Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (12789)	10/4/2004 3:51:33 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Yeah, well what do you expect them to say. They are dead friggin' guilty and because they are the richest companies on the planet and because they control the house and the senate, they could stall the technical determination FOR TWENTY YEARS IN THE COURTS. And trust me on this one they are not happy with that. They want to convince a gullible people that attornies are bad things. The bought the executive branch and the legislative branch, and they can't buy the judicial branch fast enough so they undermine it by convincing people like you that the attorneys who are needed to make the judicial system work are communists or worse. That's what all the double talk is for. The only thing missing is a biblical reference, which I am sure will be right along.

To: mishedlo who wrote (12789)	10/4/2004 6:26:35 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 116555

It is not implausible that the Visa/Mastercard decision may result in less competition. The limitation was placed on individual banks. If they issued Visa or Mastercards, they could not also issue American Express or Discover. Visa and Mastercard, which are owned collectively by the issuing banks, do not set the interest rates, terms, or dictate any bonus programs (like cash back). These features are determined by each issuing bank in competition with other banks. The argument went like this. To the extent that banks issuing Visa and Mastercard are competing with banks offering American Express or Discover, they need to offer better terms to consumers. On the flip side, if a bank offering Visa and Mastercard could also offer American Express or Discover cards, aren't they sufficiently in competition with other issuing banks. The court has essentially decided this was primarily a competitive issue between American Express / Discover and Visa Mastercard. The competitive effect on consumers was not over-riding. This was a difficult decision because many businesses prohibit their licensees or retailer from offering competing products. Mercedes dealers cannot also sell Lexus cars at the same dealership. I think what caused the loss for Visa and Mastercard is they don't exclude each other. If Visa prohibited their banks from offering any other card, including Mastercard, American Express, or Discover, I think the decision would have been different.