The American Way of Debt
Tuesday, 22nd July 2008 (by J.D.)This article is about Credit Cards, Debt, Economics, News
On Sunday, The New York Times published a series of articles on The Debt Trap, exploring the surge in consumer debt and the lenders who made it possible.
The main article profiles a Philadelphia woman who made some bad choices, bought into the myth of easy credit, and now finds herself struggling with insurmountable debt. “I regret not dealing with my emotions instead of just shopping,” she says. Through compulsive spending and an unaffordable mortgage, she set herself up for failure — an unexpected medical emergency delivered the knock-out blow.
But borrowers are just one half of the problem. The other part is a financial industry willing to grant more credit than borrowers can possibly repay. Banks know better than the consumers how much debt a person can afford. They have sophisticated statistical models that allow them to predict just how profitable these long-term relationships will be. They want to take on people with debt. It’s easy money.
Stories like this seem to provoke two conflicting responses:
- Some people argue that banks and credit card companies are predatory, doing what they can to lure people into a life of debt slavery.
- Others say that the responsibility lies solely with the borrower, that each person in debt gets that way because of personal choice.
I believe both sides are right. I also believe both sides are wrong. This isn’t a black and white issue. It’s complex. People end up deep in debt because they aren’t able to manage money and because the banks know this and are hoping to land lucrative customers. From the article:
“Today the focus for lenders is not so much on consumer loans being repaid, but on the loan as a perpetual earning asset,” said Julie L. Williams, chief counsel of the Comptroller of the Currency, in a March 2005 speech that received little notice at the time.
Lenders have been eager to expand their reach. They have honed sophisticated marketing tactics, gathering personal financial data to tailor their pitches. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising campaigns that make debt sound desirable and risk-free.
Our current credit crisis exists because everyone involved was looking for easy money. They wanted to get rich quickly. Banks see perpetual borrowers as an evergreen revenue source. Borrowers look upon credit as “free” money. This combination, as we’re seeing, is a recipe for disaster.
Yesterday at I Will Teach You to Be Rich, Ramit gave his take on the NYT article, writing:
Should we just stop spending so much? Of course we should, but that’s like saying we should all lose weight by making better choices. Easy to say, extremely difficult to do. I’m hopeful that the current environment calls for a restructuring of our priorities. I hope that we get conscious about our spending and start prioritizing saving over spending. With extended hardship, this will become more likely. We all need to be conscious of our finances, but we’re playing in a world with the deck stacked against us.
Is the deck stacked against us? Maybe. But most of us have the power to change the hands we’re dealt. Make smart choices. Spend less than you earn. Don’t buy stuff you cannot afford. Establish an emergency savings account. If you believe you have problems with compulsive spending, get rid of your credit cards. Practicing good money habits can give you a winning hand, even if the deck is stacked against you.
Though banks may be willing to issue you a new credit card or to raise your limits, you do not have to take them up on their offers. They’ll happily lead you toward a life of debt; it’s up to you to take a different path.
For more information on this topic, visit these articles from the archives:
- How to get out of debt
- A review of Maxed Out, a film about the the credit industry
- The giant pool of money: Anatomy of the subprime mortgage mess
- The secret history of the credit card
[The New York Times: Given a shovel, Americans dig deeper into debt]


July 22nd, 2008 at 5:14 am
Very back to basics, in a good way.
I think it’s easier to overspend than is realised, I can’t be the only person in the world whose response to feeling miserable is to go shopping. I don’t spend more than I can afford just more than I’d like, and I know that one idea is to stop seeing non-spending as less fun than spending. If only knowing and doing were one and the same thing. Any ideas anyone?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:00 am
Actually I think the deck has been firmly stacked in your favour:
- Low interest rates, without the consequent inflation, because of
- Dollar Hegemony and
- Petro-dollars keeping us gas prices low
etcetra
The change is that this seems to be ending, along with the dollar’s status as world reserve currency.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:16 am
The deck has been stacked in our favor for so long that we don’t know how to live any other way. Our entire culture is based on consumption. The coming recession will not only change our spending habits, but it will also change our culture so fast that we are going to have culture confusion. We are going to see many people confused and emotions are going to run high.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 am
I completely agree with J.D. that the issue is very grey. In some ways, yes the creditors are at fault by extending credit to less than ideal candidates but at the same time credit issuers do not benefit when someone gets so over their head that they miss payments or go into foreclosure (in the case of housing). There is no money to be made off of someone who cannot make their payments.
On the other hand, it is very simple for a person to calculate how much debt they can take on, and are ultimately the ones who should shoulder the brunt of the blame for their situation. People are always worried about keeping up with their friends and neighbors so they spend. Some like in the case of the woman from Philadelphia shop compulsively as a mechanism to cope with stress and avoid dealing with emotions. Others just have no concept of the value of a dollar nor do they understand the long-term effects of their overspending.
There is not cut-and dry answer to this dilemma, however the best solution is education. Starting from a young age, the more knowledge you provide someone, the better they will be at making rational and responsible choices in the future.
I have written a couple entries in my blog that deal with both of these issues in the past:
http://letsblogmoney.com/2008/06/23/are-credit-issuers-to-blame-for-the-nations-problems/
http://letsblogmoney.com/2008/06/17/start-teaching-your-kids-early-to-build-a-strong-financial-foundation/
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 am
Yes
And the dangers is there that a populist leader will come along who will promise the impossible: “you can have your SUV’s back!”
and blame those previous leaders who, though ineffectually, did try to be constructive in solving the economic problems “It’s all Al Gore’s fault!” …
And to be honest I think this is the most likely outcome. A bit like your analogy of getting a whole nation to diet, I think to avoid some kind of internicene strife will involve asking everyone to *grin and bear it*.
fat chance.
Ed
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:25 am
JD-great post though I did have some issues with the article. And Ramit’s post sure had a strong edge to it!
I agree that both the lenders and borrowers are both responsible. The lenders are predatory and their behavior is wrong. But that doesn’t take away the borrower’s responsibility.
I firmly believe we only succeed when we take control of our lives. Doing it for them will only enable the problem and make things worse on the long run.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 am
Our problems run deep into our culture and I agree that there is plenty of fault to go around. One of the things I kept hearing during the big runup to the mortgage crisis that drove me crazy was the phrase “get cash out of your home.” They made it sound like you were just getting access to cash that was already lying around. When in reality you were BORROWING MONEY against your largest (and maybe only) tangible asset. It’s just an example of how marketing has contributed to the problem.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 am
The banks are just simply out there to get money. They are running a service, it is completely our decision how we use that service (credit cards). I don’t believe banks want to see people in debt slavery, they just want to make some money by providing a service.
People CHOOSE to step into debt slavery because they decide not to educate themselves and decide to spend more than they can afford.
But it is great that sites like yours and all the other financial blogs out there are beginning to offer ordinary people an easy way to learn about managing your finances.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 am
It is totally crazy how much credit banks and such are willing to give out. My husband and I bring in about 55K per year combined, and you should see the credit card limits we’re given. We don’t have any credit card debt, but if I wanted to, I could amass tens of thousands of dollars of debt given the credit limits on my cards.
I do agree that people need to not just blame the credit card/mortgage companies…just because you get approved for x amount of dollars doesn’t necessarily mean that you can afford to incur that amount of debt. And blaming the financial industry for your blind following of their approval amount is pretty lame, in my opinion.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 am
This is not really related… but is there a budget calculator out there somewhere? It doesn’t have to be specific, more like if you make 10k you should spend 1k house and 1k elsewhere… that is a very very cheap example.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
If someone gives you a loaded gun do you have to fire it? No of course not. Same thing with credit. I don’t think the banks are too much to blame for all of this credit. You and I are.
We live in a land blessed with choices yet in a our own selfish ways we choose everything for us and for the here and now. Now that price of that choice has come due. Don’t cry about it you literally dug your credit grave you have to crawl out of.
I think the issue is behind the credit. Why do people send so much? Why can’t we stop? Because in North America we have a huge number of very unhappy people who are now just realizing all this stuff didn’t give us more than a minute or two of happiness. We focused on spending money and it gave us pain. Instead we need to focus on using money toward what really works for us. Live your life for you, not for an iphone.
Tim
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:15 am
Great comments so far, but I really do think you folks are underestimating the power of advertising. Kris and I were talking the other day, and we both agree that the number one thing people can do to save money is to reduce their exposure to advertising.
Yes, we must each accept responsibility for our choices. But marketing is designed to subvert our will. It’s good at it. Advertisers know exactly how to manipulate masses of people. On an individual level, it’s important to resist this manipulation and to develop the skills necessary to make smart financial choices. But the financial companies share some complicity for this crisis. They’re doing their damndest to get people to borrow and spend.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 am
I really don’t like the NYT’s graphic on how much debt you have (comparatively). For instance, my only debt is my mortgage. Is debt on a 15 year fixed mortgage bad debt? No. The problem debt isn’t mortgages/trad student loans. It’s CC’s, car payments, and other revolving debts.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:27 am
@J.D.: I do agree with your thoughts on advertising, but with television, magazines, the interenet, radio, billboards, it’s difficult to avoid it. There are many people in this country who will buy just about anything they see being marketed, especially if it is endorced by a celebrity/athlete or someone else they “respect” or want to emulate. I guess that’s why so many companies have huge marketing budgets like TD Ameritrade with Sam Waterston, Cadillac with the various actors, Nutrisystem with Dan Marino, Don Shula, et al., etc.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 am
I had two responses to the original Times article. First, I was insterested that the profiled woman said she started buying things from tv shopping networks while laid up sick. I also spent a lot of time in bed recovering from various aspects of my cancer treatments — and I ended up watching every episode of every version of law and order; lots of american movie classics, and doing double-crostics. Shopping channels didn’t attract me…. but I can’t tell you why one person finds them soothing and someone else doesn’t.
Secondly, it occured to me that that while I may be good at controlling major spending, I do have the same itch to spend — even if it’s only food extras or a new pair of socks. being able to “shop” seems very much ingrained, not just a response to advertising. Trolling a used book store and buying a postcard or a paperback mystery, can, fortunately, feel like shopping for me, or buying a candy bar or an iced tea — so as long as I budget some walking around money, I’m insulated from really spending…
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 am
Credit Cards also offer rewards and build credit. I think if someone has a problem overspending they should lock up their credit cards except for one with a low credit line, mine is 1000, but 500 will do. These cards sometimes offer as much as 5% cash back on all purchases, shop around for offers. Pay off the locked up cards and keep them, it will increase your credit score, keep raising the credit lines on the locked up cards, this will also increase your score. Never use them. One day you will want a credit line for buying a house or something of this nature. If you treat your low credit line card like a debit card and pay it off every month you will be fine and increase your credit score while potentially getting 5% cash back(almost like having a running cd on your purchases that you HAVE to make like on gas and food). If that is really too hard, enroll in bank of america’s keep the change. They do the trick that JD mentions but also match 100% for the first three months and then a percentage thereafter. After you save up a certain amount, look into opening and account with etrade or ING, both offer excellent savings rates for their savings accounts as well as strong cd’s, though at this point in time you’re better off just leaving it in the savings as the CD offers are way too low to justify locking up your money for a year…
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 am
There are circumstances you’re born with that often dictate your spending/saving pattern as an adult. I think a lot of people inherit bad financial behavior from their parents. On the flip side, some people inherit the tendency to take advantage of others whenever possible. This combination of greedy lenders and vulnerable consumers is what lead to the credit crisis. It is part of American culture. It will be generational unless we act to change it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 am
Take a look at the movie Maxed Out to get a good idea at how predatory lenders are. I’m also in the personal resposibility camp, but I live in a very poor and ignorant city. And its not the only poor and ignorant place in this country. There are many, many people in this country who do not understand the credit and lending process - some of them are mentally incapable of it. But the banks and lenders go after these people the hardest. The ones who are most likely to default are the ones who give them their greatest profit margins through fees and extra charges. It’s a catch-22. Seriously, check out the documentary - it’s pretty good.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 am
JD wrote:
“Our current credit crisis exists because everyone involved was looking for easy money. . . . Banks see perpetual borrowers as an evergreen revenue source. Borrowers look upon credit as “free” money. This combination, as we’re seeing, is a recipe for disaster.”
Partly this is a result of poor math education in the schools. Instead of doing problems with Train A and Train B, why can’t we teach the effect of compound interest earned and paid?
When I see a car for sale with “$2000 cash back”, it drives me insane. You are borrowing money and will be paying it back at the same rate as the rest of the car for the same term.
Another dumb thing we do is feel happy when our new house has carpets, fresh appliances etc. We are going to be paying for those carpets and those appliances for 30 years, and their useful life is 15 at most. When the buyer looks at the next refrigerator, he should be thinking of the ghost of the first refrigerator, now long since in the dump.
Buy the house and buy the appliances and carpets yourself. Never put anything on a mortgage/car payment/lease that will last for less time than the length of the payment.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 am
My perfect scenario looks like this:
The banks loan money based on how much a person can afford to borrow, as they used to do long ago. The individual is completely responsible for the repayment of the loan according to the terms to which they agreed.
As for advertising, I agree with JD. It makes it hard to spend responsibly, and I don’t consider myself a weak person. I don’t buy the latest electronics or new cars, but life is easier when I limit my exposure to ads. You can’t think you need things if you don’t know they even exist.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
I see three fundamental problems in the current system:
1. Lack of personal finance education.
2. Complexity of consumer lending arrangements.
3. Lack of individual responsibility.
There are other systemic issues such as the seperation between those who originate loans and those who end up holding the default liability but the above would solve a lot of problems.
I believe there should be a set of federal laws governing consumer lending so that any borrowing contract (including credit cards) would be a simple single page and be governed by a fair set of laws. Then you could focus on the interest rate and term of the debt. Fancy lending arrangements get people in over their heads.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
1. Personal Finance should absolutely be taught in High School for a minimum of two years before graduation to make sure the points are really driven home. One or two general classes are pretty much useless.
2. Amen to your comments regarding spending less than is earned, not buying stuff for the sake of it, etc.
3.What is the solution to lenders who prey on the young and/or financially clueless?
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 am
@MoneyBlogga: Unfortunately, there is no way to answer your third point. How can you legitimately establish a guide to seperate the clueless from the informed? And even then, someone who has a wealth of knowledge in one area may have none in others. Simply being young does not make someone prey. In fact, it has nothing to do with age as much as it does with economic situation & income levels, education, and location which currently defines who is prey for such lending tactics.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
@JD
“Kris and I were talking the other day, and we both agree that the number one thing people can do to save money is to reduce their exposure to advertising.”
This I totally agree with you both. I don’t watch TV on TV. I rent the DVD copies of shows from the library. No ads and I get to watch an entire season in a week. I can not understand why anyone would waste their lives in front of that box to watch a show filled with ads.
I only have one magazine I read and I don’t get the paper (I read online instead). I also have gotten very good at not looking at ads while online.
Avoiding ads does help I will give you that. Yet in the end you are in charge of your own self. You must decide I don’t care about ads. Don’t look at them unless you have to.
Tim
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am
I think there’s plenty of greed and stupidity to go around in terms of who’s to blame for the current credit crisis. (I don’t remember if JD talked about the NPR This American Life story about the mortgage crisis, but I think it’s downloadable, and I recommend it.)
JD said:
Kris and I were talking the other day, and we both agree that the number one thing people can do to save money is to reduce their exposure to advertising.
I agree that having Tivo speed past all commercials and reading mostly news and health magazines has made us less ad-driven, but that’s just one small part of the advertising we’re bombarded with every day.
This is what I’m trying to teach my kids:
If someone is trying to sell you something, it isn’t about you and isn’t about your best interests. They don’t care about you — they care most about themselves and getting you to part with your money.
It’s a game:
– If they make you buy something you didn’t want or need before you saw the ad or item, they win.
– If you ignore the ad or do research and a lot of thinking and avoid buying the product unless you really want or need it, and can comfortably afford it, you win.
I have my work cut out for me.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Bill Moyers in his Journal series just did (7/18) an episode examining these issues that you all might find interesting. You can watch a video of it online at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
Barb
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 am
It might be a lack of education, but no one has yet drawn a relationship to addiction propensity, and it’s relationship to advertising. For some people it’s cigarettes for the new millennium. Easy to get started, very hard to quit. For others they can control, or perhaps not give into in the first place, their desire for something they can’t (yet?) afford.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hi. I’ve been watching ‘In Debt We Trust’ and ‘Maxed Out’ and ‘Debt Land’ off and on, as well as the Frontline piece on credit cards.
So much of our society requires us to have debt, even irresponsible debt, in order to do simple things like rent a car, reserve a hotel room or an airline flight or obtain a mortgage.
After my credit disaster years ago as a new parent, I stopped living on credit and learned to live within my means. But that presented certain problems, too, as I attempted to pay off my debt. I was told my credit score would not improve that way, that I needed to add ‘good debt’, and that utility history (paid for years on time, etc) and rental payment history would not be considered.
I felt almost compelled to get a small credit card ($250 limit) and just charge gas only on it and pay it off at the end of the month. It’s weird, how our society works, but it’s an unfortunate fact.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Does it bother anyone else that we, the public, are now referred to as “American consumers”? Whatever happened to being citizens?! I think this subtle propaganda keeps people thinking that they better spend, spend, spend to do their part for the economy.
We can all see where that kind of thinking has led us now.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
@Kris
We are all both: consumers as well as citizens. When it comes to business matters we are classified as consumers because that is what we do: consume products and services. It is not derogatory in context, actually quite accurate. In other senses such as politics and location we are citizens.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
@ Kris - I suspect they are referring to citizens who are consumers, vs citizens who aren’t (ie, the ones who aren’t the target audience).
