3 ms·

Well I mean the US is the biggest and richest rich country by a large margin. And has maintained a continuously functioning financial system for centuries now (

Well I mean the US is the biggest and richest rich country by a large margin. And has maintained a continuously functioning financial system for centuries now (though I do wish they would let it crash and be replaced sometimes when it so-richly deserved to). So it is kinda hardest to implement here, especially with every state having their own banking rules. The banks are adding some instant money transfer services in the last few years though.

bananapub 4y ago
> Well I mean the US is the biggest and richest rich country by a large margin. And has maintained a continuously functioning financial system for centuries now (though I do wish they would let it crash and be replaced sometimes when it so-richly deserved to). So it is kinda hardest to implement here, especially with every state having their own banking rules. the EU did this, SPANNING TWENTY EIGHT COUNTRIES. they don't even all use the same CURRENCY. edit: sorry, it's 36 - EU27 + EFTA + UK + microstates > The banks are adding some instant money transfer services in the last few years though. it appears to me, judging from talking to Americans, and my own use of the US banking system, that customers do not even generally have ability to login to their bank's website and transfer money, AT ALL, forget "instant". overall, this is such a bizarre reply, but emblematic of many of the problems the US faces - "it's too hard to fix $problem_with_well_known_solution because of entrenched interests, so let's create this absolutely awful parallel system that creates a whole new world of entrenched interests who will in turn block any innovation". why do you think it would be hard? ACH exists, and lets banks transfer money. why can't banks make it better like Australia did? or have the same structure create a parallel, better transfer system banks can opt in to, like the UK did with FPS? I would have said that letting venmo/paypal/etc do it was the worst possible solution, but then I could not have imagined that another solution people would seriously propose was "cryptocurrency".
- afarrell 4y ago
  > emblematic of many of the problems the US faces - "it's too hard to fix $problem_with_well_known_solution because of entrenched interests, so let's create this absolutely awful parallel system that creates a whole new world of entrenched interests who will in turn block any innovation". This is what happens when you build a country with a disproportionate number of the sort of people who are willing to say "Fuck it. Building a decent living in my home country is too hard. I'm going to cross an ocean in a steam ship and start a new life on a new continent where I am a complete stranger." I say this as an American who has made similar choices of questionable wisdom.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    No this is what happens when you develop your culture's ideology to be "Helping other people is communism, and they deserve to suffer"
- JamesianP 4y ago
  Yes of course we can do transfers online. I've been doing business this way for decades. Even in the very very early days of the internet they started "online bill payment" services, which would transfer electronically or else outright send a check as needed. It's how I paid rent in college. Also credit cards have been in widespread use for longer than that, so the need for an alternative was always only in narrow niches. The new services (and the tech companies) only selling point is they can be instant and cheaper or free (though not all older approaches have fees). And serve groups like younger people with no credit. And what is your post emblematic of with it's abuse of caps and stereotyping? I'm just talking about why they haven't replaced an older solution that "isn't broke" since it gets 99.9 percent of the job done already. No need to lose your mind.
- bananapub 4y ago
  Another great example (https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/1591193835886891009 https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/1591193835886891009) from one of the worst VC funds: > Problem: US healthcare is broken. > Solution: Build a for-profit company that will generate trillions of dollars in value for its shareholders, all of which will come from payment for healthcare

bananapub 4y ago

> Well I mean the US is the biggest and richest rich country by a large margin. And has maintained a continuously functioning financial system for centuries now (though I do wish they would let it crash and be replaced sometimes when it so-richly deserved to). So it is kinda hardest to implement here, especially with every state having their own banking rules. the EU did this, SPANNING TWENTY EIGHT COUNTRIES. they don't even all use the same CURRENCY. edit: sorry, it's 36 - EU27 + EFTA + UK + microstates > The banks are adding some instant money transfer services in the last few years though. it appears to me, judging from talking to Americans, and my own use of the US banking system, that customers do not even generally have ability to login to their bank's website and transfer money, AT ALL, forget "instant". overall, this is such a bizarre reply, but emblematic of many of the problems the US faces - "it's too hard to fix $problem_with_well_known_solution because of entrenched interests, so let's create this absolutely awful parallel system that creates a whole new world of entrenched interests who will in turn block any innovation". why do you think it would be hard? ACH exists, and lets banks transfer money. why can't banks make it better like Australia did? or have the same structure create a parallel, better transfer system banks can opt in to, like the UK did with FPS? I would have said that letting venmo/paypal/etc do it was the worst possible solution, but then I could not have imagined that another solution people would seriously propose was "cryptocurrency".

afarrell 4y ago
> emblematic of many of the problems the US faces - "it's too hard to fix $problem_with_well_known_solution because of entrenched interests, so let's create this absolutely awful parallel system that creates a whole new world of entrenched interests who will in turn block any innovation". This is what happens when you build a country with a disproportionate number of the sort of people who are willing to say "Fuck it. Building a decent living in my home country is too hard. I'm going to cross an ocean in a steam ship and start a new life on a new continent where I am a complete stranger." I say this as an American who has made similar choices of questionable wisdom.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  No this is what happens when you develop your culture's ideology to be "Helping other people is communism, and they deserve to suffer"
JamesianP 4y ago
Yes of course we can do transfers online. I've been doing business this way for decades. Even in the very very early days of the internet they started "online bill payment" services, which would transfer electronically or else outright send a check as needed. It's how I paid rent in college. Also credit cards have been in widespread use for longer than that, so the need for an alternative was always only in narrow niches. The new services (and the tech companies) only selling point is they can be instant and cheaper or free (though not all older approaches have fees). And serve groups like younger people with no credit. And what is your post emblematic of with it's abuse of caps and stereotyping? I'm just talking about why they haven't replaced an older solution that "isn't broke" since it gets 99.9 percent of the job done already. No need to lose your mind.
bananapub 4y ago
Another great example (https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/1591193835886891009 https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/1591193835886891009) from one of the worst VC funds: > Problem: US healthcare is broken. > Solution: Build a for-profit company that will generate trillions of dollars in value for its shareholders, all of which will come from payment for healthcare