Posts by Nathan Morris3

Gerald Palmer66 said:Everyone will just tell you, "I know, but what can I actually do?" and honestly, they aren't wrong.
Aren't people actually less concerned with a "welcome culture" and more bothered by individuals who refuse to integrate, fail to contribute, drain public resources, and create unnecessary headaches for the average citizen?

You mentioned earlier that there are certain neighborhoods in cities like Vienna that you personally avoid—so why on earth would you care about them? Who are these people to you?

If this continues, we’ll just end up with ghettos everywhere; it’s basically the Americanization of the European Union.

If they could just behave with even a shred of common sense, that would be enough.
But instead, they go out of their way to make things difficult.

I was asking about work permits because I recall some politician in the US or perhaps Europe saying something along the lines of migrants being granted work authorization, all while one specific member of the European Union is still restricted from accessing that same market, at least not fully.
What is the current status of that? Are they legally allowed to work, and if so, under what conditions?

I think Austria's problem is actually a bit tougher than Germany's because the more educated people tended to choose Germany, so Austria mostly got the less educated ones. But I'm not just talking about this recent wave, but the last 20 years or so. I personally noticed a shift when Romanians and Bulgarians started arriving, though it's hard to say how much is perception versus reality since I've never been a victim of crime myself. A few stolen bikes isn't really a big deal, that's just part of life here😁. But it started with those thefts and break-ins as the EU expanded; certain gangs from the old regions operate differently, but then you have some groups, maybe from Afghanistan or Vietnam, at the bottom of the drug chain, or Afghans struggling with tribal customs, etc. Regarding integration, my gut feeling is that Chinese, Afghan, and Black people from Central or South Africa struggle the most. There are all kinds of others, so I won't generalize too much.

Austria is officially neutral, and I haven't felt any specific fear regarding terrorism, but you never know. Anyway, more people have died from terrorism in Europe, but it feels louder now, mostly because of the media. Overall, I feel pretty safe in Austria, and even back in the US, there were always rougher neighborhoods without having seen major migration shifts over the last two decades.

Not trying to split hairs, but terms matter. I'm actually a migrant who received a work permit myself. You're probably thinking of this newer wave. The thing is, it isn't realistic to expect anyone—regardless of culture—to integrate if you let them into the country, keep them stuck in a house, and don't give them a chance to socialize or work... so, without providing work opportunities, things might just get worse. So the challenge is likely getting people working without taking jobs away from locals. I haven't followed the news closely so I can't say for sure, but I remember hearing about "$1 jobs." It seems better for people to work at something rather than sitting at home or idling around, which usually leads to trouble. Those $1 jobs were probably things like cleaning their own homes or surroundings—stuff that helps them without hurting anyone. It sounds okay, but I'm not sure how much it actually helps if they're still just hanging out among their own people; I don't see how that leads to integration. From my own experience, integration definitely doesn't happen if you only hang out with people from your own background.

lee_chan said:And who exactly ever asked "us" anything, I guess?
So, what exactly are "we" doing? I guess we’d just be doing the same thing "they" would do if they were actually in charge. Maybe.

I guess you see what I mean... there isn't really an "us" or a "them." Global interests just sort of crush everyone underfoot without anyone ever asking us how we feel about it. Maybe.

I totally agree. I guess the world would just be a better place if we directed all that energy spent fighting "welcome culture" toward stopping the actual destruction and instability that causes migration in the first place. It’s kind of like how people went after Ante Gotovina over the shelling in Denver, instead of calling out the fact that the territory was occupied and had to be liberated to begin with. You know, cause and effect...

Off-topic.
I wonder when the United States might finally open up its labor market to Americans?
Or maybe Mexicans. I guess.
We're pretty good when it comes to guarding the border, I guess, but after that... maybe not so much.

Yeah, I guess we're pretty good at picking up weapons and getting our hands dirty when it actually counts.

