Trial from God...or deserved consequences?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by devilslayer365, Dec 11, 2017.

  1. Scooby_Snax

    Scooby_Snax Rut-Roh

    My definition is probably wrong for predatory lending. That is most often used for mortgage loan issues. I agree, no one is forced to borrow. Credit card companies will, however, extend credit to those who may not be able to repay based on their income and current debt.
    If your credit is good, you can have a foldout wallet 3 feet long of credit cards if you wish. :)
    It is the consumer who must be able to see their own limitations, but often they do not.
  2. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    Really? So, we can just ignore the moral and ethical considerations then?
    (I heard somewhere that the Jubilee was never officially carried out during Israel's history prior to the exile - but I'm not certain on that. I do not recall the Biblical writers ever really bringing it up)

    That is true enough. I was using the term force more colloquially, but you are right.

    When your business model is effectively predicated on people not meeting contractual obligations then I think that is morally dubious.

    The whole 2008-era mortgage fiasco is a major can of worms that a lot of people should have gone to jail over, but did not.
    IMINXTC likes this.
  3. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    When the US government decided to get into the loan guarantee business, that was a constitutional overreach for which people should have been impeached, that is for certain.

    Governments have absolutely no business being in the mortgage business. The only exception I will make to that is the idea of the government offering Veterans loans on preferential terms in return for their service in uniform.

    Otherwise, all lending should be private with no government backed loans or guarantees.

    The efficient capital market should deal with interest rates, underwriting, and terms of loans.

    I'm not aware of any business model that is predicated on people not meeting contractual obligations.
  4. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    cough credit cards cough
  5. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    Credit card companies have to build in gazillion dollars for losses when folks don't pay as agreed or file bankruptcy.
    Credit card companies make money when people make their payments including interest.

    If people can't do basic math in regard to interest amounts and minimum monthly payments, then shame on them for agreeing to the terms. Credit card company has been neither immoral or engaged in a business model predicated on people not paying pursuant to the contract.
  6. TrustGzus

    TrustGzus Don't make me hangry Staff Member

    RK, do you own Mastercard?
  7. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    Exactly what I'd expect from you. So, if they have to cover those billions in losses, why were they sending out cards like junk mail for years and years. They were preying on the stupidity of people. For years Sears department stores primary source of income was their credit card business. Why do credit card companies put out minimum repayments (10% of balance) if not to induce the consumer to remain in debt. Why did they not routinely let the consumer know that if they followed that plan, they would never repay that debt. If this is not morally and ethically dubious, then I don't know what is. I'm not saying it's illegal, or that there is no complicity in the consumer, but come on.

    BTW, do the Old Testament/Torah moral or ethical duties not apply anymore?
  8. devilslayer365

    devilslayer365 Wazzup?!

    I agree with some of what you say. Credit card companies DEFINITELY love when customers make ONLY the minimum payments, as it will take forever to pay off their debts. They make money off the interest the whole time. They HATE when you borrow very little and then pay off your monthly payments in full every month.
  9. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    As in, "do I own stock in MasterCard"?

    No. From time to time I look at VISA, AMEX, and MC, but I've not had sufficient time to really research their stock performance to make a call on any of them.

    Do I have a MasterCard? I don't think so, but my wife may have one.
  10. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    No, OT/Torah moral or ethical duties do not apply anymore. The rule of the Kingdom has a higher standard.

    Part of that is honoring your agreements and paying your obligations as you promise.

    I do not see any reason to impose of a lender the duty to do basic math for the borrower.
  11. devilslayer365

    devilslayer365 Wazzup?!

    I agree. The interest these credit card companies charge is ABSURD...but it’s one’s choice to get a credit card or not and it’s one’s responsibility to know how much, and why, the payments are. And it’s one’s obligation to pay them as required. If people don’t like their situation AFTER they’ve gotten a credit card...they need to not run up more debt on them, pay the suckers off as fast as possible, and cut up the cards.
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
  12. hisleast

    hisleast FISHBEAT!

    Predatory: Targeting a weakness in order to exploit a resource. In this case, the resource is someone's money. The weakness is that not everyone is a lawyer, and can't comprehend the Terms and Condition sections of modern credit instruments. Now, perhaps the wise man shies away from deals he doesn't adequately understand... but not everyone is wise. It is right to be skeptical and to provide protections from lenders who bury their lecherous intent behind veils of legalese.

Share This Page