Have the bankers become slave-masters? How one man's $12000 credit card debt, after 8 years of regular payments, is still at $11200.
Joe
Lawyerkill
> Read the story athttp://Muvy.org
There is no law that says you have to use credit cards, but if you
chose to you have to honor the commitment you make.
Doobie Keebler
> There is no law that says you have to use credit cards, but if you
> chose to you have to honor the commitment you make.
Read the story?
"Even though he's paid his bills on time, Bank of America inexplicably
raised his interest rate, first to 19.99 percent and then to 25
percent, where it is today."
So, he agreed to a 4.5% interest rate, which BoA jacked to 25% with a
'say so' clause.
("why'd my rate jump?" "Because we say so.")
Are you saying that only the consumer is expected to honor
commitments?
Jeebus, LK, I didn't expect you to turn Sheeple on us... "baaaaa"
Lawyerkill
I did read the story, the 4.5 percent was a introductory interest
rate. That means it could and would go up. I don't think is said that
is would always stay at that amount for the money charged under that
rate. In fact I've got many of those things in and if you read them
they tell you the rate is for a limited time only and after that time
the interest rate goes up for the items charged under the
introductory rate.
star...@yahoo.com
Where would you be living otherwise, in a shack??
Here's a clue: PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE...
Mike
Lawyerkill
No, most people can afford to live. The problem is that some people
try to live a life style that they can't afford.
star...@yahoo.com
> No, most people can afford to live. The problem is that some people
> try to live a life style that they can't afford.
Not in a consumer economy where one is EXPECTED to consume to be part
of the economy.
The only real answer, at some point, would have to be to "check out"
of that part of the economy and become either a hermit or homeless.
Mike
Carthell
> Not in a consumer economy where one is EXPECTED to consume to be part
> of the economy.
Yeah, I see the financial cops busting down doors every day, rounding
up the shmoes who don't use their credit cards often enough, and
taking
'em to the local re-education camps.
In general, after high school, the only thing people are expected to
do is live their lives. And it isn't that hard to figure out that,
at most, debt on the credit card should never exceed a person's
guaranteed ability to pay off the debt quickly.
>
> The only real answer, at some point, would have to be to "check out"
> of that part of the economy and become either a hermit or homeless.
Or (cough, cough) simply spend prudently.
But in this case, my situation someone mirrors the man featured in the
story: due to a huge number of personal and house repair-related
expenses
encountered at the end of this past year, I racked up about $2k less
of debt
than the man featured in the story. Because I'm such a hard-driven
saver
(you learn early in life that being poor is NOT fun), I nuked the
debt
by the end of this past January. If I had a little more time, I
probably
would have re-financed my house and paid for the repairs that way.
If
I were that guy, and he had a similar knowledge or financial
situation
as I do, I would have used the CC for the low rate, then arranged to
re-finance the house or get a equity loan about halfway through the
introductory rate term if I couldn't pay the debt down fast enough.
Of course I had to think ahead when I obtained the house: keep tight
control
over the credit situation, and keep a stash for emergencies. Paycheck-
to
-paycheck, even in a rental situation, is begging to have Murphy's Law
apply far
earlier than wanted.
-d
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
"Joe" <useful...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:d92775d6-0a18-4cc5...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Read the story at http://Muvy.org
Why not? It's easy money for the bankers. America was on the way to becoming
a nation of debt-peons; people are slowly waking up and beginning to
default. The response of the "people in charge" is to secretly transfer all
the crap debt to the FED so the peons instead will get to pay over the gas
and the food bill.
star...@yahoo.com
Not necessarily saying good or bad, but you'd be about the first
person I've heard of to go down that road.
Mike
Frithiof Andreas Jensen
<star...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ee109af9-f78d-4de6...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> So, in your opinion, mass defaulting is a good thing??
>
> Not necessarily saying good or bad, but you'd be about the first
> person I've heard of to go down that road.
I do think mass default is a good thing. First because it is nice to see
people act rationally for a change and second because defaults will bring
risk back into the investment game. Once risk is back then real interest
rates and decent dividends for investors come back - in former times one
would expect dividends well above bond rates because of the risk in stocks.
The last decade or even more investors got nothing apart from asset
inflation.
PS:
I also liked the Serbs burning the US embassy while the Sebian police
watched with beer and sausages at the ready - again because *why* should
people just bend over for "The Man"? Why is the US so keen on a muslim
mafia-state in Europe? To weaken the competition or to provide a way for the
Afghan heroin??
>
> Mike
Scotius
@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, useful...@yahoo.com says...
Well, at least he's working it down.
Of course the government should step in and limit the amount of
interest the usurers can charge, but we pretty much all know that's not
going to happen, don't we?
The best strategy then is to be responsible and not become the
victim of excessive interest rates.