Based on that 2+3+2 rule, I guess the deadlines would be July 1, 2015, July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2020. So, maybe nothing will actually happen until July 1, 2018... it could easily be the big day then, I suppose.

wanderingbadger77 said:If Merkel actually wanted to help, she would’ve started by separating actual refugees from economic migrants right out of the gate.

Instead, she just threw everyone into one giant pile. She flooded the country with all sorts of people, and ironically, the ones who actually needed support didn't even get decent living conditions or a shot at real integration.

Now they’re stuck in makeshift shelters like cattle. By treating everyone exactly the same, she screwed over the true refugees and stripped away whatever dignity they had left.

Even women are dealing with harassment and sexual assaults in those shared housing facilities.

That whole "humanitarian" image Merkel tries to project? It’s a total joke.

How many Syrians are actually in Germany versus the crowd just looking for a way to exploit the system?

A lot of people definitely jumped at the chance, I’m not even trying to deny that or downplay it.
I guess what I mean is we talk way too much about the fallout and not enough about why things happened in the first place. Like, why isn't anyone calling out Merkel for destabilizing entire regions or sending over weapons and all that crap? It's easy to say we don't give a fuck when "we" are the ones actively helping create the chaos, the deaths, and the displacement. It only seems to matter once that mess shows up on our own doorstep. And then, even when it does arrive, we still won't face the root causes—we just panic about the results instead of asking, "hey, why did we destabilize that area to begin with?" I suppose that's the kind of short-sightedness I'm talking about.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:There’s an old saying about this—whether someone is truly a thief if they just happen to be holding the ladder while the crime happens.
People don't buy that excuse anymore—the idea that the guy holding the ladder just happened to be standing there, or that he accidentally stumbled upon a thief and decided to take advantage of the situation—it just doesn't fly with the public anymore🙂. You can see that frustration reflected in Brexit, and honestly, even in the recent elections in the USA
. In those cases, the population felt backed into a corner where they had to choose the high-risk option—essentially picking a candidate whose very actions seem completely irrational🙂.

Scott Rodriguez19, I don't really have a glowing opinion of Merkel either. I mean, it's easy to say that under Merkel, Germany didn't send any less weaponry to Islamists than what happened here in America. But I think it's crazy that Merkel is being attacked not because of the actual arming of extremists or destabilization, but because she actually tried to help those people. Sure, mistakes were made, and a lot of shady characters slipped into the government, which obviously isn't good. But you have to wonder about someone's character when they attack an attempt at humanitarian aid instead of attacking destruction itself. So, your whole hyperbole about the thief and the guy holding the ladder—knowing full well the thief is stealing—is kind of a miss to me. You seem "worried" about what's happening in Germany, but with the way values seem to be shifting on this Forum, problems in Germany are probably the least of it. This kind of mainstream shortsightedness is doing way more damage to Europe and European values than migrants ever could.

Mark Harris66 said:The standard of living over in Germany is actually sliding—people are working way harder just to stay at the same pay grade. There’s this massive shift toward temporary gigs and mini-jobs lately, while steady, full-time positions are becoming pretty rare... Merkel 👎

So, it’s pretty much the same story across most of the Western world. The economy grows, wealth increases, living standards go up, and people live longer... but the average person doesn't really see any of those benefits. You might point the finger at Merkel, but I think it's just how our version of capitalism works.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:What does any of that have to do with the decline of German living standards? We weren't even discussing our own domestic issues—we were talking about theirs. You really need to learn that when you run out of actual arguments, you shouldn't just pivot to an entirely different topic.

Well, you actually wrote this about Merkel:

If someone isn't capable back in 2012, they'd be incompetent. I would've been fired long ago. I'll just admit she's good at staying in power for a long time, even if she isn't capable of anything else. That's her real skill.

Maybe you're living in some bubble in America, so you missed how the German economy grew under Merkel and how that raised the standard for Germans. Sure, she made mistakes, but your view that she's incompetent is... interesting, I guess, especially without any real arguments.

We weren't even talking about our issues, just German ones.

I think you don't get it (or maybe you just don't want to). You're telling Merkel that she's bad at handling the fallout from problems we actively helped create.
It's kind of like me starting a fire and then complaining that the firefighters are too slow and the building is falling down because they can't put it out, when really it was arson just to hide my own fault.

