On 10/08/09 11:11, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from
>> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
>
>    Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> making the film.
	
	In the end, it's the output that matters. They're selling a product: 
Not the effort that goes into the product.

	If we're talking about purely artistic endeavors that are _not_ made 
mostly for commercial purposes, I can see your point. But if I'm buying 
a chair and I have two choices: One made in a factory and the other hand 
built, and I can't distinguish between the two, why should I care how it 
was made? I want the chair to be comfortable.

>    Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

	It doesn't sadden me at all. It'll only sadden me if the resulting 
movie is of poorer quality (to save expenses), or if there are 
techniques that can't be done on a computer and they're just not 
bothering to do them live.

	It's like people who are sad that film is on its way out and most 
photography (including professional) is digital. I can understand them 
_missing_ film, but it's not as if something good is being sacrificed 
for something inferior.

-- 
(((((((HYPNOTIC)))))))(((((((TAGLINE)))))))

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
> don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
> cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
> cheques per week is much different.

Maybe it's different on that side of the pond, but these days even if 
you hand a teller a check it gets scanned right then & there, and 
transmitted electronically within minutes (not immediately, of course; 
they're sent in batches to reduce overhead).

Mostly it's the smaller banks & credit unions that process checks by 
hand, and even then it's usually the ones that have fewer than 10 branches.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That too. Or lovely models or especially sets that aren't computer rendered.
>
>   It's actually surprising how much miniatures are still used in movies,
> rather than making everything with CGI. Yet, sadly, most people can't
> appreciate the huge amount of work put into those miniatures because they
> just dismiss it as a computer model.

And, conversely, the other effect - the people who dismiss even high-quality CGI
without an iota of understanding how much effort, research and talent goes into
it. Most people even seem to dismiss movie sequences as 'just cgi' even when
there isn't any. It seems trendy for people to bash movie effects as if it makes
them look clever for spotting the effects - even if it's logically impossible
for a scene to be done any other way.

Grinds my gears

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the
> > special effects, too. :-)
>
> Back in 1988, when making Die Hard, John McTiernan actually blew out the
> windows on the first three floors of the Fox tower (despite having
> signed a release saying the building itself wouldn't be harmed :) ).

I thought that was a composited effect? I heard that the building's owners were
aghast at that scene, until it was explained to them that actually the building
wasn't touched.

That's what Die Hard's trivia on imdb claims anyway. Might not be true. It
certainly seems a cheaper way of doing it though!

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
>> don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
>> cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
>> cheques per week is much different.
> 
> Maybe it's different on that side of the pond, but these days even if 
> you hand a teller a check it gets scanned right then & there, and 
> transmitted electronically within minutes (not immediately, of course; 
> they're sent in batches to reduce overhead).

Interesting. When I walk into the bank, you get to watch the person 
stare at the cheque, type in the various code numbers, stamp the cheque 
to say it's been processed, and hand you a recipt...

Post a reply to this message

>   It's actually surprising how much miniatures are still used in movies,
> rather than making everything with CGI. Yet, sadly, most people can't
> appreciate the huge amount of work put into those miniatures because they
> just dismiss it as a computer model.

It's surprising how many people think making computer models is somehow 
"easier" than making real ones...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

Ever seen, I don't know, any movie Pixar has ever made?

Post a reply to this message

> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I don't 
> know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a cheque, 
> they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 cheques per week 
> is much different.

What's a cheque?

Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?  I think I have only used 1 in my life. 
Do many people actually have a chequebook anymore?  I know I don't for any 
of my accounts.

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I 
>> don't know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a 
>> cheque, they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 
>> cheques per week is much different.
> 
> What's a cheque?
> 
> Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?  I think I have only used 1 in my 
> life. Do many people actually have a chequebook anymore?  I know I don't 
> for any of my accounts.

I used to get sent a new chequebook ever year. Until the bank figured 
out that I write, like, 6 cheques per year. :-P

The only real reason I write cheques is to transfer large sums of money 
to other people. If you buy something in a "shop", they'll take plastic. 
But if you want to give Adam £400 for letting you borrow his skiis, a 
cheque is the simplest way. (I can't withdraw that much money in cash 
from an ATM. Not in a single 24-hour period anyway...)

Post a reply to this message

>>         At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell 
>> from
>> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
>
>  Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> making the film.

Sure, but would you pay extra for a film where the stunts had actually been 
performed rather than just CG (if there was little or no difference to the 
outcome)?  I don't think many people would.  Which is why it isn't done.

>  Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

There's a reason why most things in the world are done that way now, because 
it's more efficient.

Post a reply to this message

> I used to get sent a new chequebook ever year. Until the bank figured out 
> that I write, like, 6 cheques per year. :-P

I still have the original book (I think I closed that account now anyway) 
with just 1 missing from the front.  I thought they only sent you a new one 
when you got near the end of the existing book?

> But if you want to give Adam £400 for letting you borrow his skiis, a

You transfer it online?  IME finding a web connection is a million times 
easier than getting to an open bank.

Post a reply to this message

> I thought they only sent 
> you a new one when you got near the end of the existing book?

That *would* be far more logical, yes... :-}

>> But if you want to give Adam £400 for letting you borrow his skiis, 
> 
> You transfer it online?  IME finding a web connection is a million times 
> easier than getting to an open bank.

1. You can actually do that now?

2. Would I have to have all of Adam's account details to do that? 
Writing a cheque is quite a lot simpler.

Post a reply to this message

>> You transfer it online?  IME finding a web connection is a million times 
>> easier than getting to an open bank.
>
> 1. You can actually do that now?

If you actually used online banking you would have seen the "Transfer Money" 
option, plus see the thread a few days ago here about security measures 
online for transferring money out of accounts "New bank trojan".

