No, I don't look down on you at all. I don't think you are a bumbling idiot either, but I do think you've completely misunderstood what happened, and my explanation.
Firstly, I agree: The corporation adding an arbitrary price wasn't the invisible hand of the market, nor was it a value working itself out. I never argued this, nor would I. A corporation deciding to add a charge onto an existing service is not a "market force". We are in agreement on this point.
What were examples of market forces were the consumer reaction, and the subsequent removal of the charge. You seem to only be looking at the first half of this story (i.e. the company adding the charge) and completely ignoring what happened afterwards (i.e. the company removing the charge). Whether they added the charge because they were greedy isn't important to the rest of the story, because they reacted to consumer backlash and removed it.
So we are clear on what I am arguing:
Company adding an additional charge to a service =/= MARKET FORCES (or "invisible hand" or whatever)
Company bowing to pressure of consumers objecting to such a charge = MARKET FORCES.
As for the "excuse" side of it; I wasn't defending the company's decision to add such a charge, I was refuting your point about there being "no other reason other than greed", since another reason was indeed mentioned in the article. Now I work in I.T, so I know that electronic payment systems are indeed cheaper, and more reliable than other payment systems. This isn't some "crap" made up by the company; it really is true. That being said, I don't agree with the charge since I think there are better ways at getting your customers to switch payment systems.
Firstly, I agree: The corporation adding an arbitrary price wasn't the invisible hand of the market, nor was it a value working itself out. I never argued this, nor would I. A corporation deciding to add a charge onto an existing service is not a "market force". We are in agreement on this point.
What were examples of market forces were the consumer reaction, and the subsequent removal of the charge. You seem to only be looking at the first half of this story (i.e. the company adding the charge) and completely ignoring what happened afterwards (i.e. the company removing the charge). Whether they added the charge because they were greedy isn't important to the rest of the story, because they reacted to consumer backlash and removed it.
So we are clear on what I am arguing:
Company adding an additional charge to a service =/= MARKET FORCES (or "invisible hand" or whatever)
Company bowing to pressure of consumers objecting to such a charge = MARKET FORCES.
As for the "excuse" side of it; I wasn't defending the company's decision to add such a charge, I was refuting your point about there being "no other reason other than greed", since another reason was indeed mentioned in the article. Now I work in I.T, so I know that electronic payment systems are indeed cheaper, and more reliable than other payment systems. This isn't some "crap" made up by the company; it really is true. That being said, I don't agree with the charge since I think there are better ways at getting your customers to switch payment systems.
