if hackers steal your money, does Chase reimburse you?
They've never (tried to AFAICT) gotten into my bank accounts, and CC fraud has (so far) always been caught early enough that I've not lost anything. Vendors might have taken a hit, though.
I live in rural Thailand. I don't even trust the Internet cables here.
No one has (yet) successfully stolen from my CC nor PayPal account.
Chase is really on the ball with fraud detection, with a tiny rate of false positives (which only happened when we traveled out of state w/o telling them). A quick phone call cleared it right up.
Absolutely not true. For example, think back to pre-radio days: freedom of the press required you to be able to afford a press. The government didn't pay for there to be one in each house an apartment.
What if access to the railroads had been enshrined a fundamental right back in the 1940s? After all, "freedom of movement", right? But that would have stifled the growth of roads, and we're much more mobile now than we were 70 years ago. Same thing with newspapers and freedom of speech.
It's infinitely better that fundamental rights be generically written so as not to tie civilization to any one specific technology.
Europeans and *much* too progressively intelligent to pull a stunt this stupid. (At least that's what Europeans keep saying about themselves when America does something stupid.)
You have the AACS encryption key in your sig block, yet write "Honest citizens would remain unhurt", aka "you've got nothing to hide if you've done nothing wrong".
Of course the paperwork didn't show it that way, but it was easy enough to demonstrate it.
Good thing I'm not the only one to notice that...
The whole thing about "add up all your expenses" is a complete scam, since the "expenses" are minimum CC payments, guaranteeing that you'll stay in debt forever.
Naturally, the solution to that is to buy less house, no matter how pushy They get.
But opportunity costs aren't *real* costs that get posted to a ledger.
Giving you a bigger credit limit just means they'd be allowing you to take an even bigger interest free loan.
Since they make money from merchants on transaction fees (or do only Visa, MC, AmEx, etc earn the fees?), bumping up your credit limit allows them to earn a larger transaction fee.
The IRS doesn't share it with anyone else, though. And the IRS doesn't know your net worth.
Remembering the OPM hacking debacle, do you really want bureaucrats and the Dept. Of Commerce to have all the gory details on everyone's net worth and income?
(How outraged were you by the Manning and Snowden revelations of internal spying? This would be worse.)
with the EXPLICIT statement, "You don't have enough debt."
Maybe what they really mean is "our actuaries have discovered that people who don't carry any debt but suddenly ask for an increase are statistically more likely to skip out".
Is there something wrong with this whole system?
Depends on what the purpose of "the whole system" is.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. We pay significantly less than that for a minivan in the US.
if hackers steal your money, does Chase reimburse you?
They've never (tried to AFAICT) gotten into my bank accounts, and CC fraud has (so far) always been caught early enough that I've not lost anything. Vendors might have taken a hit, though.
I live in rural Thailand. I don't even trust the Internet cables here.
Can't help you with that part...
No one has (yet) successfully stolen from my CC nor PayPal account.
Chase is really on the ball with fraud detection, with a tiny rate of false positives (which only happened when we traveled out of state w/o telling them). A quick phone call cleared it right up.
at least a certain baseline.
That's not what "equal footing" means (to me, at least).
Nordic welfare states ... seem to be doing just fine.
I don't think so.
http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-is-in-a-grave-situation-2015-6
http://www.thelocal.se/20150120/dark-forecast-for-swedish-economy
Greed gets you every time.
I'm a Chase customer, but haven't lost any money. Why? I don't speculate, nor gamble, nor invest in schemes with guaranteed high rates of investment.
any more successful than unions at "saving American jobs"?
Absolutely not true. For example, think back to pre-radio days: freedom of the press required you to be able to afford a press. The government didn't pay for there to be one in each house an apartment.
the ability, not just a purely theoretical liberty, to live and partake in society on equal footing with everyone else
No, since that pretty explicitly means everyone having as much of everything as everyone else, and that experiment was a catastrophic failure.
it might be clearer if fundamental rights and consequently required rights were separated to their own groups.
Splendid idea.
What if access to the railroads had been enshrined a fundamental right back in the 1940s? After all, "freedom of movement", right? But that would have stifled the growth of roads, and we're much more mobile now than we were 70 years ago. Same thing with newspapers and freedom of speech.
It's infinitely better that fundamental rights be generically written so as not to tie civilization to any one specific technology.
When everything is a fundamental right, then that completely devalues the definition of "fundamental".
Isn't that contraindicated to the health and well-functioning of ICs?
Europeans and *much* too progressively intelligent to pull a stunt this stupid. (At least that's what Europeans keep saying about themselves when America does something stupid.)
How much fog/rain/snow/smoke does it take to degrade the sensing level?
A squad from the EFF "Snowden Brigade" is coming to take your Geek Card.
Information wants to be free. Free your information!!!!
What will I get in exchange?
The good feeling that you've done your part to ensure that information wants to be free.
(Remember, you said that you've got nothing to hide...)
Not in double entry bookkeeping terms ... there is certainly a real cost in economic terms, as that $x could have earned them actual interest.
Congratulations for writing out the definition of "opportunity costs".
So, tell me your income. And net worth.
You have the AACS encryption key in your sig block, yet write "Honest citizens would remain unhurt", aka "you've got nothing to hide if you've done nothing wrong".
That's serious cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps not but you're still an idiot if you ignore them.
As a lost source of income. Not as an expense.
As I understand things it's usually the credit card company (VISA, MC, etc) that keeps the transaction fees
My research indicates that the CC network and issuing banks split the fees.
An apologist for the banks.
A realist, not apologist.
Of course the paperwork didn't show it that way, but it was easy enough to demonstrate it.
Good thing I'm not the only one to notice that...
The whole thing about "add up all your expenses" is a complete scam, since the "expenses" are minimum CC payments, guaranteeing that you'll stay in debt forever.
Naturally, the solution to that is to buy less house, no matter how pushy They get.
t's mostly an opportunity cost kind of thing.
But opportunity costs aren't *real* costs that get posted to a ledger.
Giving you a bigger credit limit just means they'd be allowing you to take an even bigger interest free loan.
Since they make money from merchants on transaction fees (or do only Visa, MC, AmEx, etc earn the fees?), bumping up your credit limit allows them to earn a larger transaction fee.
Getting a bigger credit limit only to use it for larger payments just means you cost them more.
I can't figure out why you'd cost them more. Please clarify.
The IRS doesn't share it with anyone else, though. And the IRS doesn't know your net worth.
Remembering the OPM hacking debacle, do you really want bureaucrats and the Dept. Of Commerce to have all the gory details on everyone's net worth and income?
(How outraged were you by the Manning and Snowden revelations of internal spying? This would be worse.)
with the EXPLICIT statement, "You don't have enough debt."
Maybe what they really mean is "our actuaries have discovered that people who don't carry any debt but suddenly ask for an increase are statistically more likely to skip out".
Is there something wrong with this whole system?
Depends on what the purpose of "the whole system" is.