Apparently not, because from what I'm reading, banks make more money off mobile payments are are looking forward to this. The CEO of VISA is really excited about this.
Sure, it's a massive new profit center for them with nearly zero risk. Just wait until Apple Financial Services (aka Apple Bank) comes on the scene...
Sure, it's a massive new profit center for them with nearly zero risk. Just wait until Apple Financial Services (aka Apple Bank) comes on the scene...
I wonder if it would pay for Apple to do that. That's a layer of regulation that Apple won't need with this. Besides, at least here in New York, there's already an Apple Bank.
I don't understand the concepts of tiny regions breaking away. It's not as though they aren't fairly represented. They are only 5% of the population! and what will they gain other than the dubious thought that they are their own country? Economically, they can't survive on their own. They now receive much more from London than their own economy produces. They think that the Northsea oil will work for them, but those reserves are seriously depleted. So one of two things. London continues their high level of support, which will mean that they are not really independent. Or, London stops their support, and the Scottish economy plunges into severe recession.
And then there's Wales.
I wouldn’t be so certain. It’s true the North sea oil resources might be scant by now, but at least it is a good stash to start with. Better few than nothing. Economically, they may be viable. Agriculturally, certainly not, but this is common to all northern countries; industrially, I confess not to have enough elements to judge. What is clear, natheless, is that they had, have, and will have a left-wing slant, and they deeply resent the current British tory politics that torpedoes all the public services they are attached to (Hell, think the British government has even started privatizing the mail service; even in the US, this is barely conceivable – they are also partly dismantling the NHS system); and somehow, they are obliged to abide by English rules, because the number of Scottish PM is insufficient to weigh in the balance, and Holyrood has not enough power at that time (but the ‘no’ camp has promised more devolution). They also have not forgotten the scourge of Thatcherism and the aftermath they're still grappling with. London might be more economically dependent of Edinburgh than the reverse.
Then, if you look at Europe, you won't see a drove, but a couple of tiny countries that seem maybe not to thrive, but at least cope pretty well: Andorra, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, San Remo, the Holy See, Malta, Monaco.
I wouldn’t be so certain. It’s true the North sea oil resources might be scant by now, but at least it is a good stash to start with. Better few than nothing. Economically, they may be viable. Agriculturally, certainly not, but this is common to all northern countries; industrially, I confess not to have enough elements to judge. What is clear, natheless, is that they had, have, and will have a left-wing slant, and they deeply resent the current British tory politics that torpedoes all the public services they are attached to (Hell, think the British government has even started privatizing the mail service; even in the US, this is barely conceivable – they are also partly dismantling the NHS system); and somehow, they are obliged to abide by English rules, because the number of Scottish PM is insufficient to weigh in the balance, and Holyrood has not enough power at that time (but the ‘no’ camp has promised more devolution). They also have not forgotten the scourge of Thatcherism and the aftermath they're still grappling with. London might be more economically dependent of Edinburgh than the reverse.
Then, if you look at Europe, you won't see a drove, but a couple of tiny countries that seem maybe not to thrive, but at least cope pretty well: Andorra, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, San Remo, the Holy See, Malta, Monaco.
No, their economy is really small. London supports it. It's truth that Thatcher did some dumb things, but she also got the UK out of a real mess. Most socialist countries have been forced to cut those services back. In some cases, substantially. These tiny countries you mention are all very small. Most just have a couple of hundred thousand people, or less, and very little land. They survive on tourism, gambling, tithes, and in some cases, outright support by a bigger country, such as France. Scotland has much more in common with Ireland and Greece, both in population, and economic size.
No, their economy is really small. London supports it. It's truth that Thatcher did some dumb things, but she also got the UK out of a real mess. Most socialist countries have been forced to cut those services back. In some cases, substantially. These tiny countries you mention are all very small. Most just have a couple of hundred thousand people, or less, and very little land. They survive on tourism, gambling, tithes, and in some cases, outright support by a bigger country, such as France. Scotland has much more in common with Ireland and Greece, both in population, and economic size.
Well, okay. As I said before, I have no real data to canvass in order to decide. So I just accept your opinion. Thatcher was a butcher; it’s true, even here in France, we have to dent in public budgets, but we manage somehow to keep the system afloat. Thatcher just axed everything, and she didn’t care if that would send thousands of people sleeping in the streets. Having to reduce costs is a necessity, but you can do it respectfully, which Thatcher didn't care about.
