Beware credit card companies

[Grogah]

Just read some article on Slashdot about credit card scams:

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=385185

Apparently credit card companies can LEGALLY charge you fees on a card you decided not to activate.

What makes it worse is that there is evidence that credit card sales people (like the dude at Macy's who asks if you'd like to open a Macy's card) commit fraud on some applications because they are rewarded for each card (or punished if they don't make quotas).

Makes me want to cut up my credit cards.

:smallfurious:

[Occasional Sage]

Just read some article on Slashdot about credit card scams:

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=385185

Apparently credit card companies can LEGALLY charge you fees on a card you decided not to activate.


Haven't read the article, but there are ways to use the credit line without activating the card itself, so I'm not surprised they'll charge you fees. Meh. If you change your mind about the card, just cancel it. These aren't nonprofits giving you credit....

[Grogah]

Haven't read the article, but there are ways to use the credit line without activating the card itself, so I'm not surprised they'll charge you fees. Meh. If you change your mind about the card, just cancel it. These aren't nonprofits giving you credit....

Yeah but if you combine it with this cross selling crap, I think you begin to build a strong pattern of fraud and scamming.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Dude, you're living in capitalism. Everything is a scam. That tee-shirt you paid 20 bucks for? It might be worth five or six, if they paid a high labour price. Profit is cheating you. Credit card companies are just better at it. The key is being smarter than they are.

[Grogah]

Dude, you're living in capitalism. Everything is a scam. That tee-shirt you paid 20 bucks for? It might be worth five or six, if they paid a high labour price. Profit is cheating you. Credit card companies are just better at it. The key is being smarter than they are.

Capitalism is not a scam. Capitalism is about the free exchange of goods and services on the open market, for prices that the market will bear.

Profit isn't cheating. But lying to someone and signing them up or charging them for things they didn't agree with IS a scam.

[Zeful]

Except the profit percentages are outrageous. A Polo or DKNY T-shirt/sweater/whatever, costs cents to make and ship, but you pay 50-100 bucks for it? And your not even paying for quality, your paying for a label. The generic shirt that's 3/$1.00? Same materials, same threadcount, same place of manufacture, the only difference is the lack of any brand name. That is not the fair trade of goods and services, that's exploitation. Exploitation of the poor kid in Honduras/Mexico/China/wherever making them for six dollars a day, and exploitation of the consumer for paying anywhere from 200-2000% of the objects actual worth for a freiken' name. Fair trade would be a shirt that cost $3.00 to make actually costing like 4.00 to ensure that the kid making it is payed fairly for his work, as well as the crew of the boat shipping it and the distributors, and the guy that sold it to you.

Sorry to break it to ya Grogah but corporate globalization and American capitalism, are simple scams that keep the rich rich and make the poor poor.

But this is starting to border on a ploitical disscussion, so if anybody wants to call me a commie, PM me!

[Syka]

I beg to differ about the quality. Sometimes, not always, that is the case. However, sometimes you really do get what you pay for. I have shirts I bought at Wal-Mart that have lasted years. But I have shirts that are made by Roxy and Fox and Hurley (got them on sale actually for the same price as my Walmart shirts, because it was the end of the season) that are of significantly better quality.

As for credit cards, just read all the fine print. :) I have a feeling a lot of these issues come when people don't read what they are signing up for. If it's on what you sign, it's legal and therefore not a scam or fraud. If it's not on there, then you have a problem.

Cheers,
Syka

[Ramebriz]

I have just one thing to say you:
Welcome to life!
Yeah it's true they will trik you in any way if possible to get money from you this is what all nowadays mess is about you want an advice?
Just protect yourself, look what you sign and don't let the angry controls you that's what they want.

[Green Bean]

I beg to differ about the quality. Sometimes, not always, that is the case. However, sometimes you really do get what you pay for. I have shirts I bought at Wal-Mart that have lasted years. But I have shirts that are made by Roxy and Fox and Hurley (got them on sale actually for the same price as my Walmart shirts, because it was the end of the season) that are of significantly better quality.

I gotta agree with you on this. You really do get what you pay for most of the time; all of my 3/$1 shirts fell apart after only a couple of washing, whereas the expensive kinds actually lasted until I grew out of them.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Grogah: They're making you pay more for something than it is worth. I fail to see how that is not cheating. I have nothing against it, I'm just saying that "free markets" are pretty much entirely based upon ripping other people off, to varying degrees.

[Zeful]

I beg to differ about the quality. Sometimes, not always, that is the case. However, sometimes you really do get what you pay for. I have shirts I bought at Wal-Mart that have lasted years. But I have shirts that are made by Roxy and Fox and Hurley (got them on sale actually for the same price as my Walmart shirts, because it was the end of the season) that are of significantly better quality.

As for credit cards, just read all the fine print. :) I have a feeling a lot of these issues come when people don't read what they are signing up for. If it's on what you sign, it's legal and therefore not a scam or fraud. If it's not on there, then you have a problem.

