• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Why Trump must win

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,818
2,923
126
I still believe Trump is epically trolling the Republican Party and the under-educated.
He's definitely trolling, hard to tell for what end though. Could be to prevent the Republicans from winning or to seriously become President, who knows what he'd do then. He could be as wrecklessly swaggering as he is now or he could be very reasonable and middle of the road. There's only one way to find out, if people are willing to gamble.
 

gururu2

Senior member
Oct 14, 2007
686
1
81
He's definitely trolling, hard to tell for what end though. Could be to prevent the Republicans from winning or to seriously become President, who knows what he'd do then. He could be as wrecklessly swaggering as he is now or he could be very reasonable and middle of the road. There's only one way to find out, if people are willing to gamble.
You cant really be a raving lunatic and run a huge empire like his. Behind closed doors, I bet he really does extremely well. Not just that, but many fail to see how successful his children have been. They aren't your typical Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie or Kardashians. There is something substantial underlying his responsibilities and actions. He is not a politician, so he is unaccustomed to public speaking, particularly when he seems as frustrated and angry with the Fed as his supporters. I can look past his language but I refuse to look past what he has done. Some look at his record and get stuck on the bankruptcies and the university. He is an entrepreneur, probably starting/owning/investing in hundreds of businesses. Some businesses fail, that is the reality.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,818
2,923
126
You cant really be a raving lunatic and run a huge empire like his. Behind closed doors, I bet he really does extremely well. Not just that, but many fail to see how successful his children have been. They aren't your typical Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie or Kardashians. There is something substantial underlying his responsibilities and actions. He is not a politician, so he is unaccustomed to public speaking, particularly when he seems as frustrated and angry with the Fed as his supporters. I can look past his language but I refuse to look past what he has done. Some look at his record and get stuck on the bankruptcies and the university. He is an entrepreneur, probably starting/owning/investing in hundreds of businesses. Some businesses fail, that is the reality.
I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that you really don't know what you will get with a Trump Presidency. He may not actually be a lunatic, but he he might be GW Bush, H Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or someone else in regards to policy and, so far at least, you wouldn't know until he took office.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,128
18,900
136
You cant really be a raving lunatic and run a huge empire like his. Behind closed doors, I bet he really does extremely well. Not just that, but many fail to see how successful his children have been. They aren't your typical Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie or Kardashians. There is something substantial underlying his responsibilities and actions. He is not a politician, so he is unaccustomed to public speaking, particularly when he seems as frustrated and angry with the Fed as his supporters. I can look past his language but I refuse to look past what he has done. Some look at his record and get stuck on the bankruptcies and the university. He is an entrepreneur, probably starting/owning/investing in hundreds of businesses. Some businesses fail, that is the reality.
You can absolutely be a raving lunatic and have a business empire. Just look at Howard Hughes. In fact, that's a great comparison as both people were viewed as self made business geniuses despite owing their wealth in large part to massive inheritance.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
This thread isn't about Warren, but honestly this is one of those times that I would assume whatever I thought was wrong vs. Warren being wrong. I read the article her quote came from and I think you didn't fully understand what she was attempting to convey.
But that doesn't explain the way she feigns confusion about credit cards. She'll throw her hands up in an interview and say it's too difficult to understand, everything is buried in small print, etc. She's a smart woman, and she definitely knows it's not as complicated as she is trying to make it seem. Something about it rubs me in a very negative way. I get the same vibe from her that I got from Ted Cruz when Ted was explaining why he likes country music. It's that fake appeal to emotion.

I mentioned Michael Moore because he does the exact same thing. He'll pretend to be confused and try to convey a feeling that the system is too complicated to understand, and this complexity is why we need a bigger and more intrusive government. Once again referring to Capitalism: A Love Story, think of the scene where Michael Moore is asking someone to explain what a derivative is. Rather than focusing on the guy explaining it, the camera focuses on Michael's confused look. That's the manipulation. Michael is confused; therefore, the viewer should be confused as well. Elizabeth Warren is an educated woman who knows a lot about finance, and she is confused; therefore, I should be confused as well.

