3 ms·

Electricity, water, roads and bridges are natural monopolies. Payments aren't and there is no reason for the State to monopolize it. Especially given the EU po

Electricity, water, roads and bridges are natural monopolies. Payments aren't and there is no reason for the State to monopolize it. Especially given the EU poor track record on fostering innovation. The EU bureaucrats will "regulate" it to the bone, increasing compliance costs for processors and mass surveillance. We'll be back to the start.

anhner 10mo ago
> there is no reason for the State to monopolize it except relying on a foreign actor for the economy is a security risk?
- Saline9515 10mo ago
  The alternative could be to foster competition to allow private local actors to emerge. Why do we need the State for this? The EU prevents sellers from surcharging depending on the type of credit card used, which led to the Visa/Mc duopoly and prevented local alternatives to compete on costs.
jryio 10mo ago
There is already. Almost every country on earth has single state controlled currency. Fiat currency is already a natural monopoly on payments. Imagine if every time you wanted to pay for a train ride you had to put your money into an envelope, mail it to the United States, and wait for it to come back. That's VISA.
samus 10mo ago
In an age where card payments are ubiquitous, being suddenly cut off from VISA/MasterCard networks can severely disrupt a country's economy. Especially if it heavily relies on tourism.
- jeroenhd 10mo ago
  When it comes to tourism, this problem will always happen if the tourists are coming from the side that's cutting off the other. Without an interface between European and American payment systems, Americans won't be able to pay in Europe.
  - samus 10mo ago
    It's way more severe than that since Americans are not the only ones relying on VISA/MasterCard for payments abroad. The presence of other payment systems would make it easier for any non-USA country to still do payments.
- Saline9515 10mo ago
  The EU prevents sellers to surcharge depending on the type of card used (PSD2 Directive (EU) 2015/2366), Art. 62(4)). It in effect opened the door to a Visa/Mastercard duopoly, as no local competitor could emerge and compete on price.
isodev 10mo ago
Some corrections: - The EU is not a state, it's a governance body composed of representatives from individual member states. Every state is responsible for implementing their take on the directive. - "EU poor track record on fostering innovation" - many things you use online have been researched and conceptualised in the EU. Even if they go elsewhere for funding, don't mistake where "innovation" happens and where it gets packaged by VC money for sale and enschitification. - compliance costs: I think that's only expensive for companies who intend to to sell or otherwise do something shady with user data. Remember, not collecting data makes you instantly compliant with zero cost.
- Saline9515 10mo ago
  > "The EU is not a state" It's a supranational institution that dictates laws to States, with a budget and coercive powers against States. It just lacks an army of its own. Whether it's a proper state or not doesn't matter. > conceptualised in the EU No, in Europe. No EU bureaucrat conceptualizes things. EU =\= Europe. > I think that's only expensive for companies who intend to to sell or otherwise do something shady with user data. Remember, not collecting data makes you instantly compliant with zero cost. A lot of businesses need consumer data to improve their offerings and be competitive against the big boys. And RGPD lawyers ain't cheap, so even if you keep the minimal amount of data, you have to fork €10k+ to review everything, etc. The requirements for AI are even worse. All of those compliance jobs are unproductive and a burden on EU companies. Same for the tax compliance obligations, which are ever increasing and now require you to record and document everything, especially if you do cross-border operations, as you are considered guilty by default if you don't. We could also talk about the requirements to audit your sourcing chain for "human rights abuses", which ends in compliance hell for industrial companies with 2k+ suppliers, while of course Chinese companies don't have this problem. The EU doesn't do any cost/benefit analysis on this, and just suppose that companies will magically find ressources to deal with their new regulatory "innovations".
  - isodev 10mo ago
    Ok, I think you're reading a lot of tabloids as none of the above are actually true. Regarding > Institution that dictates laws to States again no, because the laws are created and voted by elected representatives of said states, so the EU is not some 3rd party that exists on the side, the EU is the countries within it. Member states create their own laws.
zihotki 10mo ago
Payments aren't but issuing currency is. State doesn't monopolize the payments. State creates a regulation and common standard across the EU. It's the banks who would do the payments, not the state, and for that banks would receive a standard fee so you as a consumer always know how much you pay for the service.
_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
How many non-government physical currencies are there in your country? I'm guessing if there is a legitimate government electronic currency most alternatives will fade away which will be the best rebuttal to your argument. The public can hold government rules for surveillance in check, whereas they don't have that option for private payment systems.

anhner 10mo ago

> there is no reason for the State to monopolize it except relying on a foreign actor for the economy is a security risk?