Cheers,
Syka

While some companyies acutally use higher quality to rightly justify higher prices, more and more are moving toward cheeply mass-produced products to make more money. But it's still exploitation, because whether it lasts 1 year or 10, your still paying several times more than it's actual value and generally it's made by a child and his/her mother for the smallest fraction of it's actual (or perceived) worth.

[BlackStaticWolf]

Grogah: They're making you pay more for something than it is worth. I fail to see how that is not cheating. I have nothing against it, I'm just saying that "free markets" are pretty much entirely based upon ripping other people off, to varying degrees.

Well, a fundamental idea underlying a free market is that an item is worth whatever the buyer is actually willing to pay for it.

If I was willing to pay $100 for a widget that only costs $1 to produce and distribute, it doesn't matter that this price yields a obscene profit margin for the seller, because I paid what it was worth to me. I was not "ripped off." Further, if I was willing to pay $100 for the same widget, but only ended up paying $50, not only was I not ripped off, but I got a damn good deal.

Basically, the point I'm trying to make is simple: You are wrong... free markets are not at all based on ripping anyone off.


That said... on the credit card issue, it just goes to illustrate and important caveat: READ EVERYTHING YOU SIGN. Every word of it. The legalese can get confusing, but it's important.

[Semidi]

Grogah: They're making you pay more for something than it is worth. I fail to see how that is not cheating. I have nothing against it, I'm just saying that "free markets" are pretty much entirely based upon ripping other people off, to varying degrees.

If this statement was wholly correct you'd be hundred percent correct, but it's not. No one is making you pay for anything, ever (except taxes and so on). If you don't want to buy an overpriced item--then don't. Something is worth how much you are willing to pay for it.

On credit cards: Do the math and read the print, that's all you can do.

[Don Julio Anejo]

On shirts and stuff - I stopped shopping at Sears/Walmart and the like when I realized I could get much nicer looking and better fitting stuff from Latitude/Guess/American Eagle/even Gucci on occasion for the same price if I took the time to look for sales and check out discount racks. It would work even better if I needed an Xtra-Large size (since 90% of stuff on discount racks is XL).

Credit cards - the whole idea to begin with is to rip you off. As in, make you spend more money than you actually have at the moment, especially on impulse purchases and then make you pay crazy interest. If you need the money that badly, a credit line is usually a better option, the interest is only a minor fraction of what it is for credit cards, and the money is transferred to your bank account right away.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

If this statement was wholly correct you'd be hundred percent correct, but it's not. No one is making you pay for anything, ever (except taxes and so on). If you don't want to buy an overpriced item--then don't. Something is worth how much you are willing to pay for it.

Yes, but that is non-participation in the economy, and not a part of said economy. The idea of profit, in general, is cheating other people. Similarly, one does not have to play a card game, but that doesn't make counting cards in said game any more fair.

[Grogah]

Yes, but that is non-participation in the economy, and not a part of said economy. The idea of profit, in general, is cheating other people. Similarly, one does not have to play a card game, but that doesn't make counting cards in said game any more fair.

No, the idea of profit is not cheating people. The idea of profit is to increase the price on a good or service, so that you are paid for the value you add to the item.

Since we don't have an oracle which tells us what the best price is, the market determines the price on the basis of supply and demand.

[Semidi]

Yes, but that is non-participation in the economy, and not a part of said economy. The idea of profit, in general, is cheating other people. Similarly, one does not have to play a card game, but that doesn't make counting cards in said game any more fair.

See, I disagree. For instance, card counting, is the use of an advantage over an opponent. Card counting isn't cheating and everyone has the opportunity to do it, but some people choose not to train at it and so on therefore the person who works harder at winning the game has an advantage. In perfect world, this is how capitalism works. The world isn't perfect, but we're dealing in hypotheticals.

And by not buying something you are participating in the economy by not putting money into it. To not choose is to have made a choice - Sarte (or Rush, I forget.) By not buying an overpriced item you are showing that the item isn’t demanded enough by you to fit said price.

[BlackStaticWolf]

Yes, but that is non-participation in the economy, and not a part of said economy. The idea of profit, in general, is cheating other people. Similarly, one does not have to play a card game, but that doesn't make counting cards in said game any more fair.

Please do not take this the wrong way because it's not intended as an insult, but you don't seem to understand free market economic theory.

First, the decision to not purchase an item you think is overpriced is actually a form of active participation in the economy. You see, if enough people refuse to purchase that item, the seller has no choice but to lower their price until it reaches a level that the majority of buyers are willing to pay. This is a fundamental part of a free market economy.

The idea of profit is NOT to "cheat" anyone. Grogah put it simply and correctly: the idea of underlying profit is that the seller should be paid for the value they add to an item. In other words, from the seller's perspective the item is worth more than what it cost them to produce.

