13 ms·

> There is no expectation that the servicer will act in the interest of the consumer... Navient says its public statements encouraging borrowers to contact the

> There is no expectation that the servicer will act in the interest of the consumer... Navient says its public statements encouraging borrowers to contact the company didn’t mean it would act in their best interest. So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company? I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away" and how we're all just supposed to be OK with this, as if this is how the world works or some crap. If your public advertising--especially, but not limited to, when administering a service on behalf of the government--explicitly says "call us and we will help you," your company should not then be able to turn around and say "well, caveat emptor for calling us, sucker." Meanwhile, the handful of agencies devoted to trying to help the individual get any kind of a fair shake from the company "provider" that massively outguns any one individual customer, are all under attack from all sides as being "too heavy handed." (I love the CFPB, in case you can't tell.) Oh, and this whole "consumer" crap? I'm not a "consumer," I'm a customer. I'm not consuming anything from a financial services provider, I'm using their services. Stop with the idea that all of us are just mindless drones, eating our Pac Man-like dots on the way to a swift end, and maybe get back to the idea that real people are on the other end of those faceless account numbers. (FWIW, this applies to every company with mandatory, binding arbitration clauses, including the oh-so-enlightened participants in Y Combinator. Don't restrict my ability to hold you to your side of the agreement while reserving all rights to pound me into the sand at your leisure.)