Regarding the article - there was a review in Science magazine recently about a book which looks at what the authors call “libertarian paternalism”.
The gist is - we are all ultimately responsible for our choices, but what we fail to realize is that choices are influenced by choice architecture. That is to say, the same person will make different choices depending on the way the decision process is structured. Hence, instead of making easy-credit opt-out, we should make it opt-in. Make the responsible choice the default choice.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 am
I know people with excellent salaries who are in debt because they choose to spend-”oooh, it’s a sale”, “I need”, “I deserve”. One person with two cars or a family where everyone has a car including the teens so they can drive to school - even though there is a public school bus. People who “need” a new care very few years or keep redoing their houses with credit. People who keep buying because they are bored. I don’t have a shopping channel- no cable. Do I sound mean- ok, but I don’t want to pay for well-off people who can’t control themselves or their children.
I feel badly for people who have to have two or three poorly paid jobs to have a place to live and food and occasionally get medical care.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Canadian Dream-I totally agree about the ads. The problem is, you have to have the self-control and wisdom to make the choices in the first place that will keep you from being exposed to ads. I hardly ever watch TV or listen to the radio and so I rarely see/hear ads. But, most Americans aren’t willing to give up those things, especially the TV.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
In response to plonkee:
It’s very easy to overspend, anyone can come up with infinite wants, there is always more, more, more to buy! Beyond the debt you will get less and less satisfaction from those additional things. You also miss out on the satisfaction of having enough!
I have a few suggestions to try: Start by being thankful for what you have. it’s human nature to take the things we have for granted, but if you take the time to look at all of the things you have I bet you will be amazed how much you really have.
If you are feeling miserable, more things are really not the answer. Those things don’t care how you feel! Instead try seeking out other people. What is more satisfying spending some time with friends/family or buying another thing? You could also volunteer at a hospital or nursing home as helping others with serious problems is a great way to help yourself too. You would be doing something worthwhile, which is a great way to build your self-esteem. Also, Seeing other people’s problems can help put your problems into perspective.
-Rick
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 am
Would you have attended a class on personal finance?
I wrote more about this here.
It’s great to call for better personal-finance education, but this is a huge problem that millions of dollars go into each year — and yet, there haven’t been any measurable results.
How about more practical solutions that we can implement today?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
I read an interesting article several months back on how the debt cycle travels with us through life.
Robert Manning, author of “Credit Card Nation,” studied the financial spending habits of Americans across generations to discover what influences the spending in their specific age groups.
People have to endure behavior modification to get on a budget and stop using credit.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 am
I’m personally a big fan of personal responsibility. I think you should have to account for your own actions. We’d rather blame the evil banks and what not. It’s silly.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Before I say anything I will state that I am the posterchild of bad credit at the moment. I had to hit rock bottom before I did anything about my spending, cc’s etc. I accept responsibilty for my actions, and I am not looking to weasel out of paying the money that I owe.
That said, its really difficult to work with creditors who lump you into categories based on something you “might” do.
What other industry can enter into a contract with you and then decide they don’t like the terms so they can change them?
Is it fair for a cc co to pull your credit, and decide, based on the report and not on the business that you have conducted with them for 4, 5 or even 10 years, to decide, well we think you are going to not pay us (even tho you have Never not paid them in 5 or more years) so we are going to raise your interest rate from 9% to 26%.
Yeah, you can blame the person who was given the cc, just like you can blame smokers for getting addicted to cigarettes that were deliberately boosted with nicotine specifically TO GET YOU ADDICTED. Anyone seen the CC commercial where half a dozen people go through the line quickly with their paypass card, then one terrible person wants to pay cash or write a check and just ruins it for all the people in line behind her. Who is the real bad person here? The one going on faith that the cc co would not give you credit if they think you can’t pay it, or the person stupid enough to believe it?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
re: exposure to advertising - It’s all very well and good to say “I don’t watch TV, so I don’t get exposed to as much”, but have you taken a good look around? If you go to the movies, after paying $ for your ticket and more $ for your popcorn and drink, you then get to sit through ads for cars and soft drinks before finally seeing ads for more movies. Finally, after all that, you get to see the movie - which is full of carefully chosen placements of various products. The hero drives the new Behemoth 7, and he saves the world on his HAL computer, and then he celebrates by having a coffee from StarPeets… You come out of the movie to find ads stuck under your wipers. The buses you pass on the way home are covered in ads, the benches at the bus stops are ads, there are billboards everywhere… Heck, even some of the small local food joints have a page of ads in their menu. Every day I go home and throw out at least half of the items that arrive in my mailbox - weekly flyers for all the local grocery stores, pizza ads, other food joints, big sale at the tire store, the Walmart flyer, eyeglasses, dentists, need a lawyer? and so on.
Going to a sporting event? Staples Center, 3Com Field, Qualcomm Stadium, Heinz Field, etc. In Nuremburg, Germany, the Frankenstadion has been renamed to EasyCredit-Stadion. (How’s that for topical?) Don’t forget Houston’s Minute Maid Park, formerly known as Enron Field… Instead of the Sugar Bowl, it’s now the AllState Sugar Bowl - there is also the AT&T Cotton Bowl, AutoZone Libery Bowl, Brut Sun Bowl, Capitol One Bowl, etc. Going to the beach? Wow, it’s crowded with all the folks watching the Hawaiin Tropics surf contest. Need I go on?
I recently bought a tub of coleslaw from the deli at my grocery store - when they printed out the little weight/cost sticker to slap on the tub, it came with an ad attached to it. The grocery cart I push around has several ads on it even.
Advertising is pervasive. The only answer is to be constantly aware and vigilant, otherwise, you WILL be assimilated!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
@Ramit
Yes, it is easy to say that many children would avoid attending a class on financial education/responsibility. On the other hand, how would you know unless you try and actually have it arranged in such a way that it related to them? Have you ever heard of the courses where the class gets to learn about investing by actually getting “seed” money and actively investing and following the market? From the people I knew who had such a class the response was overwhelming positive. Besides, isn’t it better to try and fail than to not try at all. Personally I believe it is the parent’s responsibility to start the education at home (see my response #4 for my blog entry).
@Michele:
Depending on how old you are, you simply cannot blame the tobacco companies. For the past 20 years, warnings have been posted on packs of cigarettes, educational campaigns have been wages touting the effects of smoking, and even more simply. the effects are more widely know and recognized than they were in previous generations. If you feel that you want to have credit available to you, but do not trust yourself you can always have the limit reduced to an amount you are comfortable with. As far as ignoring your past history, there are two ways to see things.
1. Yes, you may have been a loyal customer, who never paid late or missed a payment and it is unfair of them to increase your rate based on your credit report.
2. It is no secret that once a person starts slipping in one area, it will most likely start spreading, meaning that if you start mising payments on one or two cards, the trend is like to continue on until you start missing payments on that particular creditor’s card.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
@ Eric
When someone is in trouble, the answer is to charge them more? Doesn’t that just cause more trouble, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? I’m just sayin’.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
@ Michele
I’m not sure about a prophecy, but it does make sense from a business standpoint. When people are in debt, the most common advice is “pay off the highest interest rates first”. Credit issuers know this and if they are justified in raising your rates (ie: late/missing payments or significant increase in credit risk) the chances are that they will be paid first, and they will recoup more of the money that they lent in accordance with that increase.
I don’t take sides, because I understand that both lenders and borrowers are at fault to varying degrees. All I know is that in certain instances it is a part of doing business.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
I agree with this article up to a point. That point being the thousands of college aged “adults” that the credit card companies target right on campus. We, as a society, in our homes and our schools, do not teach our children how to handle finances in the real world. My parents were children born in the wake of the great depression. They were raised on the motto, “Waste not, want not”. I was raised with “save for it,then buy it”. My children are inundated with ads that tell them they can have it all and have it NOW. You can have it all and have it now, but you’ll have to pay for it sooner or later, one way or the other.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
@JD
check out:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
I think you’d really like these.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Yes, the deck is stacked against us, but if we Americans were willing to do the hard work necessary to reduce our debt AND change the national attitude toward debt, we could turn this country around.
But it has to be a full effort to scale back on everything from food, to house size, to college costs, to national debt and deficit.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I am a firm believer that “you” are the only thing standing between you and the life that you would like to be living. Fate will not hand you what you want - be it lower debt or a higher savings account balance - unless you help yourself.
I have asked for extensions on my credit card before, but I only asked for the amount that I needed, $200. When the lady asked me if I wanted to raise my credit limit to the full $700 that the company was willing to give me I told her, politely and firmly, no. I only wanted what I needed at the time … and it has saved me a lot of money over the long haul.
You have to be a smart consumer to avoid the predatory ways of the credit card companies and the consumerist tendencies of our society. It’s time for this country to find a method of relieving stress that doesn’t involve running up your credit card bill at the mall.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
@ Ryan, post #7:
“The banks are just simply out there to get money. They are running a service, it is completely our decision how we use that service (credit cards). I don’t believe banks want to see people in debt slavery, they just want to make some money by providing a service.
People CHOOSE to step into debt slavery because they decide not to educate themselves and decide to spend more than they can afford.”
The whole notion of Central Banks is to ensure debt slavery to them so they remain in control. The government is a slave to them because the central banks LOAN money to the Gov’t with INTEREST. The only way to pay back the interest is with more money borrowed from Central Banks at interest. They have all the power since they issue/print the money in the first place.
Repeat cycle.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
Watch this free documentary, and give it serious thought.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
For those who keep talking about a personal finance class in high school, it needs to be COLLEGES, not high schools, who push for change. I took a very basic personal finance class by default in high school due to lack of classes I needed being offered at that time. I was probably the only one in their who graduated let alone went to college. We went over how to balance a check book ect. (I had already had one for over a year - responsibly.) However, if I could have taken a class towards my college math requirements that was on investing or another version of high end personal finance it would have been a lot more beneficial. Basic personal finance should be started in elementary school, just like any other subject we expect people to be proficient in.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
@ Michelle,
Just as a clarification: Banks cannot use the length of term that you have been with the bank as a means for giving credit. Doing so would be in violation of the Fair Lending Credit Act. Fair Lending means that a financial institution must give equal consideration to all applicants on a standard that can be applied to all applicants. Because some applicants will have a longer history than others with a particular financial institution, it would give them an unfair advantage over other borrowers. Therefore, a set standard needs to be applied across the board, which entails FICO, employment history, type of employment, income history, and debt to income ratio. These can be applied equally to any applicant that comes into the financial institution for credit.
As a side note, my wife works at a financial institution, and she is amazed at how many people do not understand the basic concepts of credit and how it is given out. People need to understand that all of the aforementioned stipulations are used in giving credit, so even if your FICO is 800, it doesn’t mean much if your DTI ratio is 80%, you are unemployed, or the asset that you are borrowing against already has 125% combined loan to value (CLTV).
The ignorance, combined with the spendthrift ways of many, leads to a personal financial disaster. Is it really that hard to understand that if you have 600K in equity in your house, but have a fixed income of 1200 per month, that no lender will give you the 600K your house is worth? Is it that unimaginable to understand that if you owe 600K on a house that is worth 500K, you can’t borrow money against it, even with a 790 credit score?
People need to learn the basics, and education as early as Junior High should be considered mandatory. Without the base tools of understanding, it isn’t that hard to understand why so many people are in the financial situation they are in.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
While I believe this to be an issue of personal responsibility, it is also one of education. Knowledge is power.
If a person wants to drive a car, a motorcycle, fly a plane, practice medicine, be a police officer, etc…he must be educated about and tested on what he’s doing before he can do it. Some people are disqualified, others excel. In areas where society can be impacted (and using credit IS one of those) - at the minimum, there should be some sort of class and exam.
My personal opinion is that this is being handled like sex education and religion. The schools will give the high level overview but it’s “up to the parents.” While I can appreciate that to a certain extent, many children are not being taught this in the home. In fact, schools are probably teaching more in the area of sex education than they are financial management.
Though I cannot say that I would not be in the mess I am today if I’d taken a class, I can say with some certainty that I would at least have understood the “basics.” I was raised in a house where money was not taught and I am still learning.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
JerichoHill @ #13 - I would prefer it if the NYT’s comparison had broken down mortgage debt vs consumer debt. However, I do not agree that mortgage debt is always “good debt”. I do find it a useful thing to realize my $220K mortgage is at the high end overall (average mortgage debt was $68K). Even for my age and income bracket it’s twice the average ($108K).
What I would have liked to see is debt compared to assets. But that’s me.
(As for why I have a $220K mortgage, my house is in Redmond - home of Microsoft & Nintendo, near Seattle - and houses average around $400K here.)
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
@JD,
“Great comments so far, but I really do think you folks are underestimating the power of advertising. Kris and I were talking the other day, and we both agree that the number one thing people can do to save money is to reduce their exposure to advertising.”
On your next vacation, please go to CHINA. That country seems to have more advertising than America does; the streets are lined with more and bigger and fancier billboards, company logos are plastered everywhere. The state-run television features zillions of ads for everything to encourage consumption, and you cannot walk one city block without 5 different people shoving some ad flier into your face.
And, yet .. the personal savings rate there is 40%-50%! Even as the economy continues to grow at double-digits. While America’s personal savings rate is 0%-1%, in some years it is negative. So I don’t buy that advertising has anything to do with debt.
Also, I would have thought a rather sizable portion of your income comes from advertising nowadays, so I’m rather surprised about your negativity on it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Remember, the average person’s IQ is not that far from borderline mentally retarded.
Either let big brother government stop those “evil” credit cards and advertisers from forcing you to buy things you don’t need, or have a shred of discipline and take responsibility for what is 100% within your control.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
JD -
Totally off the subject at hand…
Have you read MONEY magazines Aug. 2008 issue? There is a very interesting article ‘The Campaign To Make You Behave’ - pg. 126, talks about the psychology aspect of peoples financial decisions.
Thought it might be up your alley.
Thanks
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Credit card companies are not just lending people money, they are deliberately getting them addicted to credit. They carefully test their pitches so that they know will work.
They target people who they know can’t afford to repay the loan - which means that once they borrow a little they will continue to borrow more and more as they buy necessities on credit because their paycheck is going to make their credit card payment.
People who leave their keys in the ignition are irresponsible, that doesn’t mean a car thief is forgiven when they steal it. The credit card companies are predators looking for people who they can victimize.
And I say that as someone who thinks responsible use of credit is a good thing.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Comparing credit card debt to grand theft auto is ridiculous.
The credit card companies offer a service, and the consumers knowingly and willingly choose to use or abuse it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
You’re right. A better comparison would be to a heroin pusher.
I don’t understand why “personal responsibility” is a good thing when applied to consumers, but a cop-out when applied to lenders. Why, Adam, aren’t you insisting that credit-card companies take “100% responsibility” for sending credit cards to people with bad credit? Or for changing the terms of service retroactively?
Really, you can be a good little capitalist and still not worship banks.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 am
@mythago
The credit card companies are offering a service, not forcing people to spend what they do not have. Bad credit can be the result of many things, not limited to irresponsibility. It may have come about due to the loss of a job or a spouse/ex-spouse who was reckless, or medical situation, etc. The point is that no one is forced to accept the offer of credit. When they do accept, use, and abuse it there is no one to blame but the borrower as those were all choices that were made by the borrower and he/she alone. In addition, if the borrower is ignorant and fails to read the terms and conditions set forth by the creditor, again, there is no one to blame but the borrower. Yes, some of the disclosures may be a bit convoluted, but the most important terms are clear as day: credit limit, interest rate, grace period, late fee, default rate. What it comes down to is the fact that in most cases everything is bright and sunny until one digs a hole from which they cannot escape, then start blaming everyone else for their problems rather than accept sole responsibility for the situation.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 am
I think the fault lies with both, but I must say that I think the credit companies work really hard to keep you there.
I have been trying to close a credit card account for about a year. I made the first mistake on it by having something online charge to that account while it was in closing. That reactivated the account. I set it up to be in closing status again. I got a notice that the account was closed and then almost immediately got a statement charging me an annual fee on the account.
I continue to make calls to try to get this account closed, have been told that I need to pay something in so that I don’t incur any finance charges, and that they will cut me a check to reimburse me later. My trust level is zilch.
It seems that this particular company makes it VERY DIFFICULT to actually close an account! The blame for this falls on them.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:27 am
“In addition, if the borrower is ignorant … there is no one to blame but the borrower.”
Actually no. We are all ignorant about some things and we have government regulation to protect us from people who would take advantage of that ignorance. Instead, government has been protecting the predators.
You aren’t providing people with a service when you sell them a product you know is inappropriate for their needs and rely on their “ignorance” to get them to buy it. People who do that are usually called con-artists and punished for fraud.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:58 am
The government ins’t supposed to protect us from our own ignorance, rather from that which we do not all have an understanding of. The laws provide us the opportunity to have all of the disclosures and information given to us up front so that we may make informed decisions when it comes to credit, and it is by choice that one decides not to familiarize himself/herself with the terms of such offers.
It is like you said, they are providing a service that can be accepted or denied. There is no force involved in the matter as there are alternative providers that may be selected, or as many choose to do, simply avoid using credit period.
Fraud is the practice of deception, and is not what credit providors do. They are required to lay out the terms and conditions, and if someone chooses not to do their due diligence in reviewing those terms and conditions that is their choice and should claim responsibility for the failure to do so.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
@Eric
To some extent, you’re correct. And yet, to some extent, you are not correct.