[Don Julio Anejo]

In some cases, profit is cheating. Like when you have a monopoly on an essential product. Then you can charge anything you like for it and the people will have to pay the price no matter what. Which makes Bill Gates the richest person in the world.

[Jack Squat]

In some cases, profit is cheating. Like when you have a monopoly on an essential product. Then you can charge anything you like for it and the people will have to pay the price no matter what. Which makes Bill Gates the richest person in the world.

But Gates doesn't have a monopoly, no one in the US does; they're illegal. Bill Gates is rich because of good,if forceful marketing.

[Don Julio Anejo]

The only reason Linux and MacOS exist is because Bill Gates needs them to maintain an illusion of competition (that's for Windows... and there is NO competition from anyone with Microsoft Office).

Microsoft is officially a monopoly in the US, it was even on trial from in 2001. They wanted to split it up into smaller companies so it wouldn't maintain a monopoly. It fell through thanks to some very, very expensive lobbying in the Congress. I still remember the trial because I followed it.

And any way you look at it, it's still a monopoly. Sure, you can theoretically use Linux, and more recently Mac had some programs ported to it. But unfortunately, in practice that's not the case. Because until recently most programs would only work on Windows so you had to have it no matter what.

[Grogah]

The only reason Linux and MacOS exist is because Bill Gates needs them to maintain an illusion of competition (that's for Windows... and there is NO competition from anyone with Microsoft Office).

Wow... do you actually believe that? Need to adjust your tinfoil hat a bit? Microsoft doesn't rule the world, Linux and MacOS exist because both have significant market share in certain niche markets. Linux rules the roost for scientific and academic applications, MacOS is big with graphics professionals and yuppies.

As far as MS Office, there is tons of competition, Open Office, Star Office, Word Perfect, and a slew of other tools such as LaTeX.



And any way you look at it, it's still a monopoly. Sure, you can theoretically use Linux, and more recently Mac had some programs ported to it. But unfortunately, in practice that's not the case. Because until recently most programs would only work on Windows so you had to have it no matter what.

In practice that is the case, it is just that in practice many people choose not to.

[Raiser Blade]

The only reason Linux and MacOS exist is because Bill Gates needs them to maintain an illusion of competition (that's for Windows... and there is NO competition from anyone with Microsoft Office).

Microsoft is officially a monopoly in the US, it was even on trial from in 2001. They wanted to split it up into smaller companies so it wouldn't maintain a monopoly. It fell through thanks to some very, very expensive lobbying in the Congress. I still remember the trial because I followed it.

And any way you look at it, it's still a monopoly. Sure, you can theoretically use Linux, and more recently Mac had some programs ported to it. But unfortunately, in practice that's not the case. Because until recently most programs would only work on Windows so you had to have it no matter what.

Theorize conspiracy's much? :smalltongue:

[AslanCross]

I avoid using credit cards and will continue to do so until I earn in the millions. The concept of paying for something I can't afford right now is something I find hard to swallow.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Wow... do you actually believe that? Need to adjust your tinfoil hat a bit? Microsoft doesn't rule the world, Linux and MacOS exist because both have significant market share in certain niche markets. Linux rules the roost for scientific and academic applications, MacOS is big with graphics professionals and yuppies.

As far as MS Office, there is tons of competition, Open Office, Star Office, Word Perfect, and a slew of other tools such as LaTeX.

Key word here - "niche" markets. Well, Macs are becoming popular nowadays, but only recently, with cheap Macbooks. I have yet to see a non-progammer use Linux (heck, I only know something like 2 people who use it).

I have yet to see a single person use anything other than Microsoft Office. Most haven't even heard about Open Office, Word Perfect, etc.

It's competition if it's fair. E.g. Canon-Nikon, Mercedes-BMW, when market share is fairly even. When it's 90%+ for Windows/Office (data from WikiPedia) compared to less than 10% for everything else combined it's not fair competition.

It may not rule the world in the general sense, but for all intents and purposes, it does have control over most of computer software market.


On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,[16] calling the company an "abusive monopoly"[7] and forcing the company to split into two separate units. Part of this ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, and eventually settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001.
There you go. US officially recognized Microsoft as a monopoly... Overturned thanks to an appeal (no doubt costing Microsoft billions of dollars in legal fees). Except I was off on the date by a year.

[Leush]

I have yet to see a non-progammer use Linux (heck, I only know something like 2 people who use it).

I have yet to see a single person use anything other than Microsoft Office. Most haven't even heard about Open Office, Word Perfect, etc.

I use Linux and Open Office (and I like it more than word thankyouverymuch) and I don't know squat about programming (okay, that's a lie- but I'm not a programmer.)

......

As for capitalism, despite its advantage of fluidity and encouraging progress through competition, it is blind, and screws up a number of things:

A) Medicine: Drugs for chronic illnesses that do not cure them get lots of money put into researching them as they are more profitable since you need a kazillion+ doses before you recover/die.

Vaccines do not get research dollars. Where is the profit in something that you only need to take once, plus a few boosters?