noonespecial 10y ago
>I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away" I propose "the bigger the print, the stronger the statement". Therefore, if you make one claim in 24 point and then attempt to rescind or modify it in 8 point, the 24 is legally binding because it was larger and so nullified the smaller. This also means that if you want to place limitations (like 'one per customer' etc) on an offer you make in print, those will have to be printed in an equal font in order to be valid.
- bbrazil 10y ago
  That's already (roughly) the law in the EU.
  - bbrian 10y ago
    It's why software licences have some text in capitals.
- ChrisBland 10y ago
  Wow, that is one of the most simple, effective ideas I've ever heard -- kudos. Not joking or sarcasm, I would love for that to be the rule, it would make life so much simpler.
- rco8786 10y ago
  Brilliant idea
  - qbrass 10y ago
    You can bury things just as easily in a stack of single page sized letters.
    - mod 10y ago
      No, it's really not just as easy--not in advertising.
      - GotAnyMegadeth 10y ago
        Although I completely agree with you, I took it as a challenge to come up with something that follows the above rules and is still devious. Here is my 1 min of effort attempt: https://ibb.co/giqgDv https://ibb.co/giqgDv
        mod 10y ago
        That's pretty legitimate, well played.
metaphorm 10y ago
> So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company? shareholder capitalism. they have zero accountability except to their shareholders.
- cbennett 10y ago
  > shareholder capitalism. they have zero accountability except to their shareholders. Random thought that just came to mind. Have coalition of debt holders (borrowers ) ever considered buying stock in these companies to influence them in the form of another company that is jointly owned or invested in by thousands or tens of thousands of folks? Eg, mass activism campaign launches request for everyone to invest X% of what they normally would have paid into loans for the month (above the minimum thresholds of course), and/ or y% of disposable income into this fund. Now obviously one or ten people doing this will own just a few hundred stocks, but thousands doing this get tens of thousands of stocks-- thats when it could get interesting ;) Obviously, would not be available to those really struggling under massive loan burdens and struggling to make every payment, BUT for those in the AND gate between reasonably high loan burden and comfortable income, which is a huge overlap with HN by the way, the impact could be massive. In the end the results could be beautiful though: cannibalizing capitalism , - an inside job.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    the combined assets of the entire class of student debtors is probably NEGATIVE (they are debtors, remember) whereas the assets of even a single major shareholder (Carl Icahn as a benchmark) are in the billions of dollars and outweigh the rest of it combined. this is one of the side effects of the massive income and wealth inequality American style capitalism causes.
    - cbennett 10y ago
      Present assests- probably, but when taken over a longer time scale this makes increasing sense. many folks with >100k debt usually have several grad degrees , medical, engineering, law, etc, & whether annualized or summed, their future earnings may be productively invested into an advocacy campaign which would not only benefit them but others who have less natural income cushion and thus less of a parachute. Individual mega-investors are no doubt powerful, but what about investor collectives. if a single company and/or entity can take on even 1/10th the power of Icahn collectively, it is something worth considering.
huebnerob 10y ago
Well, by my interpretation, this hasn't been validated as a successful evasion quite yet. This is their response to a complaint that one lawyer calls, "a sound legal argument," but sound argument != final verdict. They might still get their comeuppance as the whole situation plays out.
joshkpeterson 10y ago
Insult to injury - I currently have loans serviced by Navient, but I didn't choose them. Originally they were directly from the government but the government sold them to Navient so now I'm stuck with Navient. I had no say in the matter.
rayiner 10y ago
> So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company? Because that's the default rule when it comes to arm's-length transactions in the economy? Unless there is a special relationship (e.g. doctor-patient), everyone takes care of their end of the transaction. The government offers very generous loan repayment options for student borrowers. It's Navient's job to collect payments, which helps keep the whole system solvent and lowers interest rates for other borrowers. Why should it be its job to help borrowers figure out their repayment options?
- OrwellianChild 10y ago
  Okay, then... New rule: the primary loan provider for higher education in America - education that is argued in many circles as being a public good and benefit to society - shall be considered to be in a "special relationship" with the student borrower... Let people know what they're getting into. I don't see how this should be any different from the relationship a fiduciary has with his/her client. Can we make this happen?
  - lr4444lr 10y ago
    * Let people know what they're getting into.* Are you suggesting that when people signed for the loan - which was not with Navient, as they're on the servicing and collections side - that they didn't know what the terms of repayment would be?
    - twblalock 10y ago
      When I got my student loans, I had to do a whole bunch of online orientation. It included the various repayment plans, and even what the monthly oayment would be under each plan, and how much total interest each plan would eventually cost me. I think its a federal requirement that this information is provided before the loans are disbursed. If someone doesn't take the time to understand their student loans, which are one of the most important things in their lives at that age, I just don't know what to say.
shostack 10y ago
Devil's advocate...if there are limited providers for something you need, then many times the relationship is very much one of you being a "consumer" vs. a "customer." They know you don't have many options, so they don't need to fight for your business. They just need to fight to extract as much profit from you as possible while minimizing their risks. Thinking of them less like "companies" and more like "parasites" starts to make a whole lot more sense. And it is hard to be angry with a parasite--it is in its nature.
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  Or from their perspective: it's the consumer who is the parasite, like moray eels siphoning Company resources. If they're not selling the service _to you_, you're not a customer. You're at best a consumer and at worst a resource.
Lazare 10y ago
> So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company? I dunno, why wouldn't it be okay? I interact with a lot of companies on a day-to-day basis; big ones (Facebook, Google), small ones (the corner shop I bought an energy drink at on my way to work), and everything in between. Offhand I'd say that none of them have a legal expectation to work in my best interest, nor would I have expected any of them to, nor do I believe a law requiring them to would be workable. My interest in buying an energy drink is to get the brand I wanted at the lowest possible price; the store's interest is in selling it to me at the highest possible price. If they had to work in my best interests would they be required to sell it to me at cost? Maybe I drink too many energy drinks, would they be required on pain of criminal sanctions to try and talk me into buying some fruit juice instead? The mind boggles. :) Or do you think there's something special about this particular product that makes it different than every other good or service in the economy? Or that their very vague ads somehow set up a special relationship that's more akin to a doctor/patient relationship than the borrower/lender relationship one would expect from, you know, a loan company?
- xkcd-sucks 10y ago
  The energy drink company's interest is to minimize its cost. Years of bad behavior in this regard eventually led to pure food/drug laws, but in places with weak rule of law plenty of people are still poisoned by dodgy food.
