tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post891346113604697657..comments2023-12-20T04:18:41.617-06:00Comments on The Hunting of the Snark: Subsidy Is The Best PolicySusan of Texashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-24477011186517241382011-10-28T11:05:50.827-05:002011-10-28T11:05:50.827-05:00ok, now she's just baiting.
I bet her blog hit...ok, now she's just baiting.<br />I bet her blog hits had been doing down.<br /><br />-eclAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-62622255039991078812011-10-27T21:52:18.049-05:002011-10-27T21:52:18.049-05:00http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/1...http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/can-you-be-guilty-of-insider-trading-without-personal-gain/247489/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-46543339091862938772011-10-27T12:08:29.655-05:002011-10-27T12:08:29.655-05:00The "criticism" section there needs some...The "criticism" section there needs some serious filling out.atatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-73656846370310901792011-10-27T09:26:51.986-05:002011-10-27T09:26:51.986-05:00Also--I apologize for the lack of posting, I'm...Also--I apologize for the lack of posting, I'm working on two posts and it's a busy time. <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_McArdle" rel="nofollow">Also, too.</a>Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-84054533609945583972011-10-27T09:21:27.651-05:002011-10-27T09:21:27.651-05:00The last thing McArdle wants is Occupy Eckington. ...The last thing McArdle wants is Occupy Eckington. But it's interesting to see her point of view develop.<br /><br />1. Dirty, silly protesters.<br />2. They'll trivialize themselves into disbanning.<br />3. For the love of God, don't get violent. Violence never got anyone anything.Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-49722550671241591462011-10-27T07:18:39.017-05:002011-10-27T07:18:39.017-05:00Megan coming down neutral on the police defense of...Megan coming down neutral on the police defense of her most cherished bankers is a pretty solid sign that the militarized violent assault of the police was way over the line. (Just in case you couldn't tell that from the videos)Downpuppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312490198813632190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-77440553969068965552011-10-26T23:24:02.944-05:002011-10-26T23:24:02.944-05:00Megan, sincerely, why are you offering advice if y...<i>Megan, sincerely, why are you offering advice if you have no understanding of what happened and no intention of finding out?</i><br /><br />Why? It's her oeuvre. <br /><br />(or, as Megan might say, her 'outre').Dillonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-20309256331512681002011-10-26T23:23:22.630-05:002011-10-26T23:23:22.630-05:00That Oakland article reads like a Megan parody. Sh...That Oakland article reads like a Megan parody. She's just an arrogant, and ignorant, concern troll. Miss Two-by-Four playing the scold. Jeezus. She admits she knows next to nothing about the events, and yet she still thinks it's a good idea to play referee. What goes through her mind? I can't imagine the thought process at work here.atatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-75024016058075752452011-10-26T17:07:09.725-05:002011-10-26T17:07:09.725-05:00"Its an easy, cushy job, but someone's go..."Its an easy, cushy job, but someone's gotta do it!"Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03176801494652946278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-46203243762215522262011-10-26T15:31:18.505-05:002011-10-26T15:31:18.505-05:00So Megan wades into the Oakland police riot withou...So Megan wades into the Oakland police riot without bothering to even read the story..<br /><br />(Yeah. I'm shocked too)<br /><br />and some new character almost spoils the game:<br /><br /><i> JeffJeffJeffJeffJeff 50 minutes ago <br />Megan, sincerely, why are you offering advice if you have no understanding of what happened and no intention of finding out? <br />You don't even have an accurate understanding of the predicates for violence, timeline, etc. You're facilitating misinformation and setting up a discussion based on nonsense.</i>Downpuppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312490198813632190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-5787389479925945692011-10-26T11:54:52.889-05:002011-10-26T11:54:52.889-05:00D-KW, that's no fair, you having empirical fac...D-KW, that's no fair, you having empirical facts and all. Why'dya bring a gun to a lil' ol' knife fight?Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03830774223073462725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-4202257101216158952011-10-26T10:47:20.125-05:002011-10-26T10:47:20.125-05:00ME-gan's "keep digging" post is asto...ME-gan's "keep digging" post is astonishing. She's so innumerate she can even misquote her own numbers. Her point #1:<br />"<i>We're talking about a transfer of, at most, tens of dollars a year</i>."