Republicans: Take back your freedoms

[Ragorn]

http://consumerist.com/5395128/capital- ... rlimit-fee

Republicans: The government has meddled in your life YET AGAIN by imposing strict regulations on credit card companies. However, if you act now, Capital One will let you opt out on several provisions of the CARD Act, and will even lower the overlimit fees on your existing credit cards by 25%. Did you hear that? Ronald Reagan was right! By slamming the door on government programs, you can save money!*

Don't wait, call now!

*The CARD Act regulates credit card companies by requiring written notice to consumers prior to changing the terms of your credit agreement, forbidding credit card companies from increasing interest rates on non-deliquent accounts, restricts credit card companies from charging "convenience fees" for taking online or phone payments, and requires that consumers be allowed to cancel their account and pay off the balance at the current rate any time rate hikes are announced. Opting out of the CARD Act is not recommended for any consumer.

[Corth]

I'm not sure I get it. But yeah this stupid credit card reform act sucks. All the good credit card promotions are gone now. I used to make a few thousand dollars a year taking money off credit cards at 0% and sticking it in an FDIC insured savings account until the money was due to be paid back. I would usually have over $100k in 0% money at any given time. Not many good offers anymore unfortunately.

[Sarvis]

I'm not sure I get it. But yeah this stupid credit card reform act sucks. All the good credit card promotions are gone now. I used to make a few thousand dollars a year taking money off credit cards at 0% and sticking it in an FDIC insured savings account until the money was due to be paid back. I would usually have over $100k in 0% money at any given time. Not many good offers anymore unfortunately.

Not that anyone's ever given me a 0% credit card... but I probably would never have thought of that.

[Ragorn]

To clarify, minus the snark:

Credit cards act similar to debit cards these days... they let you charge over your credit limit, and then they sock you with a $39 "convenience fee" for each transaction beyond your limit. One of the provisions of the CARD Act requires these "overlimit transactions" to be an opt-in service for consumers. Capital One has devised a clever workaround for this. They're cold calling their customers, bitching a little about the government, and upselling the opt-in "overlimit transaction service." All you have to do is sign away your rights under the CARD Act, and they'll even lower the "convenience fee" from $39 down to $29 for your "convenience."

I love the CARD Act. The last credit card I had escalated from a 7.9% APR to 23.99% overnight with no notice, and for no reason. I don't typically carry a monthly balance on my cards, but I'm glad I happened to read my statement before I got loose with my purchases. The CARD Act will require companies to provide written notice before changing APR, and customers will be able to cancel their cards and pay off the remaining balance at the old rate without suddenly finding their balances hit by a huge rate hike.

If there are no good credit card offers right now, don't worry Corth.. the market will regulate. Someone will step up and provide a card with a reasonable APR and good incentives. And when they do, they'll start owning market share. Just have faith in the market... right? :)

[Sarvis]

If there are no good credit card offers right now, don't worry Corth.. the market will regulate. Someone will step up and provide a card with a reasonable APR and good incentives. And when they do, they'll start owning market share. Just have faith in the market... right? :)

*snicker*

One note about debit cards though, I think most banks allow you to tie a debit card to a credit account for overdrafts. That way when you overdraft, there is no fee as long as you pay off the overdraft balance before they charge interest. Even if they do charge interest, it's a LOT less than the overdraft fee would have been.

On the other hand, the problems you can have from identity theft can be a bit more severe with debit cards... since the criminal has access to all of your actual money.

[Corth]

Well if the unnecessary government regulation is making the industry less profitable - then no. :)

I used to be an idiot when it came to credit cards. I would pay over the limit fees, late fees, etc. Carry large balances at high interest rates. Then I grew up and started taking my finances seriously. Over the past 10 years or so I don't think I have paid a dime to a credit card company other then annual fees on certain AMEX business cards I have (which are well worth it). Generally, I only make money from credit cards - not the other way around. It was the idiots like my past self, and others, carrying balances and paying ridiculous fees that made up for the few sharks taking advantage - and thus allowed me to profit.

[Sarvis]

Well if the unnecessary government regulation is making the industry less profitable - then no. :)

I used to be an idiot when it came to credit cards. I would pay over the limit fees, late fees, etc. Carry large balances at high interest rates. Then I grew up and started taking my finances seriously. Over the past 10 years or so I don't think I have paid a dime to a credit card company other then annual fees on certain AMEX business cards I have (which are well worth it). Generally, I only make money from credit cards - not the other way around. It was the idiots like my past self, and others, carrying balances and paying ridiculous fees that made up for the few sharks taking advantage - and thus allowed me to profit.

Hey genius? The CARD act would prevent them from doing something like changing your credit limit or adding a fee without notice. Things that COULD affect you, and which credit card companies would LIKE to do to people who don't carry a balance. Without notice, of course, so that when you suddenly end up over limit due to the fee you didn't know about they can charge you for it.

You really don't think they want to sneak a few fees onto a guy like you, who is making them no money?

[Corth]

They were always required to give notice about material changes in credit terms. Don't get me wrong, the credit card companies are pigs - but if you were playing the game that I did you certainly had an incentive to read those change of terms notices they sent out constantly. FYI - if you disagreed with any change, for instance of interest rates, credit limit, etc - you were (still are) entitled to reject the change. Your account would be closed with respect to further useage and you would repay your balance pursuant to the previously agreed upon terms. The way the changes were structured, acquiesence was agreement - but you didn't have to acquiese.

My understanding of the CARD act is that it limits certain actions a credit card company can take - even with all the notice and agreement in the world. For instance, in the past, payments on the credit card, pursuant to the terms agreed upon by the customer, would be allocated in order of lowest interest rate first, highest one last. So if you had taken money off a 0% balance transfer offer, but then used the card to make additional purchases at the normal rate, your payment would be allocated to the 0% balance first, and you would get charged high interest on the additional purchases until the balance was paid off.

The new law requires the companies, regardless of whether the customers want the protection, to allocate payments towards the high interest rate balances first. The net effect of this, from the customer perspective, is certain programs go away overnight. Like the "0% for life" balance transfer offers that allowed you to take out money without interest forever so long as you make 2 or 3 purchases every month. I had $10,000 from discover out at 0% for life for several years. I set up paypal to automatically pay a 2nd account of mine 5 cents twice every month. That was me getting over on Discover. The way discover made money, though, was for morons to buy a restaurant meal, their groceries, etc., on the card, and then the monthly payments would go to the 0% first, and the customer would be charged 20%+ on their new purchases. In light of the new CARD act, that program is not feasible. Sigh. :)

[fobble]

Gotta admit though, most folks can't get that kind of credit and even if 0% promotions still existed. Current rate of what 0.7~1.20% in bank doesn't mean much. Plus I assume later you closed out those credit card? So unless individual have exceptional credit and can take a hit for opening & closing cards here there that strat works for very few individuals.

