MasterCard refused to process donations: http://observer.com/2010/12/card-declined-visa-mastercard-re...
Whether you agree with Julian Assange or not, the fact that democratically elected leaders in a democratic country tried to force a democratic society to _NOT_ support a cause by telling MasterCard "don't process these donations" was an incredibly chilling event.
The rule of law goes both ways.
He wants that .5% to 1.5% to go to him instead!
http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/whatwedo/interchange... http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/whatwedo/interchange... http://www.mastercard.us/merchants/support/interchange-rates... http://www.osc.nc.gov/secp/schedulec-visaandmastercardiqda.p...
The rules are very complicated and arbitrary. To give you an example: cashback interchange in Poland is negative (acquirer get money from the issuer), intradomain interchange is positive (issuer gets money from the acquirer) and interdomain interchange is zero.
There is no way explain interchange without using the words yacht, golf course, hookers and cocaine.
(The downside is obvious. The dynamics of the interplay are interesting. I wonder if there are any good studies.)
I'm out of touch with that any more, but 1.75% used to be a very good interchange rate maybe 10 years ago.
With cash you always have the overview of how much you carry around in your wallet. Cash is also a proven anonymous payment method. ATM are available everywhere and usually free (no service fee).
On the other hand online payment (ebanking, paypal) is popular too (for online shopping).
All payment methods (incl cash) come with some hidden fees and/or operating costs. And all have advantages and disadvantages.
Let's hope that cash will survive for a long time to come.
Also, when you spend, something is removed from your wallet.
One of the complications is that the only card some stores accept is Dankort, a Danish debit card system with low merchant fees (especially true of some small bars, coffee kiosks, etc.). So if they stop accepting cash, those places will effectively become limited to Danish residents. Today even if most customers pay with Dankort, a foreigner can always pay in cash.
It's a fascist (I.e. corporate state) control freak's dream.
The Japanese have been smart enough to stick with cash in their decades of deflation. As it looks increasingly like a number of Western economies may 'turn Japanese', I hope those nations will follow Japan and stick with cash.
... and 1.5% of GDP (almost certainly overstated by an order of magnitude) is a low price to pay to prevent a demonstrably criminal and corrupt banking cartel from controlling all transactions.
The USA, as a society, made a huge mistake in letting private interests make electronic money. The oligopoly issue is huge, as is the cost per transaction, and the security issues of such a patched together Rube Goldberg system.
That does not follow. In my country, our main payment system is handled by private banks and it's also cheaper than MasterCard/Visa (only 0.9%, with a maximum of 1.5€).
And for those of you that cherish privacy, imagine the tracking possibilities in a society where commercial transactions no longer can be pursued anonymously.
This is troublesome for two reasons.
The first is political; both companies are American. This gives the American government way too much control over such critical infrastructure. Even if they do not overtly mess with the system, they most certainly are passing all this information on to their intelligence agencies. Even a single worthy competitor from somewhere else would be a huge improvement.
The second is that it stifles innovation. Because of the lack of a well-established competition, the only innovation these companies are interested in is new products that make use of their existing infrastructure. Contactless payments on mobile phones could have been reality five years ago, but MC and Visa have to jump through several hoops and require special SIMs to have it all run over the infrastructure they sell instead of the internet. And the banks are happy to wait instead of innovating themselves.
I'm all for killing cash by digital means. But not if these two companies are doing it.
Note that I do support cryptocurrency efforts, use them, and follow the news with interest. But cryptocurrencies are not even close to mainstream enough to have this duopoly worried.
You can remove those proprietary protocols, replace them Bitcoin. Your card in such situation is replaced with multi-signature Bitcoin wallet and have most advantages of current system without it's greatest problems.
What stays? Third party (ex-bank) is still capable of providing you mechanisms that are there to protect your money in case of theft of your wallet. What goes away? Third party (bank) no longer has control over your money. They can't steal it or freeze it. They can't prevent you from using it.
Added value? Since you no longer need Visa INC and you can freely switch between financial services providers (ex-banks) your costs go down.
On the other hand, if this was meant as click-bait, then go right ahead and not change the name. I'll just regret my click, and hopefully this comment will serve as a warning to other unsuspecting, curious individuals.
Edit: I see that the title has been changed. Thank you very much, mods!
To me the interesting portion of the article was the "Yes, if" instead of giving the answer of 'No.'
The tab in the browser says "Why Killing Cash is the Key to Mastercard's Competitive Strategy" but the title on the page is "MasterCard’s Ajay Banga: Why ‘Yes, If’ Is More Powerful Than Saying No." I typically don't pay attention to the title in the tabs.
Anyway, I found the comments on the article interesting even when the discussion went where I didn't expect.
Yeah, if you're of the mindset that everything that anybody purchases should be tracked and scrutinized.
He's making the bet that as he grows the market, MC will be able to make the new parts profitable somehow, and that the thing holding him back is his dealmakers being too conservative.
Put another way, he's hit top safe speed, and he's just flipped up the molly-guard on the "untested go-faster button."
I thought this was meant to be about 'killing money', not Bangladesh's apparent lack of gender equality or the MasterCard boss's rather blunt views on the subject.
The article is all over the place. And -
"What really helps them realize they can make a difference is [the ability to make] a decision — and that not making a decision is a criminal offense."
If I were an employee of MasterCard, I would feel very patronized and angry in the face of a policy that disregards our opinions - even if it's obviously just a marketing farce for the stockholders.
For once, I'm glad I use Visa.
is an odd statement. Cash goes back to at least the 30 pieces of silver in the Bible, it's not much of a secret and I wonder who the "vested interests" are. Perhaps the several billion people who use it daily? And "allowed to play a role" is odd as it's the standard system everywhere. Maybe Banga dreams of a world where Visa and Mastercard have the power to ban cash but perhaps still graciously allow it to play a role. I hope that does not happen.
s/credit card/crypto currency/g
