Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Thursday, December 28, 2000 - 01:42 am  my ongoing posts about credit scoring seem to be passing by like stale farts, and ongoing scouring of the internet reveals victims here and there, but no class actions against it, and no interest in persuing the matter any further. FICO scoring is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. nobody cares. here's what we all have to look forward to in the 21st century:- now that an entire industry has embraced computer modeling, let's dispense with the human element in other realms of getting things done-- airlines-- no need for pilots anymore-- the plane is flown entirely by computer modeling of weather patterns, takeoff & landing conditions, etc. let the principles of (un)fair isacc put their asses where their formulae are, and seat them and their families on the first dozen or so flights going back and forth from LA to boston with desktop at the helm, and laptop as co-puter. parole boards-- no need for a judge or committee of qualified poeple anymore; model the criminals by computer, and let the humans go out for tennis and workout at the gym. don't even dream of suing (un)fair isaac if it's your daughter who doesn't return home tonight, and the police call you down to identify body parts found in trash barrels all over the state because the computer said he isn't statistically likely to kill again.... competency?--- you're a 79 year old widow whose husband died 4 months ago. sitting on $3 million estate, your young, cocaine addicted in-laws want a sure means of support for their habit. they say you're cuckoo, and drag you into court. you spent $588 on magazines and frivolous merchandise from sweepstakes companies last year; that makes you a danger to yourself and others. plug this into the (un)fair isaac computer models for judgement. the judge went deep-sea fishing this afternoon, and the jury has been excused. sorry-- the computer just condemned you--  . nuclear weapons????-- watch the film WARGAMES for a very realistic idea of what would likely happen if people were really taken out of the picture as depicted, bearing in mind that computers do only what they are told to do, and unlike on hollywood stage, things don't always come to a peaceful and sunny resolution. get it???? i have been in real estate for over 15 years. no one can predict what the future will bring-- this fact is absolute and immutable. those claiming to do so have been richly rewarded when correct, and brought severely to task when proven wrong. today somebody has cooked up another potion of economic fantasy, and sold it off on the federal reserve, namely fannie mae and freddie mac. they bought a fine bill of goods here, and i can already smell what is going to happen. (un)fair isaac's models deny credit to well qualifed borrowers and grant it to others who would otherwise never be able to procure any kind of mortgage loan. a credit score of less than 680 generated by the computer model automatically puts a borrower's loan into a non- conforming status with fannie mae or freddie mac, much as has always been the case when a buyer is seeking to finance a condominium purchase in any building which is less than 75% owner occupied. while this latter restriction is imposed upon the property, FICO scoring imposes restrictions upon the borrower, regardless of equity, LTV, or past credit history completely free of blemish. the authors of this sector-specific abberation of free-market enterprise obviously have little or no knowledge of the real estate industry, or how it now predominates the lending upon which most real estate transacations depend, not to mention inherent legal and constitutional implications of dictating policy to one and all, for the moment under government sanction. i hate to say it, but this is what i forsee as a real estate professional. perhaps i'm wrong-- FICO scoring adversely affects two groups-- well qualified borrowers who cannot get market rate loans because of it, and lenders who make loans to poorly qualified borrowers because of it. it has been only about 3 years since FICO scores have taken the place of conventional underwriting practises. as the economy softens, even modestly, many of the less qualified borrowers will go into default. since FICO doesn't know anything about individual circumstances or regional conditions, difficulties in any part of the country may cause a relatively high incidence of foreclosures and bankruptcy. the magical 680 score that qualifies borrowers also certifies their loans as saleable on secondary mortgage markets, just as magically as 679 disqualifies them. any kind of unpredicted event, such as a severe winter, political crisis, war overseas, or stock market crash could put an end to the prosperity of the 90's, and give us a nasty dose of reality