Which means politicians don't care unless those very few individuals were donating like crazy money to their campaign.

Anyhow, if you are incumbent you are fooked. NY, NJ, VA races shows that incumbents are in trouble. Bloomberg won but barely and he is a good mayor. Incumbent in NJ (Corsine lost), same for VA, and upstate NY was same.

All I gotta say is 2010 is beginning of election and I got feeling our politicians will spray us with ineffective stimulus and/ox tax credit (I'm sure one or two will be effective & help) so that they can have something to pitch the citizens with for their votes.

"i voted act 7712:jb for 5,000 tax credit for business that hire new employees!"

When in reality businesses would fire employees they don't have to just to rehire to take advantage.

[Ragorn]

The CARD Act does a lot of things... it closes a lot of shady loopholes that credit card companies were using, and it discourages them from preying on their customers to make profits via unavoidable or unpredictable fees. Among the regulations:

1. Your payment due date cannot change month to month, cannot occur in the middle of a work day, and cannot be enacted on a day when the payment center is closed (like a Sunday or a holiday). These are all tactics that CC companies used to generate late fees.

2. CC companies cannot impose retroactive rate hikes... they can't raise your APR and then retroactively apply the higher rate to your existing balance.

3. CC companies cannot raise your rates due to universal default. It's become common practice these days for Capital One to raise your APR if you're late on your car payment, under the guise that you are a "credit risk." Under the CARD Act, your APR can't be affected by your financial status with any instution other than the credit holding company.

4. Card contract terms cannot change for the first year, with the exception of promotional offers, which cannot change in the first six months. No more bait-and-switch when you sign up for a card and two months later, they change the terms of service.

5. Opt-in for overlimit spending, see my post above.

6. Payments are applied to highest-interest balance first. This benefits the 99.99999% of Americans who are not Corth, Americans who use their credits cards as a line of credit and not as an engine for 0% investable loans.

7. Limits fees on stored value cards (like Visa gift cards). The CC company can no longer impose a $5 month fee, "inactivity fee," or any other fee on these accounts unless the card has been inactive for 12 months.

8. Plain language in plain sight. All of the fees and conditions have to be displayed on the offer material. The CC company can't send you a mailer for a great offer, with tiny fine print directing you to their website "for more information" where they disclose all the fees and conditions.

Some of these regulations do interfere with the credit card companies' generation of profit. Capital One is sure to score fewer sucker contracts if they have to disclose the fees up front, you're right. But you know... I feel like that's too bad for them. If your business model is based around tricking your customers into accumulating fees, then I don't feel like bringing the government in to regulate you is a negative thing.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off ... d-Holders/

[Kifle]

If your business model is based around tricking your customers into accumulating fees, then I don't feel like bringing the government in to regulate you is a negative thing.

To expand, the government steps in on things such as pyramid schemes for this very reason. CC companies profit largely in part to fleecing people rather than offering them a service. What these companies have been doing for years is directly comparable, not analogous, to con artistry. This is not a regulation of the "free market," it is a regulation of crime. And if this is what you truly believe is the "free market," then what is your stance on ponzie/pyramid schemes and other such cons? It seems to me, Corth, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are of the belief that if somebody is dumb enough to not catch it, then there is no wrong being done?

[Corth]

If it were up to me I'd legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution, and get rid of usury laws. Generally I would let adults make decisions about their life, good or bad. I do not think anyone can point to many instances where a credit card company did something outside the terms of the agreement with their customer. Were they pigs? Absolutely. So are the rent-to-buy stores like 'rent a' center', which essentially charge 100%+ interest rates. But its not like people weren't aware of their piggishness. And its not like anyone was forced to deal with them. You know the old saying - sleep with dogs, wake up with flees. Customers had the opportunity to inspect the terms before they signed up. They had the opportunity to reject changes of terms and pay back their balance pursuant to the old terms. I don't see any fraud there.

[Corth]

Fobble,

You are right - even if the 0% offers were available to the same extent as before, it would hardly be worth the trouble with current interest rates on safe accounts. Of course, it wouldn't be a horrible idea to go risky and put the money into something with potentially greater returns. If you go bust, oh well - bankruptcies get cleared away after 7 or 10 years or something.

BTW - getting 100k+ worth of credit card limits was ridiculously easy. Can't speak for how it is now - but the funny thing about how FICO worked was the more available credit you had, the better your score. You would take a short term hit on the initial inquiry, but then the new available credit would bump up your score in the long term. It was a cascading effect. The more credit cards you obtained, the easier it was to obtain more credit cards. The only thing you had to avoid like the plague was utilitized more than like 80% of your credit limit on any given card, as that would ding your FICO nicely.

Oh - and its generally a bad idea to close a credit card. Better to let it sit dormant. Its the opposite effect in reverse. The more credit lines you close, the less available credit, the higher the total utilization of your existing credit, the lower your FICO. You also lose the history of that account. Old accounts are given a lot of weight on the FICO formula.

[Sarvis]

I do not think anyone can point to many instances where a credit card company did something outside the terms of the agreement with their customer.

Easy enough to accomplish when you can pretty much change the terms at whim!

[Ragorn]

If it were up to me I'd legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution, and get rid of usury laws. Generally I would let adults make decisions about their life, good or bad. I do not think anyone can point to many instances where a credit card company did something outside the terms of the agreement with their customer. Were they pigs? Absolutely. So are the rent-to-buy stores like 'rent a' center', which essentially charge 100%+ interest rates. But its not like people weren't aware of their piggishness. And its not like anyone was forced to deal with them. You know the old saying - sleep with dogs, wake up with flees. Customers had the opportunity to inspect the terms before they signed up. They had the opportunity to reject changes of terms and pay back their balance pursuant to the old terms. I don't see any fraud there.

Nobody ever said CC companies operate outside the terms of their contracts. The issue being addressed here is ensuring that the terms of the contracts are fair and consistent, and that the consumer is given adequate notice of the terms before signing. Note that there is no cap on APR or annual fees... the government isn't restricting the profit these companies can make. They're simply mandating that the fees and conditions of the contract must be plainly visible before the consumer signs on the dotted line. That, and the CC company can't reserve the right to change the terms of the contract "at any time, for any reason."

I think it's a perfectly legitimate law.

[Sarvis]

If it were up to me I'd legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution, and get rid of usury laws. Generally I would let adults make decisions about their life, good or bad. I do not think anyone can point to many instances where a credit card company did something outside the terms of the agreement with their customer. Were they pigs? Absolutely. So are the rent-to-buy stores like 'rent a' center', which essentially charge 100%+ interest rates. But its not like people weren't aware of their piggishness. And its not like anyone was forced to deal with them. You know the old saying - sleep with dogs, wake up with flees. Customers had the opportunity to inspect the terms before they signed up. They had the opportunity to reject changes of terms and pay back their balance pursuant to the old terms. I don't see any fraud there.

