Record numbers go hungry in the US

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

Of course some people are idiots but that is a different issue entirely.
Why is someone who is not experienced in a particular area and is coerced by someone who is, an idiot It happens in all types of industries from the plumber telling you you need a new boiler, some people are more trusting than others I must say I am one of the suspicious types and would invariably ask for a second opinion.

Mate, we are not talking about buying a vacuum cleaner we don't need, or getting work done on our pipes.

We are talking about people knowingly taking on million dollar loans when they earned $50,000 a year.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist or financial wizard to figure it out.

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

Mate, we are not talking about buying a vacuum cleaner we don't need, or getting work done on our pipes.

We are talking about people knowingly taking on million dollar loans when they earned $50,000 a year.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist or financial wizard to figure it out.

And we are back to square one, so why did the bank lend them the money at twenty times income (and they are the experts :eek:) checks and balances.

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

And we are back to square one, so why did the bank lend them the money at twenty times income (and they are the experts :eek:) checks and balances.

Simple. To make money. They had no risk because the loans were packaged up and sold on as CDOs to the likes of Lehmanns

It might suprise you to know that banks are not there to protect their customers from themselves. That is the customers responsibility.

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

Simple. To make money. They had no risk because the loans were packaged up and sold on as CDOs to the likes of Lehmanns

It might suprise you to know that banks are not there to protect their customers from themselves. That is the customers responsibility.

Yep, sounds like unfettered capitalism :eek: I have to say if that was done knowingly it would have more than a hint of fraudulent behaviour about it, the trouble is it is not only the customers who are paying

MrsE_2

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

I got one of those ethical gift leaflets in the mail, the sort where you can buy goats and chicken for third world farmers, schoolbooks for African children in remote villages, that sort of thing.

I was shocked that some of the gifts were animals for poor families in the US, mentioned right alongside the gifts for third-world countries as if they were all one and the same.
It never occurred to me that this could happen in American. I'm so blinkered.

I saw a programme on TV where a medical charity now do most of there work bringing medical treatment to Amercians.

bendix

Where is the fraud?

Onselling debt obligations is a perfectly legitimate business arrangement.

It happens every time you use a credit card. You pay for your groceries at Sainsburies and owe them money, and in return for the 2% commission the debt is passed on to American Express or Mastercard.

Oldernotwiser

iolanthe07 wrote: »

If you are unremarkable but good and committed student in UK further education is available, in US, go whistle.

This isn't true at all. My son attended what they call a Community College (not what we mean by that here) for the first part of his degree. Lots of students don't go on from there, but end up with perfectly respectable Associate Degrees that can land them good jobs in law enforcement, fire fighting, para legal and para medical. You just need motivation, as here. This was entirely free, paid for by the State of California.

California is a very liberal state and totally unlike much of the rest of the country.

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

Where is the fraud?

Onselling debt obligations is a perfectly legitimate business arrangement.

It happens every time you use a credit card. You pay for your groceries at Sainsburies and owe them money, and in return for the 2% commission the debt is passed on to American Express or Mastercard.

The debt is not passed on it is taken, as is illustrated by the fact that a number of stores would prefer to provide the credit themselves (e.g. store cards). The potential fraud occurs in passing on debt that has not been subject to acceptable dilligence in the making.

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

The debt is not passed on it is taken, as is illustrated by the fact that a number of stores would prefer to provide the credit themselves (e.g. store cards). The potential fraud occurs in passing on debt that has not been subject to acceptable dilligence in the making.

Could you please pass me a link to the legislation (UK or US, I don't mind) which suggests it's fraud for lenders to not diligently check the credit-worthiness of people borrowing money from them or that protects the merchant banks from buying on such credit.

Because I need to understand your point. You're suggesting banks deliberately defraud who - themselves, I suppose - by taking on bad debts? And then defraud who - Lehmanns - by passing it on?

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

The debt is not passed on it is taken, as is illustrated by the fact that a number of stores would prefer to provide the credit themselves (e.g. store cards). .

Ummmmm . . . and another small point. The stores do NOT provide the credit themselves. They are not FSA regulated and so cannot provide credit. The store cards are run and administered by a wide variety of banks and financial houses on behalf of the retail stores.

Yet another example of repackaging debt.

The cards themselves are just branded items.