I'm not missing the point, Tymbrwulf, I agree that these are shady bastards.

Rottenseed, I knew that Unicredit buys the debt from the lenders, but are you saying that debtors are NOT, in any way, legally obligated to pay unicredit? And if the lender sells the debt, are they no longer the creditor? You're saying the only downside to not paying back the debt is bad credit? I don't see how that makes sense.

No, I was simply adding a scene to surround the comment for comedic value>> ^MarineGunrock:

So, what? You believe that people shouldn't have to repay their debts so long as they have a sad story? What these people do could be described as sleazy at best, but the debtors still owe money.
>> ^rottenseed:
he passionately writes as he requests another hot pocket from his mother's basement >> ^handmethekeysyou:
"Unicredit America is accused of deceiving, misleading, and coercing hundreds of consumers into paying off their debts."
Yeah, God forbid people should pay off their debts.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Of course people want you to rack up more debt. It's why payday loan and auto title loan places exist. I already said that what these people do is disgusting, but again, people who owe money should have to pay it back, regardless of sob story. I'm not saying that people should have their legs broken for not paying it fast enough, but they shouldn't be surprised when lenders want their money back.I wouldn't doubt if more than nine cases in ten the reason they're in debt is because they didn't control their spending habits.


I think your missing the point, MG. This video is more about the barely legal/illegal methods that debtor companies use in order to get people to pay their debts. I didn't upvote this video because I felt sorry for the debtors, I upvoted because the company that is obtaining these debts is doing so in an incredibly unethical way that undermines actual authority (police and court rooms).

And that's why debt collectors exist and there are laws governing what they can do when attempting to collect. If debt collectors don't feel they can collect debts within the law, they shouldn't have gotten into the business. And if someone has a large amount of outstanding debt, it's fairly trivial to run up more debt via all the avenues people attempt to extend credit to people. It's not right to rip people off, but there are laws in place to prevent abuse of those people. Yet somehow people can seem to overlook this when extending credit, even if the person owes a lot of money.

Yes people should repay their debts, but there's a whole shady business associated with it. If they didn't want to incur the debt they wouldn't extend credit so freely, and give you debit cards as default for ATM cards......and constantly raise your credit card credit limit (it's not unheard of to go from a requested 500 dollar limit to 10 grand or more as a limit without requesting it). It's annoying to have to watch that the bank doesn't screw with your self imposed limits on cards...but that's the point. They want you to fuck up.


>> ^MarineGunrock:

So, what? You believe that people shouldn't have to repay their debts so long as they have a sad story? What these people do could be described as sleazy at best, but the debtors still owe money.
>> ^rottenseed:
he passionately writes as he requests another hot pocket from his mother's basement >> ^handmethekeysyou:
"Unicredit America is accused of deceiving, misleading, and coercing hundreds of consumers into paying off their debts."
Yeah, God forbid people should pay off their debts.

So, what? You believe that people shouldn't have to repay their debts so long as they have a sad story? What these people do could be described as sleazy at best, but the debtors still owe money.

>> ^rottenseed:

he passionately writes as he requests another hot pocket from his mother's basement >> ^handmethekeysyou:
"Unicredit America is accused of deceiving, misleading, and coercing hundreds of consumers into paying off their debts."
Yeah, God forbid people should pay off their debts.

Tarrifs? Smoot–Hawley all over again? The issue is not the size of government but the embed corporate interests. An efficient and truly representative government would be flexible enough to grow and diminish to reflect economic dynamics. As it stands different corporate interests represent each party and there isn't so much as a legislative deliberation but stubborn grandstanding for conflicting interests and a back and forth with electoral cycles.

I'm not saying anything new here of course, but my point is, ideology in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. The Democrats are firmly behind free market policies over any kind of long term nationalization, or anti-free trade policies. They will be rid of their corporate ownership of the automobile and financial services industries as fast as they can, and they will be forced or at least pressured into spending cuts, tax rises, raising the pension age and what have you to combat the deficit whether they like it or not.