  - Lazare 10y ago
    Oh yes, absolutely. We have laws banning outright fraud, setting minimum food safety standards, a lot of rules about packaging and labelling. And that's good! But we don't have any laws or expectation that a food vendor is going to be acting in my best interests. If I want to spend my rent money on 87 large pepperoni pizzas, nobody is going to arrest the guy who took my order because he didn't sit down and have a 30 minute session with me to ensure that my order was in my best interests, fit within my budget, and would improve my life. All we do is make sure that I 1) have the money 2) get my pizzas and 3) they aren't poisonous or mislabelled. The difference between "you can't blatantly lie" and "you have a fiduciary duty to act in your client's best interests" is enormous.
kelnos 10y ago
That's the thing that pisses me off: if you're going to act a certain way, say so. I'm actually totally ok with a company that is going to act in its best interests (and not its customers), as long as they are up-front and clear that that's the case. If you advertise that you're going to help people deal with their debt better, then that should be legally binding (regardless of what your fine print says), and a failure to do so should at the very least be illegal under false advertising laws, and I'd say more reasonably it should be considered breach of (implied) contract. (IANAL, so clearly my terms are not meant in a strict legal sense, because I have no idea what I'm talking about.)
djrogers 10y ago
> why the is this OK? From any company? For the same reason that it's always been expected from any company. Do you expect a local car dealer to act in your best interests if you show up as a result of a radio ad? Caveat Emptor is in Latin for a reason - people have been living by the maxim for a really really long time.
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  bona fides is a Latin word as well. The Romans used to live by it. Why don't we, and why do we think that's acceptable?
- Larrikin 10y ago
  Its becoming apparent that a lot of people do expect them to at least not be malicious. People don't want to be ripped off because of an information asymmetry, and when they have the information they don't want to waste hours haggling it down to an actual fair price. I'd be willing to bet that played a role in the large number of those direct to consumer pre-orders and why Tesla is valued higher than Ford.
- throwaway9475 10y ago
  "Non sequitur" is in Latin for a reason as well...
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
One of the measures from Dodd-Frank that the current administration wants to roll back is a provision that investment professionals act in the best interest of their clients. Presumably, they want the option to steer you towards their in house funds that have the highest fees instead of helping you het the max return on your investment.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rbcgerard 10y ago
  I actually have no problem with this, I have a bigger problem with the misnaming of people's roles - I.e. It's BS to call a stock broker without a fiduciary duty a "financial advisor" but if they're called a Sales Rep I have no problem if they're not looking out for you
iamacynic 10y ago
i buy the expensive local eggs at my fancy california grocery store. it's $8 for a dozen. they taste like real eggs, not corn and slime. i don't expect the $2 eggs company to care about any of the stuff that the $8 eggs company does. i just don't think that's realistic. i just assume they're fucking the chickens over, and the customer over, and themselves over, and that's going to continue as long as people buy $2 eggs -- which they will, forever, because people feel that tug at their stomach when they reach for the $8 ones. i feel it too, even with my techbrodude salary. difference is i buy it anyway, because of $many_reasons. so i spend my money where i know the chickens aren't getting fucked over, what can i accomplish by worrying about the chickens? it's quicker to spend $8 and the world will be a better version of itself tomorrow (to me). be the change you want to see in the world. expecting others to operate out of altruism is just not a practical thing to preach. if i have children, i will advise them not to get college loans, and i will advise them to skip college if that means you need to. i will tell them not to do 10000 other things that are dangerous. that's what parenting is. expecting the world or companies not to try to harm you is insane and irresponsible, in my opinion.
55555 10y ago
I have had the idea for a long time that the FTC should basically work as follows: put a few dozen randomly chosen people through a sales funnel and then give them a quiz at the end about how much they will be charged and other terms of service engagement. If more than x% of people fail the quiz, then you are guilty of misleading advertising.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- the_watcher 10y ago
  This is a fantastic idea.
ctdonath 10y ago
I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away" and how we're all just supposed to be OK with this, as if this is how the world works or some crap. So reject it already. Use cash. Spend only money you already have. Keep it simple; don't accept anything that comes with fine print. It's really not hard, you're just not used to saying "no" to it. The world, as you function in it, is OK with how this works. Nobody is forcing you to comply.
developer2 10y ago
Oh give me a break. The primary rule for being an adult: do not take on debt you may not be able to reliably pay back. No lender owes any borrower favors to help with their debt. If you can't afford the debt, don't borrow it. Debt isn't some magical tool to obtain free money. You're taking money from someone, with a straightforward contract to pay it back. If you can't pay it back, you shouldn't be borrowing. The level of entitlement people have when borrowing money is insane. You're not borrowing from a family member that can be manipulated into forgiving you for being a freeloader who never pays back. Every single loan and line of credit is a serious matter - stop treating it like an externality where you get money now, completely pushing the eventuality of paying it back as "something that will magically happen". You need a plan to pay back debt. If you do not have an actionable plan to pay off debt, you have no business taking it on to begin with. Why is debt considered "normal" in the 21st century? People are living beyond their means, trying to offload the blame on lenders, while the real fault lies entirely with the borrowers. Far too many people think that loans are just fake numbers on paper or a digital screen. No, loans are real money that you need to account for. Debt is not abstract concept that can be willed away.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > Why is debt considered "normal" in the 21st century? Probably because it's extremely hard to get a university education or a house without it? Especially educational debt; people are required to commit to it right at the beginning of adulthood and before they've learned the skills for the career that's supposed to be able to pay it back.
mtgx 10y ago
This is a consequence of a weak FTC and anti-trust bodies. I facepalm every time I see the FTC fining a company making tens of billions of dollars a year something like $2 million over significant multi-year violations. If you gave a rapist a week in jail, would that make him stop? If not, then why are we acting as if a $2 million fine is going to stop a company from doing further violations that help it make billions of dollars? And all the settlements, which don't even ask the company to admit to any wrongdoing, are even more blood-boiling. It's almost like it pays to be on the side of corporations when you work for the government these days.
zip1234 10y ago
Yes, it is against the consumers. But why do the big companies have it? It certainly costs them a lot in legal fees to have all that fine print. Most of the time it is just CYA for them because they have been burned by lawsuits (some stupid, some not, all costly). As long as the US has a sue-happy culture, then we will see lots of fine print.

