PayPal and Visa are dicks.
-
Again with the "freedom"? Ok so lets start a debit card company, and when the total value in the accounts of all customers reaches 1 billion or so, cancel all accounts and retire as a billionaire. Because that's freedom, right?
David1987 wrote:
Ok so lets start a debit card company, and when the total value in the accounts of all customers reaches 1 billion or so, cancel all accounts and retire as a billionaire. Because that's freedom, right?
Sure, you can cancel the accounts. If your customers are banks, they'll just provide cards for their account holders from another company. If customers have accounts set up with you directly and money in those accounts, you'll have to return their money when you fold the company. You'll get to keep whatever interest you've earned above what you're contractually obligated to pay your customers, but that's it. What point were you trying to make here?
XAlan Burkhart
-
jschell wrote:
I don't understand that.
Yep. You are talking about a consumer using a card. I am talking about a business asking a company to process payments for it. When you use a credit card, you are asking a company to pay someone else their money and promising to pay them back. When a business asks Paypal (or Visa) to act as its agent and collect money from its customers, it is hiring them to do a job. They have the right to refuse to work for you, just as you have the right to refuse to work for me.
jschell wrote:
But if all financial institutions refuse to deal with you then there are no choices left.
Then don't piss off Paypal and Visa. If they don't like you, they won't work for you.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 5:18 PM
Oakman wrote:
Yep. You are talking about a consumer using a card. I am talking about a business asking a company to process payments for it.
The "company" that process payments for a merchant is not 'Visa' nor 'Mastercard'. It is a processor like FDC.
Oakman wrote:
When a business asks Paypal (or Visa) to act as its agent and collect money from its customers
No. That isn't how it works. No one, not small businesses nor even companies like Walmart, interact with 'Visa'/'Mastercard'. They interact with their bank and with a processor. The processor, not 'Vis'/'Mastercard' is in a direct relationship with the merchant. And for many small businesses even that isnt true. Instead they go through some other business which proxies the processing via yet another provider. So in the worst case it would be similar to if you could not have internet service at work because the backbone providers decided that they didn't like you. And that then rolled down hill to the ISP, perhaps via another reseller and then into your companies service. And this analogy follows to the extent that you do NOT have a business relationship of any sort with the backbone. And the same is true for a merchant. They do NOT have a business relationship with 'Visa'/'Mastercard'. (And note that I am specifically not talking about Amex/Discover here.)
-
David1987 wrote:
They shouldn't have that right.
Should you? Should the government force you to work for me if you don't like me or what I do? How do you feel about out and out slavery?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
Should you? Should the government force you to work for me if you don't like me or what I do? How do you feel about out and out slavery?
Specious argument. You are a single individual. Payment processing is a significant financial instrument with a vast impact. Based your argument Visa/Mastercard should have the right to completely shutdown tomorrow if they felt like it. A better analogy would be if you could not work at all unless the government approved it. And that right was strictly enforced as well (not haphazardly.) And your right to work would be removed if the government was investigating you for anything.
-
Oakman wrote:
Yep. You are talking about a consumer using a card. I am talking about a business asking a company to process payments for it.
The "company" that process payments for a merchant is not 'Visa' nor 'Mastercard'. It is a processor like FDC.
Oakman wrote:
When a business asks Paypal (or Visa) to act as its agent and collect money from its customers
No. That isn't how it works. No one, not small businesses nor even companies like Walmart, interact with 'Visa'/'Mastercard'. They interact with their bank and with a processor. The processor, not 'Vis'/'Mastercard' is in a direct relationship with the merchant. And for many small businesses even that isnt true. Instead they go through some other business which proxies the processing via yet another provider. So in the worst case it would be similar to if you could not have internet service at work because the backbone providers decided that they didn't like you. And that then rolled down hill to the ISP, perhaps via another reseller and then into your companies service. And this analogy follows to the extent that you do NOT have a business relationship of any sort with the backbone. And the same is true for a merchant. They do NOT have a business relationship with 'Visa'/'Mastercard'. (And note that I am specifically not talking about Amex/Discover here.)
jschell wrote:
And note that I am specifically not talking about Amex/Discover here.)