Saline9515 10mo ago
The alternative could be to foster competition to allow private local actors to emerge. Why do we need the State for this? The EU prevents sellers from surcharging depending on the type of credit card used, which led to the Visa/Mc duopoly and prevented local alternatives to compete on costs.

jryio 10mo ago

There is already. Almost every country on earth has single state controlled currency. Fiat currency is already a natural monopoly on payments. Imagine if every time you wanted to pay for a train ride you had to put your money into an envelope, mail it to the United States, and wait for it to come back. That's VISA.

samus 10mo ago

In an age where card payments are ubiquitous, being suddenly cut off from VISA/MasterCard networks can severely disrupt a country's economy. Especially if it heavily relies on tourism.

jeroenhd 10mo ago
When it comes to tourism, this problem will always happen if the tourists are coming from the side that's cutting off the other. Without an interface between European and American payment systems, Americans won't be able to pay in Europe.
- samus 10mo ago
  It's way more severe than that since Americans are not the only ones relying on VISA/MasterCard for payments abroad. The presence of other payment systems would make it easier for any non-USA country to still do payments.
Saline9515 10mo ago
The EU prevents sellers to surcharge depending on the type of card used (PSD2 Directive (EU) 2015/2366), Art. 62(4)). It in effect opened the door to a Visa/Mastercard duopoly, as no local competitor could emerge and compete on price.

isodev 10mo ago

Some corrections: - The EU is not a state, it's a governance body composed of representatives from individual member states. Every state is responsible for implementing their take on the directive. - "EU poor track record on fostering innovation" - many things you use online have been researched and conceptualised in the EU. Even if they go elsewhere for funding, don't mistake where "innovation" happens and where it gets packaged by VC money for sale and enschitification. - compliance costs: I think that's only expensive for companies who intend to to sell or otherwise do something shady with user data. Remember, not collecting data makes you instantly compliant with zero cost.

Saline9515 10mo ago
> "The EU is not a state" It's a supranational institution that dictates laws to States, with a budget and coercive powers against States. It just lacks an army of its own. Whether it's a proper state or not doesn't matter. > conceptualised in the EU No, in Europe. No EU bureaucrat conceptualizes things. EU =\= Europe. > I think that's only expensive for companies who intend to to sell or otherwise do something shady with user data. Remember, not collecting data makes you instantly compliant with zero cost. A lot of businesses need consumer data to improve their offerings and be competitive against the big boys. And RGPD lawyers ain't cheap, so even if you keep the minimal amount of data, you have to fork €10k+ to review everything, etc. The requirements for AI are even worse. All of those compliance jobs are unproductive and a burden on EU companies. Same for the tax compliance obligations, which are ever increasing and now require you to record and document everything, especially if you do cross-border operations, as you are considered guilty by default if you don't. We could also talk about the requirements to audit your sourcing chain for "human rights abuses", which ends in compliance hell for industrial companies with 2k+ suppliers, while of course Chinese companies don't have this problem. The EU doesn't do any cost/benefit analysis on this, and just suppose that companies will magically find ressources to deal with their new regulatory "innovations".
- isodev 10mo ago
  Ok, I think you're reading a lot of tabloids as none of the above are actually true. Regarding > Institution that dictates laws to States again no, because the laws are created and voted by elected representatives of said states, so the EU is not some 3rd party that exists on the side, the EU is the countries within it. Member states create their own laws.

zihotki 10mo ago

Payments aren't but issuing currency is. State doesn't monopolize the payments. State creates a regulation and common standard across the EU. It's the banks who would do the payments, not the state, and for that banks would receive a standard fee so you as a consumer always know how much you pay for the service.

_DeadFred_ 10mo ago

How many non-government physical currencies are there in your country? I'm guessing if there is a legitimate government electronic currency most alternatives will fade away which will be the best rebuttal to your argument. The public can hold government rules for surveillance in check, whereas they don't have that option for private payment systems.