(This is the third in a new mini-blog series on the issues raised in
1: Race for the Funds?)
(2) Racism can be anti-white done by blacks as well as anti-black done by whites.
What has been termed "reverse racism" is anti-white discrimination done by blacks.
This is what Shirley Sherrod admitted to in her videotaped National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) speech. Ms. Sherrod said she could not give the "white farmer", who presented to her agricultural office for assistance in preventing his farm foreclosure, "the full force" of her assistance. Ms. Sherrod stated she became more concerned when the white farmer called again 6 months later complaining that he had received a foreclosure notice, that the attorney she referred him to, whom he had been paying for 6 months, had not helped prevent this.
Shirley Sherrod's comments were revealed by Internet Breibart TV, biggovernment.com, bloggers and news commentators in political forums debating racism within the NAACP and other issues. These commentators were labelled "right wing", to diminish the importance of the discussion of these issues.
Subsequently, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) accepted or requested Ms. Sherrod's resignation as a high profile State of Georgia Rural Development Director overseeing a $2.1 billion dollar budget.
The CNN team who interviewed Ms. Sherrod ignored the anti-white racist statements freely made by Ms. Sherrod, and did not ask Ms. Sherrod about these statements. CNN reversed the racial issue, depicted Ms. Sherrod as "martyred", and implied she was the victim of racial discrimination. Then a flurry of media activity ensued, chastising the "right wingers" and publicizing Ms. Sherrod's implied or explicit demands for apologies from the USDA, Obama Administration, and Breibart et.al.
CNN asked Ms. Sherrod if she planned a lawsuit, exacerbating the hypersensitivity around claims brought by blacks against whites and the U.S. government, courts, and financial settlements. As a news organization, CNN missed the opportunity to discuss the issue of reverse racism and discrimination against whites.
(Return to monthlynotes.blogspot.comfor Blogs 1-5 of "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?")
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
2: Race for the Funds? Commentary on Civil Rights
(This is the second in a mini-blog series on the issues raised in
1: Race for the Funds?)
(1) Civil rights:
Civil rights applies equally to white as well as black Americans, and members of all other ethnic and racial groups legally in America.
Ms. Shirley Sherrod views herself as a long-time proponent of civil rights. However, Ms. Sherrod appears to believe that civil rights is only an issue for people of color.
Media attention given to black civil rights lawsuits, demonstrations, and issues may have created this misconception or obscured the true meaning of civil rights and equal opportunity under the law for all Americans without regard to race, country of origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, and other differences between Americans.
The meaning of civil rights, the right to vote for each legal, law-abiding American and equal protection under the law involving police and the courts has expanded into the economic sphere of private sector jobs, government funding, and other areas. Perhaps this obscures the meaning of civil rights as one person, one vote. It has created a forum for ethnic and special interest groups to lobby for special funding and other unrelated issues.
(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for blogs 1-5 of "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?"
1: Race for the Funds?)
(1) Civil rights:
Civil rights applies equally to white as well as black Americans, and members of all other ethnic and racial groups legally in America.
Ms. Shirley Sherrod views herself as a long-time proponent of civil rights. However, Ms. Sherrod appears to believe that civil rights is only an issue for people of color.
Media attention given to black civil rights lawsuits, demonstrations, and issues may have created this misconception or obscured the true meaning of civil rights and equal opportunity under the law for all Americans without regard to race, country of origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, and other differences between Americans.
The meaning of civil rights, the right to vote for each legal, law-abiding American and equal protection under the law involving police and the courts has expanded into the economic sphere of private sector jobs, government funding, and other areas. Perhaps this obscures the meaning of civil rights as one person, one vote. It has created a forum for ethnic and special interest groups to lobby for special funding and other unrelated issues.
(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for blogs 1-5 of "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?"
Saturday, July 24, 2010
1: Race for the Funds?
This is a blog on a new, controversial topic currently in the news:
Shirley Sherrod, race, racism, and funding in the United States Department of Agriculture.
(Blogs 1-5 of "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?" are available on the first page of this blog.)
Shirley Sherrod, a black woman, serving as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) State Director of Rural Development in Georgia appeared on videotape at a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) meeting on April 29, 2010. In the now controversial videotape, Ms. Sherrod freely confessed to anti-white racist bias so strong that it prevented her from providing "the full force" of assistance to a white farmer, that is, prevented her from doing her job at a Georgia non-profit agricultural agency with ties to the Georgia State and Federal Agriculture Departments.
