New Bankruptcy Law takes effect Oct 1st.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Just because it doesn't work for specific items doesn't mean that the overwhelming display of marketted goods doesn't create a pressure to buy, BUY, BUY!!!! I realize that the Nike campaign was atypical, but there is something to advertizing, or you'd be out of a job.

Nahhh... people will buy things... and advertising will always have a roll in our system. People have choices.

Advertising bad products or products people don't need is the best way to be out of a job

However, this is as germain to bankruptcy as our lack of national health care is, i.e., not at all.

I agree... some people want to blame all the ills of the world on advertising... Pretty stuoid if you ask me

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ming

Advertising bad products or products people don't need is the best way to be out of a job

Have a word with those who spam my inbox, please.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Have a word with those who spam my inbox, please.

First... that's against the law... and no real advertising agency does that. We follow the laws or we are out of business.

However, like in anything, there are some marketers who break the law... They are criminals... and many of them are from outside the country.

[Dauphin]

It was an in jest comment. No need to be defensive.

[snoopy369]

This bankruptcy law primarily prevents people with means from declaring bankruptcy simply to make money - chapter 7 was WAY too easy before. I don't see how anyone can argue that a law that requires people to make an attempt to pay off their debts, is a bad thing ...

[chequita guevara]

Except that the vast majority of people have made attempts to pay their debts. Bankruptcy is taken as a last resort. This makes it only that much harder. Punishing everyone to stop a few people from abusing the system is foolish. As I said, it would be like abolishing insurnace because a few people committ fraud or getting rid of the police because there are a few bad cops.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Punishing everyone to stop a few people from abusing the system is foolish.

It's not just a "few" people... And it needed to be stopped. However, I would agree that the "cure" is worse than the disease...

[chequita guevara]

Few is a relative term when you are talking about millions. However, at least 70% of bankrupcties were driven by housing costs and a drop in family income. How much of the rest was abuse. neither you nor I can say, but I'd wager it wasn't a majority.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Few is a relative term when you are talking about millions. However, at least 70% of bankrupcties were driven by housing costs and a drop in family income. How much of the rest was abuse. neither you nor I can say, but I'd wager it wasn't a majority.

Uhhh... can you show some support of that number. Plus, what percent of housing costs and drop in family income still had a lot to do with people spending beyond their means...

[:) Smiley]

The USA has 1.6 million non-business bankruptcies a year. That is roughly one in 200 people and is not an unreasonable number.

If banks think too many people are taking money and walking, don't just give it away so easily.

[chequita guevara]

I dropped a linky on the previous page to a thread I started in the archives on this very subject over a year ago.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Smiley

If banks think too many people are taking money and walking, don't just give it away so easily.

Of course when the debt is becoming crippling it is usually due to a build up of growing interest and charges, accentuated by the high fees charged against bad debt risks.

Default rates can be high and still give the huge bank profits because its often a book loss more than physical outflow of cash.

[chequita guevara]

Plus they get to declare it as a loss for tax purposes.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I dropped a linky on the previous page to a thread I started in the archives on this very subject over a year ago.

Do you have anything more recent than 2 years old?

Do you have a link to any actual information on the study done rather than a qa session with a professor?

And I'm not seeing why you are making such a deal of mortgages and housing expenses leading to bankruptcies when, again, people are conciously making that decision to sink a higher percentage of their income than would be considered prudent.

[chequita guevara]

It's only a bad idea after the fact. If they don't lose that second income, it's considered sound investing.