自由的代价:79%
2010年1月7日,9点等
2010年1月的专栏华尔街日报》指责适度进步的美国国会无意中创建一个放高利贷的信用卡利率。国会颁布了信用卡改革停止侵犯贷款人。为了报复,信用卡公司都想方设法规避新法。《华尔街日报》观点声称国会试图遏制过度的信用卡费用导致南达科塔州的第一总理银行提高利率从9%降至79%。
“巨大的加息是第一总理的方式服从信用卡问责,责任和信息披露的2009年。其他条款,法律禁止的费用高出逾25%卡的信用额度。第一个总理已经提供一个帐户以250美元的限制和年费为256美元。根据法律后者图必须下降到75美元。为了弥补损失了181美元的费用,银行提高利率70%的250美元,或175美元,一年。“匿名作者指出的那样,“银行不能将给钱,即使国会这样做的习惯。与国会议员,银行和其他企业可以收集收入只有通过提供一些有价值的东西作为回报。“嗯…。国会习惯性地把钱给谁?当然不是普通的公民。为什么,银行当然——银行像第一个总理。 Deposit-taking interest-charging banks want their cake and to eat it too. And they won’t stop there - they also want yours. Money can’t buy you love, but it can buy you food, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare – all the basics of living a good life that free market capitalism can offer. So what is the price of freedom? 79%. First Premier, aka “America’s vulture creditor,” is there to help anyone desperate enough for credit to put the final nail in their financial coffin. One consumer states, “The only difference between First Premier Bank and Jesse James was he did it with a gun. They advertise as trying to help people with bad credit, but really they are just taking advantage of the poor people and lining their pockets.”真正的“自由”在美国,几乎所有你需要获得信贷。普通citizen-borrower陷入了一个陷阱。如何免费你当你不能拥有的手机打开,申请工作,或者买一辆车去上班没有“信用好吗?”
“自由”在美国的credit-trapped经济代价非常高。因此有些人的79%作为最后的手段。饿银行坐在等待,准备选择在经济上受伤的骨头。价格,信用卡公司会很乐意吞噬你活着——合法和不受惩罚。像老牌的《华尔街日报》报道,他们不能被期望做什么——这是严格的美国联邦储备理事会(美联储,fed)的工作。美联储的贴现窗口是“捐钱”,“无”——不是你或我当然,而是银行。从美联储贷款的现价是0%,0,没有什么结果,不,njet !相同的银行,让他们的钱免费借给你24 - 79%。(谜语# 1:之间的区别是什么银行在2010年美国和放高利贷?一个是法律和其他不是。) The Fed lending rate gives you a clue on how Bank of America, Citibank, and Wells Fargo managed to “repay” the government while continuing to swim in billions of dollars of unpaid debt. In addition to “borrowing” at zero percent, banks are legally allowed to move “toxic assets” (money-losing debts) “off balance sheet.” This would be akin to calculating your net worth by ignoring your entire loan, credit, and mortgage debt and counting only assets. In the dualistic system created since TARP, somehow you arein the red and your bank is in the black. Oddly enough this arrangement is loosely called the “free market.” Although there is nothing “free” about being forced to pay unlimited interest rates—especially not if the scales are tilted unfairly in one direction. Banks don’t have to pay their debts, but they sure as hell expect you to pay yours. Credit in ancient times, according to historian Paul Millet, began as “a process of neighborly reciprocity in rural societies.” Long before “consumer societies” or money itself was invented, there was credit. Citizens traded their own labor (as well as that of their children and spouses) and their land to have access to credit, becoming enslaved and impoverished in the desperate effort to survive. Sound familiar? Even Ancient Babylon had more consumer protections than we currently do. The first recorded laws in human history, Hammurabi’s code, stipulated interest rate limits of 20% on silver-based loans and 33% on grain loans. In 1763 B.C. in the Ancient Mesopotamian city of Ur, only a few years and few miles away from King Hammurabi, Dumuzi-gamil “the grain supplier to the King” acted as an ancient banker. The Temple under the King Rim-Sin collected rents (modern equivalent of taxes) from all citizens. Clay tablets written in cuneiform reveal that Dumuzi-gamil borrowed 250 grams of silver minas from the Temple and promised to repay 297.3 grams in five years – an annual interest rate of 3.78%. Over the five year period, Dumuzi made a personal fortune by lending at rates as much as 20% per month to distressed farmers and fisherman unable to pay Temple rents or to feed their families. Very quickly, the situation for ordinary citizens became unbearable and a severe credit crisis ensued as more citizens were shackled under the burden of debt. The King felt there was no way to relieve the crisis other than cancel all debts. Thus King Rim-Sin created the first official act of “debt forgiveness” on record, nearly 1200 years before the Athenian Solon did the same. The system of gouging blood money out of distressed borrowers is primitive and stealthy, worthy only of those without the moral or creative resources to generate profit in a non-predatory way. There is no honor in the exploitation of the desperate.It is not good business – no matter what the powers that be might claim. Perhaps it was in the second millennium B.C. however, not in the second millennium A.D. People are “free to choose” to borrow or not – in theory. However, in practice there is really no choice. We are enslaved in a system of credit and debt that has terrorized humanity for 4,000 years. In this new year of 2010, as the banks that created the credit crisis for ordinary folks continue to rape and pillage the society they feed on, something must be done to turn the tide of vulture credit. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois introduced a bill to limit interest rates to 36% (3% more than Ancient Babylon) in 2009. It was shot down. Democrat and Republican Senators, in the pockets of powerful credit card lobbyists like the “Financial Services Roundtable,” wanted no limits on interest rates.佛蒙特州的参议员伯尼•桑德斯介绍了另一项法案来限制信用卡利率至15%。它以压倒性优势击败了33票赞成和60票反对。参议员桑德斯说,“当银行收取30%的利率,他们不提供信贷。他们从事高利贷。”(之谜# 2:有什么区别黑手党高利贷,古老的银行,美国银行信贷的现状?黑手党需要你的生活;古人拥有你的生活;现代银行破坏你的生活。)同样扭曲的系统的掠夺性贷款结束在2008年金融崩溃,呼应了古代世界,继续无限制的利率捕食穷人和绝望。也许2010年将带来一个更开明的现代金融系统的信贷——一个让所有债务人相同的保护和机会给秃鹰债权人——真正的自由选择。 Haven’t we waited long enough?阅读更多GOODB3813
