THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Speaker to Animals]

And when your identity gets stolen, and they refuse to listen?

Or, when they slip a clause in to add 100% compound daily interest in your debt, retroactively?

I’m sure it’s fine.

Item 1 doesn't apply to you. You did not sign any contract with this company and are not required to go through their corrupt private arbitration process.

Item 2 is already illegal. They can change terms going forward but not retroactively AFAIK.

But this is exactly the point. It is possible for the credit issuer to breach the contract, or otherwise break a law. As it currently stands, we haven't 'deregulated' shit. We have merely regulated that you have to seek arbitration as a credit holder.

I don't want the state involved in usury at all, man. I don't give a good damned whether people default on banks, or what banks do. I don't think the average person should be using these things.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Item 1 doesn't apply to you. You did not sign any contract with this company and are not required to go through their corrupt private arbitration process.

Item 2 is already illegal. They can change terms going forward but not retroactively AFAIK.

But this is exactly the point. It is possible for the credit issuer to breach the contract, or otherwise break a law. As it currently stands, we haven't 'deregulated' shit. We have merely regulated that you have to seek arbitration as a credit holder.

I don't want the state involved in usury at all, man. I don't give a good damned whether people default on banks, or what banks do. I don't think the average person should be using these things.

You don't understand the root issue. The money in your pocket has value determined entirely by those banks. It does not matter whether you take a line of credit, you will be affected by them.

And this is yet another way for them to ram another finger up the rear end of the middle class.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't want the state involved in usury at all, man. I don't give a good damned whether people default on banks, or what banks do. I don't think the average person should be using these things.

Then you shouldn't care if people want to bring banks to court rather than go to arbitration, not caring what either the lender or borrower do.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't want the state involved in usury at all, man. I don't give a good damned whether people default on banks, or what banks do. I don't think the average person should be using these things.

Then you shouldn't care if people want to bring banks to court rather than go to arbitration, not caring what either the lender or borrower do.

I do care when people violate the rights to freely form contracts. If you don't like the contract offered (and you shouldn't), then don't sign it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't want the state involved in usury at all, man. I don't give a good damned whether people default on banks, or what banks do. I don't think the average person should be using these things.

Then you shouldn't care if people want to bring banks to court rather than go to arbitration, not caring what either the lender or borrower do.

I do care when people violate the rights to freely form contracts. If you don't like the contract offered (and you shouldn't), then don't sign it.

From De O's link:

The United States Arbitration Act (Pub.L. 68–401, 43 Stat. 883, enacted February 12, 1925, codified at 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), more commonly referred to as the Federal Arbitration Act or FAA, is an act of Congress that provides for judicial facilitation of private dispute resolution through arbitration. It applies in both state courts and federal courts, as was held constitutional in Southland Corp. v. Keating. It applies where the transaction contemplated by the parties "involves" interstate commerce and is predicated on an exercise of the Commerce Clause powers granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution.

The FAA provides for contractually based compulsory and binding arbitration, resulting in an arbitration award entered by an arbitrator or arbitration panel as opposed to a judgment entered by a court of law. In an arbitration, the parties give up the right to an appeal on substantive grounds to a court.

Congress creating a special, compulsory process for arbitration that people have to accept over litigation is regulatory, and deprives credit seekers of freely formed contracts that would exist if the special regulations didn't exist.

This isn't deregulation. It is regulation in favor of the lender. Freely formed contracts without any compulsion aren't really on the table.

[Speaker to Animals]

Then you shouldn't care if people want to bring banks to court rather than go to arbitration, not caring what either the lender or borrower do.

I do care when people violate the rights to freely form contracts. If you don't like the contract offered (and you shouldn't), then don't sign it.

From De O's link:

The United States Arbitration Act (Pub.L. 68–401, 43 Stat. 883, enacted February 12, 1925, codified at 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), more commonly referred to as the Federal Arbitration Act or FAA, is an act of Congress that provides for judicial facilitation of private dispute resolution through arbitration. It applies in both state courts and federal courts, as was held constitutional in Southland Corp. v. Keating. It applies where the transaction contemplated by the parties "involves" interstate commerce and is predicated on an exercise of the Commerce Clause powers granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution.

The FAA provides for contractually based compulsory and binding arbitration, resulting in an arbitration award entered by an arbitrator or arbitration panel as opposed to a judgment entered by a court of law. In an arbitration, the parties give up the right to an appeal on substantive grounds to a court.

Congress creating a special, compulsory process for arbitration that people have to accept over litigation is regulatory, and deprives credit seekers of freely formed contracts that would exist if the special regulations didn't exist.

This isn't deregulation. It is regulation in favor of the lender. Freely formed contracts without any compulsion aren't really on the table.

Looks like your federation idea has some snags, doesn't it.

[Okeefenokee]

And that is what is all about.

It would not be an issue if people didn't have a problem with being held to the agreements they entered into.

No one had a gun to your head. You are seeking credit for money you haven't paid, and you want unca suga to step in when you fail to uphold your end of the deal.

Same fucking shit with subprime mortgages. These faggots love to forget that it was all about banking regulations that gave home loans to people who couldn't afford them, with the full backing of the government who felt it was their place to be in the middle.

Fuck off. You sign an agreement for cash you don't have, and the bank says they get your kids if you fail to pay, you fucking signed up for that shit. Don't play the victim when it goes tits up on you. No one had a gun to your head.

All you want is for everyone else to be on the hook for your stupid ass decisions to borrow money you couldn't pay back.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Looks like your federation idea has some snags, doesn't it.

Oh, you smug son of a bitch.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

And that is what is all about.

It would not be an issue if people didn't have a problem with being held to the agreements they entered into.

No one had a gun to your head. You are seeking credit for money you haven't paid, and you want unca suga to step in when you fail to uphold your end of the deal.

Same fucking shit with subprime mortgages. These faggots love to forget that it was all about banking regulations that gave home loans to people who couldn't afford them, with the full backing of the government who felt it was their place to be in the middle.

Fuck off. You sign an agreement for cash you don't have, and the bank says they get your kids if you fail to pay, you fucking signed up for that shit. Don't play the victim when it goes tits up on you. No one had a gun to your head.

All you want is for everyone else to be on the hook for your stupid ass decisions to borrow money you couldn't pay back.

Yeah, people are dummies.

Maybe there should be some regulations about lending money to them.

[ssu]

No one had a gun to your head. You are seeking credit for money you haven't paid, and you want unca suga to step in when you fail to uphold your end of the deal.

Same fucking shit with subprime mortgages. These faggots love to forget that it was all about banking regulations that gave home loans to people who couldn't afford them, with the full backing of the government who felt it was their place to be in the middle.

Fuck off. You sign an agreement for cash you don't have, and the bank says they get your kids if you fail to pay, you fucking signed up for that shit. Don't play the victim when it goes tits up on you. No one had a gun to your head.

All you want is for everyone else to be on the hook for your stupid ass decisions to borrow money you couldn't pay back.

Actually Okeefenokee, if a banker knows that you are incapable of paying back, then HE is perpetrating a crime By giving the money to you. Talk about NINJA-loans: all because the seller of the loans had absolutely no fucking interest about if the loan is paid back or not. Who cares? The real estate allways rise.

Hence one shouldn't give a blank check here to the banks. Earlier for exactly the same kind of actions bankers went to jail in the 1980's. This time not, because the banks were Wall Street banks, hence they are untouchable. The only one that went to jail was a scam artist who voluntarily confessed having a Ponzi-scheme.

So you just blame those seeking the credit.