←back to thread

666 points jcartw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bestouff ◴[] No.43620573[source]
> Pix has spiced up Brazil’s fusty banking sector, but it gives the central bank a worrying amount of power

I think a largely prefer a government-run payment system than an US company monopoly.

replies(7): >>43620584 #>>43620865 #>>43620874 #>>43620906 #>>43620937 #>>43624958 #>>43625649 #
rebanevapustus ◴[] No.43620937[source]
The Brazilian government is a *very* corrupt authoritarian oligarchy. I would take any US company over that any day.
replies(4): >>43620990 #>>43622237 #>>43627367 #>>43628965 #
xinayder ◴[] No.43620990[source]
Yet we, a developing "third-world" country, have a better functioning payment system than the US, where it takes days, or even weeks, for a wire transfer to land, and you pay a huge amount of fees for that.

Cases in point:

- To transfer money to a broker, I need to pay around $5 in transfer fees via ACH or wire

- I want to change the custody of my stock market assets from one broker to another, and it will cost me $75 to move $60 worth of shares. Meanwhile, in Brazil, this process is free in every broker.

replies(4): >>43621031 #>>43621424 #>>43624618 #>>43631271 #
ave_b_2011 ◴[] No.43621031[source]
I don’t understand this binary. The UK was able to create a near-instant bank transfer system without monopolizing in the same way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_Payments

It costing more for instant transfers is just a regressive tax on the working poor.

replies(2): >>43621092 #>>43622253 #
1. xinayder ◴[] No.43621092{3}[source]
I can't find the details of the UK system, but it's not "monopolized" in Brazil. Perhaps due to the fact that the infra is provided by the Central Bank, and banks choosing to implement Pix support must implement the Pix APIs in their system.