Can the Visa-Mastercard Duopoly Be Broken? (economist.com) 160
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Economist: America is home to the heftiest interchange fees of any major economy -- costs are an order of magnitude greater than in Europe and China. That largely benefits two firms: Visa and Mastercard, which facilitate more than three-quarters of the country's credit-card transactions. Doing so has made them two of the most profitable companies in the world, with net margins last year of 51% and 46% respectively. Rank every firm (excluding real-estate-investment trusts) in the s&p 500 index by their average net-profit margins last year, five years ago and a decade ago, and only four appear in the top 20 every time. Two are financial-information firms, Intercontinental Exchange and the cme Group. The others are Mastercard and Visa. At first glance their position appears insurmountable. Already dominant, in recent years the firms have been boosted by a covid-induced rise in online shopping. American consumers used credit or debit cards for 45% of their transactions in 2016; by 2021, that had reached 57%. The migration from cash is "a significant and long-running tailwind," says Craig Vosburg of Mastercard. Yet two threats loom. The first comes from Washington, where legislators hope to smash the duo's grip on payments. The second is virtual. Payments have been transformed in Brazil, China and Indonesia by cheap, convenient app-based options from tech giants like Mercado Pago, Ant Group, Tencent and Grab. After a long wait, new entrants now look like they could shake up America's market.
[...] On July 28th Richard Durbin, the same Democratic senator who regulated debit interchange a decade ago, introduced the Credit Card Competition Act (ccc). It does not propose a cap on interchange, as the debit rule does, since costs for credit cards are more variable than for debit cards, making it harder to find the right level. Instead, the ccc would attempt to spur competition by breaking the links between card networks and banks. At present, when a bank issues a credit card every transaction on it is processed by the card network the bank stipulates, meaning the bank is guaranteed the interchange fee the network sets. If the ccc becomes law it will force banks to offer merchants the choice of at least two different card networks. Crucially, these choices could not be the two biggest -- at least one smaller network would have to be offered. They could compete for business by offering lower interchange rates, and merchants would presumably jump at the offer.
Two factors help the bill's chances. It is sponsored by Mr Durbin, the second-most senior Democrat in the Senate, and it is bipartisan, co-sponsored by Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas. The ccc's best chance is probably as an amendment to another bigger piece of legislation, which is how debit-card regulation passed in 2010. Even if the effort fails, or fails to work as intended, a potentially bigger threat to the giants looms. So far new entrants to the payments market have benefited Visa and Mastercard, by making it easier for consumers to use their cards online. But as the new fintechs have gained clout, their decisions about the sorts of payments they offer could influence how much money travels along the card networks. Stripe, a large payments-infrastructure firm, says it is working to provide merchants with payment methods that will lower their costs. Current options include a box for customers to enter card details, but also Klarna, a "buy-now-pay-later" provider through which customers can pay for purchases using bank transfers, thus avoiding the card networks. It could soon include things like FedNow, a real-time bank-transfer system being built by the Fed, which is due to be launched next year. In time, it could even include central-bank digital currencies or cryptocurrencies.
Competitors might make little headway if the perks for sticking with credit cards are sufficiently juicy. But merchants can offer their own incentives. When your correspondent recently went to purchase a pair of linen trousers from Everlane, an online retailer, she was encouraged to pay using Catch, a fintech app. The app linked to her bank account via another payment startup called Plaid. As a thank you for avoiding the card networks, Everlane offered a shop credit worth 5% of the transaction value. Catch has signed up a handful of fashionable, millennial brands including Pacsun, another clothing retailer, and Farmacy, a skincare firm. For evidence that this poses a threat, look no further than Visa's attempted purchase of Plaid. In 2020 the firm tried to buy the upstart for $5.3bn, only for the deal to be scuppered by antitrust regulators on the grounds that the transaction would have allowed Visa to eliminate a competitive threat. Ultimately, Visa gave up, but the attempt was nonetheless telling. The house of cards carefully constructed by the two payment giants is formidable and long-standing. But it is not indestructible.
