If Microsoft and NewsCorp succeed in making the Web a collection of walled gardens
I always thought walled garden refereed to an integrated platform like AOL or Verizon Wireless that prevents you from using alternative content sources. I don't see how NewsCorp wanting to charge money for their services represents a walled garden. You aren't locked into them -- you just can't access their content unless you are willing to pay for it. If that's a walled garden then so is World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, the Financial Times, etc, etc.
Personally I doubt NewsCorp will be successful but I still think it's disingenuous to imply that they are trying to create a walled garden.
I just wanted to say that lying about a person is known as defamation, libel, or slander depending on the context and it is punishable by law, in the US at least.
None of those are crimes. Those are civil actions. The grandparent implied that lying about someone is a felony. I do believe that's the moment where his arguments jumped the shark. The fact that he hasn't come back for some more suggests to me that he realizes this fact and has ceded the argument.
The internet is just one example. You can get the same information by calling your state banking department. The underlying point I was trying to make is that there are resources out there -- people are just too lazy and uninformed to utilize them.
Next, I disagree that just because you can turn a bigger profit, you can. There are many factors to consider, including cost to your company, cost to society (Something many companies ignore), cost to environment, cost to the national interests, cost to international relations, and countless other costs
If you are worried about specific impacts to society from excessive profiteering then you should lobby for laws or regulations to address these concerns. Expecting companies to voluntarily limit their profits is not realistic. Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for their shareholders. If they fail to do the management can be sued and in extreme cases even charged with criminal offenses.
And again, "don't run it up" is good advice for those starting fresh. Unfortunately, it does nothing for those that have already run it up.
File bankruptcy. Seek credit consolidation services. Negotiate with your creditors to reduce your interest rate and/or payments. There are lots of things you can do if you get into trouble.
Instead, I want the companies to take some responsibility for helping out the ones deepest in debt, if only by offering advice
How can they offer advice? The conflict of interest there should be obvious. The bank has a duty to it's shareholders to maximize profit. It doesn't have a duty to help you out. Ideally it should be willing to work with you (getting paid is in the bank's best interest) but I don't think that goes as far as extending advice. What advice can a lender give you that isn't somehow tainted? If you are drowning in debt you need to seek third party advice.
I do not mean to suggest that the system is completely broken, simply that it can be optimized for better performance, and reduced overall cost.
The free market is the best method to optimize the system. All Government will do is screw things up. The credit card reform legislation is a great example. Now many credit card companies are charging annual fees because they are limited in what they can charge people who default. So instead of the defaulting customers paying the price for their misjudgments, we are all paying the price for them.
What's wrong with simplifying the language for simplified tasks?
Nothing. The problem comes when people try to use the simplified language for things that it was never intended to do. You wouldn't write the Linux kernel in Python, would you?
I really don't see an issue or any hypocrisy here.
Yeah, really. Senior Engineers disagree with company marketing strategy and prefer to keep things simple. That isn't newsworthy -- that's a Dilbert strip;)
1. CollegeACB.com is NOT managed by schools, it's managed by students, schools have no say in this. Seems to me you haven't read the article carefully.
So what's your point? They shouldn't be allowed to permit anonymous posting on their website? How ya gonna enforce that? Gonna pass a law regulating what privately owned websites can do? Good luck with that.
Bullies usually keep on going because the victim can't handle it anyway. And in the digital realm, simply having to sign in and become identifiable would be a showstopper in the first place.
Yeah, because nobody would ever think to register under a fictitious identity and/or use a service like tor to mask their real identity. You haven't really thought this through, have you?
It's about a general situation which is seen amongst teenagers.
Whom need to grow a backbone. If they can't handle some online bullying then they clearly aren't ready for life and should probably remain in the nest until they are.
I've seen plenty of kids being isolated by society because they looked funny/were poor/had a terrible accent/had strange families/were too short, too thin, too fat/were foresighted and so on. Society rejected them for being non-standard, not the other way around.
You still haven't made a reasonable suggestion as to how you intend to fix this problem. Life is hard. Get used to it.
Lying about a person is a felony, punishable by law.
Got a citation for that or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
war4peace molests children and boils babies alive!
When can I expect the police to show up and arrest me for the felony I just committed? I live in New York State. I'd imagine if you call the NYS State Police they jump right on the case. I'm sure they won't roll their eyes and tell you to stop wasting their time.....
it fouls the logic of the conversation.
The logic of this conversation was fouled a long time ago when you started making suggestions that boil down to censorship.
It is not correct to imagine a credit card company as an entity that can only lend out from the specific pool of money they have assigned. The money that they loan to one person has little direct effect on what they loan to another. It is simply numbers floating in a database, that are agreed on by a lot of people to represent this abstract debt.
Haven't you ever heard of reserve and capital requirements? I assure you that lending more money out is not as simple as adding a few rows to your database. The only "bank" that has the power to do what you just described is the Federal Reserve.
but it is their responsibility to watch over that aspect of their own business
At what point does the consumer have to assume responsibility for their own actions? I've heard you ascribe responsibility to the lender but I haven't heard you do the same to the debtor.
