"and lenders know it"

Yes, but "No" is one of the shortest words in our language.

Here is more information on car financing. If you purchase a new car from a dealership and finance through them, they typically make more money on the Finance and Insurance they sell you than they make on the car. This is even true for those with prime credit who get a good interest rate. The car dealership gets money upfront from the lender, and the higher interest rate you pay, the more money the dealership gets. Typically car dealerships make more money per used car than they do on a new car.

If you have every bought a car, you know the sales person will try to make you only discuss the monthly payment. That way they can up the interest rate if you are only focused on the monthly payment. If they lower the purchase price or up your trade in, they just up the interest rate. But you don't know it because you are focused only on the monthly payment. That is your fault, because you did not research the purchase process ahead of time.

Now a smart buyer says, give the the purchase price and the interest rate and I can figure out the monthly payment myself. This type of buyer gets the best deal and throws the dealership's sales process into a tail spin. If the interest rate is too high, then go somewhere else and obtain financing and understand what you are getting into. This way you will not be taken advantage of, unless you are willing to pay astronomical interest. If you are willing to pay high interest, then you have not acted in your best interest. The preferable method is just to pay cash, using all the money you have saved because you have no consumer debt, other than perhaps a mortgage payment on a modest home you can easily afford.

Same goes for any major purchase. Regarding my investments, they are very conservative and I sill took a big hit. Investing is risky no matter where you put your money. The good thing is that when prices crashed I continued to purchase and hopefully my dollar cost averaging will work out in the end. If I lose my job tomorrow, I have saved enough money to last me quite a while, because we don't buy a lot junk we do not need. But we are not spartan, we have nice things that were purchased on a cash basis. If things get worse, we are all going to suffer even more and this is very, very likely to happen. Life is a risk... we don't know how long we will live, but the only guarantee is that we all will die, it is just a matter of when.

the point is, nick, ethics are applicable to both sides. we can do this all day long
ed.is/are

Edited by tremelo on 10/18/2011 12:22:05 MDT.

Yes ethics are applicable to both sides. The problem is that many participating in OWS type of protests are as much at fault as the entities they are protesting against.

A couple of months ago I got taken on a purchase because I did not read the fine print. It was my fault and my loss was a few hundred dollars. I took my loss and learned my lesson. Most people would have called their bank and tried to cancel the payment to the company. And that is how we roll as a country these days.

The problem is that many participating in OWS type of protests are as much at fault as the entities they are protesting against

seemingly, a shame. you obviously have much to share with these OWS types, what you've chosen to share (thus far) is limited to judgement. that'll get'r done

Here's a transcript from a talk he did in '09, which I feel is relevant

thanks for posting this!!!

Basically it human nature to want do better things for their families and self and to do better than their parents. I am 50 years old I was close to my grandfather who died at 94 who told me about the great depression and taught me how to live frugally. I live a very fugal life style because of his advice, I don't even own cell phone and dial up internet,Antenna TV,sack lunches.

But it was his children and most of the general publics baby boomers who did not live so frugal in their spending they were told the sky's the limit and the world is your in what they can own by the mass media that was quickly evolving in leaps and bound. And they passed these spending habit's down to their children they passed it down to their children. But they never taught their off spring how to live frugally and we became a I want it now Veruca Salt generations.

The problem with progress has played over the past 175 years with the industrial revolution in spending habits is retailers used to have to depend on word of mouth advertising,then printed media,then radio,then movies with television on it's tail,computer,cell phones to get you to want their wares.

Basically we are so bombard told what we have to have we need instant gratification in our life. Instead of living a frugal life style. Progress is not bad thing and a lot of good things of come with it. But it like a semi rotten piece of fruit with 25% good and healthy and eatable but 75% very bad will give you montezuma revenge if we eat it and to many people have taken a bite of the rotten side and we are very sick as a nation economically and spending wise now.We can't stop eating semi rotten fruit.

I really think schools can reverse the damage that has been done by teaching frugal living from a early age like first grade. Like most of the other countries of the world. But I think a lot of parents would pull them out of the schools for teaching this subject because it not the capitalist way of life.
Terry

Edited by socal-nomad on 10/18/2011 13:06:02 MDT.

It's my fault.

(Yawn...)


Oh, sorry, just woke up. Think I was dreaming of a conversation with my wife...

--------------
(Two pages of asking who's at fault, I figured someone should say it. But seriously...)

Nick,
I agree with many of the things you have said the last couple pages esp. in regards to personal responsibility.

