No. of Recommendations: 0
This is a short documentary which will speak to any of you who were ever a "revolver", i.e., the number one "mark" of Banksters who use debt to keep you trapped in a circle of hell. If you are reading this, you are lucky. You are already empowered. Many people have no clue what to do when they are ensnared in the Money Trap. This documentary looks at one man who took his life and the effect it has had on his family.

A British bank executive blows the whistle on the evil which Banksters use to entrap the unsavvy consumer:


http://boards.fool.com/bbc-documentary-quotthe-money-trapquo...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
"...the banks cannot be trusted to self regulate."

Oh please. I'm sick of hearing about how greedy corporations ought to be forced to police the behavior of its customers. How about forcing some regulation on the borrowers, huh? How about community service if you only make the minimum payments for more than three months in a row? How about some jail time if you exceed your own annual income in unsecured borrowing?

Our grandparents would be ashamed of us. It's wrong to blame auto makers when kids kill themselves drag racing. It's wrong to blame turkey farms when somebody burns their house down on Thanksgiving. It's wrong to blame the fast food restaurants when we get fat and have hardened arteries. And it's wrong to blame a lender for our own dumb financial decisions.

Now I'm not saying banks are all lovey-dovey companies with our best interests at heart, but that doesn't mean they are to blame any more than any of the stores those people spent the money in are to blame. Those using suicides to create some twisted link of blame so they can showcase their anti-corporate ideals ought to be ashamed of themselves.

xtn
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Now I'm not saying banks are all lovey-dovey companies with our best interests at heart, but that doesn't mean they are to blame any more than any of the stores those people spent the money in are to blame.

For the most part I agree with you XTN, but after watching Michael Moore's "Capitalism, A Love Story" I was shocked to see just how intreached into federal government Goldman Sachs is - not just paying for lobbying but all the former Goldman Sachs execs who now hold powerful positions in government.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How about community service if you only make the minimum payments for more than three months in a row?

I'm sure the banks would oppose that. Credit card companies make billions off of people who only make minimum payments. Why do you think the credit card companies are so willing to let debtors do that?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
For the most part I agree with you XTN, but after watching Michael Moore's "Capitalism, A Love Story" I was shocked to see just how intreached into federal government Goldman Sachs is - not just paying for lobbying but all the former Goldman Sachs execs who now hold powerful positions in government.


You lost me when you cited Michael Moore as a credible source.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You lost me when you cited Michael Moore as a credible source.

Do you think he's making up that Goldman Sachs donates heavily to both political party's presidential candidate campaigns, or the former Golman Sachs employees who are now fed gov cabinent members? Do you think it was just a coincidence that all the bail-out money large banks were given were given with no-strings-attached?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<You lost me when you cited Michael Moore as a credible source.

Do you think he's making up that Goldman Sachs donates heavily to both political party's presidential candidate campaigns, or the former Golman Sachs employees who are now fed gov cabinent members? Do you think it was just a coincidence that all the bail-out money large banks were given were given with no-strings-attached?>>



Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are two sides of the same coin:

they are propagandists for their various causes. The coin of their realm is the emotional manipulation of their audiences, not a reason based examination of the facts.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are two sides of the same coin:

they are propagandists for their various causes. The coin of their realm is the emotional manipulation of their audiences, not a reason based examination of the facts.


I don't look at something like "Capitalism A Love Story" and think Capitalism is a horrible model. And I've known for years about the high paid lobbiest, since I grew up in the DC area. But when presented with certain facts - such as certain cabinent members of both the GWB and Obama administration did work for Goldman Sachs, and they are in advisory positions to the President - and many Presidential decisions are based on how they're advised - one can see how banks (or other large business) aren't just lobbying, they're now basically buying into government positions and policy decisions. No President comes up with policy decisions simply based on seredipty - they're advised - so who their advisors are is very important. And advisors are just like every other human being - they have biases, they could be lured by generous job offers,etc.

And I'm a realist - I'm not going to sit here and think "maybe it will change" - instead I look at it as now that I'm aware how fully entreached in government decisions these companies are, how can I find ways to insulate my life so that what they're doing has less of an effect on me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Now I'm not saying banks are all lovey-dovey companies with our best interests at heart, but that doesn't mean they are to blame any more than any of the stores those people spent the money in are to blame.

For the most part I agree with you XTN, but after watching Michael Moore's "Capitalism, A Love Story" I was shocked to see just how intreached into federal government Goldman Sachs is - not just paying for lobbying but all the former Goldman Sachs execs who now hold powerful positions in government.

I mean they aren't to blame for the suicide of a guy who was in credit card debt over his head.

xtn
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How about community service if you only make the minimum payments for more than three months in a row?

I'm sure the banks would oppose that. Credit card companies make billions off of people who only make minimum payments. Why do you think the credit card companies are so willing to let debtors do that?

I'm sure they would oppose it. So what? They'll oppose any regulation requiring them to control it from their end too. So the fact that they'll oppose it is not a determining factor in whether or not it's a good idea.

Of course they want people to spend and stay forever in debt. But there is no merit in suggesting that's WHY people do it. What the bank wants does not control what the consumer does at the mall.

So I ask the question: If we want to pass regulation that would keep people from getting into debt trouble, why NOT put the responsibility on the people in the first place? Any attempt at a legitimate answer at all suggests a lack of willingness to accept responsibility for one's own actions.

xtn
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Oh please. I'm sick of hearing about how greedy corporations ought to be forced to police the behavior of its customers. How about forcing some regulation on the borrowers, huh? How about community service if you only make the minimum payments for more than three months in a row? How about some jail time if you exceed your own annual income in unsecured borrowing?

Why would someone be punished for keeping to the terms of a contract? What's next, going to jail for stopping at a Stop Sign?

Lara Amber
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why would someone be punished for keeping to the terms of a contract? What's next, going to jail for stopping at a Stop Sign?


They shouldn't be. That's my point. It's about as logical as punishing the lenders for keeping to their side of the same contract.

xtn
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If we want to pass regulation that would keep people from getting into debt trouble, why NOT put the responsibility on the people in the first place? Any attempt at a legitimate answer at all suggests a lack of willingness to accept responsibility for one's own actions.

We used to have that as part of a Capitalistic market when banks/companies wouldn't over-lend to risky borrowers because if they did and a high percentage of customers defaulted they would go out-of-business.

But then banks were allowed to sell-off mortgages in groups (pushing off their own risk) and we got this "too big to fail" cr@p - which took the risk of the business. And how did those things happen - by the investment banks buying their way into government cabinent positions. So it's no longer a level playing field where both the borrower and the lender would be looking for a situation where the debt can be paid off.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We used to have that as part of a Capitalistic market when banks/companies wouldn't over-lend to risky borrowers because if they did and a high percentage of customers defaulted they would go out-of-business.

But then banks were allowed to sell-off mortgages in groups (pushing off their own risk) and we got this "too big to fail" cr@p - which took the risk of the business. And how did those things happen - by the investment banks buying their way into government cabinent positions. So it's no longer a level playing field where both the borrower and the lender would be looking for a situation where the debt can be paid off.


True. And again I'm not actually FOR restricting the borrowers as I described. I'm just using it to make a point. So just for the sake of argument, don't you suppose such restrictions on borrowers would solve the problems you mention just the same as placing the restrictions on the lenders would?

xtn
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
For the most part I agree with you XTN, but after watching Michael Moore's "Capitalism, A Love Story" I was shocked to see just how intreached into federal government Goldman Sachs is - not just paying for lobbying but all the former Goldman Sachs execs who now hold powerful positions in government.


Well, there's an unimpeachable source for you. You should believe everything Michael Moore says. Always.

Plus he's part of that elusive 1% we all keep hearing about so that means he's better than us. Smarter too.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Crap
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This is a short documentary which will speak to any of you who were ever a "revolver", i.e., the number one "mark" of Banksters who use debt to keep you trapped in a circle of hell. If you are reading this, you are lucky. You are already empowered. Many people have no clue what to do when they are ensnared in the Money Trap. This documentary looks at one man who took his life and the effect it has had on his family.


Wait. Is this about education or coercion? Your introduction confuses me. First you say something called banksters are controlling me and then you say I might be empowered if I read something.

So are you saying I have some control over this situation after all? Because I'm getting the clear inference that I do not. So confusing.
Print the post Back To Top