B) Oil & fossil fuels: Need I say anything?

C) Exploitation and economic colonialism of under-developed countries.

D) Consumerism: Higher turn over of goods means higher profits in general. Our habitat can only support a certain turn over before we start to exhaust the resources. Then we run out of stuff and go extinct.

So, no matter how economics majors proclaim the advantages of free market capitalism after the end of the cold war, the system still has the disadvantage that it leads down the quick path to our inevitable extinction.

.......
As for credit cards- as long as you're responsible in their handling, you won't get burned.

[Occasional Sage]

I avoid using credit cards and will continue to do so until I earn in the millions. The concept of paying for something I can't afford right now is something I find hard to swallow.

That makes you smarter than 99% of the residents of the 1st world. I saw a news article in the last couple of weeks about people defaulting on their mortgages (lots of banks are taking SERIOUS losses from bad mortgage investments), which said that a large minority (I want to say in the neighborhood of 8%, but can track down the article if any of you are interested) of British homeowners are paying their mortgages with credit cards.

Now, that may seem dumb, but it's not. It's REALLY, SUPER MONDO dumb. And the article was talking about how the British mortgage trends are currently 18 or so months ahead of the US, so.... :smalleek:

[Syka]

I avoid using credit cards and will continue to do so until I earn in the millions. The concept of paying for something I can't afford right now is something I find hard to swallow.

The only reason I have a credit card is to get a credit rating so my insurance rates go down and I'll be able to get a car/house some day. I only use it on groceries or if I have no cash on me, but ONLY if I know I have the cash in the bank. It gets paid off every month before the due date, in full. I do not keep a balance on there. You just have to be smart about using them, which most people aren't, but you kind of have to have one in America.

I only have a checkbook to pay my rent. ;-)

As for OpenOffice/Linux/etc...Come to my college campus and say no one has heard of OpenOffice. Almost everyone I know uses it. And I have two copies of Ubuntu I have every intention of having the tech guy on campus set up for me on my laptop once I get my new computer (I'm going to have them put in an optional startup thing). I know nothing (literally) about programming. And the only reason I hate Mac's are because I've NEVER been able to get one to work with me. *twitch*

So, way to stereotype. Freesource stuff is becoming more popular, especially among the college crowd.

Cheers,
Syka

[Occasional Sage]

The only reason I have a credit card is to get a credit rating so my insurance rates go down and I'll be able to get a car/house some day. I only use it on groceries or if I have no cash on me, but ONLY if I know I have the cash in the bank. It gets paid off every month before the due date, in full. I do not keep a balance on there. You just have to be smart about using them, which most people aren't, but you kind of have to have one in America.
Smart.


Freesource stuff is becoming more popular, especially among the college crowd.

Yeah, but that's always been the case. The acid test is when the college crowd gets into the workplace and is forced to use Microsoft. Most people will synch their home computer to their work for simplicity's sake. I've known lots of die-hard users of X computers or Y software who drift away from it, and now look back (ten years after college) with soft-eyed nostalgia like they're remembering their first love. It doesn't get them back together, though.

[Xuincherguixe]

The only reason Linux and MacOS exist is because Bill Gates needs them to maintain an illusion of competition (that's for Windows... and there is NO competition from anyone with Microsoft Office).

Microsoft is officially a monopoly in the US, it was even on trial from in 2001. They wanted to split it up into smaller companies so it wouldn't maintain a monopoly. It fell through thanks to some very, very expensive lobbying in the Congress. I still remember the trial because I followed it.

And any way you look at it, it's still a monopoly. Sure, you can theoretically use Linux, and more recently Mac had some programs ported to it. But unfortunately, in practice that's not the case. Because until recently most programs would only work on Windows so you had to have it no matter what.


There are so many things wrong with this.

First Microsoft has been working pretty hard to try and crush Linux. I think they were even helping fund the SCO case. They've launched more than a few lawsuits. The real reason they exist is because of donations.

Linux would be a serious threat if more people knew more about it. Frankly it's too good, and too much effort goes into it for it to be part of a conspiracy. And it has far too many enemies.

In a lot of situations Linux much easier to use than windows. I use Ubuntu myself, and you don't need to go hunting all over the place to get all the programs you want. You just run a thing and select what you want to install. Updating to the latest version of Ubuntu was a snap too. Everyone should use it ^_^.

The only thing that Windows has that isn't available on free operating systems are games. And there's a thing you can get for that too (Cedega, though I'm not sure if it's under the GPL or not). For almost every program there exists an equivalent which is probably better because the people who work on them care enough to do a good job. They care so much that they largely don't get payed. (I don't think too many people get to make a career out of writting this stuff)

http://www.gnu.org for information on this stuff. It's complicated.


As far as Mac's go, lately they've gone over to a Unix based system so one can just use all the GNU stuff anyways. It's also a pretty niche market.

