Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At the end of the day it's a comedy show not a news show and his job is to make people laugh He and Jon Stewart keep (kept in the case of Jon) using this excuse when they get things wrong, but when they get things right they take all the glory they can get. The show(s) have to have some sort of accountability. For example Couric was just ripped for adding 6 seconds of dead air on a documentary....but that's literal…
> He and Jon Stewart keep (kept in the case of Jon) using this excuse when they get things wrong, but when they get things right they take all the glory they can get. It's not meant to be an excuse, it's meant to be an accusation. If a comedy show is so much better at news than a news show, that's a major failing on the part of actual news shows.
John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
221–230 of 292 posts
Re: John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
My main problem with John Oliver is that he often chimes in on subjects he doesn't know anything about with folksy common sense logic that is often wrong. I remember him mocking some system for using tapes for storage on the belief that a technology that is so old cannot possibly be useful in modern technologies. In his latest clip, he mocks information being passed by Excel. How does he think things happen? Some mag…
In his latest clip, he mocks information being passed by Excel. He wasn't mocking that information was being passed via excel, he was mocking _what_ information was being passed via excel. The fact that companies can but and sell excel documents with a name, address, SIN, and debt amount, and that's it. No contracts, no history, no anything, just, this person now owe's you $X. Also, I find it incredibly irresponsible…
> No contracts, no history, no anything, just, this person now owe's you $X.
Going through the details isn't worth it to the buyers since its for such a small amount. They give them names, numbers and amounts to their phone bank and they see what they can get.
Killing off the secondary market would decrease the amount and cost of accessible credit to borrowers with bad or no credit history. It may or may not be right, but there is definitely a trade-off.
Re: John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a good show (he's funny and you learn stuff) but it's way too preachy. He gets just a little too excited about things that are basically impossible for anyone to get excited about. Clearly pandering to the young, left crowd. I'm sure it makes some people feel very warm at night but it gives me a bad taste in my mouth after binge watching.
Thats the reason why I stopped watching it too. No doubt it has something but it's just too one sided IMO. It's bashing from a very specific political angle. I.e. it always possible to know what side of critique he is going to fall down on, and that for me isn't interesting.
However, I'd be interested to learn which shows you'd say are more balanced, but still take on political or maybe controversial topics.
Re: John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
My main problem with John Oliver is that he often chimes in on subjects he doesn't know anything about with folksy common sense logic that is often wrong. I remember him mocking some system for using tapes for storage on the belief that a technology that is so old cannot possibly be useful in modern technologies. In his latest clip, he mocks information being passed by Excel. How does he think things happen? Some mag…
Tape as backups are arguably still valuable, but any important information being passed by Excel is a travesty . I've worked on the quant side of things and trading securities has standard protocols (primarily FIX, but more esoteric protocols are used by some MM's). I've worked with insurance conglomerates - health information has HL7 for EHR. Purchase orders between Walmart and their suppliers use EDI. All of these…
I think that's putting it mildly. A major issue with using Excel files for data transfer is, to put it bluntly, the lackadaisical way people treat Excel files. They are passed around and edited. Passed back once edited. Passing them around creates copies of them. They get goofy names as people try to manage the multiple editors and editions. There's no verifiable authority for the source or latest version of the data. None of the data or its state is externally verifiable. We've all seen where this goes south very quickly; we even have a meme for it: the FINAL FINAL FINAL suffix that gets appended to the filename. I suspect this is why/how zombie debt, as described by Oliver, gets resurrected: data quality issues: debt that is accidentally (or on purpose, to make another/recover a quick buck) sold again when it shouldn't have been. And the original owner of the debt, once sold, isn't interested in keeping track of it (they've already written it off). Some of the issue is that there are multiple parties involved. Real estate has title records as one way to solve this, which isn't necessarily a final solution (thus the existence of title insurance), but without even something resembling a centralized and agreed upon record of the history of the debt changing hands, it's impossible to reliably know anything about it. Excel files exacerbate that.
Further down in these comments, AstroJetson says that to forgive debt, they "they just delete the Excel file it's in". I find this to be a reasonable possibility for how this is handled. But deleting a file received from some other party doesn't make the file disappear. It's perhaps still in an attachment somewhere, in the sent mail folder, on the computer of the sender (perhaps moved to a "Sold Debt" folder).
None of this is necessarily solved by transfer methods like EDI or HL7, except for what amounts to a barrier to entry to access the data and make it available to begin with. EDI is a solution for purchase orders between Walmart and suppliers is because 1) there's often a limited number of parties (two) involved with the data, 2) Walmart is always one of the parties (so it is effectively centralized), 3) the data itself is verifiable against other, trusted sources like accounts payable and accounts receivable. It's also going into a system that has automation components. The people who are buying debt information and receiving it via Excel spreadsheets are just going to go over it by hand and call/contact people on it. It's going into some massive computer based process and generate reports for dozens of different departments like the data being transferred via EDI at Walmart is.
This is where someone mentions using a blockchain or git to track the way the debt changes hands and its current state. This would be a fine suggestion if it wasn't in the interest of the debt buyers/sellers to keep the system shitty with little visibility/oversight so they can take advantage of debtors and other debt buyers any way they can.
Re: John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
My main problem with John Oliver is that he often chimes in on subjects he doesn't know anything about with folksy common sense logic that is often wrong. I remember him mocking some system for using tapes for storage on the belief that a technology that is so old cannot possibly be useful in modern technologies. In his latest clip, he mocks information being passed by Excel. How does he think things happen? Some mag…
Tape as backups are arguably still valuable, but any important information being passed by Excel is a travesty . I've worked on the quant side of things and trading securities has standard protocols (primarily FIX, but more esoteric protocols are used by some MM's). I've worked with insurance conglomerates - health information has HL7 for EHR. Purchase orders between Walmart and their suppliers use EDI. All of these…
Re: John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
#226Re: John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
#227If debt is trading at pennies on the dollar, and I owe someone 5k, what's stopping me from borrowing 50 or 100 bucks from a friend (if I dont have it) and buying back my debt? Do you need to buy in bulk? Here's an idea - aggregate debt at pennies on the dollar and sell it back to the debtor at twice the amount it'll still be pennies on the dollar and you'll make a nice profit.
>Here's an idea - aggregate debt at pennies on the dollar and sell it back to the debtor at twice the amount it'll still be pennies on the dollar and you'll make a nice profit. That's essentially what a lot of debt collectors will accept. If you have debt in collection, sometimes you can offer them a lump sum instead of the whole amount and they'll take it because they're looking to simply profit. At that point it's…
In the UK at least getting passed to a debt collector should have no impact on your credit score. It's when they decide to go further and recoup it through court that you start to get hurt. This is my experience at least. It makes sense as I know many people who have been passed to debt collectors for debts they didn't owe so it would be a mess if that effected their credit.
Re: John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not at all obvious how much they actually paid, and comparing it to Oprah's $8M car giveaway is certainly dramatic but pretty disingenuous. It's unlikely the debtors would have ever ended up repaying anything close to $15M (in fact, presumably closer to $60K)
He stated exactly how much they paid for that $15m debt in the video and even how they wrote off most of the cost of the taxes they would have had to pay it in the video.
Re: John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
#229Re: John Oliver buys $15M in debt and forgives all of it on 'Last Week Tonight'
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats the reason why I stopped watching it too. No doubt it has something but it's just too one sided IMO. It's bashing from a very specific political angle. I.e. it always possible to know what side of critique he is going to fall down on, and that for me isn't interesting.
Somehow, comedians falling on the "political right" side of the argument are rarely funny or insightful...