[...] On July 28th Richard Durbin, the same Democratic senator who regulated debit interchange a decade ago, introduced the Credit Card Competition Act (ccc). It does not propose a cap on interchange, as the debit rule does, since costs for credit cards are more variable than for debit cards, making it harder to find the right level. Instead, the ccc would attempt to spur competition by breaking the links between card networks and banks. At present, when a bank issues a credit card every transaction on it is processed by the card network the bank stipulates, meaning the bank is guaranteed the interchange fee the network sets. If the ccc becomes law it will force banks to offer merchants the choice of at least two different card networks. Crucially, these choices could not be the two biggest -- at least one smaller network would have to be offered. They could compete for business by offering lower interchange rates, and merchants would presumably jump at the offer.
Two factors help the bill's chances. It is sponsored by Mr Durbin, the second-most senior Democrat in the Senate, and it is bipartisan, co-sponsored by Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas. The ccc's best chance is probably as an amendment to another bigger piece of legislation, which is how debit-card regulation passed in 2010. Even if the effort fails, or fails to work as intended, a potentially bigger threat to the giants looms. So far new entrants to the payments market have benefited Visa and Mastercard, by making it easier for consumers to use their cards online. But as the new fintechs have gained clout, their decisions about the sorts of payments they offer could influence how much money travels along the card networks. Stripe, a large payments-infrastructure firm, says it is working to provide merchants with payment methods that will lower their costs. Current options include a box for customers to enter card details, but also Klarna, a "buy-now-pay-later" provider through which customers can pay for purchases using bank transfers, thus avoiding the card networks. It could soon include things like FedNow, a real-time bank-transfer system being built by the Fed, which is due to be launched next year. In time, it could even include central-bank digital currencies or cryptocurrencies.
Competitors might make little headway if the perks for sticking with credit cards are sufficiently juicy. But merchants can offer their own incentives. When your correspondent recently went to purchase a pair of linen trousers from Everlane, an online retailer, she was encouraged to pay using Catch, a fintech app. The app linked to her bank account via another payment startup called Plaid. As a thank you for avoiding the card networks, Everlane offered a shop credit worth 5% of the transaction value. Catch has signed up a handful of fashionable, millennial brands including Pacsun, another clothing retailer, and Farmacy, a skincare firm. For evidence that this poses a threat, look no further than Visa's attempted purchase of Plaid. In 2020 the firm tried to buy the upstart for $5.3bn, only for the deal to be scuppered by antitrust regulators on the grounds that the transaction would have allowed Visa to eliminate a competitive threat. Ultimately, Visa gave up, but the attempt was nonetheless telling. The house of cards carefully constructed by the two payment giants is formidable and long-standing. But it is not indestructible.
America is the Land of Duopolies (Score:2)
- Coke and Pepsi
- McDonald's and Burger King
- Miller Lite and Bud Light
- "Team Red" and "Team Blue"
Re: (Score:2)
- Chocolate and Vanilla
- Peanut Butter and Jelly
- Science and Religion
- California and Texas
- Microsoft and Apple
Re: (Score:2)
For the humor impared:
"Team Red" = "Republican"
"Team Blue" = "Democrat"
Re: (Score:3)
Green follow Green leader, Purple follow purple leader.
Let the fight begin. It only takes one cycle.
Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"This is Slashdot, it's "vi and emacs" that I'm amazed is missing."
What about Kang & Kodos?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because there's also Kor.
Re: (Score:3)
Emacs still needs a text editor. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't had any one of those things in years! (But yes, your point is well taken.)
Re:America is the Land of Duopolies (Score:4, Funny)
"Team Red" and "Team Blue"
Is it me or is the idea of thinking of Congress playing a game of Team Fortress 2 hilarious?
Re:America is the Land of Duopolies (Score:5, Funny)
And we have both kinds of music, we have Country AND Western.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... Not a bad FP, and it provoked some similar lists, but no one responded with an explanation. I blame the MBAs with their advice to stay in a market only if your company is in one of the top two slots, and otherwise the company should exit. My own take is that there should be more choices than that, but I have this persistent fixation on freedom.
However I think some of the other lists were more about limited attention spans or first-choice points.
WTF -- all these paywalled articles lately (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
https://archive.ph/5HJal [archive.ph]
Re: (Score:3)
He is still right. That's the job of an editor to replace crap links with good ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot "editors", please stop linking to articles that are paywalled.
It's actually a clever test - one that you just failed. A True Slashdotter never reads the articles.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was it modded as Funny? Seems to be a sad truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh....