The best thing in the short term is effective education reform. As much as anyone would like to say otherwise, the biggest factor that has led average middle income wages stagnate or fall in real terms over the last few decades has been technological innovation and automation replacing manual jobs. Competing at this level in trades that haven't been automated is obviously a fool's errand, emerging countries will easily out compete on wages. Educating people into higher skilled jobs should be the priority.

Effective campaign finance reform is the only way this and any meaningful reform will be possible though. When Massa went on his talk show tour, the focus shouldn't have been on his playful tickling or innuendo it shouldn't have been him saying on Beck's show: (a comment that is in a video in my PQ by the way!)

“Congressmen spend between five and seven hours a day on the phone begging for money ..."

If this isn't dealt with, the US will simply become Japan if it has not already. Growth will stagnate, but living standards will remain high though so no one will really notice. Rather than bureaucrats becoming more embedded with the government as in Japan it will be the corporate interests. Meanwhile problems will accumulate. As the government becomes less and less effective, voter apathy will takeover and feed the process.

As with Japan's current debt of 200% of GDP, the US's current 80% level will continue to rise until breaking point. Japan is lucky being a creditor nation and having plenty of domestic lenders willing to provide low yield rates, but even that will not last. Meanwhile the US's stupendous absolute debt in relative terms and being a debtor nation will probably not allow it to reach that level, with perhaps the saving grace being that the US dollar is still the world's reserve currency.

But anyway, tl;dr version: ideology is irrelevant, campaign financing and genuine representation is everything.

Oh perhaps I should make clear that this isn't really all directed at you, more a general response to the topic.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

We need to rethink our economy. The population is getting bigger, while at the same time employment is being lost to automation, 3rd world labor exploitation and corporate consolidation. It seems to me that this is a problem that can't be solved by a booming economy alone.
I'm not sure what could be done to halt this process, perhaps huge tariffs on corporations that use non-American labor, or limits on the size and power of corporations. I don't know. I'd love to hear ideas on this.

from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtIM_TEQxwA

Is this fruition of my college years,
arriving in an envelope, business-size,
Sallie Mae Corporation letterhead?
This is to inform you that you
havent made a payment on your loan
since the winter of, italicized, 1997.

If at this time you cannot make
the monthly payment we set,
youll be required to remit to us
the balance in full.
You know, I dont think Ill pay—
what kind of fool
would feed the beast that swallows its young?
Would feed the beast that swallows its young?

Clearly, eightteen isnt old enough to drink
but old enough to sign a promissary
interesting.
Military? Sure, join up.

And who can put a pricetag
on a top-notch education?
How about $50,000? $80,000? Well, thats
just for the textbooks.

But what exactly is the consequence
should I refuse to pay?
Is there still a Dickensian debtors prison?
Oh, there isnt? Well

If at this time you cannot make
the monthly payment we set,
well be required to revoke what every citizen fears:
your card for digging your hole deeper in debt
to the beast that swallows its young,
to feed the beast that swallows its young.

Everyone must go to university.
Without a good degree,
how will you pay the lenders
who staked you while attending university?
And everyone must grow the university.

This is to inform you that Ill never make a payment.
This is to inform you that Ill never make a payment
to the beast that swallows its young.