<br /><br />That "ten dollars a year" bit hyperlinks to another one of her brilliant articles showing teh <b>average</b> transfer paid by the lowest income group was $23 (which is at most ten bucks). Even worse, she isn't even talking about teh regressivity at this point - but teh degree of "hurts". In that case, the actual amount is quoted in teh linked BM Matt piece:<br />"<i>On average, each cash-using household pays $151 to card-using households and each card-using household receives $1,482 from cash users every year</i>."<br /><br />IOW, her "at most ten bucks" is a transfer of <b>an average</b> of $151 from groups that tend toward teh lower end of teh income spectrum for a subsidy of $1,482 to teh folks at teh higher end.Dragon-King Wangchuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661002686346571531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-66954666994060923702011-10-26T09:20:51.395-05:002011-10-26T09:20:51.395-05:00More Myles bullshit:
a dollar of reward earned is ...More Myles bullshit:<br /><i>a dollar of reward earned is in fact directly proportional to a dollar of money saved</i><br />Except that a) we are talking about Debit cards here and b) Debit cards do not give a cash back (dollar for dollar) reward. What they give is bullshit rewards like miles to those who rarely fly and some random 'points' that can be used to offset the insanely high prices at the AAdvantage 'store' and still buy it for higher price than you can find it at Amazon.<br /><br />The only reason why McMegan makes such a big deal of this is that she (and apparently you) think that these rewards are worth so much that everybody should pay higher interchange fees to banks.cynichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02438583188725326668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-79113352646558962282011-10-26T08:07:49.292-05:002011-10-26T08:07:49.292-05:00Myles and other ME-gan defenders,
Shut up about A...Myles and other ME-gan defenders,<br /><br />Shut up about Australia, you have no idea what you are talking about. The interchange fee cap price control is on <b>credit</b> cards. Teh debit card system in Australia is EFTPOS and I have yet to find any evidence that these fees have ever been cut.<br /><br />Also too, capping credit card interchange fees raised prices? [citation needed]. Perhaps you are referring to <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1045.pdf" rel="nofollow">page 49 of this GAO report</a>:<br /><i>By capping interchange fees, RBA estimates that fees to merchants were lower by about 1.1 billion Australian dollars for the period of March 2007 through February 2008, but officials acknowledged that it would be very difficult to provide conclusive evidence of the extent to which these savings have resulted in lower retail prices because so many factors affect such prices at any one time.</i><br />Yeah - <b>empirically proven</b> all right.Dragon-King Wangchuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661002686346571531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-72731957757601717792011-10-26T07:41:57.223-05:002011-10-26T07:41:57.223-05:00Fungible means I can haz your money?
Kewl!Fungible means I can haz your money?<br /><br />Kewl!Downpuppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312490198813632190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-78175734003176098152011-10-26T06:32:48.998-05:002011-10-26T06:32:48.998-05:00Removal of subsidy to *some* is NOT a 'cost...<i>Removal of subsidy to *some* is NOT a 'cost' passed to *all*.</i><br /><br />Removal of subsidy for some, is, in fact, a cost that is passed to the aggregated. If you have 100 people who each have 100 pencils and you take 60 pencils each from 40 of these people, you have in fact decreased the aggregate number of pencils, or benefit to the consumer, from 10,000 to 7,600.<br /><br />I really don't know why you are engaging in Jesuitical bullshit about something as obvious as this.<br /><br /><i>In any event, removal of a reward for 'some' is not the same as 'coming out of pockets' of others.</i><br /><br />Given fungibility of money, a dollar of reward earned is in fact directly proportional to a dollar of money saved. The reduction in rewards does in fact come straight out of the consumer's pocket.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-29951836446316138532011-10-26T06:23:36.646-05:002011-10-26T06:23:36.646-05:00Myles: Consumers ended up paying higher fees and g...Myles: <i>Consumers ended up paying higher fees and getting fewer rewards, because the demand for debit card services is pretty inelastic and banks will have to pass on the costs anyhow. </i><br /><br />Same false argument that Mcmegan makes: <b>some</b> consumers getting fewer rewards means a subsidy has been removed. Removal of subsidy to *some* is NOT a 'cost' passed to *all*. Banks can try to pass on the cost and may even succeed, but it is by no means automatic.