The credit scores aren’t even government scores, just private companies that decided to collect everyone’s information and the government won’t do anything about it ‘because of the economy’.
Well the companies control the government, so…
These are not privately owned companies, they are public corporations.
Take American express for example: “American Express Co is a public company headquartered in New York…” A public company, not a private one.
You would think if something was owned by a private individual or a private organization, we could point to one person or entity that owns and controls it. But, if you look at the ownership of any major American credit card corporation, you will see that the ownership is held by a collective of entities. You might say that ownership is far more held in common than privately:
American Express Company: “Largest shareholders include Berkshire Hathaway Inc, Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock Inc., State Street Corp, Wellington Management Group Llp, Jpmorgan Chase & Co, VTSMX - Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares, VFINX - Vanguard 500 Index Fund Investor Shares, Morgan Stanley, and Bank Of America Corp…”
Bank of America: “Bank Of America Corp’s top holdings are Microsoft Corporation (US:MSFT) , Invesco Capital Management LLC - Invesco QQQ Trust Series 1 (US:QQQ) , Apple Inc (US:AAPL) , SSgA Active Trust - SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (US:SPY) , and SSgA Active Trust - SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (US:SPY)…”
Capital One: “Capital One Financial Corps top holdings are BlackRock Institutional Trust Company N.A. - iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF (US:USMV) , Goldman Sachs ETF Trust - Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta International Equity ETF (US:GSIE) , BlackRock Institutional Trust Company N.A. - iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF (US:QUAL) , Vanguard Group, Inc. - Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond ETF (US:VTEB) , and BlackRock Institutional Trust Company N.A.”
I think its safe to say the natural oppoisite of private ownership is public ownership. So, if ownership and control is held in common, then you can’t call it private ownership. You may notice that Blackrock is a partial and large shareholder to these companies. Well, Blackrock can’t be privately owned either, considering it has no private owner, only shareholders, and all BLK shares have voting rights, meaning that shareholders of BlackRock have a say in the company’s affairs in line with the proportion of ownership they hold in the firm.
I think it was clear that I meant they were not part of the government.
You called them private companies, and I’m disputing that.
This distinction is important, because the properties that make it non-private (being owned by a public collective) also happen to make people particularly vulnerable to spyware and data collection. That which is owned by a public corporation is owned by its shareholders collectively. Major shareholders can therefor lobby corporations to divulge data that is technically legally theirs. When you consider how many corporations Black Rock and Vanguard are invested in, there isn’t much that you can touch without generating some meta-data level evidence of what you’re doing, where, and when that they won’t have access to.
If things were truly privately controlled, nobody would be able to lobby a bank to divulge information about its clients.
You’re disputing something other than what they said, bro. “It sounded like you said this” is different from “you said this”. Now talk about what they did say. Are they part of the government? No? Then you don’t disagree and there’s nothing to dispute. Could they have phrased it better? Of course.
just private companies that decided to collect everyone’s information
This is what he said. He called them private. No, it didn’t sound like he called them private, he did call them private. It’s a distinction I consider important, so I outlined why. You’re just wrong in your characterization of what happened, straight up.
Don’t pretend he didn’t call them private. And don’t pretend it isn’t super common to think of corporations as private entities. They’re not, and this mischaracterization affects how people think. It’s not good to base your worldview on lies.
The credit scores aren’t even government scores
Their intent was quite clear, don’t try to muddy the waters.
You’re the one muddying the waters, intent is not the only thing that matters. He directly said private, and that has implications that make his comment come off as frankly detached from reality.
His comment directly suggests that the government is not involved with these credit scores, which is incorrect since the white house did an executive order enforcing DEI in the federal workforce.
His comment suggests that these companies are free from the influence of the state, which is wrong because the government has full authority to and actively incentivizes ESG credit scores.
His comment suggests that independent private industry is strong-arming the government, when the reality is these very same scores they blame on private business are actively snuffing out non-corporate business, which will only make the problem worse
K
You got owned dude
I think you’re overlooking that they are publicly traded companies.
The opposite of private ownership is not publicly traded companies, it’s state owned companies, or government organisations.