Ms. Sherrod stated that she could not listen to the farmer's explanation of his problem easily, interpreting it as "taking up my time...(sic, acting) superior to me". Ms. Sherrod also admits she referred the farmer to "one of his own", a white attorney who charged fees for 6 months without providing foreclosure prevention assistance.
Ms. Sherrod presented this episode as a personal growth experience, later seeing the issue as one of "those who have vs. those who don't" rather than of race. At another point in the tape Ms Sherrod stated that she made that "commitment (sic, working at the agriculture agencies) to black people and to black people only".
Questions arose while viewing this videotaped speech. Why was Ms. Sherrod relating this story? Was Ms. Sherrod undergoing a performance review, being investigated on similar or other issues or complaints, now as a Federal agricultural employee?
Was Ms. Sherrod seeking the support of other colored people and the NAACP in anticipation of a problem soon to be made public?
CNN picked up the story from BreitbartTV and biggovernment.com. CNN reversed the racial issue with Ms. Sherrod's discussion of whether she resigned or was asked or forced to resign by the USDA and the Obama administration.
CNN started a flurry of negative media attention against supposed "right wing" .coms and news commentators. CNN asked Ms. Sherrod if she planned lawsuits against Breibart and biggovernment.com, and publicized Ms. Sherrod's demand for apologies from USDA, Obama adminsitration, and BreitbartTV.
What CNN should have asked about and what may be in the media news soon is the USDA Pigford Farm Settlement, a $1.15 billion payout to black farmers. $13 million of the settlement is earmarked for New Communities, Inc., Ms. Sherrod's farm commune, $150,000 for Ms. Sherrod personally and $150,000 for her husband Charles Sherrod, a member of a black community organizing group.
Steve King, (R-Iowa) on the Ben Shapiro Show, said that settlement is under investigation for providing funds to more black farmers than are known to exist. 75%-99% of the $1.15 bilion class action suit claims may be fraudulent.
(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com first page for Blogs 1-5 "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?")
Shirley Sherrod, race, racism, and funding in the United States Department of Agriculture.
(Blogs 1-5 of "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?" are available on the first page of this blog.)
Shirley Sherrod, a black woman, serving as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) State Director of Rural Development in Georgia appeared on videotape at a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) meeting on April 29, 2010. In the now controversial videotape, Ms. Sherrod freely confessed to anti-white racist bias so strong that it prevented her from providing "the full force" of assistance to a white farmer, that is, prevented her from doing her job at a Georgia non-profit agricultural agency with ties to the Georgia State and Federal Agriculture Departments.
Ms. Sherrod stated that she could not listen to the farmer's explanation of his problem easily, interpreting it as "taking up my time...(sic, acting) superior to me". Ms. Sherrod also admits she referred the farmer to "one of his own", a white attorney who charged fees for 6 months without providing foreclosure prevention assistance.
Ms. Sherrod presented this episode as a personal growth experience, later seeing the issue as one of "those who have vs. those who don't" rather than of race. At another point in the tape Ms Sherrod stated that she made that "commitment (sic, working at the agriculture agencies) to black people and to black people only".
Questions arose while viewing this videotaped speech. Why was Ms. Sherrod relating this story? Was Ms. Sherrod undergoing a performance review, being investigated on similar or other issues or complaints, now as a Federal agricultural employee?
Was Ms. Sherrod seeking the support of other colored people and the NAACP in anticipation of a problem soon to be made public?
CNN picked up the story from BreitbartTV and biggovernment.com. CNN reversed the racial issue with Ms. Sherrod's discussion of whether she resigned or was asked or forced to resign by the USDA and the Obama administration.
CNN started a flurry of negative media attention against supposed "right wing" .coms and news commentators. CNN asked Ms. Sherrod if she planned lawsuits against Breibart and biggovernment.com, and publicized Ms. Sherrod's demand for apologies from USDA, Obama adminsitration, and BreitbartTV.
What CNN should have asked about and what may be in the media news soon is the USDA Pigford Farm Settlement, a $1.15 billion payout to black farmers. $13 million of the settlement is earmarked for New Communities, Inc., Ms. Sherrod's farm commune, $150,000 for Ms. Sherrod personally and $150,000 for her husband Charles Sherrod, a member of a black community organizing group.
