Mobile Payments
-
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
The paranoid person in me is screaming no because I'd be storing my card information onto a device that I only half way trust.
The bank already stores all of that.
Yes they do, because they are the ones that issued the card to me.
Unless this is audited by a 3rd party and is shown as secure, I wouldn't know if I could trust it or not. We're talking a lot about convenience here and some about security/privacy.
No, we are specifically talking about security. Mobile payments from someone like Apple who does way more security and is way more well known for security and has way more security reputation on the line is the key selling point.
But what would protect me from Apple/Google in this case?
The law, business logic, the technology. You can't serously be worried about the people most likely to protect you. If you are worried about them, then you are stuck with cash. These are THE people to go to for security. It's beyond irrational to think that there is any risk there. They are not from whom you need protected. You are protected by the market, there is no value to them stealing from you, only value in them protecting you.
Can't plus this enough.
It's really sad that the banks didn't come up with this rock solid technology themselves - I can't see how it wouldn't save them billions on stolen CC charges, etc - but alas they didn't give a crap.. so others, like Apple and Google have stepped.
Banks don't make devices, it wasn't the banks place to do it, really. It's too costly for a bank to do, not worth it to them.
What? The bank could make an app.
Basically what you've just said is, if you don't make a phone (or a device of some type), don't both, not your place. Not sure I agree, but willing to hear more why you think this.
Because part of the trust is in the security mechanisms that the bank does not control.
As soon as I wrote that I knew you were going to go there.
Well it's important... you could have trusted the banks, they acted well. It was the public and the government that colluded to try to cheat people. I never suggested that you could trust the government or voters.
I meant I knew you were going to go for the hardware aspect.
So in that vain you probably don't think PP should be doing mobile payments?
In order to use PP, you have to trust PP, the OS maker, and the hardware making. With Apply Pay, you need trust only Apple.
Apple has way more on the line, and way less risk than PP.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
The paranoid person in me is screaming no because I'd be storing my card information onto a device that I only half way trust.
The bank already stores all of that.
Yes they do, because they are the ones that issued the card to me.
Unless this is audited by a 3rd party and is shown as secure, I wouldn't know if I could trust it or not. We're talking a lot about convenience here and some about security/privacy.
No, we are specifically talking about security. Mobile payments from someone like Apple who does way more security and is way more well known for security and has way more security reputation on the line is the key selling point.
But what would protect me from Apple/Google in this case?
The law, business logic, the technology. You can't serously be worried about the people most likely to protect you. If you are worried about them, then you are stuck with cash. These are THE people to go to for security. It's beyond irrational to think that there is any risk there. They are not from whom you need protected. You are protected by the market, there is no value to them stealing from you, only value in them protecting you.
I see where you are coming from, but does this logic apply to the whole ecosystem of a particular company, such as Google/Apple? Would you gladly install Google Home or a Nest thermostat with that same logic?
I am not making a point here but just wanting to see how far this trust goes.
I totally trust a Google Home device to not solice and steal my banking data, if that is what you just asked.
Not so much in stealing your banking data, but in listening in on your every day lives, waiting for a keyword.
I think that you are using trust in a very weird way here. Much like the discussions where we "trust" a salesman. Most people use "trust their salesman" to mean that they expect him to be unethical and help them out against his values. I mean "trust my salesman" meaning that I trust him to be ethical and uphold his social agreement.
Trust is a very loose term, much like freedom. I trust Google will not lie to me and use their technology to commit really significant crimes against me to steal banking data that they are entrusted to protect. I also trust them to use their data collection technologies as intended to collect as much info on me as they can. So the trust is universal, but you are stating it in a way that makes me think you mean trust in the incorrect "doing things that I randomly want them to do" way.
If I trust something, means that I value a relationship with another entity, whether it is a person or a company, to have a keep my well-being in mind.
You are asking me if I trust Google/Apple to know who I'm talking to (through Android), know who I'm emailing (gmail), what I am watching (chromecast), what I am discussing in my home (Google Home), where I am going on the Internet (Chrome/Android/Google Fiber/Google Wifi), what I am buying (Google Pay), and to know where I am at in any point in time (android/nest) and not create a profile on me? Something that they could use to better target me, or, better yet, provide to the government at any point in time? That's what I mean by trust. How much trust are we giving to these corporations?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
No, you cannot trust the government.