It comes across as fake because no other informed person acts like that. If you brought this issue to a guy like Donald Trump, he would probably say "Well of course the interest rate can change every month. That's how credit works. Everyone knows this." The people who understand a system assume that most people understand that system. When she's on TV talking about how things with variable interest rates can have rates that are variable, people who know anything about finance see that as being on the same level as telling people to turn off their computer before changing the CPU. Like, what? Why is this person saying something everyone already knows? Is she a moron who just learned about this? Is she trolling us? Or is she doing the classic politician thing of creating hysteria just for the sake of passing draconian laws?
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
135
106
What good are presidents for anymore?
Presidents are there to serve globalist interests. That means running massive deficits, dragging the country into quagmire after quagmire, signing every job-killing trade deal that comes across his desk, signing every corporate handout bill that comes across his desk, running guns, drugs and money for drug lords, and reading a frickin teleprompter. That is why they want Hillary... Hillary is far more likely to do as she is bid. Trump is a relative wildcard.
 

gururu2

Senior member
Oct 14, 2007
686
1
81
Presidents are there to serve globalist interests. That means running massive deficits, dragging the country into quagmire after quagmire, signing every job-killing trade deal that comes across his desk, signing every corporate handout bill that comes across his desk, running guns, drugs and money for drug lords, and reading a frickin teleprompter. That is why they want Hillary... Hillary is far more likely to do as she is bid. Trump is a relative wildcard.
that is scarily funny
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
But that doesn't explain the way she feigns confusion about credit cards. She'll throw her hands up in an interview and say it's too difficult to understand, everything is buried in small print, etc. She's a smart woman, and she definitely knows it's not as complicated as she is trying to make it seem. Something about it rubs me in a very negative way. I get the same vibe from her that I got from Ted Cruz when Ted was explaining why he likes country music. It's that fake appeal to emotion.

I mentioned Michael Moore because he does the exact same thing. He'll pretend to be confused and try to convey a feeling that the system is too complicated to understand, and this complexity is why we need a bigger and more intrusive government. Once again referring to Capitalism: A Love Story, think of the scene where Michael Moore is asking someone to explain what a derivative is. Rather than focusing on the guy explaining it, the camera focuses on Michael's confused look. That's the manipulation. Michael is confused; therefore, the viewer should be confused as well. Elizabeth Warren is an educated woman who knows a lot about finance, and she is confused; therefore, I should be confused as well.

It comes across as fake because no other informed person acts like that. If you brought this issue to a guy like Donald Trump, he would probably say "Well of course the interest rate can change every month. That's how credit works. Everyone knows this." The people who understand a system assume that most people understand that system. When she's on TV talking about how things with variable interest rates can have rates that are variable, people who know anything about finance see that as being on the same level as telling people to turn off their computer before changing the CPU. Like, what? Why is this person saying something everyone already knows? Is she a moron who just learned about this? Is she trolling us? Or is she doing the classic politician thing of creating hysteria just for the sake of passing draconian laws?
She is also against the gov making money on student loans.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,157
582
126
But that doesn't explain the way she feigns confusion about credit cards. She'll throw her hands up in an interview and say it's too difficult to understand, everything is buried in small print, etc. She's a smart woman, and she definitely knows it's not as complicated as she is trying to make it seem. Something about it rubs me in a very negative way. I get the same vibe from her that I got from Ted Cruz when Ted was explaining why he likes country music. It's that fake appeal to emotion.

I mentioned Michael Moore because he does the exact same thing. He'll pretend to be confused and try to convey a feeling that the system is too complicated to understand, and this complexity is why we need a bigger and more intrusive government. Once again referring to Capitalism: A Love Story, think of the scene where Michael Moore is asking someone to explain what a derivative is. Rather than focusing on the guy explaining it, the camera focuses on Michael's confused look. That's the manipulation. Michael is confused; therefore, the viewer should be confused as well. Elizabeth Warren is an educated woman who knows a lot about finance, and she is confused; therefore, I should be confused as well.

It comes across as fake because no other informed person acts like that. If you brought this issue to a guy like Donald Trump, he would probably say "Well of course the interest rate can change every month. That's how credit works. Everyone knows this." The people who understand a system assume that most people understand that system. When she's on TV talking about how things with variable interest rates can have rates that are variable, people who know anything about finance see that as being on the same level as telling people to turn off their computer before changing the CPU. Like, what? Why is this person saying something everyone already knows? Is she a moron who just learned about this? Is she trolling us? Or is she doing the classic politician thing of creating hysteria just for the sake of passing draconian laws?
Didn't want to get into this since this isn't what this topic is on, but she isn't talking about simple variable interest rates. She is talking about the practice of default rates or hiking your interest rates based not on how you pay back the credit card you have, but on what your credit profile looks like months or years after you received the credit card (default on another loan/credit card).

