 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / March 2007{OT:} On the subject of the government sticking it's nose into business...
I had to laugh yesterday (it was a sinister laugh, though) when I saw Congress holding hearings on the Credit Card companies and their ways of 'making money'. Seems they are overcharging for their services. Now, with the oil companies posting PROFITS of up to a quarter Billion dollars, why is Congress investigating the Credit companies? Credit is a 'luxury'; you don't HAVE to have a Credit card. Granted, there are a lot of people with much less than stellar incomes that have credit cards, but that is a choice. Oil and fuel is more of a necessity, esp if you live where I live and Public transportation is sketchy at best, and a cab ride from my house to the next town and back costs $21!! There are a lot of lower income people who have to have cars to get to their crappy jobs and really get pinched when the price of gas increases. So here's Congress investigating the policies of companies providing something no one really needs, while letting the oil companies whose policies basically control our economy run Open Loop. If it's Laissez Faire for one, why not for all? >I had to laugh yesterday (it was a sinister laugh, though) when I saw > Congress holding hearings on the Credit Card companies and their ways of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of people with much less than stellar incomes that have credit cards, but > that is a choice. Maybe because otherwise responsible people can end up in disastrous financial situations through no fault of their own. The CC companies save their worst rates for people in trouble. I can see charging 24% to someone who's a habitual deadbeat, but what about someone who uses a credit card once every three years to pay for a vacation, and then loses their job and their health insurance, so all their careful budgeting goes to hell? > Maybe because totally irresponsible people can end up in disastrous > financial situations through actions of their own. The CC companies save > their worst rates for deadbeats. IFYPFY >> Maybe because totally irresponsible people can end up in disastrous >> financial situations through actions of their own. The CC companies save >> their worst rates for deadbeats. > > IFYPFY Feel better now? In message news:06XHh.4405$B25.1925@news01.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach forth the following: >>> Maybe because totally irresponsible people can end up in disastrous >>> financial situations through actions of their own. The CC companies [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Feel better now? Knowing I pissed you off, yes. >>>> Maybe because totally irresponsible people can end up in disastrous >>>> financial situations through actions of their own. The CC companies [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Knowing I pissed you off, yes. You really should fix whatever the f.ck is wrong with your life, ya know? Every single message you post suggests high blood pressure, and worse. Maybe they ought to *save* money for their vacations (and for a rainy day) instead of spending money they don't have. Credit cards are dangerous and destructive in the wrong hands, and the banks are guilty of making credit far too easy for irresponsible idiots to obtain. And irresponsible idiots don't practice "careful budgeting", they spend what they make + 10, 20, 30% or more. > "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > once every three years to pay for a vacation, and then loses their job and > their health insurance, so all their careful budgeting goes to hell? Do you ever borrow money from any source? > Maybe they ought to *save* money for their vacations (and for a rainy > day) instead of spending money they don't have. Credit cards are [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> and >> their health insurance, so all their careful budgeting goes to hell? I have in the past, but am currently debt-free and intend to stay that way. I always pay my credit cards off monthly, as any rational person would do. > Do you ever borrow money from any source? > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - When you were borrowing money, did you consider yourself to be an irresponsible idiot? >I have in the past, but am currently debt-free and intend to stay that > way. I always pay my credit cards off monthly, as any rational person [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - I consider credit cards to be a convenient means of avoiding carrying a lot of cash, not a way to "borrow money". Borrowing to buy a house or a car is nearly a necessity (although it is not customary in all cultures), but is acceptable IMHO as long as you have stable employment, are able to comfortably afford the payments, AND realize that you will lose the asset if for some reason you cannot pay. Using credit cards to buy a bunch of junk you don't need, go on a vacation you can't afford, to eat at the best restaurants, to live beyond your means and with subsequent repayment worries is stupid and makes you a slave to someone who couldn't care less about you. Only an idiot would pay the exorbitant rates charged by credit card companies, and yes, I realize that includes about 99% of the population. > When you were borrowing money, did you consider yourself to be an > irresponsible idiot? [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It really depends on the math and the needs of the user. Yawn. >I consider credit cards to be a convenient means of avoiding carrying > a lot of cash, not a way to "borrow money". Borrowing to buy a house [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - I diagree. If you need to get a new refrigerator or need a major repair on your car (let's say you have a Ford or Dodge ;-)), using a credit card, especially a low-interst credit card, may be a good way to finance the purchase. And then pay it off as soon as reasonable. On the other hand, carrying a $10,000 debt for years at 20% interest is not a good idea. Jeff >I consider credit cards to be a convenient means of avoiding carrying > a lot of cash, not a way to "borrow money". Borrowing to buy a house [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - Exactly. And, the way credit card companies are scrambling for assets these days, you can actually beat bank loans. Example: I have a card with no balance, 9.75% rate, 25K credit line. (They keep raising it even though I almost never use the card). Meanwhile, I'm getting a half dozen offers a week from other companies, for balance transfers at rates from 0% to 2.99%. I could buy a car with the first one, and two weeks later, bounce the balance to another card with no interest. Most of the balance transfers have a $75 max transfer fee. This could go on for years. Even if I ended up with 2.99%, I'm still ahead of the typical car loan, which is in the range of what - 5.75% to 6.25% these days? >I diagree. If you need to get a new refrigerator or need a major repair on >your car (let's say you have a Ford or Dodge ;-)), using a credit card, [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >I have in the past, but am currently debt-free and intend to stay that > way. I always pay my credit cards off monthly, as any rational person > would do. Actually, I don't. I have a card with 0% interest. Why should I pay it off, until