Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

My existence somewhat validated

  • Dec. 30th, 2006 at 2:25 AM
Brad @ Burning Man
And then there are days when, right at the deadline to get started on this column, somebody comes along and actually proves to me that what I'm doing is worth doing. The payday loan industry seems to think that I'm important enough to try to sneak-attack me. For something that I did more than a year ago, no less.

On November 11th of 2005, I wrote a journal entry entitled, "For Me, the Face of Terror Wears a Business Suit." A significant chunk of that journal entry related to a theme that I've dealt with more than once in this journal, and that is that thanks to state of the art lobbying and lazy legislators who didn't think about what they were agreeing to, we have taken some of the Mafia's most reprehensible scams and handed them over to perfectly legal corporations who, perfectly legally, make them even more destructive and monstrous than the original scams were. No Mafia numbers racket ever did anywhere near as much damage to this country as any of the big casino firms has done lately, and no Mafia loan-sharking and leg-breaking racket ever did even a tiny fraction of the damage to this country that payday loans and other predatory lenders have done. Not least of which because the Mafia knew that what they were doing was wrong; these increasingly psychopathic inhumans feel entirely smugly justified in laying waste to whole neighborhoods at a time.

Only now they're running scared, because an increasingly awake Congress, even before the Democratic takeover, has already fired the first big shot across the payday loan scam bow. Your average soldier or sailor, being working class, is just as vulnerable as any other working class person to the baited bear trap that is rollover payday lending. But when they screwed over America's fighting men and women during wartime, even their traditional Republican allies were brought face to face with the human wreckage that resulted, because thousands of people that the Republicans were depending on to die for nothing in the Middle East were suddenly unable to complete their service; at best losing security clearances they needed because of debt, and at worst committing any crime up to and including murder/suicide because of what the payday lenders had done to them and their families. So Congress outlawed payday lending on anything resembling the terms the industry has become accustomed to if the borrower is an active duty member of the military. Bad enough, that, but now the cold winter wind is whistling through the trees and the voice on the wind says, "Why only them?"

Which, I guess, makes it worth it for the payday loan megacorporations to hire consulting firms to Google up every blog entry on every blog that actually correctly and successfully analyzes what's so evil about what they do, and try to subvert it. 13 months after the original post was written, I only just tonight got the following tacked onto the comments to the above journal entry (condensed for space):
User: [info]starla8
Date: 2006-12-30 01:30 (local)
Subject: (no subject)

Hi, you have a very interesting post here. ¶ I agree with what you said “We have legalized whole industries in this country that do nothing more than destroy human lives for profit - - tobacco industry, the casino industry, pay day loans, title loans, sub-par mortgage lenders.”

However, on insurance companies and payday loan lenders, I think they are here to help. Insurance acts like a forced savings that when an emergency comes, you can get money from it. ¶ Because most of us do not have a sufficient emergency fund in the bank, most do not even have an emergency fund at all - so like in my case, I often turn on getting a payday loan. ¶ To me, it is fast cash to cover a financial emergency. I have used it to pay for my son’s medication, to pay my due credit card bill which would otherwise apply a late fee charge that would cost more, pay an expensive car repair and even pay my utility bills. ¶ So far, it has worked out for me because I always pay it in full and I only get an amount that I only need as well as an amount that I can afford to pay. ¶ As they said, these industries are here because people patronize them and people need them and in the first place, they were conceived because people behind these industries felt that need.
Hmm. And what a coincidence that the post recites every single one of the industry's advertising slogans and political talking points, and also just so happens to include a helpful link to one of the malevolent examples. Fake blogger? Easy enough to check. In fact, too easy. Journal is of one of the free types, created the day before the comment, with no interests that would suggest that she'd ever find my journal, not from my home town so there's no reason to think somebody told her about it in person, has never written an entry before, has not friended anybody, and the profile is almost entirely blank.