No matter what crappy deal you are presented by a "predatory" lender, if you sign on the bottom line without knowing the terms of the deal and how you will hold up your side of the bargain...it is your own darn fault. It is the lender's job to make money off of you. How much you are willing to let him/her make is up to you.


(is d.a.m.n really profanity?)

Edited by BER on 10/18/2011 13:46:37 MDT.

I would never ask anyone to look past the faults of those who got in trouble... I would simply like the issues to have equal facetime.

there seems to be a ton of focus on the consumer, should there not be a focus on 1/2 million dollar loans to people that did not need to show proof of income/job/assets?

^ that kind of loan would be laughed right out the door in classic terms. it would carry default indications that amount to failure before one payment. CDOs would knowingly cover up the toxic waste by bundling with reliable returns. malicious at best to think of the avenues exhausted to keep bad investments rolling.

yeah, take responsibility... while you're at it, don't forget that an active and participatory role in this Republic is in a worse state of neglect than our consumer habits

Craig,

I agree with you. Alt-A loans do not require full documentation, but they are less risky than sub prime, because although Alt-A borrowers typically have lower credit scores, they usually have some investment properties, but with high loan/value ratios.

Sub prime loans are typically those with few or no assets, already have excessive debt, a track record of missed or late payments, low credit scores, judgments, etc.

So many of these borrowers know they cannot repay the loan, or don't plan on playing the loan, or plan to pay but circumstances happen where they cannot, and some meet their obligations.

Now lenders shouldn't lend to these people or should limit their exposure by making a small percentage of these types of loans. However they don't care if Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or a private institution will by them in the secondary market. Banks have to lend to some of them if they live in certain neighborhoods within the CRA guidelines.

Now investors shouldn't buy these instruments unless it is a small percentage of their portfolio and they are willing to take the risk knowing they can lose money.

So shame on everyone.

My comments on poor purchase decisions are really made with the hope that anyone who reads my posts and are in that boat would re-consider and change how they buy. They will be much better off. If they do or don't is none of my business, only I don't want to bail those out who made really bad decisions whether they be poor, average, rich, a corporation, or the government. Lastly those who are on the low end of the wealth gap will improve their lot in life if they quit spending with credit so much.

Regarding participation, I posted earlier that usually around 40% of registered voters do not vote in presidential elections and it is less than other elections, and that is sad. But voting also comes with the responsibility to educate one's self on the issues and understand how our government and economy work. Too many of those who vote just stick with a party line without giving their vote any consideration. And this is the true tragedy.

We all make mistakes in our lives, and many of us learn from them others do not. There is an old saying that "if you learn from your mistakes, I must be a genius." I have sure made my share of mistakes too.

Edited by ngatel on 10/18/2011 14:48:30 MDT.

Regarding participation, I posted earlier that usually around 40% of registered voters do not vote in presidential elections and it is less than other elections, and that is sad. But voting also comes with the responsibility to educate one's self on the issues and understand how our government and economy work. Too many of those who vote just stick with a party line without giving their vote any consideration. And this is the true tragedy.

tragedy? not sharing in the responsibility to help a public in need beyond the scope of BPL's chat. we are in full blown help mode and you're sitting back "talking" about how to get'r done

Are you saying it is my (and others') responsibility to help others who got themselves in into financial trouble? That is, are you saying that I (we) must provide help to anyone/everyone who simply asks for it?

nothing so epic, turbo. how about helping spread some education while enough care to learn? we are talking within the OWS thread

Every occupy is different. How many have you visited ?

If zero, from where do you get your slurs you use to discredit and smear the participants ?

Every occupy is different. How many have you visited ?

If zero, from where do you get your slurs you use to discredit and smear the participants ?

-----

I have been presenting facts. They are not the same as slurs. And no I have not attended any of the protests, nor do I plan to. There has not been any specific "demands" or specific issues put forth by the protesters other than a nebulous reference to a "wealth gap."

The OWS was started by Adbusters, a Canadian-based organization that advocates "collectivism" and believes in "mental environmentalism" which is that people can become mentally ill due to advertising. And they use the same advertising methodologies to put forth their ideas as does the industry they are criticizing. But their mental environmentalism really means that they do not feel people can think for themselves, and they are going to save all the people who cannot think for themselves and replace governments around the world with their vision of the right governments.