they start charging me interest? Instead, I am making interest in the bank. Jeff If you pay the bill in full before the due date, the interest rate is also 0%. If your CC company is lending you money for free, then by all means take advantage of that, as long as you are buying things you really need. Otherwise, you're just buying expensive garage sale stuff. > >I have in the past, but am currently debt-free and intend to stay that > > way. I always pay my credit cards off monthly, as any rational person [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jeff > If you pay the bill in full before the due date, the interest rate is > also 0%. If your CC company is lending you money for free, then by [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Jeff That's correct for almost all cards. Which makes the $29 late fee even more ridiculus. Not only do they collect an extra $29 for nothing, they also collect interest where they wouldn't have or more interest. Jeff >>I have in the past, but am currently debt-free and intend to stay that >> way. I always pay my credit cards off monthly, as any rational person [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jeff *Cough* ZERO? What's the catch? And, yeah, if it's well and truly zero per cent, take advantage of it. I would. What's the credit limit on that? Be vague; just mention a desirable item it would cover to satisfy my curiosity.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>I have in the past, but am currently debt-free and intend to stay that >>> way. I always pay my credit cards off monthly, as any rational person [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > *Cough* ZERO? What's the catch? When the interest rate goes up after the promotion ends, I have to pay the higher rate. > And, yeah, if it's well and truly zero per cent, take advantage of it. I > would. What's the credit limit on that? Be vague; just mention a > desirable item it would cover to satisfy my curiosity. A couple of new Apple Laptops. Jeff > Maybe they ought to *save* money for their vacations (and for a rainy > day) instead of spending money they don't have. You mean emulate the fine example our government sets? One needs a credit card if one travels. You can not get a plane ticket or hotel room in advance or rent a car without one. One can use thousands of dollars every month with credit cards without paying any interest. I do it all the time ;) mike >>I had to laugh yesterday (it was a sinister laugh, though) when I saw >> Congress holding hearings on the Credit Card companies and their ways of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > once every three years to pay for a vacation, and then loses their job and > their health insurance, so all their careful budgeting goes to hell? > One needs a credit card if one travels. You can not get a plane ticket or > hotel room in advance or rent a car without one. One can use thousands of > dollars every month with credit cards without paying any interest. I do > it all the time ;) > > mike A debit card will do. To each his own. In message news:qrKdnS-lB-Sh7G3YnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com, mark_digital© sprach forth the following: >> One needs a credit card if one travels. You can not get a plane >> ticket or hotel room in advance or rent a car without one. One can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A debit card will do. A debit card requires living within one's means, and also strips you of the ability to complain. The poor, the stupid and the liberal therefore will eschew it. > One needs a credit card if one travels. You can not get a plane ticket or > hotel room in advance or rent a car without one. One can use thousands of > dollars every month with credit cards without paying any interest. I do > it all the time ;) > > mike But who NEEDS it? You can do the same with CASH. >>>I had to laugh yesterday (it was a sinister laugh, though) when I saw >>> Congress holding hearings on the Credit Card companies and their ways [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> their job and their health insurance, so all their careful budgeting >> goes to hell? > One needs a credit card if one travels. You can not get a plane ticket or > hotel room in advance or rent a car without one. One can use thousands of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> their job and their health insurance, so all their careful budgeting goes >> to hell? Not only do I use credit cards, American Express is nice enough to give me money back. Jeff So does Citibank and there is not fee for their cards. ;) mike >> One needs a credit card if one travels. You can not get a plane ticket >> or hotel room in advance or rent a car without one. One can use [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jeff That is why one is supose to save money for emergencies mike > One needs a credit card if one travels. You can not get a plane ticket or > hotel room in advance or rent a car without one. One can use thousands of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> their job and their health insurance, so all their careful budgeting goes >> to hell? >>I had to laugh yesterday (it was a sinister laugh, though) when I saw >> Congress holding hearings on the Credit Card companies and their ways of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > once every three years to pay for a vacation, and then loses their job and > their health insurance, so all their careful budgeting goes to hell? DING DING DING DING! I'm paying 16% for the loan on my Scion because of repercussions of being laid off in 1993!!! So I'll make the payments until September, and then refinance for a lower rate. I'll probably be able to refinance with the same co, if they want to keep the loan! >I had to laugh yesterday (it was a sinister laugh, though) when I saw > Congress holding hearings on the Credit Card companies and their ways of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of people with much less than stellar incomes that have credit cards, but > that is a choice. A quarter of a billion dollars? That's nothing. Google made almost $11 billion. BTW, ExxonMobil made about $40 billion last year. But that is on a revenue of about $375 billion. That means they had a profit margin of 11%, which is in line with utility companies. And they paid almost $28 billion in taxes. > Oil and fuel is more of a necessity, esp if you live where I live and > Public transportation is sketchy at best, and a cab ride from my house to > the next town and back costs $21!! There are a lot of lower income people > who have to have cars to get to their crappy jobs and really get pinched > when the price of gas increases. They also get pinched when the price of electricity increases. > So here's Congress investigating the policies of companies providing > something no one really needs, while letting the oil companies whose > policies basically control our economy run Open Loop. Oil also is important for other countries. Without it, China's development would slow down. Europe and Japan depends on imported oil, as well. You've stated oil is a necessity. The oil companies invested billions and billions of dollars on wells, refineries, pipelines, ships, etc. What is a fair return, based on the investments they made? And based on the revenue they make? Compare that, to say, Microsoft, which makes products that