> 2. Would I have to have all of Adam's account details to do that?

Just his account number and sort code, that's usually written on his bank 
card so he can just text or email it to you if you don't want to risk errors 
by speaking numbers over the phone.  And unlike here in Germany, in the UK 
you can't get any money *out* of his account with just those numbers, so 
there is no risk with sharing such information.

> Writing a cheque is quite a lot simpler.

That's the simple part, then you need to get it to the correct person 
(either by post or in person), then they have to take it to an open bank. 
Compare with spending 2 minutes at your desk on FF or IE typing in a few 
numbers - I know which I prefer.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Well, we're talking about a check handed to a mobile car mechanic. I don't
> > know about you, but whenever *I* go into a bank and hand them a cheque,
> > they always process it by hand. I doubt a guy who gets 12 cheques per week
> > is much different.
>
> What's a cheque?
>
> Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?  I think I have only used 1 in my life.
> Do many people actually have a chequebook anymore?  I know I don't for any
> of my accounts.

90% of the cheques I write now are to pay for chinese food on delivery when I
don't have any cash ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> 90% of the cheques I write now are to pay for chinese food on delivery 
> when I
> don't have any cash ;-)

Yes that could be useful, here you just need to make sure you have the cash 
before you order!

Actually I bought a new bike a few weeks back and tried to pay for it with 
my bank card.  But the bank card did not work for that sum of money (even 
though I had 3-4x that amount in my account), so I had to pay half on my 
bank card and then promise to transfer them the rest later to their account. 
(Of course being a typical German shop they didn't take any credit cards 
either...)

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 10/08/09 11:11, Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
> >>          At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from
> >> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
> >
> >    Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> > making the film.
>         
>         In the end, it's the output that matters. They're selling a product: 
> Not the effort that goes into the product.

  Art can be admired in more than one way. Often it's not only the end result
that matters, but also the *performance* and the skills shown in the work can
be a target of admiration as well.

  For example, if a highly skilled guitarist plays a superb piece of music
which is extremely hard to play, I can admire both the end result, ie. the
music that I can hear, *and* the skills that were necessary to produce that
music.

  Lack of skill doesn't make the music itself worse, but if high amount of
skills were necessary to create the music, that in itself is admirable as
well.

  Likewise for movies: I don't only admire the end result, but also how it
has been created.

>         If we're talking about purely artistic endeavors that are _not_ made 
> mostly for commercial purposes, I can see your point. But if I'm buying 
> a chair and I have two choices: One made in a factory and the other hand 
> built, and I can't distinguish between the two, why should I care how it 
> was made? I want the chair to be comfortable.

  Because art and entertainment is not about what is most comfortable and
practical. It's a completely different category, not comparable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> > front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

> Ever seen, I don't know, any movie Pixar has ever made?

  You mean pixar generates the voice acting by computer too?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >>         At the same time, if they can make CGI that is very hard to tell 
> >> from
> >> real stunts, why should I value real stunts more?
> >
> >  Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
> > making the film.

> Sure, but would you pay extra for a film where the stunts had actually been 
> performed rather than just CG (if there was little or no difference to the 
> outcome)?  I don't think many people would.  Which is why it isn't done.

  It's not about paying extra, but about *more* people paying in the first
place (assuming more people appreciate the effort and skill put into the
movie).

> >  Sad will be the day when movies will be made 100% by people sitting in
> > front of a computer and clicking with the mouse.

> There's a reason why most things in the world are done that way now, because 
> it's more efficient.

  Art shouldn't be about efficiency. Thus I stand by my opinion.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It seems trendy for people to bash movie effects as if it makes
> them look clever for spotting the effects - even if it's logically impossible
> for a scene to be done any other way.

  It's amusing when people claim to see CGI artifacts in a scene which has
no CGI effects at all... Like that scene in the second LotR movie where
the Black Gates open and close: Some people claim that the gate edges go
inside each other, revealing it to be CGI. Yet the gates were miniatures
and filmed for real.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's surprising how many people think making computer models is somehow 
> "easier" than making real ones...

  It makes some things easier. For example, don't like the texturing?
A couple of mouse clicks and you can try a different texture. Some part
too large or too small in relation to the other parts? Again, a couple
of mouse clicks, and it's fixed. And so on.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2009 10:27 AM, Warp wrote:

>> Ever seen, I don't know, any movie Pixar has ever made?
>
>    You mean pixar generates the voice acting by computer too?
>

Yep, The voice acting is completely synthetic. You didn't know this? All 
they have to do is assign some famous names, feed the computer the 
script, and it churns out voice acting... ;)
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Yep, The voice acting is completely synthetic. You didn't know this? All 
> they have to do is assign some famous names, feed the computer the 
> script, and it churns out voice acting... ;)

Heh, if they ever want Steven Hawkings for some reason, this would 
actually be more or less the truth... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Interesting. When I walk into the bank, you get to watch the person 
> stare at the cheque, type in the various code numbers, stamp the cheque 
> to say it's been processed, and hand you a recipt...

You must really live in the back country out there. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

I *do* think it's cool how advanced the motion capture is getting. They now 
have a system where the daub UV paint on your face with a sponge, leaving 
you all speckled. Then they film you, with white lights and UV lights 
alternating in a flicker, and a camera synched to each set of lights. Then 
the animators can look at your face in time with your voice and all, and the 
computers can analyze every movement down to pursed lips and blinking eyelids.

It's like right out of Diamond Age.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/09/09 10:27, Warp wrote:
>    Art can be admired in more than one way. Often it's not only the end result
> that matters, but also the *performance* and the skills shown in the work can
> be a target of admiration as well.

	My question was:

"If they can make CGI that is very hard to tell from real stunts, why 
should I value real stunts more?"

	To which you responded:

"Because it's admirable when a film crew puts some effort and work into
making the film."