Steve King, (R-Iowa) on the Ben Shapiro Show, said that settlement is under investigation for providing funds to more black farmers than are known to exist. 75%-99% of the $1.15 bilion class action suit claims may be fraudulent.
(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com first page for Blogs 1-5 "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?")
Monday, July 5, 2010
5: Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry? Blog 5
(This is the fifth in a series of blogs about the credit and credit reporting industry in the United States.
The monthlynotesstaff intends to publish this series as a book. Book publishers, agents, and investors are encouraged to contact us to help secure funding for this project. Consider this to be material under copyright.)
What is the Alternative for the Subprime Credit Consumer?
What is the alternative for the subprime credit consumer? Take the more expensive money or opt out of the credit market and whatever it is the consumer seeks: apartment, home, car, business equipment or expense monies.
At this point, the concept of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" comes into play. The credit reporting errors and inaccuracies, never corrected, annotated, or deleted continue to increase the cost of the subprime consumer's credit. The subprime customer must pay higher finance charges or annual percentage rates (APRs) above the "best" credit customer rate to obtain credit.
Obviously, it is more difficult for the subprime customer to make larger and larger payments to pay the full balance on the credit card, mortgage, or other loan. It becomes more likely that the subprime consumer will at some point no longer be able to make payments. But the subprime consumer undoubtedly will continue to be billed with increasing finance charges and listed as an "asset" or "projected income" by a "bad paper" credit reporting based financial services company.
It would be more difficult for the "best" customer to pay the higher subprime interest and finance charges too. These larger finance charges likely would jeopardize the "best" customer's budget, lower the "best" customer's credit rating, and increase the "best" customer's interest and finance charges.
The subprime credit consumer has become the Subprime Investment Vehicle (SIV) of the consumer credit market. The subprime consumer actually finances the bank or lender by paying 5%, 10%, or whatever percentage above the "best" customer (APR). The subprime consumer takes less principal and pays more in interest and finance charges to make more money available to the lender to lend, particularly to the "best" consumer who receives more principal and pays less in interest and finance charges.
Despite the enormous contribution to the lending industry while still able to pay, the subprime customer is blamed for all the financial woes of the economy. This is particularly unfair to the subprime consumer in an economy sustaining itself with credit transactions in much weaker than hoped for financial and industrial sectors, in a significantly de-industrialized and increasingly "minimum-wage" retail and service based economy.
Of course like all financial vehicles, the subprime credit consumer can be grouped, combined, separated, re-grouped, bought, sold and traded. The subprime consumer becomes an item in yet another credit reporting related, credit-default, or other business at great cost to the financial present and future of the subprime credit consumer.
(See http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com/ on www.google.com for other blogs by the monthlynotesstaff.) Contact mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for an email or to comment.W
The monthlynotesstaff intends to publish this series as a book. Book publishers, agents, and investors are encouraged to contact us to help secure funding for this project. Consider this to be material under copyright.)
What is the Alternative for the Subprime Credit Consumer?
What is the alternative for the subprime credit consumer? Take the more expensive money or opt out of the credit market and whatever it is the consumer seeks: apartment, home, car, business equipment or expense monies.
At this point, the concept of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" comes into play. The credit reporting errors and inaccuracies, never corrected, annotated, or deleted continue to increase the cost of the subprime consumer's credit. The subprime customer must pay higher finance charges or annual percentage rates (APRs) above the "best" credit customer rate to obtain credit.
Obviously, it is more difficult for the subprime customer to make larger and larger payments to pay the full balance on the credit card, mortgage, or other loan. It becomes more likely that the subprime consumer will at some point no longer be able to make payments. But the subprime consumer undoubtedly will continue to be billed with increasing finance charges and listed as an "asset" or "projected income" by a "bad paper" credit reporting based financial services company.
It would be more difficult for the "best" customer to pay the higher subprime interest and finance charges too. These larger finance charges likely would jeopardize the "best" customer's budget, lower the "best" customer's credit rating, and increase the "best" customer's interest and finance charges.
The subprime credit consumer has become the Subprime Investment Vehicle (SIV) of the consumer credit market. The subprime consumer actually finances the bank or lender by paying 5%, 10%, or whatever percentage above the "best" customer (APR). The subprime consumer takes less principal and pays more in interest and finance charges to make more money available to the lender to lend, particularly to the "best" consumer who receives more principal and pays less in interest and finance charges.