I have known lawyers with degrees in Finance who still could not tell you the terms of their credit cards. And they’ve read the agreements! The reason the print on those disclosures is so tiny is not just because they have a lot of terms and conditions; it’s to discourage people from actually reading and understanding them effectively.
When I took out my sole credit card, I did in fact request a copy of the agreement UP FRONT - and did my best to read it. I’m a rather well-educated woman and I struggled to read it; they don’t *want* you to know the terms. To them, our ignorance is their bliss.
You’re right, no one *has* to take out a credit card. But have you tried to live without credit in this economy? Rental cars, airline tickets, hotel rooms - they all require a credit card to reserve or use. (Now, I’ve done a LOT of legwork and figured out how to achieve these things without one - and used a debit card/cash. But believe me, it’s not encouraged.)
I disagree - I believe credit providers do engage in fraud, and I have been proven right in the past. Providian, class action lawsuits against Sears and others, have borne out the idea that these issuers are not working from a place of altruism.
To put it all on the borrower is convenient, and disingenuous at *best*.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 am
@xysea:
Please reference my posts #42 & 58. I clearly state that I do not take sides in the blame game, nor do I agree that the entirety of the disclosure statements are clearly represented. However, I do believe that the borrowers need to stand up and claim responsibility for their actions (ie: spending habits) and only place blame on the providers where deserved (ie:your examples for one instance).
Just to clarify, I do not in any stretch of the imagination adhere to a cash-only way of life. Actually, it is quite the opposite, I eschew cash in favor of credit for nearly everything.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 am
@Eric -
Terms like ‘universal default’ etc, are rarely amplified in any disclosure, yet they are applied. How money is applied to the account is often left out of the disclosure agreement, as well. These are important on many levels.
We live in a culture that already places an inordinate amount of blame on the the individual; we’ve managed to beat that idea into peoples’ heads. Even the woman in the article realizes her obligations and responsibilities to her creditors.
However, coming from a similar economic and social picture to that woman, it horrified me that anyone was willing to loan her in excess of $250,000 on a $47,000 annual salary. And then more loans and credit cards on top of that! That is simply debt that cannot be repaid - ever. The bank is just as responsible for abrogating its responsibility as the woman is signing on the dotted line. The bank took its chances that it would get its money back, and it won some/lost some.
And I understand business is business, but business are still run by people. I would hope, anyway. Apparently, though, people whose consciences, morals, scruples, are more inclined towards profit than their fellow humans.
I’m sorry, but that is intolerable.
A consumer-based economy can only run so long when the wealth isn’t trickling down. And its not. Big business will have a hard time sustaining profits when the middle class is broke from predatory lending and greedy executives.
We’re seeing that now. I encourage debt independence as a way to avoid what I see as a larger collapse over time. At least if you’re debt free, you’ll at worst break even - if not do a little better.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
If people aren’t fully in control of their actions and choices then why do I have a credit card, but no debt? They are predators, right? My free will only plays a part of the equation, right?
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 am
@Xysea
I think what you are missing is that the Banks are responsible and that is why they will get hurt by lending 250k to someone with 47k in salary. They will lose money and the investors will follow. She obviously has a spending problem, so what? A lot of people have gambling problems, drug problems and in the most cases people are aware that they are doing something wrong. Is it right that your wealth and your entire life can be wiped out due to a divorce and medical problems? No, it isn’t fair, but that is life. We, including her should be grateful for, no debtor’s prison, the fact that through prudent economy most of us can achieve financial security. Lending is as fair as any business if they lend more than the people can pay they will lose their investments, just like if people spend more than they make they will lose their assets. Life isn’t fair and our (my) US view of the world makes us think that everything should be easy and fair.
@All
To those who want to show kids how the markets work, I would advise to be extremely careful. For the difference between prudent investing and senseless speculation isn’t always apparent to a child. Do you want to be responsible for giving someone their first taste of gambling? I fully support teaching basic budging and check balances skills though.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
@Adam
Have you ever been offered a predatory loan? How did you know it was predatory? Did you trust the bank to have your best interests at heart?
Education will go a long way, and I’m not saying people *aren’t* even mostly responsible. After all, this particular woman admits she used retail therapy to feel better. That’s something I just don’t do. Consequently, I am debt free and building a savings.
Does that mean I can afford to have zero sympathy for her? Unfortunately, no. It wasn’t so long ago that I had credit problems and had to dig my way out of them. I was pretty poor, and learning to live within my means was darned difficult, when everyone around me was “shocked” I didn’t own or use credit cards anymore. I was cash/carry for a long time. I still am. I did have some control and I could and did make choices.
But there are a lot of predatory people out there, and a lot of people living at the margin. You don’t seem to be one of them, Adam, but they do exist. People for whom one illness or similar unexpected problem can completely derail them. They don’t have credit, nor very good credit, and the type of ‘loans’ and ‘credit cards’ they get can only cause them trouble.
If you’ve been more fortunate than they, congratulations. But then, your loan/lending terms will generally have started out - and will continue to be - more favorable than theirs.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 am
I started out with a credit card that had an annual fee, and a $200 limit. I had to use that, because I couldn’t get a card with anyone else. I certainly wish I was preyed upon a little harder then, maybe I could have had a nicer card.
I didn’t buy things that I didn’t need. I didn’t use my credit card unless I had the money to pay it off that instant.
This has very little to do with me being “fortunate” and a lot more to do with me not being short-sighted and selfish.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
“Education will go a long way”
No, it won’t. It will help the people who are educated. But the credit card companies are predators who make a conscious effort to find people who aren’t educated and can be taken advantage of.
There is a real effort here to excuse this by blaming the victims for being vulnerable.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:56 am
You keep calling them the “victims”, but they are the ones making every decision at each step along the way.
This has to be the only crime in existence where the victims are in complete control of everything the entire time.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Adam, while you have a point, I think you’re severely underestimating the degree to which people make conscious choices. Part of what I preach around here is greater awareness of your financial habits precisely because so much of what most people do is “autopilot”.
I’ve said it many times: money is more about mind than it is about math. That is, it is our personal psychologies that play the largest role in our ability to handle our personal finances. Advertisers know this. Marketers know this. Most consumers do not. Advertisers and marketers employ people to work full-time to circumvent the rational decision making process of the average person. The average person has no defense against this. They don’t even know they need a defense.
So, while “victim” may be a little strong, I think you’re incorrect to say that people are in complete control of their decisions the entire time. They’re not. They have been manipulated in a very real way to make actions that are not in their best interest. They’ve been told these actions are in their best interest.
Great discussion, by the way. Thanks for all of you who are participating. I’m especially pleased that everyone is staying civil.
Also, regarding education: I, too, wonder how much good it will do. Buy most measures, I’m a pretty smart guy. I had personal finance education in high school. And yet I managed to end up deep in debt. Only one data point, I know, but… Still, I cannot see how personal finance education could possibly hurt. In the back of my mind, I’m wondering if there isn’t something that Get Rich Slowly could do in the Real World to reach out and offer education to people who need it.
Off to see The Dark Knight…
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
This has to be the only crime in existence where the victims are in complete control of everything the entire time.
Really? Those senior citizens who fell “victim” to people peddling shoddy roof repairs they didn’t need made the decision and had “complete control” as well. When someone lays a trap, the person who walks into it may have had “complete control”, but they didn’t know it was a trap. And the “trapper” did everything possible to conceal their trap. Same with the credit card companies.
“This has to be the only crime”
It isn’t a crime. Its all perfectly legal.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
JD, if you are implying that advertisers have subconsciously brainwashed people into purchasing things regardless of their free will, I am going to have to respectfully disagree. Certainly a great deal of social pressure can make people feel as if they want something they otherwise would have never considered, but ultimately that person makes the conscious decision to purchase something.
This is the disconnect. Not the implanted suggestion, but the short-sighted greed of wanting something right now and ignoring consequences.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
@xysea “So much of our society requires us to have debt, even irresponsible debt, in order to do simple things like rent a car, reserve a hotel room or an airline flight or obtain a mortgage.”
None of these things require you to carry a balance on your cards. Yes having credit cards helps you build a credit score and you need a good credit score for many things, but you score is just as good, even better, if you always pay your balances in full by the end of the grace period. Part of the credit score is utilization and the lower your utilization rate i.e. your balance relative to your credit limit the better. If your balance only includes one month purchases, it is smaller than if you have more than one month’ worth of purchases. “We need a credit score” is a good reason to have a credit card, but it is not an excuse for having credit card debt. Just keeping a card locked up in your desk builds your credit score.
All of the “bad” things people mention - universal default, double cycle billing, etc. only apply if you carry a balance. Pay your bills in full always and you don’t even care about the interest rate. I sure don’t. I’ll take a very high cash back card with 99.9% rate because I’ll never pay this rate.
I am amazed that people blame banks for their own inability to grasp a simple moral principle “if you borrow money you always have to pay it back”. Have you always returned money you borrowed from friends? As to banks - most of them allow you to sign up for automatic payment of the full balance. This way, they’ll just take the full amount of your previous month purchases from you bank account on the due date - no interest, no late charges. You just have to verify the bill. Isn’t it nice of them to provide you with this easy way to avoid both interest and late fees?
@The CFO (21) Regarding “lack of personal financial education”.
How much financial education does one need to know that a) you have to repay your debts - both $2 you borrowed from a friend and money you charged on your card b) there is no “free money” with credit cards, you’ll have to pay whatever you borrowed back c) the only choice you have with credit cards is whether you’ll pay exactly what you borrowed or pay a whole lot more d) if you pay your full balance by the due date, you’ll be charged no interest; if you pay less, you’ll be charged more in interest than you can possibly earn on your bank account. My parents were able to figure this out even without knowing much English; they certainly didn’t know enough to read the fine print. Yet my parents were already in the 40s, my father in his late 40s when we came to the US from the Soviet Union. I can assure you, there was no “personal financial education” in the Soviet schools; there wasn’t even a concept of “personal finances”. You got 100-something rubles monthly salary in cash and you used the same cash to stand in line and pay your bills. Whatever little left was mostly kept in socks or under the mattress. How come refugees from a communist country could figure out what more sophisticated Americans today can’t?
I’ve lived in the US for almost 30 years, and American “it’s not my fault it’s somebody else’s; government has to protect me from my stupidity” mentality never seizes to amaze me.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
In Maxed Out, one of the cases was a mentally retarted man who had been coaxed into signing into a predatory mortgage. And by “signing”, I mean he copied his name underneath after someone printed it for him.
Then there are people who had to charge medical care for a life-threatening condition.
It’s unfortunate that the spendthrifts get most of the attention when the media discusses debt, because there are plenty of situations in which the debtor wasn’t foolish or greedy. We should be helping these people instead of arguing about the debtors who have a closet full of Manolos.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
Adam, “brainwash” is too strong a word.
I was a psychology major in college. I’ve continued to read about psychology as an adult. I am convinced that people can be psychologically manipulated (not brainwashed) through advertising, perhaps not subverting free will, but certainly influencing their decisions. It’s not just opinion. It’s fact. That’s why companies do it.
This goes to very subtle levels, too. Package design influences what we buy, for goodness sake. We’re manipulated by packaging. Again, this isn’t opinion. It’s a fact.
For more on this subject, read Malcolm Gladwell on the power of marketing.
I absolutely believe that individuals must take responsibility for their actions. But I also believe their actions are often influenced by forces they don’t even understand.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 am
Every month, I receive my electric bill and pay it in full. Every month, I receive my credit card bill and pay it in full. Not complicated.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
Question: If you are not going to carry a balance on cards, why bother with them? Why not just use cash?
Believe me, kitty, I get the complete understanding of ‘if you borrow it, you must pay it back.’ I learned it the hard way, by believing what I thought I understood the agreement to say - only to find out they could change the terms at any time, and for any reason they liked. And I paid back every red cent, even the unjustified ones because it was easier than landing in court, or trying to fight.
I believe I was preyed upon. As a poor single mother on one income, I too started with a small card. I’ll just put diapers on it, I said. I’ll pay it off every month, I said. And then the baby got sick, and that went on the credit card because I had no free cash. Pretty soon, with enough rope, you’ll hang yourself.
It didn’t help that the minute they figured out that money was tight for us they upped the interest rate substantially. No matter that the bills were paid on time each month. And guess what? What they did was perfectly legal to us. Upping the interest rate, cutting our limit so all of a sudden we were ‘over the limit’ with all the fees *that* entails. Oh, good heavens, I can barely stand to think about it.
So, I walked away. I paid off the debt and I lived, for some time, on a cash only basis. The only account was a credit union savings account, so I could deposit a paycheck into it. (Those check-cashing places charge a mint to do it for you.) Then, slowly, I added a checking account. And set up automatic savings deposits. And then, eventually, *one* credit card. That’s it. If I don’t have cash, I don’t buy it.
That goes for cars. The only thing I financed recently was a home purchase, and I had my aunt and uncle help me with that. They privately loaned me the money, and I’m paying *them* back monthly.
Frankly, I could care less if the banks ever give me a good FICO score ever again. I don’t trust them, their lending instruments or their terms as far as I can throw them, thanks very much.
I don’t understand people who have 13 credit cards but don’t use them. I don’t understand people who charge and pay it off at the end of the month. I just use cash and not the card at all. Why pander to a system encourages indebtedness? Even temporarily?
That goes back to my original point. Our society encourages people to have credit cards. Furthermore, it encourages their use - repeatedly. Often. With expensive advertising.
Why should a credit card be necessary to successful personal finance at all?
Personally, I’m sticking as close to cash as I can. The only reason I got any credit card at all was to make rental cars, etc, easier, and to establish positive credit. Because I have to.
Because being debt free isn’t enough.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
@cath
No, you’re right. Paying a bill is that simple.
What’s not simple are a lot of other things, like no raises for 4 years. Losing your job. Getting sick.
A lot of people I know who have experienced problems had every intention of doing just as you say, and in fact they had. Every month up until things went horribly wrong.
I dearly wish life was a simple as what you’re trying to portray, but it is not.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Some possible reasons to use credit cards even if not carrying a balance:
1. Grace persiod allows for savings in high-yield accounts an extended period of time to earn.
2. Rewards programs allow for earning of points/miles toward merchandise, flights, hotels, payments toward card balance, etc.
3. Extended protection on purchases
4. Reduction in the number of bills to pay per month by charging as many applicable bills to a single card.
5. No reason to travel back and forth to bank to continually pull out cash (especially with gas prices at the levels they are at now)
6. Build a credit history
7. Expense tracking
8. Emergencies
These are in no particular order and I’m, sure there are tons more reasons, but this is just off the top of my head
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
I am amazed that people blame banks for their own inability to grasp a simple moral principle “if you borrow money you always have to pay it back”. Have you always returned money you borrowed from friends?
I am amazed that anyone equates a business transaction with a bank with a loan from a friend. You may feel a moral obligation to guarantee citicorp’s shareholders a profit on their investment, but I guarantee you they don’t feel any moral obligation for citicorp’s debts. They aren’t loaning you money, they are making a business deal on which they hope to get a very healthy return.
If you have a “friend” who loans you money while charging you credit card interest rates you might want to wonder how much of a “friend” they really are.
Your “friend” would have been called a loan shark 40 years ago. Only the mob offered that kind of very profitable “service”. Then we made it legal.
I also believe their actions are often influenced by forces they don’t even understand.
I think that is correct. But it does not mean credit companies don’t understand them and use them to get people to act in ways that are not in their best interest. Part of that marketing is suggesting it is somehow “immoral” for you to use your legal right to bail out when your plans go bad and you are in over your head.
If a corporation’s plans go bad and they have to bail out, well that is just the way the system works. Don’t expect those shareholders to pick up the tab. Our moral obligation then seems to end at exactly the same point as our legal obligation. That’s the way credit works too.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
kitty: right on!
Did anyone else notice that Ms McLeod is smoking a cigarette while selling trinkets on eBay to ease her debt so she could “pay her food bills”? I know, smoking is addictive, the cigarette companies use underhanded advertising techniques, blah blah blah, but still when I see people saying “I can’t afford food” or “I can’t afford my medications” and they are still smoking, my sympathy level decreases greatly.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Wow, this subject is taking an uncomfortable right wing turn for me. This ‘blame the victim’ mentality is beyond my understanding.
Are there no circumstances under which someone might incur debt that might be considered ‘acceptable’, without you people examining their lives with a fine tooth comb and a microscope?
I mean, I’m pretty frugal and I still wouldn’t want you people judging whether or not I bought store brand coffee or Folgers.
Ouch.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
“when I see people saying “I can’t afford food” or “I can’t afford my medications” and they are still smoking, my sympathy level decreases greatly.”
That’s probably because you have never discovered you are addicted to something. Most people who are tobacco addicts got addicted as children. The tobacco companies don’t see anything wrong with that either. After all, it was their choice.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
The picture on the first page of the New York Times article points to some fairly irresponsible ways that Ms. McLeod is spending her money if she really is in such a dire situation.
1. She is smoking.
2. A Yoohoo bottle is on the table.
3. A Starbucks bottle is on the table.
4. Multiple cans from some sort of beverage is on the table.
5. A magazine is on the table.
All of these items cost money. A pack of cigarrettes a day for a year can easily cost $1,000. Four purchased beverages (Starbucks, Yoohoo, canned pop) per day can add another $1,000 a year. And a magazine here and there can add another $200.
Seems like cutting these unnecessary expenses would give her over $2,000 a year to put towards the retirement of some of that debt.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Again, a shred of discipline will resolve the issue. And this is coming from someone who has faced chemical addiction.
Also, your smoking analogy is not apt. As a society we assume that children lack a real understanding of consequences. This is why we don’t try 12 year olds as adults.
People with credit card debt are full grown adults with fully developed brains.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
It takes more than a shred, I’m afraid.
As a former smoker, it took 3 attempts after 15 years of cigarettes to quit and stay quit. (4 years nicotine-free now) Considerable willpower and effort, and twice I completely failed at it.
And I only got part of the way on willpower; the other half? Nicotine patches; I got help.
Actually, I think the analogy is apt. Like any addict, a debt addict cannot even have access to a little debt. And like illegal substances, and cigarettes, the product should be regulated by law.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“Like any addict, a debt addict cannot even have access to a little debt.”
Like most other things people find themselves addicted to, debt is beneficial in moderation. The all-or-nothing attitude feels like the easy way out instead of actually practicing basic self-control.
For the sake of the argument, however, let’s explore this avenue. How could the government realistically determine who should and should not have access to any form of debt?
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? The lenders are not to blame. Unless you can point to specific instances of fraud (promising one rate guaranteed then switching it or something) the onus is upon the borrower to pay off their loans, period. They can’t make you borrow anything. The lady in the main article was irresponsible and foolish–one might have expected more from a working woman in her mid-forties. Unbelievable.
As far as blaming the victim, who’s the victim? Who? The person who voluntarily took on debt they couldn’t repay? Are you serious? This is why you save for emergencies. Yeah stuff can happen that no one can predict, and if it’s really bad, seek private charity. Honestly.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Even 20 years ago when the debt to income ratio used for financing mortgages was more conservative, we looked at the numbers and said there’s no way we could comfortably afford the monthly payment for certain houses. We waited until we could build one in our price range. (During that time of looking and pondering building, I had a little amortization book I carried in my purse trying to figure out the scenarios.) And like someone else said, when you look at the credit limits we’ve been given on some of our credit cards (e.g., a department store card) it’s ridiculous. $2500 for a Belk card. Please. We keep some of these for the discounts they offer, but use them rarely and pay them off immediately.
Why do we always expect someone else to look out for us and save us from ourselves? Some of the stories that have come out with the recent mortgage crisis have been incredible. A person with a $70000 income and a $2400 mortgage payment. A person with a substantial mortgage already purchasing another house as an investment (a.k.a. get rich quick in this case) and then getting stuck with it. These folks made very bad decisions and I don’t think we should pay for bailing them out.
There are exceptions. I think the payday loan companies are absolutely horrible. Our state just put new laws in effect for those. They are not stringent enough, but they are a start. Those companies are really not much more than legalized loan sharks IMHO.
I don’t think it’s advertising per se. I think it’s that we, Americans, in general are more worried about keeping up appearances than other countries. And, we consume, consume, consume. People are shocked when I tell them the very first thing I do when I get the newspaper each day is throw away all the sales fliers, UNLESS we are in the market for a specific item. Commercials don’t appeal to me one bit. I often think it’s ludicrous how much is spent on commercials (particularly during the Super Bowl) because I don’t think they influence people’s buying enough to merit the costs … but that’s me. Often I remember the commercial, but not the product … especially since these days the two are often loosely tied.
For people who are having problems closing accounts by calling … ALWAYS follow up in writing. Yes, it is old fashioned, but it is effective and needed communication for such actions. If you read the fine print on your accounts, you’ll see that contesting charges, making changes to your account, etc. often needs to be done in writing. Document dates and people you spoke to and be relentless about it. Write a letter, then follow it with a phone call, then another letter, etc. and go up the line speaking to supervisors–be relentless about that, too. They will try to tell you the supervisor is not available, etc., but do not give up. Of course, they try to keep your account open. Just be dogmatic about closing it and don’t fall prey to any great offers they’ll give you for continuing to keep it open.
We had to ask for our credit limit on our gas card to be increased recently, not because we actually need more credit because we are not paying our bill. We live in a rural area. There are few gas stations and one that is closest to us at work and home and has the best prices offers a credit card. So we pay it off each month, but because of rising prices, the amount we owed that was scheduled for upcoming automatic payment and the amount we’d charged since then totalled more than our limit. When the pump rejected our card, we called and they happily upped our limit.
And, I do give to charity and I do think people can fall on hard times, but the majority of the “victims” are not in those situations.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Exactly. If you loan money to people who can’t afford to repay you its your own fault. Especially when its obvious? Where is the due diligence there?
The answer, of course, is that the credit card companies know that people will only give up once they are drained dry financially. By then the credit card company they will likely have collected a couple times the amount they actually lent.
Loan sharking is a very profitable business.
Just to be clear - why would the credit card company want someone to pay them back? Where are they going to come close to the 12%-30% return they are charging in interest.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I’m not stating that people are without blame in some scenarios, but when a bank tells you ‘yes you can afford this’ , works to make it happen and it knows you can’t make the payments, the bank will bear a fair share of the risk *and* the blame.
The thing is banks spread their risk by selling the debt. Debt as an asset on a balance sheet is definitely funny money. And very risky.
To say this is solely the province of personal responsibility is a way of shifting responsibility away from the bank and giving most of it to the customer, even when the bank knew what it was doing the whole darn time.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I think everyone understands that the banks and credit card companies are trying to make as much money as they can. But they don’t do that by only lending to people who will be able to repay, they do it by deliberately lending to people they know won’t be able to repay.
Even if they never get a dime of the principal back, they can make a tidy profit by collecting on the interest. Their risk is that people will give up and walk away before the companies have extracted their profit.
The notion that the banks and credit card companies are the victims of the people who can’t repay their debts is ludicrous.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
@Adam
Cheap credit wasn’t such a problem for people years ago. Ever wonder why that is?
Check out this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/view/
Years ago, there were tried and true formulas for figuring out what people could pay. And if they came back asking for more?
Well, the bank declined them. Out of a sense of responsibility towards economic soundness overall, and because they also didn’t want people to get into a situation that they couldn’t handle.
It’s not a surprise what changed; banks changed their practices. They started extending credit to people who they knew needed access to cheap money, and who they knew were beyond risky. (The mortgage debacle is about this very same problem).
I do think we’re barraged by the notion of ‘consume, consume, consume’. Heck, after 9/11 our President told us to do it to be patriotic and help restore the economy. (I didn’t listen. I thought the idea was stupid. lol) From the top down, people actually live that way. Who bought an IPhone? Or the latest video game console?
Beyond instill a basic understanding of personal finance, there is little that anyone can do for individuals. But some people don’t even do that. My parents didn’t; they were coming into their own in the 80s, the last great ’spend-y’ time in recent history. I had to completely re-learn everything about personal finance, and I used the best model I could find. My grandmother lived through the Depression, was frugal, saved religiously and rarely used credit. She was a smart lady, my grandma.
I’m teaching my daughter that it isn’t about what you have; we don’t have a flat screen TV, because our others work fine. I try to teach her that there are things in life more important than money; like people. We volunteer, we give (even though we don’t have a lot ourselves) and I refuse to take her to the mall for her own good.
I think it’s important to be realistic, without being unnecessarily cruel. And while it’s good to pat yourself on the back for being one step ahead of those in debt, I’d be cautious about passing too harsh a judgment on folks.
Not everyone has the same life experiences, learning, or examples as you had. Being a teacher is more beneficial in the long run.
That’s why I came here; to learn more about saving and personal finances so that I can pass it on to the people I care about.
@ Eric
I track expenses on my bank statement. I use a Visa or Mastercard debit for a majority of my purchases. I can take cash out when I’m in the grocery store, if I need it. So, no credit cards as tracking devices are not necessary.
I always make sure to have a good savings cushion. In fact, I have a few savings accounts right now. If I’m in a pinch, I ‘loan’ money to myself, interest and penalty free, and work to pay it back.
The only thing I can see credit cards are good for is convenience, and well, imho that’s have the problem right there. It’d be a good thing if buying such things were a good bit less convenient maybe…but I’m sure people would get around that, too.
But, I found out for 6 years it is quite possible to get by with no credit card at all. I lived okay; some things were more difficult, but overall little changed. That is why I do not believe having a credit card should be used as a barometer of financial success.
My FICO score should not be lowered, for example, if I have fewer cards than they think I should have. Or if I don’t use them as often as they think I should. I have had both happen in the past, and I’ve fought both. In the end, that was the reason I felt compelled to get a card. What if I needed a bank loan? Without a positive credit history, your FICO score will not improve - debt or no debt.
That’s a scam. And a crock.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
One last thought before sleep -
Ever wonder why we have to spend so much time defending ourselves against credit lenders? Following up, phoning, etc? Why must we do this? Why aren’t we just out living our lives?
Somehow, I don’t see the banks as the wounded parties here. They have infinitely more tricks, and resources, than we have time and money.
I took my quality of life back; I rarely wrestle with the bank, or a card issuer. I don’t want to, and because I reject their product 99.9% of the time, I don’t have to.
I don’t want a department store card with a $2500, and they shouldn’t be offering me one. Or, if they do, and see my income perhaps they should suggest one with a smaller limit? Or perhaps even (shock, horror) decline to give me one, after looking at an income vs expenditure worksheet.
Will people lie? Of course, but at that point - if the bank did all they could to make the customer aware and to dissuade them from unnecessary credit - I would have a lot less sympathy for that person, myself.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Let me make it very clear here. I’m not for bailing out banks either, and if they make dumb decisions, they make dumb decisions. However, we’re talking about individuals being in debt. So, SO, there is *no* shifting of responsibility. Ultimately it is the borrower who chooses to seal the deal. Again, you have not been coerced at gunpoint to sign on the dotted line. What prevents a person from getting a 3rd party opinion? Say, that of an experienced accountant?
I used to work at a womens clothing store. We called it “making numbers”. We have to sell a certain amount daily and as long as the check clears, it’s not our problem if the money should have gone to rent or food or whatever. That’s the customer’s responsibility. The same goes for banks lending you money, it’s a service that they provide. You don’t have to take everything they offer you.
Throughout all this mortgage and credit card drama, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about business. Lenders, ice cream sellers, pharmaceuticals, and day cares do not exist for your benefit. They are trying to make as much money as they can for themselves (and there are different short & long term strategies for this of course). It’s not wrong and it’s not indecent. As long as no fraud has been committed, you must be accountable for obligations YOU assumed.
Don’t expect these entities to be your parent or your babysitter when it comes to your finances.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Actually, Harold, right now we are talkin about banks being in debt. A lot of debt. And selling that debt, and taking debtors down with them.
Has anyone here ever made a poor financial decision? From the comments I’ve been reading, one would suspect the majority is operating from a position of always having been financially savvy. If so, then you really can’t understand what it’s like to not have those skills and to be flying blind, and trusting of banks who claim to want to help you but who are really helping themselves.
Actually, the entities, Harold, you describe exist for society’s benefit. We all benefit more when the majority is doing better. Banks are nothing if most people are too broke to access their services; at one point, it has to be viewed as a symbiotic relationship. Banks can do nothing (no investments etc) with my money if I don’t use them.
What the banks failed to realize was that by going parasitic on people, they were killing the host. Now we’re seeing some of them die off, much the way the creditors they gave easy credit to are dying off financially.
I think that’s an excellent lesson for them to learn, don’t you?
It’s the same with the general economy. If you do not raise wages, but you raise cost of living, and your economy is consumer-based you’re going to end up with problems. If that economy goes top-heavy with mega-rich at the top and ultra-poor at the bottom, you’re also going to go pear-shaped. The fundamentals of a consumer-based economy is that everyone must participate, and that eventually all resources and ability to pay run out.
Now, I’m not really here to argue free markets, unfettered capitalism or whether or not we should have a consumer-based economy. I go to political sites for that.
I do not believe that banks should be able to offer credit to people outside the traditional ratios; if they do, they should bear the primary risk for that. After all, they’re speculating on debt using your money and mine - the money we put into their accounts.
There are too many factors to say it is solely the province of personal responsibility. For one, it’s a societal problem. One we will all be feeling the fall out from. To shove it away and say, ‘Not my problem’ is ridiculous and selfish. The people affected by this crisis are your friends and neighbors, people in your churches and schools. If your only response is a ‘tsk tsk’ and to turn your face away, then I find that very, very sad indeed.
I’m not saying you can save them, but instead of looking down your nose at them, why not educate them? As a good deed, to yourself and to the community?
I understand the temptation of believing the ‘I lived right so why should I care’ line of thinking, but honestly, I thought Americans were more caring people than that.
And I’m extremely grateful that the Americans I know IRL generally are. If I had had similarly judgmental people in my life, I doubt I would have had either the will or the ability to pull myself out of my own financial crisis and learn what I needed to in order to succeed.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Wait a minute, now. The lenders avoid extending credit to risky borrowers to save THEIR OWN ass (and the lenders’ investors’ collective ass), not the borrowers’. It absolutely 100% *is* the borrower’s responsibility to understand the terms of the loan.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:00 am
They are trying to make as much money as they can for themselves (and there are different short & long term strategies for this of course). It’s not wrong and it’s not indecent.
It is if your business model is to tell people you are providing them with a service when in fact you are trapping them into an addiction that they will discover they aren’t able to escape. That reality is not even obvious to some pretty smart adults here. How would the typical teenager figure it out?
As long as no fraud has been committed, you must be accountable for obligations YOU assumed.
To the same extent as the lender is responsible - as the law requires. To the extent legally bailing out is in your interest, you should. If you have thousands of dollars worth of debt and no assets, you are usually foolish to try to pay it off. That is what bankruptcy is for, to give you a fresh start.
I’m not for bailing out banks either, and if they make dumb decisions, they make dumb decisions.
The banks aren’t making “dumb decisions”. They are being very smart. They have figured out then can make more money keeping people in debt than by having them repay their loans. They have successfully trapped people in high interest loans that are extremely profitable.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:05 am
It absolutely 100% *is* the borrower’s responsibility to understand the terms of the loan.
No, it isn’t. It is the government’s responsibility to protect people from predators. We make socially destructive behavior illegal for a reason. And trapping people into revolving credit is socially destructive.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:19 am
@Xysea:
“Question: If you are not going to carry a balance on cards, why bother with them? Why not just use cash?”
Convenience, cash backs, one month interest-free, fraud protection. Convenience and a month free interest is the main one - when I first got the card in 83, the cards didn’t offer rewards. Free doubling of warranty period on AmEx.
“Are there no circumstances under which someone might incur debt that might be considered ‘acceptable’, without you people examining their lives with a fine tooth comb and a microscope?”
Huge medical or legal bills. But if you are responsible, 0% rates can go a long way. A friend of mine was in this situation - she needed medicine for her mother’s cancer. Mother lived in Russia, so no insurance, my friend in the US. She shuffled balances between 0% cards until she repaid it in full. Medical and legal bills is the only real emergency I can think of. As to simply being poor - I was poor when I came first from the Soviet Union. We were allowed to take exactly $120 per person. My mother couldn’t find a job for two years; my almost-50-years-old at the time father only managed to keep low paid jobs for a few months at a time. This was late 70s and the economy was bad. Without English my parents’ Russian engineering degrees were useless, so my father worked as a draftsman, layout man, finally as a quality control inspector in a factory. At one job, he damanged his back carrying heavy sheets of metal and they fired him. My parents managed without carrying balance on the card that thye got after a year or so in the US because they were smart enough to know paying interest is wasted money and we didn’t have money to waste. So IMHO the only real emergencies in which you may consider to take on debt are those that are life-threatening. But then, most people would rather be alive and in debt than dead.
“Ever wonder why we have to spend so much time defending ourselves against credit lenders? Following up, phoning, etc? Why must we do this? Why aren’t we just out living our lives?”
If you sign up for automatic payment in full, you only have to call if there are problems. You have to do it with any business. I just spent a lot of time calling Cablevision, for example, to resolve errors in a bill.
“I don’t want a department store card with a $2500, and they shouldn’t be offering me one.”
They have a right to offer it to you. You have a right to refuse. You have no right to tell them what to do. If you go to a market or a store, doesn’t a seller have the right to offer you items whether or not you want them?
@Eric J.Nisall (80) on credit cards vs loan sharks.
Here are some differences:
1. loan sharks don’t have grace periods during which you could repay the loan interest-free.
2. loan sharks don’t offer automatic payment that would allow you an easy way to repay the load interest-free.
3. loan sharks will break your knees if you don’t pay; credit cards will lose money. Sure they can try to collect or ruin your credit, but beyond that they have little or no leverage. They can and do lose money. Raising rates for those whom they consider bad risk (e.g. universal default) is the leverage against losses. Higher risk = higher return.
@Ross Willia “That’s probably because you have never discovered you are addicted to something. Most people who are tobacco addicts got addicted as children.”
The majority of these children have parents who also smokers. So parents shall bear some of the blame.
I have quite a few friends who were chain smokers yet managed to stop. It takes a lot of willpower, but it is possible. A lot of smokers don’t want to stop.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:44 am
@Ross Williams: “It is if your business model is to tell people you are providing them with a service when in fact you are trapping them into an addiction that they will discover they aren’t able to escape. ”
Should casinos close because they are “trapping people into addiction”? Should we go back to the Prohibition because wine stores are “trapping people into the addiction”?
Also, you are not talking about a physical addiction like drugs. It’s not like something in your brain forces you to buy stuff you cannot afford. You make a conscious decision. Are you intelligenet, thinking individual with free will or not? Are credit cards magically enchanted to whisper to you “buy this, buy this”?