[kco_501]

Hm... i use both linux and windows... and open office and office 2007...
and sorry to say this guys.. but microsoft software is a load better than any other thing.
i mean the newer ones not the old word.
and as a programmer i can say that NOTHING compares to Viual Studio... I write code 3+ times faster in it ...
I used to advocate free software and still think it is the way to go if you are a user. But if you develop... or actually want to make money through pc... Microsoft is the way to go.
And honestly, everyone i know under the age of 30 knows to use both windows and linux... I am from Romania by the way... wonder how many can place it on a map :smallbiggrin:

[xanaphia]

South-eastern Europe, west of Ukraine.

Capitalism: The bit about Microsoft monopolising: As severl other posters have pointed out, Microsoft simply has a better particular product i.e. cheap word processing.

The exploitation of poor countries by capitalists: Sadly, they are exploited. By that I mean that we are in a position to request better wages. I'd rather be a sweatshop worker than a sustinence farmer. I agree that it is unfair, but suggest a way to fix it. The only one I can think of is getting their country's economy better, so that there is higher demand for work and thus higher wages.

[CrazedGoblin]

i hope never to get a credit card, nasty things :smallbiggrin:

[Don Julio Anejo]

Back on topic - I don't trust myself with one :frown:

I know I won't be able to hold back and end up blowing my limit in the first month on something. Then I'll never end up repaying it, not because I won't have the money, but because I'll be too lazy to go to the bank to pay the bill. And because, frankly, paperwork scares me.

On Microsoft - 5-7 years ago they didn't have the best product. Heck, half of their stuff didn't work. Yet we still had no choice :(

Linux would be immensely more popular if it could support games. Because most gamers know quite a bit about computers, they like fiddling in it, but they can only play them on Windows.

As for Syka's university - weird. On my facebook out of around 300 people, only 3 use Linux. A few more might use OpenOffice or something, but almost everyone uses burned copies of MS Office.

PS: on piracy. Adobe is really smart in this regard, which is pretty much how they got Photoshop to do so well. They let their stuff get easily copied and distributed, so most people have it and it became the industry standard. But if those people need to work in any professional environment, they pretty much have to shell out $700 for it... And they don't use any of the other stuff (heck, most people, me included, don't even know about anything that is even close to Photoshop).

[kco_501]

Microsoft is nowadays just as smart through the academic alliance. at the university we all have all ms software for free proffessional editions. we can use them as long as we don't try to make money out of it. SAme goes for the Operating System.
And as fro credit cards, we generally don't use them, we only use debit cards. so..you can't overspend.. when the account is empty you can't buy anymore :)

[Last_resort_33]

Credit cards are useful for several reasons. You get better security with a credit card, as long as you're not being stupid, you are covered a lot better against fraud with most credit cards as opposed to debit cards. Secondly, yes it helps you to build up a credit rating. Thirdly it allows you to buy things IF YOU ARE SENSIBLE. I can calculate how much extra an item will cost me if I pay for it over 2 months rather than one, I can also do stuff like "well I need my car fixed to get to work. It will cost £200, which I don't have, but I get paid in a week, so I can put it on my credit card and pay the bill in full when it comes"

Damned handy things... you just have to be willing to read what you're signing up for.

[Azrael]

Credit cards are useful for several reasons. Don't forget that when used rationally, they are excellent tools for managing your monthly cash flow and virtually the only way young consumers can build credit history. I *very* rarely pay interest by carrying a balance, and as a direct result, the credit limit is high and the rates are incredibly low. Plus, there are those tasty rewards points. As of now, my credit card company is paying me hundreds of dollars a year to use their cards.

Just like with *any* financial dealing, if you're careless, you going to get screwed.

-----

ALSO: The point of a profit margin is not to "cheat" anyone. The point is to be paid for the value you've added to the good. A company that can add tremendous value to the good deserves to be paid accordingly. No one can successfully discuss capitalistic economics if they are incapable or unwilling to embrace this concept.

Yes, there are companies that garner huge revenues by adding intangible value (i.e. clothing brands) rather than tangible value (i.e. manufacturing the garment from raw material). But they also invest a lot of that revenue (i.e. advertising and marketing) back into keeping the brand's value.

Take Hugo Boss (mostly because I choked at the $90 dress shirt in Macy's on Saturday). The parent company, Ahlers-AG reported a Gross Margin of 48.4% for FY'07. That means that, on average, their cost was 51.6% of wholesale value. I'm not familiar enough with clothing retail to say for sure, but I would expect a similar markup was made at Macy's, making Ahlers' cost to produce that shirt no more than 25% of the retail value.

Using 50% margins, those shirts might have been purchased for $5.625 at some point, if the purchasing tree extended down 5 levels (Retail - Wholesale - Brand - Finished Good Distributor - Factory Output). Mind you "cost" isn't just cloth + labor. There's the entire overhead of a each company involved at each step.

For those of you with any business or economics experience, this won't surprise you. Gross Margins of 35-50% are frequently what analysts expect from publicly traded companies.