Nor Paypal. However, although you have broken the chain down into its separate links, you have not eliminated the concept of a company acting as an agent for another company. As a contractor, I occasionally worked for another contractor who had a piece of a large contract that a general contractor had signed with a company and subbed to them. I had no direct relation ship with the company for whom I was working - and yet it was simpler to say that I was working for the people who ultimately consumed my work, than explain in tedious detail about the contractual relationships that bound us together. I'm guessing you are unaware of the case of the backbones refusing to carry a usenet group called sex.rec. The so-called "cabal" is either gone or much weaker (as is the use of usenet) but there was nothing in the law that kept them from choosing to carry or not carry traffic.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Oakman wrote:
Should you? Should the government force you to work for me if you don't like me or what I do? How do you feel about out and out slavery?
Specious argument. You are a single individual. Payment processing is a significant financial instrument with a vast impact. Based your argument Visa/Mastercard should have the right to completely shutdown tomorrow if they felt like it. A better analogy would be if you could not work at all unless the government approved it. And that right was strictly enforced as well (not haphazardly.) And your right to work would be removed if the government was investigating you for anything.
jschell wrote:
You are a single individual.
What if I am a corporation with 2 employees, or 3 or 4. At what number is slavery OK?
jschell wrote:
Payment processing is a significant financial instrument with a vast impact.
Then it behooves companies that need CC processing not to piss off Visa and Mastercard. I am quite sure that not even the United Nations has yet discovered a "right to use a credit card."
jschell wrote:
Based your argument Visa/Mastercard should have the right to completely shutdown tomorrow if they felt like it.
Have you done any business with Lehman Bros recently? Now according to our bankruptcy laws how they disposed of their assets could be supervised by the courts, but the legal entity called Mastercard could cease operating on a moment's notice.
jschell wrote:
A better analogy would be if you could not work at all unless the government approved it. And that right was strictly enforced as well (not haphazardly.) And your right to work would be removed if the government was investigating you for anything.
No-one under the age of 14 can be employed full-time, I believe, in this country. People can lose their license to drive for many reasons, even though they may need to drive in order to work, or do whatever. Legally, working is a privilege. Privileges, no matter how much they are depended on, are not rights. In the private sector, Unions often sign contracts with companies that mean that anyone the union chooses to blackball cannot work for that company.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
Ok so lets start a debit card company, and when the total value in the accounts of all customers reaches 1 billion or so, cancel all accounts and retire as a billionaire. Because that's freedom, right?
Sure, you can cancel the accounts. If your customers are banks, they'll just provide cards for their account holders from another company. If customers have accounts set up with you directly and money in those accounts, you'll have to return their money when you fold the company. You'll get to keep whatever interest you've earned above what you're contractually obligated to pay your customers, but that's it. What point were you trying to make here?
XAlan Burkhart
They apparently don't have to return the money, because they didn't and somehow that's ok. The point is that this freedom is left completely unchecked and is therefore dangerous. If you feel you've been wrongfully refused service, there's nothing you can do. That's not so much freedom as it is legal corporate tyranny.
-
jschell wrote:
And note that I am specifically not talking about Amex/Discover here.)
Nor Paypal. However, although you have broken the chain down into its separate links, you have not eliminated the concept of a company acting as an agent for another company. As a contractor, I occasionally worked for another contractor who had a piece of a large contract that a general contractor had signed with a company and subbed to them. I had no direct relation ship with the company for whom I was working - and yet it was simpler to say that I was working for the people who ultimately consumed my work, than explain in tedious detail about the contractual relationships that bound us together. I'm guessing you are unaware of the case of the backbones refusing to carry a usenet group called sex.rec. The so-called "cabal" is either gone or much weaker (as is the use of usenet) but there was nothing in the law that kept them from choosing to carry or not carry traffic.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
However, although you have broken the chain down into its separate links, you have not eliminated the concept of a company acting as an agent for another company.
At best the relationship is one of franchisee. And based on that you can claim any infringement is legitimate. For example a coal company in a 3rd world company decides they don't like my 19th cousin removed and consequently every utility company in my country refuses to provide electricity to me.
-
jschell wrote:
You are a single individual.
What if I am a corporation with 2 employees, or 3 or 4. At what number is slavery OK?
jschell wrote:
Payment processing is a significant financial instrument with a vast impact.
Then it behooves companies that need CC processing not to piss off Visa and Mastercard. I am quite sure that not even the United Nations has yet discovered a "right to use a credit card."
jschell wrote:
Based your argument Visa/Mastercard should have the right to completely shutdown tomorrow if they felt like it.
Have you done any business with Lehman Bros recently? Now according to our bankruptcy laws how they disposed of their assets could be supervised by the courts, but the legal entity called Mastercard could cease operating on a moment's notice.
jschell wrote:
A better analogy would be if you could not work at all unless the government approved it. And that right was strictly enforced as well (not haphazardly.) And your right to work would be removed if the government was investigating you for anything.
No-one under the age of 14 can be employed full-time, I believe, in this country. People can lose their license to drive for many reasons, even though they may need to drive in order to work, or do whatever. Legally, working is a privilege. Privileges, no matter how much they are depended on, are not rights. In the private sector, Unions often sign contracts with companies that mean that anyone the union chooses to blackball cannot work for that company.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
No-one under the age of 14 can be employed full-time, I believe, in this country. People can lose their license to drive for many reasons, even though they may need to drive in order to work, or do whatever.
Err..not even close to an analogy. Loss of the license for most cases occurs after conviction. Conditions for loss are well documented and well publicized. Appeal is possible.
Oakman wrote:
In the private sector, Unions often sign contracts with companies that mean that anyone the union chooses to blackball cannot work for that company.
I doubt that assertion is true at all. And certainly not relevant to my analogy. If you assertion is even true it would only extend to one industry. It wouldn't preclude me from getting a job in any number of other industries. Even related ones.
-
Oakman wrote:
However, although you have broken the chain down into its separate links, you have not eliminated the concept of a company acting as an agent for another company.
At best the relationship is one of franchisee. And based on that you can claim any infringement is legitimate. For example a coal company in a 3rd world company decides they don't like my 19th cousin removed and consequently every utility company in my country refuses to provide electricity to me.
jschell wrote:
For example a coal company in a 3rd world company decides they don't like my 19th cousin removed and consequently every utility company in my country refuses to provide electricity to me.
I find it fascinating that time after time after time in this thread, I have examples handed to me of utilities with government sponsored monopolies denying service as an "example." Visa is not a utility. Visa is not government-sponsored. Visa is not a monopoly. Visa has the right to choose who it allows to use its services. Your franchise analogy makes some, though not complete, sense as a description of Visa's relationship with the acquirers it allows to offer visanet access to merchants. Franchisers are strictly bound by a contract that specifies just about all aspects of their operation, simply because what they do is seen as a reflection on the basic brand. Likewise, acquirers have no ability or right to decide to process transactions for anyone that Visa does not wish to do business with. I would point out that your local electric utility company, in addition to being a public utility required to provide service to all who are willing to pay, is probably not a franchise operation of any coal companies in the third world.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Oakman wrote:
No-one under the age of 14 can be employed full-time, I believe, in this country. People can lose their license to drive for many reasons, even though they may need to drive in order to work, or do whatever.
Err..not even close to an analogy. Loss of the license for most cases occurs after conviction. Conditions for loss are well documented and well publicized. Appeal is possible.
Oakman wrote:
In the private sector, Unions often sign contracts with companies that mean that anyone the union chooses to blackball cannot work for that company.
I doubt that assertion is true at all. And certainly not relevant to my analogy. If you assertion is even true it would only extend to one industry. It wouldn't preclude me from getting a job in any number of other industries. Even related ones.
jschell wrote:
Err..not even close to an analogy.
What analogy? You were implying that the government could not deny people the right to work. I showed that they could and have.
jschell wrote:
I doubt that assertion is true at all.
So when you can't argue your point of view, you just call the other guy a liar? I'm done with you and this thread.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
They apparently don't have to return the money, because they didn't and somehow that's ok. The point is that this freedom is left completely unchecked and is therefore dangerous. If you feel you've been wrongfully refused service, there's nothing you can do. That's not so much freedom as it is legal corporate tyranny.
