Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
bogbrush

You Can Only Con A Greedy Man

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8086282.stm

Here we go again, feeling sorry for people who are caught out trying to do something unethical. It's like a programme a few years ago focusing on the plight of people stung by the Nigerian scam, when there was not a mention of that fact that they wanted to participate in stealing $20m from someone.

Sure, I class the banks in the same bracket but I'm sick of this idea that it's fair game to borrow, spend and then try to get out of your deal. I don't like limited liability for companies - all shares should carry unlimited liability, then maybe firms wouldn't be so casual with risk and so quick to crap on suppliers when they find hard times.

I'm laughing at the guy who got scammed in this article, the dope. "It's just a scam", he says - like his own plan to borrow money and never pay it back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are such a large populus of the UK so utterly thick?

You borrow money, then you pay it back and some extra. You don't borrow money, then kick off and whine and try to get out of it with legal loop holes. FREE MAGIC MONEY DOES NOT EXIST. Not even from the HPI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8086282.stm

Here we go again, feeling sorry for people who are caught out trying to do something unethical. It's like a programme a few years ago focusing on the plight of people stung by the Nigerian scam, when there was not a mention of that fact that they wanted to participate in stealing $20m from someone.

Sure, I class the banks in the same bracket but I'm sick of this idea that it's fair game to borrow, spend and then try to get out of your deal. I don't like limited liability for companies - all shares should carry unlimited liability, then maybe firms wouldn't be so casual with risk and so quick to crap on suppliers when they find hard times.

I'm laughing at the guy who got scammed in this article, the dope. "It's just a scam", he says - like his own plan to borrow money and never pay it back?

I'd agree, but the credit card comapny never actually gave him anything to start with.

They stole on his behalf.

You can't make that right by giving the CC card company anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the banks had acted in a responsible and honourable fashion in the first place, they would not be in this situation now. Over the last decade in particular, they have lent £trillions to people who didn't need to borrow, but were encouraged to max out on debt.

The greed of the lenders, not content with simply adding interest to credit(debt) card bills, thought up new ways to fleece their customers (victims) by adding late fees etc. They also found it quite profitable to charge £100's for being a few pounds overdrawn.

When a student, who had been well stuffed by this system, decided to fight back, and reclaim the charges he had incurred, he unintentionally opened Pandora's Box. He succeeded in his claim, and was refunded a large amount of money. The bank concerned tried to impose a confidentiality clause, but fortunately the student refused to be gagged, and subsequently formed a website to publicise his victory.

As time went by, many p*ss*ed of people were attracted to the forum, in order to join the fight, and reclaim unfair charges, still other smart people began to study the Consumer Credit Act (1974) and began to realise that the Bankers may have fallen foul of certain aspect contained therein.

It transpires that in the lenders haste to pull people into the system, they were a little lax with their paperwork, and didn't draw up credit agreements correctly, why should they bother, no one had ever questioned the validity of the agreements.

After a lot of research some people on the forum began to ask the banks to provide copies of the credit agreements, in most cases, the banks could provide little more than application forms.

Of course there are substantial moral issues involved here, but in the light of the recent revelations regarding the likes of Sir Fred, and others, I tend to side with the people who tell the lenders to get stuffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I take the point about the banks' bad behaviour, I am amazed that this guy thinks he has the moral ground to complain.

"I was just looking for a way to wriggle out of financial obligations I had entered into freely, and I got ripped off!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the banks had acted in a responsible and honourable fashion in the first place, they would not be in this situation now. Over the last decade in particular, they have lent £trillions to people who didn't need to borrow, but were encouraged to max out on debt.

The greed of the lenders, not content with simply adding interest to credit(debt) card bills, thought up new ways to fleece their customers (victims) by adding late fees etc. They also found it quite profitable to charge £100's for being a few pounds overdrawn.

Isn't this all just part of the agreement you made with the bank?

So this is like buying a car that is overpriced, then deciding you don't like that price so you wont pay for some service the seller provides later.

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't this all just part of the agreement you made with the bank?

So this is like buying a car that is overpriced, then deciding you don't like that price so you wont pay for some service the seller provides later.

The reason you can "get out" of the "agreement" with the banks is simply that the banks haven't done what the "agreement" says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd agree, but the credit card comapny never actually gave him anything to start with.

They stole on his behalf.

You can't make that right by giving the CC card company anything.

I take the point, but that isn't their grounds for dispute; it's just some paperwork thing.

EDIT: To be fair, I haven't read up on this so feel free to put me straight!

Edited by bogbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take the point, but that isn't their grounds for dispute; it's just some paperwork thing.

I know, sad isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason you can "get out" of the "agreement" with the banks is simply that the banks haven't done what the "agreement" says.

