Record numbers go hungry in the US

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

A simple question: Do you believe people don't have the ability to say no to something that is being sold to them?

And a follow up: If you don't belive people have the ability to say no, is the logical extension of this the acceptance that some people are idiots?

the reality is that for many it's a hobson's choice, isn't it? that's why many lenders prey on the weak and vulnerable - like payday lenders who cluster around the impoverished and elderly and disabled in the states. are you suggesting that these vulnerable people just need better money management skills?

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120277630957260703-lMyQjAxMDI4MDEyMjcxNzI2Wj.html
"An analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shows many payday lenders are clustered around government-subsidized housing for seniors and the disabled."

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

Were you thinking of addressing the point about people being responsible enough to say no, or where you going to walk away from it, Steve?

A simple question: Do you believe people don't have the ability to say no to something that is being sold to them?

And a follow up: If you don't belive people have the ability to say no, is the logical extension of this the acceptance that some people are idiots?

I think some eople lack the ability* to say no.

I also believe some people are idiots.

* I may well be applying the word''ability'' loosely.

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

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?

Your point appears to be that they have no intention of keeping the debt on their books so how can they be defrauding themselves If there is no statute at the moment it would not surprise me if there is one in the pipeline. BTW that was not my point it was yours.

My point was simply that if debts are created that are knowingly going to have a disproportionate failure rate and then passed off as AAA rated debt, it should be illegal (not to mention imoral), simple as. I thought you were the great moralist who claimed that people who could afford it shouldn't claim state pension but you appear to be defending this practise :rolleyes:

bendix

The banks defrauded noone. They offered loans to people. People accepted. Then merchant banks offered to buy them from the loan banks, knowing full well what they were buying.

If you can prove they were sold as AAA risk, I'd like to see it. I suspect it's another Steve-ism . . something made up on the spot.

All the parties involved in this gambled on property prices continuing to rise - the lenders, the borrowers and the likes of Lehmann.

It was a gamble that worked for years, and then the dice went against them.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

The banks defrauded noone. They offered loans to people. People accepted. Then merchant banks offered to buy them from the loan banks, knowing full well what they were buying.

If you can prove they were sold as AAA risk, I'd like to see it. I suspect it's another Steve-ism . . something made up on the spot.

All the parties involved in this gambled on property prices continuing to rise - the lenders, the borrowers and the likes of Lehmann.

It was a gamble that worked for years, and then the dice went against them.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

Just let your fingers do the googling, the first article I come to


Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke is basing hundreds of billions in emergency lending on credit ratings from companies that gave AAA grades to toxic securities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601009&sid=af32G4ayfLQY

ninky_2

bendix, you've conveniently ignored my suggestion that lenders prey on the weak and vulnerable. i think it's important point so will highlight another section of this wall street journal article. is melvin bevels an idiot? should he just have said no? i guess you side with ms natasha wood of the loan company who points to the 'voluntary' nature of it's agreements?

"In November 2002, when Melvin Bevels was short of money for groceries and rent, the elderly man visited a Small Loans store in Sylacauga, Ala., and borrowed money -- he thinks it was $200. Small Loans is part of a sprawling network of more than a hundred lenders in four states, including Georgia, Florida and Louisiana, owned by Money Tree Inc., a closely held Bainbridge, Ga., firm.

• Mr. Bevels's bank statement shows that every time the U.S. Treasury deposited his Social Security check, the bank transferred the benefits to the Money Tree, a high-interest storefront lender.

Mr. Bevels, who can't read, says a clerk helped him fill out papers that instructed Social Security to send Mr. Bevels's $565 monthly benefits to an account at an out-of-state bank, which transferred the money back to Small Loans or its parent, usually within a day. As is often the case, Mr. Bevels's bank earned no interest and didn't come with either ATM cards or checks.
Every month for nearly four years, Mr. Bevels, who is known around town as "Buckwheat" because of his thatch of yellow-white hair, rode his motorized mobility scooter to Small Loans to pick up his "allowance," which was sometimes as little as $180 a month, he says.
In a written statement, Money Tree's general counsel, Natasha Wood, declined to comment on Mr. Bevels's case but said: "Anyone who sets up a direct deposit arrangement with Small Loans Inc. does so completely voluntarily."
Mr. Bevels, who believes he's 80 but isn't sure, quickly lost control of his finances. When his utilities were shut off, a neighbor gave Mr. Bevels water in a plastic jug and ran an extension cord to Mr. Bevels's trailer a few hours a day to power his nebulizer, which delivers aerosol medication to people with chronic lung conditions. Mr. Bevels was facing eviction when his trailer burned down, leaving him homeless."

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

Just let your fingers do the googling, the first article I come to


Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke is basing hundreds of billions in emergency lending on credit ratings from companies that gave AAA grades to toxic securities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601009&sid=af32G4ayfLQY

Fair enough, but those ratings were not assigned by either the originating loan bank. They were assigned by independent ratings agencies.

It's a good point though. The likes of Moody's and Standard & Poors have a lot to answer for in this whole thing and have never really been taken to task in the right way. In some ways, they are more culpable than the banking system.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

bendix, you've conveniently ignored my suggestion that lenders prey on the weak and vulnerable. i think it's important point so will highlight another section of this wall street journal article. is melvin bevels an idiot? should he just have said no? i guess you side with ms natasha wood of the loan company who points to the 'voluntary' nature of it's agreements?


"In November 2002, when Melvin Bevels was short of money for groceries and rent, the elderly man visited a Small Loans store in Sylacauga, Ala., and borrowed money -- he thinks it was $200. Small Loans is part of a sprawling network of more than a hundred lenders in four states, including Georgia, Florida and Louisiana, owned by Money Tree Inc., a closely held Bainbridge, Ga., firm.

• Mr. Bevels's bank statement shows that every time the U.S. Treasury deposited his Social Security check, the bank transferred the benefits to the Money Tree, a high-interest storefront lender.

Mr. Bevels, who can't read, says a clerk helped him fill out papers that instructed Social Security to send Mr. Bevels's $565 monthly benefits to an account at an out-of-state bank, which transferred the money back to Small Loans or its parent, usually within a day. As is often the case, Mr. Bevels's bank earned no interest and didn't come with either ATM cards or checks.
Every month for nearly four years, Mr. Bevels, who is known around town as "Buckwheat" because of his thatch of yellow-white hair, rode his motorized mobility scooter to Small Loans to pick up his "allowance," which was sometimes as little as $180 a month, he says.
In a written statement, Money Tree's general counsel, Natasha Wood, declined to comment on Mr. Bevels's case but said: "Anyone who sets up a direct deposit arrangement with Small Loans Inc. does so completely voluntarily."
Mr. Bevels, who believes he's 80 but isn't sure, quickly lost control of his finances. When his utilities were shut off, a neighbor gave Mr. Bevels water in a plastic jug and ran an extension cord to Mr. Bevels's trailer a few hours a day to power his nebulizer, which delivers aerosol medication to people with chronic lung conditions. Mr. Bevels was facing eviction when his trailer burned down, leaving him homeless."

While I can't condone loan sharks, I'm afraid I do think the victim had the ability to say no.

If you get to a position where we abnegate personal responsibility on the grounds of someone not having the ability to make a rational choice, we are getting in very dodgy waters indeed. Do we also take away his right to live by himself? To vote? Where do you draw the line.

Either he knows or is curious enough to know the implications of decisions he makes (in this case to borrow money at high rates of interest) or he wasn't.

If he is, then he must accept the outcomes of his choices. If he isn't then he should be in care and protected from himself.

If he wasn't told the repayments, then a crime has been committed. We don't know that, but he certainly wasn't targeted. He proactively sought a loan. He was treated badly, yes, and that is an entirely seperate debate, but what would your suggestion for him be - tell him he can't borrow money?

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

He was treated badly, yes, and that is an entirely seperate debate, but what would your suggestion for him be - tell him he can't borrow money?

my solution? a society in which he is provided with enough not to need to resort to lending - by redistributing it from the fit and able. a society where personal lending does not exist but kindness and generosity is nutured and encouraged.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

my solution? a society in which he is provided with enough not to need to resort to lending - by redistributing it from the fit and able. a society where personal lending does not exist but kindness and generosity is nutured and encouraged.

LOL . . a ninky classic.

Good luck with that ninky. Vague, wooly-headed, all very sweet and kind in a 'i care because I work in media' type way, and yet completely unworkable.

In short, you want utopia, right?

It's been tried and tested on numerous occasions, not just in communist states but in utopian communities throughout history. Doesn't work, because it fails to take into account human nature.

Meanwhile, back in the real world . . . . .