You're right. These were very small countries. Scotland would be akin to Netherlands or Belgium (for what remains of it) also. Or Danemark. I like to think they'll be making it. If ever the North sea pipelines run dry, they will fill them with Scotch, instead…
That’s what I suspected. In this particular case, the US are still using neolithic technologies.
Conversely, where it is in use, e.g. in Europe (I think), Apple will never be able to coax the merchants or banks to use its system. It’s just pointless.
Considering this article from 2011 regarding $190 billion per year in fraudulent CC usage I'd say 5% is pretty low, and I'm certain the fraud has risen since then.
Uh. Sure. Germans have recently been forced to accept dents in their salaries to preserve their employments. That's what I call a functioning economy :P
The real question is the UK, especially if Scotland secedes in a week (and I am a huge YES supporter).
I don't understand the concepts of tiny regions breaking away. It's not as though they aren't fairly represented. They are only 5% of the population! and what will they gain other than the dubious thought that they are their own country? Economically, they can't survive on their own. They now receive much more from London than their own economy produces. They think that the Northsea oil will work for them, but those reserves are seriously depleted. So one of two things. London continues their high level of support, which will mean that they are not really independent. Or, London stops their support, and the Scottish economy plunges into severe recession.
And then there's Wales.
Quite.
The whole thing is iniquitous, anyway. Why should only the Scots get to vote? The UK is made up of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We should all get a vote.
This^^... very broadly speaking and within limits... as with all things. I like to think of it in terms of control theory- Old gasoline engine(chug, chug, spit and spew), similar to 1800's economy and boom and bust, it was unregulated. New modern engines, computer control fuel input etc, no spit and spew... similar to Fed reserve etc ensuring appropriate money flow (problem is we have a congress muck things up, one way or another). Its interesting there are counter-intuitive things in macro economics vs micro economics as there are counter intuitive items in say... general physics to quantum physics. But trying to get counter-intuitive thought into the general population... not easy.
The problem is that feedback theory in economics is in it's infancy.
I don't understand the concepts of tiny regions breaking away. It's not as though they aren't fairly represented. They are only 5% of the population! and what will they gain other than the dubious thought that they are their own country? Economically, they can't survive on their own. They now receive much more from London than their own economy produces. They think that the Northsea oil will work for them, but those reserves are seriously depleted. So one of two things. London continues their high level of support, which will mean that they are not really independent. Or, London stops their support, and the Scottish economy plunges into severe recession.
And then there's Wales.
Plenty if countries smaller than Scotland survive and prosper. I bet most rich countries are small. And Scotland subsidises the UK.
Comments
Sure, it's a massive new profit center for them with nearly zero risk. Just wait until Apple Financial Services (aka Apple Bank) comes on the scene...
Which they'll make into a church with a 501(c)(3) exemption so they don't have to pay any taxes: ?Pray.
Heh! Then they will have less independence than they have now.
LOL
I wonder if it would pay for Apple to do that. That's a layer of regulation that Apple won't need with this. Besides, at least here in New York, there's already an Apple Bank.
Which they'll make into a church with a 501(c)(3) exemption so they don't have to pay any taxes: ?Pray.
Apple is already a religion and has been for some time.
I don't understand the concepts of tiny regions breaking away. It's not as though they aren't fairly represented. They are only 5% of the population! and what will they gain other than the dubious thought that they are their own country? Economically, they can't survive on their own. They now receive much more from London than their own economy produces. They think that the Northsea oil will work for them, but those reserves are seriously depleted. So one of two things. London continues their high level of support, which will mean that they are not really independent. Or, London stops their support, and the Scottish economy plunges into severe recession.
And then there's Wales.
I wouldn’t be so certain. It’s true the North sea oil resources might be scant by now, but at least it is a good stash to start with. Better few than nothing. Economically, they may be viable. Agriculturally, certainly not, but this is common to all northern countries; industrially, I confess not to have enough elements to judge. What is clear, natheless, is that they had, have, and will have a left-wing slant, and they deeply resent the current British tory politics that torpedoes all the public services they are attached to (Hell, think the British government has even started privatizing the mail service; even in the US, this is barely conceivable – they are also partly dismantling the NHS system); and somehow, they are obliged to abide by English rules, because the number of Scottish PM is insufficient to weigh in the balance, and Holyrood has not enough power at that time (but the ‘no’ camp has promised more devolution). They also have not forgotten the scourge of Thatcherism and the aftermath they're still grappling with. London might be more economically dependent of Edinburgh than the reverse.
