It's a little bit like getting on a plane and not knowing you're not allowed to smoke. I guess it's possible if you're retarded or an unfrozen caveman. But the claim of 'why didn't you protect me from my own stupidity' begins to ring hollow at some point. Perhaps we should have some kind of IQ test or home study course or certification required for people to be responsible for their own finances that way unless they're smoking weed all day they can't say they didn't know. And if they fail, we can erect a whole new industry of fiduciary managers for people who aren't feeble minded, just lazy ass slackers who can't be bothered.

Guess what - the banks and credit card companies aren't your friend. If you can't figure that out then we shouldn't allow you to operate a toaster.

...These credit card issuers can "externalize" their losses on the backs of the taxpayers (isn't that always the case). Screw us coming, screw us going. That's a good deal you don't need no fancy computers 'n algieyogurt for.

Capitalism is our friend, remember that.

My credit card rate just went to 20%+.

It's called ethics, muh man, not survival of the most rapacious.

What next? Are credit lenders going to start dumping barrels of cash on people's doorsteps?? The bizarre thing is that this coming via the "no-free-lunch" capitalist crowd. Sure seems like a free meal to me.

I think you misuse the word. 'Ethics' is not altruism or munificence. It is not what's best for the other party regardless. Otherwise what you call 'informed consent' in medical ethics would translate roughly to free health care with a guarantee. Which it does not.

I'm sorry you have a high carrying cost. But I am not empathetic about it nor do I see it as my responsibility to bear heavier carrying costs to make up for the people who can't. It's not insurance or risk rating pooling. Making me take on that load would be specifically UNethical.

Now having said that the problem of credit card companies simply pulling new numbers out of their ear whenever they feel like it is a different problem. It's a distortion of what we call a 'contract'. It is not a contract not in the strict sense. The other party appears to have little if any commitment or restriction on what they will do or force you to do. That's a problem. So is the notion of transparency - specifically the hiding or obscuring of critical information or blatant lying. That's a huge problem. But the basic issue of taking on debt in the first place, that's not my problem. I will let you be an alcoholic or a compulsive gambler or swell to 500lbs. Not my problem. Making it my problem would unethical, or, if you prefer, you'd have to let me solve 'our' problem MY way, which I think would be even worse for you.

It always is.

Farmers starving in the 1930's Dustbowl? Better believe this guy was around pontificating about how it "wasn't HIS problem. Let'em starve fer crying out loud! So what if three states turn to desert??? The Dustbow is just a liberal scare tactic anyway."

Healthcare crisis? Millions of people defaulting on their medical bills because they can't pay them? Better believe this guy is explaining to anyone that will listen about how "That ain't my problem!" This is usually explained as he's writting a check to the hospital to pay for the single tablet of aspirin he was billed $395 for. (Hint: the joke here is that when thousands of low wage workers defualt on their $75,000 medical bills the hospital is forced to raise rates on everyone else! No free lunch.)

Tax cuts forcing the city to reduce size of police force? Better believe he's the first one explaining how that "Ain't my problem!" --- as gang members are walking off with his television and stealing his car.

Will these "Not My Problem!" people ever wise up?

Doubtful.

Because you won't? That seems frightfully unfair to me. In fact it seems so unfair that I should work myself economically to the left side of the Bell Curve so as to offload all that effort to someone else.

The fact that Mr and Ms Bimbot took out a zero down interest only 120% mortgage on their home and now they can't afford it, is not my problem. It really is not. I don't wish for them to be homeless anymore than I wish sick people would die faster and consume less health care, but their decision to smoke 3 packs of smokes a day shouldn't curtail my ability to remain healthy either. Otherwise you're in effect promoting the same "Not my problem" behavior you criticize in others.

Credit companies are using double billing cycles, universal default, and outright fraud (claiming adverse information on your report when there was none- that one was tried on us) to force "good" payers into high interst rates. We simply paid of the card issuer who tried to yank up our rate and told them no, we were not coming back because they "adjusted" the rate back down. We have friends who saw rates jump from 8 to 20% due to mistaken information or double bills. That's just one way this hurts everyone.

As subprime gets tapped out, they come for us who pay on time. As the credit and housing lenders default, the government gives them breaks or bails them out. The taxes and fees fall to us for the bailouts and corporate welfare. This destabilizes our economy, and hurts all of us through higher fees, federal taxes, etc.

Regulate them. It's time. They are hurting us all.

We need to elect people to cap fees at 15%. That would end this. We originally did this to maintain economic stability.

I always figured the relaxed lending standards were mostly because the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 that MBNA wrote ensures that the credit card issuers are protected if someone declares bankruptcy.

It's too bad the Democrats won't fix that since so many of them voted for it.