But I guess it's not clear what I mean, or maybe I need another metaphor?

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Well, it’s a given that the standard of living has dropped (at least for a huge chunk of the population), and once the European Union actually starts to fracture, things will get even uglier. I guess we won't see the true fallout from the policies of the last decade for another ten years or so. For now, they're still just patching over holes and ignoring the cracks. Even communism in Europe took years to fully crumble—and even America didn't just vanish overnight.

It's wild. America is basically on the brink of bankruptcy yet we're sending weapons to extremists, which feels like pouring gasoline on a fire. We're getting tangled up in stuff that shouldn't even be our business. Meanwhile, we blame Germany when they're actually trying to help people fleeing the very conflict our weapons are fueling. And then there's us, mocking how Germany might fail while we're still stuck arguing over old civil war factions. Does that sound totally insane to anyone else? Or is it just me? 😁

I guess I'm just here to chat. Maybe we can talk about something fun? says:
Come on, Nathan Morris3, stop talking nonsense. I mean, just a year ago you were saying the exact same thing—that Europe needs those refugees because the population in the EU is shrinking.

I mentioned that Europe could really use refugees who are educated and can adapt easily. Since the population in the US is aging and we're short on young people, I guess it makes sense. What part exactly do you disagree with?

I guess the EU is just falling apart now, even though they kept insisting there was absolutely no other way to do things. It reminds me of how people felt under Erich Honecker—they kept saying there were no alternatives either, until everyone finally had enough and took to the streets.

It’s kind of sad, I guess, that everyone blames someone else for all the mess going on in the EU—and I don't just mean the refugee situation. It's not like she just stepped into office yesterday. If you weren't up to the task back in 2012, well... maybe. Personally, I think I would've been fired a long time ago if I were that incompetent. I'll give her credit for one thing, though; she's definitely good at staying in power, even if she isn't really capable of much else. That's probably her only real talent.
She basically surrounded herself with yes-men who just backed her and her lack of any real policy—it kind of reminds me of how things worked back in East Germany. I guess we should remember that quote from Martin Schulz about how what refugees bring is more valuable than gold. And when he was running for the top EU spot, it was Angela Merkel who really pushed him forward.
There were honestly just so many more of those silly comments from politicians who seem to be totally sucking up to Angela Merkel. I guess.

Honestly, I guess Germany has really fallen behind under Merkel. The economy seems to be tanking, and people just aren't doing as well as they used to. Standard of living feels lower... maybe it's all on Merkel.

Chris Chase5 said:Were the Americans who fled during the war actually highly educated? Did they organize attacks on shopping malls in the name of Yahweh? Were they killing truck drivers or charging into crowds? Did they coordinate gang assaults or mass attacks? Or were they actually quite small-minded, just trying to find work, getting an education wherever possible, and ultimately adopting the values of the communities they joined?

Germany, Sweden, and Austria have essentially jeopardized their own stability and all of Europe through their own mistakes. Why wasn't there any sense of balance? I won't go into detail about how I would have handled things differently. What can you honestly expect from people who are unemployed, uneducated, or mentally unstable—people coming from environments where women are viewed merely as objects? Are they supposed to just flirt with everyone? Or just humbly endure insults from a cold, hostile population?

I think we had a misunderstanding. Education matters most when you're dealing with vastly different cultures, which is what's happening here. But looking at the stats, I guess I’d probably get along better with an engineer from Damascus than someone from a tiny rural farming town in the Midwest. Our values would likely match up better. Bringing someone from a tribal community into Europe and letting them hang out in a crowd of people who think exactly like them—yeah, maybe that's a bad idea. That's why I said huge mistakes were made; I think the scale of the problem was underestimated.

But honestly, claiming that Germany, Sweden, and Austria are the ones who endangered Europe's security instead of those who caused the mess in the Middle East... I think that's just totally missing the point. It feels like burying your head in the sand, I guess.