medicine. FICO is approving $400,000+ loans every day for people coming into my office who i would ask their parents to cosign to rent one of my apartments. $32,000 income, no college, and FICO say go for it. one hiccup in the economy, and guess what? the secondary market is going to start lunching loans, investors up to their earballs in mortgage-backed securities are going to start asking how and why, the fed has to answer the hows and whys, and with what??? some computer model written by a bunch of soothsayers out in california said it's OK to loan $400,000 on that boston penthouse on a $32,000 income, and johnny got laid off his job and collecting $744 every 2 weeks in unemployment. i'm lunching bigtime too--- lots of real estate which i can't refinance because of (un)fair isaac and his ack-basswards scoring system. something got left out of the program- how will a borrower's profile change if the loan is approved, and how much more or less likely is it that the applicant will default if the loan goes forward. this one doesn't take a whole lot of brains to figure out. (un)fair isaac screwed it up very nicely, and so sets the stage for the second class of victims of computer modeling, and what i see as most likely to occur as the problems it is creating for both individual and institutional investors come more under public scrutiny. the computer program (un)fair isaac wrote refused to give me the magical 680 score. in fact, i got three different scores, one from each of three credit bureaus, and so did my wife. reviewing the information contained on each one, we found a few small errors and cleared them up without much of a problem. the scores increased by a few points, but not enough. 680 is yes, 679 is go find a B/C lender. this is what the fed bought offa jackass in california-- wishing i could have sold them on tarot cards and the ouija board first. i now have tens of thousands of dollars in actual damages i can prove to be directly attributable to the FICO scoring system. lawsuits are going to be crawling out of the woodwork, and mine is of a particulary strong and difinitive nature--- it could serve as an excellent model for a class-action, which i view as the most effective means to address this issue and seek relief for what many of us have been forced to endure, all violating many aspects of fair trade, fair lending, consumer rights, and a resplendent host of constitutional infringement issues as well. show me a computer program that can afford equal treatment to each and every loan applicant, and i'll show you a cat who can do it even better--  * unless (un)fair isaac makes radical revisions to its credit scoring models, and mighty damn soon, it has already written its own death sentence by entering into alliegence with the federal reserve. the secondary market investors will be eating the first round of losses, then the fed will be asked to justify what they did to change this age-old market [which has functioned quite well over many years], and the answer all down to FICO scoring. i'm here, damages increasing every day, waiting for (un)fair isaac to fall out of the government favor and validate what they have done to so many people in the real estate world, borrowers and lenders alike. let's all try to do what we can to put this thing into check, before it dictates so many of the rules in life such as i mentioned at the beginning of this post. the dog is walking the master a few steps too far-- time for powers that be to come in from the golf course at least long enough to let us know who is who, and when bad policy and an ongoing mistake we all know as FICO scoring should be put in its place, and let real bankers and mortgage professionals get back in their seats and let computers calculate rates and payments, and leave the lending decisions in the hands (NOT circuitboards and crummy software)where it belongs. up all night again typing out on this thing. it would sure be nice if somebody is listening and might care to do something about this idiocy, before it gets worse--- thanks-- douglas pratt
|
| | Thursday, December 28, 2000 - 08:32 pm Oh come on Doug...While I sympathize with you on the FICO system, airlines, paroles and the like will still have the human touch. C'mon, that's taking it to an extreme. I work in the music industry and hear everyday that Napster and downloads will displace me, but I can tell you the MAJORITY of Americans will always buy their music in records stores (at least in my lifetime). So saying that the airlines will take away pilots in favor of computers is just plain extreme. I do think they will replace stewardesses with computers, though-- I have a ch7 bk and have noticed when a REAL person looks over my credit, I find they see enough good to work out a loan, credit card, etc...Computer scoring is bull, plain and simple.
