>> ^marbles:

>> ^cosmovitelli:
@marbles
For me you miss the point.
On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.

allowed to exist? facepalm
You're missing the point. Assange is a government pied piper.
You even claim now "The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant". Then that means this whole ruse is irrelevant.


The bottom line is rogue elements inside the US Government are commanding private companies to interfere with the expression of constitutionally protected rights in order to destroy an organization that is proving politically awkward for them. What you think of Assange or WL is not the issue: unilateral extrajudicial besieging of lawful political groups is, well, roughly Germany at the start of the 30's.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

@marbles
For me you miss the point.
On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.


allowed to exist? *facepalm*

You're missing the point. Assange is a government pied piper.

You even claim now "The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant". Then that means this whole ruse is irrelevant.

Is it even legal for these companies to capriciously refuse to honor payments for purely political reasons? What if Visa decided to stop people from donating to the Democratic party?

@marbles
For me you miss the point.

On a fundamental level allowing mastercard and visa and paypal to decide which organisations are allowed to exist is so INSANELY DANGEROUS that it makes most of the arguing about the constitution for the last couple of centuries redundant. If this stands, it's all over.

Durbin cites a Federal Reserve study which estimated the actual cost of the transactions. I'll trust that and not your uncited assertion.

And as Durbin says, the entire reason this is necessary is because of the Mastercard/Visa duopoly. If it were a free market, you're right -- it would be stupid for the government to step in and regulate this.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

As with all things, go where you are happy. But realize that this colossal moron (Durbin) is the reason why BoA (and eventually everyone else) is charging you 5 bucks a month for a debit card. It was his rider that put a cap on the fee BoA could charge to vendors.
That $5 a month you're so mad about? Yeah - you've been paying it all your life. Banks have always charged vendors for credit transactions. And they don't cost 'pennies'. Such a statement demonstrates astounding ignorance about finances. It costs major cash to handle all the transactions that happen on a daily basis. The more convenient it became, the more EXPENSIVE it became. Yeesh.
So when Dummy Durbin puts his STUPID rider in the FRA, it capped what banks could charge vendors. Banks got to make up that cost. That means the money you USED to pay in slightly higher costs at the vendor is now directly going from you to the bank instead of through the middleman.
Will there be a decrease of costs at the vendor level to match it? Who knows? But you lunkheads whining about having to pay the bank fee for what you were used to getting for free have only one logical target. Dummy Dick Durbin and his party stupid Democrats. Getting mad at the bank is literal hubris.

That is the case in Sweden - stores usually have a minimum SEK100 charge - which is about USD15. I think VISA charge USD0.70>> ^Trancecoach:

why wouldn't the retailer implement a minimum $5 to swipe?

You have been brainwashed by their system. It is NOT a privilege to use their card, it is a requirement.

The banks have made it so that the card has replaced tangent legal tender. Many businesses don't even accept cash anymore. they have made us reliant on the bank to do everything. we can't even pay our bills any more without the bank. All local services have closed their doors to bill payments, we have been forced to pay through the banks. And you can't even access your account anymore, even at the teller, without your card.

The "Card" is not a privilege, it has been instituted into everything we do. Online shopping is part of that. Even my fourteen-your-old daughter has been forced to use a visa-debit card by the bank to force her into online shopping. Many products and services can now 'only' be bought using these online-debit cards. Things like video rentals, Theater and concert tickets and more. Many stores don't bring in their full selection anymore because they make it available on-line instead.

Trust me, get rid of your credit an debit card and you'll see how crippled you are without them.
I repeat, NOT a privilege,a REQUIREMENT.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


Banks will charge consumers directly for transaction fees now - or (as BoA is doing) they will charge a yearly fee for the priveledge of a debit card.

As an Australian I just happened to be working in San Francisco at the time, so got up to go to work, and found my housemate watching the news with the first tower already on fire, then saw the second one hit and knew it wasn't just an accident.

Over the coming days while the airports were shut and tvs played news of it all while we were at work it was bizarre in the extreme for me to see the banners being rolled out over the highways by people being ultra patriotic and gung ho. Very strange for me as an Aussie, as it's not really how we handle such things. That and we didn't know whether the airports were going to open in time for us to return to Australia to prepare to come back to the US to work permanently (proper visas and what not).

Then there was the continued histeria about terrorist attacks via anthrax etc. Such that we did return to Australia, and then went back to America to start working, only to have an Anthrax scare in our very building (Photo of hazmat vehicle in the carpark) on the first day back.

Strange days.

I would've upvoted this video except for the retarded title. This has nothing to do with any form of Libertarianism, American or otherwise.