One of the founding premises on why we have the Constitution we have in the USA.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
No, you cannot trust the government.
One of the founding premises on why we have the Constitution we have in the USA.
Sort of, but the constitution also creates a lot of the distrust. Not enough checks and balances.
-
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
The paranoid person in me is screaming no because I'd be storing my card information onto a device that I only half way trust.
The bank already stores all of that.
Yes they do, because they are the ones that issued the card to me.
Unless this is audited by a 3rd party and is shown as secure, I wouldn't know if I could trust it or not. We're talking a lot about convenience here and some about security/privacy.
No, we are specifically talking about security. Mobile payments from someone like Apple who does way more security and is way more well known for security and has way more security reputation on the line is the key selling point.
But what would protect me from Apple/Google in this case?
The law, business logic, the technology. You can't serously be worried about the people most likely to protect you. If you are worried about them, then you are stuck with cash. These are THE people to go to for security. It's beyond irrational to think that there is any risk there. They are not from whom you need protected. You are protected by the market, there is no value to them stealing from you, only value in them protecting you.
I see where you are coming from, but does this logic apply to the whole ecosystem of a particular company, such as Google/Apple? Would you gladly install Google Home or a Nest thermostat with that same logic?
I am not making a point here but just wanting to see how far this trust goes.
I totally trust a Google Home device to not solice and steal my banking data, if that is what you just asked.
Not so much in stealing your banking data, but in listening in on your every day lives, waiting for a keyword.
I think that you are using trust in a very weird way here. Much like the discussions where we "trust" a salesman. Most people use "trust their salesman" to mean that they expect him to be unethical and help them out against his values. I mean "trust my salesman" meaning that I trust him to be ethical and uphold his social agreement.
Trust is a very loose term, much like freedom. I trust Google will not lie to me and use their technology to commit really significant crimes against me to steal banking data that they are entrusted to protect. I also trust them to use their data collection technologies as intended to collect as much info on me as they can. So the trust is universal, but you are stating it in a way that makes me think you mean trust in the incorrect "doing things that I randomly want them to do" way.
If I trust something, means that I value a relationship with another entity, whether it is a person or a company, to have a keep my well-being in mind.
That's not what the word trust implies. This is a misuse of the term.
-
trust
trəst/
noun
noun: trustfirm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.
Nothing that it is about reliability, ability, truth... not "in your specific interest."
Example... you killed someone and you trust the judge to be a good judge. This doesn't mean he will get you off, only that he will be fair.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
Basically you just asked me if I trust that Google, a giant corporation with billions and billions of dollars to lose, will not engage in reckless, insane behaviour to intentionally commit a felony by attempting to steal credit card data and identities? Think that through. Is there any large, well known company that has ever engaged in behaviour like that? You can't get big, have so much to lose, and do things so petty and dangerous.
You can't - do you not remember the banks that were to big to fail? They weren't reckless directly to the consumer, but they were reckless in their investments, etc.
That's false. Your information is from the news and was falsified. Maybe some of the banks were in bad positions, but that's not what that was about at all. That's what was fed to the public to get people to vote to shift resources away from the public sector.
Digressing here, but interested to hear you expand on this. I've been fascinated with the '08 downturn and watched many interviews, documentaries, and otherwise studied this. If it wasn't about banks who had overleveraged themselves with bad mortgages and such, then what do you attribute it to?
-
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
Basically you just asked me if I trust that Google, a giant corporation with billions and billions of dollars to lose, will not engage in reckless, insane behaviour to intentionally commit a felony by attempting to steal credit card data and identities? Think that through. Is there any large, well known company that has ever engaged in behaviour like that? You can't get big, have so much to lose, and do things so petty and dangerous.
You can't - do you not remember the banks that were to big to fail? They weren't reckless directly to the consumer, but they were reckless in their investments, etc.
That's false. Your information is from the news and was falsified. Maybe some of the banks were in bad positions, but that's not what that was about at all. That's what was fed to the public to get people to vote to shift resources away from the public sector.
Digressing here, but interested to hear you expand on this. I've been fascinated with the '08 downturn and watched many interviews, documentaries, and otherwise studied this. If it wasn't about banks who had overleveraged themselves with bad mortgages and such, then what do you attribute it to?