Despite the enormous contribution to the lending industry while still able to pay, the subprime customer is blamed for all the financial woes of the economy. This is particularly unfair to the subprime consumer in an economy sustaining itself with credit transactions in much weaker than hoped for financial and industrial sectors, in a significantly de-industrialized and increasingly "minimum-wage" retail and service based economy.
Of course like all financial vehicles, the subprime credit consumer can be grouped, combined, separated, re-grouped, bought, sold and traded. The subprime consumer becomes an item in yet another credit reporting related, credit-default, or other business at great cost to the financial present and future of the subprime credit consumer.
(See http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com/ on www.google.com for other blogs by the monthlynotesstaff.) Contact mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for an email or to comment.W
Sunday, July 4, 2010
4: Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry? Blog 4
(This is the fourth in a series of blogs about credit and credit reporting in the United States.
The monthlynotesstaff intends to publish this series as a book. Book publishers, agents, and investors are encouraged to contact us to help secure funding for this project. Consider this to be material under copyright.)
What is Subprime Credit?
The credit reporting industry has grown enormously since Cator and Gary Woolford first published their "Merchants to Retailers in Atlanta, GA" in 1899. Computerization brought an alarming amplification of computer-linked data collection, collection letters, and files.
In 1901 the Woolford brothers extended their retail reporting business from reporting on local customers to Atlanta, GA retail stores to background check and reporting to insurance agencies. Did the Woolford brothers anticipate that the concept of "high risk" insurance, that is, higher dollar amount premium amounts required for negatively-reported "high risk" insureds would be intercalated into the credit reporting, banking, and lending industries?
Did the Woolford brothers project the collateral growth of numerous credit rating analyses and risk scale businesses? Or the phenomenal growth of what is now known as the "subprime" credit market?
By definition, subprime credit discriminates against a group of credit consumers. It allows lenders to feel justified charging the subprime consumer more for money than the "good" or "excellent" consumer. The reason for the negative credit rating relegating the consumer to the subprime category could be no previous credit, too much previous credit, too much used credit, or the constellation of other factors used to create "fair" or "poor" credit rating categories.
There are numerous credit rating scales for credit categories. "Bad credit" is what could happen with actual consumer credit bloopers. Or it could happen because of excessive and repetitive bill collecting, creating the illusion of unpaid but virtual or pretend accounts from virtual creditors from whom a consumer has never borrowed money or received merchandise or services.
The reason is less convincing to the subprime customer who already has been victimized by a credit reporting circuit which disseminates unannotated and uncorrected consumer-disputed or repetitive entries. The subprime consumer nonetheless must pay more interest and finance charges for credit money. Subprime credit subjects the subprime consumer to more expense and worry in efforts to pay the principal plus exorbitant amounts of finance charges.
From a psychological perspective, this is "blaming the victim" and subjects the credit consumer to more harm. This aggressive behavior is used by the credit reporting, rating, collecting, and lending complex to drive profit while making the subprime consumer feel guilty for his or her role in their own circumstances, and so less likely to complain or try to regulate or otherwise prevent this enormous industry from financially ruining the credit consumer.
(See http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for the fifth in the series "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?") Contact mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for an email or to comment.
The monthlynotesstaff intends to publish this series as a book. Book publishers, agents, and investors are encouraged to contact us to help secure funding for this project. Consider this to be material under copyright.)
What is Subprime Credit?
The credit reporting industry has grown enormously since Cator and Gary Woolford first published their "Merchants to Retailers in Atlanta, GA" in 1899. Computerization brought an alarming amplification of computer-linked data collection, collection letters, and files.
In 1901 the Woolford brothers extended their retail reporting business from reporting on local customers to Atlanta, GA retail stores to background check and reporting to insurance agencies. Did the Woolford brothers anticipate that the concept of "high risk" insurance, that is, higher dollar amount premium amounts required for negatively-reported "high risk" insureds would be intercalated into the credit reporting, banking, and lending industries?
Did the Woolford brothers project the collateral growth of numerous credit rating analyses and risk scale businesses? Or the phenomenal growth of what is now known as the "subprime" credit market?
By definition, subprime credit discriminates against a group of credit consumers. It allows lenders to feel justified charging the subprime consumer more for money than the "good" or "excellent" consumer. The reason for the negative credit rating relegating the consumer to the subprime category could be no previous credit, too much previous credit, too much used credit, or the constellation of other factors used to create "fair" or "poor" credit rating categories.
There are numerous credit rating scales for credit categories. "Bad credit" is what could happen with actual consumer credit bloopers. Or it could happen because of excessive and repetitive bill collecting, creating the illusion of unpaid but virtual or pretend accounts from virtual creditors from whom a consumer has never borrowed money or received merchandise or services.
The reason is less convincing to the subprime customer who already has been victimized by a credit reporting circuit which disseminates unannotated and uncorrected consumer-disputed or repetitive entries. The subprime consumer nonetheless must pay more interest and finance charges for credit money. Subprime credit subjects the subprime consumer to more expense and worry in efforts to pay the principal plus exorbitant amounts of finance charges.
From a psychological perspective, this is "blaming the victim" and subjects the credit consumer to more harm. This aggressive behavior is used by the credit reporting, rating, collecting, and lending complex to drive profit while making the subprime consumer feel guilty for his or her role in their own circumstances, and so less likely to complain or try to regulate or otherwise prevent this enormous industry from financially ruining the credit consumer.
(See http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for the fifth in the series "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?") Contact mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for an email or to comment.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
3: Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry? Blog 3
(This is the third in a series of blogs on credit and credit reporting in the United States.
The monthlynotesstaff intends to publish this series as a book. Book publishers, agents, and investors are encouraged to contact us to help secure funding for this project. Consider this to be material under copyright.)
Consumer Stress and the Credit Reporting Industry
There is horrible psychological, visceral, and physical stress in swirling in a maelstrom of negativity with computerized credit reports. Studies of harm to consumer mental and physical health need to be done to document harm done by the credit reporting industry. The advantage the credit reporting companies have is the embarassment the consumer already suffers from being labelled a "debtor". Consumers may believe that calling attention to "financial problems" would further jeopardize their financial situation, for example, in qualifying for mental or physical health care insurance or funding.
The rather official look of computerized bill collection notices is worrisome. Use of the terms "bureau", "national", "federal", "affiliated agencies", and mock court-stamped and other legal style documents is frighteningly Orwellian. "Big Brother" bill collector is following every credit consumer, anonymously, without revealing his or her real identity. Even a mimeographed partially scribbled notice in a governmental "postage-paid" envelope can be intimidating. Accompanied by a letter referencing a purported government agency or a law office with a demand for "$750.00 (or another amount) to settle this matter", a threat of government or court action is almost enough to send the consumer scrambling for his or her checkbook. This is a very intimidating bill collecting strategy. It is worse when followed, for example, by attempted or successful garnishment through internal employer bill collecting associates, complete with imitation government or court papers.
Now more often than in the past, bill collectors send negative entries directly to the computerized clearinghouse companies. Many bill collectors do not even notify the consumer by regular mail. This is a very aggressive bill collecting strategy possibly done to save money on postage and lessen the risk of being held liable for stalking, menacing, or harassing a consumer.
Without notice, consumers can be and often are denied a job, apartment, home, car, or other credit cards, business, or other loans, without a hint of who originated the damaging financial information.
Many consumers must ask "How can this happen?" Why are government or postal inspectors not checking every "US government postage paid" envelope to trace stolen or fabricated meters or meter numbers to at least ensure such companies pay the current postage rate?
There also are intrusive events done by US officials. "The Washington Post" revealed a young Washington, DC police officer was caught using a special police investigation computer to find a PIN (personal identification number) to withdraw money from a bank ATM machine using a credit card number stolen from the residence of a recent robbery victim the officer was called to assist.
The consumer must ask why so many strangers, each with their own financial interests in mind, have access to the consumer's accounts or to systems which can so substantially harm the consumer's accounts, to begin to protect the consumer's privacy, financial present and future.
(See http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for the fourth in the series "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?") Contact mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for an email or to comment.
The monthlynotesstaff intends to publish this series as a book. Book publishers, agents, and investors are encouraged to contact us to help secure funding for this project. Consider this to be material under copyright.)