Aren't those usury laws what actually gives the consumer a chance to cancel their card and pay it back under the old terms if the agreement changes?

By the way, don't these fees and clandestine term changes lead to a situation where the banks have a lot of "capital" that may never be realized, and companies being paid with money that doesn't exist?

Didn't we just go through something a lot like that, with pretty disastrous results once people figured out the money wasn't really there?

I mean, what happens when all those baby boomers with thousands of dollars of debt die and Visa finally realizes they aren't going to ever see that few billion they lent out?

Drugs, gambling and prostitution have a fairly small chance of bringing down our entire economy. In fact, it's largely their illegality that creates the current social problems associated with them. Usury laws are a bit different, though.

[Corth]

If it were up to me I'd legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution, and get rid of usury laws. Generally I would let adults make decisions about their life, good or bad. I do not think anyone can point to many instances where a credit card company did something outside the terms of the agreement with their customer. Were they pigs? Absolutely. So are the rent-to-buy stores like 'rent a' center', which essentially charge 100%+ interest rates. But its not like people weren't aware of their piggishness. And its not like anyone was forced to deal with them. You know the old saying - sleep with dogs, wake up with flees. Customers had the opportunity to inspect the terms before they signed up. They had the opportunity to reject changes of terms and pay back their balance pursuant to the old terms. I don't see any fraud there.

Aren't those usury laws what actually gives the consumer a chance to cancel their card and pay it back under the old terms if the agreement changes?

No.

By the way, don't these fees and clandestine term changes lead to a situation where the banks have a lot of "capital" that may never be realized, and companies being paid with money that doesn't exist?

No idea what you mean.

Didn't we just go through something a lot like that, with pretty disastrous results once people figured out the money wasn't really there?

I mean, what happens when all those baby boomers with thousands of dollars of debt die and Visa finally realizes they aren't going to ever see that few billion they lent out?

You do realize that your debts don't disappear the moment you die? They must be paid out of the assets of the estate.

Drugs, gambling and prostitution have a fairly small chance of bringing down our entire economy. In fact, it's largely their illegality that creates the current social problems associated with them. Usury laws are a bit different, though.

Red Herring built upon some sort of assumption that credit card debts cannot be repaid.

FYI - You have been Sarvis'd. :)

[Corth]

If it were up to me I'd legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution, and get rid of usury laws. Generally I would let adults make decisions about their life, good or bad. I do not think anyone can point to many instances where a credit card company did something outside the terms of the agreement with their customer. Were they pigs? Absolutely. So are the rent-to-buy stores like 'rent a' center', which essentially charge 100%+ interest rates. But its not like people weren't aware of their piggishness. And its not like anyone was forced to deal with them. You know the old saying - sleep with dogs, wake up with flees. Customers had the opportunity to inspect the terms before they signed up. They had the opportunity to reject changes of terms and pay back their balance pursuant to the old terms. I don't see any fraud there.

Nobody ever said CC companies operate outside the terms of their contracts. The issue being addressed here is ensuring that the terms of the contracts are fair and consistent, and that the consumer is given adequate notice of the terms before signing. Note that there is no cap on APR or annual fees... the government isn't restricting the profit these companies can make. They're simply mandating that the fees and conditions of the contract must be plainly visible before the consumer signs on the dotted line. That, and the CC company can't reserve the right to change the terms of the contract "at any time, for any reason."

I think it's a perfectly legitimate law.

So you are saying the law is just about disclosure? I think that is incorrect. Using the example I illustrated in a previous post: Credit card companies are now prohibited from applying payments towards low interest debt before high interest debt. That isn't just about making sure that everyone knows what they are getting into. The government is restricting the freedom of two presumably competent parties from entering into an agreed upon contract.

As for changing the terms of the contract "at any time, for any reason", thats ridiculous. Like I mentioned several times, the credit card companies had to essentially ask permission to change the terms. If you rejected the change of terms then the repayment would be pursuant to the initial agreement. You just wouldn't be able to borrow more money on that account.

Let me put it this way - I am not here to defend the credit card companies. Their business in general isn't much different than that of a mafia loan shark. I'm just saying that as far as I'm concerned - if you want to deal with a loan shark, it's your choice, good or bad. You are only hurting yourself - the government should not get involved.

[Sarvis]

If it were up to me I'd legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution, and get rid of usury laws. Generally I would let adults make decisions about their life, good or bad. I do not think anyone can point to many instances where a credit card company did something outside the terms of the agreement with their customer. Were they pigs? Absolutely. So are the rent-to-buy stores like 'rent a' center', which essentially charge 100%+ interest rates. But its not like people weren't aware of their piggishness. And its not like anyone was forced to deal with them. You know the old saying - sleep with dogs, wake up with flees. Customers had the opportunity to inspect the terms before they signed up. They had the opportunity to reject changes of terms and pay back their balance pursuant to the old terms. I don't see any fraud there.

Aren't those usury laws what actually gives the consumer a chance to cancel their card and pay it back under the old terms if the agreement changes?

No.

Really? Why? What, other than the law, forces creditors to honor the old terms of an agreement?

Come on Corth, you KNOW this one. Contract enforcement is one of the things you admit government should do.

You do realize that your debts don't disappear the moment you die? They must be paid out of the assets of the estate.

You do realize that the assets of people in steep debt do not NEARLY equal the amount they owe, right? My mom has a lot of debt, her only asset is a house that just got condemned and has a Home Equity Loan against it. Good luck seeing THAT money!

Red Herring built upon some sort of assumption that credit card debts cannot be repaid.

What makes you think they can? People have FAR, FAR more debt than they can repay. That's how the system fucking works. The credit card companies WANT people to have so much debt that they can never pay it off, meanwhile sears is getting "money" that never existed and never will.

FYI - You have been Sarvis'd. :)

I don't get it...

[teflor the ranger]

When you make a market less profitable, what you see is a decrease in competition, reduced access to services, and homogenized product offerings. Basically, the CARD act will make it harder for the average consumer to get a credit card, obtain favorable terms, and generally benefit from being a profitable and low-risk customer.

Furthermore, such legislation will discourage innovation in the market, as well as new and unusual products. Cards for sub-prime consumers will dry up and credit limits will increasingly decline.

The freedom to obtain a credit card is inexorably linked to the freedom by which and how credit card issuers may issue credit. Consumer 'protection' comes at the cost of supplier liberty (and vice-versa), both affect us, even though consumer issues may appear to affect us more immediately and directly. That being said, I am against increased government regulation of the credit card industry because I think people should f'king read their credit card terms and understand their contracts before they agree to things.

[Todrael]

Let's boil this down to the basics: Should people be able to take action which hurts themselves? The conservative answer might be, "Yes, of course, let people hurt themselves if they want to, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others." The liberal answer might be, "People should be protected as much as is reasonable to provide more stability and benefit to society as a whole."