are essential to a lot of businesses, or to Google or to the profits that the Michigan 3 used to make or what Toyota and GM make. You might also compare that to drug companies, which make products which can be considered necessities, as well. Jeff Jeff > If it's Laissez Faire for one, why not for all? In message news:ZeWHh.13203$Tf.10068@trndny03, Jeff sprach forth the following: > ExxonMobil made about $40 billion last year. But that is on a revenue > of about $375 billion. That means they had a profit margin of 11%, > which is in line with utility companies. And lower than the media companies who squawk about "obscene profits". >> ExxonMobil made about $40 billion last year. But that is on a revenue >> of about $375 billion. That means they had a profit margin of 11%, >> which is in line with utility companies. > > And lower than the media companies who squawk about "obscene profits". I believe that ExxonMobil's profits last year where the highest for a single company in a year, ever. However, there are other companies that have a high profit margin. Jeff To me, one of the most egregious practices of the credit card companies is that of "universal default". This is what happens when a customer defaults on one of his credit card bills, and it becomes known to any other card company the customer has an account with. Even if the customer has kept his payments current with the second or third company, his default with the first comany means that the second and third company can, and WILL, raise his interest rate. (and sometimes triple it). Hopefully, this is one abuse that may come to an end, with pressure from the feds. > To me, one of the most egregious practices of the credit card companies is > that of "universal default". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hopefully, this is one abuse that may come to an end, with pressure from > the feds. Based on what I see in newsgroups, a lot of people are deeply fearful of corporations, and never do anything proactive to get what they want, even if it's as simple as finding out whether a company still makes a product they have been unable to find in stores. Pick up the phone and speak to another human being? Never! I don't understand why this is, but the fear extends to credit card companies too, which is ridiculous. About a year after my divorce, my finances were a wreck. I called one creditor and said "I heard an ad for a local agency that will contact a client's creditors and help do this that & the other thing. Are they doing anything special that you and I can't figure out?" Answer: "No. They just ask. A lot of customers never bother to ask about solutions. Whattya need?" Five minutes later, there was a new and very agreeable arrangement. A customer is an asset, as is their debt, assuming they're not deadbeats. These companies don't want to lose assets, and they'll do more to keep assets than some people imagine. In message news:4ZYHh.4504$ya1.384@news02.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach forth the following: > a lot of people are deeply fearful of > corporations, and never do anything proactive to get what they want, > even if it's as simple as finding out whether a company still makes a > product they have been unable to find in stores. Pick up the phone and > speak to another human being? Never! I don't understand why this is, > but the fear extends to credit card companies too, which is ridiculous. It's not fear - it's laziness cultivated by an over-reliance on government. Right now my city is considering the restaurant & bar smoking ban. It takes about 20 seconds to (a) call a restaurant; (b) ask if they allow smoking; and (c) say, "Tell your manager I will not eat at your restaurant until it is smoke-free". But the politicians are milking it for all it's worth. >In message news:4ZYHh.4504$ya1.384@news02.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach >forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >until it is smoke-free". But the politicians are milking it for all it's >worth. I'm not a fan of government telling anyone what to do....but I agree with what we have done in Florida. No smoking in any restaurant. SignatureScott in Florida In message news:1ds0v2lsm1k4btdlohblv9n6nudh08qv66@4ax.com, Scott in Florida sprach forth the following: >>It's not fear - it's laziness cultivated by an over-reliance on >>government. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No smoking in any restaurant. Well then you're guilty of laziness and over-reliance on government. How many times did you inquire about a restaurant's smoking policy before the ban? I'm guessing zero, which makes you a pathetic lazy hypocrite. >>>It's not fear - it's laziness cultivated by an over-reliance on >>>government. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > many times did you inquire about a restaurant's smoking policy before the > ban? I'm guessing zero, which makes you a pathetic lazy hypocrite. Nah. Smoking should be banned in all restaurants. It's a health issue. > Nah. Smoking should be banned in all restaurants. It's a health issue. If you don't like the smoke, stay the f.ck out of the restaurant. When enough people do so, the restaurant will start to lose money and change their policy. Here there are many restaurants that have already gone smoke-free without the jackbooted thugs stomping down their doors. Anyway, who would be so stupid as to give their money to a restaurant that may be endangering their health? Oh yeah, YOU would. <...> > Nah. Smoking should be banned in all restaurants. It's a health issue. Maine banned smoking in cars with kids in them. Excellent. When I was a soccer coach in New Jersey, the vice president and secretary smoked. I made it clear to them that this is unacceptable to me. At the next meeting, there was no smoking. I had planned to take it to a vote, but I didn't see the need. No one smoked at the meetings again. Had they kept smoking after there was a proper vote on it, I would have withdrawn as a coach. I hated to come home smelling like a chimney after meetings. I don't think my lungs liked it, either. Jeff > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff If you were outside your lungs would not have been any more damaged than if you had to sit in your backyard with a next door neighbors campfire going. Inside, maybe a different story. Stinky shirts is a problem for many things.... My pet peeve is cologne and perfume. Cheers -- >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > if you had to sit in your backyard with a next door neighbors campfire > going. Having a stupidity contest with yourself today? You're in rare form this evening. > >> <...> > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Having a stupidity contest with yourself today? You're in rare form this > evening. Be a ridiculous a.shole I don't care. You are typical NY'er, I'm used to them. If you are sitting by a campfire with campfire smoke pouring into your breathing tubes is that better than sitting next to someone who is smoking a butt.....butthead?? -- >> >> <...> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > breathing tubes is that better than sitting next to someone who is > smoking a butt.....butthead?? Great comparison, you dumb f.ck: - Cigarette smoker - Person who sits directly in campfire smoke, and doesn't move away from it. > >> >> <...> > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > - Cigarette smoker > - Person who sits directly in campfire smoke, and doesn't move away from it. Idiot -- >> >> >> <...> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Idiot I'm an idiot? You think smoking cigarettes is equivalent to sitting around a campfire? Get your GED, will ya? > >> >> >> <...> > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > I'm an idiot? You think smoking cigarettes is equivalent to sitting around a > campfire? Get your GED, will ya? go to bed fool. -- >>> a lot of people are deeply fearful of >>> corporations, and never do anything proactive to get what they want, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > No smoking in any restaurant. Same in NYC. Hey, if you want pollution, just go outside. Jeff > Scott in Florida >> a lot of people are deeply fearful of >> corporations, and never do anything proactive to get what they want, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > smoking; and (c) say, "Tell your manager I will not eat at your restaurant > until it is smoke-free". And to add to insult you show up with your own teabag. In message news:12v0lu3idb7h177@corp.supernews.com, mack sprach forth the following: > To me, one of the most egregious practices of the credit card companies > is that of "universal default". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > third company, his default with the first comany means that the second > and third company can, and WILL, raise his interest rate. Ummm... "when a customer defaults on one of his credit card bills", he becomes a higher credit risk. He will also be charged a higher mortgage or car loan rate should he apply for one. People work for cc companies too - you want them to get laid off because their company is losing $$ to high risk loans? > Hopefully, this is one abuse that may come to an > end, with pressure from the feds. Yeah, we can't bother the Mafia with that now, can we? >> To me, one of the most egregious practices of the credit card companies >> is that of "universal default". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you want them to get laid off because their company is losing $$ to high > risk loans? Mack did not dispute what you just said. What he explained was that a creditor can make their experience with you known to other lenders, who will also raise the rate they offer you. We can all imagine the type of customer who deserves this. Some of us can imagine customer who do NOT warrant this sort of treatment. >> To me, one of the most egregious practices of the credit card companies >> is that of "universal default". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > too - you want them to get laid off because their company is losing $$ to > high risk loans? To whom? If a customer defaults on ONE payment to ONE card company, what validity does that give to the others to extract a Premium? None, really. And 'default' can mean you're ONE DAY late with the payment. Read your statement. >> Hopefully, this is one abuse that may come to an end, with pressure from >> the feds. > > Yeah, we can't bother the Mafia with that now, can we? In message news:bm_Hh.13050$kf.9074@trndny02, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the following: >>> To me, one of the most egregious practices of the credit card >>> companies is that of "universal default". [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > what validity does that give to the others to extract a Premium? None, > really. As you said, read your statement. > And 'default' can mean you're ONE DAY late with the payment. Read your > statement. Yes. Read your statement. And abide by its terms and conditions. After all, the CC company is. Do you want to cede the legal and moral high ground to it? > In message news:bm_Hh.13050$kf.9074@trndny02, > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > As you said, read your statement. Obviously. But, there are ways a person can "default" purely through error, or situations beyond their control. You can name at least one such possibility. However, you will now ask for examples, and then take pot shots at them. >> In message news:bm_Hh.13050$kf.9074@trndny02, >> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > possibility. However, you will now ask for examples, and then take pot > shots at them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I can think of so many life experiences when some fault of your own can be advertised (and magnified) where it's really none of anyone's business. Let's say you have a bad meal at a restaurant and your stomach reacts violently, and you throw up at your table. Should the owner of the restaurant notify all the other restaurants in town that you're a bad customer, because you threw up (on his bad food) and grossed out all the customers present? Or let's say you date a girl and get a little drunk and start using some foul language....you're in a bad mood and nothing is going right, so you mouth off. Should the girl contact all her friends and let them know you're a garbage mouth? Or you've been laid off from a job, and there's a dispute as to why you've been given the ax. Should your former employer be able to contact all the other major employers in the area and blackball you, even if the dispute involved would tend to make you the innocent party and the former boss the villain? This is what the cc companies seem to be doing, and the others (who may have ALL been paid on time each month) get to raise your interest rate with THEIR company without your being able to state "hey, there was a blizzard in the northeast and my check got to them one day late!" Eh? > This is what the cc companies seem to be doing You obviously don't understand how a credit history is defined. You might want to keep paying for everything with S&H Green Stamps. >> To me, one of the most egregious practices of the credit card companies >> is that of "universal default". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you want them to get laid off because their company is losing $$ to high > risk loans? What percentage of customers who are late with one credit car bill cause another credit card company to lose money without increasing the rate? The credit card companies don't change the rate to prevent losing money, they change the rate because they can. Most credit card companies are really profitable. Bank of America, which I think is the larget credit card company, made $29 billion last year with a profit marging nearly double that of ExxonMobil (about 29% vs 16 for ExxonMobil). American Express made $4 billion with a 13% profit margin. No bad. These companies are making money hand over foot. Jeff >> Hopefully, this is one abuse that may come to an >> end, with pressure from the feds. > > Yeah, we can't bother the Mafia with that now, can we? In message news:7v1Ih.8179$7f.1249@trndny08, Jeff sprach forth the following: > The credit card companies don't change the rate to prevent losing > money, they change the rate because they can. And the cardholder signed an agreement permitting such changes. > Most credit card companies are really profitable. A lot of credit card companies' income is the fees they charge STORES, not CARDHOLDERS. Ever consider that? Didn't think so. > Bank of America, which I think is the larget credit card company, made > $29 billion last year Do you really think people are so stupid that