Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The American way of debt: Turning a profit by preying on the poor

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 03:52 AM
Original message
The American way of debt: Turning a profit by preying on the poor
Edited on Wed Oct-14-09 03:55 AM by Hannah Bell
Did you know the credit crisis is part of the fallout from the Bush 1 S&L crisis?


The increasingly desperate financial crisis facing large sections of the American working class has been writ large in statistics...But a section of business has turned the growth of poverty into a gold mine. Standing behind the big banks are several layers of an increasingly complex and parasitic finance industry. In the middle of this food chain are the professional debt buyers and securitized investors. At the bottom are the collection agencies, the scavengers who relentlessly pursue individual workers...

One story behind these statistics was related last year on Credit and Collection World’s Web site. This industry source states, “Emilio Saladiages, 62, of Newark, New Jersey, asked to speak to a manager at Rent A Center about the incessant collection letters and calls he had been receiving...
“When no one would speak with him, he doused himself with lighter fluid and lit the fluid with a cigarette lighter, self-immolating in front of customers and employees of the store,” the Web site reported... Rent A Center, ubiquitous in poor neighborhoods, is notorious for its collection tactics....

While this is a particularly horrendous example, the size and scope as well as the brutality of the collection business has dramatically expanded. This business (known by the acronym ARM, for accounts receivable management) has grown nationally from 47,000 agencies to over 430,000 in the last 10 years... The Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics puts this industry’s growth rate at the number one position...

What is this business and how did it develop?

Enter the Supreme Court

Until the 1990s, credit card firms and other creditors rarely sold off unpaid debt. Instead, they hired third-party firms or lawyers to collect the bills, usually on a commission basis...State laws against usury prohibited banks from charging more than nominal interest until a 1978 Supreme Court ruling...

The Marquette Bank opinion permitted national banks to extend interest rates on consumer loans from the state where credit decisions were made to apply to borrowers nationwide. That decision allowed the banks issuing cards to circumvent state laws...and the credit card industry as a whole entered a decade of enormous profits...

In 1996, the Supreme Court made another decision that significantly increased profits for the credit card companies, allowing penalty fees, calculated at even higher rates, to be tacked on to consumers’ bills...

But it was not just the tremendous growth of credit card debt and usurious fees alone that created the debt-buying industry. It was the government’s bailout of the savings and loan industry in the early 1990s, under the elder George Bush...

Purchasing $125 billion in worthless S&L securities, the administration bailed out the wealthy speculators, then empowered the Resolution Trust Corporation, an agency of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), to sell large portfolios of the S&Ls’ delinquent credit card debt. These were purchased by new entities, which were to become the largest publicly traded ARM (accounts receivable management) firms...

As securitization boomed in the 2000s, banks sent out card offers to households with incomes below $50,000, a relatively new market. USA Today reported on October 6 that this initiative, which peaked in 2001 at a record 2.1 billion offers, became a source of dramatically increased revenue...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/debt-o14.shtml

Much more on the history, tactics & profits of the debt industry.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Shocking!
Edited on Wed Oct-14-09 06:26 AM by HamdenRice
That WSWS directed any criticism at a republican, Bush I. As you know, WSWS-SEP sees as its mission to attack primarily progressive organizations, such as Democrats, the AFL-CIO, Greens, British Labour, Democratic Socialist and other progressive organizations.

This may be because it is "owned" by a corporate CEO of a $26 million advertising printing firm that services many of the largest corporations in the US:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6560399&mesg_id=6561071
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Why not
just comment on the substance of the article.

Try something new.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. What's to comment on?
Edited on Wed Oct-14-09 06:55 AM by HamdenRice
That would be like asking a paleontologist to comment on an article from "Creationism Magazine."

Almost every single alleged "fact" in the OP article is flat out wrong.

It's a waste of time. WSWS is word salad designed to conform to "Dear Leader's" party line and nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. You sound like a broken record
WSWS has an agenda - just like any other source of information on the internet. Big deal!

Maybe it's not your agenda and that's what makes it so unacceptable to you. It's kind of a tired routine Hamden...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Each time a WSWS article is cross posted, it's probable that some other DUer
Edited on Wed Oct-14-09 06:56 AM by HamdenRice
may click on it and get educated about one of the worst sources of anti-progressive disinformation in the blogosphere by reading my response. Those responses only sounds like a broken record to you because you are probably routinely reading HB's posts.

What about the children?

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. yes, they can get all the dirt on david north from your anonymous internet
Edited on Wed Oct-14-09 08:04 AM by Hannah Bell
posting from a disgruntled associate. now there's good sourcing, comments in chatrooms.

big whoop.

try addressing the content of the story, hampton, for once, instead of your usual smear tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. one of the biggest cheerleaders for the bankster bailout, nuf said.
i think it's an excellent article, & the cites from mainstream sources are scattered prominently throughout it.

so if hampton says it's "lies," i guess that means the mainstream sources are the liars, because it's pretty much straight reportage outside the requisite "capital is destroying the working class" lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. One of the most virulent union haters, nuf said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. except i'm not a "union hater," i'm a "company union hater," while you actually
*were* one of the biggest cheerleaders for the bankster bailout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. When you define all AFL-CIO non WSWS unions as company unions, then ur a union hater nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
12. Meanwhile, back at the ranch
This article really does provide an excellent overview of how predatory profiteers and complacent/complicit elected officials got us where we are today.