noonespecial 10y ago

>I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away" I propose "the bigger the print, the stronger the statement". Therefore, if you make one claim in 24 point and then attempt to rescind or modify it in 8 point, the 24 is legally binding because it was larger and so nullified the smaller. This also means that if you want to place limitations (like 'one per customer' etc) on an offer you make in print, those will have to be printed in an equal font in order to be valid.

bbrazil 10y ago
That's already (roughly) the law in the EU.
- bbrian 10y ago
  It's why software licences have some text in capitals.
ChrisBland 10y ago
Wow, that is one of the most simple, effective ideas I've ever heard -- kudos. Not joking or sarcasm, I would love for that to be the rule, it would make life so much simpler.
rco8786 10y ago
Brilliant idea
- qbrass 10y ago
  You can bury things just as easily in a stack of single page sized letters.
  - mod 10y ago
    No, it's really not just as easy--not in advertising.
    - GotAnyMegadeth 10y ago
      Although I completely agree with you, I took it as a challenge to come up with something that follows the above rules and is still devious. Here is my 1 min of effort attempt: https://ibb.co/giqgDv https://ibb.co/giqgDv
      - mod 10y ago
        That's pretty legitimate, well played.

metaphorm 10y ago

> So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company? shareholder capitalism. they have zero accountability except to their shareholders.