they can't go to: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BAC&annual and see that their actual net income was $16.447 billion? How can we believe anything you write when you make up numbers out of thin air? > with a profit marging nearly double that of > ExxonMobil (about 29% vs 16 for ExxonMobil). BOA may be "the largest credit card company" but their largest profit does not derive from their credit card business. Again, this is all easy to find: http://www.bankofamerica.com/annualreport/2005/financial_review/11_financia lHighlights.cfm Interest income: $31.6 billion Credit Card income: $5.7 billion > American Express made $4 billion with a 13% profit margin. No bad. They only make that profit when their customers VOLUNTARILY sign up for their services. And their services include their Travel business. Did you know AmEx runs a HUGE travel agency? Didn't think so. > These companies are making money hand over foot. So you want to put Nancy Pelosi in charge of limiting profits to what she believes is "fair"? >> The credit card companies don't change the rate to prevent losing >> money, they change the rate because they can. > > And the cardholder signed an agreement permitting such changes. Read the EULA you agree to when you get an online account. You agree to it. But that doesn't mean that it is a good idea or that web companies should be allowed to require those things. Likewise, that doesn't mean that credit card companies should be allowed increase the credit rating the way they do. >> Most credit card companies are really profitable. > > A lot of credit card companies' income is the fees they charge STORES, not > CARDHOLDERS. Ever consider that? Didn't think so. I think you need to take those mind reading courses again. You didn't get that right. Not even close. The fees are like 1 to 2% of the purchase price. American Express charges more than Discover, Visa and MC. That's why some merchants accept those, but not AmEx. >> Bank of America, which I think is the larget credit card company, made >> $29 billion last year [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and see that their actual net income was $16.447 billion? How can we > believe anything you write when you make up numbers out of thin air? That was in 2005. The right figure is $21 Billion. I misread the report and saw the profit margin (29%), and thought I was the profit when I was typing. I made a mistake. Mea Culpa. >> with a profit marging nearly double that of >> ExxonMobil (about 29% vs 16 for ExxonMobil). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Interest income: $31.6 billion > Credit Card income: $5.7 billion A third of their income. Before they bought MBNA, a huge credit card company for the credit card business that was part of MBNA. >> American Express made $4 billion with a 13% profit margin. No bad. > > They only make that profit when their customers VOLUNTARILY sign up for > their services. And their services include their Travel business. Did > you > know AmEx runs a HUGE travel agency? Didn't think so. Of course I do. The company I used to work for used them when they made travel reservations. I never claimed that Bank of America or American Express were not in other businesses. I think you really need that mind-reading course. >> These companies are making money hand over foot. > > So you want to put Nancy Pelosi in charge of limiting profits to what she > believes is "fair"? No, I should be in charge. ;-) Another thing that is ridiculus is the late fees. The credit card company doesn't incur any extra costs when someone doesn't pay on time. If they are a day late, they don't get an extra $1 in costs, let alone $29. The US has a history of eliminated bogus credit practices, like limiting interest rates and predatory lending practices. I think that the interest rate increases when you miss one payment and the late fees are unfair and should be eliminated. Jeff In message news:d14Ih.564$jf.431@trndny04, Jeff sprach forth the following: >>> The credit card companies don't change the rate to prevent losing >>> money, they change the rate because they can. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But that doesn't mean that it is a good idea or that web companies > should be allowed to require those things. Well since Pelosi will be in charge of decrees concerning corporate profits, I suppose you want Algore in charge of his invention the internet. >>> Most credit card companies are really profitable. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > charges more than Discover, Visa and MC. That's why some merchants > accept those, but not AmEx. Yes, but when you consider it's a percentage of EVERY PENNY SPENT, versus a small percentage of customers who are stupid enough to let themselves get hit with 12-20% interest, the income streams look pretty comparable. >>> Bank of America, which I think is the larget credit card company, >>> made $29 billion last year [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That was in 2005. That's the most recently reported number. Or do you have some inside information that Yahoo doesn't? >>> with a profit marging nearly double that of >>> ExxonMobil (about 29% vs 16 for ExxonMobil). [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > A third of their income. WRONG. Jesus, fuckwad, did you just learn double-digit numbers this week? >>> American Express made $4 billion with a 13% profit margin. No bad. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I never claimed that Bank of America or American Express were not in > other businesses. You called them "credit card companies" and didn't mention their other products and services. >>> These companies are making money hand over foot. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Another thing that is ridiculus is the late fees. The credit card > company doesn't incur any extra costs when someone doesn't pay on time. BULLSHIT. What the f.ck do you think the word CREDIT means? Someone just needs to punch you bloody pulpy, mate. > I think that the interest rate increases when you miss one payment and > the late fees are unfair and should be eliminated. I think someone as stupid as you should be eliminated. In message news:5eXHh.11603$ig.8243@trndny01, Jeff sprach forth the following: >>> ExxonMobil made about $40 billion last year. But that is on a revenue >>> of about $375 billion. That means they had a profit margin of 11%, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I believe that ExxonMobil's profits last year where the highest for a > single company in a year, ever. So what? >>>> ExxonMobil made about $40 billion last year. But that is on a revenue >>>> of about $375 billion. That means they had a profit margin of 11%, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So what? You are the one who said that ExxonMobil's profits were "lower than the media companies who aquawk about 'obscene profits.'" So you were wrong. Jeff In message news:C42Ih.548$jf.21@trndny04, Jeff sprach forth the following: >>>>> ExxonMobil made about $40 billion last year. But that is on a revenue >>>>> of about $375 billion. That means they had a profit margin of 11%, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So you were wrong. No, moron, I said XOM's PROFIT MARGIN was lower. Your mother needs to keep you away from the computer until you pass first grade reading comprehension. > In message news:C42Ih.548$jf.21@trndny04, Jeff sprach forth the following: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Your mother needs to keep you away from the computer until you pass first > grade reading comprehension. First, there is no need for name-calling. Now, that's first grade. Read what you wrote, again, please. You weren't specific about what you were talking about. You don't need to act like a first grader. Jeff In message news:l34Ih.565$jf.64@trndny04, Jeff sprach forth the following: >> In message news:C42Ih.548$jf.21@trndny04, Jeff sprach forth the >> following: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > You weren't specific about what you were talking about. It was what YOU were talking about, dumbfuck. Here are YOUR f.cking WORDS: That means they had a profit margin of 11%, which is in line with utility companies. Now go run in front of a truck and raise the world's collective IQ. Well, I won't be responding your comments. You're not worth my time. > Well, I won't be responding your comments. > > You're not worth my time. Translation: "I said X and then claimed I said Y, and I also said A when the truth was B, and when someone called me on both mistakes I ran crying under my mamma's skirt." The fewer posts from you the better the forum. Good riddance. >> Well, I won't be responding your comments. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The fewer posts from you the better the forum. Good riddance. And with your insulting manner and the way you like to call people dumbfuck, moron and fuckwad, I hope you go haunt another newsgroup and stay the hell off this one. *plonk* >>I had to laugh yesterday (it was a sinister laugh, though) when I saw >> Congress holding hearings on the Credit Card companies and their ways of [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > fair return, based on the investments they made? And based on the revenue > they make? How about getting off the oil 'teat'? Fuel cells have been in 'development' since I was in High School, and has shown to be no more dangerous than having a tank of gasoline under your trunk, and when hydrogen burns with oxygen, what does it produce? What a solution. And the 'raw material' to 'refine' hydrogen is...water. Plenty of that around... > Compare that, to say, Microsoft, which makes products that are essential > to a lot of businesses, or to Google or to the profits that the Michigan 3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jeff I have compared it to drug companies in the past. Yup, people need pharmaceuticles as well. Same deal. Microsoft? I run Linux. An afternoon of downloading and I have a complete Operating System and all the apps I need. Free. If I *WANT* I can go to CompUSA and buy the boxed version, with even more apps included, for $89. That not only gets me the OS, but also an Office Suite fully compatible with MS Office, Imaging software for my photography, guitar tabbing for my music, etc, etc, and a year or two of Tech Support. The only thing that falls short is that Streaming Multimedia may not be all it is with Windows. Big deal. I don't really need to see some dim ditz playing with her 'toys'. And if people want to pay Google $11B, so be it. Who really *needs* Google? I did fine without a computer for 33 years, and can still get all the info I need with a telephone, a typewriter and the Yellow Pages. But I can't drive my car on water. > Jeff > >> If it's Laissez Faire for one, why not for all? <...> > How about getting off the oil 'teat'? Fuel cells have been in > 'development' since I was in High School, and has shown to be no more > dangerous than having a tank of gasoline under your trunk, and when > hydrogen burns with oxygen, what does it produce? What a solution. And the > 'raw material' to 'refine' hydrogen is...water. Plenty of that around... The problem is that to get hydrogen is that it requires energy. Then energy can come form methane or electicity. If you use methane, you end up putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If you use electricity, the energy to generate the electricity has to come from someplace. So you don't get free energy when you use hyrdogen. >> Compare that, to say, Microsoft, which makes products that are essential >> to a lot of businesses, or to Google or to the profits that the Michigan [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Windows. Big deal. I don't really need to see some dim ditz playing with > her 'toys'. You run Linux. The vast majority of computers run Microsoft. > And if people want to pay Google $11B, so be it. Who really *needs* > Google? > I did fine without a computer for 33 years, and can still get all the info > I need with a telephone, a typewriter and the Yellow Pages. > > But I can't drive my car on water. Correct, unless you break the water molecules apart with electricity into hydrogen and oxygen (electrolysis) and then burn the hydrogen in a fuel cell to make electricity. ;-) If you think ExxonMobil's profit is too big please tell me how to determine the proper amount of money that they should be allowed to earn. Jeff >> Jeff >> >>> If it's Laissez Faire for one, why not for all? > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > If you think ExxonMobil's profit is too big please tell me how to > determine the proper amount of money that they should be allowed to earn. Yes, this is an interesting question. I would propose a buffer on price increases. As I said in the other thread, as soon as the price of a barrel increases, the distributors get the word to raise prices. However, when there is a decrease, there is quite a lag before it hits the pumps, if at all. Kinda like a diode. Goes one way, not the other. I think there should be a period of time before the price increase hits the pump. like about the same time the barrels at the new price get to the refineries. That way, if the price goes down, we don't end up getting boned at the pumps. Same for decreases. Which, btw, don't happen as often as increases, even though rises and falls are almost a daily occurance. > Jeff > >>> Jeff >>> >>>> If it's Laissez Faire for one, why not for all? <...> >> If you think ExxonMobil's profit is too big please tell me how to >> determine the proper amount of money that they should be allowed to earn. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Same for decreases. Which, btw, don't happen as often as increases, even > though rises and falls are almost a daily occurance. Regardless, ExxonMobil had sales of over $350 billion and made $40 billion in proifts, with a profit margin of around 11%. Is this an unfair profit margin, given the investment and income they had? It is certainly on par with a well-run utility. How do you determine what a fair profit is for such a company? And can you support your claim that price increases in an unfair manner? Jeff > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Jeff If you don't mind my temporarily substituting "ridiculous" for "unfair", for purposes of an analogy, here we go: Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the first table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or decrease for oil. At the second table, the dice represent a list of randomly shifting factors that will be applied to the numbers determined at the other table. Examples from the second table might be: - Multiply by snake eyes. - Divide by number of rabies vaccinations your dog has gotten, plus his weight at birth. - Add the number of days in the past year when you've been truly worried about violence. You go to the gas station and find a TV screen on the pump, showing this dice routine. The price at the pump varies every 10 seconds or so, based on rolls of the dice. Would this method be acceptable to you? It's not that far from reality. >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Would this method be acceptable to you? It's not that far from reality. What makes you think it is not far from reality? And, what powers do the oil companies have to increase the cost of oil on the market, the costs of refining, etc.? What is the ultimate determination of the cost of fuel? The gas station down the street. Let's say you're totally right. That still says nothing about whether ExxonMobil makes a fair profit, and regardless of that answer, what a fair profit should be. You're complaining about the way gas is priced. But you need to come up with a better alternetaive. Jeff >> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the first >> table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or decrease for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > What makes you think it is not far from reality? Let me answer that with a question, so we know we're aware of the same thing. Then we'll continue. Do you know that people totally unrelated to the oil business can affect the price at the pump? They live and work here, and what they do is legal. Do you know what I'm referring to? Later for all this: > And, what powers do the oil companies have to increase the cost of oil on > the market, the costs of refining, etc.? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jeff >>> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the first >>> table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or decrease for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the oil business can affect the price at the pump? They live and work > here, and what they do is legal. Do you know what I'm referring to? I assume you mean oil speculators and commodities traders. > Later for all this: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Jeff >>>> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the first >>>> table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or decrease for [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I assume you mean oil speculators and commodities traders. Correct. Next - does this sound familiar? "Oil jumped $2.00 a barrel today on news of renewed violence in {wherever}". >> Later for all this: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> >>> Jeff >>>>> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the first >>>>> table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or decrease for [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Correct. Next - does this sound familiar? "Oil jumped $2.00 a barrel > today on news of renewed violence in {wherever}". You mean like the stock markets fell 5% because of unrelated issues in China? Yea, it happens all the time. >>> Later for all this: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>>>> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the first >>>>>> table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or decrease [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Yea, it happens all the time. Exactly. Now, some traders are actually working on behalf of the oil companies, which is not a bad thing. Numerous business are involved in such activities to try and control future costs. But, much of the speculation comes from people who are simply playing. They may work for mutual fund companies. Or, they may simply be rich people fiddling around. They all have one thing in common, though: They respond differently to the news, and they all have emotions. Some Islamic cleric shoots his mouth off about killing Americans, and the price of oil goes up a dollar. That is absurd. A commodity so important to our economy should not revolve around the emotions of gamblers. The average walkin' around slob probably believes that if 100 soldiers die in Iraq, it's logical for oil to go up because of "the threat to the supply", very little of which comes from Iraq to begin with. No more commodities trading by anyone NOT working on behalf of the oil companies. Obviously, not all "valid" traders will be devoid of emotions regarding news, but I think we *do* need to whittle down the numbers and eliminate the people who would be better off at a craps table in Atlantic City. >>>>>>> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the first >>>>>>> table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or decrease [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > eliminate the people who would be better off at a craps table in Atlantic > City. OK, we do this, except we allow large consumers, like airlines and governments to buy futures for their fleets. That will decrease the market fluctuations in the price of gasoline and other oil products, but I don't see this affecting the cost of oil in the long run much. Nor affecting oil company profits much. Jeff >>>>>>>> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the >>>>>>>> first table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Jeff First: Even though you didn't mention it in your last message, let's leave local gas station issues out of this for now, since it's an entirely separate issue. Onward: I don't care about the profits made by the oil companies, and I honestly doubt that most consumers care, either. Around here, people like to bitch about how much profit is being made at a very nice locally owned supermarket chain. Can they produce numbers to back up their complaints? Of course not. If they were shown the numbers, would they understand them and be able to compare them to other businesses? Doubtful. What bothers people is the thing that actually affects their money: 2.47 a gallon one day, 2.78 two weeks later, and 2.51 shortly thereafter, *and* getting nothing but simplistic explanations for the variations. The headlines don't help: "Oil jumped a dollar on news that the president smashed his toe on a coffee table". >>>>>>>>> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the >>>>>>>>> first table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > headlines don't help: "Oil jumped a dollar on news that the president > smashed his toe on a coffee table". Local television news: Tired of high gasoline prices? Tune in at 11 and find out how you are getting ripped off. Well, if it's like all the other times I stayed up to watch, all I saw was people just finishing filling their tanks and speculating about why the price climbed. 10 people. 10 different answers. And there's always one who says these prices are great!! compared to where I live!! What problem??!! hehehe >>>>>>>>>> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the >>>>>>>>>> first table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > different answers. And there's always one who says these prices are > great!! compared to where I live!! What problem??!! hehehe Sounds like your TV stations employ the same retards as the ones here. Two days ago, a story about violence at an arena where sectional basketball games were being played. It's like 4 degrees, so they send out a reporter to be "on location!". Behind her, no people, no police, no nothing. The arena was closed. Or, a murder scene. It's pouring rain and all they can show is the license plate of a police car. <...