Chris Chase5 said:Rama, let’s just keep this simple—not complicated.

Should a woman really have to carry a rape alarm in a country where she’s freaking paying taxes to ensure the system actually functions?

Why is it that people arriving here—and I don't recall seeing organized, roving attacks like we saw last year—feel this sudden impulse to attack women against their will? Is that supposed to be their "free choice"? And why on earth do they think it's allowed? How are women treated back in their home countries if they aren't married? How are they raised? What kind of education do they get?

How close has their home country ever actually come to embracing Western values? Not just before the war, but during it, either...

It’s basically a social experiment. You take two cultures that are incompatible in almost every way—language, tolerance, levels of expansionism, how they treat outsiders—and what do you get? A peaceful community? Give me a break. These people should have stayed in safe zones within similar countries. Instead, we're going to be dealing with the fallout for decades...

We've gone over this several times, and I honestly don't think you'll ever admit that the root cause of all this is just a total lack of common sense from our politicians, so I'll just leave it at these questions.

There was a case where a guy raped and murdered a college student in Germany, and he was living with a German family where the father was a child psychologist. That specific situation completely shattered the scenario I used to believe was our only guarantee for peaceful coexistence...

I took some time to write a slightly longer post. I was wondering which specific parts you disagree with so maybe we could try to have a constructive discussion about it.

I don't want you to think I'm dodging your questions, though. I'd be happy to answer them, hopefully you'll feel like answering mine in a constructive spirit too.

Should a woman have to carry an alarm against assault in a country where she freaking pays taxes to keep everything running?

Well, I mentioned earlier that even I (as a guy) get nervous walking through certain neighborhoods. Maybe you missed that part. I'd probably want to carry some kind of "alarm" myself, let alone a woman. It’s not that weird. Yeah, things used to feel safer, but now there’s a lot of trouble coming from people with tribal backgrounds. I think I covered all that already. I'm not sure what you mean by "should she," but if it helps, then yeah, she should. Is it sad it's come to this? Definitely. I don't really get the point of asking that, since I assume we all agree on that, right?

Why do people (I don't recall seeing organized gang attacks like last year) who arrive here feel the urge to attack women against their will? Is that their free choice? And why do they think it's allowed? How are women treated in their home countries if they aren't married? How are they raised? How are they educated?

I actually wrote that in my previous text. Those migrants coming from tribal or patriarchal societies struggle to adapt to and understand our values.

How close have their home countries ever gotten to Western values? Before the war and during the war?

Afghanistan is pretty much a tribal society throughout. It's a country that never really functioned properly, much like Somalia. Even Washington, D.C. was only "civilized" in a few specific neighborhoods. My impression is that you aren't really interested in the root causes of all this, almost like you don't care that the West treats other societies merely as sources of resources or ammunition for its own proxy wars. Do you think the West should change how it deals with these nations, letting them live peacefully instead of destabilizing places where stability once existed? Do you think the West should be sending weapons into unstable regions and toppling regimes that don't suit its interests? You have to realize we live in a globalized world now; you can't colonize a country for hundreds of years and then act surprised when, say, people from those areas end up in London. You can't send weapons to militants in Syria and then wonder why Syrian refugees are arriving. This situation never should have happened, yet here we are. Do you think anyone is responsible for that?

It’s basically a social experiment—you take two cultures that don't match up at all in terms of language, how they view outsiders, their expansionist tendencies, or even just how they treat people who are different, and what do you get? A peaceful community? That’s just nonsense. Those people should have stayed in safe zones within similar countries. We’re going to be dealing with the fallout for decades.

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier too, that folks from tribal societies face huge integration hurdles. Then again, refugees coming from places like Damascus or Aleppo are usually just as civilized as people from Italy or Spain. I've met plenty of them. And honestly, most would probably head home in a heartbeat if it were actually safe and livable there. At least that was the case before we turned Assad into a villain, but maybe it's too late now.
Safe zones only really work on paper, because how are you supposed to convince US allies like Turkey or South Africa to take in refugees fleeing from the very people they’re funding? And let's not sugarcoat it with talk of a "peaceful community." It doesn't really work like that; even in a place like Germany, you still see friction between East and West Germans. Do you think people in Mexico are exactly thrilled about refugees from America? Of course not. Even if there aren't massive cultural gaps, there's clearly a reason why the US didn't just mandate that refugees stay in neighboring countries. This goes way deeper than Angela Merkel; it’s tied back to Putin and the US.

