[mihaic]

I honestly have no idea how the hell the US public is still deluding itself to not make this illegal.

Are the only ones that get it so content with their 1-2% pieces of silver that they're fine in trading the wellbeing of the less fortunate?

[cwkoss]

You say "only" as if this isn't the majority of the american bourgeoisie.

Pretty much all of finance, Landlords, IP trolling - the rich will unashamedly collect undeserved rent on anything they can up to and slightly over the line of the law.

[thayne]

It's a prisoner's dilemma. If we collectively switched to a payment system with lower transaction costs, we would all be better off. But as an individual, it is in your best interest to use the credit card with the highest rewards program, because you have to pay that extra 3% either way.

[mihaic]

Agree, and specifically for prisoner's dilemma/tragedy of the commons scenarios we have the option of regulation, which corporate propaganda has labeled as "government intervention is always bad".

And we also taught our children to be ethical and aim to do good, even in school, which helped.

[fallingknife]

On the one hand, 3% cc fees are much higher than what would be set by a competitive market and are only possible with an oligopoly. On the other hand, the convenience that they allow for not carrying cash is often worth more than the 3% to consumers/merchants like me. E.g. any online payment. So while it's massively overpriced, it's still a win win usually, and I think that's probably why people aren't madder about it.

[unglaublich]

Yeah, the convenience of having drinkable tap water is also worth >3% of your net income. But luckily, because of competitive markets, it's often <0.1% of your income.

[Oxidation]

Isn't water one is the canonical examples of a natural monopoly?

[mixdup]

what city in the US has a competitive water distribution system?