First, paying of a credit card is not like paying off a loan. If you pay off the minimum amount, you are not actually doing anything to your principal. Instead, you merely pay off the interest you may accumulate for that segment of time.
That's not true. The Fed recently increased the required minimum payment amounts but even before they did that you were still touching some of the principal. It will take an insanely long time to repay a credit card if you only make the minimum payments but whose fault is that? Don't run it up if you can't afford to pay it back. If unexpected circumstances arise (medical problems/job loss/etc) then file bankruptcy. There's no shame in it.
As for reasonable interest rates
I wasn't talking about "reasonable" interest rates. I was replying to your line about their profits being "unreasonable".
Just because some people benefit from it, does not automatically imply that it is reasonable to expect that there are no better alternatives.
There are lots of alternatives. If you don't like the "draconian" policies of one credit card company then go find another one. My credit union offers cards with a fixed interest rate of 7.9% and a single page account agreement that doesn't even include an arbitration clause.
The marketplace has already provided plenty of alternatives. People are just too lazy to utilize them. There's no reason why Citi, Chase and Capital One should have as large of a percentage of the market as they do other than consumer laziness. Most community banks and credit unions offer credit cards, usually at better terms than the big boys.
They can still turn a profit, it's just that this profit, and the wages they take in needs to be more in line with other businesses
Why? If they can turn a bigger profit than most other businesses all the power to them. They don't even have the largest profit margin anyway. That honor goes to the IT/Telecom industry. Why aren't you complaining about Microsoft and Verizon if "excessive" profits bother you so much?
but I'm getting a bit weary of having to explain the same thing over and over again
You've explained it fine, I just don't agree with your conclusions. There are lots of credit card issuers out there that don't have "draconian" policies. I don't have much sympathy for those that are too lazy to do the research required to find them. How hard is it to fire up a web browser and go to bankrate.com or other similar sites?
If these people have proven themselves to be bad credit, it only stands to reason they will not be able to pay off the 30% interest rate.
Wouldn't that depend on how much they owe? I would make the suggestion that the problem lies with giving bad credit risks large credit lines, not with charging them high amounts of interest.
However, I'm arguing that they were in a good position to avoid that loss in the first place
Yes, they could have just not extended them any credit to begin with. If that happens you wind up with a system where people make a mistake and have no way to rebuild their credit afterward. Somehow I don't think that's what you are trying to accomplish though.
Even now, they are well positioned to call up these customers, help them consolidate their loans
Why should the onus be on the lender to do that? The debtor should be pursuing those options.
and get the money back over a longer period
Credit cards already offer a pretty long period. Paying the minimum amount on any appreciable balance will give you many years to repay the debt. Asking the lender to extend that out even further without also raising the interest rate isn't really fair. Every penny they loan that person who is in trouble is one less penny they can loan to a profitable customer in good standing.
This is not happening, instead they keep the 30% interest rate, until they really do force the customers into bankruptcy
What's wrong with that? When did bankruptcy become such a bad thing? I've been through it. It's really not that bad. The United States is one of a handful of countries that provides for a fresh start. People ought to take advantage of it. Corporations do it all the time. Why not individuals?
but they are still trying to make much more profit than is reasonable
Who decides what's "reasonable"? Their profits are redistributed to shareholders and employees. If you have a 401(k) then the odds are that you are receiving benefit from credit card company profit. Take that away and now you have to save even more money to have a comfortable retirement. Is that really what you want? Somehow I doubt it.
And here we don't talk about Facebook, we talk about dedicated school websites/areas, where the message target is your entire class/school, not a few friends you can block.
School websites are managed by the school and can be held to whatever standards the school deems appropriate.
And by action I don't mean throw the offender in jail, but counsel the offender and at the same time silently remove the offending entry/post from the website.
Sorry, I disagree. What you've done there is to make a mountain out of a molehill. The offender is now liable to mock the offended even more because of the perception that they can't handle it.
Let's say there's a corporate forum which all your co-workers access. And it's anonymous and unmoderated. Now I, covered by anonimity, go there and write "Shakrai has a small dick, finishes in 2 minutes and can't satisfy a woman ", you wouldn't like it.
Worse things than that have been said about me at work. I'm still here....
You could just go ahead and ignore my entry and even the forum altogether, but your co-workers won't.
If my co-workers are so immature that they are going to give weight to such a post then I'd say that they are the ones with the problem, not me.
People will cease to call you, you will feel isolated and so on
People ceasing to call me would make me very happy at work;) It would actually harm them more than it would harm me, as my role (IT) is one that people depend on. I'll grant that isn't the case for every job, but even still, if your co-workers are going to give weight to such a post then they are the ones with the problem.
Gossip goes fast, gossip goes far. And before you know it, a large part of your life (that would be work environment) would shred to tiny pieces.
I'm sorry but I disagree. Bad-mouthing, anonymous or otherwise, can't "shred" your life unless you allow it to do so.