One of the founders, Kalle Lasn, is critical of capitalism and advocates "eco-communalsim" and elimination of capitalism. However I do agree with him that "consumerism" is what is causing all our problems... only he believes it is not the fault of the people who consume too much, it is the fault of corporations and advertising because their ads make people mentally ill and they cannot make good decisions for themselves. I believe over consumption is the fault of the individual and have stated it several times in this thread, and I have also stated that part of the wealth gap is because people spend too much of their money on interest instead of saving it. So the difference between me and Lasn is that I believe people can think for themselves, and he does not. Which point of view you wish to advocate? If people can think for themselves, then they can simply stop spending more money than they have.

And who owns occupywallstreet.org? Here you go...

Domain ID:D162486232-LROR
Domain Name:OCCUPYWALLSTREET.ORG
Created On:09-Jun-2011 18:25:48 UTC
Last Updated On:09-Aug-2011 03:50:12 UTC
Expiration Date:09-Jun-2012 18:25:48 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Registrant ID:CR85243141
Registrant Name:Kalle Lasn
Registrant Street1:1243 7th West
Registrant City:Vancouver
Registrant State/Province:British Columbia
Registrant Postal Code:V6H 1B7
Registrant Country:CA
Registrant Phone:+1.6047369401

"There has not been any specific "demands" or specific issues put forth by the protesters other than a nebulous reference to a "wealth gap."


Your right no demands yet, its about raising consciousness and starting public debate because the corporate owned media and gov will not have a talk about it.

But I have posted a few times now one of the biggest specific issues of OWS. The corporate cronyism and co option of of democracy by special interest money. But almost every OWS critic willfully feints ignorance of this because they know its true and have no real defense of it. Its easier to just cherry pick some soft ball issue like the loan crisis and launch into market philosophy about why some people have more than others. While some protesters are complaining about these issues OWS is much bigger than that.

Nick, go back to page one AND READ my post. For such an intelligent person you have no clue on this issue

Edited by kennyhel77 on 10/18/2011 18:24:05 MDT.

While we are parsing the finer details of who did what to whom we are essentially discussing the difference between ethical egoism, rational egoism, and psychological egoism. All systems will react in their own self-interests whether it is a group of individuals, a lender, or a political body.
The difficulty is we think we are looking for ethical altruism, where there is a moral obligation to serve a group’s best interests. We look for this from the laws we pass and the leaders we elect to uphold these laws.
The problem than boils down to one of ethical utilitarianism, to not elevating one’s self above the others, and remember corporations are now to be treated as individuals, and that the proper course of action is the one the creates the maximum good for the greatest number of people.
When we spin these layers of we get consequences of action sometimes referred to as consequentialism. Imagine a triangle with egoism, altruism, and utilitarianism at each corner; the first 2 of these are subjective focused and the last 1 is objective. But still a morally right act produces a good outcome as these 3 factions tug us towards that outcome.
It is a simple matter to dismiss the public as a fool when we talk about the consequences that have unfolded economically for the US and the people of the world; after all we took out the loans and borrowed the money creating unsecured debt. There is even a school of economic thought called rational expectation in which it is assumed that people will behave in their own best interests when they make decisions about how to spend their money. [These folk must be hiding under a sofa somewhere today.]
But who acted in the morally right way to produce the best outcome for the greatest number of people? Where was the consequentialism as a byproduct of egoism, altruism, and utilitarianism?
It is not there and no finger pointing and dicing the verbiage will make it appear.
The economic school of realistic expectation has one tenant I agree with; people will not repeat their mistakes. I agree because we neither have the time or resources to fail again, we have no choice in the matter.

Edited by pyeyo on 10/18/2011 18:15:49 MDT.

Demands ! Demands ! Demands !


You know what is funny about demands ? Demands only work when presented to an authoritative power with the will, capacity, and ability to help the people making demands. Our government has made it clear that the people are not its concern, thus, demands would be grossly misplaced. A cart before the horse situation.

These occupations are the planning phase, the beginning.

People are gathering in their public spaces, refusing to leave.
There are no demands.
There is no peaceful action the government can take to make the occupations go away.
The general contract with the population *is* in question.

There has not been any specific "demands" or specific issues put forth by the protesters other than a nebulous reference to a "wealth gap."

please, feel comfy in the idea behind these messages being unclear or unorganized

sit back & bask in the assumption that you have not already been engaged beyond the arena of "wealth gap", wouldn't want to challenge your normalcy bias or your stereotypes. like a big, fat security blanket. mmmm

a quick glimpse at how the media has decided to cover this compared to the tea party



the source is this New York Times article:

Police Clashes Spur Coverage of Wall Street Protests

"The Occupy Wall Street protests, by design, began with little in the way of concrete goals or strategy."

gee, they would never want average joe holding on to the stereotypes... right?