I trust my government (Switzerland) way more to do the thing that is right for the people and the law then some private company that has the primary goal of making money. It doesn't mean that governments don't make mistakes but the primary goal is to serve its people.
That is what government is for in a functioning democracy. A functioning government is of the people for the people.
It's a joke but Visa and Mastercard are American corporations so Americans can feel relatively secure using them. If you live in another developed country, relying on the whims of American entities feels less secure than something subject to the laws of your own country.
Americans are pretty aware that government by large, multinational, unaccountable corporations sucks and has basically all of the downsides of big government without any of the accountability upsides.
American media may be less likely to share that narrative with you. But the actual people figured this out a while ago and they're mad.
> That sounds a little authoritarian for many Western countries, I imagine.
If you ever had your account blocked by Apple or Google, you know exactly why a government is the better option. At least you have the rule of law on your side.
Big companies are the authoritarian situation, not the government.
This reminds me of how all the drug dealers use USPS because it actually requires a warrant to open the package.
If the government has to enforce banking KYC/AML itself they won't be able to hide behind all the third party fuck-fuck games and they'll get sued into oblivion. I'm sure they'll play the normal federal court and sovereign fuck-fuck games but it would be glorious trying to watch them try to enforce the BSA and Patriot act bullshit while not being able to hide behind the auspice it's just a private bank collecting the data.
I guess it comes down to who you would trust more - your own government which you have some control over via elections or some (potentially multinational) corporation which you have exactly zero control over?
It's the other way around. You have choice with a company, and people can switch provider very quickly if they are bad. You have very, very coarse-grained control with the government every few years.
> You have choice with a company, and people can switch provider very quickly if they are bad.
There are exactly two companies in the global credit card market and they operate in lockstep, literally coming to agreements to shut down legal businesses together. Visa and MasterCard have absolutely no right to determine who is and isn't allowed to receive payment. Governments have that right, but that doesn't mean they should use it -- if they're abusing that right, people can vote them out. The effectiveness of people voting out harmful politicians is another matter, but that's kind of on the people being bad at voting, not the idea of government altogether, and at any rate you have no vote whatsoever in what MC/Visa do (unless you vote for government to regulate them!).
This is wrong for a large share of the companies that most people deal with on a daily basis. And that share has been steadily increasing every single year.
Ok, I choose to not use Visa/Mastercard in the US, and I want to subscribe to some saas. What do I do now? Or do you mean "choice" as in "you can always choose not the breathe or eat"?
In the context of mastercard and visa being a duopoly and the recent debacle such as certain games being removed from steam because they threatened to not allow stream to use the card payment system, it's a pretty bad take.
Not that central bank won't be able to do the same, but it would have to follow laws set by the government rather than law+whatever the card companies decide to.
Like others said that choice is not really given in this case.
Also with the government option it wouldn’t mean that you can’t still use other methods - for example in brasil credit card or cash work just fine, PIX is just one (very convenient) option.
on the West of what? Culturally and historically it's a Western country, yes, but politically and economically it's an Eastern country – founding member of BRICS and a developing economy. I think the author of the parent comment used "Western" term referring to ideological and economic grouping
I think the idea of what’s authoritarian sounding is more of a cultural/historical/ideological distinction, not something that would naturally map to an economic label like BRICS.
Also Western and Eastern are just labels in this context, not opposite directions, even if Brazil was “not Western” in some way, it wouldn’t make sense to call it Eastern.
On the West of every single country in Europe, to start with.
Don't take this the wrong way, but have you looked at a world map? I ask since a significant chunk of people from the US cannot find Mexico on a map ...
Aside from its very evident geographic location, Brazil was the site of the first lasting European colony in the Americas established by Portugal.
People in Brazil speak Portuguese[1], a Romance language derived from Latin and closely related to Spanish, French and Italian.
The genetic lineages most commonly found within the Brazilian population include Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, German, and to a much lesser degree but still significant, Lebanese and Turkish [2].
The top countries whose citizens visit Brazil as tourists are overwhelmingly from the Americas and Europe: Argentina, the USA, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy and the UK.
Likewise, when Brazilians travel abroad, their main destinations are Argentina, the USA, Chile, Portugal, France, Italy, Uruguay, the Caribbean, Spain and the UK.
Share of exports to Asia: ~41%
Share of exports to the Americas and Europe combined: ~47%
Share of imports from Asia: ~43%
Share of imports from the Americas and Europe combined: ~50%
How could one reach the conclussion that Brazil is an "Eastern" country? Oh yeah, they joined a trade organization with China and Russia ... sure, they must be Eastern now.
I trust my government (Switzerland) way more to do the thing that is right for the people and the law then some private company that has the primary goal of making money. It doesn't mean that governments don't make mistakes but the primary goal is to serve its people.
That is what government is for in a functioning democracy. A functioning government is of the people for the people.
The American mind cannot comprehend
It's a joke but Visa and Mastercard are American corporations so Americans can feel relatively secure using them. If you live in another developed country, relying on the whims of American entities feels less secure than something subject to the laws of your own country.
Americans are pretty aware that government by large, multinational, unaccountable corporations sucks and has basically all of the downsides of big government without any of the accountability upsides.
American media may be less likely to share that narrative with you. But the actual people figured this out a while ago and they're mad.
Dang has stated these sorts of comments do not belong on HN news. Discussion of specifics are fine, but nationalist slurs are not.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48100358
Edit: wow, my bad. HN really loves low effort nationalistic slurs as entire comments now.
2 replies →
I hope I get to live in such a place some day.
[flagged]
4 replies →
> I trust my government (Switzerland)
I do, too. I’m not sure I trust Brussels.
I certainly trust the EU a lot more than I trust US corporations.