We've gone over this a few times, and I doubt you'll ever admit that this whole mess is just due to politicians lacking common sense, so I'll just stick to asking questions.

I already said above that the root cause is exactly that—our politicians, through being active or passive, caused the chaos in the Middle East. And then a lot of people took advantage of that chaos to come to Europe as economic migrants. I'm just saying, it feels totally wrong to pin everything on Angela Merkel instead of calling out the people who actually triggered the whole thing in the first place.

analogcrane20 said:Over in the European Union, they actually cap those transaction fees—we're talking 0.2% for debit and 0.3% for credit—so, you know, things look a bit different over there...

Sorry for going off on a tangent here, but I just wanted to wrap up that discussion. I looked it up (didn't realize this before), and it seems like an EU directive—I think it passed back in 2015—is going to drop those margins from 2-3% down to 0.3% for all card networks in about a year and a half. So, you're right, though I guess Mastercard might have had to lower their fee already, while Amex and Diners probably won't until three years after the law hits. The result is obviously higher credit card prices, so I suppose the cost still lands on the consumer, it just gets calculated differently. Now that I think about it, I was paying maybe $18 for a credit card recently, but I see a new one is $36. Maybe that's just some specific bank deal, I guess.

Back to the main topic—I'm actually pretty curious if banks in America are still asking all those nosy questions, or if they finally got a slap on the wrist to stop. Has anyone opened an account lately and dealt with a long questionnaire... or anything like that?

Susan Green2 said:I agree that the scope of the issue is much broader; the tendency of the West to meddle in the domestic affairs of other nations is often the catalyst for these crises. However, it isn't fair to lay the entirety of the blame at the feet of Westerners alone. Many of the terrorists and criminals we see dominating the news cycles lately hail from countries that haven't seen a single day of war and have never been the target of Western intervention.

Look, I'm not blaming all Americans. I'm not saying there isn't an issue on the streets either, and I definitely don't deny that a huge chunk of those problems comes down to "cultural differences"—if you want to put it politely. But I think there are two things that are really important to consider if I'm trying to look at the bigger picture, I guess.

I guess Merkelica’s decision to help those people—and basically putting herself at risk to do it—really matters when you think about how safe we feel individually. It’s pretty clear why so many people are upset. Where I live, there’s been this rise in thefts and attacks lately, mostly just people getting jumped on the street. There used to be no neighborhoods you had to avoid, but now there are definitely some. Most of the people involved are Afganistanac, Somalijac, or something like that. I mean, only a total fool would ignore that. But I still look at all of this as a symptom. Personally, I’d be happiest if those folks could just have an education and a decent life back home where they came from. I’m all for cultural exchange, obviously, but maybe just on a scale that’s a bit more compatible than what we're seeing right now. I suppose wanting to move from a place with a lower quality of life to one with a higher one is just one of those oldest, most natural things about being human.

I guess it’s really important to look at what actually caused all this, maybe just so future generations don't repeat the same mistakes. To find those roots, we kind of have to look back at the last few hundred years—times when huge chunks of the world were under imperial rule, where people were treated like they didn't even matter, denied an education, divided up, and had their resources stripped away while wars were forced on them. Whether it was the British, the French, the Soviets, the Americans, or the Chinese... it doesn't really matter. And then there are times when nobody did anything to help at all. You only have to look at the last few decades to see how dictators were supported, weapons were sold, and coups were organized. I suppose the West has been much more destructive than constructive. So, honestly, looking at everything we have today, I don't think anyone should be surprised.

