XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books   
   From: robban@clubtelco.com   
      
   On 7/09/13 12:31 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:   
   > Robert Bannister  wrote in   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > And would never dream of raising any fees to anyone to compensate   
   > themselves for that, eh? (And those fees would, of course, be   
   > passed on to the customer. Like I said.)   
   >   
   > Nice dream world you've living in there, son.   
   >   
      
   I simply omitted to mention that our banks charge for anything and   
   everything else. Some even charge if you don't use any of their   
   services. But I don't think the merchant cops it all.   
      
   --   
   Robert Bannister   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)