XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   "Robert Bannister"  wrote in message   
   news:b8svh7F5u08U3@mid.individual.net...   
   > On 6/09/13 6:03 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:   
   >> The Horny Goat  wrote in   
   >> news:qrhv19p5eqiui6vffuqbeags9i8mobor1h@4ax.com:   
   >>   
   >>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:09:38 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying   
   >>> Sissy  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> The merchant services divisions were never in trouble to begin   
   >>>> with. They're *always* profitable. They take a cut when you   
   >>>> spend, they take a cut when you get a refund, they take a cut   
   >>>> when you challenge a bogus transaction *plus* they charge the   
   >>>> merchant a chargeback fee (even if the merchant is determined to   
   >>>> be blameless). The card issuer will do their best to screw the   
   >>>> consumer, but the merchant service *will* screw the merchant out   
   >>>> of their eye teeth. There's good reasons why regulations on   
   >>>> merchant services have tightened up in recent years (to the tune   
   >>>> of costing them billions if free money).   
   >>>   
   >>> Credit card companies essentially embody the worst monopolistic   
   >>> / oligopolistic practices of classical economics.   
   >>   
   >> Other than the amount of competition between them, sure.   
   >>>   
   >>> There's no particular reason they should have to have a   
   >>> percentage of every transaction a merchant does - a simple   
   >>> transaction fee for service should be enough. But they wield   
   >>> considerable power and there are few merchants that have loyal   
   >>> enough customers that would accept breaking loose from them.   
   >>   
   >> Welcome to capitalism, and what the market will bear. Without the   
   >> kind of "power," credit cards wouldn't be much of a factor in the   
   >> market.   
   >>>   
   >>> Since a merchant has to cover ALL costs this means society as a   
   >>> whole pays for this quasi-monopoly   
   >>>   
   >> In fact, no, the merchant does not have to cover all costs. If the   
   >> merchant follows the rules, they are protected from fraud.   
   >> Ultimately, of course, the consumer pays all costs for everything.   
   >> Since it isn't even theoretically possible for anyoen else to do   
   >> so.   
   >   
   > If you are using a card, then in Australia at least, the bank bears the   
   > cost so long as you report it quickly enough.   
      
   In practice there is only ever one group that wears   
   the cost, the customers, even in this country.   
      
   Some of us have ensured that we don't   
   personally ever wear any of the cost tho.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)