Yes paywalled articles have been a constant feature on Slashdot since forever but also yes they likely discourage users and don't help retention. Given Slashdot's waning user count you'd think they'd make some incredibly low effort changes like linking to articles most of us can actually read to make things a bit easier on the user side.
They could also stand to make it easier to track responses to ones own posts. If you don't want your email inbox spammed with Slashdot notifications there really isn
Over Ten Million! (Score:2)
"Waning user count? What are you talking about? The UID count only goes up, and it's over ten million now!"
Yes, sure, the number of actual people with useful contributions is going down and slasdot is doing an MTV, has been for the last... when was it last bought? Got predicted at every take-over, this time it turned out to be true.
The thing about an aggregator is that it brings to attention news you'd otherwise miss and allows you to cast your net wider, so to speak, while expending less effort. Slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, in reading your post I missed the quotes around your first statement on my initial read. "What the hell is this lunatic talking about." was my first thought.
It really is a shame that a lot of Slashdot's problems stem from negligence and a lack of proper investment. Of course they cant make everyone happy but this site has had quite a few regularly complained about issues for years now.
Ignore your user base long enough and they leave I guess...
Regulation (Score:4, Insightful)
What we need is regulations. We need to:
1. cap the maximum fee that can be charged to merchants (0.5% would seem fair, but even 1% would be a good start)
2. Forbid clauses in contracts between Visa/Mastercard and ther merchants preventing the merchants from adding a surcharge when paying with a credit card to cover the fees.
The result would be a net win for the public.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Forbid clauses in contracts between Visa/Mastercard and ther merchants preventing the merchants from adding a surcharge when paying with a credit card to cover the fees.
The result would be a net win for the public.
Vendors can (and often do) offer discounts for cash. It's legal, and Visa/MC can do nothing about it.
Re:Regulation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Curious in Europe, with these caps, do cards still offer rewards? I think my visa gives 1% cash back on all retail and 3% on travel. How can a CC pay out as a reward more than it charges?
Yes they do. Obviously things vary around Europe but my card gives 1% cash back up to a certain amount.Obviously it's not much.
Keep in mind they're still making a ton of money on interest, so I don't think that's a big issue for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"A card, eh? If you buy it with cash, you can have a 2% discount or this free knickknack!"
The costs are higher because we use credit cards (Score:5, Informative)
Credit cards cost more all around because they're not debiting cash you have (since you probably don't have it for the reasons above), it's a loan. A zero interest loan if you pay it off in 30 days, but still a loan. That means it comes with all the risks and expenses of a loan for everyone involved.
This isn't to say they don't have their uses. Shopping online or even in person for something a little iffy (like having blinds installed where the quality of the work can vary to an insane degree) having it be a loan is nice, since US law means credit cards aren't treated like cash (again, it's a loan) and you can dispute any charges since you're borrowing money for the purchase. I also don't like the idea of my bank account being out on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
mostly because we living paycheck to paycheck
I realize lots of people have that issue, but it's not universally true. My wife and I could pay "cash" for everything, but instead we pay for almost everything with our credit card - however we pay off the balance in full before the due date each month. That lets us collect 1.5% back on those purchases without paying any interest to the credit card company.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two basic categories for credit card customers. The ones like you and your wife, who pay off balance each month. You do not create profit for the card issuers.
The ones that are really creating the profit are the ones that pay monthly minimum and accrue interest forever.
I have three credit cards, and pay them all off each month. One is for my personal expenses, one is for shared family expenses, third is a spare from another bank in case there's ever a problem with their systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in that loans increase demand, which in turn increases prices. But the total cost of the loan you can get with your credit card is less than the total cost of handling physical cash for most transactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's talking about people not using debit cards online, which have a different fee structure.
Incentive enough on its own (Score:5, Insightful)
TFS mentions that "merchants can offer their own incentives". That's nice, but to be honest I would actually pay a bit more and/or give up the perqs offered by Visa and MC just for a chance to give the business to somebody else. It's nice to have a chance to not feed the hand that bites so many people.
Longer term, I'd like our economy to not be driven by the transactional friction that allows banks, and companies like Visa and MC, to benefit so hugely from what is effectively "waste heat". There are huge inefficiencies in the money handling business, and many of its richest beneficiaries do almost nothing productive at all - they are essentially parasites. The world needs fewer parasites.