Identify offenders, counsel THEM, remove the offending post. If cyber-bullies know that their entries are moderated and won't see the daylight if they are aggressive, they will cease doing it.
So your solution is censorship and the abandonment of unmoderated discussion forums? What are you going to do when your 'offender' tells you to fuck off and reverts to his previous behavior?
How about freedom of speech? Freedom of speech applies to identifiable people, to those who are ready to take the heat if they are proven as liars.
Again, I disagree. Anonymous speech is critically important. People have the right to express political views anonymously. In America that's gone all the way to our Supreme Court, which has held that anonymous political speech is protected. There are also other contexts where the ability to speak anonymously is important -- imagine being a rape victim seeking support and having to disclose your identity before being allowed to post. Think that might deter you from seeking out the support that you need?
Sorry for the mildly off-topic post, but wow! I wonder what kind of battery life that beast gets? Does it have a portable nuclear reactor on board or is the battery reduced to being useful only for trips across the room to switch outlets?
I have no problem protecting people from physical aggression. I have a serious problem when we start trying to protect them from verbal aggression, because it eventually leads to censorship. I regard freedom of speech as more important than protecting a few sensitive individuals from being picked on.
There are things in this world that are far worse than being picked on or bullied in school. If you can't cope with people saying bad things about you on Facebook, then how are you going to cope with an asshole boss? How are you going to cope with aggressive drivers? How are you going to cope with being the victim of a violent crime? How are you going to cope when your lover sends you a dear john letter and runs off with your best friend?
My wiseass "natural selection" remark aside, I do actually feel for those that can't handle the tougher parts of life. I'm just at a loss for what you think we should do about it. Should we start arresting people who say bad things about their peers on facebook? Should playground bullies be removed from school and tossed into the criminal justice system, where they can learn to be real criminals?
There are ample channels available for people who need help. Crisis hotlines for both adults and children, guidance counselors in school, employee assistance programs in the workplace, etc, etc. Some people are just going to refuse to help themselves no matter how easy you make it for them. You can lead a horse to water......
but it also affects poorer individuals much worse than richer
So what?
I think its idealism that causes people to believe that individuals are always capable and usually do make informed rational decisions on subjects that have great implications.
I'm not that idealistic. Large numbers of people are morons. But again, so what? Why should we infringe on the freedom of those who aren't morons to protect those that are? Many people enjoy recreational drugs and/or gambling and still manage to lead productive lives. Why should their pursuit of happiness be impeded because of those who can't responsibly manage to do the same?
I am having a hard time understanding why government is even involved
Because it doesn't want the competition. Gambling is bad, unless it's sponsored by the state under the guise of funding education, and then it's just fine and dandy. As far as I'm concerned if the Federal Government wants to ban gambling it should start by outlawing interstate lotteries (the Federal Government arguably has the power to do this under the interstate commerce clause) and continue by encouraging the states to abandon their intrastate lotteries.
Otherwise it's just hypocrisy and more "do as I say but not as I do" from the people who are supposed to be working for us.
Also, the arson wouldn't have been so bad if the insurance money had gone to a new house instead of being gambled away.
You wouldn't think that if you were a firefighter who might have died. This is going to sound harsh but I hope that your Dad is behind bars. Arson is no laughing matter or victimless crime.
Natural selection would mean that it would be ok for me to beat you to death.
Macho Answer: Try it and you'll meet my little friend.
On-topic Answer: Your example is a strawman. Beating someone to death != insulting them
However in civilized nations we create rules that the majority of people believe are for the greater good.
The majority of the people can not infringe on our inalienable rights. One of those is the right to free speech. I don't recall one of them being the right not to be offended. Perhaps I missed that part of the Magna Carta/US Declaration of Indepencence/US Bill of Rights/Federalist papers/Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Could you point it out to me?
These rules general serve to protect those those that need protecting.
No law you can pass is going to protect someone who is so weak kneed that they can't handle verbal/written insults.
But I'd say it's a safe bet that most of the people who say "just ignore it" have never been seriously bullied and terrorised in their lives before.
If anonymous comments online are all it takes to 'terrorize' you then I'd suggest that the problem might just be you and that you should grow a backbone. Jesus christ, we've become nation of crybabies and whineasses. I actually saw a government sponsored ad (the ad-council) the other day about cyber-bullying. WTF? What happened to 'sticks and stones'? What happened to 'turn the other cheek'? What happened to 'never start a fight, but always finish it'?
Grow a fucking spine people. There are people on this planet that wake up without knowing if they'll be able to eat today. There are people on this planet that have to brave snipers, IEDs and cross fire to get to the market. What do you suppose they think about a people who have become so soft and sissified that they can't handle a little bit of verbal and/or written harassment?
Given that, what sort of reason would they have to charge upwards of 30% on your "loan". I am not arguing that they cannot, because obviously it happens, instead I ask why is this reasonable?
Because the people they are charging 30% have proven themselves to be bad credit risks and they need to cover the losses of those who default on their accounts?
