4 ms·
You're still only thinking in terms of the market. This action is about raising social capital.
by elemenohpee 14y ago
You're still only thinking in terms of the market. This action is about raising social capital.
- greedo 14y agoHow does this raise social capital? It's not helping the original debtor, and in fact, is increasing the demand for non-performing debt? Collection agencies will LOVE this program, since they can now actually make some money off of non-performing debt. If anything, this will result in collection agencies increasing their harassment of delinquent accounts.
- elemenohpee 14y agoBecause it's a signal to all these debtors that there's a significant segment of the population that doesn't want to play by the old rules. It shows that they can count on their fellow citizens to help them out when they are down on their luck, the very definition of social capital.
- greedo 14y agoOkay, say I'm in debt to BigHospital for my cancer treatments. I only owe $10K (ha!) and discharging this debt in bankruptcy is something I either couldn't afford or otherwise was unable to accomplish. I've managed to avoid paying the debt collectors for whatever reason, and I have this low value debt out there. It's par value might be $10k, but it's sold to Rolling Jubilee for $500. Rolling Jubilee discharges this debt. In practical terms, my credit is already shot. I wasn't able to pay off this debt anyways, so it's not as if I have more money in my pocket. Sure I might be able to rebuild my credit a bit faster depending on how Rolling Jubilee reports the handling of this debt etc etc. Maybe not. Even if it persists on my credit score, rebuilding credit isn't as hard once you get a decent steady job. If I don't have that, I have no business getting more credit, no? The old rules that you say no one wants to play by are still there at the end of the day. Oh, and "hey can count on their fellow citizens to help them out when they are down on their luck" doesn't seem to be the very definition of social capital from your link.
- justindocanto 14y agoAlright... lets actually entertain this idealism for a second. Let's give it a good honest shot and see how well this could work out, even in the most favorable conditions. Lets say 700 people go this event because the capacity of the venue is a maximum of 700. Let's also say they all donated $50 bucks. Let's be real, most people will only pay $25 each because they're they're psuedo-anarchostic punks who just want to see the bands they love for as cheap as they can. But hey, maybe a few people felt the need to go big on this one. So, let's say 700 people donated an average of $50 each. That's $35,000 raised from the event and if no artists get paid, if the venue doesn't take a chunk, if the promoter doesn't take a chunk, if the flyers were printed for free, if security doesn't get paid, etc. then that's $35,000 that can be used to buy $700,000 in purchased debt. It's worth noting that in the real world, even Non-Profits have to pay to use a venue, security, promoters, etc. Something with a capacity of 700 in NYC is probably a few thousand at least, based on prices over here on the west coast in LA and San Diego. But hey... let's just be generous since thats the spirit of the whole thing anyway. Let's say they get all $35,000 without a single expense. Not even a penny. Now lets look at some normal unpaid debt that this will probably go to. The average public college student pays $30,000 over 4 years, so lets say a few kids racked up $30,000 in debt each. Usually college kids also take out loans for textbooks, sneak in a little for groceries & supplies, but again... Let's do the super generous thing and say it's only $30,000 and not a penny more. Keep in mind we're not even counting interest! That's super generous! $700,000 in purchased debt, at $30,000 for 4 years of school = 23 kids get a free ride. That's really cool. Really awesome. YAY! But wait... they graduated 5 years ago and they dont get to see this money. Since it's being paid for by buying the debt, this means they werent making payments anyway... SO it didnt even benifit them at all. The only thing it did was modify their credit score and give the lending industry $35,000 they didnt have before. I thought this was supposed to be about putting the man on his ear and teaching him a lesson? Hmmmmm. Reality is calling. Not only did we not help 23 kids but we also forgot about interest, late fees, attorney fees and all the other other debt this $700,000 would have accumulated over the 5 years of not being paid. You're probably looking at more like... $1.4 million when all is said and done. If you've ever been in collections that long, you know the amount can EASILY double. So really, even with a free venue, and no textbooks or supplies... You really only saved about 12 or 13 kids from paying a debt they weren't paying already in the first place. 12 kids, 23 kids... either way it's $700,000 in debt that the lenders still collected $35,000 on. Do you know how much debt there is owed to lenders and collection agencies?? Do you seriously think even something as attractive sounding as $700,00 will teach the lending industry anything? Keep in mind... You didn't give them $700,000. You gave them $35,000. Let's look at real numbers here. In just credit card debt alone, and this is based off 'average' numbers, there's at least $1.4 trillion dollars owed just in credit card debt right now that is unpaid. And that is just in credit card debt alone. It's well known that there's $1 Trillion dollars unpaid in student loans right now. Lets say you paid a ton of credit card bills because that would help more people since the amount is less, per case. You know how much the credit card companies still are looking to collect? $1,369,199,300,000. Yup, that number is still in the trillions. Man this is really hard to put in a positive light. Hmmm, ok I give up. Now, back in 'real life' land, we forgot all about business loans, house loans, construction loans, medical bills, school loans, the interest, the late fees, the attorney fees... and so on. I'm sure that number is in the tens of trillions of dollars at least. And you think you're going to put an industry on its ear by putting on a concert that will max out at 700 and by giving them $35,000? Even if you did a national tour for every day of the year with no expenses, you wouldn't even break the billion mark in PURCHASED debt. You would have only given them $12.7 million in actual cash... after 365 events... with no expenses whatsoever.... that people paid $50 to get into. You're talking about playing with $35,000 in monopoly money like it's going to make a difference. You are so sadly mistaken. This is the same misdirected anger I see all over OWS. There's good ideas, that sound great at first, but when you do the Math.. it doesnt add up. All I can say is please stop wasting your time and go back to the drawing board. $35,000 of imaginary money could do so much better. $35,000 could go to helping real people right now, today, that need it. $35,000 doesnt need to be spent paying 20 kids school loans that they were never going to pay anyway. People in our country need real life food, real life shelter, real life water and real life clothes while thinking of donating all that money to the same industry youre tring to make play by new rules. It's so irresponsible and wrong that it's almost offensive.
- justindocanto 14y agoThe action is people donating money that is going to be put to waste in comparison to their immediate needs. They should change the entire event to fundraising more food, generators, shelter, clothes & necessities for these people. If they want to do something extraordinary, which it seems they're trying to paint this event as, they should do something extraordinary like take all the money they raise and start building people new houses. That's real 'social capital'.
- elemenohpee 14y agoThis is not necessarily connected to the Sandy relief efforts, and there's nothing wrong with different parts of the Occupy movement working on different problems. There's already enough houses, we don't need to build more. What needs to change is peoples' tacit acceptance of the current debt relations, which is precisely what this action is challenging. I'm not sure why you put social capital in scare quotes, it has an accepted definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
- justindocanto 14y agoThey dont need more homes? Are you not familiar with all the homes that burned down during sandy? There's nothing wrong with them moving onto other things... but those other things are a waste of time and are not beneficial. If youre going to act like youre trying to make the world a better place, at least do something that supports that. Paying somebodies old debt from 5 years ago is a freebie that teaches nothing. It didnt save anybody money this month. It didnt teach anybody a lesson. It gave some one a free way out of a debt that havent paid in years, which was more than likely their own fault for over borrowing. Meanwhile, people are living in unsafe conditions in NYC & Jersey with very little to their name right now in the present tense. Helping Sandy victims is the first productive thing OWS has ever done, and they should stick to that. And for the record, I'm quite aware that social capital has a definition. I put quotes around it because the original usage didn't match up with the same definition you linked to and I was mocking it.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]