If they haven't returned the money, then most likely they should be brought up on charges. There are probably some grotty details involved neither of us know about. And as I said before, if you are refused service you absolutely have the right to sue. A knowledgeable attorney can examine the circumstances and if he feels you have a case, he'll move forward with it. If he doesn't feel you have a case, you probably don't. Regarding refusal of services... Some years back I moved into an apartment. Once there, I tried to get cable tv. Comcast refused because there was an unpaid bill at that address. It wasn't MY unpaid bill. It was from the previous tenant. I was outraged, but discovered that Comcast actually had the legal right to refuse to renew service at an address where a bill was left unpaid. The idea of course was to get me to eat the bill - Comcast didn't care who paid it as long as it was paid. Since an attorney couldn't help in this instance, I contacted the local Chamber of Commerce. The CoC applied some "shame on you" to Comcast, and I reminded them that I had never missed a bill from my previous adrs. They ultimately agreed to turn it on. So see, there is always a way to get it done if you have a legitimate complaint. And why do you feel that a business should not be allowed to refuse or suspend services? I'm genuinely curious.
XAlan Burkhart
-
If they haven't returned the money, then most likely they should be brought up on charges. There are probably some grotty details involved neither of us know about. And as I said before, if you are refused service you absolutely have the right to sue. A knowledgeable attorney can examine the circumstances and if he feels you have a case, he'll move forward with it. If he doesn't feel you have a case, you probably don't. Regarding refusal of services... Some years back I moved into an apartment. Once there, I tried to get cable tv. Comcast refused because there was an unpaid bill at that address. It wasn't MY unpaid bill. It was from the previous tenant. I was outraged, but discovered that Comcast actually had the legal right to refuse to renew service at an address where a bill was left unpaid. The idea of course was to get me to eat the bill - Comcast didn't care who paid it as long as it was paid. Since an attorney couldn't help in this instance, I contacted the local Chamber of Commerce. The CoC applied some "shame on you" to Comcast, and I reminded them that I had never missed a bill from my previous adrs. They ultimately agreed to turn it on. So see, there is always a way to get it done if you have a legitimate complaint. And why do you feel that a business should not be allowed to refuse or suspend services? I'm genuinely curious.
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
And as I said before, if you are refused service you absolutely have the right to sue.
Ok great so why does everyone else claim you can't? Are you sure it also applies when there are only pure financial damages?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
And why do you feel that a business should not be allowed to refuse or suspend services?
No that's not what I meant. They should not be allowed to refuse service without a good reason. That last bit is critical.
-
jschell wrote:
For example a coal company in a 3rd world company decides they don't like my 19th cousin removed and consequently every utility company in my country refuses to provide electricity to me.
I find it fascinating that time after time after time in this thread, I have examples handed to me of utilities with government sponsored monopolies denying service as an "example." Visa is not a utility. Visa is not government-sponsored. Visa is not a monopoly. Visa has the right to choose who it allows to use its services. Your franchise analogy makes some, though not complete, sense as a description of Visa's relationship with the acquirers it allows to offer visanet access to merchants. Franchisers are strictly bound by a contract that specifies just about all aspects of their operation, simply because what they do is seen as a reflection on the basic brand. Likewise, acquirers have no ability or right to decide to process transactions for anyone that Visa does not wish to do business with. I would point out that your local electric utility company, in addition to being a public utility required to provide service to all who are willing to pay, is probably not a franchise operation of any coal companies in the third world.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Now I know I'm supposed to leave this alone, but I just want to point out that such a technical detail does not change the morals of it, just the current legal status.
Do you really think I am going to give you a second chance to run to Chris and complain about hurt feelings? Buzz off.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Do you really think I am going to give you a second chance to run to Chris and complain about hurt feelings? Buzz off.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
And as I said before, if you are refused service you absolutely have the right to sue.
Ok great so why does everyone else claim you can't? Are you sure it also applies when there are only pure financial damages?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
And why do you feel that a business should not be allowed to refuse or suspend services?
No that's not what I meant. They should not be allowed to refuse service without a good reason. That last bit is critical.
David1987 wrote:
They should not be allowed to refuse service without a good reason.
And just who defines "good reason?" That's rather subjective. A business should able to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as civil rights laws are respected. Business owners have rights, too.
XAlan Burkhart
-
David1987 wrote:
They should not be allowed to refuse service without a good reason.
And just who defines "good reason?" That's rather subjective. A business should able to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as civil rights laws are respected. Business owners have rights, too.
XAlan Burkhart
As always, court. Meaning that it should be possible to sue a busyness for having a bad reason to refuse service.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
A business should able to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as civil rights laws are respected.
Nope, too dangerous. Civil rights laws leave too opportunity for them to screw you. Of course they could also fix the problem there; I really don't care how this is fixed, but the current situation is dangerous.
-
jschell wrote:
For example a coal company in a 3rd world company decides they don't like my 19th cousin removed and consequently every utility company in my country refuses to provide electricity to me.
I find it fascinating that time after time after time in this thread, I have examples handed to me of utilities with government sponsored monopolies denying service as an "example." Visa is not a utility. Visa is not government-sponsored. Visa is not a monopoly. Visa has the right to choose who it allows to use its services. Your franchise analogy makes some, though not complete, sense as a description of Visa's relationship with the acquirers it allows to offer visanet access to merchants. Franchisers are strictly bound by a contract that specifies just about all aspects of their operation, simply because what they do is seen as a reflection on the basic brand. Likewise, acquirers have no ability or right to decide to process transactions for anyone that Visa does not wish to do business with. I would point out that your local electric utility company, in addition to being a public utility required to provide service to all who are willing to pay, is probably not a franchise operation of any coal companies in the third world.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
I find it fascinating that time after time after time in this thread, I have examples handed to me of utilities with government sponsored monopolies denying service as an "example." Visa is not a utility. Visa is not government-sponsored. Visa is not a monopoly. Visa has the right to choose who it allows to use its services.
No idea what you are talking about. My utility company is only a monopoly to the extent that my city allows it to be - by contract. It makes profit, it discontinues service, restarts service, markets itself and seeks to grow. Certainly unclear how it is different than any other company. But you can insert any other disparate enterprises with weak connections into my example and it still applies.
Oakman wrote:
I would point out that your local electric utility company, in addition to being a public utility required to provide service to all who are willing to pay, is probably not a franchise operation of any coal companies in the third world.
That however has nothing to do with the original point that the relationship with the customer is very weak, has an absolute impact and based on knee-jerk reactions. If any of those were not true, especially the second, then the 'right' of the company might be allowed to trump the rights of the individual. But that isn't the case.
-
jschell wrote:
Err..not even close to an analogy.
What analogy? You were implying that the government could not deny people the right to work. I showed that they could and have.
jschell wrote:
I doubt that assertion is true at all.
So when you can't argue your point of view, you just call the other guy a liar? I'm done with you and this thread.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
What analogy?
Driving and working are analogies. Claiming that inability to drive leads to no work is stretching the analogies to a breaking points since the first is not a right but a priviledge and one doesn't need it work (all occupations.) And as I pointed out the reasons that one can't drive are documented.
Oakman wrote:
So when you can't argue your point of view, you just call the other guy a liar?
I phrased that poorly. So re-addressing it...you said.... "Unions often sign contracts with companies that mean that anyone the union chooses to blackball cannot work for that company." First if a company is an all union shop then employees must belong to the union. They are not denied work because the union has "backballed" them but because they do not belong to the union. Joining the union solves that. Expulsion from a union is very rare and the most common cause by a signficant factor is failure to pay dues. And the reasons one can be expelled are clearly documented. And documented when one joins. Presumably there are cases where members are unfairly expelled for personal reasons but they are rare (And still do not impact the ability to work elsewhere.) Second the fact that one cannot work for a company (singular) is NOT the same as denying one the ability to work at all. There are magnitudes of difference in that. In terms of the original discussion someone might not be able to get a credit card from a Credit Union because one does not meet the requirements for that instution. But that is NOT the same as be precluding from ALL credit institutions. The only way your union comment applies at all is if you are claiming that if the teachers unions (plural since there is more than one) expells someone then they will not be able to get a job as a engineer, retail clerk, mechanic or even dishwasher.
-
As always, court. Meaning that it should be possible to sue a busyness for having a bad reason to refuse service.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
A business should able to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as civil rights laws are respected.
Nope, too dangerous. Civil rights laws leave too opportunity for them to screw you. Of course they could also fix the problem there; I really don't care how this is fixed, but the current situation is dangerous.
David1987 wrote:
I really don't care how this is fixed, but the current situation is dangerous.
You're tilting at windmills. How many times have you been refused service? I'm 53 and I've been refused once (as mentioned earlier) and I got that resolved inside of a week.
David1987 wrote:
Civil rights laws leave too opportunity for them to screw you.
Such as?
XAlan Burkhart