From inside the financial industry, it was really simple. Basically the ultra-rich want more money but will rarely stoop to stealing it, there are ethics, even if you don't agree that they are that ethical. A common tactic is getting the poor to voluntarily give up their money via "democracy." This system works great because it basically involves getting the public to act unethically in an attempt at unscrupulous self interest that, in the end, benefits the rich. The poor feel vindicated for "sticking it to the man", and the rich get richer will feeling innocent because they mearly leveraged the unethical behaviour of the masses - no one made them do it. Everyone "wins." The poor feel righteous, the rich feel smart and rich.
What was done here, was false information that the banks were failing was spread. In almost no cases did the banks do anything wrong, at least not legally wrong, but rumours are often all that it takes. They got the public riled up and got them to pass legislation that would allow the government to step in and nationalize the banks. In any other country, this would have just been seen as an authoritative government in a reckless nationalization scheme. In the US, the ability to cover up government corruption through propaganda is way higher than most, so nearly all people saw it as the people being protected from "big evil companies."
That's what happened... but here is the financial benefit to the rich and why the poor paid the price.....
-
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@nerdydad said in Mobile Payments:
The paranoid person in me is screaming no because I'd be storing my card information onto a device that I only half way trust.
The bank already stores all of that.
Yes they do, because they are the ones that issued the card to me.
Unless this is audited by a 3rd party and is shown as secure, I wouldn't know if I could trust it or not. We're talking a lot about convenience here and some about security/privacy.
No, we are specifically talking about security. Mobile payments from someone like Apple who does way more security and is way more well known for security and has way more security reputation on the line is the key selling point.
But what would protect me from Apple/Google in this case?
The law, business logic, the technology. You can't serously be worried about the people most likely to protect you. If you are worried about them, then you are stuck with cash. These are THE people to go to for security. It's beyond irrational to think that there is any risk there. They are not from whom you need protected. You are protected by the market, there is no value to them stealing from you, only value in them protecting you.
Can't plus this enough.
It's really sad that the banks didn't come up with this rock solid technology themselves - I can't see how it wouldn't save them billions on stolen CC charges, etc - but alas they didn't give a crap.. so others, like Apple and Google have stepped.
Banks don't make devices, it wasn't the banks place to do it, really. It's too costly for a bank to do, not worth it to them.
What? The bank could make an app.
Basically what you've just said is, if you don't make a phone (or a device of some type), don't both, not your place. Not sure I agree, but willing to hear more why you think this.
Because part of the trust is in the security mechanisms that the bank does not control.
As soon as I wrote that I knew you were going to go there.
Well it's important... you could have trusted the banks, they acted well. It was the public and the government that colluded to try to cheat people. I never suggested that you could trust the government or voters.
I meant I knew you were going to go for the hardware aspect.
So in that vain you probably don't think PP should be doing mobile payments?
In order to use PP, you have to trust PP, the OS maker, and the hardware making. With Apply Pay, you need trust only Apple.
Apple has way more on the line, and way less risk than PP.
That's not the case with google with the exception of the Pixel.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
Basically you just asked me if I trust that Google, a giant corporation with billions and billions of dollars to lose, will not engage in reckless, insane behaviour to intentionally commit a felony by attempting to steal credit card data and identities? Think that through. Is there any large, well known company that has ever engaged in behaviour like that? You can't get big, have so much to lose, and do things so petty and dangerous.
You can't - do you not remember the banks that were to big to fail? They weren't reckless directly to the consumer, but they were reckless in their investments, etc.
That's false. Your information is from the news and was falsified. Maybe some of the banks were in bad positions, but that's not what that was about at all. That's what was fed to the public to get people to vote to shift resources away from the public sector.
Digressing here, but interested to hear you expand on this. I've been fascinated with the '08 downturn and watched many interviews, documentaries, and otherwise studied this. If it wasn't about banks who had overleveraged themselves with bad mortgages and such, then what do you attribute it to?