Look up UPI and RuPay (Score:2)
MasterCard has already gone whining to the US govt over these two systems.
They have both started seeing traction in other countries than India. Just a matter of time before the duopoly will be broken.
Who needs them anyway/ (Score:2)
I had a period in which I used credit cards a lot, but these days, with world wide useable bank debit cards, paypal and other apps and Bicoin/lightning I very rarely feel the need to use a credit card. Perhaps it's because I'm European, but there seems to be plenty of competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I'm being oblivious and have missed new developments in the US for pretty much any physical store it's cash or card and at some more expensive retailers (like say major electronics stores) they'll take bank checks as well and that's about it.
It's been a good bit since I've been over that way, are there really meaningful numbers of retailers that take paypal or bitcoin? It didnt seem that way when I was on that continent last but I think that's getting close to a decade ago now and obviously things ch
Re: (Score:2)
I don't feel the need, but the EU banned online shops from charging a surcharge ... and the credit card offers bennies, so why not?
US is using the law to remove credit cards from their dominant position, the EU is giving them a new space to get a dominant position on a silver platter (in exchange for a lot of revolving door jobs presumably).
Yes, with government (electronic) currency (Score:2)
The government owns the currency system, at least overall. At at a low level, it owns the mechanism of non-electronic currency.
However, for electronic payments, whether, visa, mastercard, PayPal or Apple Pay, the government stays out.
This naturally leads to several competing "Toll" payment systems. 2% here, 3% there.
That is fine, but at least the government should offer some electronic currency as an alternative.
Perhaps skipping credit/debit cards would be appropriate at this point, and going directly go c
What about Diners Club? (Score:2)
Or American Express... or Discover? This has been tried before. (Yes, I know Diners Club was the first). As a small merchant, the fees associated with American Express make it not worth the hassle. Now that merchants can pass on the credit card fees to the customer, there's even less reason to use an AMEX card. But that should tell you something. If a new card wants to make a dent, it needs to a) be accepted everywhere and b) the fee has to be significantly less than their competitors. It's about 3%
Re: (Score:2)
At least to me in the past couple decades since most merchant now use a 3rd party transaction provider most everyone takes AMEX and Discover where it used to be a common joke that sores wouldn't take Discover and AMEX was only accepted at the higher end places so it was "exclusive" (I still ask places if they take AMEX out of habit and it's been years since I had a place say they don't).
I think now it's more a duopoly enforced on the bank side rather than the merchant side. My Costco store credit c
Re: (Score:2)
Or American Express... or Discover?
I was thinking this as well. There are already smaller competitors, but I think there's an important thing that neither the summary nor the comments section addresses: the debit cards issued by banks.
Every bank and credit union I've ever had an account at, or seen a card from in my years of retail, were issued by either Visa or Mastercard. I've never once seen a Capital One Discover card. That's going to give Visa/MC a massive boost in their wallet share.
American Express has always been more of a niche play
high interest rates make big money (Score:5, Informative)
The transaction fees vary depending on the merchant category code (riskier businesses will have higher fees), what benefits come with the card, and how the card is processed. A card that is physically swiped at a store is probably more secure than an online transaction where the merchant doesn't see the actual card.
I looked up some typical charges;
Visa: 1.4-2.5%
Mastercard: 1.5-2.6%
Discover: 1.55-2.5%
American Express: 2.3-3.5%
Yes the processing fees are an indirect tax and a drag on the economy, but the real money comes from interest rates on unpaid credit card bills that keep rolling over month after month. It has a very wide range, from 10% - 36% depending on credit rating, but wow that's a pretty good return on investment.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why we have cryptocurrency (Score:2)
Visa/mastercard meet lightning.
Provide better protection for ACH fraud first (Score:3)
The main reason the scammy fintech apps are useless is there is no way in hell I am giving them bank account details. I don't trust them. I even have bank accounts dedicated to marginally scammy ACH transfers, but it gets hard to manage (to reduce risk) with more than two providers per account, and managing multiple accounts for this is a mess.
If you want competition for Visa and Mastercard, figure out a better way to manage ACH transfer risk. Let consumers treat it like a credit card or something, such that they can approve individual transaction and not be out cash for months while an investigation goes through. Figure out a better replacement for checks while you are at it. Other countries have managed to pull it off, why are we so slow?
defi (Score:2)
Interesting to me that I haven't seen anyone shilling for a bitcoin solution in this thread yet.
