invite response« First « Previous Comments 191 - 201 of 201 Search these comments
Randy H Says:
SP said: "If they want to change the terms, they are free to do so"
No, they are not. This is part of the problem. They cannot have different terms for different types of customers outside of a narrow set of variables. They also cannot exclude you as a customer except for a narrow set of variables.
Nope, my point missed you. :-) They are free to change the terms of their product to _all_ their customers, not a change that is discriminatory to a cherry-picked subset. Then their customers _all_ can make individual decisions on whether they will accept the new terms.
SP
justme
2007 Aug 29, 3:13am
>I move for inclusion, a 2nd anyone?
I second that, let the inventor be heralded as "SP".
ATM card isn’t Visa
Speaking of which.... has anybody ever had unauthorized use of a check card and tried to get the charges reversed? I've never liked the thought of trying to convince the bank to put money back into my account (if the card is lost or stolen) so I always specify that I receive an ATM card only. The regulations concerning CCs are very strict and I know my losses are limited. Only the paranoid survive...
I know this has been mentioned before, but I remember watching a Frontline special and being shocked to find out that if you default on some other debt (or somehow become a greater risk to the CC company), as part of the terms of service, the CC company can raise your interest rate. As if FBers didn't have enough to worry about. Also, the CC companies have consistently fought regulations that would require them to print the amount of time it would take to pay off the CC debt if only the minimum payments are made.
I am incredibly frustrated at the situation in Palo Alto myself (renting for 4+ years now, and just 3 months ago my greedy f*king landlord raised my rent 25%) and I don't know whether to laugh or cry on being called a troll. Just walk around neighborhoods around Embarcadero/Greer, and see for yourself - houses are still selling *in this area*, as of even last week (i.e post all the credit turmoil).
I don't know where the cash is coming from, but may be it is the damn VMWare IPO, or whatever.
And on the Sunnyvale rent situation, my friend who told me is a fellow bubble sitter (in fact, he thinks we are heading towards Great Depression II and he quotes Mises to Minsky) but even he was surprised to see the apartment owners *still* having this much leverage in Sunnyvale. He thinks it is the valley job market, which hasn't shown much signs of weakness yet.
Frustrated, yes. Incredibly so. Troll, hell no.
Peter P
2007 Aug 30, 4:18am
I don’t know where the cash is coming from, but may be it is the damn VMWare IPO, or whatever.
Not necessarily. Many people in this area still think that the Bay Area is more special than other special places. :roll:
The credit turmoil will hit harder than what I can possibly imagine. Even this area.
RE: Sunnyvale
Rent was still high and going up late in 2001.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Sep 3, 2:36am
During a catch process, you hate time. You cannot be waited not far from because of you're an amateurish actor. Around this for is yell an excuse. It's property irrelevant you butt rationalize. for days, you disgust on-time benefit of this practised you are and would increment your prominence you adapt your easy as pie audition.
(snaps fingers)
Yeah I'm hip, I'm hip, dig it man.
« First « Previous Comments 191 - 201 of 201 Search these comments
First came Jim Cramer's incoherent rant on the hedge fund/Wall Street meltdown, then came Bill Gross's semi-coherent plea to POTUS for a federal bailout of
his struggling PIMCO bond fundsthe overleveraged U.S. homedebtor. Given that these are two of the most vocal and public commentators in the sphere of media finance/capitalism, it seems fair to ask: are these men true capitalists?Now, I am not one to lecture others on the tenets and/or history of capitalism. I was studying literature and journalism, while many of the regulars on this board were immersed in B-school. Nonetheless, given my limited exposure to macro/micro economics, I vaguely remember a lecture or two about the virtues of creative destruction (i.e., the healthy, natural market process whereby businesses that are poorly run and/or engage in excessive risk tend to go out of business). I also recall a cautionary tale or two about the moral hazards created when government attempt to impede this necessary process. It's been a long time since macro-econ 101, but I distinctly recall Adam Smith saying something about an invisible hand that rewards good financial risk management and penalizes poor risk management, and that this was a *good* thing --not a bad thing, as Mr. Cramer and Mr. Gross both seem to think.
This begs the question: if capitalism is *only* allowed to work freely in ONE DIRECTION (up), is this really capitalism? If the people who habitually make poor financial decisions are always bailed out by those who did not, what sort of behavior does this encourage in the future? Are these Wall Street "Masters of the Universe" who are clamoring for a taxpayer/Fed bailout really capitalists, or something else?
I leave you to ponder this along with one of my personal all-time favorite truisms:
PRIVATIZE PROFIT, SOCIALIZE RISK
Discuss, enjoy...
HARM
P.S., kudos to Jim Grant for his excellent Op-Ed in the Sunday NYT: "capitalism without financial failure is not capitalism at all, but a kind of socialism for the rich".