It’s a bit of a stretch to say that because they’re publicly traded that means things are a-ok with them assigning scores to people. The most vulnerable of which never would even own stock in any of those companies, and even if they did, not enough to ever be able to influence their practices.
Capitalism friend, profits first, everything else second.
In conclusion, these companies need to be regulated since they basically control people’s destinies through a non-democratically controlled system.
(1/2)
Hi, Lemmy is giving me the infinite spinning wheel when I try to reply, so I’m gonna try to send it in two. Hope you don’t mind that I have a lot to say in response to your comment haha
I think you’re overlooking that they are publicly traded companies.
That has not been overlooked at all. It’s because they are publicly traded that they are publicly owned. It would be strange to conclude publicly traded -> privately owned without expanding on it at all. I will elaborate on this.
It’s a bit of a stretch to say that because they’re publicly traded that means things are a-ok with them assigning scores to people.
At no point did I say this was okay. My comment was entirely descriptive and made no prescription for scoring citizens. I actually later said that the corporate structure was vulnerable to these scores, which would imply that I think it’s a problem.
In conclusion, these companies need to be regulated since they basically control people’s destinies through a non-democratically controlled system.
To which I would say they already are regulated and this is the result.
I’ll explain everything in more detail…
Private Ownership:
- the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (I googled “define private ownership”)
- Private companies are owned by those who establish them and those invited to invest in them. The public-at-large cannot buy shares or otherwise invest in private companies at their own discretion. Public Ownership:
- A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company’s assets and profits. (Same source)
- ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled “define public ownership”)
So, private ownership is opposed to both the state and public bodies, implying that a public body isn’t necessarily a state (according to google). This complicates things once you get into the nature of corporations and their relationship with the government (I’ll expand on this), so a better operating definition is probably the second one, which means: it is private if the general public can’t by shares.
Countless definitions refer to public ownership both as government ownership, or publicly traded. Choosing one definition does not contradict the other. Let me repeat : saying public ownership refers to government ownership does not contradict that it also refers to publicly traded ownership. This is why it’s wrong to conclude that these corporations are private. They are public traded, and are therefor public. This shouldn’t be surprising, it’s in the word. That which is public is not private, and that which is private is not public.
People get caught up on the fact that private citizens can own shares. It’s often used to conclude that the corporation they hold shares in a therefor privately owned. This is flawed logic, because private units can be a part of a public collective. When referencing a public corporation’s ownership, we are not referencing any single individual, but a collective, in the exact same way that “the public” refers to a collective of private citizens of a state. It’s also directly contradicted in the definition: “… owned by a private individual or organization.” A. Singular.
(2/2)
Government: the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
Corporation:
- a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
- specific legal form of organization of persons and material resources, chartered by the state, for the purpose of conducting business.
- Also from Britannica: “As contrasted with the other two major forms of business ownership, the sole proprietorship and the partnership, the corporation is distinguished by a number of characteristics that make it a more-flexible instrument for large-scale economic activity, particularly for the purpose of raising large sums of capital for investment. Chief among these features are: (1) limited liability, meaning that capital suppliers are not subject to losses greater than the amount of their investment; (2) transferability of shares, whereby voting and other rights in the enterprise may be transferred readily from one investor to another without reconstituting the organization under law; (3) juridical personality, meaning that the corporation itself as a fictive “person” has legal standing and may thus sue and be sued, may make contracts, and may hold property in a common name; and (4) indefinite duration, whereby the life of the corporation may extend beyond the participation of any of its incorporators. The owners of the corporation in a legal sense are the shareholders, who purchase with their investment of capital a share in the proceeds of the enterprise and who are nominally entitled to a measure of control over the financial management of the corporation.”
The definitions themselves begin to show why the relationship between corporations and the government is a lot more complicated than private companies. Corporations have to be recognized by law, and law is enforced by the state, therefor corporations only exists at the whim of the state. What’s more, is the means of trade for these stocks is also controlled by the state.
The first stock exchange to exist in the world was the Dutch East India Company. It was founded by the States General of the Netherlands, which consisted of the Dutch senate and the House of Representatives. The New York Stock exchange was founded in part by Alexander Hamilton, a statesman, founding father, and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. In the United States, securities exchanges like the NYSE are primarily regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the key federal law that governs securities exchanges, including the NYSE.
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that both of these entities enjoyed quite a bit of independence from their governments, but that independence is not complete, was granted in its establishment by the state, and has been gradually lessened with time.
That said, it would also be prudent for me to point out that corporations tend to govern themselves. NYSE is subject to its own set of rules and regulations. The exchange has its own regulatory body, the NYSE Regulation, Inc., which is responsible for overseeing compliance with the NYSE’s rules and federal securities laws. Many decisions are put to a vote by the shareholders. So, it contains a governing body and engages in internal politics? That’s a state!
Corporations are a state in and of themselves
Yes, that conclusion was properly derived just from the definitions of state, government, and corporation, however I’m not the only one to describe them as such. German sociologist Max Weber used the term “state within a state” to describe modern bureaucracy in general. One prominent thinker who discussed the concept of a corporation as a “state within a state” was R.H. Tawney, a British economic historian and social critic. In his influential work “The Acquisitive Society” (1920), Tawney critiqued the influence of large corporations and argued that they operated as powerful entities with their own interests, often independent of the interests of the broader society.
Why does this matter for credit scores?
Well, credit scores are already implemented by federal agencies:
- Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): HUD oversees the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA-approved lenders. Lenders use credit scores, among other factors, to determine eligibility for FHA loans. So, the fed can reference your credit score to deny housing loans.
- Department of Defense (DoD): The DoD uses credit history as one of the factors in determining security clearances for military personnel and civilian employees. This means your fiscal credit score has influence in whether the fed considers you a security risk.
There are more but I actually don’t feel like listing them, they mostly all boil down to security clearance or financial restriction.
Here’s an important distinction: credit scores are restrictive on the individual. In other words, credit scores regulate what you’re able to do with your finances.
The American government also has a history of implementing other scores that more closely resemble a social credit score. These include but are not limited to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). These metrics are used by the American government to impose regulations and taxation on corporations for better or for worse. You can tell it works too, because companies often increase their DEI score through their marketing, which is why you see so many corporations pushing a moral agenda rather than advertising their products.
So, the American fed uses various scoring systems to regulate both individuals and corporations.
In conclusion, these companies need to be regulated since they basically control people’s destinies through a non-democratically controlled system.
Just to quickly get this out of the way, my comment that you’re responding to already directly refuted the second half of this statement when I said “all BLK shares have voting rights, meaning that shareholders of BlackRock have a say in the company’s affairs in line with the proportion of ownership they hold in the firm.” The fact that this has not led to the results you desire doesn’t mean they aren’t democratic, they demonstrably are. It means that the democratic method was insufficient in this case.
The more important point here, is that to ask the government to regulate corporations in order to get rid of credit scores will lead to the exact opposite conclusion you want. The government already uses credit scores, and they use it to control people. Giving them the avenue to implement corporate social credit scores would be an extremely bad idea.
Also, top down regulation over a corporate body will directly result in greater control over that corporate body (regulation is control). We don’t want the government to have too much control over corporate bodies that already have control over us. We don’t want to put ourselves closer to being a nation controlled by corporations that are controlled by the state. That is called fascism.
Anyway, thanks for reading. Have a nice day :)
The government doesn’t want you to know this, but identities are free. You can just take them. I have 458 identities.
Joey Jo Jo Jnr?
Are you my mom?
It also prevents credit cards
That’s the joke
Americans getting credit cards so young is so foreign to me. Here you only get a credit card either for business reasons or if you travel internationally where the European standards for debit cards don’t apply
I was advised by my family, and the bank when I was 16 to get a Credit Card so I could build my credit score. I didn’t really have any good financial awareness and they set me at a $2000 limit. Needless to say that was maxed almost immediately and took years of developing discipline to get under control. I still struggle with CCs now and then… They’re too easy to come by and too hard to break free of
Where I’m from almost no one under 25 gets a credit card, because most non-online/prepaid/crypto credit cards have an age or income limit.
Everyone over the age of 12 has a debit card here. I think it promotes healthy spending knowing you have a set limit and immediately see the amount of money change. Overdrafts are also not enabled by default and require an extra package.
Venmo/Cashapp etc are also uncommon here.
Oh yeah, you do need a credit card for some hotels here. So that’s a reason I guess?
There are enough that accept upfront payments in cash when you check in.
Credit cards have much better fraud protection then debit
The fraud prevention page for my mastercard debit card is the same page as the credit card page.
However, what I really recommend is you can get travel cards that you load with minimal money and are entirely disposable. You don’t need to only use them overseas. I have used them for online payments and in person payments and they’re disposable. That is I can get two more unique cards with unique numbers at any time. Minimising my personal risk since they can’t be used as ID and I limit the money on the card to just what’s needed. If it’s stolen skimmed or tried to be used fraudulently I might at most lose 50 dollars but I also probably know who within a margin of error skimmed it since I rotate them with new cards every so often.
I’m also in a place where losing 50 Australian dollars won’t financially bankrupt me if it was stolen. Because I’m pretty sure there is lots less fraud protection on those travel cards.
Anyway there’s alternatives for those who can’t or morally object to credit cards. Like me. Mine is I’m bad with money, I morally don’t trust myself since I went into 10k debt at 18.
If there’s fraud on a credit card, the bank fights to get their money back. If it’s fraud on a debit card, you fight for your money. Also if there’s fraud on your debit, that’s money out of your bank account that immediately affects you. With credit, it doesn’t at all. Debit has much weaker liability then credit, and also a time limit where you just lose all money if it’s not reported right away, with no limit to how much you can lose if you don’t get it back in time (usually 60 days). That trust that you won’t go in debt with credit cards is essentially why the credit system exists, to measure that. There’s nothing that has to do with morals, it’s just a payment method.
The bank is fighting for their money because as long as you report it in time they are legally required to refund all but a small amount. The refund for the fraudulent charges has nothing to do with the banks ability to get their money back.
What I was just advocating for, is taking ownership and control of the risk. If it’s your own entire bank account perhaps with a few thousand dollars, that risk is thousands of dollars. By segmenting that you can reduce it to dozens of dollars in which case, no matter the coin flip of bank fraud and money return, you’re never putting your eggs all in one basket.
Risk management is more than good insurance.
I don’t think you understood what my comment said. Fraud is prevented with credit cards, and that risk isn’t there. It’s smarter to use credit over debit, any bank will tell you that.
Explain the risk of fraud with a travel card.
Feel free to keep using a travel card
Also like I said witt Debit, if there’s fraud then you’re out of that money until it’s returned. With credit, you will still be able to keep using it instead of potentially overdrafting/denied on a debit card. Or in the case of a prepaid travel card, you’d just run out, which would especially screw you over while traveling if that’s your only method of payment. On top of that, it’s easier to get scammed as a foreigner.
If you’re still interested in learning, search engines are your friend. I am not a financial advisor.
That’s kind of irrelevant when you have modern tech like mobile payments to safeguard you. But yeah, if you’re still using magnetic stripes, you’re kinda fucked.
That’s not how fraud protection works lol, and it doesn’t have to do with the physical card
Yeah, tell me more about it, lol.
I got a credit card as a teen and have always just treated it like cash. Zero issues doing that and it helped build up my credit score by giving me such a long credit history with good payments.
As an European credit scores sound so weird to me 😮
They’re basically a black box and can do some really weird shit (I had mine drop by 80 points, which is a lot, all because I paid off my student loans), but their purpose and basic workings are pretty straightforward. You show that you can be trusted when you’re given a loan and can pay it back? Score go up. Do things that make the bank question if you can pay them back? Score go down.
Now, there’s a shitton of complexity to it I won’t go into, but it’s not always as bad as people make it out to be and really only matters when you’re trying to get a loan and sometimes when you’re renting somewhere.
That I understand, but adding your kids on your credit card so their score goes up and things like having debt just to pay it back is weird to me
So co-signing (the having your kids on your card you mentioned) is just sharing the responsibility. Basically everyone signed on the line of credit (loan, credit card, etc) is considered equally responsible and expected to contribute financially to pay for the line of credit. Most commonly it’s a husband and wife buying a house, you both contribute financially towards the loan and you both reap the benefits of the loan, and you’re both in trouble if the loan isn’t paid, and it affects both of your scores depending on how well you manage that line of credit.
There’s different kinds of lines of credit you can get, from really bad ones like personal loans and credit cards (both are very high interest and not recommended) to moderately decent ones like car loans (interest rate is okay, but the item you’re buying loses value) to good ones like a mortgage for a house or a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELoCs are weird, but it’s using the equity on your house for what spends like a credit card but is paid back like a mortgage)
Fair enough. I have a question though so apologies for my ignorance.
But how do lenders in your area determine if someone is a good borrower or an unreliable borrower without something like a credit score. I’m not saying the way the US does it is the best answer or anything. I just legitimately don’t know how it works elsewhere.
In most European countries you’re innocent unless proven guilty. That means that instead of a credit score, which is 0 by default and you have to prove to everyone that you’re a good boy, we can take any loans straight away. But if a person defaults, then they get a mark in their financial profile and other lenders will be wary.
Pretty sure we have some sort of database or Registry for people who don’t pay back their loans. And loans do show up when for example mortgage people do a background check on you
Probably the best advice I’ve gotten was “it may be a loan and someone else’s money but you best treat it as your own money because it will eventually be your money and you have to pay for everything”
What does “treated it like cash” mean?
Not letting the balance be higher then your checking. Auto pay off your statement in full every month.
Reasons to get a credit card in 2019 -
To hire a car
Reasons to get a credit card in 2023 -
?
Totally alien concept to me
I use mine for cash back. I’ve been watching this finance channel on YouTube and the amount of Americans with thousands and thousands of credit card debt at sometimes over 30% interest is fucking insane.
You put normal monthly expenses on the credit card, then you immediately pay it off. Do this for a while and build your credit score. Use your higher credit score to get approved for loans/mortgages/bigger credit.
All credit is is a way to buy something expensive that you can’t afford right now. Figure out what you want to buy, then build the necessary credit to be approved for the big purchase.
Heh, no credit agencies in my country, no credit score.
When you pay with credit card it’s bank’s money. When paying with debit it’s yours.
I pay everything on the internet with credit card. It’s safer.
Maertro crowd isn’t so lucky. And rental companies don’t advertise this.
Juicy cashbacks with AmEx.
deleted by creator
Not having a credit card is giving up free money in cash back and rewards. Just be disciplined and it’s a net positive in every way, including security
deleted by creator
Of course you can if it is a cash back.
I literally can withdrawal it. I can convert my points to cash at a 1:1 ratio, or redeem it for a flight and get 15% off the flight. Pretty tangible to me.
You can withdraw it. It’s called a cash advance. It’s cash that immediately accrues interest on your credit card balance.
Scorched earth credit score strategy
I kinda doubt the thieves are very picky.
350 is basically “don’t loan this dork money under any circumstance.”
You have to work to get a 350. I’ve been selling cars a long time and seen only a couple go that low. We always say on scores like that we couldn’t get financed on a dollar with 4 quarters down.
So like, hypothetically, how much would one have to steal to get a 350… or being a Loch Ness Monster would be enough?
My wife literally defaulted on 2 or 3 credit cards last year (she got a head injury at work and literally couldn’t remember whether or not she’d paid them) and while her score dipped into the 400s it’s back up to the low 600s thanks to regular payments on our mortgage and car loan.
My brother in law apperently managed to drop into the 300s though. He has relatively high income from his factory job, his mother helped him buy a house and he spends all of his money so every payment is late or missed and he’s constantly on the brink of defaulting purely because he doesn’t know how to manage his money
I truly feel credit cards are a tax on the poor.
Sure you can try to keep up on payments, one day you may find out you cannot.
Don’t live outside your means. Eventually, one has to be accountable over their own finances.
I don’t. There’s not many more shady industries than the credit card industry. You have to sign up on a website to NOT get offers.
Every store you go to tries to sell you one these days.
Comically high interest rates.
It’s not something I want to even dignify, because frankly it’s insulting.
All of those are things that normal, educated, and well-adjusted people can account for and avoid when it goes against their self-interest. If you’re dumb enough to sign up for a J. Crew credit card because the guy at the counter said you’d get 10% off, you deserve to get taxed
I’m stating it’s not an ethical practice.
I can confirm this is false.
You can somehow still get $4k limit cards with absolute dog ahit credit.
On the other side if you don’t find out about it for 10 years it’s literally like it never happened.
Is the worst one could get ? What is the scale ?
300-800. Usually.
I’m in my thirties and I’ve never owned a credit card. Fuck paying interest.
People always told me I need to get one so I can have a good credit rating. For what? So I can pay more interest for a mortgage on a house I’ll never buy?
Stupid.
Open a savings account and have someone else pay YOU interest.
You only need to pay interest if you don’t make your monthly payments. I put gas and some groceries on my card and zero it out every month. By the time I graduated from university I had a credit score of about 775 which is pretty good for a kid who grew up in a <$20,000/yr household with no real financial education or help.
For what? So I can pay more interest for a mortgage on a house I’ll never buy?
This is a terrible way to look at credit. You’ll definitely be paying more interest with no credit score, if you can even get a loan (you won’t). You’re pretty much guaranteeing your failure like this.
Open a savings account and have someone else pay YOU interest.
Yeah lmao that 0.3% really pays out big, huh? Most credit cards offer anywhere between 1-10% cash back.
FYI my savings account earns 4.55% p.a.
Also, I know that the money I’m investing is being used ethically, which helps me sleep a bit better
you only pay interest if you miss your payments deadline. I get 2% cash back on every single purchase i make with cc - Last month I got over $50 back.
Meanwhile my savings account I opened with 4% interest and over a grand invested gave me a whopping $5 in the past month.
You do know where that cash back is coming from, right? Everything you buy has credit card fees baked into the price. The business pays anywhere from 1-5% on every transaction to accept your payment, and a small percent of that is returned to you as “cash back” rewards. Its why I’ve switched back to using cash and any coins I get as change go into a jar. That earns much more than %10 “cash back”, and some shops even make the customers pay the CC fee here in aus so I get a small “discount” too.
A lot of what I said applies directly to Australia’s economy (which I’m sure I don’t need to tell you is absolutely fucked).
I salute you. Physical currency is better for businesses and the individual. Paying “convenience fees” (for what should be a public service), should be a crime.
In a parallel reality, I’m paying interest on water which evaporated.
deleted by creator
People always told me I need to get one so I can have a good credit rating. For what? So I can pay more interest for a mortgage on a house I’ll never buy?
Credit gives you options. Furnace goes out way sooner than anticipated and you only have $5k in the bank? Take out a loan for the remaining $3-5k to get it done now. Unexpected car repair and you only have $500 after rent in the bank? Whip out the credit card and put the other $500-1000 on there and throw extra money at it until it’s paid off. Yes you’ll pay some interest, but you’ll have a working car, or a working furnace, or whatever other calamity you find yourself facing.
But the biggest thing credit does it lets you buy property much much sooner in life. Property has a wierd habit of gaining value much faster than it should, the payment stays the same for the entire term of the loan, plus with a mortgage every payment buys you slightly more ownership of the property unlike a rent payment which is just money leaving your bank account every month for nothing other than the privilege of the roof over your head for the following month.
For a real world example, I bought my house a couple of years ago for ~120k. I live in a small town so I figured it wouldn’t gain anything other than holding it’s value through inflation. My monthly payment is ~800ish and similar places were renting for ~1k/month. Well thanks to the hyperinflation the last couple of years, my house is now worth closer to 180k and rents are up to $1200-1500/mo for a similar place to the one I own, but I still pay $800/mo for my house. That’s what credit gets you in the long term. It gets you stability and options for when the going gets tough
Most of what I said comes with the implication that instead of paying interest, you’re putting that money into a savings account, instead of racing to 0.
You don’t need a get-out-of-jail-free-card(with-interest) when you can just pay to leave like the gigachad saver you are.
I will never own a house, it’s not an option for me - it never will be.
