Subject:
|
Re: More changes at Paypal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:29:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
368 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Scott A wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.market.services, William Brumbach writes:
> > > > I'd prefer they pay for it with advertising and an IPO.
> > >
> > > 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 mean something else?
> > >
> > > It's one thing to fund current deficits while building mind and market
> > > share, if you have a path to profitability. But it is entirely another to
> > > ask stockholders to fund something that never will make money. As many
> > > dot.com companies learned the hard way.
> >
> > 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 to make straight transfers between banks or CC without
> > involving a middle man/men.
>
> 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 on). To transfer money between my bank
> account and your bank account, we need at least one middleman, our bank.
> If we use different banks, there are at least two middlemen (the two
> banks), and probably more.
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 year, I see that my savings are gaining value (interest >
inflation) so my bank is actually paying me to use my money.
I accept that a bank does inccur a cost in sending money to another bank in
town, but it is nominal.
Scott A
>
> Like I said before, there is NO way to transfer money for free. All you
> can do is look for banks who do things to bundle transactions to reduce
> the costs. This is one of the reasons Larry's factoring service could be
> cheaper, instead of each transaction incurring the costs of shifting
> money, Larry found folks who were willing to run at a negative balance
> for some time, such that the transactions could be bundled. With enough
> traffic, the factors might even be able to never actually exchange any
> money.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
| (...) 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)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
