Xyz,
I assume the lawsuit you are talking about is the one in California. I undestand that was being appealed and that payment had not been made. In fact, I understand that the case was brought despite the fact the NEITHER organization had received a single complaint.

BTW, if you are talking about that case in terms of justifying the "near criminal behavior", I think you need to understand that is was Visa and Mastercard, and not specific banks that were parties to the lawsuit. So, if you're basing your view on that case, at least factor in that no bank doing business in California was ordered to refund a dime for FX fees.

In terms of your view, I suspect you have little real world knowledge of the way the business world functions and the concept of revenues and expenses. Either that, or you have a socialist view of the world which prevents you from understanding that services provided to consumers have a cost.

How would you suggest that banks get reimbursed for all those services that consumers demand if they are prevented from making a profit?

Or should they simply stop providing those services to many as was the case 40 and 50 years ago? Would you like to return to the days that only the best customers could obtain credit cards?

Credit cards have costs associated with them. Consumers demand services for their cards. Someone has to pay.

I know this, and it is not a socialistic view of the world, some banks take a charge that has already been converted to USD by the mc/visa association and tell you there is a 2% currency conversion charge to cover currency conversion which they don't do.

That's lying.

xyz123, I have saved my Cardmember Agreements for my credit cards and those which do charge the 2% state:

"We then add two percent to the figure provided to us by Visa USA Inc. or MasterCard International Inc."

No mention of it being a currency conversion fee.

Does that mean they are not lying?

So now the banks are "near criminal" and lying. You've piqued my interest and now I wonder how it is that the attorney generals from all 50 states have failed, FAILED in their duty to protect the public from what must be a blatant lie, or so you tell me.

Better yet, just use your AMEX card, then you have no reason to complain.

Ryan...

Thanks for the entertaining and enlightening discussion without the name calling (socialist, capitalist).

You know big business in the US...well banks are very big players aren't they in big business and campaign contributions...but I guess nobody will ever convince either of us that we are wrong!

Regards,

xyz123

xyz,
You aren't wrong that they charge a fee, I'd say you are wrong in your belief that they can't and have no right to. You're annoyed about an issue that you can control. You can make the decision to not use your credit card and avoid the fees altogether. But, you want to use you card and not adhere to the price for doing that. If outside North America, the price is 2%.

You are absolutely correct, Ryan, consumers DO have a choice and are free to reject a card with features they do not wish to pay for or have.
That said, your explanation of the cost-shifting business stratgey is scary - it is exactly the same justification used for hospitals charging $10 for an aspirin - "somebody has to make up for the free care we give" - and look at the shape of our health care system!

Seamus,
The rationale for a for profit business that provides a service to customers who choose to do business with it is different then for a hospital - even if the words are the same.

I won't get into the politics here, lest the thread be deleted, but let's just say that when it comes to dealing with the reality of our healthcare system, the only reality seems to be that no one can seem to want to deal with it.

Actually, Ryan, I think this discussion is travel related, because it reflects pricing policies of airline seats ("yield management&quot.

I don't see how cost-shifting differs whether employed by a bank or a hospital, or an airline, for that matter. In all instances, someone is paying more for whatever product or service they receive as a means of compensating the merchant who derives less revenue from another customer who pays less for the same prodcut or service.
On the other hand, airlines differentiate their service/product by reducing FF credit for discount fares in addition to making the lowest fares nonrefundable and/or applying service charges for changes, which do not apply to full fare tickets. In the FF-linked credit card business the analagous practice is charging an annual fee whereas cards with no FF miles have no such fee. Different products with different prices.

Your endorsement of a traditional (maybe Ayn Rand-ish) approach of caveat emptor is still valid, but cost-shifting seems to be at odds at least with the spirit of such an approach. The important thing is that customers understand what they are paying for - even if it is buried in the finest of print. Perhaps resolution involves both customers paying more attention and vendors making terms easier to find and understand.