3 ms·

So your argument is that because the credit reporting companies may raise prices as a result of being sued for their bad actions we should prohibit anyone from

by syshum 9y ago

So your argument is that because the credit reporting companies may raise prices as a result of being sued for their bad actions we should prohibit anyone from suing them and allow them to operate with out any legal liability. They should be allowed to create databases of ruin, not secure those databases, sell this data to who ever and no one should have any legal recourse because prices might go up if they were found to be liable... Really? That is your position I have a problem with these credit reporting agencies even being legal in the first place. I have a problem with the fact I have almost no control over the data they collect, and sell about me, I have a problem the fact they can sell this data about me to whom ever they wish with out my permission, and I have problem with the fact they charge me to access this data in any meaningful or real time manner, sure they are legally required to give me a report 1 time per year, a regulation they also tried to kill, but if I want meaningful access I have to pay them a monthly fee to access my own data. So it is safe to say I 100% disagree with your position, these credit reporting agencies should face bankruptcy for breaking the public trust. This data breach should mean Equifax as a company is dissolved, unfortunately due to flawed and unethical arguments like the one you are making this company will likely make a profit off this data breach

smsm42 9y ago
> So your argument is that because the credit reporting companies may raise prices as a result of being sued for their bad actions we should prohibit anyone from suing them and allow them to operate with out any legal liability. Nope. My argument is we need to account for the costs of this when we decide if having arbitration ban is a good thing or not. It's not "evil fatcats want no responsibility for their greed, let's stop them!", it's "we have two setups here, with complex cost structure, before we decide which one we are going with, we need to carefully weigh the costs of each, not dismissing any of them because it makes us feel bad and not using unicorn-land economics that says everything that makes one feel bad doesn't really exist". My point is not one is better than the other - I didn't do the work to know that - my point is you have to do the work to know it. Wishing well is not enough, unlike fairy tales, in the economics it's not enough to be pure of heart, you also have to have math and data on your side. > Really? That is your position No, not really, you can stop strawmanning now, before you caused local straw shortage and the costs of straw skyrocket. > but if I want meaningful access I have to pay them a monthly fee to access my own data. I know right now about half-dozen of absolutely free ways of getting credit reports and scores. I didn't look for them that hard, I was told about them by companies' marketing, banners, mails (both paper and electronic), etc. Discover, American Express, Barclay, CreditKarma, Mint, Citi. Everybody is doing it now. I am sure if I look harder, I can find even more free offers. Surely, the paid ones could have slightly better UI and maybe a couple of added-value services like insurance and notifications and stuff, but bare access to data has been free for a while, if you spend 10 minutes on research. > This data breach should mean Equifax as a company is dissolved, So instead of 3-way oligopoly you have 2-way oligopoly. That surely will fix things.

by syshum 9y ago

smsm42 9y ago

> So your argument is that because the credit reporting companies may raise prices as a result of being sued for their bad actions we should prohibit anyone from suing them and allow them to operate with out any legal liability. Nope. My argument is we need to account for the costs of this when we decide if having arbitration ban is a good thing or not. It's not "evil fatcats want no responsibility for their greed, let's stop them!", it's "we have two setups here, with complex cost structure, before we decide which one we are going with, we need to carefully weigh the costs of each, not dismissing any of them because it makes us feel bad and not using unicorn-land economics that says everything that makes one feel bad doesn't really exist". My point is not one is better than the other - I didn't do the work to know that - my point is you have to do the work to know it. Wishing well is not enough, unlike fairy tales, in the economics it's not enough to be pure of heart, you also have to have math and data on your side. > Really? That is your position No, not really, you can stop strawmanning now, before you caused local straw shortage and the costs of straw skyrocket. > but if I want meaningful access I have to pay them a monthly fee to access my own data. I know right now about half-dozen of absolutely free ways of getting credit reports and scores. I didn't look for them that hard, I was told about them by companies' marketing, banners, mails (both paper and electronic), etc. Discover, American Express, Barclay, CreditKarma, Mint, Citi. Everybody is doing it now. I am sure if I look harder, I can find even more free offers. Surely, the paid ones could have slightly better UI and maybe a couple of added-value services like insurance and notifications and stuff, but bare access to data has been free for a while, if you spend 10 minutes on research. > This data breach should mean Equifax as a company is dissolved, So instead of 3-way oligopoly you have 2-way oligopoly. That surely will fix things.