Man offered credit card with 79.9% interest rate

- The site also says it "focuses on individuals who have less than perfect credit but are actually still creditworthy."

...Banker in SD says to himself, " There's water in those rocks.."

Even though I agree with you the vast majority of banks wouldn't. The USA financial system has, since Reagan, been constructed to buy and sell debt, not to help develop the growth of any sector in the US economy that actually makes physical objects that can be sold. That's why we've have a massive growth in the financial markets without any real growth in manufacturing. Without debt, the financial sector would probably collapse. That's why you keep getting credit card offers when you have poor credit. The American consumer may have gone on a bender since 2000 but they received massive encouragement from the financial sector to do so for the reasons I stated.

Benny-evolent wisdom.

oh yes, no problem. so long as you know, that the cash advance APR is decided every month as such: we roll three dice... ;P

"premier bank will screw you so hard that 30 years from now your grand-daughter will come"----I hope you made that one up on the fly,....its a gem!

'What are you suggesting RFID?'

I am not suggesting anything whatsoever, nor did not proffer an argument, flimsy or other wise.
Nor was I addressing you, so butt out.

We aren't capitalist, this has nothing to do with free markets.....it is a corporatist/government state......not Liberty.

Actually capitalism isn't evil. There are thieves and scam artists everywhere. That is reality. Socialism doesn't filter them out it just changes their methods. What does filter them out is law and the justice system, which seems to be failing here. I am curious to know why myself.

Well.. Shanklinmike's concept of it would make it very very easy to be evil but since it cannot actually exist anywhere any more than third stage communism can, it can be ignored.

No, that is not how it works...

you are only charged interest if you do not pay back what you purchased in the allotted predetermined time limit. The credit card company makes 2-4% from the company that charged your card and that is all they make if you pay it back in time. If you don't pay back the money you charged on time.......interest rate.....

People are just trying to get out of personal responibility, and the republicans and democrats corporate lobbyists are loving it because it backs the consumption habits through lower perceived risks.

Kei that individual is not dumb.....He is a wine/spirits distributor. His point is they are trying to do it to us all. They do that sort of things to us all whatever our level of education is. Education doesn't allways give people the skills to money manage. His credit was not perfect & they are trying to take advantage of him like he said

dude, you're thinkin' too small. 104.9%!

o.0
Say what? Chubby bankers? Could you rephrase please?

asherp I will take your work for it. You are more than likely not lying

I would add it to "You Got Some Balls!" street,.....but I dont think there is one. Hmmmmmmmm,....imma sorta thinkin O you.......It could happen,....the power of mockery,....I know you have focused it,....I would join the group,....just sayin,....

and politicians cannot protect stupid citizens from their own bad decisions, they can only make things worse.....

so then let every stupid fail be a pawn for those that are clever enough to manipulate them? then what? allow them to be homeless when they can't pay their bills? Then what? Someone has to deal with it one way or another and all you're saying is that these people should fend for themselves at all costs. That's very selfish and it sounds good on the surface that we all should be self-reliant and able to make good choices but that is optimistic to say the least. Your opinion is not thought out thoroughly enough to hold any ground except complaints of government taking too much power. Get real--there should be consumer protection to an extent to provide a partial safety net, not a full government ride.

No, I am saying you unleashing moral hazard and false safety nets that encourage credit card consumption is the problem!

I am afraid I am with the whack-job "Libertarians" on this one; you do have to have some "base line-social Darwinistic-competence" required of the citizen. As long as there is no "fine-print" or other intent to deceive, and the rate is BOLDLY indicated....a thinking monkey is virtually required, by nature itself,... to have its shit somewhat together. (Don't GRAB the damn cable that is clearly posted "HIGH VOLTAGE" in three languages). Things like that, including economic things of that perilous nature, SHOULD be CHILD proofed,......but not "crazed adult" proofed. However, if STATES can regulate these things,....the people of S. Dakota would be well advised to feel like the A holes they are and CHANGE THEIR DAMN STATUTES! And all of America should mock them. (Possibly piss on their flag,....that sort of thing).

If that is the case then fraud was committed.....

if it is not the law then now fraud was committed..

i sure hope so. the cards i'm busting my budget to pay off have sent me letters saying "hey, we're raising your interest! even if you decline changes and cancel your card, you still have to pay off the balance with the new rate! good day!" it'd be nice to know they can't go more than a certain %.

varies by state. The limit in South Dakota is actually lower.

Why would you get a credit card that has such a high rate and then not pay it off?!? Why get into a contract with a credit card company knowing they can raise the rates on you? The government safety standards create the moral hazard and actually subsidize and encourage more people to go out and get cards without having to worry.....even though they should heavily worry.

i was actually ignorant to the idea of my card companies increasing my rates whenver they want. (maybe some fine print i overlooked when reading the agreement 3+ years ago.) the rates weren't high (i presume my credit is pretty nice), and they haven't been raised astronomically, but it still makes me glad i've been working towards a clean slate before they raised the APR a bit.

because the austrian economics concept that people are omniscient and cannot be manipulated into making bad economic decisions is just false. The entire discipline of marketing consists entirely ways to subvert that behavior.

You're confused because your philosophy has been obsolete for forty years.

Haha, you didn't even rebuttle my point, just called names......

my point stands, no fraud was incurred if the credit card offer in the picture is identical to the story, that is NOT fine print.

Clearly, you can't see the corporatist slave system around us....this system can not protect you from loan sharks, it will only prey on you after gaining your freedoms.....just look around!

and I'm the crazy one.....ha

'...rebuttle my point'?
Maybe you *should* rethink that available public education which you appear to have opted out of on ideological grounds.
I'd say your 'point' was roundly 'rebuttled' and 'scuttled'.

I think you need to go back to school,

he did nothing to refute my ideology. He simply repeated part of what I said and then made a horrible attack joke.

he's merely making fun of your typo. the word is rebut or rebutted not rebuttled. rebuttling would be some kind of butler do over or something. My personal favorite way to deal with typo Nazis is to reply in L33T.

As for limiting this kind of action, yes, it is limited almost everywhere. That it is not limited in south dakota implies that something went wrong somewhere. We are a government of the people and as a people we choose to make things we think are unacceptable illegal. Part of democracy is majority rule. This country has more tolerance of people with nasty habits than most but there is a limit.

Rebuttle is indeed a word, he just spelled it wrong. Rebuttal.

"rebut" is the verb form.

Yeah! Out-and-out fraud shouldn't be regulated!

It's your responsibility to make sure you're not a victim of crime! Not the government's!

Wait, something sounds wrong about that...

Exactly Saladin! And I got a bone to pick here myself! I miss people calling me on the phone trying to scam me. There, I've said it, and I'm glad.

what fraud was perpetrated?

The number 79.9 appears in bold ink! Of course the guy should reject the offer, but that does not mean that any fraud was created. Just that the rate is not a good offer.....

What fraud was created here? The number appears to be bright and clear in the picture.....and I not sure why they said they had to look at the fine print.....

Is this a horrible deal? YES

Is it FRAUD? NO

See, you have a different definition of fraud then I do.

You're thinking of fraud as being only what is currently defined by the law.

I'm thinking of fraud as being purposefully misleading and exploiting the trust people have in you and the ignorance they have of life to fuck them over.

This company did not send this out thinking "we'll offer this poor man a deal."

They sent this out thinking, "boy, I sure hope some moron doesn't read the fine print so we milk them dry."

I call that fraud.

If you wanna call that legitimate business, by all means, PLEASE do so as LOUD AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.

I wanna make sure people hear you.

I find libertarians are frequently scam artists at heart. "smaller government" and "less legal protection" are effectively the same thing. As a result it is a common philosophy for jackals and low grade predator types. An indicator of this is shown here by the concept that anything they think is not actually actionable must by definition be ok. Shanklinmike's IMHO posts are easily the most abusive of any regular poster I've seen, that he holds this opinion does not surprise me at all.

As for whether the behavior is fraud or not, predatory lending is defined here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_lending
as for whether the rate is usury:
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/interest-rates/south-dakota/
Notable here is that though the rate does appear to be usury South Dakota has repealed all punishments, so while it is still illegal something very odd is going on. It wouldn't surprise me at all if one would wind up being able to simply not pay back the bill at all and then sue them if they tried to trash your credit rating. I am a very very far cry from a South Dakota lawyer though. I would be very curious to find out what one of them has to say.

why would you consider regulating predatory lending as something only a fascist government would do?

I never said predatory lending came only from fascist governments, and I even stated that this was not a crime unless state laws (legal under the constitution) prohibited such practices. Once again, I was asking about your previous response.....when did I ever say fraud should not be regulated?!? When?!? I was simply stating that no FRAUD was being presented, and there is none under common law:

Common law fraud has nine elements:[1], [2]

1. a representation of an existing fact;
2. its materiality;
3. its falsity;
4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
6. plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
7. plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
8. plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
9. consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

Most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element be pled with particularity and be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence) to establish a claim of fraud. The measure of damages in fraud cases is to be computed by the "benefit of bargain" rule, which is the difference between the value of the property had it been as represented, and its actual value. Special damages may be allowed if shown proximately caused by defendant's fraud and the damage amounts are proved with specificity.

Your definition of fraud can never be fully extinguished, let alone the real outright crimes that are being perpetrated currently. Guess what, they have laws on the books against this and I guarantee you this company has hit more people. Now people have a sense of false comfort as the moral hazard has been released. The government's nanny state on the people actually encourages stupid people to get more credit cards without paying attention to the rates, and I guarantee you this isn't the first customer this credit card company has gotten at this rate. Imagine the poor suckers out there who are just following the rules paying this illegal rate because the nanny state has contributed to them not taking enough responsibility to research the rates on their own. Only those who realize it is illegal and a scam will be able to see through it, and government safety nets only subsidize this action, repeatedly.....

well saladin,......"legitimate business" is a "slippery slope"!

-well,....I find that funny,.....its also true. Commerce itself MAY well inevitably lead to a psychological "moral decay". Unfortunately, in this society the loudest voices in opposition to "moral decay",....use "family values",....are also the most commercial in motivation and the most "bought and sold".

There is a legal terms for interest rates like this, it's called "usury". Just because the state of South Dakota doesn't regulate interest rates it doesn't change the fact that this is literal crime. Also, if this kind of thing ever becomes accepted practice, you can kiss your 12% rate goodbye. Why? Because the financial markets don't "compete" like they're supposed to, they "collude" and cooperate, you know, like they did with all the sub prime lending and in the health insurance industry. The government generally steps in when the "free-market" system fails, as it did spectacularly starting in September 2008. If the US government didn't take action we would ALL be paying 100% interest on credit and be burning the shingles on our houses to stay warm.

No, Mark701, we would not all be paying 100% interest. I would do just as I do now and live within my means. I pay off all credit cards every month and if I want a large purchase, I save up for it. I also save up for unexpected big expenses. Living within ones means is a concept that seems to be lost on most of my generation.

Also, the reason the government ever had to step in on interest rates is because a lot of people refused to pay attention to the interest rates when they got a card and then were "surprised" when they had a hard time paying back the money that they should not have spent in the first place.

that might actually work. One would need to do some careful looking into things.

The money has to make it worth total destruction of credit rating. That said..........