If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   Federal Reserve decides to crack down on unfair credit card fees, oppressive interest rates, rampaging Vikings   (breitbart.com) divider line 58
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

1293 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 May 2008 at 3:29 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-05-02 12:11:43 PM
Gee, only what? Twenty years late? If there were ever an indictment of malfeasance by the Fed, this decision alone would be it.
 
2008-05-02 12:17:16 PM
Pirates can defeat mere vikings.
 
2008-05-02 01:04:25 PM
Because we can't decide for ourselves what is and isn't fair? Thanks, Mommy, for taking of us children.
 
2008-05-02 02:28:15 PM
mmm... pancake: Because we can't decide for ourselves what is and isn't fair? Thanks, Mommy, for taking of us children.

As history has repeatedly shown, no. No we can't. Usury laws would have never existed in the first place if we could.
 
2008-05-02 02:36:56 PM
mediaho: As history has repeatedly shown, no. No we can't. Usury laws would have never existed in the first place if we could.

Usury laws are necessary because if they weren't necessary we wouldn't have usury laws. Can't argue with that.
 
2008-05-02 02:44:48 PM
Well, yea. Another historical reality nail in the objectivist theory coffin.
 
2008-05-02 03:01:00 PM
mmm... pancake: Usury laws are necessary because if they weren't necessary we wouldn't have usury laws. Can't argue with that.

That's pretty much the basis for all of our laws.

We are allowed to engage in actions unless the actions are determined to present a significant threat to social well-being or public order.

Laws against dumping toxic waste in rivers only came about because we, as a society, realized that companies would not do the responsible thing on their own and not dump toxic waste into rivers.
 
2008-05-02 03:06:32 PM
SchlingFo: Laws against dumping toxic waste in rivers only came about because we, as a society, realized that companies would not do the responsible thing on their own and not dump toxic waste into rivers.

Or more simply, that the owners of the toxic waste don't own the river into which they're dumping.

Laws are meant to protect rights, not abolish them in the name of the "common good".
 
2008-05-02 03:07:26 PM
mmm... pancake: Laws are meant to protect rights

Corporations have no rights. They have only the privileges that society gives them via their charter.
 
2008-05-02 03:11:42 PM
I'm just here for the pictures of hot viking chicks
 
2008-05-02 03:20:00 PM
SchlingFo: Corporations have no rights. They have only the privileges that society gives them via their charter.

You're wrong on both counts. Wishful thinking does not equate with reality.
 
2008-05-02 03:21:09 PM
mmm... pancake: You're wrong on both counts.

Corporations are legal constructions, that have only privileges granted to them by law.

They have no natural or inherent rights, as is the case with people.
 
2008-05-02 03:34:42 PM
Why the hell is the Federal Reserve doing this? They just don't understand jurisdiction anymore.
 
2008-05-02 03:38:56 PM
probably because they participate in providing liquidity of credit assets
 
2008-05-02 03:39:12 PM
Well Hallelujah it's about freaking time. Credit card companies have been getting a free pass for years now. What REALLY needs to happen is to reform the credit rating system. It doesn't even accurately reflect credit risk.
 
2008-05-02 03:40:51 PM
Yeah, damn the government for not allowing businesses to freely do things like (FTFA):

_Placing unfair time constraints on payments. A payment could not be deemed late unless the borrower is given a reasonable period of time, such as 21 days, to pay;

_Unfairly allocating payments among balances with different interest rates;

-Unfairly raising annual percentage rates on outstanding balances;

_Placing too-high fees for exceeding the credit limit solely because of a hold placed on the account;

_Unfairly computing balances;

_Unfairly adding security deposits and fees for issuing credit or making credit available;

_Making deceptive offers of credit.

What? You mean I can't lie to my customers? Raise rates on existing balances at a whim without the consent of the other party? My god! Will anyone think of a company's god given natural rights to change the terms of prior arrangements! To remove the intrinsic right of every being to make deceptive offers! For shame!
 
2008-05-02 03:41:13 PM
I used my credit card for the first time in months to withdraw money from an ATM. When I paid it back the next month, I noticed the annual APR for such transactions had jumped to 99.26%

/ It's getting cut soon, fark them
 
2008-05-02 03:41:33 PM
mmm... pancake: Usury laws are necessary because if they weren't necessary we wouldn't have usury laws most people can't do 7th grade math.

ftfy
 
2008-05-02 03:43:16 PM
SchlingFo: mmm... pancake: You're wrong on both counts.

Corporations are legal constructions, that have only privileges granted to them by law.

They have no natural or inherent rights, as is the case with people.


