[cookiecaper]

Chargebacks remove all responsibility from the buyer. Perhaps we'd be better off if the consumer did have to put some thought into the quality of the goods and services they're purchasing and the vendor they're purchasing from? In particular I don't think chargebacks should be allowed for sales under (at least) $50. In many cases where the sum is below that amount, the chargeback fee and man-time cost asssociated with filing a dispute makes it an automatic loss of money for the vendor, even if he/she wins the dispute.

[mikeash]

It's not like merchants are required to accept credit cards, or customers are required to use them. If you don't like using credit cards, don't. If you don't like merchants who accept them, patronize those who don't.

Of course, that last bit is pretty hard, but only because merchants have mostly decided that the cost and hassle of accepting credit cards is well worth it.

[yc1010]

If you want to sell anything over the internet your choice is either credit cards (and wallets such as paypal build on credit cards) or bank transfer or bitcoin

Once the again the keyword here is "choice" Bitcoin gives yet another option for eCommerce at ultralow fees. and thats great.

[mikeash]

Or money orders or mailing cash or checks or barter or....

My point is, you have a choice, so if you don't like how credit cards do things, don't use them.

[cookiecaper]

The "choice" to accept credit cards is kind of like the "choice" to have adequate parking -- if you don't do it, no matter how good you are, you're not going to be able to compete (in most parts of the country). Consumers expect to be able to use cards these days, many people don't carry any cash anymore. Every typical storefront is expected to accept cards and your shop won't get traffic if you don't, just like it won't get traffic (again, in most parts of the country) if you expect your customers to park a mile away and walk.

This whole line of argument is kind of a red herring anyway. It's OK to discuss things we do or don't like about something without it becoming a "take it or leave it" situation. "Take it or leave it" is meant to shut down an discussion that the party pushing that line doesn't want to happen. I never asserted that the force of law compelled anyone to accept credit cards, so it should be obvious that it's "optional", right? Why can't we talk about the problems, real or perceived, with chargeoffs, mikeash?

[mikeash]

I'm fine with discussing costs and benefits, but I draw the line when people start talking about limiting what other people are allowed to do. The moment you say "I don't think chargebacks should be allowed for" then my response is going to move to the "then don't use it" approach.

Back off from trying to stop people from using something a lot of them clearly like, and I'm happy to talk about the problems.

In any case, "take it or leave it" is a perfectly valid argument for things that aren't collective action problems. "Cars are destroying society" "so don't drive one" is a bad argument, because your individual choice doesn't make a noticeable difference. "Excessive parking hurts businesses" "so don't install excessive parking at your business" is a perfectly good argument, because you have the power to change your own circumstances there. (Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that it's common to have parking lot size dictated by local laws.) Using and accepting credit cards falls into the latter category: if credit cards hurt your business, don't accept them. That this will probably result in a failure of your business merely indicates that the benefits outweigh the costs. If you think the benefits could be preserved while reducing the costs, that would be interesting, but I don't think such a scheme would actually succeed, and not simply because the existing infrastructure is entrenched.

[s73v3r]

If the vendor has screwed me, why should it only count if it's above a certain amount?