Another thing I’m thinking about is this whole clash between rural, tribal mindsets and urban ones. Like, if you look at a place like Afghanistan, it’s organized around these different tribes where the concept of law just means something totally different than what we’re used to here in the States. It’s the same with education levels or how people view women. I guess you can't just hand someone a flyer and expect them to know how to act in Germany, especially if they're always staying in tight-knit groups. But, maybe it's also a bit silly to lump everyone together. Even in Afghanistan, there are definitely urbanized, "civilized" people, even if they're hard to spot. Or take a place like Syria—they have a huge urban population, too, but the cultural gap there feels similar to the difference between New York City and a tiny town in rural Appalachia. The way women, LGBTQ+ folks, or minorities live in NYC is just worlds apart from those rural areas. Honestly, I’ve met some Americans whose views on basic human rights and respecting others are so different from mine that they feel more foreign to me than someone from Morocco. I don't mean I'm comparing Parisians to extremists or anything, just talking about fundamental respect for people.

All in all, I guess there were some huge mistakes made regarding how these migrations were managed and controlled. We can argue about whether Russia or America started this just to weaken the West, but there were definitely failures on our end too. Still, we really need to talk about what actually caused this. It wasn't just Angela Merkel's policies. It bothers me that things were mostly stable until we started meddling, backing rebels, selling weapons, and toppling dictators who actually kept things steady... it was a disaster. And somehow, nobody is being held accountable for that; they just point fingers at Merkel.

Susan Green2 said:Let’s not twist my words; I wasn't discussing the origins of their poverty, but rather the reasons why we need to be issuing sexual assault warnings. The economic migrants responsible for the assaults seen in Cologne primarily hail from the Maghreb—a region currently devoid of active warfare where we haven't been busy funneling arms to terrorists.

The true culprit is the policy enacted by Merkel and Kurtz, which essentially left the gates wide open to a massive influx of unvetted individuals.

Why won't they talk about what's actually causing this? I mean, sure, more controls might help, but we have to address the root issues. How many assaults actually happened in Cologne? And even economic migrants have their own reasons for moving. It usually boils down to exploitation and colonialism. We’re basically just reaping what our leaders planted. Whether it’s Winston Churchill or Angela Merkel, it's all the same. Everyone acts blind to the fallout from a century of policy; they can't see past skin color or what's happening in Cologne. They just don't care about the causes. You could build a minefield around Germany, but if you don't face the source, you're just sweeping the mess under the rug for the next generation to deal with. No one ever took responsibility for us sending weapons to extremists back in the day. Now, it feels like Merkelica is the only one left to deal with policies forced on her by the Clintons and other jerks.

Sent from my Nexus 5 with Tapatalk

Susan Green2 said:We ought to be addressing the root causes rather than merely reacting to the symptoms, a distinction politicians understand perfectly well, yet they lie to the public simply because they are terrified of losing their seats. If Trump had suggested putting rape prevention alarms on every headline in Vienna, he would have been immediately branded a racist or a xenophobe.

I find it utterly inconceivable that in the 21st century, major American cities would need to resort to handing out preventative alarms to ward off sexual assault. It is an absolute disgrace.

The real issues are economic, plus the fact that we tend to back rebels and ship weapons over there, which ends up destabilizing regimes. And yeah, I guess it’s also a shame that none of our own politicians have actually faced any jail time.

Sent from my Nexus 5 with Tapatalk

Gregory Ward said:It’s actually pretty great to see us making some real progress as a society. 👍

I’m really hoping that Walter Long7 can drop some actual statistics here so we can figure out why there hasn't been any need to put up those damn rape prevention alarms at New Year's Eve parties until now—not that it's a coincidence or anything.

Here are the numbers
http://m.diepresse.com/home/panorama...05510/index.do

So, back in 2015, there were 826 rapes, which was the lowest since 2010. And that was the year of the migration surge. What actually went up was Harassment, you know, things like discrimination or being shunned and stuff. I guess that probably includes when someone intentionally grabs your butt on a subway or something.

