←back to thread

Brazil's government-run payments system has become dominant

(www.economist.com)
666 points jcartw | 6 comments | 08 Apr 25 10:59 UTC | HN request time: 2.288s | source | bottom
Show context
nirui ◴[08 Apr 25 13:55 UTC] No.43621834[source]▶
I'm thinking, maybe controversially, centralized national payment service like this should be government-run based on my experience with Alipay which is a digital payment service in China.

Due to it's commercial origin, Alipay is filled with unwanted ads and traps. Almost every time I made a payment with it, a pop up prompts me to enlist their Ant Financial LOAN service either now, or being prompted for the same question again 30 days later (yep, not Yes or No, but Now or Later). It's just fucking ridiculous, I don't need a LOAN for a $400 projector, and I don't need a LOAN for a $4 hair cut (Xi should probably do something about it, really).

I'm glad that at least people of Brazil don't have to suffer that kind of shit. At least their government-run program is better scrutinized and boring, thus more dependable, that's a good thing in my eyes.

replies(10): >>43621950 #>>43622667 #>>43624442 #>>43627147 #>>43627573 #>>43628371 #>>43628857 #>>43629066 #>>43629500 #>>43636801 #
1. timewizard ◴[08 Apr 25 17:42 UTC] No.43624442[source]▶
Until you say something the government doesn't like and they decide that part of your punishment should be lack of access to payment services.

I'd prefer a constitutional mandate or guarantee that this can't happen. Without it this is a noose. A convenient noose with lots of nice properties but a noose none the less.

replies(2): >>43624906 #>>43627630 #
2. onlyrealcuzzo ◴[08 Apr 25 18:23 UTC] No.43624906[source]▶
> Until you say something the government doesn't like and they decide that part of your punishment should be lack of access to payment services.

How much worse is that than the same thing happening when you do something a private company doesn't like?

And how much different is that than what the Federal government could already do? If the government says you're a terrorist, you're not accessing any banking.

replies(1): >>43626908 #
3. timewizard ◴[08 Apr 25 22:01 UTC] No.43626908[source]▶
> when you do something a private company doesn't like?

Well, it's completely different, because ostensibly I can switch to another private company. Is there an option, ever, for me to just change which government I subscribe to?

> If the government says you're a terrorist, you're not accessing any banking.

In the US this can only be true for foreign citizens. Broad classes of assets and liquidity are well protected for US citizens unless you end up in the unusual situation where they sue the money itself. If you have cash in your hand nothing can stop you from spending it.

Thank you for introducing political relativism into this conversation, although, I'm not sure it's advanced anything in particular.

replies(1): >>43629986 #
4. charlie90 ◴[08 Apr 25 23:58 UTC] No.43627630[source]▶
As opposed to Visa/MC deciding that? At least I can vote for the government...
replies(1): >>43627652 #
5. Aspos ◴[09 Apr 25 00:01 UTC] No.43627652[source]▶
And its not a far-fetched example as both VISA/MC actually have a history of effectively banning legitimate businesses for no particular reason.
6. StackRanker3000 ◴[09 Apr 25 08:18 UTC] No.43629986{3}[source]▶
> In the US this can only be true for foreign citizens. Broad classes of assets and liquidity are well protected for US citizens unless you end up in the unusual situation where they sue the money itself. If you have cash in your hand nothing can stop you from spending it.

Why would this be any different if it was the government running payment services rather than private entities? You haven’t explained why having those middlemen protects you from the same authority that makes up and enforces the rules anyway.