[Supagoof]

But Gates doesn't have a monopoly, no one in the US does; they're illegal.

Major League Baseball is a legal Monopoly. It is recognized as such as well. The reason it passed through the Monopoly laws when they were brought about (see AT&T or Ma Bell) was because as a sport it helped many through the depression era.

On to credit cards though, you can and should take steps to protect you credit history. There are many unfortunate truths about the credit industry...

1. Most sign-ups for fraudulent accounts don't happen due to employees at the store sigining you up for a card to increase the number of applications they took. Most happen due to identity fraud. - So protect yourself, you can receive from each credit bureau once per year a credit report at NO COST TO YOU. You don't have to sign up for some credit protection to get this report. The numbers for the 3 major credit bureaus are usually listed in the front of your phonebook - or call the 800 number on any credit card and ask the phone rep to tell you the number. They usually have them handy. Get a report, find out where you have lines of credit associated with your name. If you have a line of credit you don't recognize, you can dispute it with the credit bureau and get more information to speak with the company that has the credit line open. Even the credit bureau makes a mistake and associates the wrong account with the wrong person. Typically this happens with Sr and Jr in families, but can happen if your name is a common one like John Smith.

2. Credit Card companies are in it for their profit. They make money by charging fees and finance charges. A large storm that came through the credit industry about a year ago was negative amoritization - where people who had large balances were making the minimum payments due on their accounts, yet the finance charges were adding more to the balance then the minimum payment was taking off. As a result, you could be paying on a bill, month after month, and nowhere, if not worse, into debt. Federal law changed this and any credit line that does something like this is illegal. As a result, anyone with a credit line carrying a balance may have seen the minimum payments go up or the interest rate restructured. But since the credit companies are in it for themselves, just because they have to make sure you pay part of your original balance with every payment doesn't mean you pay a larger portion of your prinicpal. Remember - they want you to carry a balance month to month.

3. Consumer Credit Counseling - If you find yourself having trouble with credit card payments - use one of these. Often they can negotiate with the credit card companies to get you a lower finance charge and remove some of the fees you have been charged, without wrecking your credit rating.

4. Pay your balance off every time. If you want to build a credit rating, the best way is to charge, then pay off the balance when the first bill becomes due. Not only does this ensure you won't get fees, it will also show that you pay your bills on time and in full - which is what people who look at your credit rating want to know. You credit rating carries a lot of influence when you get into insurance payments, mortgages, etc...The people who give you a lot of money want to know if you are able to pay them back. The credit rating is a key number to tell them that.

5. As for other fraud things, the little visa tag on your checking account cards and etc - just means it uses the credit system, but isn't a line of credit. As such, there are fewer laws to protect you if you have fraudulent charges. If you dispute a charge on a credit card - the credit card company by law can not charge you any fees associated with that charge until the matter is resolved. This is not the same for a bank account that can use the credit system. So when shopping online - you are better off using a credit card. Also, makes sure the HTTPS and the little lock symbal are in your browser window whenever you enter your credit card number online. Those two things ensure that some computer hacker can't just swipe your number by using a webcrawler/cookie/keystroke watcher program.

6. If a credit card charges you an annual fee - cancel it! There are far too many cards that want your business who won't charge you these fees. Annual fees are a throwback to when credit was still in it's infancy and all the data wasn't tracked via computers.


I worked 10 years for a credit card company, so I'll answer anyone's question about them (PM me). But after seeing foolish things happen to people that wouldn't have if they just bothered to read the fine writing and perform some general watching of their accounts, I don't want that to happen to anyone here.

[Runa]

I beg to differ about the quality. Sometimes, not always, that is the case. However, sometimes you really do get what you pay for. I have shirts I bought at Wal-Mart that have lasted years. But I have shirts that are made by Roxy and Fox and Hurley (got them on sale actually for the same price as my Walmart shirts, because it was the end of the season) that are of significantly better quality.

I actually kind of have to agree with Syka on this one - though it isn't of course necessarily the Guccis of the world that really last (though maybe they do, too. I don't know, because I don't buy it).

I don't know if you've ever heard of the Xhilaration brand, but they've been around in the U.S. for over a decade, at least. They're low-middle range in price, aiming for I suppose a middle-class market for kids and teens, mostly, I think.

I have a number of Xhilaration clothes bought from up to ELEVEN years ago.

They're all still intact. Despite a lot of them belonging to me when I was a kid.

Not only that, but I have an Xhilaration knit dress I got when I was 10 (I'm now 21).

It's about 2 feet shorter on me now, owing to growth and puberty, but it still fits, and is still wearable. The slit's super-high now, though, heh. :smallbiggrin: What used to be "cute" is now "sexy". But yeah, still wearable, and that things been through hell, I tell you.

I've got other clothes that have or haven't lasted a long time. Sometimes it does depend on the brand; I think it's largely because some brands cost-cut in production more than others, and obviously, often employee different people to make the clothes or buy the basic materials.