What did they say they were doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did they say they were doing?

That they will give you money, or pay money on your behalf now in exchange for you repaying them later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That they will give you money, or pay money on your behalf now in exchange for you repaying them later.

So what is it the borrower spends if it is not money received from the bank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is it the borrower spends if it is not money received from the bank?

Nothing.

There isn't any money, just the impression that there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all down to intent. I take a dim view of people who either lied about their circumstances to obtain the loan or took it our with no intention of paying it back. I also have no sympathy for people who get their fingers burnt in get-rich-quick schemes or with Nigerian fraudsters.

However, I've had quite a few bad debts, which is frustrating. The thing is I only have myself to blame, if you don't want bad debts don't extend credit to people you don't know or trust.

Banks have to accept impairments on loans as that is an inherent risk of lending. I'm not really sure I'm that happy with the extent the state goes to assist them in collecting their loans. I don't really want to pay taxes to fund an insolvency service that's primary function is picking up the pieces of private, commercial banks bad lending practices.

With regard to limited liability, people who serially burn suppliers and staff are clearly contemptible. However, is a supplier that extends credit to one of Grant Bovey's new businesses deserving of any more sympathy than the victim of Nigerian fraudsters.

Also if yor removed limited liability I would never take on any property lease because, as has been demonstrated over the last decade, you have no control over your property costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing.

There isn't any money, just the impression that there is.

If it is nothing, then why would a borrower want it?

The holding of nothing would have no benefits, and yet having money clearly does have benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is it the borrower spends if it is not money received from the bank?

I don't really want to encourage Injin. However, if you asked a credit card company to show you a trace back (of the money they extended to you) to the point where Mr Jones deposits £500 savings and Mrs Smith deposits £300 savings they would be unable to do so. I doorstepped a credit card company boss about it and he pretty much conceded it's just numbers on a computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really want to encourage Injin. However, if you asked a credit card company to show you a trace back (of the money they extended to you) to the point where Mr Jones deposits £500 savings and Mrs Smith deposits £300 savings they would be unable to do so. I doorstepped a credit card company boss about it and he pretty much conceded it's just numbers on a computer.

I must say that one of the best things from this site is the crystallisation of this previously passively-understood fact. I have had countless funny times now explaining this to friends and the look on their faces as it dawns upon them that there never was the money is priceless.

I even did it with the Relationship Director of my companies banker, and it was amusing to see him just smile about it all and put his eyebrows up as if to say "fair cop".

EDIT: I esecially enjoy the one where you show how you might repay the loan by writing a large number on a piece of paper and hand it over, and wait for them to say "but you don't actually have the money to back that up".

Edited by bogbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is nothing, then why would a borrower want it?

Because he thinks it is something, obviously.

The holding of nothing would have no benefits, and yet having money clearly does have benefits.

And the banks haven't got any money.

They have the widespread belief that they have money, which they use to acquire resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really want to encourage Injin. However, if you asked a credit card company to show you a trace back (of the money they extended to you) to the point where Mr Jones deposits £500 savings and Mrs Smith deposits £300 savings they would be unable to do so. I doorstepped a credit card company boss about it and he pretty much conceded it's just numbers on a computer.

Numbers on a computer which are recording agreements made between people.

Imagine if credit as we know it didn't exist; how would you go about getting a loan?

Well, you could write out an iou to a supplier (an agreement to pay the holder x amount per month). The supplier could then trade this iou to someone else for goods and now you pay the new holder. The iou, is just marks on a piece of paper, and you could challenge such a system on the same grounds "the IOU is just a piece of paper". This information could be held on computer without changing the nature of the system - and now it is just bytes! The important thing is that is information about the real state of affairs between people.

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Numbers on a computer which are recording agreements made between people.

Imagine if credit as we know it didn't exist; how would you go about getting a loan?

Well, you could write out an iou to a supplier (an agreement to pay the holder x amount per month). The supplier could then trade this iou to someone else for goods and now you pay the new holder. The iou, is just marks on a piece of paper, and you could challenge such a system on the same grounds "the IOU is just a piece of paper", this information could be held on computer without changing the nature of the system - and now it is just bytes! The important thing is that is information about the real state of affairs between people.

Involving what?

You want a real state of affairs between peopel without anything real involved.

Do behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Involving what?

You want a real state of affairs between peopel without anything real involved.

As the example described; goods and services

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here we go again, feeling sorry for people who are caught out trying to do something unethical. It's like a programme a few years ago focusing on the plight of people stung by the Nigerian scam, when there was not a mention of that fact that they wanted to participate in stealing $20m from someone.

What you want for that is http://www.419eater.com/

tope3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   328 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.