What neither side seems to take into account is just how stupid most people are. Corth, you have to admit, you're probably in the top 2% of the population for intelligence. You're easily in the top 20% for income. The majority of people who play Toril are highly intelligent, though you wouldn't necessarily know it if you only read the political threads. There are large swaths of America where people are just too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions, and that is leaning dangerously toward lack of informed consent. Certainly there's a vast capability gap between the teams of highly trained corporate lawyers and Cindy Lou Homeowner.

In my mind, the argument is closer to this analogy: do we let a retard play with a razor blade? Where the person providing the blade is paid a monthly fee for it, and earns fees for every time the retard cuts himself. Think of the results that kind of economic incentive would produce.

Regulation is essential to correct the power disparity between the consumer and the corporation. How much, and what type of regulation, is a completely different discussion that won't be answered by broad, sweeping judgments and ideology.

[Todrael]

Thinking further about this topic, we already have laws which state people of low IQ and those under a certain age are not considered to be capable of informed consent. I'm wondering if we should raise the IQ limits depending on the complexity or life impact of a situation. Age seems a very poor proxy for understanding when you consider the range of human (in)ability.

Corth can play his credit card games since he has research skills, can easily understand contractual language, and makes himself aware of his consumer rights under law, and the regular folks can get some kind of 'kiddy-loan' suitable to their ability to comprehend the terms? Ah, but he did mention that all the stupid people were subsidizing his interest gains... like in the insurance industry where the healthy subsidize the sick. Corth is for socialized credit? :)

[teflor the ranger]

While there are many similarities between a socialized credit market and a free and fair credit market, they are hardly the same thing. For one, socialized credit markets imply forced participation.

[teflor the ranger]

Todrael,

A market society relies upon people having the freedom to make both good and poor decisions in order to allow the market to reward good decisions and punish poor decisions. This allows the moral question of the use of force to reward and punish people to be answered by the real and actual market, instead of by politics or by ideology - or worse, a minority handful of the elite.

When you remove the ability of people to make good and poor decisions on their own judgment or lack thereof - you place another entity in the position to judge people on whether or not they should be rewarded or punished. In the case of government regulation, you place the power of rewarding or punishing people in the hands of the government - in the hands of the tyranny of the majority - in the hands of popular politics - rather than leaving the power of rewarding or punishing people in the hands of the market.

If you really want the government to be responsible for deciding on whether to reward you or punish you, please, continue to vote Democrat, but consider what happens to people the government decides to use force with, and consider what has happened to people when their governments hold an extreme power to decide who is rewarded and who is punished.

[Corth]

Aren't those usury laws what actually gives the consumer a chance to cancel their card and pay it back under the old terms if the agreement changes?

No.

Really? Why? What, other than the law, forces creditors to honor the old terms of an agreement?

Usury laws have nothing to do with giving the consumer a chance to cancel their card and pay it back under the old terms.

[Todrael]

A market society relies upon people having the freedom to make both good and poor decisions in order to allow the market to reward good decisions and punish poor decisions. This allows the moral question of the use of force to reward and punish people to be answered by the real and actual market, instead of by politics or by ideology - or worse, a minority handful of the elite.

When you remove the ability of people to make good and poor decisions on their own judgment or lack thereof - you place another entity in the position to judge people on whether or not they should be rewarded or punished. In the case of government regulation, you place the power of rewarding or punishing people in the hands of the government - in the hands of the tyranny of the majority - in the hands of popular politics - rather than leaving the power of rewarding or punishing people in the hands of the market.

If you really want the government to be responsible for deciding on whether to reward you or punish you, please, continue to vote Democrat, but consider what happens to people the government decides to use force with, and consider what has happened to people when their governments hold an extreme power to decide who is rewarded and who is punished.

You've got ideas, for sure. They might even work some of the time. I highly doubt, however, that you're taking into account how much government regulation has saved your ass thus far. Corporations have power. You're a fool if you think your "ability to make good and poor decisions" will end up anywhere on the "good" side if that corporate power goes completely unchecked. They wouldn't even offer it as an option.

But the funniest part is where you assume I vote Democrat.

The reason I didn't attempt to refute any particular statement you made beyond a general "You're probably wrong about how you think that'd turn out" is because you make statements that are packed with a lot of internal thought rather than stated claims. For example, unpack "the market". What, exactly, are you talking about when you say that? And you can't answer with catch phrases. You've also got several errors in reasoning and a couple attempts at fearmongering. I don't like that kind of thing. It's effective, but not truthful.

[teflor the ranger]

Although you're being far too combative for my liking, I will address a couple of the things you've said:

You've got ideas, for sure. They might even work some of the time. I highly doubt, however, that you're taking into account how much government regulation has saved your ass thus far. Corporations have power. You're a fool if you think your "ability to make good and poor decisions" will end up anywhere on the "good" side if that corporate power goes completely unchecked. They wouldn't even offer it as an option.

In this Republic, there are many true interstate issues and interests that supersede the market and its concerns that government regulation and intervention are truly necessary. This is a view in which I part ways somewhat with more libertarian-leaning individuals like Corth and Kiryan. However, the truth of the matter is that business and the consumers of this country require far less regulation than you would believe. Corporations should be held responsible for following their agreements, and there should some regulation that requires easy-to-understand disclosure, much like truth-in lending statements you might receive when seeking a mortgage.

But the funniest part is where you assume I vote Democrat.

I made no assumption about how you vote. The statement I made was a generalization of where people think the power to punish and reward belongs - in the hands of the economy of the people, or in the hands of the political power structure of the people. Sorry, but there really isn't anything funny about it.

The reason I didn't attempt to refute any particular statement you made beyond a general "You're probably wrong about how you think that'd turn out" is because you make statements that are packed with a lot of internal thought rather than stated claims. For example, unpack "the market". What, exactly, are you talking about when you say that? And you can't answer with catch phrases. You've also got several errors in reasoning and a couple attempts at fearmongering. I don't like that kind of thing. It's effective, but not truthful.

Unpacking "the market" is quite a difficult task even for the highly educated economist. I will attempt to do so, because you're wrong about my errors in reasoning and my attempts at being truthful. Fearmongering, unfortunately, is a broad claim, because I am accused of fearmongering every time I say that bad things will happen - regardless of whether it is an attempt at reporting or an attempt to invoke fear. Sorry, fear happens because bad things happen - fear is always an element.

A market is very similar to the concept of an economy. It is the composite of the systems, customs, and society in which goods and services are exchanged, held, or wasted. It encompasses human nature, society, and the state of goods, as well as the perceptions of such by the people involved in the market. Markets react and respond naturally to stimuli in accordance with true democracy - people power - as people set the terms of services, the price of goods, and many other factors in those markets considered free and fair.

This is much unlike governments, which are known worldwide to be rife with partisan politics, corruption, and to rule with the tyranny of the majority. Powerful interest groups and lobbies will control your access to goods and services in a heavily regulated market, owing to the nature of governments.