How come immigrants from the third world countries who don’t even speak English properly manage to avoid being trapped? Are you saying they are smarter then you? Certainly, if someone is mentally impaired, getting this person into trouble is wrong. But then, if the person is mentally impaired and they give him credit, he’ll probably will not pay back, and they will lose money. After all, this is unsecured loan. But anybody in his or her right mind has free will.
I also don’t understand the complaints about the power of advertising. So they advertise stuff. So what? I live in an expensive area, and I often get magazines with ads for expensive things I cannot afford. Or maybe can, but shouldn’t. So I look at them, laugh and throw them away. Because I understand the value of money, credit cards or no credit cards. If I walk by a store and see a $600 bag, I may like it, but I wouldn’t buy it. Not because I cannot afford it - I can - but because I think it is stupid to throw away $600 on a handbag however pretty it looks. THINK before you buy. During our first years in the US we saw lots of ads on TV (that we bought used from some guy whose business was finding TVs people throw out, fixing them and reselling). But we ignored these ads because we knew we couldn’t afford the things yet or because we felt they aren’t worth the amount of money we would have to spend on them based on what we had at the time.
It seems to me that the main problem is that people aren’t taught to understand the value of money. Because if you think of an amount of money in terms of how long it takes you to earn it, how many bills you can pay with it, how much time it takes you to save a certain amount, how much useful things the same amount can buy, I don’t see how any amount of advertising can “make you” buy stuff you don’t really need and cannot (or can barely) afford.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I love it when people tell me stories like ‘if I can do it, so can you.’ Oh really? lol Some people can climb Mount Everest; does that mean everyone can? It’s a basic logical fallacy.
Just because you *can* do it, doesn’t mean everyone else can. We’re all made different for a reason. We all have different talents and skills. If you have a talent for the blessing of money, why not use that talent to educate others instead of wag your finger at them?
Personally, I find such ‘I got mine, so I give a crap about you’ attitudes to be very isolating and selfish. But as I said before, it takes all kinds.
If you made it work for you, then bully for you. Here’s your official ‘you’re perfect and wonderful’ pat on the back. I’ll send you a certificate, too, okay? Geez. A whole lot of intolerance here for basic things like compassion, understanding and human nature.
Interesting article here about unhappiness and spending:
http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/what_happens_after_bankruptcy1.htm
If you have found your own personal bluebird of happiness, I applaud you. And not at all sarcastically. Me, I like simple pleasures, too, which is why I am not in debt. Of course, a taste for extravagant things was not what put me into debt before, but I noticed no one addressed that. In fact, it was neatly sidestepped. (As a note, my debt was largely medical…
Not the result of ‘$600 handbags’ or ‘too many lattes’ - that’s a leap you all make. Until you know how someone got into debt, do not assume!)
It’s amazing to me the complete lack of compassion displayed here. EDD. If you haven’t heard of it, go here:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/enlightened-living/200806/empathy-deficit-disorder-seriously
Way too many people suffering from it. Way too many.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:14 am
@Kitty
I think you have me confused with someone else, because my post in #80 has absolutely nothing to do with loan sharks. No biggie, just wanted to straighten that out.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:01 am
@kitty
Exactly.
@xysea
Thanks for your response.
Has anyone here ever made a poor financial decision? From the comments I’ve been reading, one would suspect the majority is operating from a position of always having been financially savvy. If so, then you really can’t understand what it’s like to not have those skills and to be flying blind, and trusting of banks who claim to want to help you but who are really helping themselves.
I’ve made very bad decisions, we all have. Does that mean we are no longer responsible for our actions? Flying blind? As I said, there are people out there who more knowledgeable and you might be better served by seeking their advice.
Actually, the entities, Harold, you describe exist for society’s benefit. We all benefit more when the majority is doing better. Banks are nothing if most people are too broke to access their services; at one point, it has to be viewed as a symbiotic relationship. Banks can do nothing (no investments etc) with my money if I don’t use them.
No, they do not. They exist for their own and they do so by providing goods and services for a profit. In the aggregate, most people will benefit. Let’s say many people are broke. Why are they broke? And if the bank can’t compete in a limited market, then they fail. So be it.
Continuing,
What the banks failed to realize was that by going parasitic on people, they were killing the host. Now we’re seeing some of them die off, much the way the creditors they gave easy credit to are dying off financially.
I think that’s an excellent lesson for them to learn, don’t you?
Like I continue to say, the borrower engages voluntarily, perhaps naively, but voluntarily all the same in a contract with their lender. Let them seek 3rd party counsel. Yes, it is a good lesson for all around.
It’s the same with the general economy. If you do not raise wages, but you raise cost of living, and your economy is consumer-based you’re going to end up with problems. If that economy goes top-heavy with mega-rich at the top and ultra-poor at the bottom, you’re also going to go pear-shaped. The fundamentals of a consumer-based economy is that everyone must participate, and that eventually all resources and ability to pay run out.
I don’t see where you are going with this. If I am an apartment owner and decide to increase tenants fees by 15%, then I may lose some tenants, but others who can afford will enter. It’s not my problem if the renter’s employer doesn’t increase their wages. If my rents are too high, then no one will enter and I will lose money. Those who offer lower rates will benefit.
Top heavy with many rich on the top and poor at the bottom, then pear shaped? Huh? There is no “appropriate” way to distribute wealth. Also, terms like poor and rich are relative so technically speaking there will always be someone at the “bottom”. The wealthy got that way by providing goods and services at prices that people were willing to pay. Now some of these individuals give their money to heirs and what not, but that’s their right.
Fundamentals of a consumer-based economy, huh? Well, everyone doesn’t have to participate. You can live at the expense of someone else (charity). There is not a fixed amount of resources (energy being one example). People survive by producing value.
Now, I’m not really here to argue free markets, unfettered capitalism or whether or not we should have a consumer-based economy. I go to political sites for that.
But ultimately that’s what it comes down to, or rather the philosophical principles behind that. We can’t avoid it. Personal choice, freedom of contract, and individual responsibility. That’s where I’m coming from.
I do not believe that banks should be able to offer credit to people outside the traditional ratios; if they do, they should bear the primary risk for that. After all, they’re speculating on debt using your money and mine - the money we put into their accounts.
Why shouldn’t they? If grown people want to engage in a contract voluntarily in this way, then so be it. Traditional ratios? Who determines the traditional ratios? Who should determine that other than the bank itself, and as it suits them? And to be honest, many banks won’t lend you money if they don’t think you make enough. It depends on the circumstances and the bank. They must compete. Primary risk? They do bear a risk if they lend to an irresponsible person and let them pay the consequences. The last remark in this paragraph is very important. Yes we do incur a risk when we give our money to banks, but we know that when we put it in there.*
There are too many factors to say it is solely the province of personal responsibility. For one, it’s a societal problem. One we will all be feeling the fall out from. To shove it away and say, ‘Not my problem’ is ridiculous and selfish. The people affected by this crisis are your friends and neighbors, people in your churches and schools. If your only response is a ‘tsk tsk’ and to turn your face away, then I find that very, very sad indeed.
Ridiculous? Really? Why is that? Factors? What are those factors? Selfish? Yes it is, and what’s wrong with that? Many people make bad financial decisions, that’s true. Zeus knows I’ve made them. But who should *forced* to pick up the tab? Those of us who don’t (generally speaking)? Who? The last part of this an emotional argument with little bearing. I don’t have any financial obligation to these people and they have none to me. NONE. Now, as I said before, if you want to create a fund for those who get into legitimate emergencies (or bite off more than they can chew) feel free to do so, no problem with that. I am not turning away, in fact I am addressing the real problem here.
I’m not saying you can save them, but instead of looking down your nose at them, why not educate them? As a good deed, to yourself and to the community?
I understand the temptation of believing the ‘I lived right so why should I care’ line of thinking, but honestly, I thought Americans were more caring people than that.
I’m all for education. That’s why we’re discussing this issue here. Perhaps people who are considering these options will read this and think twice. More caring? I’m all for caring, but what does that mean other than what we’re doing here?
And I’m extremely grateful that the Americans I know IRL generally are. If I had had similarly judgmental people in my life, I doubt I would have had either the will or the ability to pull myself out of my own financial crisis and learn what I needed to in order to succeed.
Good for you. Yes, I make judgments about this type of thing. It’s a philosophical issue. But, I don’t care what people do in their bedroom, what they eat, and whom they choose to associate with as long as they don’t bother me. However, are people not obligated to pay what they owe?
*You might be interested in this. It’s a series by a lawyer about banking and related principles. I found it very helpful and caring!
Pt 1.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zWHoo3Tkv38
Pt 2.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RpMdGgOWDFs
Pt 3.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq4WwCiHIy0
Pt 4.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OIjFe36_HQM
Pt 5.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gZSIKBamwUo
Pt 6.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OxxNhQ547u8
July 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Why do you repeatedly ask if people are not supposed to pay what they owe? Where has it been demonstrated that they aren’t trying to?
lol Most people are paying huge amounts of their discretionary income to credit card companies. That, indeed, *is* the problem. They are being as responsible as they can be on limited salaries, under stagnant wages. While the cost of living has gone way, way up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25818366/
“You shopped around and found a credit card with a decent interest rate. You know that rate can go up if you pay late or go over your credit limit, so you’re careful to follow all the rules. Guess what? It doesn’t matter. These days, you can be the perfect customer and still get socked with a higher rate.
Consumer Action, a nonprofit education and advocacy organization based in San Francisco, released its 2008 Credit Card Survey today. Of the 22 major financial institutions contacted, 17 (that’s 77 percent) said they reserve the right to increase a cardholder’s interest rates — even on existing balances — at any time and for any reason.”
Hmm. I right now am wondering how many of you work for banks for other financial institutions.
““You cannot know how much it’s going to cost you to pay back a credit card balance if you agree to one interest rate when you accept a card and find that the rate changes later on when you’re still paying off the balance,” Susswein says.
It’s not easy to avoid the anytime/any reason rate hike. Most of the top 10 card issuers now have that provision in their contracts.”
Oh dear.
Are you seriously asking me what’s wrong with being selfish? lol Holy cow!
Banks determine those ratios, based on risk. Do you mean you don’t know this? I’m surprised. Both my bank and my credit union openly let me know that any financial decision they make is based on internal ratios or formulas. That is the whole point; they started pushing the boundaries of, and convoluting, these time-tested ratios to make debt more obtainable to make a bigger profit.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am
lol Most people are paying huge amounts of their discretionary income to credit card companies. That, indeed, *is* the problem. They are being as responsible as they can be on limited salaries, under stagnant wages. While the cost of living has gone way, way up.
Stagnant wages? If they aren’t making enough money, let them increase their productivity. If their employer is not willing to give them a raise, let them find a new company or line of work. That, or they can go into business themselves. Easier said than done of course, but that’s how it is. Companies (in the aggregate) cannot afford to increase fees for their services past the level at which people are willing to pay. Those who do, collapse.
Consumer Action, a nonprofit education and advocacy organization based in San Francisco, released its 2008 Credit Card Survey today. Of the 22 major financial institutions contacted, 17 (that’s 77 percent) said they reserve the right to increase a cardholder’s interest rates — even on existing balances — at any time and for any reason.”
This wouldn’t surprise me. However, when you sign on with these companies you attest that you understand that. In fact, their willingness to disclose this speaks for itself. You may not know the exact amount of the change, but you know it can.
Hmm. I right now am wondering how many of you work for banks for other financial institutions.
Yeah, ok.
Are you seriously asking me what’s wrong with being selfish? lol Holy cow!
Yes, I am asking you that. Perhaps, I should qualify by saying selfishness accompanied by reason.
Banks determine those ratios, based on risk. Do you mean you don’t know this? I’m surprised. Both my bank and my credit union openly let me know that any financial decision they make is based on internal ratios or formulas. That is the whole point; they started pushing the boundaries of, and convoluting, these time-tested ratios to make debt more obtainable to make a bigger profit.
Yes, I do understand that. That’s my point. The ratios are based on what did work. But situations change and economies grow and shrink. If they calculate they can generate more revenue in a given period by changing their formulae, then let them do so and take that risk. You know that going in.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:41 am
“…the rate changes later on when you’re still paying off the balance,”
I think this is the key issue that people are referring to when they talk about being responsible and placing blame on the consumer. If someone is responsible (excluding unforseen events), they only charge what they can afford to repay on time. Interest rate is effectively nullified because the entire balance owed is paid off on time and interest does not factor into the equation. When people decide to spend irresponsibly (again, excluding unforseen events) and are unable to pay off the entire balance when due, that is when the issues of interest rate hikes, late fees, blame, etc. come into play. If you only charge what you can afford to repay when it is due, then you know exactly how much it will cost to pay it.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:41 am
@Eric J. Nissan (104) - you are right, sorry. I was commenting on Ross’ post at 81.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Now problem, kitty. Just didn’t want there to be any confusion.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Again, that brings up why to use credit cards at all for purchases.
For example, let’s say I have a $200 card and I normally charge $100 gas on it monthly. Right? I can afford that, and pay it off each month. But, then all of a sudden I crack a filling and have to go to the dentist. After he files my insurance, I owe him $100. If I put that on the card, I’m (a) over the limit. And (b) Does it seem fair that I am now a ‘bad credit risk because I went to the end of my limit? The question of whether I can pay this or not is moot, really. Let’s say I can; I’m still incurring the penalties and charges even if I am acting in a responsible manner. The bank cannot assume that I cannot or will not pay.
It’s very interesting to me how many people will bend over backwards to justify accepting the bank’s practices while condemning that of their fellow human beings. I can only surmise you don’t think much of your fellow human beings.
At one point, the discussion grows stale when people admittedly laud selfishness, and question what’s wrong with it. I can only imagine that if you encountered a sick and hungry man on the street that not only would you not feed him, but you’d chastise him for being in your way and then mutter about how lazy he is.
Wow. Just ‘Wow’.
There is very little to say, but the silence speaks volumes.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:02 am
. It’s not like something in your brain forces you to buy stuff you cannot afford.
That has nothing to do with it. Nothing in your brain forces you to take heroin either. The fact is that the credit card companies entice people who are barely getting by into using credit. Once they do, they have even less left over after making payments. Which leads them to borrow more just to get by. The credit card companies understand that is what they are doing, the people they trap don’t see the trap until it is too late, if ever.
That some people see a trap and avoid it doesn’t mean other’s won’t get caught. They may just have been lucky.
I have quite a few friends who were chain smokers yet managed to stop. It takes a lot of willpower, but it is possible.
How would you know that since you have never done it?
Rather than blame the victim, I blame the people who deliberately set the traps knowing full well some people will fall into them. And, in fact, do everything possible to disguise the trap so they will catch as many people as possible.
However, are people not obligated to pay what they owe?
No, they aren’t. No more than the bank is obligated to tell them they are falling into a trap that they won’t be able to get of. There are a lot of good reasons to avoid bankruptcy, but an obligation to the banks isn’t one of them.
They can and do lose money.
No, they don’t lose money. Are you not paying attention? Credit card companies are getting record profits. By the time someone defaults on their credit card, chances are they have paid back the amounts they initially borrowed several times over.
Apparently even those who claim anyone can understand how credit works, don’t understand it themselves.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“That has nothing to do with it. Nothing in your brain forces you to take heroin either.”
Drugs (including caffeine and nicotine) cause a physical dependence which is different than simple addiction. There are actual physical withdrawal symptoms caused by discontinuing use. This is a chemical issue.
Overspending, gambling, shopping, whatever are NOT physical dependencies.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:16 am
It’s very interesting to me how many people will bend over backwards to justify accepting the bank’s practices while condemning that of their fellow human beings. I can only surmise you don’t think much of your fellow human beings.
Who runs and is employed by banks?
At one point, the discussion grows stale when people admittedly laud selfishness, and question what’s wrong with it. I can only imagine that if you encountered a sick and hungry man on the street that not only would you not feed him, but you’d chastise him for being in your way and then mutter about how lazy he is.
It’s grown stale, why? I asked a simple question. This is another emotional argument. Life is not an action movie with the average person experiencing wave after wave of extraordinary calamities reducing them to broken husks. Why is the guy sick and hungry? Was he defrauded, robbed, beaten? I would not be against helping that person. That’s why we educate. However, if he is sick and hungry because he squandered his money and lived an irresponsible life, well that’s something else. This is why I am not against private charity.
Wow. Just ‘Wow’.
There is very little to say, but the silence speaks volumes.
Wow all you want. The silence only says you don’t want to respond to these points.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Not only have I answered these questions repeatedly, but often in great detail.
At one point, it’s just a divergence of philosophy. I ask people to be responsible, but I also understand that things happen in life and we cannot possibly predict and be prepared for everything.
I also know we live in a world where people are preyed upon, everything from health insurance premiums to banking to credit cards.
You cannot explain to me your disdain for the average person. It is rather shocking that you would rather trust a bank who is out to make a profit on you than you are the guy on the street next to you.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would play 20 Questions with a hungry guy in order to determine if he deserved food? ‘Let me see if I, in all my worldly wisdom and ‘better-than-you-ness’ can determine if you deserve one of my sandwiches!’
People run banks, or so I’m told. You’d barely know it, though, wouldn’t you? I mean if their attitude is the same as yours, it’s barely human, isn’t it? Does the bank care if I have cancer? Nope. They just want their money. That you identify more with that mentality makes me wonder just how much you give to private charity annually. (Btw, it’s easy to say ‘let private charity’ handle it if you’re not giving to private charity…)
As for life being an action movie? I don’t know about yours, but mine is sure full of surprises. I learned to account for them - to some extent - because I couldn’t predict them. It’s funny you should mention it, though, because a dear friend of mine, who was financially solvent and doing well was diagonsed with leukemia last year. Even with health insurance and a very healthy savings, the sickness is basically bankrupting her. This is an extremely responsible person, too. She could never have predicted her illness, nor its drain on what she’s spent her whole life building.
