4 ms·

I would rather anyone opening a line of credit be required to obtain proof of acceptance by the person named on the account and until doing so they are 100% lia

I would rather anyone opening a line of credit be required to obtain proof of acceptance by the person named on the account and until doing so they are 100% liable for all debts incurred. How this is defined will require regulation. The burden is increased at any time a request is made outside of the state and city of residence

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Call your local representative and demand this then. That is how legislation is enacted.
- panarky 8y ago
  > That is how legislation is enacted If only that were true.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Yeah if you want to name a dog park after your brother-in-law who died in Iraq, that's how legislation is enacted. A giant change in how commerce is conducted, directly counter to the interests of major political donors? You can't be serious... In case it wasn't clear, I certainly support Shivetya's excellent suggestion to improve society for humans who live in it. I'm just not as optimistic about personal lobbying as you are.
  - pishpash 8y ago
    Collective action and watchdogs are certainly more effective but even with personal lobbying, people tend to misunderstand the point of it: it isn't to affect change for that one person, whether immediately or ever, but to accumulate the political capital requisite to compete adequately with other political powers in an adversarial interests system. Not doing something is basically forfeiting the game.
njarboe 8y ago
This is already the law. You are not responsible to pay debts incurred by another person. The problem is when the bank or company that gave credit to someone else that used your identity information is allowed to lie to a credit bureau about the fact that it was you who defaulted on the debt. Otherwise you could just tell the bank, "Pound sand stranger, I never borrowed any money from you. Stop bugging me or I'll get a restraining order.", and never have worry about how someone has pretended to be you to a bank. Large fines for banks and companies that libel people by telling information brokers lies is the way to stop this problem. The idea that when this happens it is "identity theft" and the person whose identity was stolen is responsible for the problem is ridiculous. This problem should be called libel and the perpetrators (the entity reporting false info that hurts you) punished.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  These proposed "large fines" would still require regular people to deal with putative creditors and occasionally to defend themselves in court. Structural changes are required to make the system as it actually functions more equitable to humans. What are structural changes? For instance, prior to enforcing a debt the law could require the production of an authenticated video recording of the debtor clearly stating, "I am John Doe and I agree that I owe EvilCo $1,000 on May 9, 2018." This requirement would make it more difficult to lend money, so it would be opposed by some very deep pockets. I suspect that any actual solution to the inequity in this area would make it more difficult to lend money, so progress is likely to be slow.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    I agree. First, it could be made a criminal offense for a company or bank to lie to credit agencies and then public prosecutors could pursue these companies for big PR wins. Second, making giving and getting credit harder to do is probably a good thing for society. Do people really need to take out a half million dollar home loan from their phone a la Rocket Mortgage? Many cultures had/have very strict rules about charging interest on loans. Debt jubilees were common in past civilizations and seem necessary to prevent the masses from creating their own via revolution. Making personal loans illegal and bringing back the loan shark is not the way to go, but making going into debt to buy consumptive goods much harder would be big positive for most people in the US. Like you said, there is a huge amount of money and power behind easy lending, so change seems unlikely. On the other hand, change seems to be in the air these days, so maybe one can afford a bit of hope.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Call your local representative and demand this then. That is how legislation is enacted.

panarky 8y ago
> That is how legislation is enacted If only that were true.
jessaustin 8y ago
Yeah if you want to name a dog park after your brother-in-law who died in Iraq, that's how legislation is enacted. A giant change in how commerce is conducted, directly counter to the interests of major political donors? You can't be serious... In case it wasn't clear, I certainly support Shivetya's excellent suggestion to improve society for humans who live in it. I'm just not as optimistic about personal lobbying as you are.
- pishpash 8y ago
  Collective action and watchdogs are certainly more effective but even with personal lobbying, people tend to misunderstand the point of it: it isn't to affect change for that one person, whether immediately or ever, but to accumulate the political capital requisite to compete adequately with other political powers in an adversarial interests system. Not doing something is basically forfeiting the game.

njarboe 8y ago

This is already the law. You are not responsible to pay debts incurred by another person. The problem is when the bank or company that gave credit to someone else that used your identity information is allowed to lie to a credit bureau about the fact that it was you who defaulted on the debt. Otherwise you could just tell the bank, "Pound sand stranger, I never borrowed any money from you. Stop bugging me or I'll get a restraining order.", and never have worry about how someone has pretended to be you to a bank. Large fines for banks and companies that libel people by telling information brokers lies is the way to stop this problem. The idea that when this happens it is "identity theft" and the person whose identity was stolen is responsible for the problem is ridiculous. This problem should be called libel and the perpetrators (the entity reporting false info that hurts you) punished.

jessaustin 8y ago
These proposed "large fines" would still require regular people to deal with putative creditors and occasionally to defend themselves in court. Structural changes are required to make the system as it actually functions more equitable to humans. What are structural changes? For instance, prior to enforcing a debt the law could require the production of an authenticated video recording of the debtor clearly stating, "I am John Doe and I agree that I owe EvilCo $1,000 on May 9, 2018." This requirement would make it more difficult to lend money, so it would be opposed by some very deep pockets. I suspect that any actual solution to the inequity in this area would make it more difficult to lend money, so progress is likely to be slow.
- njarboe 8y ago
  I agree. First, it could be made a criminal offense for a company or bank to lie to credit agencies and then public prosecutors could pursue these companies for big PR wins. Second, making giving and getting credit harder to do is probably a good thing for society. Do people really need to take out a half million dollar home loan from their phone a la Rocket Mortgage? Many cultures had/have very strict rules about charging interest on loans. Debt jubilees were common in past civilizations and seem necessary to prevent the masses from creating their own via revolution. Making personal loans illegal and bringing back the loan shark is not the way to go, but making going into debt to buy consumptive goods much harder would be big positive for most people in the US. Like you said, there is a huge amount of money and power behind easy lending, so change seems unlikely. On the other hand, change seems to be in the air these days, so maybe one can afford a bit of hope.