Libertarianism didn't issue visas. It certainly didn't create corporations. And it doesn't like fucking chocolate!

@quantumushroom C'mon, the visa program itself is the least of it.

After reading this NY Times article, it doesn't sound as bad as they're making it out to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/18immig.html?pagewanted=all

"eight-hour shift that began at 11 p.m"
"paid $8.35 an hour"
"[charged] $400 a month for rent"

One of the students is from Nigeria ($2300 per capita GDP), going to med school in Ukraine (3900 per capita GDP).

The only part that's wrong here is the J-1 visa and the government rules surrounding it. Visa fees on the order of $3000-6000 is just ridiculous, especially for a "cultural exchange" visa.

There may have been a bait and switch here, but this is certainly not a case of capitalistic exploitation by the Corporation. Bureaucratic exploitation by the government perhaps.

Also, I'm curious. Do you have an objective measure for what group is a drain, or is that just some unjustified xenophobia? Have you measured the GDP of Taiwanese (and other groups) in america somehow? Cause I don't know how < 1% of the population outproduce the large groups you consider "drains".
Methinks you're talking out of your ass on this one. >> ^chilaxe:
Right, their motivation is personal benefit, but the difference comes from that their "selfish" useful productivity contributes to society more than they take (the definition of prosociality), as opposed to being a drain on the economy like other sub-cultures.
>> ^longde:
Immigrants who overstay visas don't do it out a sense of altruism, to help our country. They do it to benefit illegally from the bounty of our society. In that sense, they are very much like welfare cheats.
>> ^chilaxe:
@legacy0100 "All other ethnic groups would have their own ways to solve their problems with the US government... From my Taiwanese roommate, I learned that you can manage to stay in the US past your visa renewal limit..."
Sounds like something of a false symmetry. People from Taiwanese culture who overstay in the US so they can contribute to society doesn't seem on par with other cultures freeloading off of welfare or various methods of fraud to avoid payments into government revenue.

Says you. I know Taiwanese immigrants, some of whom went to grad school with me and are very productive. I know others who are here illegally, making money by breaking the law. Same thing in Taiwan itself; there are hardworkers, shady folks, and yes lazy louts. Taiwanese/Taiwanese American culture is not inherently hardworking and meritocratic.

It's not the group its the individual; I thought you of all people might understand that.

Same thing with every low economic group in America. I know members of these groups who are hardworking, and others who are shady and lazy. No ethnic culture is inherently one way or another.

>> ^chilaxe:
Right, their motivation is personal benefit, but the difference comes from that their "selfish" useful productivity contributes to society more than they take (the definition of prosociality), as opposed to being a drain on the economy like other sub-cultures.
>> ^longde:
Immigrants who overstay visas don't do it out a sense of altruism, to help our country. They do it to benefit illegally from the bounty of our society. In that sense, they are very much like welfare cheats.
>> ^chilaxe:
@legacy0100 "All other ethnic groups would have their own ways to solve their problems with the US government... From my Taiwanese roommate, I learned that you can manage to stay in the US past your visa renewal limit..."
Sounds like something of a false symmetry. People from Taiwanese culture who overstay in the US so they can contribute to society doesn't seem on par with other cultures freeloading off of welfare or various methods of fraud to avoid payments into government revenue.

Right, their motivation is personal benefit, but the difference comes from that their "selfish" useful productivity contributes to society more than they take (the definition of prosociality), as opposed to being a drain on the economy like other sub-cultures.
>> ^longde:

Immigrants who overstay visas don't do it out a sense of altruism, to help our country. They do it to benefit illegally from the bounty of our society. In that sense, they are very much like welfare cheats.
>> ^chilaxe:
@legacy0100 "All other ethnic groups would have their own ways to solve their problems with the US government... From my Taiwanese roommate, I learned that you can manage to stay in the US past your visa renewal limit..."
Sounds like something of a false symmetry. People from Taiwanese culture who overstay in the US so they can contribute to society doesn't seem on par with other cultures freeloading off of welfare or various methods of fraud to avoid payments into government revenue.

Immigrants who overstay visas don't do it out a sense of altruism, to help our country. They do it to benefit illegally from the bounty of our society. In that sense, they are very much like welfare cheats.

>> ^chilaxe:
@legacy0100 "All other ethnic groups would have their own ways to solve their problems with the US government... From my Taiwanese roommate, I learned that you can manage to stay in the US past your visa renewal limit..."
Sounds like something of a false symmetry. People from Taiwanese culture who overstay in the US so they can contribute to society doesn't seem on par with other cultures freeloading off of welfare or various methods of fraud to avoid payments into government revenue.