And I suppose to you, she’s just a ‘deadbeat’ now, too, who should rely on ‘private charity’ so the banks and the other vultures can get their due…?
What’s the use in continuing the discussion? The only possible thing I could be interested in hearing you say at this point is exactly how much annually you give to private charity.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Read about Gamblers Anonymous, then get back to me about addiction. Just like any addiction, it’s real. And it’s physical. People get addicted to the ‘high’ of winning, the serotonin and endorphins created by the ‘thrill.’
This is true about a lot of other addictions, too, like sexual addiction, and - surprise! -
shopping addiction.
http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/hints/shop.html
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/about.html
July 24th, 2008 at 11:51 am
This all reminds me of an episode of Law and Order (I’ll avoid the sarcastic no TV joke) where a man’s defense against a murder charge was mental defect due to rage when his son was suspended from a hockey game that college scouts were going to watch and he kills the coach for the benching. Sam Waterston’s character (the DA) in his closing argument asks the jury where it will stop–all of the defenses aimed at avoiding personal responsibility, how everything is a mental defect now and no one is responsible for their actions any longer. How everyone is a victim of something and every action can be claimed to be due to the effects of the actions of others.
“It is rather shocking that you would rather trust a bank who is out to make a profit on you than you are the guy on the street next to you.”
I can actually accept this line of reasoning, because at least you know that a business’s intentions are very clear–to make a profit. That cannot be said for the person standing, or even living next to you. you do not know what they think or what their intentions are.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
@Eric
You know exactly where the other is coming from. Thank you for your insights.
At one point, it’s just a divergence of philosophy. I ask people to be responsible, but I also understand that things happen in life and we cannot possibly predict and be prepared for everything.
Of course, no one is omnipotent. Yes, it is a major philosophical difference. You can also see it in some of the other discussions in this thread. Very enlightening and important.
You cannot explain to me your disdain for the average person. It is rather shocking that you would rather trust a bank who is out to make a profit on you than you are the guy on the street next to you.
There is no disdain for an average person who lives responsibly. None. I don’t trust John Q any less than a bank if I don’t know either. “Make a profit on me”? Of course, and I benefit from them as well. We value different things and so we exchange values–good or service for money. Profiting from someone is not bad. If their values are of no use to me and vice versa, then we don’t trade.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would play 20 Questions with a hungry guy in order to determine if he deserved food? ‘Let me see if I, in all my worldly wisdom and ‘better-than-you-ness’ can determine if you deserve one of my sandwiches!’
More emotional arguments. Yes, and why not? If he was someone who chose to live irresponsibly, I’m not going to give him anything.
People run banks, or so I’m told. You’d barely know it, though, wouldn’t you? I mean if their attitude is the same as yours, it’s barely human, isn’t it? Does the bank care if I have cancer? Nope. They just want their money. That you identify more with that mentality makes me wonder just how much you give to private charity annually. (Btw, it’s easy to say ‘let private charity’ handle it if you’re not giving to private charity…)
So it continues. Inhuman huh? Ok. Charities don’t have to handle it, but some do. Either way it’s not my problem.
As for life being an action movie? I don’t know about yours, but mine is sure full of surprises. I learned to account for them - to some extent - because I couldn’t predict them. It’s funny you should mention it, though, because a dear friend of mine, who was financially solvent and doing well was diagonsed with leukemia last year. Even with health insurance and a very healthy savings, the sickness is basically bankrupting her. This is an extremely responsible person, too. She could never have predicted her illness, nor its drain on what she’s spent her whole life building.
And I suppose to you, she’s just a ‘deadbeat’ now, too, who should rely on ‘private charity’ so the banks and the other vultures can get their due…?
Calm down, I would never call her a deadbeat. It’s a completely different situation, as she is not responsible for her illness. Friends and family can help, can they not? If not, who then should pay? If she is getting private help then banks are not getting anything. There are hospitals that do this kind of thing, and if they want to do so more power to them.
http://www.shrinershq.org/
What’s the use in continuing the discussion? The only possible thing I could be interested in hearing you say at this point is exactly how much annually you give to private charity.
I think you can guess. And what would that be a measure of? Virtue? Consistency? Let me sum it up to you this way. I didn’t come up with this, but it’s gives you an idea of where I’m coming from.
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”
–John Galt Oath
If you don’t want to continue, no problem, it’s been fun. Regards.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hm. John Galt.
Someday I should write a post on my love-hate relationship with Ayn Rand. Some of her stuff is brilliant, but it’s so damn black-and-white. If the world were black-and-white, it’d make so much more sense. But it’s not. The world is full of shades of grey.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I’m disappointed this discussion degraded from reasoned debate into emotional pandering.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
@Adam
I’ve tried my best to avoid such tactics.
@J.D.
It’s a very interesting philosophy. Are you aware of Nathaniel Branden and his writings? He was *ahem* an intimate friend and student of Ayn. Cool.
Gotta plane to catch, catch you guys later.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Argh. Harold, I was going to send you e-mail, but by spam-proofing it, you’ve also J.D.-proofed it.
yes, I’m familiar with Branden, though I haven’t read anything from him straight through. I have The Art of Living Consciously over there on my shelf, though I’ve only read bits and pieces of it.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
“Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would play 20 Questions with a hungry guy in order to determine if he deserved food? ‘Let me see if I, in all my worldly wisdom and ‘better-than-you-ness’ can determine if you deserve one of my sandwiches!’
More emotional arguments. Yes, and why not? If he was someone who chose to live irresponsibly, I’m not going to give him anything.”
I’m curious, is there some reason you think I should intervene if that hungry person should decide to beat you up, steal your wallet and buy himself some food? In fact, is there any reason I shouldn’t help him?
This is not a debate about a philosophic curiosity ala Ayn Rand. If we fail to protect people from predators we are all subject to being prey.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
If I had a quarter for every bad analogy in this discussion I would be Getting Rich Quickly ™. Someone committing assault, battery and robbery is not the same thing as a person in debt to a credit card company.
The only way I could see them being comparable is if he were to fill out a mugging application, mail it in, receive an acceptance letter and then travel to the predefined meeting place with a wallet full of cash.
I don’t think a single person here is arguing that we do nothing to help people who are being unfairly preyed upon. The disagreement stems from the fact that what you call “preyed upon” a lot of us call “bad judgment”.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Someone committing assault, battery and robbery is not the same thing as a person in debt to a credit card company.
No one said it was. The question is why someone who is hungry should restrain themselves from taking what they need from someone who doesn’t care if they starve. And why anyone else should prevent them from doing so. If someone doesn’t care about anyone else, why should anyone else care about them?
I don’t think a single person here is arguing that we do nothing to help people who are being unfairly preyed upon. The disagreement stems from the fact that what you call “preyed upon” a lot of us call “bad judgment”.
I don’t think so. I think what is being argued about is whether a person who falls into a trap has an “obligation” to the person who trapped them. Sure they showed “bad judgment” in taking the bait, but then the folks setting the trap don’t expect everyone to take the bait.
What we are talking about is a business model that relies on people’s bad judgment. If everyone paid off their credit card bill every month the credit card companies would be out of business.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“If everyone paid off their credit card bill every month the credit card companies would be out of business.”
That could not be further from the truth. Fact is, accourding to estimates from the Merchants Payments Coalition, the credit card companies collected in excess of $42 BILLION in 2007 from interchange fees alone.
http://www.unfaircreditcardfees.com/site/page/factsfees
July 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
@Ross Williams “No, they don’t lose money. Are you not paying attention? Credit card companies are getting record profits”
Are you confusing banks with credit card companies like Visa and Master Card? Visa and Master card don’t make money off interest; nor do they set interest rate or make policies. Banks that give you the cards do, and banks have not been showing profits lately, last time I checked. Visa and Master Card profits come from the merchants, and they earn money on every transaction on both credit and debit cards (used as credit). So their profits - good or bad - have nothing to do with the price of tea in China. MC and V profits only reflect people using the cards - both debit and credit.
AmEx on the other hand does both - gets money off interest and gives loans. But AmEx last earning report was far from stellar - it was way below expectation and it had some right offs. And AmEx caters to those which are better off.
How many banks exactly had “record profits” recently?
July 24th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Just some info for those conspiracy theorists who condemn big business and the big bad credit companies. It may not be much, but both Visa and MasterCard have sections dedicated to financial education.
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/personal_finance/index.html
http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/learningcenter/index.html
July 24th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
@xysea
“Some people can climb Mount Everest; does that mean everyone can? ”
Figuring out that if you pay your balance in full by the due date you don’t pay interest, and that if you do, you pay huge interest is hardly as difficult as climbing Mount Everest. Understanding that if you bought something you’ll have to pay sooner or later and that paying later means paying (a lot) more is also not rocket science. Nor does it require “talent for the blessing of money”. If everyone who paid their balances in full by the end of the month had “talent for blessing of money” we’d have a lot of multi-millionaires.
“Personally, I find such ‘I got mine, so I give a crap about you’ attitudes to be very isolating and selfish. ”
I sympathize with people who got in trouble because of medical debt. I give to charity. I bring a large sum of cash as gifts to my cousin in Russia - who lives on $500 a month in a tiny one bedroom with her 70-something mother in St Petersburg which is among 10 most expensive cities in the world. I don’t care about those who buy stuff my parents don’t have and are in debt because of it.
“Here’s your official ‘you’re perfect and wonderful’”
I am neither perfect nor wonderful. I made a lot of mistakes, including some bad investment decisions. The only difference is that I don’t blame others for my own stupidity.
” Of course, a taste for extravagant things was not what put me into debt before, but I noticed no one addressed that. In fact, it was neatly sidestepped. (As a note, my debt was largely medical…”
Actually, a lot of people including me said that we have a lot of sympathy for those who got in debt because of medical bills. In some cases people cannot avoid getting in debt.
As to “compulsive shopping”, their issues should be addressed, maybe they should get counseling? Organize “shoppers anonymous”? Is compulsive gambling problem of casinos? Do you treat it by closing Las Vegas Strip?
“I don’t think so. I think what is being argued about is whether a person who falls into a trap has an “obligation” to the person who trapped them. Sure they showed “bad judgment” in taking the bait, but then the folks setting the trap don’t expect everyone to take the bait. ”
This is solely your perception. What we argue is that nobody trapped them. With the exception of real unforeseen emergencies (e.g. medical, legal or mental illness), people make a conscious choice.
Credit cards always print the interest rate, and while the agreement is indeed long and difficult to read, the interest rates are printed clearly and in reasonably large letters.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Are you confusing banks with credit card companies like Visa and Master Card?
No, are you confusing Visa and Master Card with the credit card industry? I am talking about the profits those companies make by charging interest and fees to people they trap into borrowing money from them. I’m wasn’t talking about bank’s home loan portfolios.
Fact is, accourding to estimates from the Merchants Payments Coalition, the credit card companies collected in excess of $42 BILLION in 2007 from interchange fees alone.
There probably wouldn’t be any fees if the banks weren’t lending people money. But you are right, there is a whole other revenue stream from managing the transactions. Albeit not nearly as large as the one from interest and fees charged to borrowers.
Figuring out that if you pay your balance in full by the due date you don’t pay interest, and that if you do, you pay huge interest is hardly as difficult as climbing Mount Everest.
Again, the credit card companies deliberately target people who can’t pay off their bill monthly. They consider those of us who do deadbeats. They are waiting for some life crisis to trap us into their system of revolving charges.
What we argue is that nobody trapped them.
Really? You think they said “Gee, I think I’ll get in over my head in debt that I have no chance of ever paying off.” I don’t think so.
You can call them stupid or irresponsible or any names you want. Whatever weaknesses or flaws they have, they were trapped by an industry whose business model is based on exploiting those weaknesses.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Why don’t you ask JD if he was exploited and trapped by credit cards, or if the debt was a direct result of short-term thinking and bad decision?* I think you and I both know the answer to that. And I would say JD’s situation was a lot closer to the typical borrower’s than the person with perfect spending habits who is suddenly stricken with a horrible illness and has no emergency fund, family members or loan opportunities.
*Don’t get me wrong, I think JD is a smart guy who has built this entire site so that he and others can learn from his past actions.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I officially quit this topic. It is one thing to present a case for one side or another, but for people to be so convinced that capitalism is bad, that business is evil, and consumers are mindless souls who are apparently so easily coaxed into debt that they should be excused form their obligations is over my head. I’ll see you all in the next topic I am able to cintribute to.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I really feel my debt was the result of short-term thinking and bad decisions. However, I did feel trapped, and in retrospect, the credit card companies played all sorts of games to exploit my stupidity.
For example: I maxed out my cards, but always paid the minimum on time. After this had gone on for a year or so, a card would raise the max. Sure enough, I took this as license to spend more, raising my balance again. And sometimes they’d send me “skip this month’s payment” vouchers, allowing me to skip a monthly payment and only accrue interest. Oh, I was happy to do that.
So, I was the one hanging myself, but the credit card companies were eagerly supplying the rope.
Again, I don’t think this is black and white. I think both parties have some culpability.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
There are no conspiracy theorists here. The business model is out in the open and plain as day.
Where is this simple, clear explanation” ” if you borrow $1000 from us and make the minimum payment until it is paid off it will take roughly 25 years and cost you over $10000.”
That’s just a rough guess, I am sure everyone here defending the credit card industry knows how to calculate the exact cost, but I sure don’t. I doubt many of their victims do either. But I am quite confident the credit card issuer has it calculated down to the penny.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
@JD
I understand what you are saying, but I still don’t see how what they did was trapping you. It seems like you were the one trapping you.
@Ross
If you were to say something about how needlessly complicated and/or vague some of their terms are then I would be right there with you, however I fail to see how people who can not perform math at a middle school level are the fault of credit card companies.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
So over your head that you have to resort to mindless cliches to understand it? Lets be clear we aren’t talking about capitalism or business in general. We are talking about a particularly destructive business model.
Corporationa are created precisely to excuse the people who own it from any “obligations” if the company fails. Frankly, its mindless propaganda to claim that people who borrow money have any obligation to the credit card companies beyond their strict legal liability. These are calculated business transactions.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
If you were to say something about how needlessly complicated and/or vague some of their terms are then I would be right there with you, however I fail to see how people who can not perform math at a middle school level are the fault of credit card companies.
Whose blaming them for it? They are just taking advantage of it to make a lot of bucks.
And I don’t think calculating the future cost of borrowed money is a middle school math problem. I certainly can’t do it. I would have to go find the formulas and think about it for a long time and I would probably still get it wrong.
And I don’t think it is intuitively obvious that you will end up paying 10 or 20 times as much money as you borrow.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Say you owe $1,000 and your APY is 30%.
1,000 * 1.3 = 1,300
Now multiply your minimum payment (or whatever payment you are making) by 12, subtract from the 1,300 number above and you have a pretty close estimate of where you will stand at the end of a year.
I am not trying to be demeaning, but I really don’t think it is hard to see that minimum payments are barely going to chip away at your debt.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I really don’t think it is hard to see that minimum payments are barely going to chip away at your debt.
Are you serious? That calculation doesn’t even begin to tell you how much you will end up paying. You apparently don’t know how to calculate the exact number any better than I do.
There are plenty of adults who wouldn’t even be able to figure out how you came up with the 1.3 from a 30% interest rate once they saw your calculation, much less figure out to do the calculation on their own.
And in real life you can’t even make that calculation because you don’t have a fixed balance. Have you read the description on your credit card statement for calculating your daily balance? I don’t think it is comprehensible, although I am sure if you had a couple weeks to waste studying it you could figure it out.
If you borrow $1000 and pay it back at $20 per month then it will take you roughly 4 years to pay it off. Most people don’t understand the power of compounded interest. The credit card companies understand that and take advantage of it.
The argument “people should know better” has not merit. They don’t know better or the business model would have to change.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
“There are plenty of adults who wouldn’t even be able to figure out how you came up with the 1.3 from a 30% interest rate once they saw your calculation, much less figure out to do the calculation on their own.”
I wasn’t trying to belittle anyone before, but this is ludicrous. Learning how to use percentages in math is definitely something people learn in high school, if not sooner. Next you are going to tell me that because someone is not able to read above a 7th grade level they were being unfairly exploited by all those fancy words they couldn’t understand (but still agreed to).
July 24th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“Have you read the description on your credit card statement for calculating your daily balance? I don’t think it is comprehensible, although I am sure if you had a couple weeks to waste studying it you could figure it out.”
I wasn’t sure what this was so I looked it up. The Average Daily Balance calculation does not seem complicated at all. Instead of simply charging you based on your balance at the very end of the month they charge you based on the average balance of each day in that month.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Sorry, just jumping in here.
Doing basic math with percentages should definitely be middle school or more likely elementary school math. I suspect it’s a very, very small minority of people who get “duped” over this. Now that’s not to say plenty of people won’t *claim* to have been duped.
Also, you’ll hear plenty of people saying “I don’t understand why my balance doesn’t go down!” but that’s nothing to do with math skills or deceptive credit card practices and everything to do with not knowing how to track spending and make a budget.
I wanted to respond to this other point by Ross Williams:
“The question is why someone who is hungry should restrain themselves from taking what they need from someone who doesn’t care if they starve.”
Ah where to begin. There are lots of answers to this. Frankly it depends on the person’s stage of moral development and what theories of moral development you accept. This should get you started.
If the person has a very low stage of development, they could be deterred by the thought that they will be punished with a fate worse than hunger.
If they’re a bit higher, maybe they realize that there are other avenues to get help than the person sitting right in front of them eating a sandwich, and they decide that if everyone went around beating people up whenever they were hungry (not just starving), the resulting breakdown in social order would ultimately harm them.
“And why anyone else should prevent them from doing so. If someone doesn’t care about anyone else, why should anyone else care about them?”
So everything is cast as selfishness and revenge with no idea of the bigger picture. That is the world of a two year old.
The ironic thing is that you want us to say, oh yeah you’re right so we should help people, but the true result of your philosophy is that people would say, wow this homeless guy sure isn’t helping us, so why should we help him? Furthermore, we should never let anybody else help him either, because he might grow stronger and hurt us out of revenge.
No offense. This is an interesting discussion.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Next you are going to tell me that because someone is not able to read above a 7th grade level they were being unfairly exploited by all those fancy words they couldn’t understand (but still agreed to).
That’s right. If you create a business model that is based on people not really understanding what they agreed to its predatory.
I think you would be surprised at how many people who don’t understand basic math concepts. But that isn’t really the point.
The issue is not whether someone can understand percentages, its whether they fully understand the implications of compounded interest.
he Average Daily Balance calculation does not seem complicated at all. Instead of simply charging you based on your balance at the very end of the month they charge you based on the average balance of each day in that month.
Which credit card company are you taking that from. The description I have is three paragraphs of fine print. Its interesting how “easy” this is and how none of the smart people here can actually do the calculation.
“Where is this simple, clear explanation” ” if you borrow $1000 from us and make the minimum payment until it is paid off it will take roughly 25 years and cost you over $10000.”
How close to accurate is that? And if you don’t know, why do you think the average person over their head in debt did when they borrowed the money.
The claim that the average person who is in debt understands that they are literally paying 10 times as much for something when they buy it on credit is what’s “ludicrous”.
everything to do with not knowing how to track spending and make a budget.
So they can easily calculate the cost of compound interest in their heads, but they don’t know how to add up how much they spend and compare it to how big their paycheck is?
The ironic thing is that you want us to say, oh yeah you’re right so we should help people, but the true result of your philosophy is that people would say, wow this homeless guy sure isn’t helping us, so why should we help him?
No. That is the result of applying your “philosophy”. My philosophy is that human beings should help one another. Reciprocity is not required. I think that it is in my self-interest.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:10 am
“No. That is the result of applying your “philosophy”. My philosophy is that human beings should help one another. Reciprocity is not required. I think that it is in my self-interest.”
No, it’s the result of analyzing your philosophy. I thought that was obvious. My own philosophy hasn’t been mentioned.
You’re contradicting yourself. Here you say no reciprocity is required. But earlier you said: “If someone doesn’t care about anyone else, why should anyone else care about them?”
In other words, society reciprocates your actions. That is the whole basis to your discussion of self-interest. If reciprocation were not assumed, then it wouldn’t matter what you did because society’s response would be unrelated.
Furthermore, your philosophy has a big problem in its assumption of what maximizes your self-interest. You are making an unsupported leap, as follows:
see hungry person –> analyze how to maximize self-interest –> help hungry person
when it could just as easily go:
see hungry person –> analyze how to maximize self-interest –> cross the street to avoid hungry person
or how about:
see hungry person –> analyze how to maximize self-interest –> pass laws banning pan-handling –> send hungry people to jail
or any number of third steps. The proof is that those alternative actions do in fact occur.
Now on a more general level of “being a good person”, I would agree with you, although there are times that can go against your self-interest so you still have to get rid of that requirement.
But you shouldn’t have chosen the hungry person example, and gone on to say that you wouldn’t stop the hungry person from beating up someone who doesn’t help him. That totally contradicts your newly stated philosophy of doing good with no reciprocation required.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:19 am
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/21/pf/consumer_comments/index.htm?postversion=2008072113
July 25th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Anyone who feels it’s appropriate to allow someone to rot because they’ve made bad decisions in their life is not the sort of person I care to have even the slightest of interactions with.
Sorry, but the world cannot afford such rigid, black and white views. Human beings deserve the attention of other human beings; at the very least, even animals do that for each other.
How people deal and use money *is* emotional, so many financial advisors tell us that. There is no separation here. The idea that somehow emotional arguments are null and void when it comes to money is ridiculous.
I have a hard time continuing any discussion where love of money and greed trumps human compassion and helping those in suffering. Even if the suffering is their own fault! **shock** I mean, should we just allow drug addicts to roam the streets and dissolve all addiction programs? After all, they got themselves addicted to heroin! Why should we help? Let them rot in the gutter!
And no, it is not clear to me how much anyone gives to private charity. What I do know is that informal polling reveals that 9/10 people who espouse the use of ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘private charity’ usually don’t practice what they preach. They assume someone else will donate, handle it, volunteer.
And of course, very few people actually do - so there’s barely anything for people who fall on hard times to access.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Xysea, I agree with you, but there are hard questions you leave unanswered. Those are usually the ones people disagree on, not just that we should be humane to each other.
How much do you help someone? How often? Does it depend on their “problem” or is it blind aid? Do you help people against their will? Do you help with things that a large number of people have a moral disagreement with? What if a problem has multiple solutions, which do you choose? What should be the goal of the help (e.g. maximize quality of life, maximize number of people helped, minimize cost, etc)?
The good thing about private charity is it solves those problems by leaving the choice up to the individual.
If you’re against private charity, I assume you’re for public programs funded through taxes. Does that mean you don’t think those questions are important, or do you think you have the best answer to all of them? Then there’s the practical problem that even if you do have the best answer, many people will disagree with it.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:20 am
No, actually Jon. Somewhere you misunderstood. I’m not against private charity at all. I believe it to be grossly underfunded and a way for people to push societal problems off on a nebulous ’someone else.’
In conjunction with long-standing public programs, like Social Security, etc, private charity is very important to societal well-being and overall health.
My problem is, people often don’t give much at all to private charity. This is not just me taking a wild guess, either. I worked for years in social services, both private and public. Every year we had to fight to stay open, to convince people to donate. Every year it got harder, as people grew more self-oriented and insular. In times like these, it’s impossible. Even religious-based groups are having a hard time.
So much for faith-based initiatives, eh?
While you cannot *force* someone to do anything, you can help those who request it. And people have been requesting help and relief for a long time now, only to be met with responses similar to some of the ones I’ve read here.
A society is measured by how well it cares for the least among its inhabitants, not the best.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:39 am
You’re contradicting yourself. Here you say no reciprocity is required. But earlier you said: “If someone doesn’t care about anyone else, why should anyone else care about them?”
There is no contradiction. I just answered the question - what’s your answer?
The proof is that those alternative actions do in fact occur.
That is proof of nothing, other than that some people are ignorant of their self-interest.
gone on to say that you wouldn’t stop the hungry person from beating up someone who doesn’t help him.
I didn’t say that, I asked a legitimate question of those whose philosophy is to let people they think are unworthy starve.
The good thing about private charity is it solves those problems by leaving the choice up to the individual.
The bad thing about private charity is that it is rarely even close to enough. There are plenty of people out there who are willing to let others give, while they share the benefit to society from that giving.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
“There is no contradiction. I just answered the question - what’s your answer?”
Hmm, maybe we’re miscommunicating here. You originally said, “The question is why someone who is hungry should restrain themselves from taking what they need from someone who doesn’t care if they starve.”
I assumed that was not a genuine question but indicative of what you believe, since you didn’t add a “from your point of view” anywhere.
Now you’re clarifying that the question is to be answered from the frame of someone who believes unworthy people should starve. The obvious answer to your question is that the person would assume they themselves are worthy and thus should be helped by society.
Indeed, this is another reason I thought you were being genuine. If the rest of society worked as he envisioned, then they would not let the starving person attack him. They would defend the worthy from the unworthy. Everything would work out for him. It breaks down only when you insert the implication that he *is* unworthy precisely because he doesn’t care about others, and thus society won’t help him.
“That is proof of nothing, other than that some people are ignorant of their self-interest.”
It’s proof that others have different ways of promoting their self-interest. You may think they’re ignorant but you offer no proof that your way is any better and without the availability (or even possibility) of that proof ignorance doesn’t enter into it.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am
This is a great set of videos by NOW on what’s going on with credit and mortgage bubbles. I was particularly struck by William Greider’s interview.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07182008/watch2.html
July 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
@Ross Williams
“No, are you confusing Visa and Master Card with the credit card industry? I am talking about the profits those companies make by charging interest and fees to people they trap into borrowing money from them. ”
Which companies exactly are making “record” profits right now? Banks are not making profits - yes most of their losses are due to home loans, but as American Express’ profit showed, there are some credit card losses as well. American Express’ portfolio doesn’t include mortgages, and even though their credit card business is catering to somewhat better off crowd, they still have write-offs. The only other two companies in credit card industry are Visa and Master Card and neither of these companies makes anything off interest or lose anything on bad loans, their profit is entirely made off 2 or 3% that merchants are paying them on both credit and debit cards that carry Visa or MC logo. So their profit, record or not, is irrelevant - they would make the same amount of money even if everyone switches to debit cards tomorrow. This only leaves Discover that as far as I know hasn’t had stellar profits either.
So pray tell me which company in “credit card industry” is making “record profits” right now? Excluding Visa and Master Card as they aren’t involve in any kind of interest-charging business.
Incidentally, when companies in “credit card industry” are losing money because of bad debt, who do you think suffer? Who is likely to be laid off? Those who make policies that you don’t like or employees who have absolutely nothing to do with loans - all the way from higher paid mathematicians and IT personnel to the lower paid tellers. So when you don’t repay your loans, it those people whom you make suffer. Now this is very compassionate, isn’t it.
And when banks fail, all of us suffer in one way or another.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
@Ross Williams: “There are plenty of adults who wouldn’t even be able to figure out how you came up with the 1.3 from a 30% interest rate once they saw your calculation, much less figure out to do the calculation on their own.”
Just yesterday a question that involved percentages was asked on “Are you smarter than the 5th grader”. Guess what - every single 5th grader in a “class” got it as well as the person who was playing. So are you saying that plenty of adults don’t know math at a 5th grade level? Pretty sad comment on a state of education in the US.
@xysea: somehow most of your posts shifted from the issue of responsibility for the credit card debt to the issue of empathy towards those less fortunate than we are. With everyone who doesn’t agree with you about the credit card “trapping” people is lacking empathy and is generally not a nice person.
I think these are separate issues. If you are at a beach and some guy dives head first into waves near the shore and hurts himself, you would feel sorry for the person, you’d probably feel very bad, but you’d still feel he is responsible, right? Assuming it is a thinking adult and is in the right mind.
I can feel sorry for someone and still feel that his problems are his fault and not those of credit card companies. Someone I know got into credit card debt after the internet bubble burst because of margin trading. Wanted to avoid the margin call and liquidation of all portfolio at low prices and transferred the amount owed to the broker to credit cards. Did I feel sorry for the person - sure. But I still feel it was his fault and not that of the credit card company. After all he knew about the risks when he started buying stocks on margin.
Yes I feel sorry for some people, although, it is fair to say not for everyone. Not for a woman earning 150K who has garage full of cars, a personal trainer and a closet full of shoes and is in debt. But barring illness or other unforeseen circumstances, I believe that in most cases it is still people’s own choice that got them into debt and not “being trapped” by credit card companies. There are ways to deal with emotional or compulsive shopping - find some hobby, avoid stores, and yes, cut up credit cards. Recovering alcoholics avoid wine and compulsive gamblers shouldn’t go to the casinos.
As to cases of illness, if someone needs money for, for example, life-saving treatment and has none in savings and no friends to borrow from where would this person even be without credit cards? Being broke and in debt is preferable to being dead, at least for most of us.
Do you feel sorry for compulsive gamblers? Probably. Do you think all casinos shall close because they “trap” people with all their advertising?
Shall we stop all advertising too?
July 25th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Which companies exactly are making “record” profits right now?
According to this article
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1715293,00.html
“industry profits have risen from $27.4 billion in 2003 to $40.7 billion in 2007, according to RK Hammer.”
With a 50% increase in profits industry-wide I would guess just about every credit card issuer has been making record profits. They can’t go up forever of course.
even though their credit card business is catering to somewhat better off crowd
That kind of tells you something doesn’t it? Those folks are much less likely to get trapped in the debt cycle.
So are you saying that plenty of adults don’t know math at a 5th grade level?
So when is one of these folks going to use their 5th grade education to actually calculate the cost of buying something on credit and paying it off making the minimum payment. The reality is this is not a 5th grade math problem.
In fact, the people here who are defending predatory lending don’t know the answer. They just keep saying its really, really obvious. Any fifth grader can figure it out in their head.
I’ll make it easy. If someone makes a minimum payment of 3% of their monthly balance and they are paying 30% interest. What is the total cost of each dollar they borrow? $2, $5 $10? Is that Big Mac they are put on their credit card at lunch costing them $5 or $10 or $50 or more? Afterall, the answer is really really obvious to anyone with a 5th grade education.
The reality is that if people fully understood or if the credit card companies clearly disclosed, the full cost of borrowing, many of them would not be caught in the debt trap.
employees who have absolutely nothing to do with loans
Why would banks hire people to do work that has absolutely nothing to do with loans and then lay them off when the loans went bad? Employers hire people to help them make money, whether its a bank or organized crime. You are making a patently silly argument.
Do you think all casinos shall close because they “trap” people with all their advertising?
At least Casino’s give people a chance to win. And they market themselves as entertainment, not a financial service.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Ross Williams,
You are intentionally being deceptive. The entire sub-debate about what education level is necessary to understand interest payments came from the following comment made by YOU in response to Adam’s formula in comment 138:
“There are plenty of adults who wouldn’t even be able to figure out how you came up with the 1.3 from a 30% interest rate once they saw your calculation, much less figure out to do the calculation on their own.”
Others then responded with the fact that children learn things like “adding 30% means multiply by 1.3″ in 5th grade. (I don’t think anybody claimed they learn continuously compounding interest, and for our purposes simple interest is close enough.)
Now you are purposely switching the argument to “5th grade math isn’t enough to calculate the exact total cost of borrowing a dollar”, as if that matters. Nobody made that claim to begin with.
I’d like to see you respond the original claims — that calculating an estimate of your payment is not hard, that calculating the effect of that payment on your total debt is not hard, that extrapolating that to “gee, paying the minimum means it will take a long time to finish paying it off” is not hard, and that anybody who remembers basic 5th grade math should be able to do all those tasks.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:52 am
“even though their credit card business is catering to somewhat better off crowd
That kind of tells you something doesn’t it? Those folks are much less likely to get trapped in the debt cycle. ”
Exactly. If even American Express that is catering to the crowd that is less likely to be “trapped” has write loan-related write offs, than what can you say about other companies?
You are listing an article from 2007 from Time which just uses generic words and no real data. I, on the other hand, read actual earning reports from today, from 2008. And they tell a completely different story.
Go to finance.yahoo.com, look at AXP and see for yourself. Then check a few banks.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:28 am
The entire sub-debate about what education level is necessary to understand interest payments came from the following comment made by YOU
Here is the full comment by me:
“Are you serious? That calculation doesn’t even begin to tell you how much you will end up paying. You apparently don’t know how to calculate the exact number any better than I do.
There are plenty of adults who wouldn’t even be able to figure out how you came up with the 1.3 from a 30% interest rate once they saw your calculation, much less figure out to do the calculation on their own.
And in real life you can’t even make that calculation because you don’t have a fixed balance. Have you read the description on your credit card statement for calculating your daily balance? I don’t think it is comprehensible, although I am sure if you had a couple weeks to waste studying it you could figure it out.
If you borrow $1000 and pay it back at $20 per month then it will take you roughly 4 years to pay it off. Most people don’t understand the power of compounded interest. The credit card companies understand that and take advantage of it. “
So yes, I did say they wouldn’t understand how you get 1.3 from 30%. And I stand by that statement. But it is also said it was almost completely irrelevant to the question of understanding the cost of credit. Because, in fact, being able to calculate “percentages”, which 1.3 is not, is not remotely the same as understanding compound interest or the cost of credit.
Moreover, even if people undersand how you got 1.3 it wouldn’t be accurate, would it? Because those monthly payments would reduce the principal.
I’d like to see you respond the original claims — that calculating an estimate of your payment is not hard, that calculating the effect of that payment on your total debt is not hard, that extrapolating that to “gee, paying the minimum means it will take a long time to finish paying it off” is not hard, and that anybody who remembers basic 5th grade math should be able to do all those tasks.
Let me suggest that you are simply ducking the issue I actually raised by focusing on a sideshow.
The issue is not whether the information can be calculated, anyone with a calculator can do the math. The issue is whether it is reasonable to expect that people making decisions to use credit will do so. Your argument is that it is obvious to anyone with a fifth grade education that the critical issue is how much interest they are going to pay. That anyone with a 5th grade education will immediately understand that and carefully calculate how much of their monthly payment is going to principal and how much to interest. And, from that information alone, anyone with a fifth grade education will have a pretty good idea of how much something they buy on credit is actually costing them.
I think that is pure hooey and absurd on its face. Its not true of people with fifth grade educations, its probably not even true of most people with a college education, unless they took finance classes.
Most of us know whether we are going to be paying our mortgage for a “long time”, but we also know whether it is 15 years, 30 years or 40 years. We wouldn’t take out a car loan where the lender didn’t specify how many payments we would have to make. Payday loans are clearer about the actual costs than most credit cards.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Exactly. If even American Express that is catering to the crowd that is less likely to be “trapped” has write loan-related write offs, than what can you say about other companies?
You really aren’t paying attention are you? By the time they “write off” loans, the credit card companies have often collected in interest and fees several times the amount the person borrowed. Yeh, they take a loss on their books when they write it off, but they made a profit on the loan.
The business model is to loan people money and have them pay interest on it for as long as possible. They make more money if a person makes payments for 10 years and then they “write off” the remainder, than if the person pays the loan off in six months. Write offs are just part of the cost of doing business and figured into the interest they charge.
You are listing an article from 2007
The story is from February 21, 2008. You, on the other hand, are cherry picking six months worth of data from one company. It may be that credit card companies will have to write off a bunch of loans because they have run the string out on a lot of people. That will reduce their profits for a while on paper. That doesn’t change the fact that the industry has been experiencing record profits. Its pretty obvious they aren’t gong to have record profits every year.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
One last commment here.
All this stuff about how much people know when they borrow is really another version of “all credit is bad”. The argument is that all you should need to know to convince you not to use credit is that it will cost “A LOT” and it will take “A REALLY LONG TIME” for you to pay it off.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“Why would banks hire people to do work that has absolutely nothing to do with loans and then lay them off when the loans went bad? Employers hire people to help them make money, whether its a bank or organized crime. You are making a patently silly argument.”
Are you deliberately misunderstand what I say or do you believe that a clerk that enters loan payment into the computer is somehow responsible for what you call “trapping” people? Or do you think that when IndyMac went out of business tellers haven’t lost their jobs, only mortgage representatives? Have you ever worked for any corporation?
Let me make it simple for you since you cannot seem to understand what is totally obvious to anybody who works for a publicly traded company. Every company has a lot of employees. Some employees do math calculations, maybe for loans, maybe for interest bank pays, some investment consultants. Then there are IT people who maintain their computer systems. Certainly some of these systems keep loan data, but I doubt it very much that a database administrator or an application programmer is responsible for writing up credit card rules. Or are you saying nobody shall work for the banks? When banks or any company is losing money or even earning less than expected, banks make cuts. When they cut people they figure out which people they can do without. Maybe they close a branch like Washington Mutual just did in my town. Do you seriously think that when banks’ isn’t showing enough profit to satisfy Wall Street they only lay off those who were directly responsible for their problems? What planet are you on?
Additionally, you keep saying how difficult it is to calculate how much time it’ll take you to pay off $X amount of money. What we are telling is that it isn’t really necessary. What any reasonable person with an ounce of common sense can see is that it is “a lot, several times more than what bank pays me on my deposit”. Do you think that those of us who do know math are actually sitting down and calculating it? We just look at the rate and say “WOW, this is a lot, I don’t want to pay that”. At least this was my thinking when I got my first card. I’d bet money that most of those who pay their balances in full thought along the same lines.
“At least Casino’s give people a chance to win.”
So do credit cards. They give you over a month interest-free period while your money is in the bank earning interest. If you pay it off during this period of time, you pay nothing to them. They give you fraud protection; AmEx doubles manufacturer’s warranty. They give you cash backs. There are people who do arbitrage and take advantage of 0% offers. And even though they charge currency conversion fees - although some larger banks and credit unions don’t - their exchange rate is still a whole lot better than what you get on your cash or traveller’s checks. They even provide you an opportunity to completely automate your payments by signing up for automatic payment of the full balance. This way you are never late, never pay interest.
They are a financial service. How you use it or even if you use it at all is entirely up to you.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
@kitty:”Are you confusing banks with credit card companies like Visa and Master Card? Visa and Master card don’t make money off interest; nor do they set interest rate or make policies. Banks that give you the cards do, and banks have not been showing profits lately, last time I checked. Visa and Master Card profits come from the merchants, and they earn money on every transaction on both credit and debit cards (used as credit).”
Exactly. People often confuse credit card companies with banks. Even supposedly informed economic articles I’ve read do so. Visa and Mastercard don’t directly care if you carry a balance or not. The banks who use their services do. All Visa cares about is if you use your credit card often, since they get a percentage of each transaction. You can hate credit cards and all they stand for, but at least be informed about who is making money for what! The credit card companies process transactions for the banks (and get paid quite a bit to do so). Their clients are exclusively banks and other financial institutions, NOT consumers.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Their clients are exclusively banks and other financial institutions, NOT consumers.
Which makes them, as companies, mostly about as relevant to a discussion of consumer credit as mail-houses. They make money sending out credit card offers, but they have nothing to do with their clients business model. In many ways, neither do VISA/Mastercard. This discussion of people’s use of revolving loans is about the lenders’ business model, not companies that provide them with services.
Target and other retailers, on the other hand, have their own credit cards where I believe they are the lenders as well as processing the charges. Of course their business model was to help sell merchandise, although Target’s credit operation is now a major company profit center.
Are you deliberately misunderstand what I say or do you believe that a clerk that enters loan payment into the computer is somehow responsible for what you call “trapping” people?
I don’t think a clerk whose job depends on entering loan payments into a computer has “absolutely nothing” to do with the loan. They wouldn’t have a job in the first place if the loan weren’t made. Predatory lending is very profitable and will keep a lot of people employed. I don’t think that makes it socially constructive or benign.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“Do you think that those of us who do know math are actually sitting down and calculating it? We just look at the rate and say “WOW, this is a lot, I don’t want to pay that”. At least this was my thinking when I got my first card. I’d bet money that most of those who pay their balances in full thought along the same lines.”
We agree entirely on that.
Gasoline costs “a lot” now too. People know it, they still buy it. Why? Because they need gas and the alternatives to buying it aren’t acceptable. But would the alternative sbe more acceptable if they knew that it was actually costing them $40 per gallon, instead of $4, when they put it on their charge card? I suspect they would, but they don’t understand they are paying that much. They think it may add a dollar to the price, at most. Still “a lot”, but not enough to give up driving and walk to work.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“So yes, I did say they wouldn’t understand how you get 1.3 from 30%. And I stand by that statement. But it is also said it was almost completely irrelevant to the question of understanding the cost of credit. Because, in fact, being able to calculate “percentages”, which 1.3 is not, is not remotely the same as understanding compound interest or the cost of credit.”
But your comment was in response to this:
“I really don’t think it is hard to see that minimum payments are barely going to chip away at your debt.”
It says nothing about the exact long-term cost of credit being easy to calculate.
I’ll reiterate, you don’t need to know the *exact* long-term cost of borrowed money in order to know that paying the minimum is a bad idea. You can immediately see that most of your payment is going to interest and that your balance hardly goes down. Now you’re saying it’s “almost completely irrelevant” but I’m sure that in your own life you use estimation a whole lot more than exact calculation. Estimation is most definitely relevant.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
“By the time they “write off” loans, the credit card companies have often collected in interest and fees several times the amount the person borrowed. Yeh, they take a loss on their books when they write it off, but they made a profit on the loan.”
You’re still ignoring that a company’s value is determined not just by cash in the bank but by expected future revenue. Even if it’s still profitable, if it’s less profitable than expected that is very bad. GE recently lost 25% of its stock price because even though it profited by billions of dollars, it was a little below what was expected.
Furthermore, that expected value could be put up as collateral for loans, and that added leverage is going to multiply the cost of the write-down tremendously. There’s a good chance that even in the rare situation where a bank has already made a profit from a bad loan, the overall effect of a write-down on that loan will be very negative.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
For those who continue to maintain that we humans have complete free will, I just learned about a book called Nudge, which explores the research into “choice architecture”, or manufacturing situations which lead people to make certain decisions, both in their best interest and against. I haven’t read this, but I’m certain I know the conclusion: We are easily manipulated. Marketers (and others) can influence us to make choices that are not in our best interest.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Jon -
“your comment was in response to this:
“I really don’t think it is hard to see that minimum payments are barely going to chip away at your debt.”
It says nothing about the exact long-term cost of credit being easy to calculate.”
I’m glad to see we agree, since that comment on minimum payment was a response to this:
“I don’t think calculating the future cost of borrowed money is a middle school math problem. I certainly can’t do it. I would have to go find the formulas and think about it for a long time and I would probably still get it wrong.
And I don’t think it is intuitively obvious that you will end up paying 10 or 20 times as much money as you borrow.”
So you agree with me?
There’s a good chance that even in the rare situation where a bank has already made a profit from a bad loan, the overall effect of a write-down on that loan will be very negative.
When any asset stops producing that is a negative thing for the company, but it eventually happens with most assets. Obviously they would rather the person kept paying. That doesn’t ,mean the loan was unprofitable. In the case of revolving credit, where they can collect 10-20 times the amount they initially loaned, there aren’t very many unprofitable loans written off. Their unprofitable loans are the ones people pay back.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Estimation is most definitely relevant.
So if someone makes a payment of $25 per month on a $1000 loan it will take them a “long time to pay off the loan”, say approximately 40 months? That is a perfectly reasonable estimate based on 1000/25, not exact, just a ballpark figure. Of course it doesn’t take into account interest, so it will take a little longer than that.
Yeh, I think the predators understand very well that most of us will only do an estimate of the cost and not a very accurate one. In fact, they must count on it. Since, as you point out, anyone who made an accurate estimate would not borrow money on those terms.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:28 am
So if someone makes a payment of $25 per month on a $1000 loan it will take them a “long time to pay off the loan”, say approximately 40 months?
Read my comments again. The simple calculation used by Adam in comment 138 is the estimate we’re talking about, not this new method of yours.
I don’t know where you get this stuff from. You still don’t have a response except by changing the subject to either A) a more difficult computation (100% exact) or B) a worse estimate (completely ignoring interest). Why don’t you admit that Adam’s calculation is simple, yields a good understanding of the impact of minimum payments, and is in the reach of the vast majority of adults?
Since, as you point out, anyone who made an accurate estimate would not borrow money on those terms.
Your phrasing is wrong. When you spend $1000 on a credit card, it’s not a term of the loan that you will repay it using the minimum payment and no more. You can repay it much faster if you want.
Also, please point out where I said that. I don’t think I did. There are plenty of situations where it makes sense to use credit cards. I’m smart and I use credit cards. I even profit from them.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:49 am
The simple calculation used by Adam in comment 138 is the estimate we’re talking about
You mean the one you admit is irrelevant to the question I raised to begin with?
when you spend $1000 on a credit card, it’s not a term of the loan that you will repay it using the minimum payment
It is if that is all you can afford to pay and is, in fact, all you are paying on your current balance.
“Also, please point out where I said that.”
Right here:
“you don’t need to know the *exact* long-term cost of borrowed money in order to know that paying the minimum is a bad idea. You can immediately see that most of your payment is going to interest and that your balance hardly goes down.”
What you seem to be arguing is that no reasonable person would borrow money and make the minimum payment. Yet that is exactly what the credit card companies offer people. And many people accept that offer, indicating that they didn’t understand its implications.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
So you agree with me?
Yes and no.
I agree, as I have before, that calculating the exact cost of the credit is difficult and certainly not something taught in 5th grade. I disagree that it matters or is relevant.
Look again at the your comment and Adam’s comment. You talk about total cost. Adam talks about effect of minimum payments. You ignore that distinction from some reason.
The implication is that you think the only way to understand the minimum payment scheme is to be able to calculate the exact total cost of the loan. I disagree with that completely.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:11 am
You mean the one you admit is irrelevant to the question I raised to begin with?
It’s only irrelevant if you don’t understand what the calculation is.
It is if that is all you can afford to pay and is, in fact, all you are paying on your current balance.
Nope, it’s still not a term of the loan. It is a term of the loan that you will pay *at least* the minimum payment, otherwise you go into default.
What you seem to be arguing is that no reasonable person would borrow money and make the minimum payment.
Correct. However, irrelevant. I was asking you to point out where I said not to borrow money “on those terms.” Like I said, there is no term forcing you to make only the minimum payment.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The implication is that you think the only way to understand the minimum payment scheme is to be able to calculate the exact total cost of the loan.
No. The only way to evaluate a purchase on credit is to know the cost of making that purchase. The minimum payment “scheme” is just one aspect of that cost. Do most people know that it will take “a long time” to pay off a loan with the minimum payment? Sure. But they don’t know how long that is or even have a clear idea of the implications for the total cost they are paying.
So what does a gallon of gas cost? A lot. How much more does it cost if you buy it on credit? A lot. Except one of those “a lot’s” means it costs almost $4 per gallon. The other one means it costs $80 per gallon. The difference between $4 and $80 is not insignificant even if they are both “a lot”.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:38 am
And just so that we have a real figure - if you borrow $1000 at 30% interest and pay it off at $25 dollars a month it will take you 30 years to pay off the loan and you will “only” have paid back a little over 9 times the amount you borrowed.
If you paid $30 per month, it would take 6 years and you would pay slightly over 2 times what you borrowed.
Does anyone think that difference is intuitively obvious or easily estimated? Of course, it is still a simplified version of actual credit purchase costs because the credit card companies lower the minimum payment as the balance declines. That means it will actually take longer and they will make more money than those figures indicate.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Allow me to invert for effect.
So what does a gallon of gas cost? A lot. How much more does it cost if you buy it on credit? A lot. Except one of those “a lot’s” means it costs almost $4 per gallon. The other one means it costs $80 per gallon.
The only way it could cost $80 is if you’re doing minimum payments. BUT:
The minimum payment “scheme” is just one aspect of that cost.
And yet, every single time you are talking about buying on credit, you are assuming minimum payments.
If you want to widen this debate into “credit is bad” rather than “minimum payments are deceptive”, feel free. That is even easier for me to argue.
But they don’t know how long that is or even have a clear idea of the implications for the total cost they are paying.
Wrong. If they do the simple, intuitive calculation we’ve been talking about, then they can instantly see that out of their $25, $24 goes to interest and $1 goes to debt reduction. The implications of that are clear.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Nope, it’s still not a term of the loan.
It may not be imposed by the bank, but it is still one of the terms under which the person borrows. And the credit card issuers understand that, without that low minimum payment, many people would realize that they can’t really afford to borrow.
“Like I said, there is no term”
Right. So what?
July 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Wrong. If they do the simple, intuitive calculation we’ve been talking about, then they can instantly see that out of their $25, $24 goes to interest and $1 goes to debt reduction
Can you explain that calculation? Excel seems to think $.08 is going to pay off the principal. Simple, intuitive and wrong. Yep, I think that’s mostly how people estimate the cost of credit.
And yet, every single time you are talking about buying on credit, you are assuming minimum payments.
No, I’m not. I am simply using the minimum as an example. The reality is far more complicated. In fact, its almost impossible for someone to know how much they are paying for gas if they buy it on credit and carry a balance.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
It may not be imposed by the bank, but it is still one of the terms under which the person borrows.
No, it’s still not “one of the terms”. There is NO term that requires you to pay only the minimum payment.
Right. So what?
Well, so I never said that. I think the terms offered by credit cards are fine. That’s why I use credit cards.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I think the terms offered by credit cards are fine.
Which terms are those? The one that gives you a grace period? Oh no, that isn’t a term since you aren’t required to use it. Irrelevant semantical games. Whatever you call it, if a person can only afford to pay the minimum that is part of their calculation of the cost of credit. Its very easy to calculate the cost if you pay off the loan before the end of the grace period.
July 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Which terms are those? The one that gives you a grace period? Oh no, that isn’t a term since you aren’t required to use it. Irrelevant semantical games.
Of course it’s a term, but you have it backwards. The grace period is a requirement on the credit card company, not you. You’re being deliberately obtuse.
Again, in case you forgot the original point, there is no term requiring you to pay only the minimum payment. That’s not a semantical game, it’s a fact. I don’t know why you’re even arguing this.
Whatever you call it, if a person can only afford to pay the minimum that is part of their calculation of the cost of credit.
Think about what leads a person into the situation where they can only afford the minimum payment. Maybe what you’re upset about is the easy availability of credit, not the minimum payment calculation.
July 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Can you explain that calculation? Excel seems to think $.08 is going to pay off the principal. Simple, intuitive and wrong. Yep, I think that’s mostly how people estimate the cost of credit.
I wonder how you even performed the calculation since I didn’t any information except a $25 payment and $24 interest. It was a hypothetical result. If your result, with whatever numbers you used, is correct then it’s even more in my favor.
A $25 payment with $0.08 going to principal is quite obviously going to take a long time to pay off and quite obviously you’re going to pay a lot of interest. I don’t need to calculate the exact total cost of the loan to know that, and either does anybody else.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
i say this is the difference between people who have been through this process and those who haven’t…
ie - someone who is not overweight, or never has been, doesn’t understand how it is difficult to lose weight.
someone who has never been in debt, or has had good financial education, doesn’t understand how difficult it is to get yourself out of debt.
as someone who is in both camp a and b (ie i am both overweight and in debt), i don’t tend to listen to people who have not overcome one obstacle or the other.
this is why i love this blog - because it is human, and the author admits to error! i think the biggest problem with those that are pulling themselves out of a funky situation, is that they have to admit to error. and that is tough.
but where does the responsibility lie - with that guy over there or with me? ultimately with me - i am the only one that has control over my fate, and there is nothing i can do to make that other guy do anything differently. so, i have to look at what i can do in my situation to correct it. so everyone can blame this or blame that for their situations,but ultimately, the blame lies with numero uno.