Justice Department accuses Visa of debit network monopoly that affects price of 'nearly everything’
Justice Department accuses Visa of debit network monopoly that affects price of 'nearly everything’
Visa and Mastercard have surged over the past two decades, reaching a combined $1 trillion market cap. That has attracted unwanted attention from regulators.
The solution is simple
: state owned alternative with zero fees.Even the most succdem brained person should understand this. Payment systems are so reliant on the network effect because nobody is going to use on a network that people don’t accept. Like, try traveling with a Discover card outside of the USA (China and Japan excepted).
I don’t know enough to say that payment networks like Visa and Mastercard are natural monopolies, but it seems like this is structurally something that’ll happen. Therefore, even the most succdem brained person would understand that payments need to be public infrastructure, not a duopoly of US-based megacorps.
: “Buh…buh….it’s a private business! Everyone knows that business is super perfect in every way! Corporate run ANARKY 4 LYFE!”Even in Europe the fees they can charge customers is capped at like 1/10th of US fees
Remember talk of postal banking during Bernie's campaign?
Stop sanctions?
Stop fueling wars?
Stop meddling in others affairs?
Hit Visa up for a hit of non consequential juice..I mean cost of doing buisnees....er "fine" which will result in a half assed rate cut to vendors and rate hike to consumers in higher interest and fees....oh and less 'rewards' and call it a win.
Oh wow just one of ten billion suits the government should have been pursuing over a decade ago.
The fact that these cowards are doing an antitrust suit and didn't just blackbag the CEO and other high up officers in the company when their response to obviously being a monopoly (it's quite literally just Visa and Mastercard and Visa is far bigger) was "pfft. No! Pfft. Look at all these competitors! Like Mastercard! And... did we mention Mastercard?"
It's like Microsoft or Apple trying to claim they don't do monopolistic shit, that they don't hold de facto monopolies in certain sectors, because "Well, there is literally one competitor! So technically just because we hold 95% of the market, that means we aren't a monopoly!" No. That's not how this works.
Well, it does because 1) a ton of people who even see this stuff don't care or very cuckedly (yeah, I'm making that up and using it) support it. And 2) this suit is being brought late in the year immediately before an election when the suit has been deserved since... at least 2008. At least. It's just being thrown out to say "See? Eh? You see that one? We did something! What was the result of our lawsuit against Apple, a clear monopoly holder that charges $99/year to develop apps and locks customers from using their devices which should be the easiest slam dunk "you must allow root access" outcome ever? Stop asking! WE DID SOMETHING!"
How about using just 0.1% of the energy they've been spending on college kids mad about genocide on any of these CEOs if only for personal grievance "fuck you!" reasons. Imagine being the USAG and Visa's top attorney scoffs at you like that when they are absolutely obviously a monopoly. Even if you're a massive paid shill, send that asshole to a blackhole just because, you know, you still can.
The most important question I took from all this: is it pronounced "cucked-ly" or "cuck-ed-ly"?
Hmm, user preference I think. I think the latter version displays more contempt though.
Criminals and crooks usually find any large scale attention unwanted.
Nothing of consequence will happen because if the consequences were adequately severe then the business might falter or fail and we all know these finance titans are "too big to fail" and killing the economic parasite might kill the economic host.