And, because I kind of just have to at this point, because I actually WORK in retail:

No, that $100 shirt isn't "the company" ripping you off nearly as much as you think. Yes, it costs the company less to make. That's called "trying to support yourself and the people who work for you", my friend.

The basic wholesale cost is probably an average of double what the piece cost to make - for good reason, because otherwise the company wouldn't make any money. And neither would the people who work for them to support themselves and their families!

The retail cost varies depending on the store. WalMart probably has "lower prices" because it can afford to sell in large volume, at a lesser markup. Considerably smaller, non-chain stores probably have an average markup of about 50% on most items, give or take. Which, yes, means that shirt probably costs you four times, on average, and often more times than that, what the company paid to make it.

But you aren't just paying for the shirt itself. Not even just the brand. Don't kid yourself, you're a fool if you think otherwise.

You aren't just paying for the construction and materials of the shirt; you are paying for the time and effort to make or get the raw materials for the cloth; for the construction of the cloth itself; for the people who sell the cloth to the manufacturer; the rent, insurance, etc. on the place it's processed and made in; for the designers' design; the shipping costs; the marketing costs; and the retailers' time, space and effort trying to get you to buy something from them. You are helping paying the salaries (or commissions) of countless employees whose livelihood is centered on constructing, designing, making, marketing and selling you that shirt. No, the shirt does NOT cost "$3.00 for the company to make". It costs an AVERAGE of $3.00 PER SHIRT to even keep the system going that makes the shirt. Even more, if your "if the person that sews the shirt together gets paid $3 per shirt" requirement is there.

You may call it a callous system. But it's how millions of people make a living. It's how they support themselves, and their families. And if you're only concerned with "the end cost should be smaller", then buy through the MOST callous part of the system - shop at WalMart and its ilk. Because it's the small shops that usually end up pricing it higher - because more of every sale goes to PAYING RENT, and paying the salaries of employees, and buying healthcare, and insurance for their kids and homes, paying mortages off and keeping their crappy cars running and fueled.

I work in just such a small store. It's actually a frame shop, that does art restoration and the like as well, and just has a sideline in "unique" furniture and accessories, and some art and antique prints. The framing and restoration are actually our bread and butter, which is a good thing, because it's mostly based on time and effort (i.e. Skilled Labor), more than materials, especially on the restoration. Because all the furniture and art and accessories we have - I don't even know how many thousands of dollars' worth - would never pay the rent on their own, let alone my salary, which has had to be cut to $100 a week despite my working over 30 hours a week, recently (since it's my family's business, I can't really complain is the worst part - because I get "free" room and board out of the arrangement -.- even though I actually get more than half of my food outside of the home now...). The small shops struggle to make a living off of this stuff. They HAVE to price this stuff at a markup, otherwise there'd be no point to them paying to carry it. And that's without assuming of course that it's anything "special" like an innovative product or an antique product that isn't produced anymore, where "valued added" is often greater.

The system is FAR more complicated than some of you give it credit for. What you pay for is not just "extra on top".



As for credit cards, just read all the fine print. :) I have a feeling a lot of these issues come when people don't read what they are signing up for. If it's on what you sign, it's legal and therefore not a scam or fraud. If it's not on there, then you have a problem.

Cheers,
Syka

Apparently the problem here, is people making up or fudging applications in the first place - which ruins people's credit scores, often without their being aware of it, which is terribly frightening. My first credit card was supposed to be a joint one with my dad - instead, it was in the name of "my dad's name but with my middle initial instead of his" - this despite the fact that they clearly had both of our identifying information; they don't give a crap about keeping good records, apparently (this was through Best Buy, in case you're wondering). Additionally, some companies will charge "late fees" if they receive a payment on time, but don't "process" themselves it for another week. Or sometimes, it's a difference of "it still arrived on the last payment date, but the mailman came past 3 PM", which is equally stupid. This is rather dishonest, because they're telling you one thing ("give us payment by this date"), and doing another ("give us payment AND time to process it, by a certain, undisclosed time on this date"). If this happens, it's often fixable -but only if you're actually willing to call them on it, AND chew them out and threaten to close your account with them (Capital One was one we had this kind of trouble with in my family. Funny TV ads don't make up for crappy treatment of customers!)

Really, the credit card thing is rather separate an issue from Capitalism. Credit card companies often aren't just "capitilists", they're corrupt and sneaky (not necessarily all of them, but a rather frighteningly large number of them are). What's even worse is some of the tricks they pull can affect your "credit rating" - which can affect your ability to get a car or a house. Possibly even a job - I've heard this, but I've never seen proof of it that I can recall.

So, yeah. Admittedly, those companies DO suck.

-Runa

[Grogah]

Actually owning a credit card isn't stupid, and my point with this thread isn't the commie hippy war cry of "CREDIT CARDS = T3H EVILS!!!111oneone", but that the companies are starting to commit outright fraud in some cases, which is troubling.

I own three credit cards, all of which have a $0 monthly balance. One is an airline miles card. I funnel the majority of my expenses through it, paying it off every month. I never pay interest, or fees on it. But I do pick up free flights pretty regularly. Rent, utilities, and other expenses add up and when combined with their vouchers for $200 off flights, once a year, I make a pretty big profit on this card. I would estimate it saves me ~$1,000 a year in flights (when I do buy a ticket, I get triple miles on the card for each dollar spent), given how much I fly for my work, it's a big deal. I also funnel money I'll get reimbursed for through it. Buying a $1,000 ticket to Europe that I'll get comped for? Might as well pick up miles too.

The other two are special purpose cards. One is a AAA card which gives me a 20% discount on rates, so I use it maybe once a year, and the other is my emergency card. I never really charge anything to it, but it has a high credit limit, so if my house is destroyed by a tornado, flood, or Godzilla attack, and my work is hit by a meteor, turns into a volcano, or is hit by a fireball, I have an emergency line of credit at decent interest rates to see me through the storm.

So long as you're responsible, credit cards end up paying YOU to use them, they also give you a REALLY nice $0 liability on fraudulent charges, which makes them great for on-line use.

[BlackStaticWolf]

In some cases, profit is cheating. Like when you have a monopoly on an essential product. Then you can charge anything you like for it and the people will have to pay the price no matter what.

Price gouging necessities is a special case in terms of the law. It is generally recognized as an unethical business practice, and there are laws in the US that prohibit that type of behavior.

However, in a true free market economy it's still not cheating. The thing is, true free market economies (just like true communist economies) don't exist in the real world. They're the stuff of textbook and theory. In reality, our "free market" is diluted by various laws and regulations.


But Gates doesn't have a monopoly, no one in the US does; they're illegal. Bill Gates is rich because of good,if forceful marketing.

Monopolies are not illegal in the US. In fact, there are legal monopolies in literally every state. It's specific types of unfair business practices that are illegal.


There you go. US officially recognized Microsoft as a monopoly... Overturned thanks to an appeal (no doubt costing Microsoft billions of dollars in legal fees). Except I was off on the date by a year.

Just a nitpick... because it's what my breed does... the result of that case was overturned on appeal. After the case was remanded, they reached a settlement. This means that, as of this date, no court has ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly in violation of antitrust laws.

Also, billions in attorneys fees and costs... no case has ever had fees and costs in the billions. Ever.

The eventual settlement (not the same thing as a fee or cost) reached in that case was $28.6 million. The costs of their attorneys are not publicly available (I could look up who they are if I wanted, but frankly, those reporters are on a different floor from me, so I don't feel like it). Since they were the defendant, their attorneys certainly charged an hourly rate (you can't charge contingent fees as a defense attorney).

Considering how much money Microsoft has, and how much being broken up would have hurt them (that was the real risk in the case)... I'm going to give an estimate (note this is just an educated guess, I'm sure it's off by a considerable margin in one direction or the other) of how many attorneys they might have used: 2 attorneys w/ 20+ years experience (A), 6 attorneys w/ 11-19 years (B), 20 paralegals (C).

The Laffey Matrix (most commonly used guideline for reasonable attorney's fees) puts A at $425/hour, B at $375/hour, and C at $120/hour.

And... bloody hell, I just realized I don't have the book that tells me how many hours are billed in the average appeal. That means I'll have to just wildly guess and say... 1000 for each attorney and 1500 for each paralegal. When I get home tonight I'll have to look it up and correct these figures.

Anyway... this yields total fees and costs of $6.7 million. There's really no way to accurately guess at what the costs might be, which is why I included so many paralegals. In truth, I'd be surprised if there were more than ten of them.

Now, you may be wondering at this point why I would go into such detail on a somewhat irrelevant nitpick... well... I'm wondering the same thing. But I wasted my time writing it, and I can't unwaste it!



Now... on credit cards in general... as others have said, credit cards are not at all dangerous when used properly. Never spend buy something on credit that you couldn't write a personal check for. Pay off the full balance on your card on time every month. Do that and you'll never have a problem.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Credit card companies = Thief from 8bit Theatre. Make you sign a contract with extra-fine print, and bam! There goes the deed to your house... Also, people who designed the system aren't stupid. They're pretty smart psychologists. Those responsible with their money use the credit card because it's convenient and allows them to save lots of money (heck, I know a guy who puts his paycheck into a fund, uses the credit card to make his purchases for the month, then uses his paycheck to pay it off and puts the next paycheck into the fund). Unfortunately, people like this are in the minority (well, fortunately for the banks, since banks make no money off these people).

And then there's people who go overboard and have to use one credit card to pay off another, or have to make interest payments that screw them over and make sure they never repay their debt.

I should probably stop the Microsoft argument on my part. I have some really strong views on the topic, which are borderline political. There's also a chance I'll insult some people in the process, so I'll just let everyone who was against me win the argument by default.