They are effectively making significantly more more on this sum then they could in most any other market.
Not after you take their loan losses into account they aren't. Credit cards are unsecured loans. If you default on one it's next to impossible for them to collect on what you owe. Yeah, they can sue you -- but civil judgments are very hard to enforce -- just ask the Goldman's how easy it's been to collect from OJ. If you file bankruptcy they are last in line and will likely receive next to nothing.
The credit card business isn't the bottomless pool of profit that some people think it is.
There is no "may," it *does.* Your score will bounce back, but there is no ambiguity here about what happens when you close an account.
Yes, actually, there is. Closing your oldest account while your other ones are maxed out will hurt your score. Closing a fairly new account while maintaining a good debt->credit limit ratio on your other accounts will have little to no impact on your score. As previously stated it depends on numerous factors.
Good for you, but don't think you won't actually get worked over for it at some point.
I won't get "worked over". If any credit card company tries to "work" me over I'll simply close the account and take my business elsewhere. I don't need the Government to protect me from them. I'm quite capable of taking care of myself.
Did you know that when you do that, the credit card company reports it as negative credit information that lowers your credit score?
-1, factually incorrect. They do no such thing. Reporting 'negative' information that isn't true would be a violation of the fair credit reporting act. Paying off your credit card will not lower your score. It can only raise your score, as one of the key factors of your credit score is the amount of debt you owe vs. your total credit limits. Ideally this value should be less than 15%, though it doesn't really start to hurt you until you exceed 40%.
Closing an account may hurt your score, as the score model prefers older accounts to newer ones. But that really doesn't have anything to do with paying off your debt. If you pay off your debt and keep the account open your score can only go up. Whether or not it goes down if you close the account depends on a number of different factors -- how much debt you owe on your other accounts, how old they are, how old the closed one was, etc.
In any case, the credit scores weren't designed by the credit card companies. They were designed by the credit reporting agencies and a company called Fair Issac. None of them happen to be in the credit card business.
A "deadbeat".
Who cares what they call you? I pay off all my accounts in full, every month. I don't care if they think I'm a deadbeat. I'm still getting an interest free loan for 25 to 60 days. I'm also getting liquidity -- I can make a purchase without regard to when my next paycheck happens to be.
The credit card companies are at the top of the list of commercial entities that are openly hostile to their customers
You are painting with a really broad brush there. I had a WaMu account for five years until they went out of business. They were one of the nicest companies I've ever done business with. My credit union offers credit cards with a fixed 7.9% APR and a single page account agreement that doesn't require a law degree to decipher.
As with any business, there are good actors and there are not-so-good actors. It's up to you to give your business to the ones that treat you decently. I have no sympathy for someone who is doing business with a "hostile" credit card company when there are so many alternatives that are only a phone call away. You might find this hard to believe but Citi, Chase and Capital One don't have a monopoly on the credit card market. There are alternatives.
Raising the minimum payment is actually to the cardholders benefit. It ensures that the card will be paid off faster, resulting in less interest being charged to the cardholder.
It was also the decision of the Fed sometime ago to require them to increase the minimum payment. It had nothing to do with the credit card companies. But don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting....
It's more to do with the "pay off not only more than you owe, but also enough to pay for huge CC company profits
The nerve of those for-profit companies turning a profit.
Hey, I got an idea for you if the notion of a credit card company turning a profit bothers you so much: Get a credit card from a credit union. Most Americans are eligible to join one or more credit unions. Why we need to legislate "reform" on the credit card industry when the marketplace has already provided alternatives is beyond me. Maybe if people would spend some time doing basic research on the options available to them we'd all be better off?
You have to pay it off, on terms unilaterally adjusted by the lender, on criteria independent of the contract under which you entered the lending agreement.
Incorrect. When they change the terms of your agreement (interest rate, annual fee, etc.) you are able to avoid said changes by closing the card and paying it off under the previously agreed to terms. You don't have to pay it all off at once either -- you can make the minimum payment that was provided for by your previous account agreement.
DEFENDING predatory lenders who abuse their customers!
I don't see them as being predatory. Nobody forced people to run up those credit cards. In fact the new credit card "reform" bill kinda pissed me off. Two of my credit cards are now assessing an annual fee because of this "reform". They can no longer collect penalties from those who become delinquent so now those of us who maintain our accounts in good standing are going to pay the price. I'm left with the choice of eating an annual fee or closing two of my oldest accounts and seeing my credit score drop.
The only good thing that came out of that legislation was the concealed carry in national parks provision.
What industry abuses their customers, dangles features and incentives of questionable value in a quid pro quo for contractual lock-in and then produces unilateral unpredictable billing and surcharges to this captive market? No. You are right! That describes Credit Card companies, the only business hated more by their customer base than the mobile phone providers.
What credit card company uses 'contractual lock-in'? I've never seen a credit card that you couldn't cancel at any time.