cbennett 10y ago
> shareholder capitalism. they have zero accountability except to their shareholders. Random thought that just came to mind. Have coalition of debt holders (borrowers ) ever considered buying stock in these companies to influence them in the form of another company that is jointly owned or invested in by thousands or tens of thousands of folks? Eg, mass activism campaign launches request for everyone to invest X% of what they normally would have paid into loans for the month (above the minimum thresholds of course), and/ or y% of disposable income into this fund. Now obviously one or ten people doing this will own just a few hundred stocks, but thousands doing this get tens of thousands of stocks-- thats when it could get interesting ;) Obviously, would not be available to those really struggling under massive loan burdens and struggling to make every payment, BUT for those in the AND gate between reasonably high loan burden and comfortable income, which is a huge overlap with HN by the way, the impact could be massive. In the end the results could be beautiful though: cannibalizing capitalism , - an inside job.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  the combined assets of the entire class of student debtors is probably NEGATIVE (they are debtors, remember) whereas the assets of even a single major shareholder (Carl Icahn as a benchmark) are in the billions of dollars and outweigh the rest of it combined. this is one of the side effects of the massive income and wealth inequality American style capitalism causes.
  - cbennett 10y ago
    Present assests- probably, but when taken over a longer time scale this makes increasing sense. many folks with >100k debt usually have several grad degrees , medical, engineering, law, etc, & whether annualized or summed, their future earnings may be productively invested into an advocacy campaign which would not only benefit them but others who have less natural income cushion and thus less of a parachute. Individual mega-investors are no doubt powerful, but what about investor collectives. if a single company and/or entity can take on even 1/10th the power of Icahn collectively, it is something worth considering.

huebnerob 10y ago

Well, by my interpretation, this hasn't been validated as a successful evasion quite yet. This is their response to a complaint that one lawyer calls, "a sound legal argument," but sound argument != final verdict. They might still get their comeuppance as the whole situation plays out.

joshkpeterson 10y ago

Insult to injury - I currently have loans serviced by Navient, but I didn't choose them. Originally they were directly from the government but the government sold them to Navient so now I'm stuck with Navient. I had no say in the matter.

rayiner 10y ago

> So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company? Because that's the default rule when it comes to arm's-length transactions in the economy? Unless there is a special relationship (e.g. doctor-patient), everyone takes care of their end of the transaction. The government offers very generous loan repayment options for student borrowers. It's Navient's job to collect payments, which helps keep the whole system solvent and lowers interest rates for other borrowers. Why should it be its job to help borrowers figure out their repayment options?

OrwellianChild 10y ago
Okay, then... New rule: the primary loan provider for higher education in America - education that is argued in many circles as being a public good and benefit to society - shall be considered to be in a "special relationship" with the student borrower... Let people know what they're getting into. I don't see how this should be any different from the relationship a fiduciary has with his/her client. Can we make this happen?
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  * Let people know what they're getting into.* Are you suggesting that when people signed for the loan - which was not with Navient, as they're on the servicing and collections side - that they didn't know what the terms of repayment would be?
  - twblalock 10y ago
    When I got my student loans, I had to do a whole bunch of online orientation. It included the various repayment plans, and even what the monthly oayment would be under each plan, and how much total interest each plan would eventually cost me. I think its a federal requirement that this information is provided before the loans are disbursed. If someone doesn't take the time to understand their student loans, which are one of the most important things in their lives at that age, I just don't know what to say.

shostack 10y ago

Devil's advocate...if there are limited providers for something you need, then many times the relationship is very much one of you being a "consumer" vs. a "customer." They know you don't have many options, so they don't need to fight for your business. They just need to fight to extract as much profit from you as possible while minimizing their risks. Thinking of them less like "companies" and more like "parasites" starts to make a whole lot more sense. And it is hard to be angry with a parasite--it is in its nature.