	Yes, some people may admire it, and I have no problem with it, but no 
one explained to me why *I* should admire it.
	
	It's kind of like telling someone who likes rock music that they should 
admire classical music. At the end, what you're talking about is art, 
and it's merely a matter of taste.

>    For example, if a highly skilled guitarist plays a superb piece of music
> which is extremely hard to play, I can admire both the end result, ie. the
> music that I can hear, *and* the skills that were necessary to produce that
> music.

	But if he plays an incredibly difficult piece that doesn't sound at all 
good (to me), I'm not going to admire it - because I'm not really into 
how the music is made.

	When I was a kid, my father would really try to get me to watch circus 
performances (simple stuff like juggling, etc). It was all quite boring 
for me. He'd essentially try to say I should enjoy it because of the 
amount of effort and training the performers have to go through.

	I *know* they have to put a lot of effort to master those performances. 
That doesn't change the fact that they're boring. Just because I can 
appreciate the amount of work that went into it doesn't imply that I'll 
become interested in it. In fact, I suspect that most of the times, you 
first get interested in the "output", and only then will interest in the 
methods follow.

>    Lack of skill doesn't make the music itself worse, but if high amount of
> skills were necessary to create the music, that in itself is admirable as
> well.

	Sure. If you admire that stuff.

>    Likewise for movies: I don't only admire the end result, but also how it
> has been created.

	That's fine. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't. Just don't expect 
others to for the same reasons.

>>          If we're talking about purely artistic endeavors that are _not_ made
>> mostly for commercial purposes, I can see your point. But if I'm buying
>> a chair and I have two choices: One made in a factory and the other hand
>> built, and I can't distinguish between the two, why should I care how it
>> was made? I want the chair to be comfortable.
>
>    Because art and entertainment is not about what is most comfortable and
> practical. It's a completely different category, not comparable.

	Not at all. Building stuff by hand is an art, and I sure know people 
who _would_ care. I'm just not into it, and neither are you.

	Also, perhaps you'll disagree with me, the shift to CGI really is just 
switching from one form of impressive skill to another. There's a 
Hugo/Nebula novella winner that goes into precisely this theme (except 
it was about live plays rather than movies). (*SPOILERS FOLLOW*) The 
protagonist was an actor in the old style, but during his career 
everything shifted to machine-oriented plays. He became obsolete (as did 
all live actors), and he spent the rest of his days being loyal to the 
"true" art of plays (which virtually no one was interested in) - whereas 
most of his fellow actors found some creative roles in the new system. 
Only at the end did he realize that it was really just the natural 
evolution and was better for the whole art form in the end.

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message

On 10/09/09 10:29, Warp wrote:
>> There's a reason why most things in the world are done that way now, because
>> it's more efficient.
>
>    Art shouldn't be about efficiency. Thus I stand by my opinion.

	And artists will continue to make art. But I thought we were talking 
about movies... ;-)

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> It is a shame. Nowadays it's hard to even go to a movie just to see the
>>> special effects, too. :-)
>> Back in 1988, when making Die Hard, John McTiernan actually blew out the
>> windows on the first three floors of the Fox tower (despite having
>> signed a release saying the building itself wouldn't be harmed :) ).
> 
> I thought that was a composited effect? I heard that the building's owners were
> aghast at that scene, until it was explained to them that actually the building
> wasn't touched.
> 
> That's what Die Hard's trivia on imdb claims anyway. Might not be true. It
> certainly seems a cheaper way of doing it though!

Well, we went on one of those bus tours of the city, and that's the 
story I heard... of course, the tour guide could have been embellishing, 
could have heard it wrong, or any number of possible explanations :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Seriously, who uses cheques anymore?

Businesses.  We've got customers that regularly (ie multiple times a 
week) deposit several hundred checks at once.

Of course, the same scanner that we use behind teller row is available 
to our merchant customers to use at their stores.  Want to write a check 
at a grocery store?  When the clerk scans the check, they're actually 
clearing the d*** thing right then and there.

It's saving us a ton of work, because we don't have to process as many 
large deposits.  It also saves our merchant customers a ton of work, 
because they don't have to put together a bank deposit & make the trip 
to drop off the checks.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Interesting. When I walk into the bank, you get to watch the person 
>> stare at the cheque, type in the various code numbers, stamp the 
>> cheque to say it's been processed, and hand you a recipt...
> 
> You must really live in the back country out there. :-)

This is Europe, man - while you Americans were sleeping, we have 
invented plenty of other, much more convenient ways to handle money 
transfer :-)

It must have been decades since I've last seen - let alone used - a cheque.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> 
> It must have been decades since I've last seen - let alone used - a cheque.

I've actually once seen one.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

scott schrieb:

> Sure, but would you pay extra for a film where the stunts had actually 
> been performed rather than just CG (if there was little or no difference 
> to the outcome)?  I don't think many people would.  Which is why it 
> isn't done.

Heh. I'd actually pay extra for genuine CG - just to enjoy being amazed 
about what can be done!

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         Yes, some people may admire it, and I have no problem with it, but no 
> one explained to me why *I* should admire it.

  Because appreciation of people's skills can give you a fuller entertainment
experience. If you deliberately dismiss skill as an unimportant side feature,
you are depriving yourself of a source of marvel and enjoyment.

  You may be completely ok with that, but you should understand why some
other people appreciate a show of skill and effort.

>         It's kind of like telling someone who likes rock music that they should 
> admire classical music.

  No, it's not. It's kind of like telling someone who likes rock music if
he has seen the actual performance of the musicians, in other words, how
they actually *make* the music. Some people appreciate it if making the
music requires extraordinary skills.

> At the end, what you're talking about is art, 
> and it's merely a matter of taste.

  It's about enjoying art at its fullest.

> >    For example, if a highly skilled guitarist plays a superb piece of music
> > which is extremely hard to play, I can admire both the end result, ie. the
> > music that I can hear, *and* the skills that were necessary to produce that
> > music.

>         But if he plays an incredibly difficult piece that doesn't sound at all 
> good (to me), I'm not going to admire it - because I'm not really into 
> how the music is made.

  Who was talking about an unenjoyable piece of music?

> >    Lack of skill doesn't make the music itself worse, but if high amount of
> > skills were necessary to create the music, that in itself is admirable as
> > well.

>         Sure. If you admire that stuff.

  I think you are depriving yourself of a source of enjoyment by deliberately
finding the skills required to create the art "boring" and "uninteresting".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/10/09 04:57, Warp wrote:
>    Because appreciation of people's skills can give you a fuller entertainment
> experience. If you deliberately dismiss skill as an unimportant side feature,
> you are depriving yourself of a source of marvel and enjoyment.

	I don't accept that knowing the details of how something is made will 
make you necessarily be interested in it.

	As both of us have said, it's an art. And with that comes taste. Some 
(most?) people aren't going to be interested even if they know, and as 
with all art, that's absolutely fine.

>> At the end, what you're talking about is art,
>> and it's merely a matter of taste.
>
>    It's about enjoying art at its fullest.

	Which most people aren't that interested in doing - even for art forms 
they enjoy - and while I have no problems if you or others do want to 
take it to the next level, I see no problem with most people not bothering.

	There are 24 hours in the day. Appreciating one art to its fullest 
means less time to appreciate other art forms.

>>          But if he plays an incredibly difficult piece that doesn't sound at all
>> good (to me), I'm not going to admire it - because I'm not really into
>> how the music is made.
>
>    Who was talking about an unenjoyable piece of music?

	The analogy I made some messages ago was a comparison of a movie 
without CGI and a movie with CGI that resulted in a _better_ experience.

	I guess over here the more analogous situation would be the music you 
discussed vs much better music that isn't hard to produce.

>>          Sure. If you admire that stuff.
>
>    I think you are depriving yourself of a source of enjoyment by deliberately
> finding the skills required to create the art "boring" and "uninteresting".

	Sure. We all do it. I know people out there who literally memorize 
books. That takes skill. If you don't look into that stuff and admire 
it, you're depriving yourself of a source of enjoyment. Then there's 
knitting. Have you considered that? And of course, there's all kinds of 
traditional music in all parts of the world. Do you plan to know how 
each of those instruments work?

	I could go on and on about various forms of art that you're likely 
depriving yourself of. But somehow I suspect you don't actually mind 
that you're doing it.

-- 
What do fish say when they hit a concrete wall? Dam!

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> This is Europe, man - while you Americans were sleeping, we have 
> invented plenty of other, much more convenient ways to handle money 
> transfer :-)

We did too. I just like checks for some things.

> It must have been decades since I've last seen - let alone used - a cheque.

How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through the 
mail, then?

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:

> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through the 
> mail, then?

Why should they want to do that in the first place?

In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for decades 
to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to transfer money 
from your account to John's.

I hear that in America it is virtually impossible to get money to 
someone else living someplace else without sending either script or a 
cheque via mail (where it can be stolen or lost, or the receiver might 
claim to never have received it; how, by the way, do you protect against 
such problems in the US?). Not so here in Germany; even between 
different banks, money transfer is everyday routine.

The other option, which I hear is specific to Germany, is to sign a 
contract entitling the /other/ party to initiate money transfers from 
your account to theirs ("Einzugsermächtigung"/"Lastschrift"). While at 
first this would appear to be an invitation to fraud, in practice it 
isn't: You have 6 weeks time to have such a money transfer retroactively 
canceled (even if it was legit), in which case the other party will in 
turn have to pay a considerable fee to your bank. If the money transfer 
was legit, they would then resort to other means from getting the money 
from you (including the extra fee you forced them pay); obviously, 
usually only larger companies accept payment via this method due to the 
risk involved on their side, but aside from that it is quite popular for 
recurring money transfers, such as insurance premiums, phone bills and 
the like, especially if the sum to pay is not known in advance.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/10/09 16:35, clipka wrote:
>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through
>> the mail, then?
>
> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
>
> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for decades
> to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to transfer money
> from your account to John's.

	Over here they charge a not insignificant fee for that.

> I hear that in America it is virtually impossible to get money to
> someone else living someplace else without sending either script or a
> cheque via mail (where it can be stolen or lost, or the receiver might
> claim to never have received it; how, by the way, do you protect against
> such problems in the US?). Not so here in Germany; even between
> different banks, money transfer is everyday routine.

	If the receiver never got a personal check, and it literally was lost 
(as opposed to stolen), then it's no problem as the money is still in 
your account.

	If someone stole it and cashed it, you can make a claim and they'll dig 
up the check and see the signature of the guy who cashed it.

	With money orders, you get a number and you can essentially cancel the 
money order with that number.

> The other option, which I hear is specific to Germany, is to sign a
> contract entitling the /other/ party to initiate money transfers from
> your account to theirs ("Einzugsermächtigung"/"Lastschrift"). While at

	Some banks allow that here as well. More or less like you making a 
regular donation to some charity, etc.

-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
> 
>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through 
>> the mail, then?
> 
> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
> 
> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for decades
 
> to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to transfer money 
> from your account to John's.

OK, so you call them on the phone or go in person to transfer stuff? Seem
s 
inconvenient.

We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post 
office and give them cash money, and they give you something that works 
essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank account can sti
ll 
pay people who are remote.

> I hear that in America it is virtually impossible to get money to 
> someone else living someplace else without sending either script or a 
> cheque via mail 

Nah. We have all the same pay online stuff you do in Europe. Indeed, for 

businesses (rather than individuals) at least, you don't even need the ba
nk 
account information. You can just put down the business name and mailing 

address, and the bank treats the transfer as if you had written a check.

There's also ACH - Automated Clearing House - which is how things like 
payroll gets electronically deposited to the employee's bank account.

> (where it can be stolen or lost, or the receiver might 
> claim to never have received it; 

If it isn't countersigned on the back, it's not supposed to be cashable. 
If 
you address it to "John Smith" on the front, only John Smith can deposit 
it, 
in theory.

If they claim never to have received it *and* they cash it, you know of 
course because the bank tells you and probably even gives you a picture o
f 
their signature on the back of the check.

> Not so here in Germany; even between 
> different banks, money transfer is everyday routine.

It is here too. Not between individuals, perhaps, but online bill pay isn
't 
hard.

> The other option, which I hear is specific to Germany, is to sign a 
> contract entitling the /other/ party to initiate money transfers from 
> your account to theirs ("Einzugsermächtigung"/"Lastschrift"). 

We have that too. Lots of people pay recurring bills like mortgage, elect
ric 
and water bills, etc that way. I don't think many people do that between 

individuals. I.e., you normally wouldn't do that with someone who wasn't 
a 
large company with recurring bills coming to you.

We have all those options. Checks are to pay the guy down the road for th
e 
used bike he sold you or something. :-)

Indeed, most times, if there's a larger company, if you send them the che
ck, 
the first thing they do is turn it into an electronic authorization for 
payment, meaning they don't have to handle the paper. I.e., they scan the
 
numbers off the check electronically and submit the payment request to yo
ur 
bank, with whom they took the effort to set up a contract allowing them t
o 
do that.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 11-10-2009 19:43, Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Darren New schrieb:
>>
>>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through 
>>> the mail, then?
>>
>> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
>>
>> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for 
>> decades to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to 
>> transfer money from your account to John's.
> 
> OK, so you call them on the phone or go in person to transfer stuff? 
> Seems inconvenient.
No, nowadays simply using your on-line bank account. Earlier by writing 
a check that you send to the *bank*. And you did not even pay a stamp to 
do that, at least in the netherlands.

> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post 
> office and give them cash money, and they give you something that works 
> essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank account can 
> still pay people who are remote.

People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?

>> I hear that in America it is virtually impossible to get money to 
>> someone else living someplace else without sending either script or a 
>> cheque via mail 
> 
> Nah. We have all the same pay online stuff you do in Europe. Indeed, for 
> businesses (rather than individuals) at least, you don't even need the 
> bank account information. You can just put down the business name and 
> mailing address, and the bank treats the transfer as if you had written 
> a check.
> 
> There's also ACH - Automated Clearing House - which is how things like 
> payroll gets electronically deposited to the employee's bank account.

I am not aware of a name for such a system here. I think that as long as 
I can remember all payroll like things were handled by banks. I.e. it 
has been virtually impossible to not have a bank account if you were 
employed or received money from the state for at least 30 years.

>> (where it can be stolen or lost, or the receiver might claim to never 
>> have received it; 
> 
> If it isn't countersigned on the back, it's not supposed to be cashable. 
> If you address it to "John Smith" on the front, only John Smith can 
> deposit it, in theory.

Although it might have been possible to give cheques to a person I have 
never done that, nor can I think of a reason to do that here.

> If they claim never to have received it *and* they cash it, you know of 
> course because the bank tells you and probably even gives you a picture 
> of their signature on the back of the check.

As said, here checks never reach a person, so this can not happen at all.

>> Not so here in Germany; even between different banks, money transfer 
>> is everyday routine.
> 
> It is here too. Not between individuals, perhaps, but online bill pay 
> isn't hard.
> 
>> The other option, which I hear is specific to Germany, is to sign a 
>> contract entitling the /other/ party to initiate money transfers from 
>> your account to theirs ("Einzugsermächtigung"/"Lastschrift"). 
> 
> We have that too. Lots of people pay recurring bills like mortgage, 
> electric and water bills, etc that way. I don't think many people do 
> that between individuals. I.e., you normally wouldn't do that with 
> someone who wasn't a large company with recurring bills coming to you.

I think this German thing is for a single time. Possibly something close 
to a credit card payment. For recurring payments we use something like 
that too. Even for the ones that may change every time.

> We have all those options. Checks are to pay the guy down the road for 
> the used bike he sold you or something. :-)

If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. If it is a shop I'd pay 
electronically in the shop. Until a few years ago we had special cheques
that were guaranteed by our bank for €200 or so. These are probably the 
closest to your kind of cheques, except for the guarantee. If you had to 
pay more, you used more cheques. You only had a finite amount of these 
at any time, typically, 10-30 depending on your salary. The big 
advantage is that we almost never had problems with bouncing cheques. I 
think they technically still exist, but I have not seen one being used 
for 5 years or more.

> Indeed, most times, if there's a larger company, if you send them the 
> check, the first thing they do is turn it into an electronic 
> authorization for payment, meaning they don't have to handle the paper. 
> I.e., they scan the numbers off the check electronically and submit the 
> payment request to your bank, with whom they took the effort to set up a 
> contract allowing them to do that.

Again, we don't send cheques to persons or companies. They might send me 
a cheque with all details filled in. Then I only have to sign it and 
send it to my bank.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/11/09 15:42, andrel wrote:
>> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post
>> office and give them cash money, and they give you something that
>> works essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank
>> account can still pay people who are remote.
>
> People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?

	Now _that's_ a fairly parochial statement!

> I think this German thing is for a single time. Possibly something close
> to a credit card payment. For recurring payments we use something like
> that too. Even for the ones that may change every time.

	Although probably more than half of my friends do automatic bill 
payment, I don't. I always assume it'll be a hassle if they screw up and 
take more money than they should have (I once got a phone bill exceeding 
$600 - their error).

>> We have all those options. Checks are to pay the guy down the road for
>> the used bike he sold you or something. :-)
>
> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. If it is a shop I'd pay

	Lots of people here don't carry cash, and mostly use cards. That 
doesn't work well in paying a guy you just met at a garage sale.

> electronically in the shop. Until a few years ago we had special cheques

	Some shops here don't take cards, or have minimum required amounts. 
Lots of people pay most of their stuff by cards, but many prefer paying 
stuff in cash. I go back and forth. I know I'm unlikely to shop at a 
store physically if they _don't_ take cash.

	Also, in many of the apartment buildings I've lived in, they take only 
checks or money orders. No credit cards, no bank cards, and certainly no 
cash.


-- 
The worst thing about censorship is .

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 11-10-2009 19:43, Darren New wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> Darren New schrieb:
>>>
>>>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through 
>>>> the mail, then?
>>>
>>> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
>>>
>>> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for 
>>> decades to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to 
>>> transfer money from your account to John's.
>>
>> OK, so you call them on the phone or go in person to transfer stuff? 
>> Seems inconvenient.
> No, nowadays simply using your on-line bank account. 

And how do people who don't have computers (see above) handle that?

> Earlier by writing a check that you send to the *bank*. 

That's different.

>> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post 
>> office and give them cash money, and they give you something that 
>> works essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank 
>> account can still pay people who are remote.
> 
> People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?

No, but we're next door to one. (No, not really, but apparently banks are 
not trustworthy institutions to people from some central/south american 
countries.)

We also have immigrants, tourists, and so on.

> I am not aware of a name for such a system here. I think that as long as 
> I can remember all payroll like things were handled by banks. I.e. it 
> has been virtually impossible to not have a bank account if you were 
> employed or received money from the state for at least 30 years.

Well, yes. We still have a mite bit more freedom than that in this country. 
:-)  People are still allowed to deal purely in cash if they want.

> Although it might have been possible to give cheques to a person I have 
> never done that, nor can I think of a reason to do that here.

I see. SO you can still send written instructions, but you send them to the 
bank, and if the person doesn't have a bank account, you're pretty much SOL.

>> If they claim never to have received it *and* they cash it, you know 
>> of course because the bank tells you and probably even gives you a 
>> picture of their signature on the back of the check.
> 
> As said, here checks never reach a person, so this can not happen at all.

That works.

> I think this German thing is for a single time.

You can do it a single time here too. It's generally just not worth setting 
up the payment instructions if you can just mail them a check.

> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. 

With the check, you have proof that you paid, for example. Otherwise, you 
still need to get a receipt, and you still can't mail the thing.

> These are probably the closest to your kind of cheques, except for the guarantee. 

Our checks come with guarantees in the sense that it's illegal to write a 
check when you don't have the money to cover it.

Otherwise, we have what are called "traveler's checks", which are like 
these, except they're designed so that if they get stolen they can't be used 
and can be refunded by the issuing bank.  You just buy them for cash, sign 
one side, and then you sign the other side when you turn it over to the 
merchant.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 4:03, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/11/09 15:42, andrel wrote:
>>> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) post
>>> office and give them cash money, and they give you something that
>>> works essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank
>>> account can still pay people who are remote.
>>
>> People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?
> 
>     Now _that's_ a fairly parochial statement!

Thanks, I aim to please. ;)

> 
>> I think this German thing is for a single time. Possibly something close
>> to a credit card payment. For recurring payments we use something like
>> that too. Even for the ones that may change every time.
> 
>     Although probably more than half of my friends do automatic bill 
> payment, I don't. I always assume it'll be a hassle if they screw up and 
> take more money than they should have (I once got a phone bill exceeding 
> $600 - their error).
> 
>>> We have all those options. Checks are to pay the guy down the road for
>>> the used bike he sold you or something. :-)
>>
>> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. If it is a shop I'd pay
> 
>     Lots of people here don't carry cash, and mostly use cards. That 
> doesn't work well in paying a guy you just met at a garage sale.
> 
>> electronically in the shop. Until a few years ago we had special cheques
> 
>     Some shops here don't take cards, or have minimum required amounts. 
> Lots of people pay most of their stuff by cards, but many prefer paying 
> stuff in cash. I go back and forth. I know I'm unlikely to shop at a 
> store physically if they _don't_ take cash.

I only pay small amounts, typically < $10 in cash. All other things in 
stores are paid electronically in the shop. It is transferred from my 
account to the shop owner at that point in time and the shop owner 
immediately gets conformation that the transaction succeeded. What could 
be more convenient?

>     Also, in many of the apartment buildings I've lived in, they take 
> only checks or money orders. No credit cards, no bank cards, and 
> certainly no cash.

Rent (and mortgages and electricity and...) are, I guess, nearly all set 
up as automatic periodical payments here. A factor might be that it is 
almost impossible to disappear here, so there is no point in not paying. 
   If you can't pay you are removed from the house. That does not happen 
often because the system here will in most cases allow you to rent some 
place. If you don't earn enough the state will pay part of your rent 
(that's not how it work of course, but close enough).

Anyway, this all shows that you live in a financially totally different 
country.  But I knew that already.

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 18:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 11-10-2009 19:43, Darren New wrote:
>>> clipka wrote:
>>>> Darren New schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> How do people who don't have computers handle sending money through 
>>>>> the mail, then?
>>>>
>>>> Why should they want to do that in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> In Europe (at least in Germany) it has been common practice for 
>>>> decades to get money to John Doe by just ordering your bank to 
>>>> transfer money from your account to John's.
>>>
>>> OK, so you call them on the phone or go in person to transfer stuff? 
>>> Seems inconvenient.
>> No, nowadays simply using your on-line bank account. 
> 
> And how do people who don't have computers (see above) handle that?

Actually, I don't know. I think I don;t know anybody who doesn't, so I 
can not even ask.

>> Earlier by writing a check that you send to the *bank*. 
> 
> That's different.
> 
>>> We also have "money orders", where you go to the (government run) 
>>> post office and give them cash money, and they give you something 
>>> that works essentially like a check. So people who don't have a bank 
>>> account can still pay people who are remote.
>>
>> People without bank accounts?? Are you living in a third world country?
> 
> No, but we're next door to one. (No, not really, but apparently banks 
> are not trustworthy institutions to people from some central/south 
> american countries.)
> 
> We also have immigrants, tourists, and so on.

I have been a tourist some times and it is rather a surprise the first 
time that simple things don't seem to work. Long time ago (before ATM) I 
was with my then girlfriend in the states. She did not earn enough to 
have her own credit card (yes, the cards work differently here too). I 
was at a conference. So, she had money in her account but I was hard to 
get to that. She had also that bewildering experience of going into a 
bank with some Dutch money and find out that this bank could not change 
that into dollars.

>> I am not aware of a name for such a system here. I think that as long 
>> as I can remember all payroll like things were handled by banks. I.e. 
>> it has been virtually impossible to not have a bank account if you 
>> were employed or received money from the state for at least 30 years.
> 
> Well, yes. We still have a mite bit more freedom than that in this 
> country. :-)  People are still allowed to deal purely in cash if they want.

Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?

>> Although it might have been possible to give cheques to a person I 
>> have never done that, nor can I think of a reason to do that here.
> 
> I see. SO you can still send written instructions, but you send them to 
> the bank, and if the person doesn't have a bank account, you're pretty 
> much SOL.

Not familiar with SOL, but I can guess. Well, yes, but as everybody has 
a bank account, that problem seldom occurs.

>>> If they claim never to have received it *and* they cash it, you know 
>>> of course because the bank tells you and probably even gives you a 
>>> picture of their signature on the back of the check.
>>
>> As said, here checks never reach a person, so this can not happen at all.
> 
> That works.
> 
>> I think this German thing is for a single time.
> 
> You can do it a single time here too. It's generally just not worth 
> setting up the payment instructions if you can just mail them a check.

Sure, makes sense within your system.

>> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. 
> 
> With the check, you have proof that you paid, for example. Otherwise, 
> you still need to get a receipt, and you still can't mail the thing.

The log of your bank account is proof here.

>> These are probably the closest to your kind of cheques, except for the 
>> guarantee. 
> 
> Our checks come with guarantees in the sense that it's illegal to write 
> a check when you don't have the money to cover it.
> 
> Otherwise, we have what are called "traveler's checks", which are like 
> these, except they're designed so that if they get stolen they can't be 
> used and can be refunded by the issuing bank.  You just buy them for 
> cash, sign one side, and then you sign the other side when you turn it 
> over to the merchant.

Ours will pay the shop owner the amount that is on the cheque no matter 
if you have it in your account or not. What happens if you spend more 
than you have is between you and the bank. The shop owner does not need 
to care about that.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> A factor might be that it is 
> almost impossible to disappear here, so there is no point in not paying. 

I rather suspect it's more the other way around, really.

>   If you can't pay you are removed from the house. 

Same here.

> Anyway, this all shows that you live in a financially totally different 
> country.  But I knew that already.

Not particularly.  We just do checks differently than you do. :-)

-- 
   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:
> She did not earn enough to 
> have her own credit card (yes, the cards work differently here too).

We have that, or at least certainly had that a couple decades ago. I don't 
know after the latest financial "melt-down" here.

> She had also that bewildering experience of going into a 
> bank with some Dutch money and find out that this bank could not change 
> that into dollars.

Well, we're not Europe. :-) Foreign countries aren't nearly as close to the 
USA as they are close together in Europe.

> Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?

Sure. We don't trust our government.

> Not familiar with SOL, but I can guess. Well, yes, but as everybody has 
> a bank account, that problem seldom occurs.

Well, you mean, except perhaps the tourists, or children, or whatever.

>>> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. 
>>
>> With the check, you have proof that you paid, for example. Otherwise, 
>> you still need to get a receipt, and you still can't mail the thing.
> 
> The log of your bank account is proof here.

Generally it doesn't come to that unless you actually get to court. Most 
people are happy to try to figure out what happened. If I mail you a check 
and you don't cash it, I say "Gee, must have gotten lost in the mail" and I 
mail another. Rarely happens, tho.

> Ours will pay the shop owner the amount that is on the cheque no matter 
> if you have it in your account or not. What happens if you spend more 
> than you have is between you and the bank. The shop owner does not need 
> to care about that.

That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as customer-focused.

To get that level of assurance here, you can take credit/debit cards or 
cash, or bank checks or money orders. Just not personal checks.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 21:48, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> A factor might be that it is almost impossible to disappear here, so 
>> there is no point in not paying. 
> 
> I rather suspect it's more the other way around, really.

is it?

>>   If you can't pay you are removed from the house. 
> 
> Same here.
> 
>> Anyway, this all shows that you live in a financially totally 
>> different country.  But I knew that already.
> 
> Not particularly.  We just do checks differently than you do. :-)
> 
and credit cards and some other things as well.

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 21:53, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> She had also that bewildering experience of going into a bank with 
>> some Dutch money and find out that this bank could not change that 
>> into dollars.
> 
> Well, we're not Europe. :-) Foreign countries aren't nearly as close to 
> the USA as they are close together in Europe.

That is what we found out. You can imagine it comes as a shock if you 
are not prepared for it. BTW the USA is closer to a foreign country 
than, say, Malta or Iceland.

>> Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?
> 
> Sure. We don't trust our government.

I know, weird concept if you ask me. ;)

>> Not familiar with SOL, but I can guess. Well, yes, but as everybody 
>> has a bank account, that problem seldom occurs.
> 
> Well, you mean, except perhaps the tourists, or children, or whatever.

Being a tourist is a problem, but that is why that is fun in the first 
place. Children do have bank accounts. Not sure about the whatevers, you 
mean dogs, cats, cars, masonry...? They don't.

>>>> If it is a private person, I'd do that in cash. 
>>>
>>> With the check, you have proof that you paid, for example. Otherwise, 
>>> you still need to get a receipt, and you still can't mail the thing.
>>
>> The log of your bank account is proof here.
> 
> Generally it doesn't come to that unless you actually get to court. Most 
> people are happy to try to figure out what happened. If I mail you a 
> check and you don't cash it, I say "Gee, must have gotten lost in the 
> mail" and I mail another. Rarely happens, tho.

Really weird system, but if you are happy with it, it is OK with me ;)

>> Ours will pay the shop owner the amount that is on the cheque no 
>> matter if you have it in your account or not. What happens if you 
>> spend more than you have is between you and the bank. The shop owner 
>> does not need to care about that.
> 
> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as customer-focused.

And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...

> To get that level of assurance here, you can take credit/debit cards or 
> cash, or bank checks or money orders. Just not personal checks.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 12-10-2009 21:48, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> A factor might be that it is almost impossible to disappear here, so 
>>> there is no point in not paying. 
>>
>> I rather suspect it's more the other way around, really.
> 
> is it?

Yes. If you can't even buy a tank full of gas without being tracked by your 
bank, chances are you're not going to do a good job of disappearing. You 
yourself said you don't know many people who get paid in cash, right?

>> Not particularly.  We just do checks differently than you do. :-)
>>
> and credit cards and some other things as well.

What's different about the credit cards?

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

Damn. 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.

> Children do have bank accounts. 

Huh, OK.

>> 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.  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.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 22:10, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 12-10-2009 21:48, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> A factor might be that it is almost impossible to disappear here, so 
>>>> there is no point in not paying. 
>>>
>>> I rather suspect it's more the other way around, really.
>>
>> is it?
> 
> Yes. If you can't even buy a tank full of gas without being tracked by 
> your bank, chances are you're not going to do a good job of 
> disappearing. You yourself said you don't know many people who get paid 
> in cash, right?

right, possibly none.

We also have a rather well functioning person administration in the city 
counsel (or whatever you call that). You can not move into a house 
without notifying the city and telling where you came from (Yes in many 
cases you need a permit to live in a particular city. I can not just go 
into a house in a city that I don't work in or have some other 
connection with, but don't ask me details). I think you also need to 
tell the city you leave where you are going to, if you don't you still 
have to pay city taxes. Sounds like big brother but works well. (Too 
well if you are a jewish citizen in the German occupied Netherlands in 
1940-1945)

>>> Not particularly.  We just do checks differently than you do. :-)
>>>
>> and credit cards and some other things as well.
> 
> What's different about the credit cards?

Not entirely sure because I don't know the US system that well.

Needing a certain income to get one and sometimes not being allowed to 
go below zero on the account that is coupled to it might be one 
difference. Perhaps even the fact that it is coupled to a specific bank 
account and issued by that bank. We have a maximum amount we can charge 
the card for per month, irrespective of the balance on your account 
(though the amount is a function of income, I think roughly one month of 
salary on that account in most cases). Variation do exist.
I have been in trouble once in NZ when I nearly could not pay the rent 
of the apartment we rented for a couple of weeks when I was working 
there. The amount exceeded what I was allowed to draw on that card for 
that month. I had more than enough on my account but could not reach it. 
(for some reasons it worked when I split the amount in small steps 
trying to figure out where the limit was exactly). I should have 
informed my bank that I needed a temporary increase in my limit. I did 
not think about that.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Sounds like big brother but works well. (Too 
> well if you are a jewish citizen in the German occupied Netherlands in 
> 1940-1945)

Yeah. Works great, until it doesn't. :-) We still have enough problems here 
(discrimination problems, illegal immigrant problems, etc) that we still 
have it clear in national memory why you can't really trust the government 
to stick up for you or obey its own laws.  Also perhaps because we have a 
whole crapload of different jurisdictions, legally speaking.

We don't really have to tell anyone where we're going. If the landlord 
doesn't ask, nobody cares.

In China not too many decades ago, you had to get permission from your boss 
to change jobs, houses, or get married, so I think there's a full scale out 
there.

> Needing a certain income to get one 

That's up to the bank that's lending you the money. It's a *credit* card, 
after all. You don't need anything to get a debit card.

> and sometimes not being allowed to 
> go below zero on the account that is coupled to it might be one 
> difference. 

Credit cards aren't coupled to accounts with money in them. Those are debit 
cards here.  (I.e., you have a credit card account, but it's a credit 
account, so there's no money in the account.)

> Perhaps even the fact that it is coupled to a specific bank 
> account and issued by that bank. 

We have that here, yes. Some specific bank has to loan you the money.

> We have a maximum amount we can charge 
> the card for per month, irrespective of the balance on your account 

Well, these are all rules determined by the bank giving you the card. 
There's a maximum amount of money they'll loan you before they start 
declining the card, but there's no way they can just (for example) take 
money out of your bank account if you don't pay them back. They'd actually 
have to get the government to take your money and pay them.

> I had more than enough on my account but could not reach it. 

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.)

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

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

Post a reply to this message