Consumer Stress and the Credit Reporting Industry
There is horrible psychological, visceral, and physical stress in swirling in a maelstrom of negativity with computerized credit reports. Studies of harm to consumer mental and physical health need to be done to document harm done by the credit reporting industry. The advantage the credit reporting companies have is the embarassment the consumer already suffers from being labelled a "debtor". Consumers may believe that calling attention to "financial problems" would further jeopardize their financial situation, for example, in qualifying for mental or physical health care insurance or funding.
The rather official look of computerized bill collection notices is worrisome. Use of the terms "bureau", "national", "federal", "affiliated agencies", and mock court-stamped and other legal style documents is frighteningly Orwellian. "Big Brother" bill collector is following every credit consumer, anonymously, without revealing his or her real identity. Even a mimeographed partially scribbled notice in a governmental "postage-paid" envelope can be intimidating. Accompanied by a letter referencing a purported government agency or a law office with a demand for "$750.00 (or another amount) to settle this matter", a threat of government or court action is almost enough to send the consumer scrambling for his or her checkbook. This is a very intimidating bill collecting strategy. It is worse when followed, for example, by attempted or successful garnishment through internal employer bill collecting associates, complete with imitation government or court papers.
Now more often than in the past, bill collectors send negative entries directly to the computerized clearinghouse companies. Many bill collectors do not even notify the consumer by regular mail. This is a very aggressive bill collecting strategy possibly done to save money on postage and lessen the risk of being held liable for stalking, menacing, or harassing a consumer.
Without notice, consumers can be and often are denied a job, apartment, home, car, or other credit cards, business, or other loans, without a hint of who originated the damaging financial information.
Many consumers must ask "How can this happen?" Why are government or postal inspectors not checking every "US government postage paid" envelope to trace stolen or fabricated meters or meter numbers to at least ensure such companies pay the current postage rate?
There also are intrusive events done by US officials. "The Washington Post" revealed a young Washington, DC police officer was caught using a special police investigation computer to find a PIN (personal identification number) to withdraw money from a bank ATM machine using a credit card number stolen from the residence of a recent robbery victim the officer was called to assist.
The consumer must ask why so many strangers, each with their own financial interests in mind, have access to the consumer's accounts or to systems which can so substantially harm the consumer's accounts, to begin to protect the consumer's privacy, financial present and future.
(See http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for the fourth in the series "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?") Contact mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for an email or to comment.
Friday, July 2, 2010
2: Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry? Blog 2
(This is the second of a series of blogs on credit and credit reporting in the United States.
The monthlynotesstaff intends to publish this series as a book. Book publishers, agents, and investors are encouraged to contact us to help secure funding for this project. Consider this to be material under copyright.)
Anonymous Automated Credit Reporting Prevents Credit Repair.
The vicious cycle of computer-linked data flow of bill collecting information is augmented by the privately-held Pritzker family, formerly of the Pritzker Bank, and Marmon TransUnion of Chicago, IL, and by yet a fourth major credit reporting company, Experian. Experian is the largest provider of consumer information. Unlike the publicly-traded Equifax, information about Experian is harder to find in standard U.S. business references.
These four credit reporting companies hold databases on 100 million Americans and several million international customers. In addition to the "Big 4" and their franchises and affiliates, there are thousands of smaller corporate and home-based business computer-linked streams of data from other bill collecting and financial services companies.
Is it possible to stop the vicious cycle of computer-linked data flow to repair and restore a consumer's credit reputation? To correct only one negative erroneous entry on any of the four major credit reporting bureaus is an enormous challenge for the average consumer.
The first problem a consumer encounters is terminology calculated to terminate the attempt to make a correction. A key word is "creditor". To the average consumer, a creditor is a person or business from whom the consumer actually borrowed money or purchased merchandise or a service. In the computer-linked credit bureau sector, a creditor may be a bill collector who purchases credit data for bill collecting or resale of data to other computer circuits of bill collectors, but from whom the supposed "debtor" has never borrowed money nor received a product or service. This type of creditor can severely damage the reputation of the credit consumer in a legal sense, for example, in bankruptcy court proceedings.
How does a consumer motivate the credit bureau to actually verify there was a bilateral or two-party agreement or real transaction between the purported "creditor"/negative credit reporter and the consumer reported? Despite shelves of books in the local libraries on how to correct wrong and harmful entries through protest or dispute forms, there is no incentive for the huge, mostly anonymous credit bureaus to delete wrong entries, add dispute forms to the credit file, or repair the consumer's credit reputation.
