 | | Re: More changes at Paypal —William Brumbach
|
| | | Don't you love these people? It's OK to suck money OUT of your bank accounts pretty much unlimited but not the other way around. It also peeves me that the default payment option is the bank account given and now you really have to dig to use the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: More changes at Paypal —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) Well, perhaps you'd prefer they eliminated the free option? What they are doing can't be done for free. They are almost certainly being charged by a credit card clearing house to process the credit card transactions. Where do you propose they (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: More changes at Paypal —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) Personally, I think the BUYER should pay the fee. But I don't think they can legally do that due to the CC laws in place in the US, so there's not much we can do about it. As it is, I'm going to have to start charging people 2% more if they (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: More changes at Paypal —William Brumbach
|
| | | | | | I'd prefer they pay for it with advertising and an IPO. But seriously, if the costs of CC transactions are part of the industry then they should have introduced some of nominal transaction fee from the start, even 1%-2%, and then raised it from (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: More changes at Paypal —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Advertising, sure... good idea, but what do you mean when you say "an IPO"? That they should find some sucker investors to buy stock in a company that doesn't have a revenue model and fund operating expenses out of capital, forever? Or did you (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: More changes at Paypal —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) You are correct, too many of the e-business get treated by consumers as "make hey while the sun shines" type deals. Despite that, I think there is a need for what paypal is providing. However, I see no reason why individuals should not be able (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: More changes at Paypal —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) The ONLY way for two people to exchange wealth without a middle man is to do a direct goods or services for goods or services trade. If you use cash, there is a middleman (the guy who minted the money, and whose guarantee you are depending (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: More changes at Paypal —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Money is the accepted measure of value. Sure, you could go back in time to and trade commodities - but that would be crazy. We use money as it a stable measure of value - even better than gold these days. If I look and my bank account over a (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: More changes at Paypal —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) I could have sworn I got an e-mail announcing this. I know I saw it a couple weeks ago on their site under notices. As for the bank account being the default option - I consider that a good thing. As a seller who doesn't want to upgrade to the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services)
|
| | | | |
