XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , Robert Bannister   
    wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Technically they have always charged a "fee" - you deposit money into   
   their business at (for example) 3% interest rate, they then loan your   
   money out to a home-buyer or similar with an interest rate of 5% ...   
   and the bank pockets the extra 2%.   
      
   There is one bank in New Zealand called PSIS (recently rebranded to   
   "The Co-operative Bank") which supposedly pays back all profits to the   
   people who bank with them in a shares-like system ...  of course those   
   "profits" will be after the bank has taken out expenses like building   
   rents and the over-bloated management salaries.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)