And she is right. The credit card agreements are complex and the practices of these companies were shady. ex. choice of law provisions in credit card agreements, Arbitration clauses (not being able to sue them in court), having due dates on Sundays, yet not allowing payments to be made on Sundays, the act of not allowing the higher interest amounts to be paid off first, etc. etc. Some of these things were changed because of the new Agency she spearheaded.

Now, back to Warren. Warren taught Bankruptcy Law at Harvard Law School (I mention that, because that is the ultimate nerd job) and is a well respected financial expert. When she says something that I may think is wrong (me not being an expert in the area), I would more easily believe I have a lack of understanding on the topic or what she is talking about, moreso than she has a lack of understanding on it.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Didn't want to get into this since this isn't what this topic is on
We're turning a worthless Trump thread into an interesting one :cool:

but she isn't talking about simple variable interest rates. She is talking about the practice of default rates or hiking your interest rates based not on how you pay back the credit card you have, but on what your credit profile looks like months or years after you received the credit card (default on another loan/credit card).
But what she's saying is common knowledge, so it's puzzling why someone would even bother to mention it. I want you to test this. Ask your friends, coworkers, and relatives 1 simple question: does your credit rating affect the interest rates on your debts? It's a simple yes or no question. I'm almost certain every single person you ask will say the same thing - yes credit score affects interest rates. If your credit score deteriorates, everyone knows that this can potentially cause the interest rates on all of your debts to rise when those debts are rolled over. Since credit card debt rolls over every month, that means the interest rates on credit cards will change from month to month. It's not a secret. You will be hard pressed to find 1 adult not aware of this.

It reminds me of that Summer of the Shark thing that happened in 2001. There was all of this media hysteria about shark attacks, and it was done for the sake of scaring people. It's not like sharks were a mystery up until then. Humans are aware that sharks exist, and sharks sometimes kill humans, so what was the point of creating that hysteria? Yes we know sharks are dangerous. Yes we know credit card debt is rolled over on a monthly basis. Tell us something new.


And she is right. The credit card agreements are complex and the practices of these companies were shady. ex. choice of law provisions in credit card agreements, Arbitration clauses (not being able to sue them in court), having due dates on Sundays, yet not allowing payments to be made on Sundays,
They're long, but I wouldn't say the agreements are complex. People lie and claim they are complex to cover for the fact that people don't read the agreement at all. People also say this about mortgage agreements. I read every line of my mortgage and car loan agreements, and it's very clear what is expected. It says how the loan works, who owns the property, how the interest is calculated, how payments can be made, what the prepayment penalties are, and so on. The mortgage agreement was rather interesting because it had all kinds of terms I didn't expect. For example, it says they are allowed to kick me out of the home and sell the property if I fail to maintain a source of potable water (drinking water). I didn't expect to see a clause about that, but there it was. It also said I'm allowed to stop paying the mortgage for an indefinite period of time, but I'm only allowed to do this until the amortization of the loan reaches 25 years, which means I would need to make additional prepayments before I'm allowed to skip payments, and I'm required to get written confirmation that payments will be skipped before doing this. The loan documentation is long and detailed, but it's generally easy to understand.



the act of not allowing the higher interest amounts to be paid off first, etc. etc. Some of these things were changed because of the new Agency she spearheaded.
This one is new to me. There are credit cards where the balance can have multiple interest rates happening at the same time? Do you have any examples of this?


I just feel that she's putting her efforts in the wrong direction. The current system gives people a mile of rope and tells them to go nuts, and some people accidentally hang themselves. Someone like me argues that we should teach people how to use that rope in a responsible manner. Someone like Warren argues that we should just take the rope away from everyone. Countries like Canada have followed Warren's lead, and the result is much higher interest rates. Apples to Apples,
Capital One USA - lowest rate is around 13-14%.
Capital One Canada - lowest rate is 20%.

Just like I said before, putting limitations on interest rate changes forces lenders to charge the maximum rate immediately instead of starting at a low rate and raising the interest as needed. A Canadian with perfect credit has the same interest rates as an American with horrible credit. That's what happens when problems are regulated away instead of educated away.
 
Last edited:

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,157
582
126
But what she's saying is common knowledge, so it's puzzling why someone would even bother to mention it. I want you to test this. Ask your friends, coworkers, and relatives 1 simple question: does your credit rating affect the interest rates on your debts? It's a simple yes or no question. I'm almost certain every single person you ask will say the same thing - yes credit score affects interest rates. If your credit score deteriorates, everyone knows that this can potentially cause the interest rates on all of your debts to rise when those debts are rolled over. Since credit card debt rolls over every month, that means the interest rates on credit cards will change from month to month. It's not a secret. You will be hard pressed to find 1 adult not aware of this.
So, say you have a mortgage at 7%. You miss a payment on an unrelated credit card. It would be ok for your mortgage company to jack up ur interest rate to 29%?

This one is new to me. There are credit cards where the balance can have multiple interest rates happening at the same time? Do you have any examples of this?
Yes, credit cards can have differing interest rates for purchases vs cash advances and even have a different default rate on purchases. What they did in the past was apply your payments proportionally I believe to all of them. Whereas after the new Financial Agency rules went into effect, your payments pay off the higher interest rates first. But this also goes to my larger point. I'm sure you have a credit card and you weren't aware this type of thing went on.

I just feel that she's putting her efforts in the wrong direction. The current system gives people a mile of rope and tells them to go nuts, and some people accidentally hang themselves. Someone like me argues that we should teach people how to use that rope in a responsible manner. Someone like Warren argues that we should just take the rope away from everyone. Countries like Canada have followed Warren's lead, and the result is much higher interest rates.
I don't agree. I liked the recent changes that were made. Her agency has given people more information on their bills to make things less confusing, gotten rid of nonsensical polices, like due dates on Sundays where they don't accept payments on Sundays and has tightened up rules to give consumers a better chance at winning. The game is really rigged for these companies. And honestly, I travel out of the US a lot and that has given me a greater appreciation for our regulations.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I don't know about Elizabeth Warren. I had a lot of respect for her until I started learning about economics and finance. Her understanding of how credit works is astonishingly bad, and it leads me to question her abilities to make laws. Then again, it's not like the president personally manages credit, so it doesn't really matter. She's probably as qualified as anyone else.

I think it was a 60 Minutes interview, many years ago, where she was talking about credit card companies and their predatory practices. She said it didn't make sense that credit card companies could change the interest rate on money that was already borrowed. To the average moron, that seems like a perfectly reasonable argument. Eventually we grow up, get into the real world, and we realize that's exactly how most lending works. She was making the mistake of not understanding the difference between amortization date and maturity date of debt. Amortization date is when the entire debt will be paid off, and no more payments are due. Maturity date is when the remaining balance of the loan is due in one lump sum. We don't deal with this in America, but our friends in Canada know exactly how this works. A Canadian mortgage will amortize over 30 years, but the term of the loan is only 5 years. That means the interest rate on the loan resets every 5 years. It's not a change of the interest rate on an existing loan, as Elizabeth Warren believes this would be; it's an entirely new loan with a new interest rate that will be fixed for another 5 years. This is how credit cards work. If you actually read the terms of your credit card, you will see that it explicitly says this. The entire balance of the loan is due in 30 days. If the loan is not repaid, the balance will be carried over in a new 30 day loan, and that new loan will have a new interest rate. If you make the minimum payments, the interest rate next month will be the same as this month. If you miss payments, the interest rate of next month's loan will be higher than this month's loan. It's really not complicated.

If you look at what her job is and what she does for a living, it becomes apparent that she definitely knows this. There's no way someone could claim to be a financial expert and not understand the most basic concepts of lending. She is a liar, and I would have difficulty trusting her.
Agreed, but of course she's a liar - she's a national politician. We not only reward it, we practically demand it. I do however like the clear, populist and non-nonsense language in which she's framed her legislation (that I've read anyway.)

I can't find the exact interview where she mentioned changing the rates on an existing loan, or any 60 minutes interview for that matter, but she's a popular gal and she says the same basic things in various interviews. Her interview with PBS was better because she didn't say they change the terms on an existing loan. She said they change the terms of your credit card, which is slightly different. That's a good start, and it's truthful, but then she goes on to imply that the lender is essentially doing the same thing as changing the terms of a contract.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/501/credit-traps.html

This is where she starts to lose me. She's trying to say that there is something uniquely wrong when credit card companies do this. ALL lenders do this, and I'm pretty sure she knows it. If you have a 5 year term on your mortgage, the rate could change after 5 years. It's not a mystery, it's not a secret, and everyone is very open about this. In general, lenders actually do want you to pay the money back. The credit card company doesn't like writing down your debt then selling it to a third party at a steep discount to par.

I remember people on the left saying the exact same things about mortgages a few years ago. Guys like Michael Moore will go on TV and pretend (I hope) to not understand how a fixed rate term works so he can pretend to be outraged when the rates change upon renewal. In the case of Michael Moore and his documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, he presented cases of people talking about how their mortgage payments kept going up and up as the interest rates went up like it's some kind of grand conspiracy to kick people out of their homes. Of course the rates go up. That's how lending works. When you get shorter and shorter terms, the immediate interest rates are lower, but there is less protection against interest rate increases. Everyone knows this. It's dishonest to present this as anything other than common knowledge. You can even do this with things like your natural gas bill. If you have a floating rate, the floating rate is lower than the fixed rate today, but the floating rate offers no protection against rate increases tomorrow. My electricity bill is on a floating rate. It's just common knowledge that every responsible adult is aware of.

Most of my dislike probably just boils down to personal disagreements over how the debt problem is to be solved. She wants the nanny state to wipe everyone's ass and keep people shielded from reality. Ironically, her solutions would actually cause interest rates to rise. If the loan's locked in rate is for 1 year instead of 30 days, the loan would start at 20% instead of starting at 8% because the lender would not be allowed to raise the rate for a year after a payment has been missed. We see this every time price controls are enacted. If a landlord can only raise rent 1 time per year, the landlord is forced to project a year worth of rent increases and start at that projected endpoint.

I think a more effective solution is education. There is a strong correlation between poor math skill and mortgage defaults.
We don't have a debt problem because these evil kkkorporations are trying to screw people. We have a debt problem because Americans suck at math, and we don't seem to be doing anything to fix that math problem. By shielding people from the horrors of real life, we encourage people to show no interest in math. Don't worry about math - the goverment will do all of your thinking for you!
Well said.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
So, say you have a mortgage at 7%. You miss a payment on an unrelated credit card. It would be ok for your mortgage company to jack up ur interest rate to 29%?

Yes, credit cards can have differing interest rates for purchases vs cash advances and even have a different default rate on purchases. What they did in the past was apply your payments proportionally I believe to all of them. Whereas after the new Financial Agency rules went into effect, your payments pay off the higher interest rates first. But this also goes to my larger point. I'm sure you have a credit card and you weren't aware this type of thing went on.

I don't agree. I liked the recent changes that were made. Her agency has given people more information on their bills to make things less confusing, gotten rid of nonsensical polices, like due dates on Sundays where they don't accept payments on Sundays and has tightened up rules to give consumers a better chance at winning. The game is really rigged for these companies. And honestly, I travel out of the US a lot and that has given me a greater appreciation for our regulations.
Good posts. I too like the changes Warren has made, generally anyway. However, you're missing Spungo's larger point. The direction with which she disagrees is the intention to have the federal government be a nanny to its little subjects, protecting them against big bad businesses so they don't have to grow up and learn how to be adults. With that, I agree, even though I do like what Warren has done in keeping honest the credit card companies and banks. There is room for both approaches in my view, and one big area of overlap is demanding that the credit card companies and banks write contracts that are reasonably clear to the average bear.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
So, say you have a mortgage at 7%. You miss a payment on an unrelated credit card. It would be ok for your mortgage company to jack up ur interest rate to 29%?
Yes that is correct.

Canadians already live like this, and Canadians are some of the happiest people in the world. Maybe the depressed ones kills themselves and I'm just experiencing selection bias when I meet happy Canadians.
what happens if I don't renew my Canadian mortgage
Amansad Financial said:
If you make your payments each month and maintain your employment and income status, and if your credit score stays relatively stable, then renewal shouldn’t be a problem. The bank has to send you a renewal statement at least 21 days before your term comes to an end. This statement will have information such as the balance upon renewal, the interest rate for the renewal loan, the term of the renewal loan and any associated fees. If the lender has decided not to renew your mortgage because of your poor payment history or for other reasons, it also has to notify you 21 days before the end of the term.
.......

The best approach is to be as proactive as possible when these things happen. Talk to your bank if you think you’re going to be late with a payment and explain the situation. Communication is key — remember, the banks would rather have your money than turn you down, so be as open as possible so that you maintain your relationship. If things get to the point where the banks won’t renew you, though, Amansad Financial can help you find alternative sources of funding to help keep you in your house.
And what happens if you choose not to get finance raped by whatever the hell Amansad Financial is? The bank kicks you out and sells your house. Welcome to Canada, bitches!



Yes, credit cards can have differing interest rates for purchases vs cash advances and even have a different default rate on purchases.
Ahh, that makes perfect sense. I was aware that purchases and cash withdrawals have different rates, but this never clicked in my mind because I've never used a credit card to withdraw cash. This seems like a reasonable rule that won't backfire in some weird way.
I should clarify this is a serious statement, not a sarcastic statement.


I liked the recent changes that were made. Her agency has given people more information on their bills to make things less confusing, gotten rid of nonsensical polices, like due dates on Sundays where they don't accept payments on Sundays and has tightened up rules to give consumers a better chance at winning. The game is really rigged for these companies. And honestly, I travel out of the US a lot and that has given me a greater appreciation for our regulations.
I'm sure she has good intentions, but do these changes actually change anything? Instead of the payment deadline being Sunday, the deadline is moved to Friday. It's the same effective deadline in both cases - Friday. It just feels like nitpicking.
 
Last edited:

uberman

Golden Member
Sep 15, 2006
1,940
0
76
It seems like people are pretty much on target, we vote for politicians to represent us and they wind up representing big business interests instead. It was a good point that someone questioned how much power the president really does have because of so many competing interests as well as the checks and balances.

I got a kick out of Spungo's comments about Dr. Oz, the tv doctor that pushes nutritional supplements as the answer to health problems. I still get a kick out of Dr. Phil, the tv doctor who wanted to help Brittany Spears as her therapist. Dr. Phil did his doctoral thesis on arthritis.

I think Trump is a demagogue who shouts impulsively without really thinking of the implications of what he advocates. I came here because I thought New York's Daily News had an interesting front page yesterday, "End Of Days Guide To Fleeing The Country" if Trump is elected president. Linky follows:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/new-york-daily-news-front-pages-presidential-election-gallery-1.2512941?pmSlide=1.2549788
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Good posts. I too like the changes Warren has made, generally anyway. However, you're missing Spungo's larger point. The direction with which she disagrees is the intention to have the federal government be a nanny to its little subjects, protecting them against big bad businesses so they don't have to grow up and learn how to be adults. With that, I agree, even though I do like what Warren has done in keeping honest the credit card companies and banks. There is room for both approaches in my view, and one big area of overlap is demanding that the credit card companies and banks write contracts that are reasonably clear to the average bear.
What's he is pointing out is that Warren (like many progressives) doesn't define "fair" as being what is actually equitable and agreed to by both parties. Rather it's fairness defined as "what will produce the most favorable result for the little guy." If that means completely disregarding the terms and conditions of a contract that a consumer no longer can (or wants to) live up to then so be it when you're living in Warren World. Committed lending fraud to purchase more house than you can afford in the boom days, it's the bank's fault. Got a payday loan at 300% interest thus incurring $25 in interest rather than having checks bounce and getting $100 in overdraft fees, that's the payday lenders fault for "screwing" you. No matter what the little guy is always presumed right even when he caused his own predicament.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,157
582
126
What's he is pointing out is that Warren (like many progressives) doesn't define "fair" as being what is actually equitable and agreed to by both parties.
It's interesting that you believe Credit Card Agreements are equitable and agreed to by both parties. Do you think you and I have the option of re-drafting a credit card agreement or giving our say to the terms? No.. of course not. And in the era where you need credit to buy a house or just about do anything, I don't mind someone standing behind the consumers who don't have many option but to accept or deny.
 

gururu2

Senior member
Oct 14, 2007
686
1
81
What's he is pointing out is that Warren (like many progressives) doesn't define "fair" as being what is actually equitable and agreed to by both parties. Rather it's fairness defined as "what will produce the most favorable result for the little guy." If that means completely disregarding the terms and conditions of a contract that a consumer no longer can (or wants to) live up to then so be it when you're living in Warren World. Committed lending fraud to purchase more house than you can afford in the boom days, it's the bank's fault. Got a payday loan at 300% interest thus incurring $25 in interest rather than having checks bounce and getting $100 in overdraft fees, that's the payday lenders fault for "screwing" you. No matter what the little guy is always presumed right even when he caused his own predicament.
No banker is ever going to be broke in Warren World and fewer customers will lose everything. Therefore, it is a far more plausible system.
 

gururu2

Senior member
Oct 14, 2007
686
1
81
It's interesting that you believe Credit Card Agreements are equitable and agreed to by both parties. Do you think you and I have the option of re-drafting a credit card agreement or giving our say to the terms? No.. of course not. And in the era where you need credit to buy a house or just about do anything, I don't mind someone standing behind the consumers who don't have many option but to accept or deny.
This is right on point. There is nothing so complicated to warrant a dozen tl;dr posts. The public is the underdog, the banks are the pitbulls and the government should be a dog handler. Warren has the right idea and I would argue that despite Moore's probable deep understanding of the economics, his mission is not to confuse and be condescending to his audience as they might have felt when meeting their lender, but rather to relate with how they actually felt when they met their lender.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
What's he is pointing out is that Warren (like many progressives) doesn't define "fair" as being what is actually equitable and agreed to by both parties. Rather it's fairness defined as "what will produce the most favorable result for the little guy." If that means completely disregarding the terms and conditions of a contract that a consumer no longer can (or wants to) live up to then so be it when you're living in Warren World. Committed lending fraud to purchase more house than you can afford in the boom days, it's the bank's fault. Got a payday loan at 300% interest thus incurring $25 in interest rather than having checks bounce and getting $100 in overdraft fees, that's the payday lenders fault for "screwing" you. No matter what the little guy is always presumed right even when he caused his own predicament.
True, but that's one of the reasons we institute government - to give the little guy some power. Certainly it's a balancing act, but what exercise of government power isn't? And for the lending fraud thing in particular, I think the banks engaged in far more fraud than did individuals. It wasn't buyers bringing in house appraisers to artificially increase the price they had to pay, and it certainly wasn't the buyers who bundled those junk mortgages and even worse, sold derivatives of them. Plenty of blame to go around and I fully agree that buyers had more than their fair share of stupidity, but I also think that banks (and even more so, mortgage companies) had more than their fair share of fraud.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,157
582
126
Yes that is correct.

Canadians already live like this, and Canadians are some of the happiest people in the world. Maybe the depressed ones kills themselves and I'm just experiencing selection bias when I meet happy Canadians.

And what happens if you choose not to get finance raped by whatever the hell Amansad Financial is? The bank kicks you out and sells your house. Welcome to Canada, bitches!
I don't mind that as it seems to happen at the end of a defined term. Credit Card companies did it at any time to purchases you had already made at a lower rate. That is what Warren was talking about.

Ahh, that makes perfect sense. I was aware that purchases and cash withdrawals have different rates, but this never clicked in my mind because I've never used a credit card to withdraw cash. This seems like a reasonable rule that won't backfire in some weird way.
I should clarify this is a serious statement, not a sarcastic statement.
I don't think there was anything wrong with differing rates. What I found evil was that they just didn't apply your payments to the higher rates first.

I'm sure she has good intentions, but do these changes actually change anything? Instead of the payment deadline being Sunday, the deadline is moved to Friday. It's the same effective deadline in both cases - Friday. It just feels like nitpicking.
I think they move the payment date to Monday. It sounds nitpicky, but for someone who is living paycheck to paycheck it may be a big deal. Imagine you know your due date, go to pay it and realize the payment won't post till Monday. So that $10 payment you had to make not has a $30 fee attached to it (which is 2 hours pay for some). And if you can't pay that then next cycle you get a another $30 fee, and one more month, the default rate.

Here are the things the 2009 Law changed. The majority seem pretty common sense.

CARD Act highlights
Here are the highlights of the credit card law:

1. Limited interest rate hikes: Interest rate hikes on existing balances are allowed only under limited conditions, such as when a promotional rate ends, there is a variable rate or if the cardholder makes a late payment. Interest rates on new transactions can increase only after the first year. Significant changes in terms on accounts cannot occur without 45 days' advance notice of the change.

2. Limited universal default: "Universal default," the practice of raising interest rates on customers based on their payment records with other unrelated credit issuers (such as utility companies and other creditors), has ended for existing credit card balances. Card issuers are still allowed to use universal default on future credit card balances if they give at least 45 days' notice of the change.

3. The right to opt out: Consumers have the right to opt out of -- or reject -- certain significant changes in terms on their accounts. Opting out means cardholders agree to close their accounts and pay off the balance under the old terms. They have at least five years to pay the balance.

4. Limited credit to young adults Credit card issuers are banned from issuing credit cards to anyone under 21, unless they have adult co-signers on the accounts or can show proof they have enough income to repay the card debt. Credit card companies must stay at least 1,000 feet from college campuses if they are offering free pizza or other gifts to entice students to apply for credit cards.

5. Clearer due dates, times: Issuers have to give card account holders "a reasonable amount of time" to pay on monthly bills. That means payments are due at least 21 days after they are mailed or delivered. Credit card issuers are no longer able to set early morning or other arbitrary deadlines for payments. Cutoff times set before 5 p.m. on the payment due dates are illegal. Payments due at those times or on weekends, holidays or when the card issuer is closed for business are not subject to late fees. Due dates must be the same each month.