Slashdot Mirror
If Microsoft and NewsCorp succeed in making the Web a collection of walled gardens
I always thought walled garden refereed to an integrated platform like AOL or Verizon Wireless that prevents you from using alternative content sources. I don't see how NewsCorp wanting to charge money for their services represents a walled garden. You aren't locked into them -- you just can't access their content unless you are willing to pay for it. If that's a walled garden then so is World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, the Financial Times, etc, etc.
Personally I doubt NewsCorp will be successful but I still think it's disingenuous to imply that they are trying to create a walled garden.
I just wanted to say that lying about a person is known as defamation, libel, or slander depending on the context and it is punishable by law, in the US at least.
None of those are crimes. Those are civil actions. The grandparent implied that lying about someone is a felony. I do believe that's the moment where his arguments jumped the shark. The fact that he hasn't come back for some more suggests to me that he realizes this fact and has ceded the argument.
The internet is just one example. You can get the same information by calling your state banking department. The underlying point I was trying to make is that there are resources out there -- people are just too lazy and uninformed to utilize them.
Next, I disagree that just because you can turn a bigger profit, you can. There are many factors to consider, including cost to your company, cost to society (Something many companies ignore), cost to environment, cost to the national interests, cost to international relations, and countless other costs
If you are worried about specific impacts to society from excessive profiteering then you should lobby for laws or regulations to address these concerns. Expecting companies to voluntarily limit their profits is not realistic. Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for their shareholders. If they fail to do the management can be sued and in extreme cases even charged with criminal offenses.
And again, "don't run it up" is good advice for those starting fresh. Unfortunately, it does nothing for those that have already run it up.
File bankruptcy. Seek credit consolidation services. Negotiate with your creditors to reduce your interest rate and/or payments. There are lots of things you can do if you get into trouble.
Instead, I want the companies to take some responsibility for helping out the ones deepest in debt, if only by offering advice
How can they offer advice? The conflict of interest there should be obvious. The bank has a duty to it's shareholders to maximize profit. It doesn't have a duty to help you out. Ideally it should be willing to work with you (getting paid is in the bank's best interest) but I don't think that goes as far as extending advice. What advice can a lender give you that isn't somehow tainted? If you are drowning in debt you need to seek third party advice.
I do not mean to suggest that the system is completely broken, simply that it can be optimized for better performance, and reduced overall cost.
The free market is the best method to optimize the system. All Government will do is screw things up. The credit card reform legislation is a great example. Now many credit card companies are charging annual fees because they are limited in what they can charge people who default. So instead of the defaulting customers paying the price for their misjudgments, we are all paying the price for them.
What's wrong with simplifying the language for simplified tasks?
Nothing. The problem comes when people try to use the simplified language for things that it was never intended to do. You wouldn't write the Linux kernel in Python, would you?
I really don't see an issue or any hypocrisy here.
Yeah, really. Senior Engineers disagree with company marketing strategy and prefer to keep things simple. That isn't newsworthy -- that's a Dilbert strip ;)
1. CollegeACB.com is NOT managed by schools, it's managed by students, schools have no say in this. Seems to me you haven't read the article carefully.
So what's your point? They shouldn't be allowed to permit anonymous posting on their website? How ya gonna enforce that? Gonna pass a law regulating what privately owned websites can do? Good luck with that.
Bullies usually keep on going because the victim can't handle it anyway. And in the digital realm, simply having to sign in and become identifiable would be a showstopper in the first place.
Yeah, because nobody would ever think to register under a fictitious identity and/or use a service like tor to mask their real identity. You haven't really thought this through, have you?
It's about a general situation which is seen amongst teenagers.
Whom need to grow a backbone. If they can't handle some online bullying then they clearly aren't ready for life and should probably remain in the nest until they are.
I've seen plenty of kids being isolated by society because they looked funny/were poor/had a terrible accent/had strange families/were too short, too thin, too fat/were foresighted and so on. Society rejected them for being non-standard, not the other way around.
You still haven't made a reasonable suggestion as to how you intend to fix this problem. Life is hard. Get used to it.
Lying about a person is a felony, punishable by law.
Got a citation for that or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
war4peace molests children and boils babies alive!
When can I expect the police to show up and arrest me for the felony I just committed? I live in New York State. I'd imagine if you call the NYS State Police they jump right on the case. I'm sure they won't roll their eyes and tell you to stop wasting their time.....
it fouls the logic of the conversation.
The logic of this conversation was fouled a long time ago when you started making suggestions that boil down to censorship.
It is not correct to imagine a credit card company as an entity that can only lend out from the specific pool of money they have assigned. The money that they loan to one person has little direct effect on what they loan to another. It is simply numbers floating in a database, that are agreed on by a lot of people to represent this abstract debt.
Haven't you ever heard of reserve and capital requirements? I assure you that lending more money out is not as simple as adding a few rows to your database. The only "bank" that has the power to do what you just described is the Federal Reserve.
but it is their responsibility to watch over that aspect of their own business
At what point does the consumer have to assume responsibility for their own actions? I've heard you ascribe responsibility to the lender but I haven't heard you do the same to the debtor.
First, paying of a credit card is not like paying off a loan. If you pay off the minimum amount, you are not actually doing anything to your principal. Instead, you merely pay off the interest you may accumulate for that segment of time.
That's not true. The Fed recently increased the required minimum payment amounts but even before they did that you were still touching some of the principal. It will take an insanely long time to repay a credit card if you only make the minimum payments but whose fault is that? Don't run it up if you can't afford to pay it back. If unexpected circumstances arise (medical problems/job loss/etc) then file bankruptcy. There's no shame in it.
As for reasonable interest rates
I wasn't talking about "reasonable" interest rates. I was replying to your line about their profits being "unreasonable".
Just because some people benefit from it, does not automatically imply that it is reasonable to expect that there are no better alternatives.
There are lots of alternatives. If you don't like the "draconian" policies of one credit card company then go find another one. My credit union offers cards with a fixed interest rate of 7.9% and a single page account agreement that doesn't even include an arbitration clause.
The marketplace has already provided plenty of alternatives. People are just too lazy to utilize them. There's no reason why Citi, Chase and Capital One should have as large of a percentage of the market as they do other than consumer laziness. Most community banks and credit unions offer credit cards, usually at better terms than the big boys.
They can still turn a profit, it's just that this profit, and the wages they take in needs to be more in line with other businesses
Why? If they can turn a bigger profit than most other businesses all the power to them. They don't even have the largest profit margin anyway. That honor goes to the IT/Telecom industry. Why aren't you complaining about Microsoft and Verizon if "excessive" profits bother you so much?
but I'm getting a bit weary of having to explain the same thing over and over again
You've explained it fine, I just don't agree with your conclusions. There are lots of credit card issuers out there that don't have "draconian" policies. I don't have much sympathy for those that are too lazy to do the research required to find them. How hard is it to fire up a web browser and go to bankrate.com or other similar sites?
If these people have proven themselves to be bad credit, it only stands to reason they will not be able to pay off the 30% interest rate.
Wouldn't that depend on how much they owe? I would make the suggestion that the problem lies with giving bad credit risks large credit lines, not with charging them high amounts of interest.
However, I'm arguing that they were in a good position to avoid that loss in the first place
Yes, they could have just not extended them any credit to begin with. If that happens you wind up with a system where people make a mistake and have no way to rebuild their credit afterward. Somehow I don't think that's what you are trying to accomplish though.
Even now, they are well positioned to call up these customers, help them consolidate their loans
Why should the onus be on the lender to do that? The debtor should be pursuing those options.
and get the money back over a longer period
Credit cards already offer a pretty long period. Paying the minimum amount on any appreciable balance will give you many years to repay the debt. Asking the lender to extend that out even further without also raising the interest rate isn't really fair. Every penny they loan that person who is in trouble is one less penny they can loan to a profitable customer in good standing.
This is not happening, instead they keep the 30% interest rate, until they really do force the customers into bankruptcy
What's wrong with that? When did bankruptcy become such a bad thing? I've been through it. It's really not that bad. The United States is one of a handful of countries that provides for a fresh start. People ought to take advantage of it. Corporations do it all the time. Why not individuals?
but they are still trying to make much more profit than is reasonable
Who decides what's "reasonable"? Their profits are redistributed to shareholders and employees. If you have a 401(k) then the odds are that you are receiving benefit from credit card company profit. Take that away and now you have to save even more money to have a comfortable retirement. Is that really what you want? Somehow I doubt it.
And here we don't talk about Facebook, we talk about dedicated school websites/areas, where the message target is your entire class/school, not a few friends you can block.
School websites are managed by the school and can be held to whatever standards the school deems appropriate.
And by action I don't mean throw the offender in jail, but counsel the offender and at the same time silently remove the offending entry/post from the website.
Sorry, I disagree. What you've done there is to make a mountain out of a molehill. The offender is now liable to mock the offended even more because of the perception that they can't handle it.
Let's say there's a corporate forum which all your co-workers access. And it's anonymous and unmoderated. Now I, covered by anonimity, go there and write "Shakrai has a small dick, finishes in 2 minutes and can't satisfy a woman ", you wouldn't like it.
Worse things than that have been said about me at work. I'm still here....
You could just go ahead and ignore my entry and even the forum altogether, but your co-workers won't.
If my co-workers are so immature that they are going to give weight to such a post then I'd say that they are the ones with the problem, not me.
People will cease to call you, you will feel isolated and so on
People ceasing to call me would make me very happy at work ;) It would actually harm them more than it would harm me, as my role (IT) is one that people depend on. I'll grant that isn't the case for every job, but even still, if your co-workers are going to give weight to such a post then they are the ones with the problem.
Gossip goes fast, gossip goes far. And before you know it, a large part of your life (that would be work environment) would shred to tiny pieces.
I'm sorry but I disagree. Bad-mouthing, anonymous or otherwise, can't "shred" your life unless you allow it to do so.
Identify offenders, counsel THEM, remove the offending post. If cyber-bullies know that their entries are moderated and won't see the daylight if they are aggressive, they will cease doing it.
So your solution is censorship and the abandonment of unmoderated discussion forums? What are you going to do when your 'offender' tells you to fuck off and reverts to his previous behavior?
How about freedom of speech? Freedom of speech applies to identifiable people, to those who are ready to take the heat if they are proven as liars.
Again, I disagree. Anonymous speech is critically important. People have the right to express political views anonymously. In America that's gone all the way to our Supreme Court, which has held that anonymous political speech is protected. There are also other contexts where the ability to speak anonymously is important -- imagine being a rape victim seeking support and having to disclose your identity before being allowed to post. Think that might deter you from seeking out the support that you need?
Sorry for the mildly off-topic post, but wow! I wonder what kind of battery life that beast gets? Does it have a portable nuclear reactor on board or is the battery reduced to being useful only for trips across the room to switch outlets?
I have no problem protecting people from physical aggression. I have a serious problem when we start trying to protect them from verbal aggression, because it eventually leads to censorship. I regard freedom of speech as more important than protecting a few sensitive individuals from being picked on.
There are things in this world that are far worse than being picked on or bullied in school. If you can't cope with people saying bad things about you on Facebook, then how are you going to cope with an asshole boss? How are you going to cope with aggressive drivers? How are you going to cope with being the victim of a violent crime? How are you going to cope when your lover sends you a dear john letter and runs off with your best friend?
My wiseass "natural selection" remark aside, I do actually feel for those that can't handle the tougher parts of life. I'm just at a loss for what you think we should do about it. Should we start arresting people who say bad things about their peers on facebook? Should playground bullies be removed from school and tossed into the criminal justice system, where they can learn to be real criminals?
There are ample channels available for people who need help. Crisis hotlines for both adults and children, guidance counselors in school, employee assistance programs in the workplace, etc, etc. Some people are just going to refuse to help themselves no matter how easy you make it for them. You can lead a horse to water......
Not only is it proven to be addictive
So what?
but it also affects poorer individuals much worse than richer
So what?
I think its idealism that causes people to believe that individuals are always capable and usually do make informed rational decisions on subjects that have great implications.
I'm not that idealistic. Large numbers of people are morons. But again, so what? Why should we infringe on the freedom of those who aren't morons to protect those that are? Many people enjoy recreational drugs and/or gambling and still manage to lead productive lives. Why should their pursuit of happiness be impeded because of those who can't responsibly manage to do the same?
I am having a hard time understanding why government is even involved
Because it doesn't want the competition. Gambling is bad, unless it's sponsored by the state under the guise of funding education, and then it's just fine and dandy. As far as I'm concerned if the Federal Government wants to ban gambling it should start by outlawing interstate lotteries (the Federal Government arguably has the power to do this under the interstate commerce clause) and continue by encouraging the states to abandon their intrastate lotteries.
Otherwise it's just hypocrisy and more "do as I say but not as I do" from the people who are supposed to be working for us.
Also, the arson wouldn't have been so bad if the insurance money had gone to a new house instead of being gambled away.
You wouldn't think that if you were a firefighter who might have died. This is going to sound harsh but I hope that your Dad is behind bars. Arson is no laughing matter or victimless crime.
Natural selection would mean that it would be ok for me to beat you to death.
Macho Answer: Try it and you'll meet my little friend.
On-topic Answer: Your example is a strawman. Beating someone to death != insulting them
However in civilized nations we create rules that the majority of people believe are for the greater good.
The majority of the people can not infringe on our inalienable rights. One of those is the right to free speech. I don't recall one of them being the right not to be offended. Perhaps I missed that part of the Magna Carta/US Declaration of Indepencence/US Bill of Rights/Federalist papers/Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Could you point it out to me?
These rules general serve to protect those those that need protecting.
No law you can pass is going to protect someone who is so weak kneed that they can't handle verbal/written insults.
For weaker people, this might lead to psychological problems and ultimately suicide. And there's your problem right there.
Sounds like natural selection to me.
Oh wait, that wasn't the PC thing to say. I'm sorry, should I report to the Museum of Tolerance or skip that step and go straight to Tolerance Camp?
But I'd say it's a safe bet that most of the people who say "just ignore it" have never been seriously bullied and terrorised in their lives before.
If anonymous comments online are all it takes to 'terrorize' you then I'd suggest that the problem might just be you and that you should grow a backbone. Jesus christ, we've become nation of crybabies and whineasses. I actually saw a government sponsored ad (the ad-council) the other day about cyber-bullying. WTF? What happened to 'sticks and stones'? What happened to 'turn the other cheek'? What happened to 'never start a fight, but always finish it'?
Grow a fucking spine people. There are people on this planet that wake up without knowing if they'll be able to eat today. There are people on this planet that have to brave snipers, IEDs and cross fire to get to the market. What do you suppose they think about a people who have become so soft and sissified that they can't handle a little bit of verbal and/or written harassment?
Given that, what sort of reason would they have to charge upwards of 30% on your "loan". I am not arguing that they cannot, because obviously it happens, instead I ask why is this reasonable?