From inside the financial industry, it was really simple. Basically the ultra-rich want more money but will rarely stoop to stealing it, there are ethics, even if you don't agree that they are that ethical. A common tactic is getting the poor to voluntarily give up their money via "democracy." This system works great because it basically involves getting the public to act unethically in an attempt at unscrupulous self interest that, in the end, benefits the rich. The poor feel vindicated for "sticking it to the man", and the rich get richer will feeling innocent because they mearly leveraged the unethical behaviour of the masses - no one made them do it. Everyone "wins." The poor feel righteous, the rich feel smart and rich.
What was done here, was false information that the banks were failing was spread. In almost no cases did the banks do anything wrong, at least not legally wrong, but rumours are often all that it takes. They got the public riled up and got them to pass legislation that would allow the government to step in and nationalize the banks. In any other country, this would have just been seen as an authoritative government in a reckless nationalization scheme. In the US, the ability to cover up government corruption through propaganda is way higher than most, so nearly all people saw it as the people being protected from "big evil companies."
That's what happened... but here is the financial benefit to the rich and why the poor paid the price.....
I'm not following your first paragraph here. I see greedy rich people doing unethical things, but I'm not picking up on what you're claiming happened.
So you're saying banks weren't actually holding a bunch of sh!t mortgages that they had given to underqualified individuals who couldn't afford them, and then let it spiral out of control? That banks, in fact, were in ok shape but through propaganda, rich people convinced the public that they were in bad shape and we needed to nationalize them to get them in order? Am I following this?
-
Traditionally, the "poor", meaning those with less than $1m in liquid investment capital, invest via standard vehicles like banks, mutual funds, and so forth. Because the poor have so much wealth to invest as a group (mostly in IRAs, pensions and so forth) the highest paid fund managers and financial experts worked for the investment banks because even though individual customers were small, their total size was quite large. So this is where the money was. So the poor got the best investment skills that the rich could not afford at their smaller sizes.
So what was done? Once the government nationalize the banks, they used that position to claim that financial advisors were being paid way too much. They never talked about how they earned that money, only stated huge salaries and convinced the public to put caps on their earnings - punishing the people who were helping them most or cutting off their noses to spite their faces. It is a common factor in American ethics that we tend to value fairness over both total value or self preservation. Most Americans would vote to hurt people they see getting ahead unfairly, even if it hurt everyone innocent in the process, rather than see everyone benefit from one person getting away with something. It's not wrong, but it is unique to American thinking.
So what was the result? The top financial advisors had to move to hedge funds (which legally require $1m in cash to use) so that the top talent in the industry was available exclusively to the ultra rich (even an average millionaire can't produce $1m in cash all at once) and the poor using investment banks had to make do with the second string people who weren't good enough to work at the high paying, unregulated hedge funds. It was a coup. The rich managed to get the best talent while the poor lost their top resources for gaining retirement wealth. But it all happened at the will of the poor, so the rich didn't have to feel bad about it.
I'm one of those people who moved from the investment sector to hedge funds. I used to head cash exchanges for the US government, but after that move, they couldn't afford me and had to hire a team of people to replace me at much higher cost and hedge funds got me instead where they couldn't attract me before.
It was just a thinly veiled ploy to use government intervention to keep the best of the best for the richest of the rich, while getting the public to decide to do it thinking that they were "sticking it to the man."
-
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
So you're saying banks weren't actually holding a bunch of sh!t mortgages that they had given to underqualified individuals who couldn't afford them, and then let it spiral out of control?
First - the banks affected by the seizures often weren't even mortgage banks. We were not, we were an investment bank at record profits. Second, that crap mortgages existed was totally legal and ethical. That people accepted loans that they had no intention or realistic ability to pay is not the fault of the bank unless they lied about it, which is an unrelated matter.
Are you really blaming banks for giving loans? That's not a reasonable thing. Banks had zero responsibility to determine if a house was the right choice for you, only if the loan was acceptable to the bank. It is unethical for people to put that kind of demands on a bank who has no idea or responsibility or knowledge to do so.
-
@jaredbusch said in Mobile Payments:
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
@jaredbusch said in Mobile Payments:
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
Mobile payments aren't a new thing. They've been around a few years and it seems like now everyone has their own mobile payment platform. I think the three strongest players in this game are Apply Pay, Samsung Pay, and Android Pay. There's also Paypal and the like, but I'm talking mostly about storing credit card info in your phone and paying through an NFC terminal.
