4 ms·
> We had no say. We certinly had no vote. Why should you? It's the credit grantors who use it. They say "when I grant credit to someone with a score of 800,
by g051051 7y ago
> We had no say. We certinly had no vote.
Why should you? It's the credit grantors who use it. They say "when I grant credit to someone with a score of 800, I'm much less likely to lose money. If they have a score of 600, I'm far more likely to lose money." It's their money, your only say is whether you accept their terms or not.
- chiefalchemist 7y agoTake a moment to re-read what I said. Give it some thought. It will make more sense when you step back and think broader, and pay less attention to conventional wisdom
- g051051 7y agoNo, it still doesn't make much sense.
- Anon1096 7y agoAre you saying that you should be able to borrow someone else's money, even when they deem you risky? Credit score is a proxy for a lender to determine your credit worthiness. You don't need one if you don't plan to take on credit.
- chiefalchemist 7y agoI'm saying there is a difference between lending/borrowing money and a perversion of the Surveillance State. They current "credit tracking" systen has massive over-reach. So much so that if there's a breach/hack thousands if not millions are subjected to those mistakes. __And__ we have no choice but to say "Thank you sir. Can I have another?" We have __zero__ alternatives. Normalized or not, that's unacceptable. There is a differnce between evaluating my credit worthiness and mitigating your risk, and imposing a monopolistic over-reach program that controls the fate of so many.
- g051051 7y ago> They current "credit tracking" systen has massive over-reach. So much so that if there's a breach/hack thousands if not millions are subjected to those mistakes. Why are you singling out "credit tracking" here? There have been other, much worse breaches from companies unrelated to the credit industry. Where's the $125 from Marriot? Or Yahoo!?
- okcando 7y agoBecause clearly the borrowers are not the only ones capable of being untrustworthy and yet the trustworthiness of neither the lender nor the credit bureau is held to account in this system. And this is related to the reality that individuals are at a distinct disadvantage for being largely unorganized and unable to bargain collectively, or else they probably would blackball bad lenders and credit bureaus for a history of untrustworthiness. But they can't; their only tool is the democratic process. We ought to ruin Equifax to the same degree any one of us would be ruined if we had been so careless.
- g051051 7y ago> their only tool is the democratic process That's why we have the FTC, GBLA, FCRA and all of the regulation associated with both credit industry, CRAs, banks, etc.