Anyway, Is Europe so flush with competition that the "market" is working there or is it just that they regulated it better. I think I know the answer and it should be a kick in the ass for the anti-regulation crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People in Europe use what you'd call debit cards. I don't know ANYONE who uses those 0-interest rate credit cards you use in the US. And we don't have credit reports here. Banks need to KNOW us before they'll give a loan.
At least in Finland, there definitely are credit reports, from two companies even, Bisnode (now part of Dun & Bradstreet) and Asiakastieto (https://www.asiakastieto.fi/web/en/services-for-businesses/positive-credit-information/positive-credit-information-in-consumer-credit-inquiry-syste
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New company is incorporated... (Score:2, Funny)
Almost all industries are a duopoly with outliers (Score:2)
Mastercard and Visa are a duopoly and there are some outliers.
If a third competitor appears, either Visa or Mastercard will remain big and the other will become and outlier.
Lowes/Home Depot ...... the rest like true value and farm and tractor supply
Wal-Mart and Target
Then there is Dick's sporting goods and other outliars like small specialty stores (think running or cycling)
personal debt drives the US economy (Score:2)
Much of the success in credit card processing and transactions for Visa and MC can be traced to the companies making massive profits off consumer debt. Nearly everyone in the US spending beyond their means is what heats up the US economy despite the bad fundamentals throughout nearly every US based industry. Start messing with Visa-MC at your own peril, the system is a house of [credit] cards.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the success in credit card processing and transactions for Visa and MC can be traced to the companies making massive profits off consumer debt. Nearly everyone in the US spending beyond their means is what heats up the US economy despite the bad fundamentals throughout nearly every US based industry. Start messing with Visa-MC at your own peril, the system is a house of [credit] cards.
They are simply rent seekers in a nation of rent seeking.
lots of alternatives (Score:2)
there are tons of alternatives to mastercard / visa duopoly:
Apple Card, Google Pay, Cash App, Venmo, Zelle...
The credit card bonus (Score:2)
There is significant comeback if the vendor fails to deliver what you have paid for. Thus when the airline I was booked on for a trip went out of business, the credit card company gave me a refund. This will also apply with things like an AirBnB catastrophe, though to be fair AirBnB has coughed up when things went bad for me. So it's worth using a credit card rather than a debit card given the choice.
interestingly, (Score:2)
Re:If the market wanted more options (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Market" is not a person, it cannot "want" anything.
Duopolies are almost as bad as monopolies, because then to enter the market you need to fight two battlefronts instead of one and the two competitors may even secretly join forces to fight against you without appearing to do so to the general public.
Re: If the market wanted more options (Score:2)
Lastly, if you want to replace credit cards, you have to replace credit lines, not tie into a bank account.
Re:If the market wanted more options (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people with a brain realized a long time ago that unregulated capitalism is a recipe for disaster, both metaphorical and literal.
Re: If the market wanted more options (Score:2)
It's not unregulated. There is the Sherman Antitrust Act. We just need to get past regulatory capture.
With their combined market shares, Visa and Mastercard should not be allowed to engage in the same sort of market building and protection activities that would be permitted for new entrants to the market.
Re:If the market wanted more options (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people with a brain realized a long time ago that unregulated capitalism is a recipe for disaster, both metaphorical and literal.
Basic theory states that for unregulated capitalism, competition is an unstable condition as each of the player's primary goal is to be the only player. A monopoly is literally an endgame for unregulated capitalism.
The options have been unfairly hidden. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you may be asking who is their competition really when there are only two players? There is a third competitor that they have essentially cheated by hiding these fees, and that third player used to be very popular. Who is it you ask? Cash payers.
Re:The options have been unfairly hidden. (Score:5, Insightful)
Merchant agreements generally prohibit the merchant from offering a discount for cash purchases. So from the consumer's perspective there is no price advantage to paying with cash, although the merchant profits more. In fact cash buyers are at a slight disadvantage because prices are slightly higher across the board to cover transaction fees, but they are not receiving any points or cash back benefits that paying with a card would offer. The main advantage of cash for someone who pays off their CC bill every month is the more intangible benefit of relative anonymity.
Re: (Score:3)
No,
they require a crapton of rules be followed, but allow cash discounts. What the majority do not allow as is common in the UK, is a specific CC upcharge.
Primary focus of the rules is, the advertised price MUST be available to credit cards or cash, and you can mention a cash price in the same size or smaller message.
Re: The options have been unfairly hidden. (Score:2)
Many gas stations offer different cash and credit prices. Neither is an upcharge or a discount. Both signs are the same size.
Granted, that's difficult to do when pricing hundreds (or thousands) of items at a typical store. There, the only feasible approach is to add up the purchase and then apply the multiplier. One might be able to offer a loyalty card program. Where the avoided card fees would be credited to their store account when using cash. And redeemed later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The problem is that card payment fees are hidden and the customer is not given the opportunity to make a fair choice. Fraud protection for your card sure, but one could argue that those cash back rewards are intended to deceive the customer as to the true cost of their service. Cash payers don't get that cash back so they are essentially being made to help pay for your transaction because the merchant just raises the price
Re:The options have been unfairly hidden. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cash payment fees are also hidden from the customer. I have yet to find any retailer which tells me how much of the purchase price goes towards cash handling costs.
For someone who has no actual experience of running a retail business it's easy to imagine that taking cash is free, since it generally is for an individual selling a one off item. But for a retailer this is not the case, there are fees for depositing cash, fees for getting change from the bank, staff time spent counting out change, losses due to counting errors, extra overhead to keep track of cash inventory, money laundering laws to comply with, tax laws to comply with, theft etc etc.
If you're handling a lot of cash, you have to keep your own account of it and there will be scrutiny from various authorities because when dealing with cash it's very easy to do money laundering or commit tax fraud etc. If all your income comes via a card processor the government can track it easily so they're far less likely to bother you.
Card transaction fees are simple and easy to account for, cash handling costs are a lot more complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
And? Virtually all costs are hidden from the customer.
You make the same tired old argument that only if you had deep knowledge of someone else's business and control over everyone that you could make it work better.
Which is extra funny when you then shrug off their attempt to ask if it really is a higher cost by bringing up known things regarding handling cash. Although some of what they said doesn't scale with volume so unless you are talking about going cash-less it doesn't apply (if you have a till some
Re: (Score:2)
An efficient free market requires that costs be *included*, not that they be separately broken out.
Since you are not buying the transaction separately from the exchange of goods or services, the cost of the transaction per se is not relevant. What matters is if there is a choice of transaction methods which changes the price.
Re: (Score:3)
Taking cash is not free for merchants either, but the costs of accepting cash are not as clear cut as the fixed transaction fees charged by card processors.
Like any monopoly it's hard to break, you can offer a better cheaper system but retailers won't deploy your system if there are no customers using it, and end users won't start using your system if no retailers accept it.
Many of the new payment systems that are cropping up are also localised, which makes them useless for those who travel. I've frequently
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you tie a free competitive market to total cost disclosure? I don't think that's a valid determination.
Re:The options have been unfairly hidden. (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you tie a free competitive market to total cost disclosure? I don't think that's a valid determination.
One of the axioms of free-market capitalism is that consumers have perfect, complete information about the products that they purchase. The main reason that free-market capitalism doesn't work the same way that the theory says it should is that axioms like this one are rarely true.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, as the old saying goes, "in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The options have been unfairly hidden. (Score:5, Informative)
In Canada, thanks to a lawsuit, merchants are now allowed to pass on the credit card fees to their customers. [www.cbc.ca]
I cannot see any reason why the US shouldn't pass a law giving merchants the same freedom there. Democrats should like it because it removes power from the credit card duopoly. Republicans should like it because exposing costs to the customer should make the free market more efficient. What's not to like?
Re: (Score:2)
The US had a similar lawsuit. The settlement and rule change came all the way back in 2013. It's not a new law or regulation, just a class action settlement to merchants but it has the same effect. But very few even know anything has changed.
Re: (Score:2)
when all members of the association will stop accepting credit cards
I like where your head is at but in 2022 that one is just unfeasible unfortunately. 90% of customers will not care what is happening behind the scenes, they will hear "cash only" and walk out of the store with nothing becuase they don't hold cash and go someplace that will take cards.
