Pin cards not accepted...

[VTTrain]

Many consumers who even that they are competent unfortunately are not so in practice either. There is an assumption of an ideal consumer in play here.

Not at all.  There is an assumption that, on average, a consumer is better positioned to know what is in their interests than a third party.  That is a well proven assertion.   Economics 101, really.  

 

[caravanman]

I misunderstood post #38, and read that as " it was compulsory to opt in" to the debit card use as a credit card, rather than an option. 

Maybe consumers are good judges of what is best for them? Dunno where all the overweight people come from, or all these deaths from smoking related cancers.

I guess the world economic crash in 2009 had nothing to do with consumers making bad choices beyond their means?

Ed 

 

[VTTrain]

I misunderstood post #38, and read that as " it was compulsory to opt in" to the debit card use as a credit card.

Maybe consumers are good judges of what is best for them? Dunno where all the overweight people come from, or all thse deaths from smoking related cancers.

I guess the world economic crash in 2009 had nothing to do with consumers making bad choices beyond their means?

Ed 

I could refute all of this but I’m not going to hijack the thread. PM me if you are genuinely interested.  

 

[PVD]

Plenty of people would disagree with the notion that it is well proven.

 

[VTTrain]

Plenty of people would disagree with the notion that it is well proven.

Hopefully they aren’t teachers.  

 

[cpotisch]

It took a great deal of outcry to get the law changed to require opt in rather than opt out. That is relatively recent. The fees on overdrafts are pretty high. Giving a consumer a chance to do something that is not in their best interests may well be a bad thing. It is not always a good thing.

The consumer is in the best position to know what is in their interests.  

I like using extreme examples to make a point, so here we go.

Let’s say that in the fine print for overdraft protection or whatever the technical name for this is, it says the following:

Visa maintains the right to seize the card holder’s children if fees are more than 7 days overdue.

Now, not everyone is going to read that fine print thoroughly, and if they opt in and get behind on payments, whoops! It’s goodbye to little Jenny and Johnny. Would you say that getting overdraft protection in exchange for your children is a good option, that should be offered to the average consumer? Probably not, right?

Now obviously this is an absurd and unrealistic example that would not actually happen, but the point still stands that if something is fundamentally not in a person’s best interests, it is also not always in their best interests to offer it to them.

 

[cpotisch]

I misunderstood post #38, and read that as " it was compulsory to opt in" to the debit card use as a credit card.

Maybe consumers are good judges of what is best for them? Dunno where all the overweight people come from, or all thse deaths from smoking related cancers.

I guess the world economic crash in 2009 had nothing to do with consumers making bad choices beyond their means?

Ed 

I could refute all of this but I’m not going to hijack the thread. PM me if you are genuinely interested.  

If you have an actual argument that is relevant to this discussion, I don’t think it counts as hijacking. To be honest, you claiming that you can completely refute an entire post, but that you also do not want to put your “refutement” out there, kind of sounds to me like you aren’t that confident in it. But feel free to prove me wrong, good sir. 

 

[VTTrain]

I like using extreme examples to make a point, so here we go.

Let’s say that in the fine print for overdraft protection or whatever the technical name for this is, it says the following:

Now, not everyone is going to read that fine print thoroughly, and if they opt in and get behind on payments, whoops! It’s goodbye to little Jenny and Johnny. Would you say that getting overdraft protection in exchange for your children is a good option, that should be offered to the average consumer? Probably not, right?

Now obviously this is an absurd and unrealistic example that would not actually happen, but the point still stands that if something is fundamentally not in a person’s best interests, it is also not always in their best interests to offer it to them.

Nice straw man.  That said, I’ve already addressed this.  Your issue is merely with the adequacy of disclosures.  Of course disclosures should be adequate.  

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The consumer is in the best position to know what is in their interests.  

That's a rational sounding but demonstrably false assertion.

Not at all.  There is an assumption that, on average, a consumer is better positioned to know what is in their interests than a third party.  That is a well proven assertion.   Economics 101, really.  

Manipulative supply side economics from the 1950's, really.

 

[cpotisch]

I like using extreme examples to make a point, so here we go.

Let’s say that in the fine print for overdraft protection or whatever the technical name for this is, it says the following:

Now, not everyone is going to read that fine print thoroughly, and if they opt in and get behind on payments, whoops! It’s goodbye to little Jenny and Johnny. Would you say that getting overdraft protection in exchange for your children is a good option, that should be offered to the average consumer? Probably not, right?

Now obviously this is an absurd and unrealistic example that would not actually happen, but the point still stands that if something is fundamentally not in a person’s best interests, it is also not always in their best interests to offer it to them.

Nice straw man.  That said, I’ve already addressed this.  Your issue is merely with the adequacy of disclosures.  Of course disclosures should be adequate.  

You haven’t addressed this. My point was simply to demonstrate that you can’t unilaterally say that it’s good to offer something to consumers that is not in their best interests. Consumers don’t always fully look over terms and conditions or fully understand the implications of them. If an option is bad, it just isn’t necessarily good to offer it.

 

[pennyk]

MODERATOR NOTE:  Please try to keep the discussion on the topic of Amtrak not accepting PIN cards at its stations.

Thank you and Happy New Year.