PayPal account delete

[Joe]

7 minutes ago, Bill Hagan said:

An interesting thread.  Thanks, @Pressureangle, for posting it.

This illustrates how those who are driven more by content and their cause du jour than process could find themselves sputtering if the underlying reasons were reversed.  

For example -- to use an absurd example simply for effect -- imagine if PP had said the same thing about those who support abortion anytime on demand.  Some, now untroubled by this present rule because they agree with PP's political stance, might be aflame with indignation were the rationale otherwise justified.

I also like what I understand to be Poland's approach to internet censorship by government or tech corps: folks are free to post anything that is not patently unlawful.  

In other words, no matter how stupid or farfetched, one is free to say it, with the rest of us free to accept or reject on the merits.  It is sublimely fascinating to have former commies school us in freedom of speech.    To say we peasants are not capable of sorting wheat from chaff is highhanded hubris of the self-appointed elite.

As for alternatives, @docc, I have used PP lots, but do find this disquieting, and will now think about bailing.  I can send ACH payments directly from my online bank when cash need, or use CC for others.  I have used Zelle and Venmo -- https://www.forbes.com/advisor/money-transfer/zelle-vs-venmo/ -- but much less often that PP.

Enough.  It's now time to focus on way more important matters.  So, I'll go putz in the Moto Grappa and see if I can wrench a bit without doing any major damage to my Guzzis.  

Bill

 

In other words, no matter how stupid or farfetched, one is free to say it, with the rest of us free to accept or reject on the merits.  It is sublimely fascinating to have former commies school us in freedom of speech.    To say we peasants are not capable of sorting wheat from chaff is highhanded hubris of the self-appointed elite.

Very well said Bill. 

 

[Bill Hagan]

 

@LowRyter's "sad face” reaction to my post, above, is intellectually interesting.  

If he meant that he was sad because I might do more damage to my GuzzisI, I am touched.  

 

Moreover, he and others who feel similarly will be pleased to know that I was able only to go down a few minutes and mostly just hooked up my EV to the battery tender.  I am capable of causing sparks from that, but got lucky today. 

 

If, OTOH, he meant that PayPal should do as it did here because he shares P2’s view of things, it would seem that he illustrates my intended point.  By that I mean, if he disagreed with PP’s position on a given political view, he would be appalled by, not applauding, the action.

 

I am, of course, imputing to him things he may not have meant at all.  If so, I have a fine unopened bottle of high-end bourbon waiting for him, tho he’ll after to come visit the Moto Grappa — where he and all Guzzisti are, with regard whatever to their political views, welcome. 

 

But, it seems to me that a business — especially a mega-business on the web — should be politically neutral. 

 

I am always bemused by those who will not buy a product and want others to boycott businesses because of the political, religious, or whatever views of the owners. That is, IMO, a personal matter and none of my concern.  

 

I distinguish that from a business that panders politics to the public in its marketing. Boycott away because they have chosen that course as a tool.  Ben & Jerry's comes to mind, tho it's been a struggle to get Kathi to give up Cherry Garcia.  

 

I suppose — but I must tread there warily — that most of us would agree that a person, business, institution, or any other entity that espoused, e.g., pedophilia, human sacrifice, or similar shocking, immoral, or illegal conduct, deserves our contempt and more.

 

But, nearly everything else falls within that realm of ideas over which we — at least one hopes we — might reasonably differ, discuss, debate … and vote.  At the ballot box, not the cash register.

 

When a major business entity essentially chooses sides — and it doesn’t matter which side — and acts to squelch those who see things differently, it does us all harm.

 

Those who smugly see themselves as morally superior to the rest of us find nothing wrong with such censorship of speech.  They seemingly think that what they do is so right that no one could object without being unworthy of consideration.  Indeed, they think that those dissenting voices should be silenced.

 

When, however, the position is not in keeping with their own, well, that’s a different matter.  They will then learn that one can fight city hall (and the government generally) and win.  That is hardly the case with the suits at corporate HQ’s.  

 

I thus am, as you might suppose from all of the above, no cheerleader for corporate activism no matter which "side" it is on.  

 

Life is too short to engage in this sort of discussion on a Guzzi forum.  I’ll be happy to continue this at the Moto Grappa, under the pavilion at Tellico Lodge, down by The River in Kentucky on a Mutton Run, or most any place where we might gather in moto-fellowship and share our thoughts along with something worthy of our sipping.  