|
| | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 07:47 am Anonymous1 While I agree that Doug's assertion, is a bit broad he is not completely off the mark. "…airlines-- no need for pilots anymore-- the plane is flown entirely by computer modeling" In my 25+ years in that industry I can unequivocally tell you that not only can that happen, it has. The older B-707, DC-8, B-727, B-747 etc aircraft had a 3 pilot crew. One crewmember was a systems manager that maintained and monitored all the necessary systems (hydraulics, electrical, pneumatic, flight control etc.) In the late 80s Boeing, Douglas, and Airbus came out with the 2-man crew aircraft (MD-11, B-767, B-747-400, A-310 to mention a few) where the third pilot was replaced with automation. The sales point was that the computer could monitor and rectify the systems better than the third pilot. This was to "reduce" the workload for the other two pilots and having flown both types of aircraft I can also tell you that is only a salesman's pitch. It was routine for the pilot to ask, "What is it doing now?" "How does it know?" And "Oh SH-- turn it off!" But that was not the end. In the mid 1990s Boeing and Airbus both came out with considerable new technology. It was due to the great changes in the computer and military industry. The new fly-by-wire technology has COMPLETELY taken the pilot out of the loop and now the new A-320 family and A-330 aircraft have no direct pilot input. The Boeing B-777 only has marginal pilot input and requires the pilot go through a dance to disengage the computer. The Airbus aircraft do not allow the pilot to override the computer - EVER! There is no on/off switch and the computer has the last word. The pilot puts an input into the various systems (let's say the flight control systems) and the computer examines that input. If it is out of tolerance or if the computer does not like the input, it rejects the input and so notifies the pilot. The pilot is then asked for additional input and if the pilot puts the same input in again for that particular regime of flight the computer will automatically over-ride the pilot. This all happens in nanoseconds. It is that simple! Currently, both Boeing and Airbus (as well as the ATA, the airline's lobby) are seeking reduction of the second pilot from the aircraft. However, having experience with this aircraft I can tell you that the workload will be much higher with one pilot than it currently is or what it is with the 2-man crew of the 80s or the 70s with the 3-man crew. So what about accidents/incidents? While it is a subject as taboo as incest and spousal abuse, it happens with as much frequency - you'd be surprised! There have been numerous accidents caused by the computers but hushed up and in most cases you have never heard of them. There have been also many incidents (an accident that nearly happened but was averted.) I can tell you about them but that is another story and not appropriate here. Just understand that they do occur daily. So don't pooh-pooh Doug. While it won't happen in my career, your grandkids could be flying to grandma/pa's house over Xmas without a pilot in the cockpit. And remember the original Mercury astronauts fought like heck to get controls in the capsules. They fought so hard with the scientist that while they got the controls the scientists launched a monkey on the first mission to prove the lack of necessity for controls. Just think what would have happened without controls if it were Apollo 13 or even United's flight 262 in Sioux City a few years ago - many dead people! You may be too young to remember Mercury, Gemini or Apollo, but I do. Well it took many years to convince the public but we are there. While you may say "not with me on board they won't," the airlines and the engineers/programmers will convince you and like John Madden you will be taking the train for just as with Fair Isaac the majority of the populace will submit. Frank
|
| | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 10:28 am Very interesting. I'd just like to add here that projections and statistics are used in the development of just about anything. A new car is tested and analyzed, then the car maker execs sit down and decide whether to add a $10 part in 5 million cars to save 8 lives over the next 5 years. Most likely they'll opt to save the 50 millions, after all, 4,999,992 auto buyers will save 10 bucks. Or the auto maker saves $50,000,000, if they couldn't pass the cost along to the consumers due to competition. This is just how it is, and I can live with that. They're testing and analyzing mechanical parts. I am NOT a mechanical part, a product! I am a human being, and I wish to be treated as such when it comes to buying my home, getting a cell phone, auto insurance, etc. Those are not luxury items, and should be available to anyone who pays their bills on time, subject to PUBLISHED underwriting guidelines.
|
| | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 04:21 pm What's next? Will insurance companies have to provide their trend factors? Will Coca-Cola have to release their formula for making soda? Will Microsoft have to release it's source code? Douglas loves to rant that FICO Scores are "unconstitutional" -- but try this quote on for size: "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." (Article I.10.1) Under that simple test California's law mandating disclosure of FICO scores is 100% unconstitutional.
|
| | Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 05:08 am The law hardly interferes with the any contract since Fair Isaac has already OK'd the score to be released in similar situations. The law doesn't require Fair Isaac to reveal their formula (although I wish it would). Insurance companies, Coca-Cola, and Microsoft have better lobbyists than Fair Isaac so I doubt that they have anything to worry about.
|
| | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 03:29 am Fair Isaac has OK'd the score to be released; provided, however, that the lender release along with that score their own cut-off points so that a potential borrower can know what that score means to a lender. Of course, lenders are reticent to do that. The solution, in the eyes of the People's Republik of Kalifornia, seems to be to nullify that contract. They do not have that authority. In fact they are expressly barred from doing any such thing by the Constitution of the United States. I doubt any of you care. But don't think that you can sit on your moral high horse and condemn Fair Isaac and have no one call you on it.
|
| | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 08:50 am Well, I for one have stated repeatedly that Fair Isaac AND the lenders need to be sued. Obviously Fair Isaac Credit Scores would NOT be a problem if lenders didn't utilize those scores to decline loans. And of course that also includes any other corporation (auto insurance, cell phones, etc.) who declines or charges more to the Low Scorers.