GrinningFool 10y ago
Or from their perspective: it's the consumer who is the parasite, like moray eels siphoning Company resources. If they're not selling the service _to you_, you're not a customer. You're at best a consumer and at worst a resource.

Lazare 10y ago

> So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company? I dunno, why wouldn't it be okay? I interact with a lot of companies on a day-to-day basis; big ones (Facebook, Google), small ones (the corner shop I bought an energy drink at on my way to work), and everything in between. Offhand I'd say that none of them have a legal expectation to work in my best interest, nor would I have expected any of them to, nor do I believe a law requiring them to would be workable. My interest in buying an energy drink is to get the brand I wanted at the lowest possible price; the store's interest is in selling it to me at the highest possible price. If they had to work in my best interests would they be required to sell it to me at cost? Maybe I drink too many energy drinks, would they be required on pain of criminal sanctions to try and talk me into buying some fruit juice instead? The mind boggles. :) Or do you think there's something special about this particular product that makes it different than every other good or service in the economy? Or that their very vague ads somehow set up a special relationship that's more akin to a doctor/patient relationship than the borrower/lender relationship one would expect from, you know, a loan company?

xkcd-sucks 10y ago
The energy drink company's interest is to minimize its cost. Years of bad behavior in this regard eventually led to pure food/drug laws, but in places with weak rule of law plenty of people are still poisoned by dodgy food.
- Lazare 10y ago
  Oh yes, absolutely. We have laws banning outright fraud, setting minimum food safety standards, a lot of rules about packaging and labelling. And that's good! But we don't have any laws or expectation that a food vendor is going to be acting in my best interests. If I want to spend my rent money on 87 large pepperoni pizzas, nobody is going to arrest the guy who took my order because he didn't sit down and have a 30 minute session with me to ensure that my order was in my best interests, fit within my budget, and would improve my life. All we do is make sure that I 1) have the money 2) get my pizzas and 3) they aren't poisonous or mislabelled. The difference between "you can't blatantly lie" and "you have a fiduciary duty to act in your client's best interests" is enormous.

kelnos 10y ago

That's the thing that pisses me off: if you're going to act a certain way, say so. I'm actually totally ok with a company that is going to act in its best interests (and not its customers), as long as they are up-front and clear that that's the case. If you advertise that you're going to help people deal with their debt better, then that should be legally binding (regardless of what your fine print says), and a failure to do so should at the very least be illegal under false advertising laws, and I'd say more reasonably it should be considered breach of (implied) contract. (IANAL, so clearly my terms are not meant in a strict legal sense, because I have no idea what I'm talking about.)

djrogers 10y ago

> why the is this OK? From any company? For the same reason that it's always been expected from any company. Do you expect a local car dealer to act in your best interests if you show up as a result of a radio ad? Caveat Emptor is in Latin for a reason - people have been living by the maxim for a really really long time.

HarryHirsch 10y ago
bona fides is a Latin word as well. The Romans used to live by it. Why don't we, and why do we think that's acceptable?
Larrikin 10y ago
Its becoming apparent that a lot of people do expect them to at least not be malicious. People don't want to be ripped off because of an information asymmetry, and when they have the information they don't want to waste hours haggling it down to an actual fair price. I'd be willing to bet that played a role in the large number of those direct to consumer pre-orders and why Tesla is valued higher than Ford.
throwaway9475 10y ago
"Non sequitur" is in Latin for a reason as well...