6. Highest interest balances paid first: When consumers have accounts that carry different interest rates for different types of purchases (i.e., cash advances, regular purchases, balance transfers or ATM withdrawals), payments in excess of the minimum amount due must go to balances with higher interest rates first. A common practice in the industry had been to apply all amounts over the minimum monthly payments to the lowest-interest balances first -- thus extending the time it takes to pay off higher-interest rate balances.

7. Limits on over-limit fees: Consumers must "opt in" to over-limit fees. Those who opt out will have their transactions rejected if they exceed their credit limits, thus avoiding over-limit fees. Fees cannot exceed the amount of overspending. For example, going $20 over the limit cannot have a fee of more than $20.

8. No more double-cycle billing: Finance charges on outstanding credit card balances must now be computed based on purchases made in the current cycle rather than going back to the previous billing cycle to calculate interest charges. So-called two-cycle or double-cycle billing hurts consumers who pay off their balances, because they are hit with finance charges from the previous cycle even though they have paid the bill in full.

9. Subprime cards rules set: People who get subprime credit cards and are charged account-opening fees that eat up their available balances get some relief under the law. These upfront fees cannot exceed 25 percent of the available credit limit in the first year of the card. Card applicants still need to be cautious: Some issuers shifted and charge fees before accounts are opened.

10. Minimum payments disclosure: Credit card issuers must disclose to cardholders the consequences of making only minimum payments each month, namely how long it would take to pay off the entire balance if users only made the minimum monthly payment. Issuers must also provide information on how much users must pay each month if they want to pay off their balances in 36 months, including the amount of interest.

11. Late fee restrictions: Late fees are capped at $25 for occasional late payments; however, the fees can be higher if cardholders are late more than once in a six-month period.

12. Gift cards expiration rules: Gift cards cannot expire sooner than five years after they are issued. Dormancy fees can only be charged if the card is unused for 12 months or more. Issuers can charge only one fee per month, but there is no limit on the amount of the fee.

Read more: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/card-act-12-consumer-protections-6000.php#ixzz41nDw5ker
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
It's interesting that you believe Credit Card Agreements are equitable and agreed to by both parties. Do you think you and I have the option of re-drafting a credit card agreement or giving our say to the terms? No.. of course not.
If you were the lender, then yes you would. You can already do this when you invest in bonds (not to be confused with bond funds). You can buy a bond that has something like a 5% interest rate. The bond eventually matures and you get your money back. You enjoyed lending money to that company or government, so you want to lend them money again. The demand for their bonds could be slightly lower than it was before, so now you can lend them money at 6% instead of 5%. This is not unusual in any way.

This fluctuation in a bond's market price is why cyclical companies tend to issue bonds with longer maturities. If a company is in the business of mining copper, the bond price is a reflection of the copper price. When copper is expensive, the company is very profitable, so the credit rating is excellent, and this makes the interest rates lower. To lock in those interest rates, the mining company would issue bonds that mature in 10 years. This ensures they don't find themselves having liquidity problems when copper is worthless and nobody wants to lend money a copper mining company. It's sort of like borrowing a big pile of money against your house before an expected job loss. You do the borrowing while you still have a job because that's when you can get the best rate. If you try to get a loan after you've been fired, you'll find that nobody wants to lend you any money, so your interest rates would be sky high even though you have never missed a payment. I will repeat that because it's extremely important. Your creditworthiness can be affected even if you pay every bill on time. It sucks, I know, but that's reality.

If a company ever defaults on a loan by missing one or two payments, they get the same shitty treatment as everyone else. Their credit rating, much like your own personal credit rating, is slashed to junk status. Junk is a slang term for bonds that are not considered investment grade. If a bond is not investment grade, that means pension funds and various bond funds will be forced to sell the bonds because they are not allowed to hold junk bonds. Unless a fund's charter allows junk bonds, junk bonds must be sold, and they might be sold at a huge loss. Before defaulting, a company might be able to borrow money at 5%. After a default and a junk rating, a company might be able borrow new money at 10%, and all of that company's existing bonds will trade at a significant discount to par, and this applies to all forms of debt. Secured debt, unsecured debt, convertible bonds. All of it drops in value. Corporations take it up the ass just like everyone else. This is why corporations are very careful about debt payments.

My point is that corporations mitigate this risk through education. They work very hard to understand how the bond market works, how to protect against liquidity problems, how to avoid defaulting, how to lock in low rates, etc. I truly believe the average American is capable of understanding the bond market and how to protect themselves against these same problems. It's easy to understand once it has been explained, but nobody is explaining it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY