• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Going Postal - A True Holiday Story

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
PrinceofWands said:
They increase costs, just by their existence. Takes money to print them, do the paperwork, recordkeeping, advertising, etc. Many carry annual fees and such to offset, but bottom line is they're just a bad idea.
Click to expand...

but the companies that print them, do the paperwork, recordkeeping, advertising, etc. cover the costs themselves. and they must be making money doing so or they would be out of business. they also employ thousands of people in order to do all these things.

how are these bad things?
 
blackdogdeek said:
but the companies that print them, do the paperwork, recordkeeping, advertising, etc. cover the costs themselves. and they must be making money doing so or they would be out of business. they also employ thousands of people in order to do all these things.

how are these bad things?
Click to expand...

No company eats costs...they're passed on, one way or another.

Then you get into the fact that when people do use them they're charged on it, increasing costs to them further (unless they pay off instantly, which hardly any do). That drain on individual resources and the resultant wealth concentration is an EXTREME negative to the wider economy. While it may be up to the individual to be smart enough to not use them, their existence still supports a negative result.

Finally there's the simple idea of the number of hands in the pie. Every time you increase the number of people involved in a transaction you decrease the worth of the money (each involved have to get money, thereby raising costs, perpetuating inflation, etc). The ideal economy is money changing hands as little as possible, and only between primaries involved in a transaction whenever possible. Anything else destabilizes.
 
Last edited:
PrinceofWands said:
Didn't reach for it, just dropped my coat that was tied around my waist covering it. It's how I usually carry so I practice removing it quickly when I go on guard.
Click to expand...

I'm still going with 'there is more to the story' since the public was looking at you like you were the devil.
 
"EXCUSE ME?!" I scream back at him, "We're DONE now, go get your supervisor IMMEDIATELY, or you might as well just call the cops now and save time!"
Click to expand...

I stopped reading at this point. OP sounds batshit insane.
 
PrinceofWands said:
No company eats costs...they're passed on, one way or another.

Then you get into the fact that when people do use them they're charged on it, increasing costs to them further (unless they pay off instantly, which hardly any do). That drain on individual resources and the resultant wealth concentration is an EXTREME negative to the wider economy. While it may be up to the individual to be smart enough to not use them, their existence still supports a negative result.
Click to expand...

wait, it sounds like you are saying that because there are people who don't know how to exercise prudence when using credit cards, there shouldn't be credit cards.

how do you feel about guns?
 
blackdogdeek said:
wait, it sounds like you are saying that because there are people who don't know how to exercise prudence when using credit cards, there shouldn't be credit cards.

how do you feel about guns?
Click to expand...

That's not even close to what I said. I said their mere existence increases costs, and even their proper use results in significant negatives. That's on top of people making bad choices with them. You'll notice I don't ask for a law outlawing them, I merely take the personal responsibility to not have them myself, and to speak openly about their negatives.

Feel the same way about drugs. Never done them, never would do them, but I absolutely believe they should be 100% legal. They're awful, and do terrible things, so I won't touch them. If others choose to, that's up to them. As it relates to this story it would be like people EXPECTING you to do drugs just because they were legal (if they were), and blowing up at you if you chose not to.
 
PrinceofWands said:
That's not even close to what I said. I said their mere existence increases costs, and even their proper use results in significant negatives. That's on top of people making bad choices with them. You'll notice I don't ask for a law outlawing them, I merely take the personal responsibility to not have them myself, and to speak openly about their negatives.

Feel the same way about drugs. Never done them, never would do them, but I absolutely believe they should be 100% legal. They're awful, and do terrible things, so I won't touch them. If others choose to, that's up to them.
Click to expand...

I've had one and only one credit card for about 8 years now. I have never paid an annual fee, and I have never paid a dime in interest. In fact, I've gotten rebate checks because at the very least I receive 1% cash back on all purchases. As such, by using having a CC I have spent less money than I would have otherwise. I'm such a sucker. 🙁
 
TheVrolok said:
I've had one and only one credit card for about 8 years now. I have never paid an annual fee, and I have never paid a dime in interest. In fact, I've gotten rebate checks because at the very least I receive 1% cash back on all purchases. As such, by using having a CC I have spent less money than I would have otherwise. I'm such a sucker. 🙁
Click to expand...

And you think your actions are what establish the sum total economic impact to the country/world?