I've always wanted to try these (Android Pay) but for some reason have been reluctant. The more I've read lately, it seems that in reality these can be more secure than regular credit card payments using the new chip reader.
My question to you all is have you used before or do you currently use some form of mobile payment solution? If so, which one and why? What has been your experiences? What needs to be improved? Do you find that mobile payments are more secure than regular credit card transaction at a chip or swipe terminal?
Do not forget that Walmart is setting up their own thing. That will be huge also.
How will it be huge? Will it only be usable at Wal-Mart stores? What benefits might it bring from using their mobile payment platform outside of a Wal-Mart store?
Do you realize how many people shop in walmart every day?
It never has to work outside of Walmart to be huge.
Sure, if you shop at Walmart. But most people do not shop at Walmart. I sure can't stand it.
I like Costco and the local place for the few things Costco doesn't have. Amazon Prime / Fresh for everything else.
-
@tim_g said in Mobile Payments:
@jaredbusch said in Mobile Payments:
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
@jaredbusch said in Mobile Payments:
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
Mobile payments aren't a new thing. They've been around a few years and it seems like now everyone has their own mobile payment platform. I think the three strongest players in this game are Apply Pay, Samsung Pay, and Android Pay. There's also Paypal and the like, but I'm talking mostly about storing credit card info in your phone and paying through an NFC terminal.
I've always wanted to try these (Android Pay) but for some reason have been reluctant. The more I've read lately, it seems that in reality these can be more secure than regular credit card payments using the new chip reader.
My question to you all is have you used before or do you currently use some form of mobile payment solution? If so, which one and why? What has been your experiences? What needs to be improved? Do you find that mobile payments are more secure than regular credit card transaction at a chip or swipe terminal?
Do not forget that Walmart is setting up their own thing. That will be huge also.
How will it be huge? Will it only be usable at Wal-Mart stores? What benefits might it bring from using their mobile payment platform outside of a Wal-Mart store?
Do you realize how many people shop in walmart every day?
It never has to work outside of Walmart to be huge.
Sure, if you shop at Walmart. But most people do not shop at Walmart. I sure can't stand it.
I think most is an over statement here.
-
@dashrender said in Mobile Payments:
@tim_g said in Mobile Payments:
@jaredbusch said in Mobile Payments:
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
@jaredbusch said in Mobile Payments:
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
Mobile payments aren't a new thing. They've been around a few years and it seems like now everyone has their own mobile payment platform. I think the three strongest players in this game are Apply Pay, Samsung Pay, and Android Pay. There's also Paypal and the like, but I'm talking mostly about storing credit card info in your phone and paying through an NFC terminal.
I've always wanted to try these (Android Pay) but for some reason have been reluctant. The more I've read lately, it seems that in reality these can be more secure than regular credit card payments using the new chip reader.
My question to you all is have you used before or do you currently use some form of mobile payment solution? If so, which one and why? What has been your experiences? What needs to be improved? Do you find that mobile payments are more secure than regular credit card transaction at a chip or swipe terminal?
Do not forget that Walmart is setting up their own thing. That will be huge also.
How will it be huge? Will it only be usable at Wal-Mart stores? What benefits might it bring from using their mobile payment platform outside of a Wal-Mart store?
Do you realize how many people shop in walmart every day?
It never has to work outside of Walmart to be huge.
Sure, if you shop at Walmart. But most people do not shop at Walmart. I sure can't stand it.
I think most is an over statement here.
Ya think?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
So you're saying banks weren't actually holding a bunch of sh!t mortgages that they had given to underqualified individuals who couldn't afford them, and then let it spiral out of control?
First - the banks affected by the seizures often weren't even mortgage banks. We were not, we were an investment bank at record profits. Second, that crap mortgages existed was totally legal and ethical. That people accepted loans that they had no intention or realistic ability to pay is not the fault of the bank unless they lied about it, which is an unrelated matter.
Are you really blaming banks for giving loans? That's not a reasonable thing. Banks had zero responsibility to determine if a house was the right choice for you, only if the loan was acceptable to the bank. It is unethical for people to put that kind of demands on a bank who has no idea or responsibility or knowledge to do so.