Sent from my Nexus 5 with Tapatalk

Gregory Ward said:It’s actually pretty great to see us making some real progress as a society. 👍

I’m really hoping that Walter Long7 can drop some actual statistics here so we can figure out why there hasn't been any need to put up those damn rape prevention alarms at New Year's Eve parties until now—not that it's a coincidence or anything.

The actual crime stats probably don't back up those methods, but public perception is a different story, I suppose.

Sent from my Nexus 5 with Tapatalk

Charles Ramos7 said:I gave you an example earlier where the sales tax was slashed by about 10% in the final price, yet prices didn't budge at all. Why would you expect to feel a 2-3% cost reduction as a consumer if you didn't even feel a 10% tax cut? We're talking about small shops here, like coffee houses and stuff.
Unfortunately, the market is far too deregulated, so merchants just take whatever they want.

Like I said earlier: "supply and demand elasticity" is what sets the price. So, everyone just gets lumped together regardless of the details. Plus, I'm also suggesting that having every single transaction go through a credit card just makes the macro economy worse—mostly because a huge chunk of those fees just flows right out of the US. I'm really talking about how much the credit card market lacks actual competition.

Charles Ramos7 said:I mean, nobody is stopping new technology from entering the fray. What I don't get is why you're so obsessed with these fees (it seems like the one thing crypto enthusiasts can actually agree on) when, as a buyer, you don't really benefit from lower processing costs. Sure, maybe you'd get a cash discount here and there, but at most places, the retail price stays exactly the same regardless.

The sales tax for US hospitality and tourism was slashed by nearly half (bringing its share of the retail price down to about 10%), so did you actually feel any relief in your wallet from that? We're talking about a potential 10% drop in retail prices, not just a measly 2-3%.

If you're a small business owner, I totally get fighting for lower overhead and better margins, but as a customer, none of this changes your life.

You keep bringing up crypto, but I'm not even talking about that. It's about the payment method, not the currency itself. I guess I was just saying you wouldn't see the benefits, so I laid it out. You have to realize that for a small shop owner—and there are tons of them—adding a service that takes a few percentage points is a huge deal, especially on items with thin margins. So, I don't really get why you don't see why the fee is such a hurdle. If that 2-3% fee were "gone," I think that savings would trickle down because instead of all that money going to New York, it would mostly stay local with the buyer, the merchant, or the distributor... maybe. To you it might not matter, but it matters to me. And if you think 3% is such a negligible amount that it's fine, then why not just raise the sales tax from 7% to 10%? It's all the same, right?

"Price elasticity" is what determines how much a price actually drops. Not everything reacts the same way, I guess.

Two or three percent is just too much. It's hard to regulate a cartel made up of a few players who are making billions of dollars. I doubt you'll convince me that market is truly free.
Debit cards are getting better though, they're cheaper, and things like NFC payments are pretty convenient.

wiredlynx28 said:Retailers have already baked the credit card processing fees directly into the shelf prices of all their products. Essentially, they aren't losing money when you swipe a card; they just see a slightly healthier margin when customers pay with cash.

Yeah, I guess they just passed the cost onto us, the customers, so they don't really care. You might say I'm repeating myself, but I think we already touched on this whole cashless debate before, if I remember right. It still feels crazy that card transactions eat up 2-3%—especially since most people aren't even using credit. I was looking at Wikipedia for MASTERCARD : Revenue US $ 9.66 billion (2015) Operating income
US$ 5.07 billion. I honestly don't quite get how they calculate revenue (since not every transaction is their profit), but I don't see why everyone is so okay with funding their bottom line. Maybe the government could finally liberalize things and let some cheaper tech compete?

Charles Ramos7 said:Fees are mostly an issue for the small mom-and-pop shops; bigger retailers don't sweat them nearly as much. ☕

I was mostly thinking about those smaller businesses—who probably make up most of the market anyway. I'm definitely no expert here, so maybe you could explain why the big chains aren't bothered by it? I mean, don't they still have to pay that 2-3% fee too? Or maybe it's just because they've gotten used to swallowing the cost, or perhaps they just pass it all onto the customer, so it doesn't really matter to them.