This is all kinds of wonderful - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/12/2012 05:17:09 PM · #1

The Occupy movement's new plan, Rolling Jubilee is brilliant in so so many ways; not least in its simplicity. I really hope it starts rolling big time and gathers pace. I'll certainly donate.

Discuss, Rant users!

Or, should i say; release the hounds!!

Message edited by author 2012-11-12 17:19:50.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/12/2012 05:32:16 PM · #2

That's a terrific idea! Awesome!

11/12/2012 05:34:53 PM · #3

And here's their website with a running tally. Seems like it's made a good start!

Message edited by author 2012-11-12 17:41:43.

11/12/2012 06:19:56 PM · #4

All I gotta say is "Really???" They could pay off my debt if they want to

11/12/2012 06:24:02 PM · #5

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

All I gotta say is "Really???" They could pay off my debt if they want to

Well, they might do you never know Adam. Of course, like the debt collectors that buy the original debts for pennies in order to reclaim the full amount for a huge profit to themselves, the large chunks of debt is obviously anonymous.

Still, what do you think of the idea? Do you think it is bad?

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

11/12/2012 07:03:49 PM · #6

It's an interesting and noble concept and I would certainly give them credit for trying to do something useful and productive (although this trend would have a negative effect on the tear gas industry :P).

I wouldn't refer to the plan as "Brilliant" though and particularly don't agree with this:

Originally posted by Article:

...And it lessens the severity of the consequences of default. If defaulting means you might get bailed out, why keep paying? For this reason, we might expect lenders to balk at co-operating with the Rolling Jubilee, perhaps by refusing to sell loans to anyone who doesn't agree to seek collection. So here is a third reason why the idea is so brilliant: if the lenders block debt cancellation even when it comes at no cost to themselves (as they would have sold it at the same price to a collection agency), they appear as a bunch of greedy, vindictive Scrooges. Given their current vulnerability, banks might not want to incite hostility by preventing people from helping each other out.

First, you would have to publicize which banks refused to sell to them and I tend to believe those people who already do business with those banks will see this as a reason to stop. If banks were actually afraid of looking like greedy, vindictive scrooges, things would already be quite different. ;-)

Like I said, it is something positive, so that is commendable. I'm HIGHLY skeptical about it's potential impact, given the scope and scale of the problem.

Message edited by author 2012-11-12 19:04:50.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

11/12/2012 07:16:10 PM · #7

Originally posted by rooum:

Still, what do you think of the idea? Do you think it is bad?

I think it's kinda cool, actually. We get so hung up on the idea that personal debt is some sort of moral obligation, but businesses default on their debts all the time. Often, it's just a strategic business decision. I would assume that the debt they're planning on buying is the pennies on the dollar, last resort debt that has already been written off by the original lenders long ago. Getting that out of the hands of low rent collection agencies would indeed be a community service.

I think they'd do more good by focusing their limited resources on the types of debt that can't easily be discharged in a bankruptcy, but I suppose anything helps.

11/12/2012 07:16:29 PM · #8

Good points and i do agree about the potential impact given, as you say, the size of the problem. But, i do think it is a step in the right direction and, really, if it helps just a small percentage of people then it's brilliant in my view. And hopefully it'll roll as i say.

E.T.A. above to Art.

Message edited by author 2012-11-12 19:18:30.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

11/12/2012 07:23:44 PM · #9

Originally posted by rooum:

But, i do think it is a step in the right direction and, really, if it helps just a small percentage of people then it's brilliant in my view.

If nothing else, it's out-of-the box, productive, creative, and positive. I still have a hard time with "brilliant". ...shiny maybe. ;-)

11/12/2012 07:30:16 PM · #10

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by rooum:
But, i do think it is a step in the right direction and, really, if it helps just a small percentage of people then it's brilliant in my view.

If nothing else, it's out-of-the box, productive, creative, and positive. I still have a hard time with "brilliant". ...shiny maybe. ;-)

Maybe. Perhaps i'm doing a disservice to 'brilliant'. I really should give my 'Collected Writings of Kropotkin' a re-read to stop myself getting so excited about little baby steps.

Hey! That reminds me. I've always wanted to start a thread in rant discussing the anarcho communism vs collectivist anarchism divide!

Um....perhaps not

Message edited by author 2012-11-12 20:09:29.

11/13/2012 01:26:18 PM · #11

Maybe one of the unintended consequences would be to teach some of the Occupy movement lessons in economics and management. However much they have to distribute it will be a drop in the bucket. How will they decide who will benefit and who will not? Do they have people apply? Do they have a self-appointed panel? To me it seems like there will be a little delicious irony as people who love to hate rules come to learn they are going to need rules to keep the project from blowing up in their face.

And the blogger will possibly learn the lesson that the banks will have no qualms about taking money on these debts. The idea that they will somehow be morally outraged at the forgiveness of loans and refuse to take Occupy's money is laughable. They understand the obligation to shareholders to maximize profits and cannot legally take into consideration the "morality" of the situation. It only matters what decision will maximize profits. This raises the important distinction between people and corporations. I'd disagree with Ann's sentiment that people should be more like corporations and throw off the responsibility of personal debt just because companies do it (not without cost mind you). We DO have a moral obligation to keep our promises. That seems like a pretty fundamental rule for society. It's the corporations that are letting us down not our own "hang ups" about debt.

Finally I appreciate that someone in the Occupy movement was paying attention in Suday school. Jubilee is a distinctly Judeo-Christian idea and the sign pictured in the article happens to have three crosses on it (although they are cleverly disguised as telephone poles.) kudos. ;)

11/13/2012 01:39:46 PM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How will they decide who will benefit and who will not? Do they have people apply? Do they have a self-appointed panel? To me it seems like there will be a little delicious irony as people who love to hate rules come to learn they are going to need rules to keep the project from blowing up in their

All these questions are answered on their website but you might not have had time to read much of it i guess. I'll copy and paste the relevent answers later when i am on the computer not phone. Basically though, due to the nature of buying these debts in bulk it is random who it benefits. So people can't apply obviously.

Message edited by author 2012-11-13 13:51:42.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

11/13/2012 01:59:08 PM · #13

Originally posted by rooum:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How will they decide who will benefit and who will not? Do they have people apply? Do they have a self-appointed panel? To me it seems like there will be a little delicious irony as people who love to hate rules come to learn they are going to need rules to keep the project from blowing up in their

All these questions are answered on their website but you might not have had time to read much of it i guess. I'll copy and paste the relevent answers later when i am on the computer not phone. Basically though, due to the nature of buying these debts in bulk it is random who it benefits. So people can't apply obviously.

I found their site. Thanks. I'll tell you what. I'm still fairly skeptical about it, but why be all cynical? School classrooms send Christmas care packages to our military and we don't question the fundamentals of that. :) Have at it!

Now I've entered a Rant thread for no reason. Doh!

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

11/13/2012 02:05:34 PM · #14

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'd disagree with Ann's sentiment that people should be more like corporations and throw off the responsibility of personal debt just because companies do it (not without cost mind you). We DO have a moral obligation to keep our promises. That seems like a pretty fundamental rule for society. It's the corporations that are letting us down not our own "hang ups" about debt.

Do you really believe that a person who walks away from a debt does it without cost? I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote, including the obligation to keep our promises to others, but a debt to a corporation is a business contract, not some sort of morality play. The corporation isn't making any sort of moral promise to me or to anyone else. The corporation sees it as a contractual obligation, with contractual terms specified regarding non-payment. If the corporation doesn't pay its bills, the non-payment terms of its contracts are activated. If I don't pay my bills, the non-payment terms of my contracts are activated, and I deal with the consequences. Personally, I pay my bills, because I don't want to deal with the consequences of non-payment, but if I got into a situation where I couldn't pay my bills, I wouldn't feel any sort of moral guilt about putting my family ahead of the corporation that issued my mortgage.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

11/13/2012 02:29:55 PM · #15

along the same lines, i still stand by my stance that if the government would have gone to each and every homeowner and gave the money to apply towards their mortgage based on how much their mortgage was underwater it would have been much more effective since:

a. the money would have gone directly to the people who needed it.
b. the housing market would have readjusted immediately as opposed to still readjusting.
c. the money would have gone directly to the people who needed it.

Message edited by author 2012-11-13 14:43:14.

11/13/2012 02:36:42 PM · #16

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd disagree with Ann's sentiment that people should be more like corporations and throw off the responsibility of personal debt just because companies do it (not without cost mind you). We DO have a moral obligation to keep our promises. That seems like a pretty fundamental rule for society. It's the corporations that are letting us down not our own "hang ups" about debt.

Do you really believe that a person who walks away from a debt does it without cost? I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote, including the obligation to keep our promises to others, but a debt to a corporation is a business contract, not some sort of morality play. The corporation isn't making any sort of moral promise to me or to anyone else. The corporation sees it as a contractual obligation, with contractual terms specified regarding non-payment. If the corporation doesn't pay its bills, the non-payment terms of its contracts are activated. If I don't pay my bills, the non-payment terms of my contracts are activated, and I deal with the consequences. Personally, I pay my bills, because I don't want to deal with the consequences of non-payment, but if I got into a situation where I couldn't pay my bills, I wouldn't feel any sort of moral guilt about putting my family ahead of the corporation that issued my mortgage.

I can't see any reason why you shouldn't feel "moral guilt" over not fulfilling your side of the agreement. It seems your argument is because it is made with a "corporation". We typically imagine some huge, faceless company where our debt measures up to nothing. What if we were to shrink that down to a scale that makes it more human? What if the bank has 50 employees? 25? What if it isn't a bank but a friend's business?

We need to separate some ideas here. "What is best for me?" is different from "What are my moral obligations?" Often the two overlap, but often they do not. I'm taking issue with the idea that because they are different we need to get over this idea of "moral obligations" when it conflicts with "best for me". If that's not what you are saying, then I don't necessarily have a problem.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

11/14/2012 12:13:38 PM · #17

Well, they've written off $3,189,907 of debt in three days which isn't too bad a start really.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

11/14/2012 02:40:43 PM · #18

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd disagree with Ann's sentiment that people should be more like corporations and throw off the responsibility of personal debt just because companies do it (not without cost mind you). We DO have a moral obligation to keep our promises. That seems like a pretty fundamental rule for society. It's the corporations that are letting us down not our own "hang ups" about debt.

Do you really believe that a person who walks away from a debt does it without cost? I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote, including the obligation to keep our promises to others, but a debt to a corporation is a business contract, not some sort of morality play. The corporation isn't making any sort of moral promise to me or to anyone else. The corporation sees it as a contractual obligation, with contractual terms specified regarding non-payment. If the corporation doesn't pay its bills, the non-payment terms of its contracts are activated. If I don't pay my bills, the non-payment terms of my contracts are activated, and I deal with the consequences. Personally, I pay my bills, because I don't want to deal with the consequences of non-payment, but if I got into a situation where I couldn't pay my bills, I wouldn't feel any sort of moral guilt about putting my family ahead of the corporation that issued my mortgage.

I can't see any reason why you shouldn't feel "moral guilt" over not fulfilling your side of the agreement. It seems your argument is because it is made with a "corporation". We typically imagine some huge, faceless company where our debt measures up to nothing. What if we were to shrink that down to a scale that makes it more human? What if the bank has 50 employees? 25? What if it isn't a bank but a friend's business?

We need to separate some ideas here. "What is best for me?" is different from "What are my moral obligations?" Often the two overlap, but often they do not. I'm taking issue with the idea that because they are different we need to get over this idea of "moral obligations" when it conflicts with "best for me". If that's not what you are saying, then I don't necessarily have a problem.

I actually think you and I basically agree, but not being raised in the Christian tradition, I'm less willing to box things into a moral context than you are. In my mind, being poor, or poor at handling money, isn't a moral failing.

11/14/2012 03:10:21 PM · #19

I just honestly do not understand the "occupy" movement.... And who are the people actually donating money to pay off other peoples debts...

11/14/2012 03:19:14 PM · #20

They mention on their site about banks foreclosing on vets. The vet has to be currently deployed and also inform the bank that he is going. It is illegal for them to foreclose. If the deployed vet has not told them he is deployed then he can go after them and sue for his prop back and damages. If a vet is not deployed then they can foreclose on you with no prob.

11/14/2012 04:03:17 PM · #21

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

I just honestly do not understand the "occupy" movement....

It's not that hard to understand is it Adam? Look at it this way. Many financial institutions got huge bail outs for, what many see as, their own mistakes. What this project of the Occupy movement is trying to do is help out those who have been hit hard by the recession and are struggling. Debt collection companies usually buy these hugely discounted debts and, often, use strong-arm tactics to reclaim the whole of the original debt for their own profit. The Rolling Jubilee project buys these same debts and tears them up because it feels that helping each other and compassion are sometimes more important than making a profit. Jason mentioned schools and charities sending care packages to the troops in Afghanistan. You understand that right? They don't make a profit.

It's really not that hard to understand Adam.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

And who are the people actually donating money to pay off other peoples debts...

Well, me for one. I give money to a few charities. I don't give any money for the troops in Afghanistan or Iraq because i don't believe they should be there in the first place. I donated to this because i don't feel that the less well off should pay the consequences for the mistakes of a squalid and often immoral financial system and i like a lot what the Rolling Jubilee is trying to do. Simple. I'm not a Christian but i like that bit in the Bible when Jesus went crazy on his donkey and galloped in and smashed all the bankers tables up with his axe. And, you, know, all that compassion and good samaritan stuff.

Message edited by author 2012-11-14 16:03:52.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

11/14/2012 04:47:09 PM · #22

The prob with the lower and middle clas is they tend to hyper extend themselves...I have seen it time and time again. A person can really only afford a $20,000 car so instead gets a 25 or $30,000 car. Same thing with a house, you get pre-approved for a $150,000 house and you buy a $150,000 house...you should be buying a $100,000 house. People dont take into account how much the bills will be and how that will effect their lives. Then they get underwater or just on the brink of being underwater. If something bad happens like losing a job then they are in trouble.

And yes I do donate to charities...I donate to the local homeless shelter, USO, and the wounded warrior program. Those are my biggest 3.

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

11/14/2012 06:17:59 PM · #23

If enough people get something for nothing, then soon there will be nothing for anyone to get.

11/14/2012 06:43:52 PM · #24

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

If enough people get something for nothing, then soon there will be nothing for anyone to get.

Money is a pretty nebulous and often intangible thing anyway. It's pretty much imaginary and i'm sure there will always be more to be imagined up by someone. Sadly.