Yes it was legal. Banks had been loosened and encouraged to give out more loans to less qualified people for political reasons. It started with Clinton and then Bush put the cherry on top. "The American Dream begins with home ownership" is always the big mantra, so let's get as many people into homes as we can and not worry about if they can afford it.
Ethical is another question. I place blame on both parties here. Banks have a responsibility to evaluate risk for their business and ensure that they aren't taking too many of these crappy loans because it puts them in a vulnerable state, which was at its peak in the '08 crisis. Individuals have a responsibility to understand what they can and can't reasonably afford and make the right decisions for themselves. Both failed in this scenario.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Mobile Payments:
Traditionally, the "poor", meaning those with less than $1m in liquid investment capital, invest via standard vehicles like banks, mutual funds, and so forth. Because the poor have so much wealth to invest as a group (mostly in IRAs, pensions and so forth) the highest paid fund managers and financial experts worked for the investment banks because even though individual customers were small, their total size was quite large. So this is where the money was. So the poor got the best investment skills that the rich could not afford at their smaller sizes.
So what was done? Once the government nationalize the banks, they used that position to claim that financial advisors were being paid way too much. They never talked about how they earned that money, only stated huge salaries and convinced the public to put caps on their earnings - punishing the people who were helping them most or cutting off their noses to spite their faces. It is a common factor in American ethics that we tend to value fairness over both total value or self preservation. Most Americans would vote to hurt people they see getting ahead unfairly, even if it hurt everyone innocent in the process, rather than see everyone benefit from one person getting away with something. It's not wrong, but it is unique to American thinking.
So what was the result? The top financial advisors had to move to hedge funds (which legally require $1m in cash to use) so that the top talent in the industry was available exclusively to the ultra rich (even an average millionaire can't produce $1m in cash all at once) and the poor using investment banks had to make do with the second string people who weren't good enough to work at the high paying, unregulated hedge funds. It was a coup. The rich managed to get the best talent while the poor lost their top resources for gaining retirement wealth. But it all happened at the will of the poor, so the rich didn't have to feel bad about it.
I'm one of those people who moved from the investment sector to hedge funds. I used to head cash exchanges for the US government, but after that move, they couldn't afford me and had to hire a team of people to replace me at much higher cost and hedge funds got me instead where they couldn't attract me before.
It was just a thinly veiled ploy to use government intervention to keep the best of the best for the richest of the rich, while getting the public to decide to do it thinking that they were "sticking it to the man."
This is honestly an explanation I have never heard before. Your claim is that the banks were "nationalized" for the sole purpose of benefiting the rich, and not due to the fact that these banks were going under and the whole credit system was about to collapse.
But yes that's a common theme these days. (Insert individual here) makes too much money and there's no reason anyone should make that much money, let's cap earnings at $XXX because FAIRNESS. Majority of this is BS if you ask me.
-
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
Ethical is another question. I place blame on both parties here. Banks have a responsibility to evaluate risk for their business and ensure that they aren't taking too many of these crappy loans because it puts them in a vulnerable state, which was at its peak in the '08 crisis. Individuals have a responsibility to understand what they can and can't reasonably afford and make the right decisions for themselves. Both failed in this scenario.
This is the problem... lots of people took these loans and didn't fail, only some did. And lots of banks gave these loans and didn't fail. At least one bank and several people did fail, but many that were punished weren't the ones that failed.
-
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
This is honestly an explanation I have never heard before. Your claim is that the banks were "nationalized" for the sole purpose of benefiting the rich, and not due to the fact that these banks were going under and the whole credit system was about to collapse.
Given that banks that weren't involved in mortgages, didn't give any loans, and were at record profits were caught up in the sweep, it's easy to show. The credit system wasn't involved in much of it.
-
@zachary715 said in Mobile Payments:
But yes that's a common theme these days. (Insert individual here) makes too much money and there's no reason anyone should make that much money, let's cap earnings at $XXX because FAIRNESS. Majority of this is BS if you ask me.
Yeah, shareholders may CEOs ridiculous money out of their own pockets for a reason - because they believe that he or she is worth that much more than the next available candidate. CEOs take huge risks, give up insane amounts of their lives, and do generally really unique things that can't easily be replaced. People like a free market till they see someone else getting more out of it than them.
Oddly, I've had homeless people mock me for being so foolish as to go to work.