> > Sounds like your TV stations employ the same retards as the ones here. It's radio. And their not retards. They are the sound money folks at www.soundmoney.org, heard over public radio. > Two days ago, a story about violence at an arena where sectional > basketball games were being played. It's like 4 degrees, so they send out > a reporter to be "on location!". Behind her, no people, no police, no > nothing. The arena was closed. Or, a murder scene. It's pouring rain and > all they can show is the license plate of a police car. And yet you watched it. > <...> >> Sounds like your TV stations employ the same retards as the ones here. > > It's radio. And their not retards. They are the sound money folks at > www.soundmoney.org, heard over public radio. MD said "Local television news" - I was referring to his description of lame news writing. It's a plague these days. As far as the Sound Money show, I like it a lot. But, I was NOT, repeat NOT talking about it. >> Two days ago, a story about violence at an arena where sectional >> basketball games were being played. It's like 4 degrees, so they send out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And yet you watched it. Yep. A little comedy while waiting for the weather man. Weather's the most popular type of programming in this area at this time of year. >> <...> >>> Sounds like your TV stations employ the same retards as the ones here. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lame news writing. It's a plague these days. As far as the Sound Money > show, I like it a lot. But, I was NOT, repeat NOT talking about it. Yet they offer the same nonsense about what moved the market! Of course, ther rest of the report is good, otherwise, I would not listen to them, either. >>> Two days ago, a story about violence at an arena where sectional >>> basketball games were being played. It's like 4 degrees, so they send [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yep. A little comedy while waiting for the weather man. Weather's the most > popular type of programming in this area at this time of year. www.accuweather.com. They even will send out the forcasts a few times a day, for free. And you can go to your local stations' websites. They have the weather, too. You can even download a video of the forecast at some stations' websites. Jeff >>> <...> >>>> Sounds like your TV stations employ the same retards as the ones here. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Jeff 25 years' worth of experience proves that a guy named Kevin Williams is more accurate than *any* other source of weather reports around here. Nothing else comes close. Nobody's interested in predictions from someone who's not standing right here in this city, right now. Nobody. <...> > 25 years' worth of experience proves that a guy named Kevin Williams is > more accurate than *any* other source of weather reports around here. > Nothing else comes close. Nobody's interested in predictions from someone > who's not standing right here in this city, right now. Nobody. Then I am nobody. But, then again, no one makes predictions by himself/herself anymore. It is all based on computer models. What difference does the location of the guy or gal make? The person isn't making the forecast, he is reading the forecast made by computers. Experienced meteorologists can increase the accuracy of the report a timy bit, because they are able to take into account local conditions a bit, like, it won't get quite that warm because of all the snow on the ground or usually, there is a lot more snow here. This is because the computer models have limits, like the size of the grid they are making predictions for. The computers can be anywhere. It doesn't matter. With the internet, the distance between me and anyone else on the internet is zero. You know how accuweather has local forecasts all over the country on the radio? Well, each of their announcers does the weather for several stations in different markets. They just call up the different radio stations each day. They did that when I was a kid. I am sure they still do it. The reality of it is that having the person who delivers the weather report be a local person is all well and good, but it is just show. The reality is that the weather forecast is made by computer programs off in cyberspace, somewhere. Jeff > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Jeff Probably, but if this guy comes on at noon and says "We're going to get hammered with snow between 1:30 and 1:45, so if you have any errands to run, now would be a good time", he right so often that it's uncanny. The other stations say "Maybe a little snow this afternoon, a dusting to 14 inches depending on where you are...", it's useless, unless you don't need to go anywhere. I don't care about "a dusting", but more is a concern, unless someone can do me a favor and remove all the other drivers from the road. >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > unless someone can do me a favor and remove all the other drivers from the > road. And I can make he same predictions and come to the same conclusions, myself, based on accuweather and the other internet weather services. >>> <...> >>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > And I can make he same predictions and come to the same conclusions, > myself, based on accuweather and the other internet weather services. Great! Give me your home and cell phone numbers. I'll call YOU when I need a weather prediction. Are you retired? >>>> <...> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Are you retired? Did you see my post where I said I have $100,000 in retirement savings? No, I am not. I have about $1,900,000 more to go before I can retire. I work with computers. >>>>> <...> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > No, I am not. I have about $1,900,000 more to go before I can retire. I > work with computers. OK. I'll need the direct phone number to your office, too. Sometimes I need instant weather info during the day. > <...> >> Sounds like your TV stations employ the same retards as the ones here. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And yet you watched it. Did I ever say I was perfect???? >>>>>>>>>> Two tables, two separate groups of people rolling dice. At the >>>>>>>>>> first table, the dice represent percentage of price increase or [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > different answers. And there's always one who says these prices are > great!! compared to where I live!! What problem??!! hehehe See another answer to Jeff. I *LOVE* it when 22 goes out to interview the 'man at the pump' after a large jump, and the guy's pissing and moaning about how much it costs...while he's filling his Excursion! (Honest to God, this happened about 3-4 years ago on 22!) FOOL! Don't you realize, YOU'RE part of the problem!?!?!?! [....] > See another answer to Jeff. I *LOVE* it when 22 goes out to interview the > 'man at the pump' after a large jump, and the guy's pissing and moaning > about how much it costs...while he's filling his Excursion! (Honest to > God, this happened about 3-4 years ago on 22!) > > FOOL! Don't y |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message