So often, the agenda behind media coverage of this stuff errs on the side of blaming the poorest, least powerful people in our country. I find it rather refreshing to see things coming from another angle and targeting those who actually have some power over the situation. Because it is a systemic problem, not a result of 'bad personal choices' as the ruling class apologists would have you believe.

And for those who don't like this particular angle, well, most people around here are smart enough to discern opinion vs. information, and as we do when we read crap from the mainstream media, we can decide whether or not to put any value in the opinion aspect of wsws articles.

I've yet to see one of the vocal opponents of all things wsws point out misinformation, lies or whatever else they claim is wrong with the actual material being discussed, just attacking the source, over and over and over again...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. The problem with critiquing a WSWS article is that it's usually almost all wrong
and I mean almost every fact -- as opposed to opinion. For example:

"Purchasing $125 billion in worthless S&L securities, the administration bailed out the wealthy speculators, then empowered the Resolution Trust Corporation, an agency of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), to sell large portfolios of the S&Ls’ delinquent credit card debt. These were purchased by new entities, which were to become the largest publicly traded ARM (accounts receivable management) firms.."

Actually the Bush I bailout of S&L's purchased real estate, not securities. S&L's held mostly mortgages, and some mortgage backed securities, but there was not a mbs crisis back then. There was a commercial real estate crisis.

Also the Bush I, RTC bailout did not bail out "wealthy speculators." It bailed out depositors. The speculators who owned shares in the S&Ls generally lost all the value of their shares, as the FDIC and RTC forced the failed banks to be absorbed by healthier banks.

The thing about most WSWS articles, is that if you know anything about the subject matter under discussion, it just comes across as a bunch of words randomly thrown together, so it becomes pointless to try to critique it. Literally, you can go sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase and almost everything they say is often wrong or nonsensical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. False:
Edited on Wed Oct-14-09 03:07 PM by Hannah Bell
Under the JDC (Judgments, Defficiencies, and Chargeoffs) Program, the RTC (Resolution Trust Corp) established limited partnerships and selected private sector entities to be the general partner of each JDC Partnership...

The RTC would convey to the limited partnership (the “JDC Partnership”) certain judgments, deficiency actions, and charged-off indebtedness (“JDCs”) and other claims which typically were unsecured and considered of questionable value....

Proceeds typically were split 50/50 with the RTC. Operating costs (except under special circumstances) were absorbed by the general partner, not the JDC partnership.
JDC general partners consisted of asset managers and collection firms. The JDC program was adopted by the FDIC and is still in existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_Trust_Corporation

Charge-off

A charge-off or chargeoff is the declaration by a creditor (usually a credit card account) that an amount of debt is unlikely to be collected. This occurs when a consumer becomes severely delinquent on a debt. Traditionally, creditors will make this declaration at the point of six months without payment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-off


The secondary market for defaulted consumer debt is a curious business.

When a bank or a credit card issuer like AMEX doesn't receive payment on an account, they "charge it off" ...typically after about 180 days. They write off the loss and sell the debt (for pennies on the dollar) to the network of attorneys, collectors, account managers and IT specialists who make up the secondary market. The secondary buyer then has the right to keep any proceeds from collecting on the account...

And - as I was soon to find out - it was a business that had its origin in the years following the S&L crisis of the late 80's.

It all goes back to that mysterious entity...the "RTC" (Resolution Trust Corporation) that bore so much similarity to the Public-Private Investment Funds (PPIFs) announced yesterday in the media.

RTC was a complicated system of "Equity partnerships" between public and& private entities that facilitated the liquidation of the S&L Crisis' toxic assets... the RTC joined private investors with taxpayer money in a whole bunch of "non-recourse" (heads I win, tails you lose) loans that were divided by type. Mortgage trusts...a JDC division for judgments, deficiencies and charge-offs...and the big mamma-jamma the "MIF" (Multiple Investor Fund).

it just meant that investors weren't gambling with their own money. Their loans were "non-recourse," so if they overpaid on an asset...and the asset went into default...Uncle Sam picked up the tab.

Of the total losses incurred across the board during the S&L crisis (some US$160 Billion), the federal government absorbed roughly 77% (or about US$124 Billion) mostly through channels like the RTC.

What's more, this plan had the unintended consequence of bringing the secondary market for defaulted consumer debt into full bloom...

http://www.sovereignsociety.com/2009Archives1stHalf/032409FreeatLastFreeatLastToxicAssets/tabid/5486/Default.aspx

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. What does any of that cut and paste have to do with what I wrote?
Answer: zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Simply disposing of one bit implied in your post: that the S&L bailout was solely
Edited on Wed Oct-14-09 04:03 PM by Hannah Bell
about real estate debt, & didn't handle credit card debt.

I'll get to the others soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. You're going to have to learn to read first
Edited on Wed Oct-14-09 04:23 PM by HamdenRice
"S&L's held mostly mortgages, and some mortgage backed securities,"

Where does that say "solely"?

:rofl:

On edit: At least your busy errands will have 2 useful benefits. It seems to be getting you to read something other than WSWS. Like Fox viewers, people who read only WSWS have a warped view of the world. Second, if you're spending lots of time trying to track down these facts, at least you will have less time to spam DU with WSWS fake news.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
14. Bubble to bubble

It is the only thing that will satisfy the mandate of increasing profits. Late stage Capitalism, more savage and crazy than ever, will we take it down or let it take us down?

k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-14-09 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
15. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC