new credit card rules? heard it on the news!

[SA Friday]

I too have no credit cards. They skirt the edge of loan sharking laws, but this gets overlooked as they are legitimate companies. Their terms are unacceptable IMO. There are honest loans and then loans with explosives attached under the surface.

I just don't know enough about the act (other than it's the same act that now allows all of us to carry in national parks if legal in the state) to comment on it's validity. I agree with the sentiment of the act in this case.

The pendulum swings... Regardless of your political stance, there is good and bad in both approaches. If there wasn't there wouldn't be a need for both Govt and the political parties (that should stir the pot...).

[cowboykjohnson]

I have one credit card that I pay off at the end of the month. I cant get myself to buy anything I don't have the cash for, it seems illogical to me.

[coop68]

I have one credit card that I pay off at the end of the month. I cant get myself to buy anything I don't have the cash for, it seems illogical to me.

That is where i am as well i only have one card that i dont spend more than what i have and i pay it off in full every month. not to many college students do this they get cought in only paying the min!

[Hoosier]

How did you come to the conclusion that letting the people do as they choose will lead to monopolies?

I've seen it, and so have you. RIAA was convicted of collusion and price fixing on CD's. Microsoft moved aggressively against the Netscape, Linux, and the internet at large in the 90's.

More to the point, it is (for some subsets of logic) the correct course of action. If they can use their monopoly on some aspect to force competition out, then they're able to charge what the market will bear -- without the market having an alternative. This means more profit for them, so if profit is your sole metric of achievement, you've just justified a lot of nasty behavior.

...it is government interference in the market, typically barriers to entry, that cause the evolution on a monopoly or monopolistic competition.

This is true, however it's hardly the only problem. And I would argue that a lot of that interference, where it causes barriers to entry for competitors, is lobbied for, and written by, the affected industry. A major recurring theme is the amount of influence companies wield in government, at least for me.

The banks in the US have the hold they do over the American people because of the regulation and protection of the government. It is the governments "protection" of the consumer that causes the problem, think of the housing bubble, sub-prime mortgage debacle and the consequences to the people of government interference in the lending from banks to home owners.

I do not believe that this is the sole cause of the housing bubble. It is a contributing factor, but only one of many. In fact, this isn't even the only government induced factor in it. Setting prime interest to 0% after 9/11, the repeal of Glass Steagall allowing investment banks to become vastly over leveraged. The derivative documents which created various stanches being given much better credit scores than they should have been. The trillions of dollars in new money world wide that was seeking out investments. The mortgage brokers, the realtors, the list of contributing factors goes on for a while.

A private company lending money to a private individual should not be regulated by the government in ANY way.

I don't think you even mean this -- I mean, you believe in contract law? And that the government should be able to enforce a contract? The process of lawsuits should a contract be breached are all government services.

Beyond that, should we allow loan sharking? Is it illegal to loan someone money at 200% APR? At what point does it transition from being "Taking advantage of a gullible fool" and "theft".

I don't have clear answers to those last questions myself, but I think they have to factor into the debate.

Cheers o7

[RobertB]

People also get terribly confused about their credit scores, because they think it's a measure of their fiscal responsibility as opposed to their likelihood of actually paying their bills and generating interest payments for the lender. They don't want you to pay your bills off. They want you to continue paying the bill, which isn't at all the same thing.

[sniper7]

I have a couple cards, pay them off every month and reap the rewards they offer which in turn buy me guns!

as to credit scores...that is just bass ackwards to me. buying a house made me realize this. people who have a lot of debt on cards and on students loans and such but pay at least the minimum payments and on time always have the best credit scores. Myself, I always try to save up, pay for something right then and there so I don't have a pay a cent on interest and be done with it.