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 06:51 am I agree with that, Christine. In defense of what Shylock says, I do believe that California state law is a little too repressive sometimes with regards to "protecting" consumers for anything. But on the other hand, Shylock, big corporations have a tendency to bring it on themselves by crying to government as well. Just ask the insurance industry which wouldn't pay homeowners after the Northridge quake. I am sorry, but if I make all my premiums and pay my deductables, I DESERVE MY REPAIRS OR TO BE BOUGHT OUT AT A FAIR MARKET PRICE. Same goes for using scoring in cases of phones and insurance. Sorry, but it's not that I am asking to borrow for a home or car (which there I do understand the scoring a lot more and agree somewhat with you, even though these companies could use more humans evaluating more loan apps instead of computers). It all sucks. But FAIR Isaac should be forced to disclose the means in which one is denied a loan. Just as CRA's should be forced to work with consumers more to cut down on faulty collections, reporting and mistakes.
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 11:05 am I need to add here that we have "FAIR Housing" and "FAIR Lending" laws and if this is NOT what Americans want, then those laws should be eliminated. For several years now there has been nothing fair about lending practices, in spite of these laws. Discrimination by computers is actually legal in the US. What's happening today in the US is ECONOMIC slavery. Only people with the TIME, the MONEY and the SKILL to access the net and subscribers to investment/financial newsletters **can** find out how to increase or maintain their credit scores. While Doug is in that category, he learned too late. Like MOST people, the decline of a loan made him aware of credit scoring. Doug is certainly right with his economic predictions. Loans are approved that should NOT be approved. When defaults skyrocket, lenders and FNMA/FHLMC will ask congress for bailouts, pointing the finger at Fair Isaac. And Fair Isaac will say that their credit scores were intended to be guidelines, not absolutes. And they'll have excuses like "unforseeable" events, bla bla bla .... IF they're held accountable, Fair Isaac Corporation will file for bankruptcy. You'll be lucky to just pay for a bailout with your MONEY. This could well push the US into a major depression. There are a lot of guns on the streets and when people can't find jobs, they are left to starve or just take what they need. There is this notion that nothing bad can ever happen again to our economy. That as long as we all just continue to buy a ton of stuff we don't need, corporate will take care of us. What happened to the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Inkas, the Romans ...? Countless GREAT civilizations disappeared. An Alaskan recently compared Prudhoe Bay to the Pyramids. The oil companies certainly built a very impressive colony in the most adverse climate. So much has been accomplished, there is this tremendous wealth, yet there are so many poor people. And the worst part is that it won't just be the US tumbling into a depression, but in todays global economy just about all countries will be affected. There are a few safe harbors, some of those islands where the wealthy already have their mansions. It's sad to see what's happening in the US today. It's VERY frightening to think about what could easily happen, and what the wealthy are fully prepared for.
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 03:39 pm If we have another Great Depression, even the wealthy WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HIDE. I figure, the politicians that sold us all out to the highest bidder will be the first to suffer the wrath of mob violence. Anyway, this along with the house of cards known as buying stocks on credit will hurt even more. The U.S. wound up bailing out a big margin house that, if left to fail, would have doomed our economy as well as the other 7 industrialized nations (ne: WEALTHY). Bush is even hinting at not helping the poorest countries with debt relief (Which NOBODY should do, unless the country is an Iraq or unstable nation looking to build through militarism). The house of cards is already buckling and will soon fall down on all of us. America does need to wake up and vote the comfy multi-term losers out of office, stand up to George Bush's idea of an Attorney General, stop using religious dogma to bully others who don't agree and TELL THE CORPORATIONS NO, ENOUGH! I am a capitalist (to coin a Bush phrase, a compassionate one). I own a small business when I am not working full time. I consider myself to be a pragmatic independent MODERATE. Partisanship will also be the death of us. I refuse to allow a few losers to spoil it for the innocent. And yes, I am doing something. You all should too, before it's too late.
