[lug] Credit - was: [Letting folks pay from the web.]

[Nate Duehr]

On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:39 PM, Davide Del Vento wrote:

>>> I don't know who in the heck invented this thing. It's clear that
>>> somebody has to pay for these "rewards", and it's clear that the cc
>>> company is not the one that will. In my opinion the reward cards
>>> should be outlawed - no brainer.
>> 
>> Yeah, because what we need is more Government regulation.


> Now, even as an advocate of small government, you'll agree that lack

You might be surprised, I'm NOT a fan of small government.  I'm a fan of LOCAL government, because it's "closer to the problems" of its constituents.  I pay my taxes and wish for more EFFICIENT government also, but I realize that I receive a number of benefits from those taxes.  When I dial 911, I want the fire department to show up in (the average) 6 minutes. I'm also a proponent of a very strong and well-paid volunteer military.  That doesn't come cheap, and I'm happy to send every penny for that.

What I don't like paying for is government laws designed to replace common sense. 

> Now, back to the reward cards, what's wrong with them might be clear
> if you re-read Landon's post: thirds parts are forced to accept them
> and pay for them.

This is the crux of where we disagree.  I have seen a number of businesses who refuse to accept AMEX, or even all credit cards.  At the end of the day, it's the business owner's responsibility to determine what they can afford. 

Your assertion that the "stealing" is taking away funding from "better" activities doesn't hold water for the purchaser.  It's your decision to make as to whether you accept a middle-man payment.

As far as your assertion that the money and/or time could be used for "better purposes", in the case of you getting less money when you accept a card -- that's your call to make.  Make a decision and act decisively to do whatever's best for you and your business.  As far as how I spend MY time and resources, that is my choice to make.

As far as your assertion that my not wanting more regulation is "more partisan politics", I disagree.  Saying "less government" is always non-partisan by nature, because it's a vote for "none of the above"... no power delegated to someone else. 

This group is FULL of people who know, "Everyone is doing it" is not a good reason to use an operating system.  It's also never a good reason to accept credit cards in your business, nor a reason to dogpile on the fad of thinking government can fix our problems.  That's all I'm saying.

You also seem a bit upset that finance is a "game", unfortunately central banking started that game hundreds of years ago when they started lending money they don't have.  Banks loan out deposits at a ratio higher than 12:1.  

Ever wondered why all the offers of "free checking"?  They can easily afford to let your money pass through their bank because they get to average it and count it on the assets side of their balance sheet, lending out higher than $12 for every $1 you have placed (on average) in their account.  This is just how leveraged central banking works.  It's a giant multinational shell game.  Money is only worth what we think it's worth.

If the monetary system isn't working, there's always barter.  Even money itself isn't technically required.

Anyway, to bring this full-circle... you're the closest to the problem you experience with AMEX and you have the choice to make the tactical/strategic decision to change it.  No government intervention required.  People who use Windows also have the tactile/strategic option of choosing another OS.  

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com

facebook.com/denverpilot
twitter.com/denverpilot