescient. Moreover this obviously leads to better and more stable government. Control of the house flips from red to blue to red every 5-8 years. Now imagine a nation's entire base of laws constantly flipping back and forth that often. As an example, when the GOP controlled the house in 2017 they tried to pass a tax bill to completely eliminate the SALT deduction. The Senate moderated that to 10K max. Now the democrats control the house and they want to make it (effectively) unlimited again. The Senate will block that. In 2024, say when the GOP is back in control of the house, they will try to eliminate it again. The Senate will block that. The 2017 house eliminated Obama's ACA -- but the Senate blocked that. Just think of all the whipsaws in policy we would have if healthcare is massively reconfigured every 4 years. So you need to do more than just get 51% to redo healthcare in America. That's how it should be. Yes, it's anti-democratic, but thinking you can rewrite a nation's laws with 51% is foolishness. It's a recipe for secession and civil war. In other words, going from 49% to 51% doesn't mean you go from 0 to 100% power, but rather you have to settle for 48% of what you want, and then 51% of what you want. The removal of that discontinuity creates stability in government. It is intentionally, and wisely, anti-democratic, while also being intentionally, and wisely, anti-aristocratic. Both sides need to come to a compromise, and this stability is why our constitution has lasted as long as it has.

refurb 5y ago

You seem to think this was a bad outcome? The ability of a business to steer customers away from a credit card that charges the business high fees?

discreteevent 5y ago
It is a bad outcome. The high amex fees put up the price of coffee for all customers. Amex are making money from customers they don't even service. It's a scam and the business owner should encourage the customer to pay cash if possible.
- refurb 5y ago
  I’m so confused. The ruling agrees with you? Edit: nope I was wrong, I read it the other way.
- White_Wolf 5y ago
  I remember going to a restaurant in Belgium-Bruges(in 2015) that had the fees listed at every table. They were charging you the table cost + whatever fees were listed for your card. While I can't remember the fees I do remember that is was enough to make me decide I want to pay cash. I don't know if it's legal or not to do that but I found it an interesting quirk of the times we're in (and maybe the owner was pissed off).
  - Tarsul 5y ago
    Afaik it's not legal anymore to do this in Germany (and probably Belgium/EU?), or rather: It's illegal for the businesses to have different prices for different payment methods (a workaround are coupons for using certain payments, but probably only for special offers). As far as I remember PayPal was usually the most expensive payment method (compared to CC, bank transfer etc.).
    - quitit 5y ago
      Interesting Australia went in the opposite direction: per-type fees are A-ok, but they have the be the true fees. The problem was that vendors tended to make arbitrary minimum fees for using cards which in no way reflected the actual fees they were paying. Smaller stores were steering customers to cash as it was easier to under-declare earnings with cash. In response Amex in Australia reduced their fees to stores while simultaneously reducing the value of their awards points programmes (since those were ultimately funded by the fees being charged.) This also plays into application stores - since developers often don’t pass on fee reductions (such as the subscription fee reduction of 30%->15% after 1 year.)