 

Until then, well, I’m out.

 

Best to all,

 

Bill

 

[Joe]

4 hours ago, Bill Hagan said:

 

@LowRyter's "sad face” reaction to my post, above, is intellectually interesting.  

If he meant that he was sad because I might do more damage to my GuzzisI, I am touched.  

 

Moreover, he and others who feel similarly will be pleased to know that I was able only to go down a few minutes and mostly just hooked up my EV to the battery tender.  I am capable of causing sparks from that, but got lucky today. 

 

If, OTOH, he meant that PayPal should do as it did here because he shares P2’s view of things, it would seem he that he illustrates my intended point.  By that I mean if he disagreed with PP’s position on a given political view, he would be appalled by, not applauding, the action.

 

I am, of course, imputing to him things he may not have meant at all.  If so, I have a fine unopened bottle of high-end bourbon waiting for him, tho he’ll after to come visit the Moto Grappa — where he and all Guzzisti are, with regard whatever to their political views, welcome. 

 

But, it seems to me that a business — especially a mega-business on the web — should be politically neutral. 

 

I am always bemused by those who will not buy a product and want others to boycott businesses because of the political, religious, or whatever views of the owners. That is, IMO, a personal matter and none of my concern.  

 

I distinguish that from a business that panders politics to the public in its marketing. Boycott away because they have chosen that course as a tool.  Ben & Jerry's comes to mind, tho it's been a struggle to get Kathi to give up Cherry Garcia.  

 

I suppose — but I must tread there warily — that most of us would agree that a person, business, institution, or any other entity that espoused, e.g., pedophilia, human sacrifice, or similar shocking, immoral, or illegal conduct, deserves our contempt and more.

 

But, nearly everything else falls within that realm of ideas over which we — at least one hopes we — might reasonably differ, discuss, debate … and vote.  At the ballot box, not the cash register.

 

When a major business entity essentially chooses sides — and it doesn’t matter which side — and acts to squelch those who see things differently, it does us all harm.

 

Those who smugly see themselves as morally superior to the rest of us find nothing wrong with such censorship of speech.  They seemingly think that what they do is so right that no one could object without being unworthy of consideration.  Indeed, they think that those dissenting voices should be silenced.

 

When, however, the position is not in keeping with their own, well, that’s a different matter.  They will then learn that one can fight city hall (and the government generally) and win.  That is hardly the case with the suits at corporate HQ’s.  

 

I thus am, as you might suppose from all of the above, no cheerleader for corporate activism no matter which "side" it is on.  

 

Life is too short to engage in this sort of discussion on a Guzzi forum.  I’ll be happy to continue this at the Moto Grappa, under the pavilion at Tellico Lodge, down by The River in Kentucky on a Mutton Run, or most any place where we might gather in moto-fellowship and share our thoughts along with something worthy of our sipping.  

 

Until then, well, I’m out.

 

Best to all,

 

Bill

 

 Been there done that 

[80CX100]

I've never used any of the other companies mentioned, but while reading through the PP saga, I did learn that Venmo is apparently owned by PP, fwiw.

I'm trying to cancel my PP account, it's a work in progress.

Most large corporations,financial institutions and unfortunately gov'ts, have made the choice to hide the truth on their real agenda, and are targeting our lives in a variety of ways.

The currency & financial systems are imploding. My gov't sold off our gold reserves and brought in Bank Bail In Regime Legislation, leaving me extremely vulnerable, I know Australia has similar legislation, not sure about the US; inform yourself, there are those in the world who have their sights on taking what many of us have worked hard for a life time to attain.

A big part of this agenda, depends on hiding the truth and silencing truth tellers. One of the last news agencies with any type of real integrity reporting truth is The Expose in UK, PP defunded them trying to bankrupt & silence them quite a while ago. Now PP has tipped their hand that they were going after individuals who may happen to be critical thinkers.

Once I became vocal about voicing truths on social media, I have been shadow banned & silenced for quite some time.

The people running the world are running the media, truth is sorely lacking.

I'll step away from this mine field, with one last quote from Malcolm X.

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing"

 

 

[Scud]

This discussion brings up the question of just, exactly, what is money anyway?

