Live data from Hacker News

I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

mrmoneymustache.com

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

#111

Freedom of speech doesn't mean no one can ask you to change what you say, or that you never change your words to please anyone. It's a very specific concept from the United States Constitution that relates to the government forcing you to refrain from saying things that you want to say. Freedom of speech is the kind of thing that comes up when a government agency puts warning labels on record albums, news media are p…

Thank you. He wrote a blog post about turning down a profitable offer in order to keep his semi-profitable current scheme as well as choices he made on how to represent himself.

We are reading about this here on hacker news because he's being promoted here to compensate for that lost money.

That's wonderful. Whoever posted this, thanks for wasting my time. If it was the author, you truly need to get a degree in management because you're adept at wasting technical people's time.

Re: I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

#112
post #88

Instinctively I know I must have misread or misunderstood something, but... "$4000 a month is about twice the amount it takes to pay for my entire family’s living expenses. It’s also enough to pay the mortgage on a $900,000 house, " How does $48000pa pay for a $900,000 mortgage? Old skool was 3x your income. Pre-crash, 5x was possible. This is 20x (ish). What blindingly obvious point have I missed?

You could maybe come close to just paying the mortgage. But you couldn't eat, have kids, cable etc. For example: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/101-Far-Brook-Dr-Short-Hil... Taxes are high on this one, but in most places you're going to pay a lot of taxes on a 900k house. You are on the money with 3x income being what you can realistically spend on a house without getting yourself in trouble. A later poster says t…

That amount of money would pay the mortgage (and nothing else) on a 30-year loan on a $900,000 house in the place where he lives, given a 20% down payment: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2012-Coralbells-Ct-Longmon... It wouldn't pay for anything else. He's just giving it as an example of what that amount of money can buy.

Re: I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have mentioned, the idea that "freedom of speech" is a concept originating from and specific to the US Constitution is staggeringly ignorant, and the idea that freedom of speech can only be infringed by the government is too. Freedom is about what the less powerful can do even when opposed by the more powerful. Money is one of the rawest forms of power in the modern world, and so if someone threatens to dec…

Any previous customer of mine that doesn't continue to buy and wear my T-shirts filled with "obscenities" are denying me my freedom of speech by threatening my income (since I've set myself up as a T-shirt merchant); they are built into my forecast projections as repeatable sales, and they are not allowed to not deal with me.

Two points:

1. There is a difference between not buying and demanding change. If I demand that you stop selling obscene t-shirts, or threaten to stop buying any of your t-shirts, I'm infringing your freedom of speech.

2. I don't see where anybody said that Citi shouldn't be allowed to do what they did. But that doesn't change it from being a form of censorship.

Re: I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could maybe come close to just paying the mortgage. But you couldn't eat, have kids, cable etc. For example: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/101-Far-Brook-Dr-Short-Hil... Taxes are high on this one, but in most places you're going to pay a lot of taxes on a 900k house. You are on the money with 3x income being what you can realistically spend on a house without getting yourself in trouble. A later poster says t…

That amount of money would pay the mortgage (and nothing else) on a 30-year loan on a $900,000 house in the place where he lives, given a 20% down payment: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2012-Coralbells-Ct-Longmon... It wouldn't pay for anything else. He's just giving it as an example of what that amount of money can buy.

It is the usual misleading puffery that was popularized by books like the four hour workweek.

Re: I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blog post is from an American blog, so noting that specific concept of freedom of speech from an American point of view is perfectly fine in this case. And in the American concept, freedom of speech is a constitutional concept regulating what the government can do to individuals.

Even in America, we have a concept of freedom of speech that extends beyond the First Amendment. Obviously his Constitutional rights have not been abridged, but that doesn't mean that it's not a free speech issue.

No, it isn't a freedom of speech issue, not in any sense of the term, and conflating this situation with it devalues the concept greatly. He has all of the freedom of speech he desires. One's freedom's do not extend to coercing others.

He was not forced to do anything - he was given a choice: either we continue to pay you, and you abridge one line that we don't like being associated with our product, or you keep on saying whatever you wish and we have no requirement to pay you.

Both parties are free to set any terms (as allowed by law) on the deal which both will agree to. If both don't agree to the terms, you have a standard failure to negotiate a deal. If one does something in the future which causes distress to the other party, the other party can certainly demand redress. If the party which caused the issue refuses this, why should they be forced to submit to his whims with no freedom of their own? And what does that have to do with freedom of speech? He's still saying what he wanted to say, is he not?

Re: I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any previous customer of mine that doesn't continue to buy and wear my T-shirts filled with "obscenities" are denying me my freedom of speech by threatening my income (since I've set myself up as a T-shirt merchant); they are built into my forecast projections as repeatable sales, and they are not allowed to not deal with me.

Two points: 1. There is a difference between not buying and demanding change . If I demand that you stop selling obscene t-shirts, or threaten to stop buying any of your t-shirts, I'm infringing your freedom of speech. 2. I don't see where anybody said that Citi shouldn't be allowed to do what they did. But that doesn't change it from being a form of censorship.

