3 ms·

They agreed to it when they signed up for the debt. I don't get it, just because someone (corporation/rich person) has lots of money, doesn't mean that not givi

by zo1 12y ago

They agreed to it when they signed up for the debt. I don't get it, just because someone (corporation/rich person) has lots of money, doesn't mean that not giving them back what they gave you is okay. Not giving them back money that you took is the rip off. Is it nice? Could they be a little more compassionate to peoples' situations? Sure, of course. That's why you have institutions that help people with debt-counseling. On the other hand, why not do what they did here. Make laws that prohibit over-burdening debt from being given to an individual.

shmerl 12y ago
"Agreed" because they had no choice. Profiting from other's debt is simply crooked, but became acceptable in society.
- zo1 12y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What is your argument, exactly?
  - shmerl 12y ago
    You said that profiting from debt is alright since parties have agreed to it. I'm saying that it's not, and such agreement comes from limiting circumstances, not because it's a good practice.
    - zo1 12y ago
      So could you boil down your argument for "limiting circumstances" for me, then? i.e. X is bad because Y, etc. Credit exists because different people/entities have different time preferences for money, which is a value differential. Sure, this can be influenced and skewed based on life-circumstance. e.g. one of the posters in this thread noted how "10,000" in debt helped them get through a very troubling time in their life and how they're very grateful they had access to it at the time. Are you going to say that it was "not okay" that the creditor helped him with that? Are you saying that they should have given him/her the money for absolutely no reason, no profit, nothing? Are you implying that lending is okay if it's for charity? What, really, I can't even fathom how you can hold your opinion as logically consistent.
      - shmerl 12y ago
        Limiting circumstances is any case when people can't pay off the debt right away. For instance when buying living property which requires them to pay it off in 30 years because of insane pricing or simply when they have consumer debt like described in this article.
geebee 12y ago
Fair enough - though to me, the question is just how much of my governments efforts, resources, and monopoly on physical force I'd like to devote to getting a creditor his or her money back. We can say to a debtor, maybe you shouldn't have taken that loan, sure. But can we say to a creditor, well, why did you make a large and completely unsecured loan to someone with dodgy credit at very high interest rates? Creditors need to be careful too. I do agree that this sort of thing is better handled with relatively lenient bankruptcy laws, and I do understand garnishment (through force of government) will have to be one of the functions of a court. So this is more about my general attitude, since I doubt we'd disagree much on the specifics here. I just don't have great innate sympathy to people who get upset about defaults when their business is making high interest unsecured loans to people with poor credit. They're welcome to do this, I just wouldn't want to see my government bend over backwards to help them.

by zo1 12y ago

shmerl 12y ago

"Agreed" because they had no choice. Profiting from other's debt is simply crooked, but became acceptable in society.

zo1 12y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What is your argument, exactly?
- shmerl 12y ago
  You said that profiting from debt is alright since parties have agreed to it. I'm saying that it's not, and such agreement comes from limiting circumstances, not because it's a good practice.
  - zo1 12y ago
    So could you boil down your argument for "limiting circumstances" for me, then? i.e. X is bad because Y, etc. Credit exists because different people/entities have different time preferences for money, which is a value differential. Sure, this can be influenced and skewed based on life-circumstance. e.g. one of the posters in this thread noted how "10,000" in debt helped them get through a very troubling time in their life and how they're very grateful they had access to it at the time. Are you going to say that it was "not okay" that the creditor helped him with that? Are you saying that they should have given him/her the money for absolutely no reason, no profit, nothing? Are you implying that lending is okay if it's for charity? What, really, I can't even fathom how you can hold your opinion as logically consistent.
    - shmerl 12y ago
      Limiting circumstances is any case when people can't pay off the debt right away. For instance when buying living property which requires them to pay it off in 30 years because of insane pricing or simply when they have consumer debt like described in this article.

geebee 12y ago

Fair enough - though to me, the question is just how much of my governments efforts, resources, and monopoly on physical force I'd like to devote to getting a creditor his or her money back. We can say to a debtor, maybe you shouldn't have taken that loan, sure. But can we say to a creditor, well, why did you make a large and completely unsecured loan to someone with dodgy credit at very high interest rates? Creditors need to be careful too. I do agree that this sort of thing is better handled with relatively lenient bankruptcy laws, and I do understand garnishment (through force of government) will have to be one of the functions of a court. So this is more about my general attitude, since I doubt we'd disagree much on the specifics here. I just don't have great innate sympathy to people who get upset about defaults when their business is making high interest unsecured loans to people with poor credit. They're welcome to do this, I just wouldn't want to see my government bend over backwards to help them.