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

One of the measures from Dodd-Frank that the current administration wants to roll back is a provision that investment professionals act in the best interest of their clients. Presumably, they want the option to steer you towards their in house funds that have the highest fees instead of helping you het the max return on your investment.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rbcgerard 10y ago
I actually have no problem with this, I have a bigger problem with the misnaming of people's roles - I.e. It's BS to call a stock broker without a fiduciary duty a "financial advisor" but if they're called a Sales Rep I have no problem if they're not looking out for you

iamacynic 10y ago

i buy the expensive local eggs at my fancy california grocery store. it's $8 for a dozen. they taste like real eggs, not corn and slime. i don't expect the $2 eggs company to care about any of the stuff that the $8 eggs company does. i just don't think that's realistic. i just assume they're fucking the chickens over, and the customer over, and themselves over, and that's going to continue as long as people buy $2 eggs -- which they will, forever, because people feel that tug at their stomach when they reach for the $8 ones. i feel it too, even with my techbrodude salary. difference is i buy it anyway, because of $many_reasons. so i spend my money where i know the chickens aren't getting fucked over, what can i accomplish by worrying about the chickens? it's quicker to spend $8 and the world will be a better version of itself tomorrow (to me). be the change you want to see in the world. expecting others to operate out of altruism is just not a practical thing to preach. if i have children, i will advise them not to get college loans, and i will advise them to skip college if that means you need to. i will tell them not to do 10000 other things that are dangerous. that's what parenting is. expecting the world or companies not to try to harm you is insane and irresponsible, in my opinion.

55555 10y ago

I have had the idea for a long time that the FTC should basically work as follows: put a few dozen randomly chosen people through a sales funnel and then give them a quiz at the end about how much they will be charged and other terms of service engagement. If more than x% of people fail the quiz, then you are guilty of misleading advertising.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
the_watcher 10y ago
This is a fantastic idea.

ctdonath 10y ago

I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away" and how we're all just supposed to be OK with this, as if this is how the world works or some crap. So reject it already. Use cash. Spend only money you already have. Keep it simple; don't accept anything that comes with fine print. It's really not hard, you're just not used to saying "no" to it. The world, as you function in it, is OK with how this works. Nobody is forcing you to comply.

developer2 10y ago

Oh give me a break. The primary rule for being an adult: do not take on debt you may not be able to reliably pay back. No lender owes any borrower favors to help with their debt. If you can't afford the debt, don't borrow it. Debt isn't some magical tool to obtain free money. You're taking money from someone, with a straightforward contract to pay it back. If you can't pay it back, you shouldn't be borrowing. The level of entitlement people have when borrowing money is insane. You're not borrowing from a family member that can be manipulated into forgiving you for being a freeloader who never pays back. Every single loan and line of credit is a serious matter - stop treating it like an externality where you get money now, completely pushing the eventuality of paying it back as "something that will magically happen". You need a plan to pay back debt. If you do not have an actionable plan to pay off debt, you have no business taking it on to begin with. Why is debt considered "normal" in the 21st century? People are living beyond their means, trying to offload the blame on lenders, while the real fault lies entirely with the borrowers. Far too many people think that loans are just fake numbers on paper or a digital screen. No, loans are real money that you need to account for. Debt is not abstract concept that can be willed away.

pjc50 10y ago
> Why is debt considered "normal" in the 21st century? Probably because it's extremely hard to get a university education or a house without it? Especially educational debt; people are required to commit to it right at the beginning of adulthood and before they've learned the skills for the career that's supposed to be able to pay it back.

mtgx 10y ago

This is a consequence of a weak FTC and anti-trust bodies. I facepalm every time I see the FTC fining a company making tens of billions of dollars a year something like $2 million over significant multi-year violations. If you gave a rapist a week in jail, would that make him stop? If not, then why are we acting as if a $2 million fine is going to stop a company from doing further violations that help it make billions of dollars? And all the settlements, which don't even ask the company to admit to any wrongdoing, are even more blood-boiling. It's almost like it pays to be on the side of corporations when you work for the government these days.

zip1234 10y ago

Yes, it is against the consumers. But why do the big companies have it? It certainly costs them a lot in legal fees to have all that fine print. Most of the time it is just CYA for them because they have been burned by lawsuits (some stupid, some not, all costly). As long as the US has a sue-happy culture, then we will see lots of fine print.