That's so embarrassingly transparent that it says something sad and pathetic about the American workforce that whoever created that account and pasted in that reply felt justified in billing their client for such shoddy work. As I said in my reply, not that whoever wrote that is ever likely to come back and check their replies, How fucking stupid do you think we are?

Comments

[info]dalziel_86 wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 08:42 am (UTC)
Hey, maybe you should feel proud they saw you as someone worth responding to with PR. :)
[info]gconnor wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 08:44 am (UTC)
The fact that there's a link in there tells me it's borderline link spam. The more links from "payday loan" to that site, the better that site will do on "payday loan" searches.

If you think the comment is honest, you might at least want to reproduce it without a working link so that the link-spammer doesn't benefit. YOu probably can't edit the comment, but you could delete it and reproduce it without the link being a working one. You may wish to edit your post to make the link non-working too.

If you think the spammer isn't really interested in conversation and just wants to get his/her link posted to more pages, you can also report the account as an abuser. Especially if the account is used to post to other journals or communities with the same text and link.

Seems to be a lot of link spam lately. Usually if I click on "most recent posts" and skim 50 or so posts, I can find one with random text and carefully-created links mixed in. This is not quite that, but still, don't let the spammer benefit by boosting his search rating.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 04:26 pm (UTC)
The obvious answer to that would be for all 450+ LiveJournalers who read my journal to link to the original article with the phrase "payday loan" as the link text.
[info]andrewhickey wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 06:19 pm (UTC)
Along with linking to their link, with the phrase 'evil bloodsucking bastards' or something simillar, maybe...
[info]idonotlikepeas wrote:
Jan. 1st, 2007 04:58 pm (UTC)
Your friendly local LJ Abuse Team member would like to point you at http://www.livejournal.com/abuse/policy.bml#spam - if you seriously think a comment on LJ is spam, the correct response is to delete it and mark it as spam so that the system can deal with it. This is helpful for LJ, because it gives the folks running it more information about these spammers, which might be usable to prevent future instances of spam for other people. Reporting the user directly via the abuse system is sub-optimal, because it means more manual labor for the person processing the report, and it doesn't get marked in the system the same way as a spam report does.
[info]gconnor wrote:
Jan. 1st, 2007 06:38 pm (UTC)
Good point. I will do so in the future and tell others.

Here is something you might know the answer to: What should we do if we see an entire journal that is nothing but spam, and what will LJ do on finding them? Usually if I skim the 50 latest posts, I will see 2-3 posts in spam journals.

They are not posting in communities or other user's entries, just happily plugging away in their free account, consuming resources I paid for and providing link spam for google to index. Here are some samples:
http://alexandria-step.livejournal.com/
http://tampa-dion.livejournal.com/
There's not a slick automated way to report these like with comment spam. I'm just wondering if it's worth it to report them as abusers...
[info]idonotlikepeas wrote:
Jan. 1st, 2007 07:26 pm (UTC)
Generally speaking you don't have to worry about a journal that's all spam, because if they're spamming somewhere particularly the entries or comments will be deleted and marked as spam and the journal will be found and removed that way.

If you encounter such a journal in your daily ramblings, though, and it's obviously a spambot trying to game the recent post feed or similar, you can report them as abusers through the standard form since there isn't a better way of doing it. I won't guarantee that it'll get removed - it's pretty much a case-by-case thing.
[info]gconnor wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 08:50 am (UTC)
Even more spammy: starla8 has posted 4 comments, received 0, and her "personal website" is hotpayday.info
[info]dkmnow wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 10:26 am (UTC)
Looks like someone has rather badly misconstrued the purported trend toward "transparency" in business.
[info]chaotic_nipple wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 11:01 am (UTC)
The obvious answer, of course, is: "Stupid enough to fall for the crap we're pulling so far, so why not stupid enough to fall for this particular bit of crap right here?"

Two days after my unit got back from OIF1, I badly wanted to go out drinking. I didn't have nearly enough cash on hand for the bender I planned, and my ATM card had expired while I was over in Iraq. So, I walked into one of those dens of stupidity, figuring that I had the money in my account, so they couldn't screw me over too badly. Ha! They wanted to charge me 20 bucks for a 200 dollar check. So I chose to charge my drinking binge to my newly-paid-off credit card instead. Better the devil you know...
[info]arachnophiliac wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 01:46 pm (UTC)
Ha! You just got astroturfed! I guess that's a sign of legitimacy.
[info]sunfell wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 02:19 pm (UTC)
AlterNet had an article yesterday about the fringe economy and the damage it does. It keeps poor people poor.

The Scope of the Fringe Economy

The unassuming and often shoddy storefronts of the fringe economy mask the true scope of this economic sector. Checkcashers, payday lenders, pawnshops, and rent-to-own stores alone engaged in at least 280 million transactions in 2001, according to Fannie Mae Foundation estimates, generating about $78 billion in gross revenues. By comparison, in 2003 combined state and federal spending on the core U.S. social welfare programs -- Temporary Aid to Needy Families (AFDC's replacement), Supplemental Security Income, Food Stamps, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) food program, school lunch programs, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) low-income housing programs -- totaled less than $125 billion. Revenues in the combined sectors of the fringe economy -- including subprime home mortgages and refinancing, and used car sales -- would inflate the $78 billion several times over and eclipse federal and state spending on the poor.

There can be no doubt that the scope of the fringe economy is enormous. The Community Financial Services Association of America claims that 15,000 payday lenders extend more than $25 billion in short-term loans to millions of households each year. According to Financial Service Centers of America, 10,000 check-cashing stores process 180 million checks with a face value of $55 billion.

The sheer number of fringe economy storefronts is mindboggling. For example, ACE Cash Express -- only one of many such corporations -- has 68 locations within 10 miles of my Houston zip code. Nationwide there are more than 33,000 check-cashing and payday loan stores, just two parts of the fringe economy. That's more than the all the McDonald's and Burger King restaurants and all the Target, J.C. Penney, and Wal-Mart retail stores in the United States combined. ACE Cash Express is the nation's largest check-casher and exemplifies the growth and profitability of the fringe economy. In 1991 ACE had 181 stores; by 2005 it had 1,371 stores with 2,700 employees in 37 states and the District of Columbia. ACE's revenues totaled $141 million in 2000 and by 2005 rose to $268.6 million.


I got my very first cellphone text message spam yesterday. Wanna guess who it was from? If you guessed 'payday loan company', you would be right. If they call me again, I am going to sic our new Attorney General (whom I know personally) on their unwary butts.
[info]pyrephox wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 03:21 pm (UTC)
Have you seen AdvanceAmerica's new advertising campaign on television? Where they're swooning over the courage and difficulties of the average working class American, and then smoothly promise, "We're here to help"?

Every time I see one of those misleading, patronizing commercials, I want to throw a shoe at the TV.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 04:22 pm (UTC)
Yeah, Karger talks about that advertising strategy in his book Shortchanged, a book I can't recommend highly enough even if the first chapter or two are a little weak. What it comes down to is that the payday loan industry has figured out that they've done exactly what every Mafia loan shark knew not to do, they've bled their customers so hard that they customers are unable to continue paying. Rather than letting the neighborhoods they operate in grow back and let potential marks get back to where they could pay those armed-robbery rates, they've chose to expand their market into the middle class. They've explicitly targeted the middle class in America to do to them what they did to poor and working class neighborhoods. Gods help us all.
[info]phillipalden wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 04:29 pm (UTC)
Another great commentary. Sometimes I think you guys are the REAL journalists and those wankers on tv are merely pretenders to the throne.
[info]morgaath wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 07:03 pm (UTC)
This is one of those things I have thought a lot about, and I think it currently is a yes/no answer.

TV folks are the best at covering "live breaking news". Like the fire down the road, the weather, or a traffic jam. "The World in 15 Minutes".

If you want depth, you used to be able to go read a paper, but now that the papers are all 75% ads, they write Cliff Notes.

And radio, well all it is good for is either background noise, listening to some one who will tell you what you want to hear, or my prefered use, pissing me off (2am in the morning, 5 hours left to drive, tune in Rush and the Ditto Nation and be angry). I think I get as much info out of most "Harry, Dick 'n' Tammy" morning shows as I ever got out of most talk radio shows.

And all of them have to attract to as big of an audience as possible.
Brad has 500 readers, and could get by with having 1.

They can not afford to piss off their readers.
Brad most likely thinks he is failing if he doesn't manage to piss off someone every once in a while.

They have deadlines, size limits, and editors.
Brad can work on something when he wants, spend 6 months making it just right, make it the size he wants, and is his own editor.

Seems to me that the odds are all on the Blog Journalist side.
It is also why I use traditional media for my 30 second updates, and bloggers for my in depth look at a subject.

Ask again in 5 years when papers are all online, anyone can submit an article, and the writers get paid by how many page views they have for that article. TV reporting will get replaced with a YouTube/Metacafe type format. But radio will still be for entertainment and background noise.
[info]thesigother wrote:
Dec. 31st, 2006 01:11 am (UTC)
A valid bunch of points. I own a TV, it plays DVDs nicely. I hit the local newspaper through the website when I want to see what the local scene is. I go to Google / News to get regular news scene. The internet has forced the TV news to speed up the process in which it obtains and produces news stories. The result: a bunch of talking heads, and no new news that I could not get from a browser...and no time for in-depth interpretation of what the heck just happened.

Bloggers have the time to do the in-depth not well known stories that put a lot of hard issues in perspective. Kudos to Brad and the rest of the unknown bloggers out there.
[info]phillipalden wrote:
Dec. 31st, 2006 07:40 pm (UTC)
I view the American mass media, (both news and entertainment,) as a toxic sludge that is poisoning people. I used to be a news "junkie." Now I don't read any papers, news web sites, and I broke my habit of listening to NPR all day long.

I read non-fiction books about different current events and Mother Jones Magazine. That's it. I don't watch any live TV. If there's a show that looks interesting I add it to my NetFlix queue or buy the DVD.

I've found I'm much happier, and if something truly big happens it gets posted by one of my Live Journal friends. I never signed the contract that states I have to subject myself to the constant stream of cacophonous and verbally violent noise that is our mass media.

I just hope my fellow American citizens realize they don't have to swallow the toxic sludge and do as I have done. Personally I would like to see 90% of the media outlets in this country consigned to the dustbin of American media.
[info]temujin9 wrote:
Dec. 31st, 2006 01:12 am (UTC)
Only sometimes?
[info]hick0ry wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 06:17 pm (UTC)
Sadly, I think the answer to your question "How [] stupid do you think we are?" is also obvious: "If y'all weren't, on average, dumb as rocks, we wouldn't be in business in the first place." So you had best assume you're an amazing threat, because not only are you willing to proclaim the emperor wears no clothes, but you're doing it in a manner that could penetrate the rock-filled skulls of their clientel, and those of their political leaders, who are of course always looking to "do something."
[info]zibblsnrt wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 06:52 pm (UTC)
The local government finally started jumping on some of the payday-loan places around here. The damn things still exist, but they're increasingly regulated.

Apparently, around this time last year some of them were having enough fun with "fees" that they were effectively charging five-digit interest rates to some people.
[info]st_ranger wrote:
Dec. 30th, 2006 10:35 pm (UTC)
A few years ago, I got caught up in the awful cycle of payday loans. It sucked.

I'm not surprised that your LJ gets some notice from people-- it's well written, hits on many topics, never boring to read. I'm sure you have more than just the 450 readers or whatever.

Maybe one of these days we'll see a link to one of your articles on the Huffpo.
[info]silveradept wrote:
Jan. 1st, 2007 09:28 pm (UTC)
We're stupid enough to continue to try and live on the money that we don't have and have only vague promises will appear, barring unforeseen circumstances like deaths, injuries, and firings.

And then we compound the error with places like payday loan sharks.