You're viewing a single thread.
A lot of people think social credit scores are something society can't function without, but they only started in 1989.
I certainly have problems with the way current financial institutions operate, but prior to the credit score there wasn't a standardized, scientific way to assess lending risk. It was left to a good ol' boy process rife with racism, classism, and sexism. Sadly, we're better off with what we have now, as flawed as it is.
There still isn't a standardized and scientific way to assess credit risk. There are three major companies, several minor ones, and all of them offer multiple products.
IT'S ALL A FUCKING SCAM. We just blindly accept random institutions compiling all of our data and telling a bank whether or not we should be given a loan regardless of our ability to pay it back. It has little to do with income anymore, which should be the only allowable metric. Don't want the risk? Get the fuck out of the mortgage business.
It was so much better before! When being a woman, or god forbid, being black, counted as serious criteria. Oh, and you best be friends with the banker. (Read the part, again, about being a white man, who was well accepted in the community.)
It's not a scam, it's a step forward. Time to take the next step.
Permanently Deleted
Because there are standard metrics for where the score comes from. Each of the big three has slightly different weighting, but it all broadly comes out the same.
The numbers aren't made up. You can look at your credit report and see what is affecting it.
No you can't. When you look at your credit report you see a lot of "MAY" and "COULD" and "MIGHT."
This is horseshit.
Yep it's not a mystery at all if you care enough to read about it. All these "capitalist dystopia" complainers sound like what I probably thought about credit scores when I was in my early 20s and had terrible credit from being irresponsible with credit cards. My credit score is 800 now because I simply pay my bills on time and have an established history of doing so.
Yeah, it's not a perfect system and I would welcome increased federal oversight and greater transparency because it does have the potential for abuse.
That said, it's not numbers made up to keep the little guy down. Lenders want to lend money because they make money off it. The whole point is to determine whether or not you're a safe investment.
We could have a discussion on the merits of modern usury, which can be deeply predatory and abusive. It's not the credit score that's the problem.
The numbers are made up, unless you can actually prove your original statement.
Edit: oh, and since proving a negative is essentially impossible, you can't actually prove your original statement, so I would recommend not making statements like that, and try to rephrase.
You think the people that scream about credit scores have ever looked at and analyzed their credit report lol
Yes, you brown-nosing corpo-slurping bootlicking twit, I do in fact keep a pretty damn close watch on my credit score because suckups like you will fellate and propagate any capitalist horseshit you can so I have to rather than just NOT WORRYING ABOUT IT and only applying for lines of credit in line with my income levels.
Instead it becomes this stupid game of laddering where you can apply for an increase now, but you can't apply for new credit, but also you need a new loan to maximize your score, no not that kind of loan, no also don't pay off the loan that's bad too, why did you need more credit again?
Anyone ignorant enough to support this needs their own separate financial system that caters to their intrinsic need to be a sub.
Literally nobody is making you apply for lines of credit outside your income levels… that’s entirely on you.
There’s no game to play. You take out credit, you pay it back. You have revolving credit, you pay the balance every month and don’t carry debt. It’s literally that simple.
I have never had to apply for an increase in credit limits, pay your bills and banks/credit card companies will just do it automatically.
It’s really not hard in the least.
So you've never had an emergency or a need for a large one-time purchase. Good for you. You are not everyone. The sooner you learn and understand that people that aren't you exist, the sooner you can graduate high school.
Are you arguing that the system is made up or that it's unfair to the poor?
I would agree with the latter, but you haven't been terribly consistent in your argument. I've had troubles with my credit score in the past, which is part of why I understand how it works.
I agree that credit scores unfairly disadvantage the poor, but that's merely a reflection of deeper economic issues that should be dealt with. Abolishing the credit score won't enable the poor to suddenly buy houses.
Yes, I have indeed lol. I had a year where our hvac went out and our son second child’s birth bill which racked up thousands that we had to pay out of pocket. We had tens of thousands in unexpected bills that year.
We had to drain most of our savings and take out a large loan to cover it all. Guess what I did. Paid the damn loan back.
Just because it was worse before, doesn't mean we can't also make the NOW better, again.
i dont see the problem with improving your credit score by sacrificing a virgin to the volcano every year, at least anyone can do it instead of just the well accepted white men
im being unfair of course, unlike modern credit scores tossing a virgin into the volcano doesnt still put minorities at a disadvantage
which should be the only allowable metric.
Why? Income is a terrible metric. Regardless of how much money I've made, I've always spent within my means. I've never carried debt, but always has my cc to build the credit score.
The idea that some bozo who spends more than he earns has a better credit score than me just because he makes more money makes absolutely zero sense to me.
Income is a terrible metric.
I suggest you lie on a few credit applications (not really). You'll be amazed at how readily you get approved just because your income crosses a certain threshold, even with the same score.
Several years ago I was looking to add a couple of cards, primarily for emergency reasons. I apply for a card and get rejected. Six months later I get a new job that's promising me a significantly higher income but I haven't started receiving more money yet (contract work is fun). I apply for the same card, same information, knowing my credit score had not changed, the only difference in my applications was my income (that required no verification) and that time I got approved.
So apparently the banks have a different thought process than you.
And what the fuck is wrong with you that you even think about someone else's credit score? Are you also mad that your neighbor is gay?
Don't answer that...
I never said it wasn't a factor, only a terrible one that shouldnt be the only one. Also try improving your credit score and see the better rates and cards with better benefits open up to you.
And what the fuck is wrong with you that you even think about someone else’s credit score?
Considering you think I spend time thinking about people's credit score because I think it's better metric for getting credit, this question is all but a straight up admission that you spend a lot of mental energy thinking about the income of other people.
Are you mad that your neighbor is straight too?
What about those that have sufficient income, but don't pay their bills and have defaulted on previous loans?
Mortgages were, prior to assholes screwing the whole thing up with mortgage-backed securities, seen as one of the lowest risk things banks could handle.
If you default on a mortgage the bank forecloses and auctions the home. This was QUITE rare before the housing crash. The problem was that the banking industry became so lax that they were giving loans to people that actually did NOT have the money to pay for them, figuring that they could just seize and sell the home as they always had. The problem THEN is that mortgage-backed securities were a thing by that point and every foreclosure caused another domino to fall over.
It became a shitshow because banks fucked themselves over being greedy pieces of shit.
Found the 550 guy lol
About 780 last I looked. Utilization went up when I decided to do some travel this year. But go on thinking that the only people that want a system reformed are the ones that don't know how to work it.
I'm sure that'll get you far in life. All the way to brown-nosing middle management.
This is the internet. I, along with everyone else here, don’t give two shits about your score or opinion bud.
And yet your cunt ass cares enough to post.
So you're a hypocritical cunt, not just a normal cunt.
If it was a publicly available algorithim, then Id believe you. But it ain't, so I'm suspicious.
We don't know the algorithms specifically, but we have enough information to have a pretty good idea how it works.
It's better than what it was. High time to take another look, but it's far, far better.
It seems to me it doesn't count risk. It counts profitability. It's why it drops when people pay their loans early.
there wasn't a standardized, scientific way to assess lending risk.
Neither is it now. You forgot the 'hidden from public' part.
They tell u what affects your score right on the credit report! Hahaha What the fuck are u clowns talking about.
And now it's time to nix what we have for something better, just like we did before.
Why would you be better off? In the rest of the world you just have to provide proof of income and proof of savings and debt and banks can calculate how much they are willing to loan you for the purchase of a house. Seems to work fine, and I don't have to have pay interest on meaningless loans just to prove that I can.
The problem is that just having the income and savings doesn't necessarily guarantee that you'll be as good about paying back a loan as someone of your same income and savings.
That's supposed to be where the credit score helps, but the current system is so shady that it basically just reads as the ol' boys club system but asking pretty please to pretend there's a formula and method being used.
I think there are plenty of failsafe mechanisms. But most importantly, if you fail to pay your mortgage, the bank has the right to take possession of your house. Those forces the bank to do it's due diligence with regards to the value of the house. Also, if a bank has been too lenient with its mortgages, it can get into serious trouble - the government here enforces pretty strict rules to prevent people from getting in over their heads.
If you don’t take credit facilities but pay for your expenses in cash, you are considered a risk. Credit scoring based on credit card purchases is akin to being required to be spied on every step of the way just so you can access what you practically can without the credit in the first place. I don’t have a problem with people who are fine with that kind of behavior. But there should be a way of fair assessment even if you pay in cash.
Yeah. It's really changed a lot...
At one time you walked into a bank, showed how much money you made, and got a home loan.
But that allowed too many Black people to buy homes, so credit scores were invented as a way to discriminate against people using a black box with no real published metric.
Yay for redlining under a different name!
It's funny how the other person who replied to me said credit scores are actually the solution to racism. I think you're the one who's right it's just funny. I'd like to take this opportunity to say it's retarded that you can pay rent for years but not be approved for a mortgage with equal or lesser payments.
Nobody said credit scores were the solution. They were merely a step forward.
Young liberals: "It's not good enough or fast enough! NOW!!!"
I'll take what I can get, even if it takes some time.
"Young liberals" are why we got the fucking civil rights act, ya fuckin' dink.
It’s you who has held us back, with your obsession with capitalism as a just and fair ruler.
You're showing way too much faith in the institutions that invented the red lining in the first place to imply that the ol' boys club system wasn't waaaaay more rife with systemic racism.
The post war recovery laws were literally lobbied to specifically exclude black folks, but sure, home buying was easier for them then than it was post credit scores.
My dude, you're missing about thirty years of history.
Redlining was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act in the late 60's. It may have still existed in some fucked up form but it was no longer the standard by which lending was done. There's a reason the rate of home ownership among Black people has steadily risen ever since, and yet it still isn't close to any other group of people.
The whole system is fucked and it's largely set up to fuck Black people because some mayo motherfuckers still want to own humans.
It might have been "illegal" but lenders were still basically doing it anyways, just calling it everything else imaginable. Shit they still do it when they think they'll get away with it, folks have actually tested it, real estate brokers list houses shown by white "owners" at higher values than those shown by black "owners"
Don't forget about Homeowners Associations! Redlining in another form.
Nobody fucking cares how many black people buy houses. They only care about making the most profit.
Idiots like you are why systemic racism persists.
Fuck off.
I don't think you know what social credit score means.
This thread is full of people who don't know what they're talking about. I mean the whole thread is based on the implication that the credit bureaus are a government program.
Permanently Deleted
tell me you're ignoring how the adult personal financial world works in the west since 1989, without you, know telling me
Permanently Deleted