<br /><br /><i>And the charges they eat generally go at least 60% toward consumer rewards. So every additional dollar that is going toward retailers as a result of the Durbin amendment, at least 60 cents are coming straight out of the consumers' pockets.</i><br /><br />That is false as well. Mcmegan did not lose any of her 'rewards'. In any event, removal of a reward for 'some' is not the same as 'coming out of pockets' of others.cynichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02438583188725326668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-14736731364412265652011-10-25T20:23:20.139-05:002011-10-25T20:23:20.139-05:00Actually, let's try this argument another way:...Actually, let's try this argument another way: if retailers didn't have to eat the debit card charges, they wouldn't spend millions lobbying to <i>change the existing rules by legislative action</i>, would they? That they bothered at all is ipso facto evidence that they had to eat the charges. And the charges they eat generally go at least 60% toward consumer rewards. So every additional dollar that is going toward retailers as a result of the Durbin amendment, at least 60 cents are coming straight out of the consumers' pockets. It's rent-seeking, pure and simple.<br /><br />MylesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-63283498678043025692011-10-25T20:15:25.189-05:002011-10-25T20:15:25.189-05:00No. It was a transfer from Banks to retailers. Con...<i>No. It was a transfer from Banks to retailers. Consumers, if affected at all, are affected only at the margin because they can switch to other banks that don't charge the 'make up' fee. </i><br /><br />Empirically disproven by the experience in Australia. Consumers ended up paying higher fees and getting fewer rewards, because the demand for debit card services is pretty inelastic and banks will have to pass on the costs anyhow. Again, I have no sympathy for retailers screaming for political ex-post rule-changing to get more money from banks. Both are greedy, sharp-elbowed businessmen. If you don't like the fees, don't take the cards and the increased customer traffic enabled by cards.<br /><br />MylesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-50798330091197976722011-10-25T19:58:01.304-05:002011-10-25T19:58:01.304-05:00Myles: To be fair, the whole Durbin amendment was ...Myles: <i>To be fair, the whole Durbin amendment was essentially a straight transfer from consumers to retailers</i><br /><br />No. It was a transfer from Banks to retailers. Consumers, if affected at all, are affected only at the margin because they can switch to other banks that don't charge the 'make up' fee.cynichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02438583188725326668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-71190471689355991092011-10-25T17:15:59.981-05:002011-10-25T17:15:59.981-05:00@Susan
Today McMegan doubled down on her war agai...@Susan<br /><br />Today McMegan doubled down on her war against "price fixing" in defense of banking oligopolies, through debit cards, fixing exorbitant fees sans transparency.<br /><br />Melodrama ensued--wrestling columns, etcAnatole Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09475202797984385346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-32170469896059486502011-10-25T16:31:24.146-05:002011-10-25T16:31:24.146-05:00To be fair, the whole Durbin amendment was essenti...To be fair, the whole Durbin amendment was essentially a straight transfer from consumers to retailers (e.g. Wal-Mart, Target, etc., for the most part). As a consumers, I really don't see why I should be further subsidizing greedy, sharp-elbowed businessmen. I really don't see the moral problem with one group of greedy businessmen (credit card companies) making another group of greedy businessmen (retailers) pay for benefits enjoyed by consumers.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-4787119330795953292011-10-25T12:33:15.923-05:002011-10-25T12:33:15.923-05:00Well, I read ArgleBargle's post. She assumes h...Well, I read ArgleBargle's post. She assumes her AAdvantage card was cancelled because of the new credit card laws, but shows absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Maybe they cancelled her ATM card because she keeps loosing it.Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03176801494652946278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-50170872311376618702011-10-25T10:47:38.151-05:002011-10-25T10:47:38.151-05:00Can't we focus on the real tragedy, which is t...Can't we focus on the real tragedy, which is that her commenters don't understand that it's All About Her?Lurking Canadiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-19413897037135977872011-10-24T22:33:26.603-05:002011-10-24T22:33:26.603-05:00This guy gyshrestha has a future as a blog comment...This guy gyshrestha has a future as a blog commenter!hylennoreply@blogger.com