There is no difference if the consequence of failing to meet the demand is the demander not buying, or not doing business anymore. It is just stating the conditions for continued relationship ahead of time, and providing an alternative course of action. How harshly would the bank be judged if they simply dissociated and gave the blogger no option to adjust?

The fact that the blogger is continuing to blog as he sees fit counters any objectively verifiable assertion that censorship was involved.

I believe the term censorship is best left for those situation when a state agency (which one might be able to argue many large banks are anymore) demands changes or cessation of communication under pain (or threat) of fine, imprisonment, or death.

Re: I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

#117
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in America, we have a concept of freedom of speech that extends beyond the First Amendment. Obviously his Constitutional rights have not been abridged, but that doesn't mean that it's not a free speech issue.

No, it isn't a freedom of speech issue, not in any sense of the term, and conflating this situation with it devalues the concept greatly. He has all of the freedom of speech he desires. One's freedom's do not extend to coercing others. He was not forced to do anything - he was given a choice: either we continue to pay you, and you abridge one line that we don't like being associated with our product, or you keep on s…

>He was not forced to do anything

By that standard, nothing short of cutting your tongue off would be an infringement of your freedom of speech. Under the Sedition Act of 1918, nobody was "forced" to do anything; they were just imprisoned if they said bad things about the government.

Re: I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

#119
post #89
post #88

Instinctively I know I must have misread or misunderstood something, but... "$4000 a month is about twice the amount it takes to pay for my entire family’s living expenses. It’s also enough to pay the mortgage on a $900,000 house, " How does $48000pa pay for a $900,000 mortgage? Old skool was 3x your income. Pre-crash, 5x was possible. This is 20x (ish). What blindingly obvious point have I missed?

This: You are using the "what should my income be for banks to give me a mortgage" figure, not the "what does a mortgage cost" figure. At 5% interest, a mortgage on $900,000 costs $45,0000 a year on interest.

I don't think he's talking about an interest-only loan. A $900,000 30-year mortgage with a 3.5% interest rate will cost $4,041 per month.

Re: I Just Gave Up $4000 Per Month to Keep My Freedom of Speech

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I would advise against that. Last time I checked, your credit score will plumet if you do that sort of thing. If you pay off your debts without paying any interest all the time, you're pretty much a terrible person to lend money to. The credit card companies also rely on the fact that however organised people thing they are going to be, a good amount of them slip up. Once they have credit, maybe they dip into it…

Im not american so bare with me on this question. So my credit score is based not on my repayment history or my financial stability but the potential profit of making a loan/credit to me? So if im cancelling credit cards before the interest free period is up this reflects badly on me? Why?

To elaborate a little based only on my own limited experience as a consumer....

In Canada (home) and the U.S. (current legal alien), there are things called credit reporting agencies (different per country; names like Trans Union, Equifax, Experien). A surprising array of businesses, including e.g. lenders, utilities companies, etc, buy reports from these credit reporting agencies, and also report to them on your behaviour. As far as I know this reporting on you is completely voluntary for these companies (maybe it gets them a price break on the reports they buy, but I think I heard once at an old job that they actually PAY to make reports), but it makes sense in terms of their self-interest, because it disincents their customers from cheating them. Plus, revenge may or may not be game-theoretically advantageous, but you should see how personal accounts-receivable clerks take it when you don't pay.

As mentioned, the reporting agencies will generate reports on you. You can get these for free for yourself (or for a fee if you want convenience). Companies can also request these on you, I believe only with your permission (which of course would be very easy to forge). If you've never seen your own report, you should find the agencies in your jurisdiction, figure out if you're entitled to a free report, and jump through the hoops just to see what it says about you.

The report includes lots of stalkery facts about you, like your residence history, everyone who reported that you paid bills to them, and so on. It'll probably be only mostly-accurate. For example, I've lived in ten places in the last 15 years, and only about half of them are on my credit report. Also, phone numbers I hadn't used in 5 years were still listed as being mine, but being "closed". Weird. It also includes how often, according to each reporter, you were behind on your bills, by how much, as well as the max balance you carried, the average balance you ran, etc. My report says I was once 30 days behind on one of my student loans, which ... . You can easily imagine how that sort of summary might be interesting to someone considering lending you money or extending you credit.

Credit bureaus will also generate a single numerical score about you. I dunno what idiot would use this scalar score to make a decision about you, but maybe some businesses do. But businesses certainly aren't restricted to a one-dimensional metric of your desireability as a customer.

Now. As mchanson points out, different lenders may have different goals. Mortgage providers want to see that you're gonna take your debts seriously. Credit card companies might like you better if they know that you do pay in the end, but before doing so you tend to get into enough trouble that you make a lot of interest payments. Whatever. That said, MY credit reports haven't ever had any information on them that could have allowed a prospective lender to notice that I cancelled an annual-fee credit card on month 11, preventing me from paying fees.

Post reply on HN