This is a scenario I work to help America avoid.

[Disoputlip]

The market react in many ways like a religion. Money does not make sense unless people beleive in it.

If people begin to beleive in something that is objectivly crazy, then it is bound to one point collapse. That is the capitalist system.

Soon it will happen again. I think the next bobble will be something with inventing in green energy. Or the security business mabye.

Personally I am for regulating e.g. pyramid games, they can destroy an entire country, like it did in Albania.

[teflor the ranger]

The market react in many ways like a religion. Money does not make sense unless people beleive in it.

If people begin to beleive in something that is objectivly crazy, then it is bound to one point collapse. That is the capitalist system.

This is hardly representative of the truth. Modern currencies in most western countries represent a portion of something real, although complex, a system of goods and services, securities, and debts. Don't believe every simple video you see that promotes the communist or gold-standard agenda, because the situation is not as simple as they would have you believe. Money does make sense because people believe in it, and there are many things about modern money that provokes this belief. There is nothing objectively crazy about having a medium that represents the whole, particularly when there are pretty good statistical indications of what that whole means.

Finally, if human belief has economic capital, or can fuel growth and progress, there are few reasons not to harness this energy for the progress of humanity. In fact, we would be neglectful to waste the power of human belief.

Soon it will happen again. I think the next bobble will be something with inventing in green energy. Or the security business mabye.

Personally I am for regulating e.g. pyramid games, they can destroy an entire country, like it did in Albania.

I certainly agree, bubbles are a natural occurrence due to human nature, particularly the bandwagon effect. Pyramid schemes like US social security should be illegal worldwide and crushed under the heels of government power.

[Todrael]

This is much unlike governments, which are known worldwide to be rife with partisan politics, corruption, and to rule with the tyranny of the majority. Powerful interest groups and lobbies will control your access to goods and services in a heavily regulated market, owing to the nature of governments.

I think this is where our point of contention lies. You seem to think that corporations ("the market") are somehow separate and distinct from government rather than operating within the same system. Those "powerful interest groups and lobbies" you talk about are corporations. They're the ones driving the government into regulations disadvantageous to the people. I like to point to the telecom industry as one which is far too "market-oriented" (monopolized power due to government interference pushed by corporate power). Perhaps you could point me to some powerful governments where they have "tyranny of the majority" - I see far too many lead by dictators and minority elite castes.

If the people didn't push government toward consumer-friendly regulation, corporations would certainly push government toward corporate-friendly regulation. These opposing forces often meet in the middle somewhere, with give and take depending on the moods of the day. I certainly don't think we should swing to either extreme.

You hold up "the market" as good and "government regulation" as bad (except in the extremely limited instances you noted). I feel that neither side is worthy of praise or condemnation. They each have broad strengths and devastating weaknesses, and they need to be played off against each other. Where is the healthy balance? That's the question I'm always looking to answer.

[teflor the ranger]

I think this is where our point of contention lies. You seem to think that corporations ("the market") are somehow separate and distinct from government rather than operating within the same system.

Not exactly. First of all 'corporations' aren't the market, they are players within a market that often have conflicting interests, although some are shared. Finally, the government is also a player within the market.

Those "powerful interest groups and lobbies" you talk about are corporations. They're the ones driving the government into regulations disadvantageous to the people.

Have you ever heard of the Christian right? AARP? Sorry, but not all powerful interest groups and lobbies are 'corporations.' Many ideologies, religions, and philosophies provide political pressure without having the need to sell widgets and services. Nevermind race associations like the NAACP, or groups like the Freemasons.

I like to point to the telecom industry as one which is far too "market-oriented" (monopolized power due to government interference pushed by corporate power).

I would like to point out that any mainstream economist finds that monopolies are damaging to free and fair markets.

Perhaps you could point me to some powerful governments where they have "tyranny of the majority" - I see far too many lead by dictators and minority elite castes.

In the UK NHS, overweight people are denied hip operations because the tyranny of the majority believes they are unworthy of hip operations due to their weight. There are far too many examples, I could probably be more specific and find ones that are much more generalized that would satisfy your request, but without a severe personal interest in what governments do to people in you, I'm afraid arguing my valid point would be a waste of time. The tyranny of the majority is what crushes minorities, and sees their interests for naught. Human history and our present are replete with these examples. The "tyranny of the majority" is found in many schools of political and philosophical thought and should not be ignored by anyone taking the matter of governance seriously.

If the people didn't push government toward consumer-friendly regulation, corporations would certainly push government toward corporate-friendly regulation. These opposing forces often meet in the middle somewhere, with give and take depending on the moods of the day. I certainly don't think we should swing to either extreme.

The problem is that people have a way of repressing corporate interests, because populist ideas like (non-sustainable) consumer-friendly regulation garner more actual people votes than corporate interests. The other problem is that many of these so-called "consumer-friendly" regulations turn out not to be sustainable, and end up being unfriendly to the consumer because they subvert corporate interests so much that these regulations end up hurting the economy, ultimately hurting the consumer to begin with.

You hold up "the market" as good and "government regulation" as bad (except in the extremely limited instances you noted). I feel that neither side is worthy of praise or condemnation. They each have broad strengths and devastating weaknesses, and they need to be played off against each other. Where is the healthy balance? That's the question I'm always looking to answer.

I hold up "the market" as being more firmly rooted in reality and more robust in how it reacts to a changing situation. Governments that are highly subject to populist politics (like ours) are ill-prepared and unable to react quickly to the real forces that drive and shape our economy. They're also liable to make populist decisions that are not sustainable, or trample the interests of major market players for the sake of winning the votes of individuals. Like you, I agree that some regulation is necessary from a Federal government in a federal republic, particularly in the case of true interstate issues and where the interests of the nation supersede the interests of the market. However, I would rather chance the nation to market forces than to the populist political forces of the tyranny of the majority. I lean on the side of libertarianism because I believe "the market" is more just and less subject to the control of the powerful lobbies of our Federal government.

[Disoputlip]

...currencies ...tries ... something ...

...There is nothing objectively crazy ... when there are ... indications of what that whole means.

I certainly agree... social security should be ... worldwide ...

Off Topic:
I am unsure why you make me into wanting to have the gold standard. What an odd way to debate. I am not claiming all sorts of wierd things you say based on your posts. You can't take my post, and then elaborate with points that go far beyond my post.

On Topic:
I have seen amazon, the swedish krone, and a lot of other crazy things. Ecomomy is definitly not science, it is religion. It is based on subjective feelings. It is also based on traders that needs to justify going to work 8 hours a day, trading based on the most minute reports that noone care about.

Even if you had all the variables you would still fail to calculate the economy, because we are also dealing with, in parts, cunning people trying to make a quick buck.

[avak]

Feel free to ignore me if this would derail the current Tod/Tef discussion, which is pretty interesting...