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 03:42 pm P.S.- I agree with you Christine, but suing or penalizing Fair Isaac isn't the way to go. I believe the Treasury and Fed need to start to chip away at these "computerized models" and make lenders go back to analyzing each and every loan. No computer in the world can make up for an actual professional loan consultant.
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 04:09 pm Anonymous1, "... I believe the Treasury and Fed need to ..." Well, they aren't doing it. So, now what?
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 07:07 pm The government has pretty much mandated the use of FICO scores. They didn't intend to, but FICO scores can't "subconsciously discriminate." Consider this article and consider how devestating it is for a company to get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit. Your cheapest hope is to settle for less than the cost of the attorney's fees (25-33%). Can anyone say tort reform? ************************************************** If a person underwriter is so much more efficient than FICO scores then why do the top two credit card issuers in the nation (Citibank & MBNA) use only scoring models?
|
| | Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 07:00 am I couldn't tell you, Christine. I do understand that there are too many lawsuits in this country, but at the same time, a lot of corporations deserve them. I know the Fed has jumped on banks about Chexsystems and at least BofA has caved on it's policies regarding that one. The Fed will act if it believes it is a threat to the economy and even our country. Otherwise, if y'all feel the need to sue them, then hey, It's America, go for it...
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 11:19 am Wow Shylock, you should run for Republican Congressman. The former seat of Bob Dornan that those Right-wined, Nazi-ville, A.K.A. Orange County California, folks love, could easily be yours! All you have to do is sell the rest of the snake oil and convince the few remaining folks that a dozen cops with guns where threatened by Rodney and you too can sit in the house of the misinformers. Sure your "poor" corporations may think they have a "right" to make a profit. Sure they may even try and re-write (or reinterpret the constitution) but they would loose there too. You are so quick to quote the constitution, but please show me where it so states that in the constitution or any of the 1st 10 amendments - Better titled the BILL OF RIGHTS? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Articles 1-7 et al. Very important words here folks! WE THE PEOPLE! Not we the shareholders! Not we the corporate officers! Not we the senior management! Not we the authors of a computer code, but WE THE PEOPLE! Sure these individuals named above are "people" but in the constitutional sense "the people" are the citizens (see definition below.) It goes on to say "Provide...Blessings...Liberty to OURSELVES and OUR Prosperity." It does not say the prosperity or blessings of Fair Isaac nor does it bestow blessings on Wall Street. It is all about US and US is the People. THE BILL OF RIGHTS Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution #1 about congress and the people with respect to religion. Many call this the Freedom of Religion Amendment. #2 much misinterpreted but about cops and people. This allows the States to have what we call "State Police" and what our framers called a militia. Many take this as the right to have a gun but it does not say that. It says our cops can have guns - not necessarily the citizens unless they want to join the force (but that is a different story.) #3 Soldiers and people in this. It is about quartering (a big issue in the 18th century.) #4 People and the government in this one. We call this the "search and seizure" as well as the "where is the warrant" amendment? #5 The fifth. "No person shall be held to answer..." Sounds like people to me! #6 "the accused." People again #7 "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,..." #8 "cruel and unusual punishments..." #9 Simple people's rights again "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." #10 The biggy. This specifically states who has powers. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Who has the powers and rights - the government or the people - NOTHING ELSE! It really bugs me when so many people, so many junkyard lawyers and constitutional specialist, cite the various laws and constitution to their benefit. They take 18th century language and interpretation and use it in 21st century meanings. Shylock, use the whole passage if you are going to use the constitution for your argument. "Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Using your logic Shylock, "No State shall...lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports,...." So I guess California's or New York's, or Florida's fuel taxes on foreign refined fuels are unconstitutional? Maybe you mean that all the state guard units (under the control of the state's governor) are illegal? "No state shall,....keep troops....enter into any Agreement or Compact with another state, or with a foreign Power...." Maybe the second part of this means that it is illegal for Arizona to extradite a felon to California because of state extradition laws is "agreements or compacts with another state." Maybe the agreements made under the extended Joint Powers Act of the S.O.S during the Japanese crises in the 70s, the initial tuna crises in the 80s with Equator and your current energy crisis (involving none other than the former Soviet Union and Canada) are also "unconstitutional?" Folks this type of rhetoric is common for those who wish to mislead to present their argument. They change topics to suit their needs and continually point a vicious finger at the victim - the citizen. It is well known that Shylock is the mouthpiece for the downtrodden capitalist corporation - few could do it better. When his buddy's style of mismanagement causes stock value to fall, it is those communist's that hide around every liberal media outlet and democratic politician, fault. Unless Rupert and GE etc. own the liberal media that is - then, they too need Shylock's protection. Yes, even the communist news network, the Washington [liberal} Post etc. are better than that socialist lot called - THE AMERICAN CITIZEN! You see that is the wrong term, for this lot [like Shylock] who likes to call us "THE CONSUMER." We are not citizens, nor humans, nor people, nor Americans; we are "consumers and labor!" Overpaid and under worked labor at that - "poor productivity" - may I add. Folks where in the constitution did our founder's say a corporation is entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" While Shylock's ill-fated logic above would attempt to persuade the public that the State of California has "Under that simple test California's law mandating disclosure of FICO scores is 100% unconstitutional." He's WRONG! While he is the very type person that may try to persuade the public that only corporations need lawyers and the public is safe - few buy that garbage any more. The corporations keep lawyers on staff and will use them at the drop of a hat. Only the poor citizens that get screwed need lawyer. I know you will use that consumer argument that the corporations will only charge higher prices to the consumer (that word again) if the corporation looses a lawsuit. Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc! Just another topic shifter; see how it works? The point is that Fair Isaac is unfair and not, at best, within the spirit of the law. It has no more rights than any other corporation and none of those rights, that it does have, are derived from the constitution. The constitution only defines the rights of citizens and so defines those citizens (changing over the years to include Indians, Blacks and Women.) And while Shylock would have you believe otherwise, I paraphrase and revise the statement that "what is good for [Fair Isaac] is [NOT] good for America!" Corporation: n. united body, a legal, mercantile or professional association. Citizen: n an inhabitant of a city; a member of a state...ry, ship; the state of being a citizen; the rights and duties of a citizen. People have constitutional rights not corporations! Frank
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 06:05 pm Frank: It's been said that people who have good arguments make them and the people who don't just attack the character of their opponents. When your post starts out by suggesting I should become a congressman of Nazi-ville I guess we can conclude you probably don't have many good arguments to make. Your post is so riddled with errors and hypocrisy I haven't the time to dispute and correct all the sophistry you employ. I'll just stop to point out a little of the hypocrisy and then get down to business. I notice that you say, "Shylock, use the whole passage if you are going to use the constitution for your argument" when you just got through saying "#1 about congress and the people with respect to religion. Many call this the Freedom of Religion Amendment." May I recommend that you practice what you preach by quoting the whole portion of it? For your convenience, here it is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Careful reading of the amendment yields the obvious conclusion that it's about a lot more than religion. Also mentioned are speech, the press, assembly and petitioning. Shame on you for saying it only had to do with religion. If you failed to tell the whole story on the very first amendment, how could anyone trust your judgement on all the rest of them? The makers of our government understood that the biggest threat to personal freedom and rights is government. That's why the Bill of Rights starts with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." not "Corporations shall be restricted from doing..." Governments killed over 96 million people from the years 1900-1999. How many people have died due to Fair Isaac? Can you name even one? Yet your 'solution' is to increase the power of government in order to protect us against Fair Isaac. Who will protect us from the protectors?
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 06:49 pm You are absolutely right Shylock. Fair Isaac hasn't killed anybody. Yes, governments have killed many, many people. But I doubt that if the world were in a state of anarchy for the years 1900-1999 that we would have had much better results. I'm not sure what your point is with that. Anyway Fair Isaac has sure caused a lot of misery and if you believe that everyone has the right to pursue happiness then maybe you can see why credit scoring ought to be dealt with by government.
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 06:02 am As Reagan said, "Here you go again [Shylock!]" "It's been said that people who have good arguments make them and the people who don't just attack the character of their opponents. When your post starts out by suggesting I should become a congressman of Nazi-ville I guess we can conclude you probably don't have many good arguments to make." Now what about this Shylock? " The solution, in the eyes of the People's Republik of Kalifornia, seems to be to nullify that contract. They do not have that authority. In fact they are expressly barred from doing any such thing by the Constitution of the United States. I doubt any of you care. But don't think that you can sit on your moral high horse and condemn Fair Isaac and have no one call you on it." So when you make references to communist California and suggest that the pejorative "you" or me is sitting on my "high horse" then all is ok. If we are left wing communists then you and your buds are right winged Nazis. Didn't your mother ever tell you that what is thrown usually comes back. Point a finger and 3 point back at you. Sorry Shylock you initiated the name blame! Now you take one paragraph and make such a statement. I will not argue whether Orange County is extremely right winged or not. I think its reputation is well known around the country. The Nazis were extremely right winged folks "Vaterland Uber Alas" - you know and so are your views. Just because you have right winged views does not make you a Nazi - I never said that you were. But if you would like I can discuss (off board) how Nazis (and Hitler) were democratically elected to power with the support of many Jewish Bankers. You are right winged and so are your views - it is that simple. "Your post is so riddled with errors and hypocrisy..." I was not making any argument about this amendment or any other amendment. I could have as easily said "The Bill of Rights" and left it there, Shylock. For the sake of bandwidth I choose to shorten and not publish the whole amendment. However, whenever I made an argument I included the complete paragraph. If I use parts of the paragraph then I use the relevant parts as long as they do not "CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE PARAGRAPH!" That you do not do. But as you so aptly pointed out, "... people who have good arguments make them and the people who don't just attack the character of their opponents" " Careful reading of the amendment yields the obvious conclusion that it's about a lot more than religion." SO WHO CARES! That has nothing to do with your post, my post or any other post. As you do so often (and as I said earlier) " Just another topic shifter; see how it works? The point is that Fair Isaac is unfair and not, at best, within the spirit of the law. It has no more rights than any other corporation and none of those rights, that it does have, are derived from the constitution..." Shylock, 3 of your 7 paragraphs deal with the first amendment. So what? Who cares about that? You either understand the argument or you don't. The argument was two fold. First you used parts of a paragraph of the constitution out of context. It was not a simple error, but one easily noticeable if one read the whole paragraph. This can only lead others to conclude that it was either intentionally done or negligently done. In either case the author's credibility is in serious question. The second argument was that the constitution DOES NOT grant corporations any RIGHTS! That is simple. While you try your red-herring tactic again by saying 'The makers of our government understood that the biggest threat to personal freedom and rights is government. That's why the Bill of Rights starts with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." not "Corporations shall be restricted from doing...".' You are still wrong. This point is self-evident. I left this paragraph for last. You imply, no you state that I attacked your character. That is false. While I suggested you run for the right winged congressional district's seat few would say that suggesting that is character assassination. I was specific to suggest that you do not live in "Nazi-ville" which implies that your thoughts are like those folks and that is it. While I discuss your thoughts and beliefs, which I personally find anti-American and even anti-human, I will support your RIGHTS to express them. I flew many missions in SE Asia during the early 70s to protect those rights for you and not for any Fair Isaac. So while you may feel your character was attacked, as with most things in your thought pattern your are wrong and misguided- again. Frank
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 01:04 pm Shylock wrote: "The makers of our government understood that the biggest threat to personal freedom and rights is government." I don't understand this. ALL my rights are based on cash. Anything I want to do, I need to pay for. When I want to go camping in the desert, I need to fill up my gas tank and when I don't have the $50 to do that, I'm not going anywhere. Corporate is sucking the cash out of my pocket like I can't believe it. I have no choices, because they ALL do it. Even when I want to sue the bastards, I got to have a LOT of cash first! And when I actually DO sue (VoiceStream), I learn that corporations do NOT have to pay for their negligence, fraud, whatever you call it. The bastards can LEGALLY refuse to pay for my damages because their contract says so. ALL contracts say so. The biggest threat to MY personal freedom and rights are the corporations stealing MY money.