Depends on your interpretation of a right, I suppose:
Corporate Rights
 
2008-05-02 03:52:02 PM
mmm... pancake: SchlingFo: mmm... pancake: You're wrong on both counts.

Corporations are legal constructions, that have only privileges granted to them by law.

They have no natural or inherent rights, as is the case with people.

Depends on your interpretation of a right, I suppose:
Corporate Rights


Just from reading the first page of that article, particularly the last paragraph, it seems obvious that the author is trying to get the point across that, though corporations may be afforded rights similar to those of humans, that is not how it's supposed to be, nor how it was originally intended to be.

I just finished Macroeconomics (for non-majors), and the first thing I learned was that corporations are not people, they are legally created entities, whose purpose is to make profits and provide a good/service to consumers.
 
2008-05-02 03:57:12 PM
un4gvn666: though corporations may be afforded rights similar to those of humans

They're better than us. Try to change the terms of a contract without the other party's consent and see what happens.
 
2008-05-02 04:00:39 PM
editor.actrix.co.nz

Bloody Vikings!!
 
2008-05-02 04:09:04 PM
SchlingFo: That's pretty much the basis for all of our laws.

We are allowed to engage in actions unless the actions are determined to present a significant threat to social well-being or public order.


like the threat of someone smoking weed in their own living room?

/damned hippies
//wait, what?
 
2008-05-02 04:40:33 PM
Thrag: Yeah, damn the government for not allowing businesses to freely do things like (FTFA):

_Placing unfair time constraints on payments. A payment could not be deemed late unless the borrower is given a reasonable period of time, such as 21 days, to pay;

_Unfairly allocating payments among balances with different interest rates;

-Unfairly raising annual percentage rates on outstanding balances;

_Placing too-high fees for exceeding the credit limit solely because of a hold placed on the account;

_Unfairly computing balances;

_Unfairly adding security deposits and fees for issuing credit or making credit available;

_Making deceptive offers of credit.

What? You mean I can't lie to my customers? Raise rates on existing balances at a whim without the consent of the other party? My god! Will anyone think of a company's god given natural rights to change the terms of prior arrangements! To remove the intrinsic right of every being to make deceptive offers! For shame!


You use the word unfair a lot. Life isn't fair, sorry to break that to you.
 
2008-05-02 04:47:02 PM
Senor Revington: You use the word unfair a lot. Life isn't fair, sorry to break that to you.

I guess the lenders had better get used to that then.
 
2008-05-02 04:48:50 PM
mmm... pancake: Because we can't decide for ourselves what is and isn't fair? Thanks, Mommy, for taking of us children.

I am completely financially responsible, I read everything I sign and I keep my credit in excellent shape. I just got played by CitiFinancial and am arguing over a $39 late fee. They have called 17 times in the last 3 days and they never failed to mention that this will negatively impact my credit. They are holding me hostage on some fine print BS that could be interpreted in a two different ways. The way in which they hoped I would so that they can jack me for fees or the way they will enforce it which had I known I never would have signed the deal.

The first thing I did when I found out what they were doing was pay the card off and close the account. Then made them promise to remove the late fee over the phone. Of course now they have not removed the fee and are trying to or have already dinged my credit. Over some shady BS.

Since I buy rental property every year or two that credit rating is very important to me.

So fark yes it is time to put a stop to some of these practices which should be illegal. It is time to give us citizens a way to push back and restore our credit rating when the company is at fault. It is time to get rid of universal default. It is time to make it a law that the rate that you made the purchase at is the rate that will always be charged, that if the rate changes it will be on new purchases. It is time to give us the power to know every bit of info that is transacted between these companies about us.
 
2008-05-02 04:53:51 PM
If you're not an idiot and use credit responsibly, credit card companies end up paying you.
 
2008-05-02 04:55:14 PM
The average credit card user doesn't pay the balance off every month.
 
2008-05-02 04:55:17 PM
Senor Revington: You use the word unfair a lot. Life isn't fair, sorry to break that to you.

That was a quote from the article, genius. You might have picked up on that fact by the "FTFA", you know "from the farking article".

Hey, but thanks for coming in to point out your ignorance to everyone! Without knowing you're an idiot who didn't even read the article before coming in to fail to try and impress us all with your amateur level snark I just don't know if I could have made it through the day.
 
2008-05-02 04:58:15 PM
So what the's Fed going to do when the card issuers cut back on the number of cards in circulation and their lowered limits? After all, enough deadbeats are welching on their mortgages to live on their credit cards so they'll probably drive the country deeper into recession.
 
2008-05-02 04:58:44 PM
krusader3z: If you're not an idiot and use credit responsibly, credit card companies end up paying you.

You have a card from Soviet Russia?
 
2008-05-02 05:05:19 PM
King Something
You have a card from Soviet Russia?

I have a Citi Dividend card that I use for daily cashflow.
Link (new window)
 
2008-05-02 05:11:38 PM
krusader3z: If you're not an idiot and use credit responsibly, credit card companies end up paying you.

Gotta love Discover.
 
2008-05-02 05:17:08 PM
jankyboy
Gotta love Discover.

Credit card companies have different "tiers" for their customers. Depending on your credit history, you will never see any problems with your account.

If you have been irresponsible in the past, or have a thin credit file, expect to be in one of the lower tiers, where you are more likely to be jacked around.

You can find out how your card is coded by pushing the customer service rep, or their manager, into telling you.

Over the last year I've been working on getting top tier cards from all the major banks, and I have succeeded. (except for Amex)

BoA (10/2004)
Discover (12/2005)
Cap1 (11/2007)
Chase (01/2008)
HSBC (04/2008)
Citi (04/2008)
RBS (04/2008)
US Bank (04/2008)
 
2008-05-02 05:19:27 PM
krusader3z: jankyboy
Gotta love Discover.

Credit card companies have different "tiers" for their customers. Depending on your credit history, you will never see any problems with your account.

If you have been irresponsible in the past, or have a thin credit file, expect to be in one of the lower tiers, where you are more likely to be jacked around.

You can find out how your card is coded by pushing the customer service rep, or their manager, into telling you.

Over the last year I've been working on getting top tier cards from all the major banks, and I have succeeded. (except for Amex)

BoA (10/2004)
Discover (12/2005)
Cap1 (11/2007)
Chase (01/2008)
HSBC (04/2008)
Citi (04/2008)
RBS (04/2008)
US Bank (04/2008)


I hear ya'. I use my Discover card for everything and hoard the cashback until end of year to pay for Christmas. Rinse and repeat.
 
2008-05-02 05:29:09 PM
ScottMpls: So what the's Fed going to do when the card issuers cut back on the number of cards in circulation and their lowered limits? After all, enough deadbeats are welching on their mortgages to live on their credit cards so they'll probably drive the country deeper into recession.

Did this even make sense to you when you wrote it?

Yes, surely letting these people take out more credit they can never possibly pay back is preferable. Surely we can eliminate the problem by ignoring it until later and letting it grow unchecked in the meantime instead of just dealing with the pain now.
 
2008-05-02 05:34:45 PM
torch

I came here to say that. Since you did, I'll say this.
 
2008-05-02 05:36:26 PM
Senor Revington: Thrag: Yeah, damn the government for not allowing businesses to freely do things like (FTFA):

_Placing unfair time constraints on payments. A payment could not be deemed late unless the borrower is given a reasonable period of time, such as 21 days, to pay;

_Unfairly allocating payments among balances with different interest rates;

-Unfairly raising annual percentage rates on outstanding balances;

_Placing too-high fees for exceeding the credit limit solely because of a hold placed on the account;

_Unfairly computing balances;

_Unfairly adding security deposits and fees for issuing credit or making credit available;

_Making deceptive offers of credit.

What? You mean I can't lie to my customers? Raise rates on existing balances at a whim without the consent of the other party? My god! Will anyone think of a company's god given natural rights to change the terms of prior arrangements! To remove the intrinsic right of every being to make deceptive offers! For shame!

You use the word unfair a lot. Life isn't fair, sorry to break that to you.


Well, if life isn't fair, then when the government decides to change the terms of the charter they grant corporations, and more closely regulate their activities, they won't have any thing to whine about, will they?
After all, life isn't fair! :D
 
2008-05-02 05:37:04 PM
Thrag: ScottMpls: So what the's Fed going to do when the card issuers cut back on the number of cards in circulation and their lowered limits? After all, enough deadbeats are welching on their mortgages to live on their credit cards so they'll probably drive the country deeper into recession.

Did this even make sense to you when you wrote it?

Yes, surely letting these people take out more credit they can never possibly pay back is preferable. Surely we can eliminate the problem by ignoring it until later and letting it grow unchecked in the meantime instead of just dealing with the pain now.


God forbid the concept of personal responsbility or fiscal discipline ever enter into the Fed's rule making process.

For their next trick, Congress, or the Fed, can propose a bailout for every retard who thought buying a 50" plasma TV @ 29.99% APR was a damn good idea.
 
2008-05-02 05:45:36 PM
ScottMpls: God forbid the concept of personal responsbility or fiscal discipline ever enter into the Fed's rule making process.

God forbid the banks and brokers be required to show any. Yes, banks should continue to lend to people they know damn well are bad credit risks and then wait for the government to bail them out when it all comes crashing down, or better yet, fraudulently package them up as "securities" so they further pollute the economy so to make it even harder for the government not to bail them out.

Got anything besides assinine empty rhetoric like "personal responsibility" to support your hilariously ignorant stance?

For their next trick, Congress, or the Fed, can propose a bailout for every retard who thought buying a 50" plasma TV @ 29.99% APR was a damn good idea.

No, they will just bail out the bankers who knew they could keep their profits when the government bailed them out the hole their criminally irresponsible tactics got them into.
 
2008-05-02 05:52:41 PM
PBS's Frontline did a great documentary on this a couple of years ago. Watch it here (new window).
 
2008-05-02 06:46:55 PM
Ken Clayton, senior vice president of card policy for the American Bankers Association, said the industry will fight the new proposals, describing them as "aggressive regulatory intervention in the marketplace that will result in higher prices and less consumer credit."

He said the change "basically says that we can't price for risk" and that if higher risk borrowers don't bear the costs, those costs will be passed along to other consumers.


... and what are the banks going to do if the regulations pass, cut off credit? They're already doing that right now, along with not passing on the interest rate cuts they are getting from the Fed.
 
2008-05-02 07:13:16 PM
Will they keep credit card companies from holding a payment, and posting it a day late?
 
2008-05-02 07:16:24 PM
SchlingFo
mmm... pancake: Laws are meant to protect rights
Corporations have no rights. They have only the privileges that society gives them via their charter.


Corporations legal persons - persona ficta. And there's a fair-sized body of case law where yes, corporations as 'persons' have been protected under the constitution as having the same rights as an actual person. See Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad.

Back onto the subject of the article - anything that results in less consumer credit can't be a bad thing and it's a bit rich for someone from the American Bankers Association, to be biatching about "aggressive regulatory intervention in the marketplace".
 
2008-05-02 07:36:33 PM
A) There's no such thing as "unfair credit card fees" or "oppressive interest rates." If you don't like the terms offered, don't do business with the company. You can't be treated unfairly or oppressed by someone you don't associate with.

2) This doesn't mean that people will get better rates or lower fees... it means that they will be unable to get credit at all.
 
2008-05-02 07:37:57 PM
quickdraw: Well Hallelujah it's about freaking time. Credit card companies have been getting a free pass for years now. What REALLY needs to happen is to reform the credit rating system. It doesn't even accurately reflect credit risk.

Feel free to start your own credit reporting company and come up with a scoring system that does accurrately reflect credit risk.
 
2008-05-02 07:53:58 PM
SchlingFo: mmm... pancake: Laws are meant to protect rights

Corporations have no rights. They have only the privileges that society gives them via their charter.


Right. But individuals, you see, the ones who might otherwise use the river, do. So the laws protect the rights of the people.
 
2008-05-02 07:56:57 PM
Senor Revington: Thrag: Yeah, damn the government for not allowing businesses to freely do things like (FTFA):

_Placing unfair time constraints on payments. A payment could not be deemed late unless the borrower is given a reasonable period of time, such as 21 days, to pay;

_Unfairly allocating payments among balances with different interest rates;

-Unfairly raising annual percentage rates on outstanding balances;

_Placing too-high fees for exceeding the credit limit solely because of a hold placed on the account;

_Unfairly computing balances;

_Unfairly adding security deposits and fees for issuing credit or making credit available;

_Making deceptive offers of credit.

What? You mean I can't lie to my customers? Raise rates on existing balances at a whim without the consent of the other party? My god! Will anyone think of a company's god given natural rights to change the terms of prior arrangements! To remove the intrinsic right of every being to make deceptive offers! For shame!

You use the word unfair a lot. Life isn't fair, sorry to break that to you.


Hence the contract laws, courts, etc.
 
2008-05-02 08:19:18 PM
TFA: And they would prohibit those institutions from charging a fee for an overdraft caused by a hold placed on consumer's funds when a person uses a debit card.

THIS! FARKING THIS!

Put a hold on my card for HOW MUCH? Are you farking kidding me?
Overdraft fee? No draft was made... argh.
 
2008-05-02 08:52:31 PM
Financial institutions do not exist these day to provide you with credit, they exist purely to make excessive profits off of fees which in some cases can only be described as a rip off (polite phrasing).

Of course the fact that the simple act of closing any credit card account will generally adversely affect your credit is also a problem.

Obviously there is no reason why any for profit business should be prevented from making said profit, but there is a point in time where you have to draw the line at whether or not the profit is earned in an ethical manner.

If problem was caused by customer... your screwed, pay up
If problem was caused by business... your screwed, pay up anyway and we might go easy on you by using cheap lubricant this time as opposed to none at all.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report