The freedom to obtain a credit card is inexorably linked to the freedom by which and how credit card issuers may issue credit. Consumer 'protection' comes at the cost of supplier liberty (and vice-versa), both affect us, even though consumer issues may appear to affect us more immediately and directly. That being said, I am against increased government regulation of the credit card industry because I think people should f'king read their credit card terms and understand their contracts before they agree to things.

When I read that all I can think about is the most current economic near-collapse. I have a number of friends in the business world and have read many editorials that suggest we were on the verge of a catastrophic collapse that may have taken many years to climb out of. Then I play that off the Malcolm Gladwell Outliers book, in which he talks about how critical timing is in the great capitalist stories of our country. My businesses are in an industry that was booming five years ago and now is outpacing the baseline, but I have to work very hard. I understand what Tef is saying about access to credit because I couldn't start my business today...they is no business credit to be had. OTOH, is that chaotic credit-happy climate truly conducive to business if there is such a pronounced boom and bust cycle?

Essentially what I am saying is that Todrael is making extremely thoughtful points, imo. I appreciate the articulation.

[teflor the ranger]

Off Topic:
I am unsure why you make me into wanting to have the gold standard. What an odd way to debate. I am not claiming all sorts of wierd things you say based on your posts. You can't take my post, and then elaborate with points that go far beyond my post.

I did not claim that you claimed anything. I said, "Don't believe every simple video you see that promotes the communist or gold-standard agenda, because the situation is not as simple as they would have you believe." This is given as advice.

On Topic:
I have seen amazon, the swedish krone, and a lot of other crazy things. Ecomomy is definitly not science, it is religion. It is based on subjective feelings. It is also based on traders that needs to justify going to work 8 hours a day, trading based on the most minute reports that noone care about.

Economy is part science, part religion. There are certainly scientific aspects and studies of markets and economies. Furthermore, the religious belief in economies is partially based on facts and science. Economies with secure access to raw materials like coal and iron ore, ocean ports, etc. are scientifically shown to perform better than landlocked economies without, both in modern terms and in a long history.

Even if you had all the variables you would still fail to calculate the economy, because we are also dealing with, in parts, cunning people trying to make a quick buck.

And yet, people still believe in human-caused CO2 based global warming despite the failure of all models used to accurately predict temperature trends. Sorry, but this could be said of any complex system - it does not mean that general trends and projections cannot be made without a relatively high degree of certainty.

The economy is more than what you think of it. It is also what caused you to think that way in the first place.

[teflor the ranger]

When I read that all I can think about is the most current economic near-collapse. I have a number of friends in the business world and have read many editorials that suggest we were on the verge of a catastrophic collapse that may have taken many years to climb out of. Then I play that off the Malcolm Gladwell Outliers book, in which he talks about how critical timing is in the great capitalist stories of our country. My businesses are in an industry that was booming five years ago and now is outpacing the baseline, but I have to work very hard. I understand what Tef is saying about access to credit because I couldn't start my business today...they is no business credit to be had. OTOH, is that chaotic credit-happy climate truly conducive to business if there is such a pronounced boom and bust cycle?

Essentially what I am saying is that Todrael is making extremely thoughtful points, imo. I appreciate the articulation.

In part, I am very sympathetic to strong government action to prevent a collapse of our system, as that is a true interstate issue and a matter that the Federal government is best positioned to handle. My big issue is with how it is being handled - by socialist leaning wealth redistributionists that want to spend your money until it runs out and then borrow until your children's children's money runs out in order to win votes.

One of the biggest issues with the capitalist system is that it is indeed subject or highly vulnerable to certain natural human tendencies, like the bandwagon effect, and others that lead to the boom-bust cycle. The boom-bust cycle is so human that it appears throughout human history in all sorts of governments and societies.

Observe this current bust cycle with a careful eye. Do a crap ton of people still buy iPhones and brand new cars? The answer is yes. So how pronounced is it really? Are Americans still grossly overweight? Do they still have nearly as many televisions as there are people? Even for those suffering because of the downturn, those that find themselves in the 10.2% unemployed, or those who have recently lost their homes (note: the vast and wide majority of people still have their homes, some are even trading up to take advantage of falling house prices), are they really falling off the map? Perhaps a small percentage. So how pronounced is this cycle?

You really have to compare what our economy looks like through our boom-bust cycle to other non-capitalist economies that don't exhibit as strong a boom-bust cycle as we have. You'll see that, even with our upswings and downswings, our general trend is to grow faster and harder than any other economy in the world over the last half a century. This is no accident and it is no mistake. Although we're vulnerable to that natural boom-bust cycle, the overall effect has been strong growth and expansion.

Our future, however looks upon different terrain. Particularly one in which many more labor jobs can and will be replaced by intelligent machines. It is hard for even the studied to say what may happen to us now.

[Sarvis]

Even for those suffering because of the downturn, those that find themselves in the 10.2% unemployed, ... are they really falling off the map? Perhaps a small percentage. So how pronounced is this cycle?

No, they are not falling off the map. Why? Because we have government programs in place to help them. Unemployment and welfare keep people "on the map" and are a big reason why our downturn is so minor.

[teflor the ranger]

Even for those suffering because of the downturn, those that find themselves in the 10.2% unemployed, ... are they really falling off the map? Perhaps a small percentage. So how pronounced is this cycle?

No, they are not falling off the map. Why? Because we have government programs in place to help them. Unemployment and welfare keep people "on the map" and are a big reason why our downturn is so minor.

Again, this is a small percentage of the people. Also, just because certain government programs help some people, it does not mean that they don't do more harm than good. Of course, welfare and unemployment are important programs, one just has to wonder if the same job couldn't be done better with less (yes, we can).

[fobble]

Even for those suffering because of the downturn, those that find themselves in the 10.2% unemployed, ... are they really falling off the map? Perhaps a small percentage. So how pronounced is this cycle?

No, they are not falling off the map. Why? Because we have government programs in place to help them. Unemployment and welfare keep people "on the map" and are a big reason why our downturn is so minor.

Again, this is a small percentage of the people. Also, just because certain government programs help some people, it does not mean that they don't do more harm than good. Of course, welfare and unemployment are important programs, one just has to wonder if the same job couldn't be done better with less (yes, we can).

No comment on discussion between you two. Just wanted to inject stats for your discussions.

Fact is 10.2% is the official number. However if you look at u-6 from us dept of labor's stats (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm).

"U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached
workers, plus total employed part time for
economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian
labor force plus all marginally attached workers.. 17.5"

In layman's words...17.5% is number of who are in trouble. It also does not include people who have given up looking for job. If you research into it, you'll see a number being thrown around 2-3% of our labor force given up looking for job. Add 2-3% plus 17.5% which means 18-20% of our labor is in trouble or given up looking for job. Depending on perspectives, 10.2% being 1 out of 10 people out of job (official stats) or 1 out of 5 being in trouble/given up.