Then, if you look at Europe, you won't see a drove, but a couple of tiny countries that seem maybe not to thrive, but at least cope pretty well: Andorra, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, San Remo, the Holy See, Malta, Monaco.
... because the number of Scottish PM is insufficient to weigh in the balance, ...
PM = Prime Minister
MP = Member of Parliament
PM = Prime Minister
MP = Member of Parliament
Oops, that was a Pathetic Mistake. :P
Oops, that was a Pathetic Mistake. :P
Some Mistakes can be Pathetic.
Bet they wish it was as you initially stated though.
No, their economy is really small. London supports it. It's truth that Thatcher did some dumb things, but she also got the UK out of a real mess. Most socialist countries have been forced to cut those services back. In some cases, substantially. These tiny countries you mention are all very small. Most just have a couple of hundred thousand people, or less, and very little land. They survive on tourism, gambling, tithes, and in some cases, outright support by a bigger country, such as France. Scotland has much more in common with Ireland and Greece, both in population, and economic size.
No, their economy is really small. London supports it. It's truth that Thatcher did some dumb things, but she also got the UK out of a real mess. Most socialist countries have been forced to cut those services back. In some cases, substantially. These tiny countries you mention are all very small. Most just have a couple of hundred thousand people, or less, and very little land. They survive on tourism, gambling, tithes, and in some cases, outright support by a bigger country, such as France. Scotland has much more in common with Ireland and Greece, both in population, and economic size.
Well, okay. As I said before, I have no real data to canvass in order to decide. So I just accept your opinion. Thatcher was a butcher; it’s true, even here in France, we have to dent in public budgets, but we manage somehow to keep the system afloat. Thatcher just axed everything, and she didn’t care if that would send thousands of people sleeping in the streets. Having to reduce costs is a necessity, but you can do it respectfully, which Thatcher didn't care about.
You're right. These were very small countries. Scotland would be akin to Netherlands or Belgium (for what remains of it) also. Or Danemark. I like to think they'll be making it. If ever the North sea pipelines run dry, they will fill them with Scotch, instead…
I have a chip in my card but no one supports it.
That’s what I suspected. In this particular case, the US are still using neolithic technologies.
Conversely, where it is in use, e.g. in Europe (I think), Apple will never be able to coax the merchants or banks to use its system. It’s just pointless.
No, it's contactless.
Considering this article from 2011 regarding $190 billion per year in fraudulent CC usage I'd say 5% is pretty low, and I'm certain the fraud has risen since then.
Sorry that doesn't compute
$190B of $4Trillion is almost 25% loss rate. That's too high. Hyperbole.
My guess it's a 10th of that. 2.5% seems like a reasonable number given my understanding of retail loss prevention.
and it's the merchants who pay that fraud cost in the end (not the banks)
Merchants will love to
a) reduce this to zero
b) split the profits (that's 1.2% more efficient operations)
c) if also reduces cash register staffing labor time all the better.
d) if it reduces cash handling, because consumers believe the transaction is anonymous to the merchant, more efficiency
less change mistakes
less staff stealing.
Even 2.5% sounds way too high to me.
I wonder if it would pay for Apple to do that. That's a layer of regulation that Apple won't need with this...
That's an excellent point.
Uh. Sure. Germans have recently been forced to accept dents in their salaries to preserve their employments. That's what I call a functioning economy :P
The real question is the UK, especially if Scotland secedes in a week (and I am a huge YES supporter).
I don't understand the concepts of tiny regions breaking away. It's not as though they aren't fairly represented. They are only 5% of the population! and what will they gain other than the dubious thought that they are their own country? Economically, they can't survive on their own. They now receive much more from London than their own economy produces. They think that the Northsea oil will work for them, but those reserves are seriously depleted. So one of two things. London continues their high level of support, which will mean that they are not really independent. Or, London stops their support, and the Scottish economy plunges into severe recession.
And then there's Wales.
Quite.
The whole thing is iniquitous, anyway. Why should only the Scots get to vote? The UK is made up of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We should all get a vote.
What a lamentable state politics is in today.
The problem is that feedback theory in economics is in it's infancy.
Plenty if countries smaller than Scotland survive and prosper. I bet most rich countries are small. And Scotland subsidises the UK.
Are people confused about what a trillion is? It's 1,000 B. 190 / 4000 = 4.75%.
Did you respond to the wrong comment? He's not saying that $190M ÷ $4T is 2.5%, but rather that even 2.5% sounds too high.