Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

I'd like that to be the result, but my very limited understanding of credit card agreements is that they're so dense, overlapping and one-sided that credit card companies can essentially do whatever they want whenever they want. Are you saying that courts would invalidate them as contracts of adhesion?

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

35k at BofA and 50k at citibank are seeing more than just slim bonuses.

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

Did Congress insist that they be fired before agreeing to give them the money?

TM

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

I am sympathetic, but there is a qualitative difference here. The banks were not in difficulty because of their labor costs, which they can reduce whenever they want by trimming worker (who aren't unionized).

Labor costs are part of the difficultly for the car makers. Not as big a part as retiree medical and pensions, and craptacular management that can't figure how to make cars people want. But nonetheless, trimming labor costs is actually relevant to bailing the companies out.

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

2

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

They didn't have to because the banks were already doing it on their own and could continue to do so.

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

We have two autos, both American. Ford Taurus and Chevy Grand Voyager.

I have neither cost nor quality concerns about either. They are good cars and were good deals.

Re: Know new taxes!
 

Remains of Caylee Anthony found. Right now...emergency motion of defense to require defense to observe forensic examination of remains, live: http://www.wesh.com/video/18257577/index.html

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

Have you looked at employment figures in the auto industry?

There has been some significant consolidation in the banking industry, and there will be some in the auto industry. If they wanted to force a GM/Chrysler union as part of the bailout, that would be comparable.

There's also a scale difference. We're comparing $700 billion to $15 billion.

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

I had thought some of the arb. clauses had been thrown out as unwaivable, at least with respect to some statutory causes of action.

As for jacking you on limits and such, there have been loads of legislative proposals to change things, which suggests that much of what they do is legal, whether or not fair/right.

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

I haven't owned a Ford since the mid-90s (didn't own any care for most of the interrum), but when I did I had serious quality concerns. The thing always had something wrong with it.

The Nissan product I now drive has needed nothing but normal maintenance in two and a half years (although admittedly it has fewer miles on it than the Ford did).

Re: Know new taxes!
 

It's not a new thought, but how can any person kill their 2 y.o. child?

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

Yes. The only quick hook I could come up with was Jersey's Good Faith and Fair Dealing standard, basically an adhesion theory.

I also think one could succeed with the claim that the fine print is immaterial, or something close to it. Sounds nuts, but in common practice, nobody reads it and everybody just assumes its terms preclude the sort of shit the issuers are pulling right now. You might say that hasn't worked in predatory lending cases. I think they're different animals. You don't have closings or strong statutory notices of any kind on credit card solicitations.

One could also argue that issuers are engaged in a long term business practice aimed at debt consolidation - putting less sophisticated borrowers into lifetime debtor's prison. This claim would scare the piss out of them, I think, because as many buddies I know who've worked in the system can attest, there are many internal memos describing the way issuers want to rope kids right out of college and get them into long term debt structures. Done right, I've always believed the issuers could be turned into the next Big Tobacco. Sounds crazy, but right now is the greatest environment in history for lawyers to try it out.

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

Sorry, but I don't follow your point. Does something about this suggest that labor costs aren't relevant to an auto maker bailout?

And btw, as a sheer matter of concentration, GM/Chrysler would result in a lot higher level of concentration than any of the bank deals (there are lots of banks).

Re: The Jolly Banker, indeed.
 

I worked on one of these cases a while ago . . . turns out that the CCs were keeping terrible track of whether/when they had actually sent out the little flyers that update the terms and conditions. It was kind of central to their defense that they in fact had done so, because they wanted to apply those new T&Cs, but they had no way to prove they ever had sent them. My understanding is they reformed their practices after that.