Re: Totally *OT* - New Credit Card Laws


"Obveeus" <Obveeus@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:h05l1r$8pt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Steven" <stevenmarch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Then it is hyperbole cc executives are quoted as claiming. In Maxed Out they [cc execs] are quoted as saying that a system to encourage what you suggest - 'good' customers who are not in danger of default - would massively damage their revenues as they depend on charging those fees.

Instead of having your entire knowledge base contingent upon a movie made > > by a nutcase,

No. I referenced that documetary, a PBS Frontline documentary, a New York Times article, as well as litigation results and other sources. I'm sorry that isn't enough for you.

As for Maxed Out being the work of a 'nutcase', the documentary won numerous award, while the book version won the Ridenhour Book Prize

The main expert quoted, including the allegation that CC execs don't want customers to pay off balances was Elizabeth Warren: "Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where she teaches contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law. In the wake of the 2008-9 financial crisis, she has also become the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the U.S. banking bailout, formally known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program. In May 2009, Warren was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World."

Ya, some nutcase.


you might want to do some more research. I'm still waiting for you to address the issue of what happens to credit card companies that only have balance carrying members.

They keep charging outrageous interest, fees and penalties.

It is a common misconception that loan sharks want their customers to pay the principle back. Nothing could be further from the truth. They want to continue receiving the vig. CC's are no different but for a few percentage points.

Yes, they want people paying interest. What you seem to be ignoring (or unable to comprehend) is that they don't want people defaulting and failing to pay anything going foreward.

If they have already collected in excess of 100%, even three, four or more hundred percent of the principle then it's all gravy.

Obviously you will not agree and this is off-topic so I will desist now. If you can't see what is in front of you that is your problem.

Some CC companies have even crossed the ethical line to out and out criminal fraud. Check out the details of Providian. They specialized in extending cards and credit to marginal customers and then even when payment was received on time would hold crediting accounts until after the due date to trigger late payment fees which would often trigger over limit penalties in a system of 'piling on'.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to think that the CC's are warm fuzzies with your best interests at heart, far be it for me to shatter your illusions.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/03414/providiansecuritiesfraud.html

The company has settled a class action securities fraud suit. The lawsuit claims that the company, which issues credit cards, inflated its earnings by charging its customers extra fees, an issue which was settled for $305 million in June 2000.

You had to go back to a 9 year old lawsuit to attempt to prove something?

It was the most egregious. I'm not sure what significance you place on it being 9 years old.

I read about a doctor at a hospital that once amputated the wrong leg on a patient. By your logic, people should not use hospitals or doctors, either.

No. By your logic you should always trust that hospitals and doctors will never do wrong.

Feel free. If you do get the wrong limb amputated I'm sure they will accept your credit card to pay for it.


.