It's nothing more than a social construct that serves as a store of value and a medium of exchange. The earliest societies used physical items (e.g. shells and rare minerals). the only reason gold is valuable is that everyone agrees it is valuable. It has some value in manufacturing, but most gold in the world doesn't get used for anything, it just sits on pallets. Sure in the old days, there were gold coins. But the rise of central governments gave rise to imprinted tokens on more common metals. So long as most people believed that most other people would accept the tokens they served as a medium of exchange. But when people started to not trust a failing government, they no longer accepted its currency.

Then we (the societal "we") got into paper money (at first backed by actual silver or gold, then only by the "full faith and credit of a government), central banks, promises to pay etc. That's when we realized that money and wealth could be created by ideas, not just physical assets, and that money and wealth need not be limited by the supply of a raw material. That in order to raise the standard of living globally, wealth would need to be created. Poverty is not created - poverty is the default state. Only wealth can be created. 

I think what we are seeing, especially with the rise of crypto-currency, is a distrust in government and a search for a medium of exchange that is not regulated by untrustworthy governments. This, in part, explains why the US dollar is so strong right now. There is enough uncertainty in other markets to make the US dollar more trustworthy by comparison. And most people are not ready to place their trust in the largely unregulated crypto-currency markets.

We've been using digital money for a long time, because we don't need to be physically present to exchange value (e.g. you don't go to your electric utility's office to pay your bill). In the US, M1 is the amount of bank notes and coins in circulation. M2 includes amounts on deposit at financial institutions, and M3 is more abstract, and beyond that equity and debt markets are treated by most people as a form of money. M2 is essentially digital money, there is far more on deposit than in circulation. If you have more money in the bank than you have stashed under your proverbial mattress, you are already using digital money, regulated by your national government.

With the advent of credit cards, we saw the first mass dissociation of money from currency (I can use my US-based credit card to pay for motorcycle parts in Euros), and it took a long time for cards to be widely accepted. Visa, MasterCard, and American Express were the winners. Others, Discover and Diners Club for example, didn't fare so well. We're seeing a similar dynamic in the peer-payments networks. Square (aka Block), PayPal, Stripe, etc. The winners will be whoever earns the trust of the people to serve as a store of value and medium of exchange.

PayPal has obviously lost the trust of many people recently, and probably raised suspicions of many others. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out, but personally, I think PayPal is going to recover from this. The good news is that we all still have choices about what medium of exchange to use, and we are not limited to use only one. But if enough people stop accepting PayPal, it will eventually go away, just like the deutsche marks, francs, lira, and Slovene Tolar.

[LowRyter]

17 hours ago, Bill Hagan said:

 

@LowRyter's "sad face” reaction to my post, above, is intellectually interesting.  

If he meant that he was sad because I might do more damage to my GuzzisI, I am touched.  

 

Moreover, he and others who feel similarly will be pleased to know that I was able only to go down a few minutes and mostly just hooked up my EV to the battery tender.  I am capable of causing sparks from that, but got lucky today. 

 

If, OTOH, he meant that PayPal should do as it did here because he shares P2’s view of things, it would seem that he illustrates my intended point.  By that I mean, if he disagreed with PP’s position on a given political view, he would be appalled by, not applauding, the action.

 

I am, of course, imputing to him things he may not have meant at all.  If so, I have a fine unopened bottle of high-end bourbon waiting for him, tho he’ll after to come visit the Moto Grappa — where he and all Guzzisti are, with regard whatever to their political views, welcome. 

 

But, it seems to me that a business — especially a mega-business on the web — should be politically neutral. 

 

I am always bemused by those who will not buy a product and want others to boycott businesses because of the political, religious, or whatever views of the owners. That is, IMO, a personal matter and none of my concern.  

 

I distinguish that from a business that panders politics to the public in its marketing. Boycott away because they have chosen that course as a tool.  Ben & Jerry's comes to mind, tho it's been a struggle to get Kathi to give up Cherry Garcia.  

 

I suppose — but I must tread there warily — that most of us would agree that a person, business, institution, or any other entity that espoused, e.g., pedophilia, human sacrifice, or similar shocking, immoral, or illegal conduct, deserves our contempt and more.

 

But, nearly everything else falls within that realm of ideas over which we — at least one hopes we — might reasonably differ, discuss, debate … and vote.  At the ballot box, not the cash register.