I've said it a thousand times - Personal experiences are useless. ONLY aggregates matter.

IF any number of people behaved like you there would be no money to be made with them, and they'd quickly disappear (or at least morph significantly). The fact that they continue to exist (and in fact become more common) shows that reality is FAR different than your experience.
 
I would take OP's side and say that guy sounds like a lunatic but I think you're just as crazy with your anti-plastic shenanigans. In the real world we swipe cards and leave the paper currency to the drug dealers.
 
Feeling the need to let them know you normally carry a gun........calling people sheeple........screaming at tellers at Christmas (regardless of their demeanor)........not wanting to go outside...........casually mentioning in a statement 'when I need to pull out my gun'........

Paranoia, conspiracist? Glad I live where people can talk and be rational to each other even during disagreements.
 
PrinceofWands said:
It's the usual reaction when they discover someone carries a gun. Or even just when they refuse to act like a sheeple.
Click to expand...

But you weren't carrying your gun - so they were scared you didn't have your gun?

And not enough dialouge for the sheeple part. I am guessing they were annoyed/freaked out by your over-reaction
 
PrinceofWands said:
And you think your actions are what establish the sum total economic impact to the country/world?

I've said it a thousand times - Personal experiences are useless. ONLY aggregates matter.
Click to expand...

Like you've already mentioned, there are a great many things that have some negative impact when looking at aggregates. However, railing against many of those things simply makes you sound silly. Especially when a great, great many people use things like debit/credit cards responsibly.
 
Alienwho said:
I would take OP's side and say that guy sounds like a lunatic but I think you're just as crazy with your anti-plastic shenanigans. In the real world we swipe cards and leave the paper currency to the drug dealers.
Click to expand...

Your opinions don't dictate reality any more than mine do. In the 'real world' you have the option, and BOTH are legal for debts incurred.
 
Standpoint said:
Feeling the need to let them know you normally carry a gun........calling people sheeple........screaming at tellers at Christmas (regardless of their demeanor)........not wanting to go outside...........casually mentioning in a statement 'when I need to pull out my gun'........

Paranoia, conspiracist? Glad I live where people can talk and be rational to each other even during disagreements.
Click to expand...

Early on OP suggested the teller call the police which implies that OP assumed he would either do some illegal, or require professional assistance to be restrained. Nutty.
 
Exterous said:
But you weren't carrying your gun - so they were scared you didn't have your gun?

And not enough dialouge for the sheeple part. I am guessing they were annoyed/freaked out by your over-reaction
Click to expand...

MY overreaction???

I was calm, polite, and apologetic until I was screamed at and abused. Even then I was ONLY reactionary and defensive against an unjust aggressor. You need some classes in reading comprehension or ethics...or both.
 
I think the moral of the story is don't respond to rudeness and screaming with more rudeness and screaming. I pictured myself in your situation and my response to the clerk would have been something like, "OK, I don't have any other ideas. What would you suggest?" which puts the problem-solving issue back on him.

Seems you have an extremely short fuse.
 
PrinceofWands said:
MY overreaction???

I was calm, polite, and apologetic until I was screamed at and abused. Even then I was ONLY reactionary and defensive against an unjust aggressor. You need some classes in reading comprehension or ethics...or both.
Click to expand...

Actually you said he nearly screamed at you, and I'm worried that you consider nearly being screamed at abuse. The fact that after this "nearly screaming" you received you felt the need to suggest the police be called shows exactly who was a bit more extreme here.
 
TheVrolok said:
Like you've already mentioned, there are a great many things that have some negative impact when looking at aggregates. However, railing against many of those things simply makes you sound silly. Especially when a great, great many people use things like debit/credit cards responsibly.
Click to expand...

A great many people owned blacks. A great many people stuffed jews into ovens. A great many people beat their wives. These things should be participated in because they're popular?

Popularity doesn't dictate worth or morality. In fact, I would contend that generally whatever the masses do should be the definition of wrong.
 
PrinceofWands said:
That's not even close to what I said. I said their mere existence increases costs
Click to expand...

ok, but doesn't any service or consumable also do the same?

PrinceofWands said:
, and even their proper use results in significant negatives.
Click to expand...

what negatives? extra costs? those costs will either be paid by vendors who wish to allow cc purchases, which is entirely their choice, or by cc companies through fees and/or revenue. how is this different from other companies that sell anything?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top