|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| We disagree on the means and not the ends. I feel that Credit Card companies should fully back all their credit lines with deposits and preferably something tangible. You think by making a law with a populist tint, everything will be okay. |
I consider this law (or one like it) necessary, but not sufficient, for proper credit reform. I decidedly do not feel this "populist tinted law" on it's own will make everything okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| We disagree on the means and not the ends. I feel that Credit Card companies should fully back all their credit lines with deposits and preferably something tangible. You think by making a law with a populist tint, everything will be okay. |
I consider this law (or one like it) necessary, but not sufficient, for proper credit reform. I decidedly do not feel this "populist tinted law" on it's own will make everything okay. |
What would be sufficient to make everything OK? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| We disagree on the means and not the ends. I feel that Credit Card companies should fully back all their credit lines with deposits and preferably something tangible. You think by making a law with a populist tint, everything will be okay. |
I consider this law (or one like it) necessary, but not sufficient, for proper credit reform. I decidedly do not feel this "populist tinted law" on it's own will make everything okay. |
What would be sufficient to make everything OK? |
Are you saying that in order to defend this particular bill I must provide an entire framework of reforms outside of the bill up for discussion that would, "make everything okay" collectively? Or are you just asking out of curiosity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| We disagree on the means and not the ends. I feel that Credit Card companies should fully back all their credit lines with deposits and preferably something tangible. You think by making a law with a populist tint, everything will be okay. |
I consider this law (or one like it) necessary, but not sufficient, for proper credit reform. I decidedly do not feel this "populist tinted law" on it's own will make everything okay. |
What would be sufficient to make everything OK? |
Are you saying that in order to defend this particular bill I must provide an entire framework of reforms outside of the bill up for discussion that would, "make everything okay" collectively? Or are you just asking out of curiosity? |
Mostly curiosity. Obviously I wouldn't expect you to outline the entire policy structure for something as complex as credit card regulation. Although I would be interested to know what your next step would be. As well as why you think it would be better than letting the market sort it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
My next step would be the elimination of the fees credit companies charge businesses when credit cards are used to pay those businesses. As things stand, every time you pay with a credit card at a place of business, the credit card company -- in addition to any fees or interest you are charged -- charges that place of business a not inconsiderable fee.
Realistically speaking, the vast majority of businesses cannot avoid offering credit payment options because of how entrenched credit cards have become in our society; almost all of us use them, and almost all of us expect to be able to use them. Therefore, they simply must pay these fees, which in turn means they have to raise their prices to make up for it, which in turn is paid by us all. Even if you don't use credit cards at all, this results in you subsidizing credit companies to some extent with every purchase.
By banning these fees, credit companies would be forced to make up these costs where the costs should have been in the first place: in the monthly bills of credit card holders. The price you pay each month (which would be higher) would be more accurately reflect the true cost of the service involved, and the higher cost involved would make credit less desirable overall, which is good. In addition to the benefit of reducing total credit in our society, small businesses and those who do not use credit cards at all would also benefit for obvious reasons.
As to why I feel this cannot be solved by the free market, I'm driven to ask is where would the reform come from? Most consumers are very uninformed regarding this topic, and consumers are the only realistic potential source of non-governmental reform on this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Market forces are already rectifying the situation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104752340070801.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
People are using debit cards for most of their plastic based transactions.
The horse has already bolted. What can regulation hope to do now? Except worsen the situation. Policy makers are great at creating solutions to problems where the damage has been done, but where were they back in 2001 when this all started?
All that regulation will do is further cripple companies that will have huge defaulting loan books anyway. As per the article that I posted this morning, fees will rise for those who use cards responsibly while those who caused the problem take a rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| My next step would be the elimination of the fees credit companies charge businesses when credit cards are used to pay those businesses. As things stand, every time you pay with a credit card at a place of business, the credit card company -- in addition to any fees or interest you are charged -- charges that place of business a not inconsiderable fee. |
Since when was charging for a service a crime? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My next step would be the elimination of the fees credit companies charge businesses when credit cards are used to pay those businesses. As things stand, every time you pay with a credit card at a place of business, the credit card company -- in addition to any fees or interest you are charged -- charges that place of business a not inconsiderable fee. |
Since when was charging for a service a crime? |
It's not, and I think they should be able to charge for it. The bill should just go to the proper recipients: the holder of the card. By charging the business these fees instead of the card holder, they charge all of us, even those of us who don't pay using a card, because businesses must pass along those costs, and they do that by raising prices. It's just another deceptive way of hiding the true cost of the service they're providing from the people using the service.
In reality, all this proposed regulation would do is show consumers how much using credit cards is really costing us, and prevent those who don't use credit cards from having to subsidize those who do. It in no way prevents credit card companies from charging however much they want, they just need to charge the actual consumers borrowing from them, not our entire society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
The political establishment knew all along the risk of allowing personal debt to run up. However, they stood aside for the sake of political expediency. Now that the horse has bolted, they ride in all guns blazing, to save the day.
Forgive me if I seem cynical, but to advocate a govt solution to every ill, is to me, trite and foolish. The market is already repairing the "problem", foolish legislation can only impede the remedy.
Your country wasn't built by the government and it won't be rebuilt by it either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Forgive me if I seem cynical, but to advocate a govt solution to every ill, is to me, trite and foolish. |
We're advocating a gov't regulation to a particular set of ills, confined to the credit card industry. We're not erecting socialism.
The credit card companies were targeting the young and unemployed, particularly on college campuses.
As it is, the bill passed the Senate.
| Quote: |
| The overwhelming bipartisan vote of 90-5 was lawmakers' way of telling Americans that they haven't been forgotten amid a recession that has left hundreds of thousands jobless or facing foreclosure. |
| Quote: |
| the Senate bill requires anyone under 21 seeking a credit card to prove first that they can repay the money or that a parent or guardian is willing to pay off their debt if they default. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^
Who cares?
People are moving away from credit cards anyway so the bill is largely irrelevant. It's politically useful to look like you are doing something but what effect will it really have? Except for make credit cards useless? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The bill may very well pass. However, I remain very skeptical. Like I said, Congress is simply just plugging a hole. The problem will just arise elsewhere. What do we do then?
We have to get to the Gordian knot of this whole issue which is monetary policy. The fed continues on with its ZIRP + quantitative easing (unlimited credit for wall street and monetizing US Gov't debt). Once the money velocity speeds up again, a bubble will expand, grow and pop somewhere else. Then we'll be right where we are now, only in worse shape. We'll be in worse shape because debt will be much much higher. I've got no faith in the fed to do the right thing; they won't raise interest rates in time. They'll do so only after it's too late. It's the same with the rest of the central banks around the world. The money supply cartel will fall behind in tightening the monetary spigot as well. The world will see even more debt.
So, yes, there will be less credit cards, but where will the bubble pop next? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
^
Who cares?
People are moving away from credit cards anyway so the bill is largely irrelevant. It's politically useful to look like you are doing something but what effect will it really have? Except for make credit cards useless? |
Credit cards were using the arcane language of credit card agreements to bump more people into Universal Default as a way to raise rates. Universal Default are those ~ 29.9% maximum rates.
More Banks Using Universal Default to Hike Interest Rates (August 2005)
Banks And Credit Card Issuers Increase Interest Rates On Consumer Credit Cards (Feb 2009)
| Capital One wrote: |
| "Default Annual Percentage Rate (APR): A variable rate equal to 29.4% as of 1/28/209. Your default APR may vary monthly. the rate will b determined by adding 26.15% to the Prime rate. If we receive your payment three or more days after your payment due date twice within any 12 billing periods, we may increase your APRs immediately to the above Default APR." |
In the documentary Maxed Out it is alleged that credit card employees hold onto mail arriving early and in some cases throw them out completely.
Senate Bill Restricts Use of Universal Default
[quote]card issuers would be allowed to retroactively bump up rates for any borrower at least 60 days behind on payments. However, if the borrower subsequently paid on time for six months, the card issuer would have to restore the original rate.
Senate OKs bill to rein in Credit Card Industry
| Quote: |
The bill also would prohibit card issuers from increasing rates during the first year a credit card account was opened and would require them to get a customer's permission to process transactions that would push the account balance over the credit limit. Another provision would require card issuers to post credit card agreements online.
Lenders would have to post their credit card agreements on the Internet and let customers pay their bills online or by phone without an added fee. They'd also have to give consumers a chance to spare themselves from over-the-limit fees and provide 45 days notice and an explanation before interest rates are increased. |
Universal default is still an option, only when the consumer genuinely defaults. And forcing credit card companies to allow bills to be paid online or by phone without a fee means they can no longer engage in their old tricks. And credit cards cannot hide the ball, but must warn consumers before rates are increased.
This bill makes a difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This bill makes a difference. |
I'm sure it will make some difference to the special interests it is targeted at, and no doubt go some way to buying their vote. But you (and others, obviously) are ignoring the bigger picture. There are people that will be negatively affected by this bill. What if they have more taken from them than, the people who this bill benefit, gain. Is that a good outcome?
Just because something seems "reasonable", doesn't make it right. And it shines a light on the many hundreds of less high profile bills that seem reasonable as they benefit some special group but have a negative net benefit to society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This bill makes a difference. |
I'm sure it will make some difference to the special interests it is targeted at, and no doubt go some way to buying their vote. But you (and others, obviously) are ignoring the bigger picture. There are people that will be negatively affected by this bill. What if they have more taken from them than, the people who this bill benefit, gain. Is that a good outcome?
Just because something seems "reasonable", doesn't make it right. And it shines a light on the many hundreds of less high profile bills that seem reasonable as they benefit some special group but have a negative net benefit to society. |
I'm not ignoring the bigger picture. This thread is about Credit Card reform. I'm talking about Credit Card reform.
If you want my stance on the bigger picture, peruse other threads.
But there are many Americans trapped in Universal Default because of predatory and unseemly practices. This act is aimed towards them.
Who is going to be negatively affected by this bill? The credit card companies? I think even that is arguable, considering these predatory practices are not helping their long-term goodwill.
Most of the limitations enacted are reasonable and restrained, which is a good sign. But good luck trying to paint me as some sort of statist reactionary. It won't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|