 

When a major business entity essentially chooses sides — and it doesn’t matter which side — and acts to squelch those who see things differently, it does us all harm.

 

Those who smugly see themselves as morally superior to the rest of us find nothing wrong with such censorship of speech.  They seemingly think that what they do is so right that no one could object without being unworthy of consideration.  Indeed, they think that those dissenting voices should be silenced.

 

When, however, the position is not in keeping with their own, well, that’s a different matter.  They will then learn that one can fight city hall (and the government generally) and win.  That is hardly the case with the suits at corporate HQ’s.  

 

I thus am, as you might suppose from all of the above, no cheerleader for corporate activism no matter which "side" it is on.  

 

Life is too short to engage in this sort of discussion on a Guzzi forum.  I’ll be happy to continue this at the Moto Grappa, under the pavilion at Tellico Lodge, down by The River in Kentucky on a Mutton Run, or most any place where we might gather in moto-fellowship and share our thoughts along with something worthy of our sipping.  

 

Until then, well, I’m out.

 

Best to all,

 

Bill

 

You're right Bill, life is too short.  So I'll make my post brief. 

I really have no idea why PP has someone's panties in a bunch, what their new policies are and really don't care.  I just wrote that eBay didn't recognize PP when I tried to make a purchase recently.

Considering Bill's example, I'd certainly make the trade-off and agree with all of the offending paypal mumbo jumbo if it meant that all women had access to safe and legal abortions.  I didn't bring it up.  I think it was likely intended to "hook" someone- so consider me a perch.   

I thought little icon would suffice, apparently not.

[docc]

5 hours ago, Scud said:

This discussion brings up the question of just, exactly, what is money anyway?

It's nothing more than a social construct that serves as a store of value and a medium of exchange. The earliest societies used physical items (e.g. shells and rare minerals). the only reason gold is valuable is that everyone agrees it is valuable. It has some value in manufacturing, but most gold in the world doesn't get used for anything, it just sits on pallets. Sure in the old days, there were gold coins. But the rise of central governments gave rise to imprinted tokens on more common metals. So long as most people believed that most other people would accept the tokens they served as a medium of exchange. But when people started to not trust a failing government, they no longer accepted its currency.

Then we (the societal "we") got into paper money (at first backed by actual silver or gold, then only by the "full faith and credit of a government), central banks, promises to pay etc. That's when we realized that money and wealth could be created by ideas, not just physical assets, and that money and wealth need not be limited by the supply of a raw material. That in order to raise the standard of living globally, wealth would need to be created. Poverty is not created - poverty is the default state. Only wealth can be created. 

I think what we are seeing, especially with the rise of crypto-currency, is a distrust in government and a search for a medium of exchange that is not regulated by untrustworthy governments. This, in part, explains why the US dollar is so strong right now. There is enough uncertainty in other markets to make the US dollar more trustworthy by comparison. And most people are not ready to place their trust in the largely unregulated crypto-currency markets.

We've been using digital money for a long time, because we don't need to be physically present to exchange value (e.g. you don't go to your electric utility's office to pay your bill). In the US, M1 is the amount of bank notes and coins in circulation. M2 includes amounts on deposit at financial institutions, and M3 is more abstract, and beyond that equity and debt markets are treated by most people as a form of money. M2 is essentially digital money, there is far more on deposit than in circulation. If you have more money in the bank than you have stashed under your proverbial mattress, you are already using digital money, regulated by your national government.

With the advent of credit cards, we saw the first mass dissociation of money from currency (I can use my US-based credit card to pay for motorcycle parts in Euros), and it took a long time for cards to be widely accepted. Visa, MasterCard, and American Express were the winners. Others, Discover and Diners Club for example, didn't fare so well. We're seeing a similar dynamic in the peer-payments networks. Square (aka Block), PayPal, Stripe, etc. The winners will be whoever earns the trust of the people to serve as a store of value and medium of exchange.

PayPal has obviously lost the trust of many people recently, and probably raised suspicions of many others. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out, but personally, I think PayPal is going to recover from this. The good news is that we all still have choices about what medium of exchange to use, and we are not limited to use only one. But if enough people stop accepting PayPal, it will eventually go away, just like the deutsche marks, francs, lira, and Slovene Tolar.

More epistemology to consider . . . 

[Scud]

28 minutes ago, docc said:

More epistemology to consider . . . 

This origin of this topic is an epistemological debate, along with a power struggle. What distinguishes a justifiable belief from opinion? And who gets to decide? It's at the basis of almost every disagreement. 

[LowRyter]

The whole thing was bogus from the start.  There was no way the PP would fine anyone.  Businesses aren't in business to not do business.  So much lawyer-ease in these silly ToS that PP execs didn't know themselves that someone had stuffed this in.  

So another (near) urban myth exposed.  No doubt we'll encounter the next outrage. 

[LowRyter]

1 hour ago, Scud said:

This origin of this topic is an epistemological debate, along with a power struggle. What distinguishes a justifiable belief from opinion? And who gets to decide? It's at the basis of almost every disagreement. 

So far as value of a currency or tangibles?  The values of tangibles are defined by currency.  Currency holds value essentially due the amount of ownership it represents into a defined economy.   As best I can determine crypto fails as being barely tangible (it at all) and fails as a currency as it represents no economic foundation.

I could be wrong but remain "morally smug" and mechanically incompetent.  

[docc]

I look around me and find I have definitely put my belief into tangibles.

I'm just not sure I could really and actually trade a couple OMRON relays and a squarefin headguard for a turkey sandwich . . .

Such a great parody of this matter of currency in John Steinbeck's (brilliant) Cannery Row when "Mac & the boys" capture a pond-full of frogs for Doc's lab, then "frogs" become the "currency" . . .

[Chuck]

16 minutes ago, docc said:

I look around me and find I have definitely put my belief into tangibles.

I'm just not sure I could really and actually trade a couple OMRON relays and a squarefin headguard for a turkey sandwich . . .

Such a great parody of this matter of "currency" in John Steinbeck's (brilliant) Cannery Row when "Mac & the boys" capture a pond-full of frogs for Doc's lab and they become the Measure of Exchange at the local store . . .

I was a fairly precocious kid, and read "The Grapes of Wrath" when I was entirely too young. (what were my parents thinking?) Maybe 11 or 12. Because of that, I'll never trust money men, used car salesmen, religious folks, glad handers of all kinds.

I'll go to my grave with those feelings. Steinbeck certainly could paint a word picture..

[LowRyter]

There's a Steinbeck museum in Salinas.  One afternoon on our way to Monterrey,we took a stop for an hour or so before it closed.  We ran by it by happenstance on the road.    FYI- Bev is an English teacher.  John owned a GMC V6 pickup camper and apparently drove all over and camped in the early '60s.   I think that shows how much he liked to learn about people's lives.  

So Docc, how many croaks to a Bitcoin?  Frogs are tangible by comparison. 

[docc]

FWIW, I ain't exchanging any tangible OMRONs for frogs.  A turkey sandwich? We can negotiate . . .

My next V11Lemans.com donation will be direct. I plan my forum donation for our Forum's anniversary date: April 16 (2002).

That's just me. Feel free to donate early and often!

[Full Disclosure: your Moderator, "docc," has no ownership or financial interest in this site or domain. "docc " is a purely voluntary entity.]

[Scud]

Fun how this has moved to literature. Steinbeck was amazing - I love East of Eden. The Frogs as currency is funny - and it worked as a social contract with anyone who agreed to exchange frogs.

To LowRyter's earlier post: Prices are set in currency, but values reflect human utility. For example, two people may value the same item differently and one be willing to pay the price, while another is not willing to pay the price. If you think something is inexpensive (or a bargain), it means the value to you exceeds the price. Wealth is created by leveraging differences in human value, and money keeps the score. Theoretically, every sale generates profit to the seller (they store more value than they had before the sale), and it creates value to the buyer (they get something that they value in excess of the money they exchanged).

Neither money, nor a product need to be tangible. As I mentioned earlier, anyone who uses any form of credit is already using intangible money, and you can use it to buy intangible products or services.

Money is whatever people agree it is. If frogs as money had caught on, surely, paper notes promising to deliver frogs would have been next, then the government of Cannery Row would establish a strategic frog reserve. Then, seeing a shortage of actual frogs when compared to the paper notes that could be redeemed for frogs, they would be forced to abandon the frog standard. Then somebody would invent blockchain frogs...