A better plan would be to cooperatively create a competing transaction processing company that operates essentially on a "non-profit" basis, the fees it collects are just to operate the business to benefit the other businesses
Re: (Score:2)
Counterexample: Wildwood, NJ. In this shore town ("Watch the tramcar, please!"), almost all the non-chain businesses are cash-only. The first time I went there, and it is a great town, I couldn't help but wonder if the place wasn't just a giant money-laundering machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, when I was a kid we vacationed in Wildwood a bunch of times. Now that you mention it it could be a laundering operation but really it's also just a nice Jersey shor tourist trap, at least 30 years ago the last time I was there.
I don't think a beach town with boardwalk shops selling taffy and arcade tokens is exactly a fair comparison for the greater consumer economy though, they likely operate on tight tiht margins and people on vacation are more willing to take out some cash to have fun in the settin
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, restaurants, too. The first thing I noticed is that almost all the restaurants are cash-only, since I don't usually carry enough cash to pay for a meal for a family of four. These places all have ATMs inside with typical fees, but it's common for them to have relatively low withdrawal limits, to keep the overall fee percentage at around 1%. I haven't been to any other town down the shore that does this, but there may be others.
You are correct about a seasonal shore town not being a perfect analog for
Wildwood, NJ (Score:2)
Is that where the Wildwood weed is from?
Re: (Score:2)
The artist is from Florida, and there's a Wildwood, FL. But then, there's no shortage of 'em. Not that it's likely in any way relevant except the coincidence, but I live in Rio Dell, CA, which is in Humboldt, where weed often comes from. and it used to be called Wildwood, and the main street through town still is. This town was where most of the drinking and whoring of the lumbermen occurred back in the day...
Re:If the market wanted more options (Score:5, Insightful)
"if god wanted people not to die from cancer, he wouldn't have invented cancer!"
"things are the way they are because that's the natural order of the market!"
i mean you have to be weapons level stupid to mentally engage with "the market" as it exists in a pure ideological textbook form:
a) no market even approaches full transparency
b) no market is free of non-market mechanic influences (your "the market" was not fully free in arriving to its current state)
c) all markets grapple with limited physical, informational, and temporal resources that grant advantages and disadvantages to participants differently
in light of this, markets can achieve states - for a number of reasons - in which they cease to perform their intended function: to improve quality of life and societies rather than to make it worse - and in so far as humans set up and govern markets for this purpose, it shouldn't break your brain that intervention is a mechanic no different than any of the other million ways markets in practice are different than markets in pure ideology
if you can ever recognize that nothing even close to a free market has ever existed, you'll recognize how dumb it is to wring your hands over this
Re:If the market wanted more options (Score:5, Insightful)
d) Homo Economicus is a myth: people do, in fact, behave irrationally in the real world, even when presented with relatively complete information
Re: (Score:2)
yes, another excellent point
Re: (Score:2)
"The market" has failed when it comes to creating competition.
What you have here is a vicious cycle. I don't want a credit card that no store takes and no store will take a credit card nobody has.
Re: If the market wanted more options (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, the person who decides Visa or Mastercard is not the person who has to pay the fees.
You choose your bank, based on competitive things like fees, benefits and so on.
Your bank chooses Visa or Mastercard. Other than an approx 0.1% difference in exchange rates if you make foreign currency transactions (Mastercard is cheaper if your card currency is GBP), that choice makes no difference to you.
It is the retailer that has to pay the fees, and they need to accept both, or they are shutting off a larg
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think payment cards tend towards monopoly naturally. Cardholders want a card accepted everywhere. Merchants want to take cards that people have.
Would you rather have a Visa card, that works almost everywhere, or half a dozen obscure cards that each work in about 20% of businesses (and probably a Visa as well, for when they don't take any of them)?
Similarly, a business that refuses Mastercard will lose a lot of custom when customers don't have another card. One that refuses a more obscure card wi
Re: (Score:2)
...And I have to sign up for a scammy fintech account. No thanks.
And I have to use my phone for financial transactions. No thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
All the points systems. All the shop credits. All the air miles. All the credit card 'savings'. All that money needs to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is you. You don't pay less, you pay the same or more, it's just hidden and spread out.
Re:HAHAHAHA -- exactly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever have a kid, that's what I'll name them, so whenever I think of American Express, I'll instantly remember "don't leave home without it."
...that was Visa's tagline, before they changed it to "it's everywhere you want to be".
Re: (Score:2)