[teflor the ranger]

No comment on discussion between you two. Just wanted to inject stats for your discussions.

Fact is 10.2% is the official number. However if you look at u-6 from us dept of labor's stats (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm).

"U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached
workers, plus total employed part time for
economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian
labor force plus all marginally attached workers.. 17.5"

In layman's words...17.5% is number of who are in trouble. It also does not include people who have given up looking for job. If you research into it, you'll see a number being thrown around 2-3% of our labor force given up looking for job. Add 2-3% plus 17.5% which means 18-20% of our labor is in trouble or given up looking for job. Depending on perspectives, 10.2% being 1 out of 10 people out of job (official stats) or 1 out of 5 being in trouble/given up.

Being underemployed or unemployed is not necessarily a sign of trouble. Particularly if you consider that there are now more women in the American workforce than men. Don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone that is underemployed or unemployed is "in trouble" because you're discounting a number of second, non-primary household income folks.

One should also not ignore the fact that there is a far larger percentage of marginally attached and unattached workers in other relatively healthy, productive economies, such as many nations in Europe.

[kiryan]

There are a lot of things I really agreed with in your first post Tod.

Here is another subtley I'd like to add to your comparison of Democrats and Republicans. Republicans believe that when you are dependent on the state you become more dependent on the state. We want people to be healthy and have decent lives and not get screwed, we even want to help you on an individual basis of our own choice. We fundamentally disagree that the state should and needs to take more and more control to provide for everyone else's irresponsible behaviors. This only leads to more and more irresponsible behavior because the government is always bailing you out of your bad decisions. Its moral hazard on a personal level.

I like the new credit card act in principle, it is sorely needed given where we are today. A society of irresponsible people mired in debt bound by onerous terms. The credit card act is a good fix for the time in my opinion, it bans some ridiculous practices but it does not address the root problems. Personal responsibility.

Also, it also creates a new problem, which is restriction of credit to poor people. Poor people will stop getting credit cards. Just like they used to be unable to buy houses. Give it 5, 10, 50 years and we'll be back here passing a law that forces credit card companies to give credit to poor people who can't afford it and are too irresponsible to use it. Then we'll have the fannie mae and Freddie Mac of credit cards and a public option to create risk pools (meaning I pay more for my credit because irresponsible people are entitled to affordable credit cards).

We shouldn't be here. This is a problem created by irresponsible people signing irresponsible agreements. This is not a matter of stupid people, its a matter of irresponsible people. Who doesn't understand, we can raise your rates at any time for any reason? Why would you ever sign anything like that? Because you want something right now and you know the government is going to protect you.

[Ragorn]

As for changing the terms of the contract "at any time, for any reason", thats ridiculous. Like I mentioned several times, the credit card companies had to essentially ask permission to change the terms. If you rejected the change of terms then the repayment would be pursuant to the initial agreement. You just wouldn't be able to borrow more money on that account.

Prior to the CARD Act, credit card companies CAN and DID change the terms of your credit agreement based on a number of obscured factors. And they didn't have to seek your permission or receive your signature on the new terms... they simply changed the terms, notated the change somewhere in the fine print of your paper statement, and accepted your inevitable silence as tacit agreement of the new terms. If you were a responsible enough consumer to scan all of your credit card literature for changes to your existing contract, you probably would have noticed the change. But there's an argument about whether it's reasonable to allow credit card companies to make contract changes via implied consent... shouldn't they require the customer's signature before the new terms take effect?

I believe strongly in personal responsibility, but I also believe that corporations have an unfair advantage of power in most consumer relationships. If we allow corporations to operate unregulated by the government, we inevitably reach an outcome where the consumer is marginalized. I believe it's necessary for the government to step in in some cases... trustbusting, for one. I support the CARD Act. I also think it's time the government helped corporations do away with mandatory binding arbitration, because that's another area where the law and the common practice is designed to defeat the consumer in 99% of cases.

[kiryan]

Why is this true?

"... I also believe that corporations have an unfair advantage of power in most consumer relationships. ..." Because we sign away our rights in a very irresponsible fashion. Corporations don't have power (at least not until Obama requires you to buy health insurance), we do. You don't have to buy their product or sign their agreements, but you do have to do without if you are unwilling to accept their terms or their prices.

It amazes me that peole feel like they are forced into unfavorable agreements. You can't be forced to sign something, you have to choose to give your rights away by signing something. Blame whatever you want, but when it comes down to it, you choose and its this way because very few take their rights seriously and very few will walk away from a deal that gets them what they want in the short term.

[Sarvis]

Why is this true?

"... I also believe that corporations have an unfair advantage of power in most consumer relationships. ..." Because we sign away our rights in a very irresponsible fashion. Corporations don't have power (at least not until Obama requires you to buy health insurance), we do. You don't have to buy their product or sign their agreements, but you do have to do without if you are unwilling to accept their terms or their prices.

It amazes me that peole feel like they are forced into unfavorable agreements. You can't be forced to sign something, you have to choose to give your rights away by signing something. Blame whatever you want, but when it comes down to it, you choose and its this way because very few take their rights seriously and very few will walk away from a deal that gets them what they want in the short term.

Part it is that most of us don't have 3 hours to sit around with a magnifying glass to read all the terms and conditions. Frankly, 90% of the time any contract's are a joke. Salesguy/nurse/receptionist hands you a 3 page document filled with small print and stands there tapping their foot impatiently while waiting for you to sign it. Compound that with everything being written in language you literally need special training to understand properly (lucky Corth) and there's a snowball's chance in hell of people _actually_ understanding what they are signing up for.

I love things like Microsoft's EULA's that specify they can change the terms of the EULA without notice at any time they want... so basically agreeing to the current text of the EULA means agreeing to any changes they make in the future.

But nah, let's not keep credit card companies from pulling THAT kind of contract magic! It'd be silly.

[Ragorn]

Why is this true?

"... I also believe that corporations have an unfair advantage of power in most consumer relationships. ..." Because we sign away our rights in a very irresponsible fashion. Corporations don't have power (at least not until Obama requires you to buy health insurance), we do. You don't have to buy their product or sign their agreements, but you do have to do without if you are unwilling to accept their terms or their prices.

It amazes me that peole feel like they are forced into unfavorable agreements. You can't be forced to sign something, you have to choose to give your rights away by signing something. Blame whatever you want, but when it comes down to it, you choose and its this way because very few take their rights seriously and very few will walk away from a deal that gets them what they want in the short term.

Take mandatory binding arbitration for example. I challenge you to show me one credit card publicly available that does not enforce mandatory binding arbitration in cases of contract dispute. You have no power, kiryan. You have several options, all of them bad, because the industry providers are all too happy to make consumer-unfriendly practices the "business standard."