Rougy, I'm not sure i see the relevance of your comment; "Every loan-shark in the world thanks you for that sentiment". I guess you are equating banks-which are legally bound to expose all costs and penalties before loaning you money-to back street thugs who have no legal constraints and who will resort to physical violence. Also, i am well aware, thank you, how banks-like insurance companies-cover themselves in the event of loss. Relating to the young ladies video,i'm, again, not sure of your comments relevance.
How naive of me not to realise that-as you say; "Debt is their real business. And foreclosure. And repossession". Ofcourse, how silly of me, banks are in the business of ruining any business or individusl they loan money to. They don't want them to succeed and grow. And they certainly don't want these people coming back to borrow more money.Thanks Rougy, you have helped me see that the banks want to kill off all the golden geese that line their pockets.How could i have possibly thought that banks were a necessary part of a growing economy! Forgive me, i was blind but now i see.
With your parting comment; "Yes, bring back the debtors' prisons". You appear to paint me as uncaring and ruthless regarding anyone who gets into debt.This is NOT so. There are many unscrupulous individuals acting in the loan field and they SHOULD be exposed. However, my original view remains intact. When you incur debt you MUST realise that the fates can conspire against you-redundancy/market collapse/illness or any other factors-so it is IMPERATIVE to shop around for the most suitable loan. Read the small print and, most of all, have a back up plan. In an ideal world this young lady should have been able to do what she did. We are NOT, however, in an ideal world. And, until a purely altruistic banking system is put in place-which ofcourse wouldn't work. ("Er, yes sir, my company has gone bust so i'd like another £250k interest free loan,thanks".)We have, sadly, a system which is flawed and imperfect. But, rather than using colourful language and rhetoric (rape. asshole) why don't you give us your solution?

>> ^A10anis:
"did the banks force you to get into debt? Was it their negligence, or yours, that you did not realise you did not have the ability to pay back your debt? and now you blame the bank for giving you the money you were asking for."

Every loan-shark in the world thanks you for that sentiment.

What you don't realize is that the banks do not loan real money. If they have a million dollars in assets, they are allowed to issue ten to thirty million dollars worth of loans. They also have insurance on that imaginary money, so that they can write off their imaginary losses.

Debt is their real business. And foreclosure. And repossession.

I mean, if they really wanted their money back, would they jack up interest rates to 29% on people who are already having trouble paying it back? No, it's just an excuse to rape someone legally.

After they rape people with 29% interest rates, causing them to file bankruptcy, they write off the loss and sell the debt to a collector, who buys the loan for about ten cents on the dollar and makes a living by being an asshole to people and trying to con them into paying him 50 to 80 percent of the original debt.

The credit card biz doesn't need any help. They need a collar on their throats and a boot in the ass.

"Let's not, as seems to be the case these days, have laws that stifle free enterprise because of ignorance and stupidity."

Yes, bring back the debtors' prisons.

The analogy of the video is flawed. Both the debtor and creditor have entered the contract willingly and with expectations of gain. I have agreed to no such contract with God and God has nothing to lose or gain by the defaulting or fulfillment of that contact, only I would. Because of this, justice is not relevant and a benevolent God would have no reason not to show mercy. Even if I were to believe God made me and gave me life, it would have been a gift given of his own free will. He has no right to require a gift in return. I have no debt to God.

God is a perfect being, yet he is eternally progressing.

A contradiction. If he's perfect then progress is not possible by definition.

If we suffer because of floods and famine, it will be for our good. You might say that people who live their entire lives in poverty are not benefitting from hardship, but God will reward us and make up a million times for our sufferings. You'd better believe that impoverished people are humble, and God has promised to reward the humble and meek. In the scope of eternity, suffering is a blessing. He has promised rewards in heaven for enduring our trials well that are beyond our comprehension. I think that's benevolent.

That's only benevolent if he doesn't have the power to make a difference during our lives. Let's say I found you locked in a cage in the woods. I can easily release you but instead I leave you there for 2 weeks. When I return I find you sick from exposure, dehydrated and starving. I then release you and take you home. I personally nurse you back to health over the course of 3 months and then take you on an exotic vacation, pampering you and catering to your every need. Have I been benevolent or should I have just let you out of the cage in the first place before any harm was done?

Like the video explains, in order for justice to be satisfied, Christ had to "pay for" our sins.

The video suggests this but explains nothing. As I said above, justice is not part of the equation because God has nothing to lose or gain from forgiving us (or not). Furthermore, we're talking about God. If God wants to forgive us it's entirely within his power to do so. He doesn't have to play by anyone else's rules. The only reason the sacrifice would have to "have a body, be separated from God, and die" is because God decided to do it that way.

On a side note, this just and loving God seems to require a lot of suffering to make him happy.

As a general rule, if something about Christian doctrine seems unjust or unmerciful or illogical to you, it is probably because it is wrong.

That's kinda my point, actually.

In reply to this comment by thepinky

She's way behind the times...I've lead a debtor's revolution and have been not paying my credit cards for years now...

I'm not gonna say it's okay to try and run anyone over, but it's pretty effed up that he is taking her car because she owes $533.00. We may not have a debtors prison but this here is pretty poor.

Actually it is the governments role to provide health care. It's the government's role to provide military defense services, fire protection services, police services, educational services and health services. These are all tied up with those life, liberty and pursuit of happiness things. For any of these if you rely on private enterprise to provide the service then inevitably a significant portion of the population goes unprotected.

88% of Americans are happy with their health care plans ... my ass! That's 88% of Americans who actually have health care plans. The major point of your current debate is how to get good health care to those who have none.

Since you like statistics try these
http://media.npr.org/programs/tmm/webdocs/american_journal_of_medicine-medical_bankruptcy.pdf

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%."

Number of bankruptcies in Canada in 2007 caused by medical bills? Effectively zero.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^blankfist:
No one ever criticizes the little guy for stacking the system so he can have a free lunch.

Hey, he's just following the precepts of the free market.
He's just being selfish, and selfishness is good, right?
This piece of shit country will never change.
People can't afford preventative medicine, that's why so many people don't go and see a doctor until it's too late.
Most bankruptcies are due to medical events, and most of those people were insured. Yeah, great fucking country. The free market wins again.
But let's bitch and moan about preventative care. Ron Paul would be proud.
Eat the rich.


Epic fucking fail, rougy. People have been trying to teach you this point countless times on this website. Libertarians draw a major distinction between wanting to do something with what you own, and wanting to do something with what someone else owns against their will. That's why a constitution and courts to enforce it is necessary, and ours ultimately failed. Everybody knows that true democracy is just people trying to vote themselves other people's shit, even shit that doesn't even exist yet. One generation could borrow from Chinese savers at interest well in excess of productive capacity and leave future generations holding the interest burden. That is THEFT. And unless you can somehow vendor finance trillion dollar deficits in perpetuity at 1% interest rates, we are going to have to raise interest rates to 30% or devalue the living shit out of the dollar and inflate the debt away.

You should be kissing Ron Paul's ass. Here's a fucking guy who has wasted 30 years trying to keep SPENDING in this dipshit country constrained to what it could PRODUCE by tying the dollar to something which always takes labor and material to produce. Instead, we now have a currency whose scarcity can be diminished at will by its issuer and is given a government-mandated monopoly. Instead, we went from the richest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation because we allowed the government to sell us the idea that it needs no discipline. If it wasn't for brainwashed foreigners too scared to stop giving us money to buy their products, and a dickless American populace willing to go along with anything to keep the party going, we wouldn't have deferred the inevitable collapse again last year.

^ One major reason I think it won't be Japanese style is because Japan could actually afford their "stimulus" and other nonsense from their govt: They were, and still are, the biggest creditor nation in the world, they have huge savings and own the largest amount of assets abroad. Japanese are taught about saving and working hard while they're still in the womb.

The US, on the other hand, is screwed. They are currently the biggest debtor nation of the world, it can't afford all these trillion dollar stimulus on top of its ever increasing all time record breaking national debt.

I'd argue that stimulus are very much immediate and short-term, they are actually alleviating a deep recession that we should be experiencing right now (something a lot worse than this) at the cost of terrible long-term consequences (that are not so long-term in our case, maybe 1 or 2 years away). We're supposed to welcome the recession, so it can fix the imbalances in the economy, not postpone and aggravate it with stimulus.

They should be called depressants.