121–130 of 135 posts
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.
actually, he's Canadian, now living in America w/ Citizenship
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 manag…
Great to see MMM on HN. If you haven't read at least his first 5 articles, you might enjoy doing that before finalizing your opinion on this recent one. Most of the naysaying comments here seem due to a lack of context. MMM is semi-retired. Reaching and keeping that situation takes commitment, diligent work and cooperation. His site exists to share his methods for succeeding. That includes using existing financial to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting a drivers license is perhaps the worst safety decision a modern human can make. The reality is that your _average_ person, if they have something, will use it. Whether that's a drivers license or a credit card is immaterial. This, of course, contrasts with something like a condom, where, if you are going to have sex (unlike driving, or purchasing on credit) - you are going to do it, regardless of whether you…
People get drivers licenses in order to drive, and they get credit cards to take on debt, build their credit, or make payments quicker and easier. Drivers licenses don't make people drive poorly nor do credit cards make people make poor financial decisions. If you're going to convolute the two through some form of causality, the argument you could make is that people who are apt to make poor financial decisions are m…
If you take a representative sample of people who do what you suggest (seat belts, mirrors, tires, breaks) versus a sample of people that I offer (people who just don't drive - I.E. Walk) - I guarantee you there will be far fewer fatalities and injuries in my group, particularly in the 15-44 age range.
This ties _directly_ with credit cards - in that if you take a sample of people who do what you suggest (use credit cards properly/responsibly) versus a sample of people who do what I suggest (just don't get a credit card) - I believe my group will be better off financially.
To be truly scientific - we need to do a randomized trial - take a good sized group - and bucked them into two trials for 20 years - one group without cars, one group with. Another group with credit cards, another group without.
I'm confident that the non-car driving, non-credit card using group will experience fewer fatalities and be financially stronger.
I'm not arguing that you _shouldn't_ use a seatbelt, and that it doesn't help you (it does!) - I'm arguing that once you've started driving/riding, you've already increased your chance of fatality in a way that wearing a seatbelt can't reduce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a very specific concept from the United States Constitution This is completely incorrect, and it's a little insulting to the users here who aren't American. Freedom of speech is a value with broad applicability. The United States Constitution enshrines a right to free speech as a limitation of government power, fine, but they don't have a monopoly on the idea. Relative freedom of speech is a characteristic of…
I'm not disagreeing with your statement about credit card companies, but to me it is hilarious that American credit card companies and banks still honestly believe that the customers think of them as brands which represent the epitome of honesty, integrity, and family values.
Consider the jewellery chain in the UK that sold cheap junk. Customers knew it, and the company knew, but everything was profitable until the CEO explicitly said the wares were junk. Then the sales went into free-fall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I was tempted to not reply since the comment was being downvoted, but clearly you've garnered some support for your argument giving the people the running the credit card company the right to choose whom they pay for what services and why is equivalent to incarcerating people for speaking their minds.
The argument you're making here, is that every company must -pay- people for exercising their free speech, even when it harms the company. By your argument, it's a violation of a person's free speech for a company to fire its spokesman after they go off on a racist rant on-air, and that marketing firms should be paid by their clients even if they chose to make an ad which disparages them?
Since when does your right to free speech take away my right to association?
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?
This is differentiated quite effectively from what makes a "profitable" customer. Which, I think has something to do with what the OP was alluding to... Generally, a profitable customer doesn't pay the full balance off every month, and is slightly late once in a while. A profitable customer may have a low likelihood of repaying a debt, and the risk may outweigh any potential profit.
Notably, if you're low-risk, you'll find it much easier to be extended credit up and to certain amounts, even if your behavior does not appear to be particularly profitable.
That being said, when you specifically request that someone offer you credit, you increase the potential risk to the next lender. Which is why most of the credit card arbitrage plans require you to make massive bursts of applications at once, and then back off for a while - gaming the fact that it takes time for each lender to report its data back to the clearing houses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Nope. Credit score is about the ability to repay in the US. Parent doesn't know what he is talking about. However credit cart companies do like you better if you are the type to 'slip up', mortgage lenders not so much.
OR I'm not in the US. Other countries exist. I'd be surprised if credit companies even in the US don't share the information on "low or no profit users" - ones who religiously pay off loans without paying any interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a very specific concept from the United States Constitution This is completely incorrect, and it's a little insulting to the users here who aren't American. Freedom of speech is a value with broad applicability. The United States Constitution enshrines a right to free speech as a limitation of government power, fine, but they don't have a monopoly on the idea. Relative freedom of speech is a characteristic of…
I'm not disagreeing with your statement about credit card companies, but to me it is hilarious that American credit card companies and banks still honestly believe that the customers think of them as brands which represent the epitome of honesty, integrity, and family values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He specifically addressed that >If this blog were the only thing between my family and a homeless shelter, I’d surely be a banner-changin’, credit-card-hustlin’ fool. Just as the indebted office worker faced with an abusive manager will bow down and do the shitty work, year-in and year-out. The whole point of his blog is financial freedom. How to make enough money that you don't have to live like that.
I'm not an expert on the site content, but I think it's about how to require little enough money that you don't have to live like that. The focus is on needing less, rather than making more.