On 12-10-2009 22:15, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> That is what we found out. 
> 
> We *do* have banks that *do* all those money changes. It's just not 
> every bank carrying around wads of foreign currency that nobody is 
> likely to ask for soon. Of course pretty much anywhere can give you 
> canadian money or mexican money.

Sure, but for us the whole concept of a bank was handling money 
including changing into a different currency.

>>> Sure. We don't trust our government.
>> I know, weird concept if you ask me. ;)
> 
> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)

yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
can not be trusted.

> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.

No, *your* government, not mine.

>> Children do have bank accounts. 
> 
> Huh, OK.

Needing a countersign from one of the parents until they are 16 or so of 
course.

>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>> customer-focused.
>>
>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
> 
> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  

I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.

> It's more mistrust from people who 
> have been robbed by their banks. Maybe the USA will get there pretty 
> soon, but it's mostly "hispanic" ethnicities that I have heard distrust 
> banks. (That being folks from central america who speak spanish as their 
> main language.)
> 
> You can imagine that if you grew up in a country where feudalism was 
> rampant, you too might not trust the local government to hold onto your 
> money for you.

Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
meaning to you)

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 23:49, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

> Yes, it sounds more like you're describing a debit card or an ATM card 
> here. (What Visa likes to call a "check card" here, because it's 
> effectively like writing a check.)

Indeed that was also my understanding. Still called credit card and mine 
is a mastercard issued by my bank.

> A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
> getting a loan for a house.

For some reason that concept is not very popular here. There might be a 
relation with that and the low number of personal bankruptcies.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)
> 
> yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
> can not be trusted.

What, Iraq wasn't enough? :-)  I'm asking would *you* trust *our* government.

>> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
>> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.
> 
> No, *your* government, not mine.

That's what I'm saying, yes.  I'm not saying it's inappropriate for you to 
trust your government. I'm saying I'm not sure how approppriate it is for 
*me* to trust *my* government to that extent.

> Needing a countersign from one of the parents until they are 16 or so of 
> course.

Oh, alright. :-)

>>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>>> customer-focused.
>>>
>>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
>>
>> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  
> 
> I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.

I trust banks more than the government, perhaps. Firstly, there's 
competition between banks. Secondly, they're after money, not power.

> Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
> understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
> capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
> meaning to you)

I'm not an unbridled capitalist. There are lots of stuff that make sense to 
enforce everyone paying for (for various definitions of "pay").

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a nut-case. I don't even particularly distrust 
"the government."  But I think giving petty bureaucrats decision powers over 
individuals can lead to bad results. If it's up to some bureaucrat to take 
action to let you do something reasonable, then it's not uncommonly going to 
lead to corruption and nastiness. (Now, informing the old tax authority that 
you're not paying taxes there and informing the new tax authority you are 
isn't what I'd call petty actions over individuals. I'm talking about stuff 
like getting *permission* to move in the first place.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Indeed that was also my understanding. Still called credit card and mine 
> is a mastercard issued by my bank.

It's probably a card that looks like a credit card to the routing network, 
but which the bank treats as withdraws.

>> A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
>> getting a loan for a house.
> 
> For some reason that concept is not very popular here. There might be a 
> relation with that and the low number of personal bankruptcies.

Could be.  It's certainly possible to use it responsibly.  I'd have to look 
at the statistics to see why there are so many bankruptcies. (I've also 
heard that most bankruptcies at least until the last few years or so were 
caused by medical bills. That wouldn't surprise me, but I have nothing 
better than newspaper comments there anyway. For something like that, I'd 
want to go to the sources.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 13-10-2009 0:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)
>>
>> yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
>> can not be trusted.
> 
> What, Iraq wasn't enough? :-)  I'm asking would *you* trust *our* 
> government.

I know, and I said: yes. I stick to that even knowing about Iraq. Of 
course I know that there are many people in your politics that are into 
it solely for their own purposes. That does not mean that the system is 
wrong. It means that you have to not vote for those people.

>>> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
>>> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.
>>
>> No, *your* government, not mine.
> 
> That's what I'm saying, yes.  I'm not saying it's inappropriate for you 
> to trust your government. I'm saying I'm not sure how approppriate it is 
> for *me* to trust *my* government to that extent.
> 

If you don't do it they will never learn to think about the citizens 
first and themselves next. And campaign and vote for those that you 
trust. That is more important than if what they promise will cost you 
.05% less of your income.

>>>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>>>> customer-focused.
>>>>
>>>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
>>>
>>> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  
>>
>> I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.
> 
> I trust banks more than the government, perhaps. Firstly, there's 
> competition between banks. Secondly, they're after money, not power.

I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks are 
after money while the government is trying to prevent people from 
getting into trouble without them doing something wrong. The reason 
being that if you let that pass it will often cost the community more 
than what it costs now. Examples are health care and homelessness.

>> Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
>> understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
>> capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
>> meaning to you)
> 
> I'm not an unbridled capitalist. There are lots of stuff that make sense 
> to enforce everyone paying for (for various definitions of "pay").
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not a nut-case. 

Did I say you were?

> I don't even particularly 
> distrust "the government."  But I think giving petty bureaucrats 
> decision powers over individuals can lead to bad results. If it's up to 
> some bureaucrat to take action to let you do something reasonable, then 
> it's not uncommonly going to lead to corruption and nastiness. (Now, 
> informing the old tax authority that you're not paying taxes there and 
> informing the new tax authority you are isn't what I'd call petty 
> actions over individuals. I'm talking about stuff like getting 
> *permission* to move in the first place.)

In this crowded country there is logic to it. Take a large city like 
Amsterdam. People want to work there because that is where the jobs are. 
Now within an hour driving distance are a couple of smaller towns with 
more green, bigger houses for the same money, and better environment for 
the kids to grow up. So everybody wants to live in those smaller towns. 
Ok now from the perspective of the smaller town: people come live there 
but don't work, don't take part in the local society and don't use the 
local shops. So nearly no income from these people, but they still have 
to do the streets, the lighting and the other infrastructure for them. 
Seen from this perspective anyone wanting to live in their town that is 
working in the big city costs the local community money. Besides they 
will make every town expand to the same density as the big city, 
effectively destroying the whole idea of a smaller town. So they pass a 
law that you have to have a strong relation with the town to live there. 
  Very democratic.

I don't like it that I can not live everywhere that I want, but I 
understand the logic and accept it. The concept is that it may harm me 
now, but will benefit society (and therefore me and my grandchildren) as 
a whole in the long run. A concept that seems to be alien to many Americans.

Post a reply to this message

On 13-10-2009 0:15, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Indeed that was also my understanding. Still called credit card and 
>> mine is a mastercard issued by my bank.
> 
> It's probably a card that looks like a credit card to the routing 
> network, but which the bank treats as withdraws.
The only differences are that the withdrawals can be settled later and 
not immediately as with our other cards, and that they are accepted abroad.

>>> A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
>>> getting a loan for a house.
>>
>> For some reason that concept is not very popular here. There might be 
>> a relation with that and the low number of personal bankruptcies.
> 
> Could be.  It's certainly possible to use it responsibly.  I'd have to 
> look at the statistics to see why there are so many bankruptcies. (I've 
> also heard that most bankruptcies at least until the last few years or 
> so were caused by medical bills. That wouldn't surprise me, 

me neither.

> but I have 
> nothing better than newspaper comments there anyway. For something like 
> that, I'd want to go to the sources.)

seems fair to me.

So what is your government going to do about these medical bankruptcies? 
They do cost the society a lot of money. Both in unpaid bills and 
diminished health that may prevent them from working and paying tax later.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Children do have bank accounts.
> 
> Huh, OK.

I'm 18 and I don't have one. I only own cash.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de 
news:4ad3aa86@news.povray.org...
> It's probably a card that looks like a credit card to the routing network, 
> but which the bank treats as withdraws.

If it's in the Netherlands like in France, people call them credit cards but 
the official term is indeed debit card, and that's what most people have 
here: true credit cards are almost unheard of. During the financial crisis, 
I kept reading about Americans juggling with credit cards and getting into 
debt, which was very confusing to me: with my "credit card" I just can't 
withdraw more money than I have in my account. It took a short trip to 
Wikipedia to understand what was going on, but it was funny to discover that 
this "little" difference leads to different lifestyles, money-wise.

G.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> The only differences are that the withdrawals can be settled later and 
> not immediately as with our other cards, and that they are accepted abroad.

I'm not sure just what you mean by this, but there's a big difference 
legally speaking. One is a loan, the other is a convenient way of getting 
your own money out of your bank account. It's like saying "there's nothing 
different between an IOU and cash, except one settles faster." :-)

> So what is your government going to do about these medical bankruptcies? 
> They do cost the society a lot of money. Both in unpaid bills and 
> diminished health that may prevent them from working and paying tax later.

Well, that's one of the giant debates in progress here right now. 
Unfortunatly, the big corporations seem to have an undue amount of influence 
here, and they're getting even bolder than they used to be.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I know, and I said: yes. I stick to that even knowing about Iraq. Of 
> course I know that there are many people in your politics that are into 
> it solely for their own purposes. That does not mean that the system is 
> wrong. It means that you have to not vote for those people.

Sure. That can be difficult, tho, especially when you consider you only vote 
for a small fraction of the people making the laws. Just saying "don't vote 
for them" doesn't really work when you're a minority.

Part of the problem is we have a greater diversity in this country than most 
places in Europe, too.

> If you don't do it they will never learn to think about the citizens 
> first and themselves next. 

I don't think they will do that if we *do* trust em. :-)

> I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks are 
> after money while the government is trying to prevent people from 
> getting into trouble without them doing something wrong.

I trust the banks more because I can walk away from the abusive bank. If the 
government wants to do something bad to me, I can't just say "that's OK, 
I'll go to the branch down the street." :-)

Certainly there are good parts of the government and bad, and the government 
could do a lot more than it used to.  I think most of the bad crap really is 
just in the last couple decades.

> In this crowded country there is logic to it. 

It makes sense if you're more uniform in culture. It also makes sense if 
there are laws that say who is allowed to live there that were passed by the 
locals, and not just some official making the decision based on whether he 
had enough coffee that morning.

> So nearly no income from these people, but they still have 
> to do the streets, the lighting and the other infrastructure for them. 

That's what property taxes are for. :-)

>  Very democratic.

If it's enforced fairly, I can understand that. If it's some local official 
saying "we don't like your kind around here", that's a different matter.

> A concept that seems to be alien to many Americans.

Sadly so.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message