Your solution, of course, is "you don't have to have a credit card if you don't like the terms." That's certainly a valid opinion for you to have, and you're welcome to support it with your vote. My opinion is "government should oversee these companies and ensure that they don't collectively enforce anti-consumer practices." I want to have a credit card, I want the terms of the contract to be consistent and fair, and I want to have the right to take the company to court if they break their contract.

[kiryan]

I understand the power you are talkign about, the power that we gave the corporations over the past 100 years by agreeing to more and more onerous terms to the point today there is no credit card that I know of that doesn't have a binding arbitration clause. We gave them that power, we allowed the industry to move in that direction with our implicit agreement.

You still have the ultimate power of choice.

--

but despite arguing with you, I do agree with you... One area I do get pissed off is in bank check cashing fees. If I walk into a Wells Fargo and try to cash a check drawn off a Wells Fargo account... they can refuse to cash the check unless I pay a fee. I have no idea how this is fucking legal because you don't have any kind of contract with the bank (well i do, cuz the government regulates checks). You are just some guy who has a check to cash. When I studied business law 20 years ago, I could've sworn this would've been illegal. You used to literally be in your right to take a crayon and write a check on a dirty napkin (there are a handful of requirements for a valid check), present it at the bank and get paid. Now you can't even take a legitimate check in and get it cashed without paying them.

Another is deposit charges. Businesses pay a percentage of every dollar they deposit to the bank. I don't think you could even establish a bank that doesn't charge this fee because since all the banks charge to handle money, you wouldn't be able to work with the other banks without going broke.

[Sarvis]

I have no idea how this is fucking legal because you don't have any kind of contract with the bank

You tacitly agree to the fee by cashing the check.

This is where the consumer lacks any power. You only have one option: don't use the service/product.

[kiryan]

In that particular situation, yea you really don't have any power other than to demand to be paid in cash. Even signing over the check to a 3rd party has become illegal in many states I believe which boggles my mind since I thought the law / banking regulations required banks to accept properly endorsed checks. I think a lot of financial laws / regulations were changed after 9/11 to make money more trackable.

[Corth]

I want to have a credit card, I want the terms of the contract to be consistent and fair, and I want to have the right to take the company to court if they break their contract.

I want a harem with 68 virgins.

Over the years that we have been shooting the shit on this forum I have gotten the impression that you are more or less a well adjusted and ethical human being. I'm quite certain you wouldn't just walk up to someone on the street and start making demands upon them. I want you to clean my kitchen. Fix my car. Pick up my kid from school. That sort of thing.

But for some reason, this same conduct is alright when it comes to corporations. I want you to lend me money, without any security interest in any of my assets, at an interest rate I deem reasonable (despite my changing credit situation and the varying cost of credit for the credit card company), with the right to sue you instead of accept an arbitration procedure. I'm no fan of the credit card companies - but quite frankly, if you don't agree to their terms, don't get a freaking credit card. Really quite simple. You aren't entitled to it by virtue of being alive.

As for changing the terms. Again, anyone who disagreed with the term change could reject it and pay back their loan at the previous agreed upon terms. This is no big secret. Unlike a lot of the people on this forum, I generally believe that people aren't stupid. The change of term letters, at least the ones I've received, were usually no longer then 3 paragraphs and were really quite simple to read and understand.

[Sarvis]

I want to have a credit card, I want the terms of the contract to be consistent and fair, and I want to have the right to take the company to court if they break their contract.

I want a harem with 68 virgins.

Over the years that we have been shooting the shit on this forum I have gotten the impression that you are more or less a well adjusted and ethical human being. I'm quite certain you wouldn't just walk up to someone on the street and start making demands upon them. I want you to clean my kitchen. Fix my car. Pick up my kid from school. That sort of thing.

But for some reason, this same conduct is alright when it comes to corporations.

Well, yes Corth it is. That's because there are businesses to fix your car, c lean your kitchen and bring your kid home from school. You pay them to do what you want. That is how corporations are different. One of the ways, anyway.

I want you to lend me money, without any security interest in any of my assets, at an interest rate I deem reasonable (despite my changing credit situation and the varying cost of credit for the credit card company), with the right to sue you instead of accept an arbitration procedure. I'm no fan of the credit card companies - but quite frankly, if you don't agree to their terms, don't get a freaking credit card. Really quite simple. You aren't entitled to it by virtue of being alive.

Let's put this on a different scale, Corth, since you appear to not be paying attention to the issue. Let's say you hire your neighbor to babysit and she agrees to do it for $15/hr. You expect to be 3 hours, but traffic holds you up and you get back after 3.5 hours. Your neighbor is waiting at the door with a lawyer and a piece of paper saying the terms have changed. You're now paying $20/hr PLUS a $20 late fee. The lawyer is there for the forced binding arbitration you tacitly agreed to when you hired her as a babysitter.

Can you honestly imagine that? Do you honestly think one person would do that to another face to face? You want us to think of Corporations as people, but they are not. Few neighbors would be so callous. Even small businesses have a tendency to be more fair, as their reputation in a local community is far more important.

For a corporation though? It doesn't matter. They can screw over a thousand people, bankrupt them and ruin their lives entirely... and a million more customers will never hear about it. 5,000 Corth's who have never missed a payment or had financial trouble for an emergency will talk about how fair that company is while they bilk 1,000 people with fees hidden in fine print or charged on top of each other. (Charging an overlimit fee for a late fee is my personal favorite!) Their reputation will never look worse than any competitor, who will be doing the same thing.

As for changing the terms. Again, anyone who disagreed with the term change could reject it and pay back their loan at the previous agreed upon terms. This is no big secret.

Really? I never knew that. Do you think the banks put it in ultra-large print on the front of each agreement change or something?

Unlike a lot of the people on this forum, I generally believe that people aren't stupid. The change of term letters, at least the ones I've received, were usually no longer then 3 paragraphs and were really quite simple to read and understand.

Really? I've gotten a couple, and it basically boiled down to a note saying these were the new terms and a pamphlet to replace the original one. Meaning I'd have to re-read the entire Legaleze document and compare it to the old one to even see what changed. Luckily APR is generally printed larger, so easier to spot... but any other changes would be difficult to notice. Especially for those of us who, unlike you, are not used to reading legal documents. Those things are not written to be read by regular people, and it's not a matter of intelligence. We both know lawyers write things in a specific way so as to avoid ambiguity prevalent in normal writing, and that makes it difficult for most people to understand.

[Todrael]

No person has a "right" to force a corporation to provide good service. Or quality service. Or really, any service at all. Likewise, those corporations simply must abide by the agreements they make with their customers. People will vote with their wallets.

And yet, when it is more profitable not to provide service... when it is more profitable to provide totally crap service... then pretty much every surviving business will be in the business of not providing service, or providing crap service. Because those are the only companies that will succeed (produce the most profit). You aren't their target market, after all. And if you can't find a single credit card that works for you? Well. You're too smart - you actually read your statements. No, it's far more profitable to provide crap service to the idiot down the street who pays late fees every month.