I'm really disappointed in patio11 over this one (and I reckon he has a lot of good things to say).
This is going back on other posts (in particular, this one: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/the-long-shadow-of-ch...), where he (correctly, I think) suggests that today's payment systems move risk to the parties most capable of assessing and (if necessary) absorbing it.
This post seems to throw seniors with cognitive issues under the bus ("That decision has a cost. Grandma sometimes pays it.").
Now it does seem that he is being careful in some phrasings. I see it as possible (but only with multiple readings) that he is in fact critical of the current regulatory regime.
For instance, the paragraph beginning "It is the ordinary and appropriate..." suggests that it's not 'we the people' but 'we the corporates', but that can't be said upfront.
Maybe that phrase that rankles is a call to action...?
Question for this community: am I misreading this?
TheDong•1mo ago
I think it can be read more charitably, the last bit includes "with positive intentions", which does act to indicate the outcome is bad, even though no one involved necessarily intends to make a scam-machine.
The direction I pick up from the piece is "Here's why this system is weird, that has some unfortunate outcomes, but that's the way it is" without any explicit call for action. If anything, it seems to accept the status quo as too difficult to change, while pointing out negative side-effects there.
cranky908canuck•1mo ago
This is going back on other posts (in particular, this one: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/the-long-shadow-of-ch...), where he (correctly, I think) suggests that today's payment systems move risk to the parties most capable of assessing and (if necessary) absorbing it.
This post seems to throw seniors with cognitive issues under the bus ("That decision has a cost. Grandma sometimes pays it.").
Now it does seem that he is being careful in some phrasings. I see it as possible (but only with multiple readings) that he is in fact critical of the current regulatory regime.
For instance, the paragraph beginning "It is the ordinary and appropriate..." suggests that it's not 'we the people' but 'we the corporates', but that can't be said upfront.
Maybe that phrase that rankles is a call to action...?
Question for this community: am I misreading this?
TheDong•1mo ago
The direction I pick up from the piece is "Here's why this system is weird, that has some unfortunate outcomes, but that's the way it is" without any explicit call for action. If anything, it seems to accept the status quo as too difficult to change, while pointing out negative side-effects there.