12 replies →
I assume the concern is more about moving to mandated digital currency where every transaction is tracked by the government, no cash allowed.
> That sounds a little authoritarian for many Western countries, I imagine.
If you ever had your account blocked by Apple or Google, you know exactly why a government is the better option. At least you have the rule of law on your side.
Big companies are the authoritarian situation, not the government.
It deems to me that the rule of law is easier to apply to third parties than to the government that is in charge of administering it
Not if your government properly implements separation of powers, as is the case in most Western countries.
Yes, I'm aware someone is trying to undermine it in the U.S. currently. That doesn't mean that companies are a safe haven suddenly.
This reminds me of how all the drug dealers use USPS because it actually requires a warrant to open the package.
If the government has to enforce banking KYC/AML itself they won't be able to hide behind all the third party fuck-fuck games and they'll get sued into oblivion. I'm sure they'll play the normal federal court and sovereign fuck-fuck games but it would be glorious trying to watch them try to enforce the BSA and Patriot act bullshit while not being able to hide behind the auspice it's just a private bank collecting the data.
Until such governements have already loopholes to circumvent rules of law, I'm as sad as the next guy but the EU technically has that.
If you've ever read any history you'd know why a government is definitely not the better option.
I guess it comes down to who you would trust more - your own government which you have some control over via elections or some (potentially multinational) corporation which you have exactly zero control over?
It's the other way around. You have choice with a company, and people can switch provider very quickly if they are bad. You have very, very coarse-grained control with the government every few years.
> You have choice with a company, and people can switch provider very quickly if they are bad.
There are exactly two companies in the global credit card market and they operate in lockstep, literally coming to agreements to shut down legal businesses together. Visa and MasterCard have absolutely no right to determine who is and isn't allowed to receive payment. Governments have that right, but that doesn't mean they should use it -- if they're abusing that right, people can vote them out. The effectiveness of people voting out harmful politicians is another matter, but that's kind of on the people being bad at voting, not the idea of government altogether, and at any rate you have no vote whatsoever in what MC/Visa do (unless you vote for government to regulate them!).
> You have choice with a company,
This is wrong for a large share of the companies that most people deal with on a daily basis. And that share has been steadily increasing every single year.
Ok, I choose to not use Visa/Mastercard in the US, and I want to subscribe to some saas. What do I do now? Or do you mean "choice" as in "you can always choose not the breathe or eat"?
7 replies →
In the context of mastercard and visa being a duopoly and the recent debacle such as certain games being removed from steam because they threatened to not allow stream to use the card payment system, it's a pretty bad take.
Not that central bank won't be able to do the same, but it would have to follow laws set by the government rather than law+whatever the card companies decide to.
Agree to disagree. Lock-in is a thing that companies design for.
1 reply →
Like others said that choice is not really given in this case.
Also with the government option it wouldn’t mean that you can’t still use other methods - for example in brasil credit card or cash work just fine, PIX is just one (very convenient) option.
4 replies →
I've moved countries five times in my life. I still haven't been able to fully get rid of my dependency on Big Tech or the Visa/Mastercard duopoly.
You only have a potential choice until a company buys out all its competitors and surpresses the rest.
> You have choice with a company, and people can switch provider very quickly
Oh yeah?
Please enlihhten me, how exactly can I switch providers from the Visa/Mastercard duopoly?
Especially now in the (former) USA.
The choice is between the ECB and visa/mastercard (who are de-facto controlled by the US government).
It's a shit situation we're in, but the ECB seems like the lesser evil.
Brazil is on the West, fyi.
The new alignment isnt East vs West... But North vs Global South, which Brazil sees itself a part of the South.
???
Wrong thread?
The comment I see reads like this:
"That sounds a little authoritarian for many Western countries, I imagine."
1 reply →
> The new alignment isnt East vs West... But North vs Global South, which Brazil sees itself a part of the South.
Where's Russia and Australia then?
on the West of what? Culturally and historically it's a Western country, yes, but politically and economically it's an Eastern country – founding member of BRICS and a developing economy. I think the author of the parent comment used "Western" term referring to ideological and economic grouping
I think the idea of what’s authoritarian sounding is more of a cultural/historical/ideological distinction, not something that would naturally map to an economic label like BRICS.
Also Western and Eastern are just labels in this context, not opposite directions, even if Brazil was “not Western” in some way, it wouldn’t make sense to call it Eastern.
>on the West of what?
On the West of every single country in Europe, to start with.
Don't take this the wrong way, but have you looked at a world map? I ask since a significant chunk of people from the US cannot find Mexico on a map ...
Aside from its very evident geographic location, Brazil was the site of the first lasting European colony in the Americas established by Portugal.
People in Brazil speak Portuguese[1], a Romance language derived from Latin and closely related to Spanish, French and Italian.
The genetic lineages most commonly found within the Brazilian population include Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, German, and to a much lesser degree but still significant, Lebanese and Turkish [2].
The top countries whose citizens visit Brazil as tourists are overwhelmingly from the Americas and Europe: Argentina, the USA, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy and the UK.
Likewise, when Brazilians travel abroad, their main destinations are Argentina, the USA, Chile, Portugal, France, Italy, Uruguay, the Caribbean, Spain and the UK.
Share of exports to Asia: ~41%
Share of exports to the Americas and Europe combined: ~47%
Share of imports from Asia: ~43%
Share of imports from the Americas and Europe combined: ~50%
How could one reach the conclussion that Brazil is an "Eastern" country? Oh yeah, they joined a trade organization with China and Russia ... sure, they must be Eastern now.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_Brazil
2 replies →
West is just the US nowadays.
I would say West is Europe, Japan and a few others. But I think I need a new word for that one.
4 replies →
[dead]