Because the people they are charging 30% have proven themselves to be bad credit risks and they need to cover the losses of those who default on their accounts?
They are effectively making significantly more more on this sum then they could in most any other market.
Not after you take their loan losses into account they aren't. Credit cards are unsecured loans. If you default on one it's next to impossible for them to collect on what you owe. Yeah, they can sue you -- but civil judgments are very hard to enforce -- just ask the Goldman's how easy it's been to collect from OJ. If you file bankruptcy they are last in line and will likely receive next to nothing.
The credit card business isn't the bottomless pool of profit that some people think it is.
There is no "may," it *does.* Your score will bounce back, but there is no ambiguity here about what happens when you close an account.
Yes, actually, there is. Closing your oldest account while your other ones are maxed out will hurt your score. Closing a fairly new account while maintaining a good debt->credit limit ratio on your other accounts will have little to no impact on your score. As previously stated it depends on numerous factors.
Good for you, but don't think you won't actually get worked over for it at some point.
I won't get "worked over". If any credit card company tries to "work" me over I'll simply close the account and take my business elsewhere. I don't need the Government to protect me from them. I'm quite capable of taking care of myself.
Did you know that when you do that, the credit card company reports it as negative credit information that lowers your credit score?
-1, factually incorrect. They do no such thing. Reporting 'negative' information that isn't true would be a violation of the fair credit reporting act. Paying off your credit card will not lower your score. It can only raise your score, as one of the key factors of your credit score is the amount of debt you owe vs. your total credit limits. Ideally this value should be less than 15%, though it doesn't really start to hurt you until you exceed 40%.
Closing an account may hurt your score, as the score model prefers older accounts to newer ones. But that really doesn't have anything to do with paying off your debt. If you pay off your debt and keep the account open your score can only go up. Whether or not it goes down if you close the account depends on a number of different factors -- how much debt you owe on your other accounts, how old they are, how old the closed one was, etc.
In any case, the credit scores weren't designed by the credit card companies. They were designed by the credit reporting agencies and a company called Fair Issac. None of them happen to be in the credit card business.
A "deadbeat".
Who cares what they call you? I pay off all my accounts in full, every month. I don't care if they think I'm a deadbeat. I'm still getting an interest free loan for 25 to 60 days. I'm also getting liquidity -- I can make a purchase without regard to when my next paycheck happens to be.
The credit card companies are at the top of the list of commercial entities that are openly hostile to their customers
You are painting with a really broad brush there. I had a WaMu account for five years until they went out of business. They were one of the nicest companies I've ever done business with. My credit union offers credit cards with a fixed 7.9% APR and a single page account agreement that doesn't require a law degree to decipher.
As with any business, there are good actors and there are not-so-good actors. It's up to you to give your business to the ones that treat you decently. I have no sympathy for someone who is doing business with a "hostile" credit card company when there are so many alternatives that are only a phone call away. You might find this hard to believe but Citi, Chase and Capital One don't have a monopoly on the credit card market. There are alternatives.
Raising the minimum payment is actually to the cardholders benefit. It ensures that the card will be paid off faster, resulting in less interest being charged to the cardholder.
It was also the decision of the Fed sometime ago to require them to increase the minimum payment. It had nothing to do with the credit card companies. But don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting....
It's more to do with the "pay off not only more than you owe, but also enough to pay for huge CC company profits
The nerve of those for-profit companies turning a profit.
Hey, I got an idea for you if the notion of a credit card company turning a profit bothers you so much: Get a credit card from a credit union. Most Americans are eligible to join one or more credit unions. Why we need to legislate "reform" on the credit card industry when the marketplace has already provided alternatives is beyond me. Maybe if people would spend some time doing basic research on the options available to them we'd all be better off?
You have to pay it off, on terms unilaterally adjusted by the lender, on criteria independent of the contract under which you entered the lending agreement.
Incorrect. When they change the terms of your agreement (interest rate, annual fee, etc.) you are able to avoid said changes by closing the card and paying it off under the previously agreed to terms. You don't have to pay it all off at once either -- you can make the minimum payment that was provided for by your previous account agreement.
DEFENDING predatory lenders who abuse their customers!
I don't see them as being predatory. Nobody forced people to run up those credit cards. In fact the new credit card "reform" bill kinda pissed me off. Two of my credit cards are now assessing an annual fee because of this "reform". They can no longer collect penalties from those who become delinquent so now those of us who maintain our accounts in good standing are going to pay the price. I'm left with the choice of eating an annual fee or closing two of my oldest accounts and seeing my credit score drop.
The only good thing that came out of that legislation was the concealed carry in national parks provision.
What industry abuses their customers, dangles features and incentives of questionable value in a quid pro quo for contractual lock-in and then produces unilateral unpredictable billing and surcharges to this captive market? No. You are right! That describes Credit Card companies, the only business hated more by their customer base than the mobile phone providers.
What credit card company uses 'contractual lock-in'? I've never seen a credit card that you couldn't cancel at any time.