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 04:50 am Erik: An objective look at the state of human affairs world round will help you realize that tyranny leads to anarchy and anarchy leads back to tyranny. The classic example is the French revolution of 1789. After France had engaged in a costly war against England, France's king turned to the standard method of recouping that cost -- high taxes on his subjects. In 1789 the disarmed citizens stormed the prison Bastille where they gained weapons. At the height of the revolution 500 people a night were being executed by guillotine. This is anarchy. The merchant class, to restore order, promised Napolean Bonaparte that they would make him and his sons emperors of France forever if he would end the anarchy. He did so, but embarked immediately on tyrannical invasions of the surrounding countries. Like a pendulum swinging tyranny swings back to anarchy and anarchy swings back to tyranny. The only solution is to stop the pendulum from swinging by establishing a government that is neither tyrannical nor anarchist. That is the very point of the constitution -- it gives the government the power it needs while establishing clear restrictions on their power so they don't overrun the rights of humankind. Now to address your point of whether or not government should regulate credit scoring. It is an established fact that the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The question of what they should do, if anything, becomes a question of economics. It is easy for people to look at credit scoring and see bad things about it. Despite that credit scoring has it's positives and, I believe, the positives strongly outweigh the negatives. Without an objective look at both sides of the question we cannot determine the best course. Despite that the drumbeat goes on to "ban scoring." Now there is already a state, called Vermont, where no one can see your credit report without your express, prior written consent. If no one wants to be scored let them move to Vermont. There is no reason for the rest of the people, like myself, who believe that we benefit from scoring to have other people's ideologies thrust down our throats by the jack booted thugs in the government.
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 04:55 am Frank: I carefully read your post and found no argument within it to respond to. I'm not interested in entering a name calling match with someone who has a one-dimentional (left v. right) view of politics. You make constant reference to the bill of rights as though it were the final word on rights. Where in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee you the right to vote? Which of the ten amendments guarantees you the right to marry and have children? What is the text of the Bill of Rights that guarantees us the right to move freely around the country?
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 05:05 am Christine: It's true that to live requires money. I agree that you have a right to gasoline -- as much as you choose to buy. You seem to think that your right to gasoline is the authority to require other people to work for free to provide it for you. That is nothing more than slavery. I have no idea how taxes and regulations work in Arizona. But here in California the majority of the cost of gasoline is federal, state and local taxes. From there the cost to add oxygenates like MTBE (a major source of groundwater pollution) adds another $0.25 to the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Why don't we make your life a little easier by cancelling all those taxes and regulations so it only takes you $15-$20 to fill your camper instead of $50?
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 10:42 am My entire previous posting: Shylock wrote: "The makers of our government understood that the biggest threat to personal freedom and rights is government." I don't understand this. ALL my rights are based on cash. Anything I want to do, I need to pay for. When I want to go camping in the desert, I need to fill up my gas tank and when I don't have the $50 to do that, I'm not going anywhere. Corporate is sucking the cash out of my pocket like I can't believe it. I have no choices, because they ALL do it. Even when I want to sue the bastards, I got to have a LOT of cash first! And when I actually DO sue (VoiceStream), I learn that corporations do NOT have to pay for their negligence, fraud, whatever you call it. The bastards can LEGALLY refuse to pay for my damages because their contract says so. ALL contracts say so. The biggest threat to MY personal freedom and rights are the corporations stealing MY money. Where do I say that I want ANYTHING for free?
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 06:00 pm You have the right to speak. That's not dependent on cash. You have the right to believe in any God you choose or none at all. You have the right to travel freely. As long as you like walking that doesn't cost anything either.
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 09:12 pm What a great line for Morgan and everybody else to use on the collectors: "Be happy you have the right to walk, pray, and speak. No need for me to pay you, it's all FREE!" Maybe I should just send a little note with that great news to the phone company instead of a check?
|
| | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 02:24 am What are you saying? That freedom of religion is worthless because you can't use it to pay your phone bill? L. Ron Hubbard might disagree with you on that point you know.
|
| | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 10:28 am If it's ok for corporations to use MY resources, MY time and MY money because I'm allowed to pray, then I shouldn't have to pay for using THEIR resources (phone service) either. They can pray or not pray just like me. All I ask for is EQUAL rights.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |