You Get What You Pay For

Tino wrote something interesting about the War on Some Drugs.  I think he's right, in theory.  The only problem I have with this argument is that accepting it depresses the hell out of me.  I find it really disturbing to think that the money train coming to the government from the "drug war" is so entrenched and so big.  We might as well just fucking give up now.

It's not as if I'm not depressed enough about what that idiot, our newly appointed president, is doing.

First, let's talk about bankruptcy.  A bankruptcy destroys one's financial life for the next seven years, at least.  People know this.  If they ask a court for bankruptcy protection, it's pretty likely that they need it.  It's looking like the government will put in to law a bill that puts the same emphasis on unsecured debts as secured debts, which gives credit card companies[1] way too much protection that they don't deserve.

Maybe you're saying "but if people overuse credit cards and can't pay them back, that's WRONG and they should be punished."  Well, I think that's the wrong way to look at it, though I agree that people should pay their debts.

When someone makes a car loan to you, they have the car as collateral.  The interest rate reflects this.  It's lower than a credit card but higher than a house.  A car depreciates faster than a house, but it can be repossessed if necessary.  When a mortgage loan is written, the bank can take your house if you default.  Everyone understands this.

CCC's, on the other hand, make unsecured loans at the highest interest rate possible.  This is something that most people also understand.  They can charge such rates because the loans are a bigger risk than, say, a house or a car.  This risk is their cost of doing business.  This is why they charge usury rates on people who can least afford them.  Really, for the lower financial strata, CCC's are merely legal loan sharks.  I'd also like to mention that not all states have usury laws, or not ones that have been updated to reflect current interest rate trends, at least.

What does this mean if you declare bankruptcy?  That you'll get less protection from creditors.  Does this mean that CCC's will start charging lower rates to reflect their lowered risk?  HAH!  And a libertarian will be come president in 2004 too.  Yeah, fucking right.

I bet you're wondering why the nice folks that make secured loans aren't screaming about this.  Well, the auto industry already got a provision in this bill that says that you must pay back an auto loan, no matter what.  I don't know what goodies the mortgage industry has in there because I haven't heard a peep about them.  This bill is 400 pages long, by the way.

What it comes down to is this:  if you declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you won't be able to get protection from your creditors.  This means that the credit card companies get a cut from the same bit of money as the mortgage company, whoever made the car loan, your ex-wife and children, etc.  Simply put, you'll be more likely to be homeless.  Your alimony and child support payments will be reduced so that the CCC's can get their money back, even though they've made enough money off you to offset their risk already.  

In a libertarian paradise, you wouldn't get any bankruptcy protection, but our whole system is rigged[2] in a different direction now, and it will be for the forseeable future.  As long as specific industries can buy off the government, they are getting subsidized and the footing isn't even.  Under such a system, consumers deserve certain protections.

And another thing:  George Bush rolled over to the coal producers, so our power generation industry will be putting more hydrocarbons into the air for the forseeable future.  Curbs on CO2 production will not go into effect.  See, he's decided that propane would raise electricity prices.  Um, George?  If energy is scarce, it should be more expensive.  I don't think Americans will conserve energy unless they are monetarily punished for being energy hogs.  It's not as if prices would skyrocket over night.  It's not as if the government couldn't give tax credits for, say, taking your house off the grid.

In our government, you get what you pay for.  The energy industry was one of the largest corporate contributors to the Bush campaign, donating about $1.8 million.

Did I mention that Bush actually made a campaign promise to put curbs on CO2 production?  That's right.  He's a liar too.  I, for one, am shocked and appalled.

No doubt that similar excuses will be used for drilling in the ANWR [3].  How long do you think it will take before the Clinton-enacted Roadless Area Conservation rules are over turned?  After all, wood products corporations in Oregon alone contributed $1.1 million to the RNC bucket.  And that was just during the primary election.

It's not that I'm surprised Bush is bought and paid for.  Gore was too, so that's no revelation.  What I'm amazed at is the naked self interest being displayed by all our elected officials.  This is all happenning far faster than I would have imagined.  Do they think we are stupid?  Do they think we don't notice?  I'm guessing:  yes on both counts.

From all of this writing you might assume that I'm depressed about the state of affairs in Washington.  That would be a correct assumption.