The concept of truth in or about credit report entry publishing and republishing is lost on the average credit bureau customer service representative (CSR). When there were more "live operators", the CSR usually would repeat endlessly that the disputed creditor is listed as a creditor on the credit bureau report. No documentation previously sent to the bureau could convince the credit bureau there was no such creditor to an original transaction with the consumer. No dispute note was added to the file.
Automated answering machine/voice mail messaging systems now have replaced most credit reporting bureau CSRs. Currently, automated telephone answering machine messages instruct the consumer who calls with a complaint or dispute to send $8.00 to obtain a credit report. No discussion is possible.
The credit reporting industry has become an enormous rumor mill, an automated libel machine relentlessly wreaking havoc in the life of an innocent credit consumer. An android programmed to investigate and verify any disputed entry could annotate, delete, or correct entries if the industry wanted to publish and disseminate correct information.
The human CSR appeared to be coached to retain negative credit report entries to be bought, sold, or traded to other companies in the credit reporting bureau network. The newer system eliminates the possibility of hearing complaints or disputes, or correcting wrong and damaging entries.
(See http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for the next blog in the series "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?") Contact mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for an email or to comment.
The monthlynotesstaff intends to publish this series as a book. Book publishers, agents, and investors are encouraged to contact us to help secure funding for this project. Consider this to be material under copyright.)
Anonymous Automated Credit Reporting Prevents Credit Repair.
The vicious cycle of computer-linked data flow of bill collecting information is augmented by the privately-held Pritzker family, formerly of the Pritzker Bank, and Marmon TransUnion of Chicago, IL, and by yet a fourth major credit reporting company, Experian. Experian is the largest provider of consumer information. Unlike the publicly-traded Equifax, information about Experian is harder to find in standard U.S. business references.
These four credit reporting companies hold databases on 100 million Americans and several million international customers. In addition to the "Big 4" and their franchises and affiliates, there are thousands of smaller corporate and home-based business computer-linked streams of data from other bill collecting and financial services companies.
Is it possible to stop the vicious cycle of computer-linked data flow to repair and restore a consumer's credit reputation? To correct only one negative erroneous entry on any of the four major credit reporting bureaus is an enormous challenge for the average consumer.
The first problem a consumer encounters is terminology calculated to terminate the attempt to make a correction. A key word is "creditor". To the average consumer, a creditor is a person or business from whom the consumer actually borrowed money or purchased merchandise or a service. In the computer-linked credit bureau sector, a creditor may be a bill collector who purchases credit data for bill collecting or resale of data to other computer circuits of bill collectors, but from whom the supposed "debtor" has never borrowed money nor received a product or service. This type of creditor can severely damage the reputation of the credit consumer in a legal sense, for example, in bankruptcy court proceedings.
How does a consumer motivate the credit bureau to actually verify there was a bilateral or two-party agreement or real transaction between the purported "creditor"/negative credit reporter and the consumer reported? Despite shelves of books in the local libraries on how to correct wrong and harmful entries through protest or dispute forms, there is no incentive for the huge, mostly anonymous credit bureaus to delete wrong entries, add dispute forms to the credit file, or repair the consumer's credit reputation.
The concept of truth in or about credit report entry publishing and republishing is lost on the average credit bureau customer service representative (CSR). When there were more "live operators", the CSR usually would repeat endlessly that the disputed creditor is listed as a creditor on the credit bureau report. No documentation previously sent to the bureau could convince the credit bureau there was no such creditor to an original transaction with the consumer. No dispute note was added to the file.
Automated answering machine/voice mail messaging systems now have replaced most credit reporting bureau CSRs. Currently, automated telephone answering machine messages instruct the consumer who calls with a complaint or dispute to send $8.00 to obtain a credit report. No discussion is possible.
The credit reporting industry has become an enormous rumor mill, an automated libel machine relentlessly wreaking havoc in the life of an innocent credit consumer. An android programmed to investigate and verify any disputed entry could annotate, delete, or correct entries if the industry wanted to publish and disseminate correct information.
The human CSR appeared to be coached to retain negative credit report entries to be bought, sold, or traded to other companies in the credit reporting bureau network. The newer system eliminates the possibility of hearing complaints or disputes, or correcting wrong and damaging entries.
(See http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for the next blog in the series "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?") Contact mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for an email or to comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)