The General Economics Thread

I didnt claim it was a rational fear.

It's more secure from the consumer side, but if the system is hacked from the POS side then it looks to me that that information would still vulnerable.

At my job I had to watch a video to recognize when someone was trying to get the credit card information. It involved physically replacing the pin pad.

The hackers might be able to intercept transactional data to conduct a man-in-the-middle attack but wouldn't be able to recreate a working credit card from the data stored in the POS system. That is, assuming that the smart chip system is set up in a vaguely sane way.

Moreover, the retailers' databases wouldn't store credit card numbers at all, so they couldn't be stolen in a data breach. Ideally they wouldn't store this for online sales, either; rather, the interaction with a retailer would involve the generation of a long-term key unique to both the credit card and the seller. That key would automatically expire after a certain period. For maximum security, a per-transaction limit would be set at the time of authorization.

edited 15th Sep '14 9:39:05 AM by Fighteer

One very good reason not to use a credit card at all is if you don't trust the credit card company's security. Just saying.

Chip-and-pin is also used for Debit Cards. Debit and Credit Cards use the same firms.

edited 17th Sep '14 1:25:58 AM by Greenmantle

Sony is warning investors of a worse than expected projected $2.1 billion loss at the end of the fiscal year.

Cool. Then I hope we switch quickly.

How Big Data Enables Economic Harm to Low-Income Consumers: "Data has been called the "new oil" of the information age, an asset used by corporations to reshape markets and increase their market power and profits. On the Internet, we see the rise of new "big data" platforms such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and others that accumulate ever-increasing information on consumer behavior, interests and needs. While this data unquestionably increases the efficiency of the economy in numerous ways, what is in question is whether consumers are ultimately benefitting significantly from those productivity gains or whether that surplus is being largely captured by these "big data platforms." Worse, the increasing loss of control of private data by individuals seems to be leaving them vulnerable to economic exploitation by a range of corporate actors."

There seems to be two main concerns: 1) How so-called "Big Data" threatens consumer privacy and 2) The possibility that consumer profiles could result in higher prices and lower quality products being offered to certain consumers (because the companies know that these consumers will probably pay it).

In other words, the fact that retailers and marketing companies have access to more information than consumers do puts them at an advantage in the marketplace.

edited 17th Sep '14 5:37:43 AM by demarquis

And if you're paranoid about every single thing in modern society, you might as well go live on a farm in Amish country. Just saying.

Life is about managing risks, not avoiding them entirely.

Also, most data breaches occur in retailers' systems, not in the systems of the credit card companies themselves.

edited 17th Sep '14 5:45:15 AM by Fighteer

The big box retailers have chosen not to make significant investments into consumer security, mostly because they have learned that the consumers will come back, leaked data or no.

There's that, too. It's all about the financial risk versus the cost of security and/or remedial measures. Although I would point out that some retailers have been seriously damaged by data breaches, to the point where it ought to be considered a serious business risk.

Really, though, without regulation forcing the matter or a central authority taking over the mechanisms of payment processing, businesses will, by and large, continue putting forth the minimum possible effort for data security, and we'll keep getting hit by easily preventable attacks.

So I wasn't sure where else to ask this but I've recently come into possession of some silver and gold coins and jewlery. I'm fairly sure they're worth more in silver and gold weight than they are as actual rings and coins and the like.

So what do I do with them? I see ads all the time about holding onto gold and hoarding it and the like but I'm fairly sure they're just scams.

Depends on how much energy you're willing to put into it. My advice would be to dump them, but that's because really going all-out in getting your money's worth for gold and used jewelry takes a lot.

Maybe do one swing around the local gold-buyers and shop once, but anything more will take a more exhaustive approach.

You have two types of ads: the ones offering to buy your gold (and silver) for $$CASH$$, and the ones offering to sell you gold (and silver) as a hedge against the coming collapse of the dollar (or civilization itself). Neither is honest.

If you sell your precious metals to anyone — a jeweler, a Cash4Gold shop, or whatever — you can expect to get a fraction of their market value. You may be able to dicker the price up, but it's still not a great deal. As Ogodei said above, if you really want to get a fair price, you'll probably need to put in a fair bit of effort.

That said, if you have no use for them besides having something shiny to look at, then they have zero value to you, so any value you acquire by selling them is a net gain. Just don't fall for the first late-night TV offer or Internet ad banner that comes along; chances are you'll get just as good a deal by going to your local jewelry store, with less potential strings attached. At least, you should call them up and get a price quote before going for the first offer you see.

Unless you're one of the big players who deals in precious metals and helps drive the "OMG shineys!" hysteria so people will buy gold and drive up their profits, don't expect to make any kind of killing.

edited 18th Sep '14 11:13:41 AM by Fighteer

You could also just keep them, if you don't need the money for anything else. Shinies are fun and can be nice to have, even if they're not doing anything other than being shiny.

So turns out my new collection is several thousand coins big and some of them look valuable.

Buffalo nickels, morgan silver dollars, some gold coins I don't recognize, a penny from 1833 or something.

I've made an appointment with an appraiser/dealer on monday so I guess I'll see what I get then.

Thousand? Lucky you.

Sounds like the sort of thing where you need to speak to an auctioneer, preferably a coin specialist.

Europe's Bargain:

With the Scottish talk of secession, there is now American talk of secession. Nationally, about 25% of the country wants to secede.

I read comments on it and the majority were from Red State people, many saying that if the country got split up, the conservative states would thrive and the liberal ones would fail.

Which is funny. Do they even bother to look at charts comparing the states? The red states are very poorly off compared to the blue states. Liberal countries like the ones in Western Europe are very well off compared to conservative ones for the most part.

But what are your thoughts on secession and what it might do?

It's a joke. A joke that 25% of the country is incapable of getting. Economically, the red states would effectively be turned into a Third World nation whose sole useful export is food.

edited 19th Sep '14 8:01:30 AM by Fighteer

Well, for one, it would immediately result in border taxes from the US to the newly formed independent nation. The new country would probably have to set up their own power and water infrastructure, and so on.

Running a country is really hard, especially when you've just ticked off your biggest potential trading partner, and the others would be really leery of trading with you.

Yeah, basically that.

It's not even a credible threat.

edited 19th Sep '14 8:01:44 AM by Zendervai

Nvm.

edited 19th Sep '14 8:01:52 AM by Quag15

I was responding to Bonsai Forest.

I know, I know. I was just wondering if this talk of secession wouldn't be a bit off-topic.

Carry on, don't mind me.

Fair enough. Like I said, don't mind me.

edited 19th Sep '14 8:14:28 AM by Quag15

I don't think secession talk is off-topic if we're talking about the economic effects. The economic effects would be enormous.

Let's assume all 50 states split up then. Then what would happen specifically then, instead of if only one or two states did?

Here's some sanity from the comments section of that article:

Most of the comments are like "I hate liberals, let's separate from them." Ironic because our government is doing very little that liberals actually want. The Comcast-Time Warner merger, anyone? Net Neutrality? Besides, issues like gay marriage are becoming more popular with conservatives anyway.

edited 19th Sep '14 8:22:22 AM by BonsaiForest