DOJ is really going at it lately.
I can’t wait to hear about the outcome of this litigation in 20-25 years.
Right?
Going after Google AND Visa?!
Even if it’s all theatrics, the Justice department hasn’t really showed up to work in recent memory and this is a refreshing change from the void abyss DOJ usually haunts
This stuff takes a while to get going.
The FTC sued to stop Microsoft from acquiring Activision in December 2022, but lost.
DOJ sued Google in January 2023, and won their trial last month.
The FTC and DOJ started rulemaking on new merger disclosure and review requirements in June 2023.
The FTC sued Amazon in September 2023.
DOJ sued Ticketmaster/Live Nation in May 2024.
The last two years have shown aggressive antitrust enforcement for the first time in about 50 years, when Robert Bork basically convinced the Supreme Court and all Republicans to impose almost impossible standards for antitrust regulations.
According to Cory Doctorow, Rupert Murdoch owned newspapers have made over 100 editorials attempting to smear Lina Khan at the FTC. A cursory google search seems to corroborate this assertion.
I’m inclined to agree that there’s nothing ‘election year’ about these cases, and that real work is being done to claw back some measure of control from these monopolies.
Visa should be nationalized. Let the government run the payment processing if we are only going to have only one.
Check out FedNow. Basically a domestic government run payment system. Still pretty new and growing.
Christ…this needed to be major news a year ago. We really need to get banks out of the payment business but fear that they are pulling an Intuit and will make the FedNow system more challenging to use down the road.
FedNow still relies on banks. The only way we can truly get the commerical banks and financial institutions out of the picture is with cryptocurrency (lol) or a CBDC (central bank digital currency). In short, a CBDC would operate like a Government-run Cash App or PayPal and the balance in a CBDC wallet holds the same status as paper money and is legal tender.
I believe that CBDCs are entirely necessary for a digital future. For the everyday citizen, the only form of “cash”, as in “Government-issued legal money”, is paper banknotes and pieces of coinage. This is wholly insufficient for a system where an increasing amount of business is conducted digitally, and all it does is invite middlemen like Visa to insert themselves like a leech and take profit off every transaction. Banks and financial institutions already have digital cash; account balances at the Federal Reserve are as good as cash to banks as far as the law is concerned, but the everyday layman can’t just go into the Federal Reserve and ask to open an account.
This is exactly that CBDCs will solve. Anyone can hold real money (not just a promise to pay money) in a digital format and exchange it peer-to-peer or use it to conduct business free of fees and middlemen.
The only problem is that conservatives in America think that they can’t trust the Government, so it’s better to trust for-profit financial institutions instead. After all, the banks have never fucked it up before, right?
I’d love to see the federal reserve issue a no fee stablecoin, though I wonder if it would be secure in the long term with quantum coming.
Why would the government put time into making fake money when they can just make more real money?
Because electronic payments that do not require a middleman are inherently better than funneling everything through centralized organizations like Visa. They could make their own dollar based blockchain that has secure and private transactions based on their own stablecoin. It would be the same as a cash payment.
I have the most incredible news for you about this crazy new thing called… cash.
More seriously, there’s no reason government bodies shouldn’t just create a central digital transaction system with real money, instead of pouring resources into the stupidity of a blockchain system. Save everyone a lot of trouble and wasted compute cycles and just make the source of trust in the system the fact that it’s administrated by a trusted central authority running a database, instead of the various shell game wank of blockchain systems.
The whole reason the shell game wank is an attractive prospect in the first place is a question of who watches the watchmen. If your trusted central authority gets compromised, will you know? And if you know, will you be able to do anything about it?
I don’t exactly think that cryptocoin is the best solution in this regard, but I can at least respect the attitude behind how it came to be.
The DOJ isn’t going after this, but VISA is also the source of all these fucking porn bans on like Tumblr and shit because if you want to be able to use their payment processing, you also have to follow their fucking puritan ass values.
Honestly, if this kicks that secondary issue in its ass, that’s amazing.
Not exactly puritan to expect that if you’re serving porn you’ve done at least the base line vetting to make sure it’s not child porn or non-consensual.
Then what about the fact they also ban payments for legalized weed? Nothing CP or non-consensual there.
These network transactions cost between 2 to 4 % for merchants, which is a cost passed to consumers by businesses raising prices. That’s a fairly large “inflation”, and certainly it seems out of line with the effort they out into it. It’s anticompetitive practices that keep it in place.
Fwiw debit card transaction are capped around 21 cents per transaction depending on the size of the bank holding the account. You’re right for credit cards though. Also, imho, I’ve never seen merchants pass along these debit card savings to the consumer. With they would though.
This also became trend for locally owned restaurants around me recently. From pizza shops to fine dining.
I’ve never heard of that cap! Any references.
Also, imho, I’ve never seen merchants pass along these debit card savings to the consumer. With they would though.
Gas stations do! But not really passing the savings, just flipping it by penalizing credit cards.
They can easily say, “Actually it’s 0.10 off by using a debit” as opposed to “it’s 0.10 more for using credit”.
From the federal reserve directly : https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/boardmeetings/frn-reg-ii-20231025.pdf Also, I guess what I meant is, the cap used to be 45 cents, and when it was reduced to 21 cents, there wasn’t some massive reduction in prices of products for consumers. Merchants just pocket that difference.
Whether they directly pass the costs or indirectly, these are still costs made by the seller. In other words either the costs are passed on by the credit card customers or simply all customers. Somebody has to pay for the costs and in the end the seller has to make some profit to survive.
Yeah, you can think of it as a simple transaction fee for debit transactions, and a full blown credit and risk shifting system for credit transactions. The banks charge high fees for credit transactions because they’re actually lending money and bearing some credit risk for them, whereas the debit transactions are just moving money from one account to another.
Banks charge higher fees for credit transactions to fuel the loyalty programs (flyer miles, cash back, etc) on those cards. This is why you no longer get any loyalty benefits on debit cards but you still do on credit. The fees don’t cover the risk on credit cards , the interest does.
