3 ms·

That's why I said free market (as per the colloquial definition) rather than a perfect market, which is the platonic ideal that real-world markets approximate t

by a_c_s 12y ago

That's why I said free market (as per the colloquial definition) rather than a perfect market, which is the platonic ideal that real-world markets approximate to varying degrees. They certainly aren't magic and certainly get oversold by some, but they are how we allow (many) prices to be set in the US and are usually much better than the alternatives. Customers of payment processors have plenty of choice: a business, such as Amazon, can choose whomever it wishes. (Of course customers of Amazon don't have visibility of processor, neither to they choose which services Amazon uses for cardboard recycling nor internet connectivity)

quadrangle 12y ago
This is so blind. There's a market in which there are services like Dwolla that require a delay and set-up with your bank and have low fees by avoiding credit cards altogether (incidentally, I think that sort of service is best option we have), questionable legal and practical issues for Bitcoin, and then a whole bunch of services that charge exactly the same random rate. And you say it has some sort of positive quality as a free market. What are you saying? That choosing among a bunch of services that offer basically the same system at the same rate is empowering to customers?? This sounds like the same old useless argument that some surface-level choice automatically means everything is justified. Choice in itself is neutral. It's not a great thing just for its own sake. It's about what the choices actually are.
- a_c_s 12y ago
  1. The customers of credit processing are businesses (merchants), not people buying stuff from those businesses 2. There is no single rate, especially once different fee structures are accounted for: https://www.sba.gov/blogs/best-credit-card-processing-small-business-owners https://www.sba.gov/blogs/best-credit-card-processing-small-... http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/20/visa-americanexpress-globalpayment-ent-fin-cx_mf_0220creditcard.html http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/20/visa-americanexpress-global... 3. Having dozens of companies to choose between ranging from simple-yet-expensive to complicated-but-potentially-cheaper seems like the ideal situation to be in. This seems like a functional market to me.

by a_c_s 12y ago

quadrangle 12y ago

This is so blind. There's a market in which there are services like Dwolla that require a delay and set-up with your bank and have low fees by avoiding credit cards altogether (incidentally, I think that sort of service is best option we have), questionable legal and practical issues for Bitcoin, and then a whole bunch of services that charge exactly the same random rate. And you say it has some sort of positive quality as a free market. What are you saying? That choosing among a bunch of services that offer basically the same system at the same rate is empowering to customers?? This sounds like the same old useless argument that some surface-level choice automatically means everything is justified. Choice in itself is neutral. It's not a great thing just for its own sake. It's about what the choices actually are.

a_c_s 12y ago
1. The customers of credit processing are businesses (merchants), not people buying stuff from those businesses 2. There is no single rate, especially once different fee structures are accounted for: https://www.sba.gov/blogs/best-credit-card-processing-small-business-owners https://www.sba.gov/blogs/best-credit-card-processing-small-... http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/20/visa-americanexpress-globalpayment-ent-fin-cx_mf_0220creditcard.html http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/20/visa-americanexpress-global... 3. Having dozens of companies to choose between ranging from simple-yet-expensive to complicated-but-potentially-cheaper seems like the ideal situation to be in. This seems like a functional market to me.