The Future of Shopping: Trapping You in a Club You Didn't Know You Joined (bloomberg.com)
Just a word of caution: the next time you spot a great deal on a shopping portal, you will want to carefully look for all the radio buttons, and tick boxes -- and perhaps also skim through the ToS -- before placing the order. Bloomberg has an in-depth piece on the ordeal of a customer who purchased a lingerie item from an e-commerce website called Adore Me. Little did the customer know that the $19.95 she was spending to purchase a piece of cloth would end up costing her -- partly because of her own ignorance -- more than $300. Adore Me, you see, maintains a subscription model in which it charges users a fee of around $40 a month, even if they don't purchase anything. It might surprise many, but Adore Me isn't the only shopping portal or service that runs this sort of tactic. "It's the new thing," says Francisca Allen, the deputy district attorney of California's Santa Clara County. "There's thousands and thousands of companies that do this." What's more, these companies have made it frustratingly difficult to cancel these subscriptions -- it often requires you to sit through a one-hour call to the customer representative and listening to a bunch of funky songs that you suddenly don't adore as much. Bloomberg reports:Hundreds of customer complaints against Adore Me and other subscription e-commerce businesses are stacking up at the Federal Trade Commission, according to records obtained by Bloomberg. They follow a pattern: Shoppers believe they've been tricked into signing up for recurring credit card charges, often for a relatively small amount that can be easily overlooked in a monthly bill. Then companies make it an exasperating hassle to quit and get a refund.
Dealdash dot com... charges you $0.60 per automatic bid even if you don't win the auction. The TV ads are highly deceiving. They even have an elaborate troll system to make their reviews look good. Hellcatx... they are running a massive TV ad campaign for a car giveaway that supposedly helps charity. The prises are probably worth 1/100th of the income, and no mention of how much actually goes to charity.
It is shit like this that makes me glad I use disposable credit card numbers for every single online purchase. In 15 years, I've never had a case of fraud or any other problem. But they have saved my butt a bunch of times. My bank emails me for every rejected authorization so I've seen every time some lowlife 'merchant' tried to charge me without my consent. Most recently Angie's List was trying nearly every day for about two months to "renew" a subscription.
If you have a Bank of America or Citibank credit card account then you already have access to disposable numbers. There are other smaller banks (especially outside of the US) who support disposable numbers too.
The moment you see the charge hit your bill you contact your credit card company and have them do a chargeback. Tell them you've been trying to cancel with this company who refuses to honor your request and these are fraudulent charges.
The credit card company will remove the charge from your bill then attempt to collect from the other company.
Rinse and repeat each month.
http://www.geeksonfinance.com/...
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Capitalism is philosophically based upon perfectly informed rational consumers, which these guys aren't, by definition
There is, in fact, no such thing as a perfectly informed rational customer, there never has been and there never will be. Those two "simplifying" assumptions are typical of the fundamental defects that render economics almost worthless in its present form. Of course economists like simplifying assumptions, because otherwise their field would be far too complicated to make any sense out of. Unfortunately the assumptions mean that the resulting rules and laws apply only in an abstract world which hardly bears any resemblance to the real world we live in.
1. "Perfectly informed". Even in the simplest possible model of a market, a village produce market where fruit and vegetables are being sold from a collection of stalls, perfect information is far from guaranteed. Who knows what Fred has been spraying on his pumpkins? And have those delicious-looking peaches been previously frozen, transported, and defrosted? Usually the vendors will know, and maybe a few others - but then it is in the interest of the vendors to keep the information secret, even at the cost of a bribe or quid pro quo favour. Thus the concealment of important product information actually becomes part of the market, with its own price. Consider now a more sophisticated, "evolved" market such as the electronic stock exchanges where corporations will pay huge sums of money to have their servers a few feet closer to the exchange's own servers. That may give them a few nanoseconds' head start, which may be enough to make the difference between winning billions and losing billions. Again, we see payments (this time, very large ones) being made precisely to prevent information being perfectly shared. And the pattern is repeated everywhere.
2. "Rational customers". This one departs even further from reality and common sense. If you think about it for five minutes, you will see that the very concept of a "rational customer" is wholly artificial and almost meaningless in relation to the real world. We are all rational, more or less by definition, as a function of being human. But what does that really mean? I think you'll agree that virtually all humans use reason (facts and logic) as a tool when they need to, never as a way of deciding what it is they want. To suggest that all customers can be "rational" is, in effect, to make the ridiculous assumption that they are wholly focused all of the time on making financial gains! It would be more realistic to say that a rational person is one who devotes as little time, effort and attention to economic necessaities as possible, the better to enjoy the good things of life - which are NOT money (as such) or buying and selling. It is true, to some extent, that those who do best at the economic "game" are those who focus on it most unremittingly - spending almost all their waking time in business activities and reckoning their success in life solely by their net worth. For such people, the Bible has a warning.
"And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God". (Luke 12:16-21) http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/1...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
One of the cleverest features of the rational expectations revolution was the appropriation of the term "rational." Thereby, the opponents of this approach were forced into the defensive position of either being irrational or of modeling others as irrational, neither of which are comfortable positions for most economists. (Barro 1984)
I suggest that critics instead adopt the attacking position of describing this concept (the capacity to foretell the whole future of the economy) as a dictionary would, as "Prophetic Expectations".
The Dodgy Dynamics of Economics
The rest of that paper focuses on demolishing the whole concept.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Corporations are accountable to their managers and stockholders and have only one goal... maximize profit (at my expense).
Governments are at least in theory accountable to voters and do not have a profit motive. (However, we all know that governments can be corrupted by corporations buying favors.)
So, if I have to choose between a greedy corporation whose only goal is taking my money or a government accountable to voters (which may or may not have been corrupted), I'll choose the government.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
You have to weigh that against the fact that a greedy corporation can ultimately do nothing to you, while the government has the power to fine you or send you to jail, and they can send a group of heavily armed men to break down your door to force you to comply with their decisions.
Just yesterday I saw the private railway police, so yes there are still corporate forces that have the power to arrest you.
It wasn't that long ago that corporations had much more power, see eg the Pinkerton Detective Agency who at one point was larger then the military of the USA and routinely beat and killed people the corporations were unfriendly with.
There's a reason that we've transferred most all law enforcement to the government, mainly that they're more (or at least were) responsible then big business to the people. Businesses ultimate goal is to make sure you have no choice but to deal with them and at times have been very successful at this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism