Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Slava

I definitely agree with you on your points here about the estates and things like that. The part that was egregious though is companies calling peoples employers and things like that. Or the messages he played where they were saying they were going to eat the guys dog. I don't know where the line is, but that is quite clearly over it!

If anything what it made me think is that it would be a great business to get into. I mean sure, you're not going to collect the whole thing, but lets say you sink that $60k into the debt he bought and collect 10% of it. That's $1.5mm. Some of that money is legitimately owed as well. So even if you do only get 10% of the outstanding amount, its a pretty good return on your money!

Thing is, there's a reason you get it for so cheap. It's like penny stocks. These things are valued according to the amount that is usually recoverable.

Obviously, the tactics that were shown on the phone calls to employers (that's illegal) or the actual physical threats (that's not just illegal, it's criminal activity you should be arrested for) are ones that no one should use. Moreover, the guys pretending to be a government agency are engaging in absolutely clear, no-doubt-about-it criminal fraud. It should go without saying that these tactics, rather than the enterprise itself, are the problem.

However, it also tells you what a long-shot proposition it is to try to collect these debts. People won't pay them without being basically extorted.

Last thing: you said, "some of that money is legitimately owed". Unless you've paid back the loan and there's a bookkeeping error, it's all legitimately owed. What Oliver talks about at the end - this medical debt from Texas that's outside the statute of limitations - is still money that's owed. He says they're "not obligated to pay" it. That in itself is misleading. You still owe the money... the creditor just can't sue you for it anymore. They no longer have a remedy. But you still borrowed it, and agreed to pay it back. Oliver's version of the world here is basically, "if I lend you money, and you default by not paying me what you owe, just wait two years, and as long as I don't sue you in the meantime it's free money for you!"

That is not how loans work.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Your response reads like someone who only watched two short clips from within that segment and didn't understand those particular clips within the larger context of the segment.

I specifically said I was just going to use a couple of examples rather than go through the whole thing and pick it apart because I didn't want to waste my time. Go back and read my post. I said so explicitly. And now here I am wasting my time.

Of course his show uses arguments in the strongest way possible to show how debt buyers are scum. And if he presents 10 reasons, and 1 or 2 miss the mark, who cares?

This wasn't the case, but even if it was, the ends don't justify the means. You don't get to mislead your audience and say "who cares, I had other good reasons for presenting this case!"

Your counter arguments themselves are even weak. Honestly your only answer to that entire segment about the court judgements and garnishing of wages and thousands of cases reviewed in seconds is "well the system is flawed but go along with it?"

The system is not flawed, even in this case! It worked, but a bunch of morons ignore lawsuits. Any regular Joe should, one would expect, understand that if you're being sued for something, the person suing you has to prove their case. That doesn't take a law degree. They have to prove you owe them what they say you owe them. If you show up to court and the other side reviewed your case for four seconds, and has no proof besides an excel spreadsheet with your name on it, they're not going to be able to prove anything.

Basically the complaint there is "this company relied on the fact that I'm a moron! Please change the system to allow me to be stupid!" No. You've been sued. Go to ####ing court. If you and people like you weren't idiots, this would not be a viable strategy.

I'm done wasting my time on this, as I initially said I wouldn't. If you want to continue to just take the nonsense in that segment at face value, please feel free... but it's not worth that.

[calumniate]

The big point I think he failed to follow up on is how weak the bookkeeping is on these purchases and sales of debt. I listened to another show that spoke about how these creditors will often take someone to court, but have no real legal leg to stand on as they won't have any supporting documents to do with the debt.

And while stretching it a bit, to say that the books and sales are only kept in excel isn't really too far off the mark. That's why scare tactics and these other strategies continue to be relied upon - their own internal processes buying and selling debt creates a giant legal loophole for a debtor to jump through (should they be willing to show up in court).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Thing is, there's a reason you get it for so cheap. It's like penny stocks. These things are valued according to the amount that is usually recoverable.

Obviously, the tactics that were shown on the phone calls to employers (that's illegal) or the actual physical threats (that's not just illegal, it's criminal activity you should be arrested for) are ones that no one should use. Moreover, the guys pretending to be a government agency are engaging in absolutely clear, no-doubt-about-it criminal fraud. It should go without saying that these tactics, rather than the enterprise itself, are the problem.

However, it also tells you what a long-shot proposition it is to try to collect these debts. People won't pay them without being basically extorted.

Last thing: you said, "some of that money is legitimately owed". Unless you've paid back the loan and there's a bookkeeping error, it's all legitimately owed. What Oliver talks about at the end - this medical debt from Texas that's outside the statute of limitations - is still money that's owed. He says they're "not obligated to pay" it. That in itself is misleading. You still owe the money... the creditor just can't sue you for it anymore. They no longer have a remedy. But you still borrowed it, and agreed to pay it back. Oliver's version of the world here is basically, "if I lend you money, and you default by not paying me what you owe, just wait two years, and as long as I don't sue you in the meantime it's free money for you!"

That is not how loans work.

Oh I get it, I know exactly what you mean here and I don't disagree at all. You're not actually going to recover $15mm in those cases. So even the claim that this is the largest TV giveaway ever is tenuous at best.

I don't really care though. I love John Oliver and basically think that this show is hilarious. Is he off base and over the top, well yeah of course...that's how TV works.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I specifically said I was just going to use a couple of examples rather than go through the whole thing and pick it apart because I didn't want to waste my time. Go back and read my post. I said so explicitly. And now here I am wasting my time.

This wasn't the case, but even if it was, the ends don't justify the means. You don't get to mislead your audience and say "who cares, I had other good reasons for presenting this case!"


The system is not flawed, even in this case! It worked, but a bunch of morons ignore lawsuits. Any regular Joe should, one would expect, understand that if you're being sued for something, the person suing you has to prove their case. That doesn't take a law degree. They have to prove you owe them what they say you owe them. If you show up to court and the other side reviewed your case for four seconds, and has no proof besides an excel spreadsheet with your name on it, they're not going to be able to prove anything.

Basically the complaint there is "this company relied on the fact that I'm a moron! Please change the system to allow me to be stupid!" No. You've been sued. Go to ####ing court. If you and people like you weren't idiots, this would not be a viable strategy.

I'm done wasting my time on this, as I initially said I wouldn't. If you want to continue to just take the nonsense in that segment at face value, please feel free... but it's not worth that.

So you think people that can't afford a proper legal defense are morons? And you blame them for not spending the money and falling for the egregious scare tactics that these companies use?

Haha are you one of the lawyers that they refer to in the clip? because you seem rather personally insulted that Oliver would say such mean things about these sleazeball tactics which you seem to defend and support.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's not a matter of affording a proper legal defense. You just need to show up. There's no big money involved. Frankly, it's only as a result of a separate problem - the treatment of costs in the US legal system - that this wouldn't be a huge money-loser for the people advancing frivolous lawsuits. If someone up here wants to try to sue me for money I don't owe them, bring it on: they're about to owe me a bunch of money.

Again, the fact that you're taking this position speaks volumes about what you do not know and refuse to be educated about in this area. The extent of your knowledge in the area appears to be precisely what Oliver just told you about it. This is the exact problem I'm addressing with the show more generally Slava; in spite of that entertainment value I totally agree it has (I watch these clips most Mondays), it produces reactions like this.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not a matter of affording a proper legal defense. You just need to show up. There's no big money involved. Frankly, it's only as a result of a separate problem - the treatment of costs in the US legal system - that this wouldn't be a huge money-loser for the people advancing frivolous lawsuits. If someone up here wants to try to sue me for money I don't owe them, bring it on: they're about to owe me a bunch of money.

Again, the fact that you're taking this position speaks volumes about what you do not know and refuse to be educated about in this area. The extent of your knowledge in the area appears to be precisely what Oliver just told you about it. This is the exact problem I'm addressing with the show more generally Salava; in spite of that entertainment value I totally agree it has (I watch these clips most Mondays), it produces reactions like this.

I'm generally in agreement with your position, but in fairness, we may know that because Jon just told us, but I'd wager the vast majority of people in these situations dont know that.

They'd think:

"Oh crap, I'm being sued, I need a lawyer. I cant afford a lawyer! Come find me suckaaas!!!"

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Locke

They'd think: "Oh crap, I'm being sued, I need a lawyer. I cant afford a lawyer! Come find me suckaaas!!!"

Or they could fire up this magical thing called "google" to see what they need to do. Or they could presumably look at the first sentence of the statement of claim they've just been handed, which in AB looks like this:

You are being sued. You are a Defendant. Go to the end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it.

I mean I guess it's possible that the person in question is illiterate, but presumably they'd know someone who can read.

Again, this is just people being incorrigibly dumb. If you're actually right to think most people are this stupid, that they'd say "come find me suckas" when served with a goddamn lawsuit, then I weep for society. What did you think was going to happen?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm generally in agreement with your position, but in fairness, we may know that because Jon just told us, but I'd wager the vast majority of people in these situations dont know that.

They'd think:

"Oh crap, I'm being sued, I need a lawyer. I cant afford a lawyer! Come find me suckaaas!!!"

Well that is the general issue with regard to the risk of buying these portfolios of debt. Like if you or I were to be served with papers today we call a lawyer or generally deal with the problem. Like CHL says above though, these people basically respond to extortion and not a lot else. So while the tactics shown are crazy and outside the law, that's basically the only way to get paid if you own the debts.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm generally in agreement with your position, but in fairness, we may know that because Jon just told us, but I'd wager the vast majority of people in these situations dont know that.

They'd think:

"Oh crap, I'm being sued, I need a lawyer. I cant afford a lawyer! Come find me suckaaas!!!"

Yeah, I would agree with that. Statute of limitations defenses aren't that easy to understand, even for sophisticated business people. While Oliver does have some misleading bits, I don't see that the overall message was so damaging.

Frankly, this one seems almost too easy; low hanging fruit. Essentially a rant against debt collectors, rather than debt buyers. Next up: unscrupulous auto mechanics or how slow things are at the DMV.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not a matter of affording a proper legal defense. You just need to show up. There's no big money involved. Frankly, it's only as a result of a separate problem - the treatment of costs in the US legal system - that this wouldn't be a huge money-loser for the people advancing frivolous lawsuits. If someone up here wants to try to sue me for money I don't owe them, bring it on: they're about to owe me a bunch of money.

Again, the fact that you're taking this position speaks volumes about what you do not know and refuse to be educated about in this area. The extent of your knowledge in the area appears to be precisely what Oliver just told you about it. This is the exact problem I'm addressing with the show more generally Slava; in spite of that entertainment value I totally agree it has (I watch these clips most Mondays), it produces reactions like this.

Hahaha. Please enlighten us oh righteous one!

You are oh so smart and way more entertaining than Jon Oliver.

I bow to your vast knowledge and condescension.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Hahaha. Please enlighten us oh righteous one!

You are oh so smart and way more entertaining than Jon Oliver.

I bow to your vast knowledge and condescension.

You can't demonstrate your own ignorance, then double down on it once the nuance of the issue is pointed out to you, refuse to acknowledge that nuance, and then smarmily accuse someone who points it out based on admittedly limited information about the subject area (which, as I said up front, is my position here) of being condescending. It's anti-intellectual.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You can't demonstrate your own ignorance, then double down on it once the nuance of the issue is pointed out to you, refuse to acknowledge that nuance, and then smarmily accuse someone who points it out based on admittedly limited information about the subject area (which, as I said up front, is my position here) of being condescending. It's anti-intellectual.

And your steadfast belief that your viewpoint is the only legitimate one fosters discourse? Watch the rocks man, that house is fragile.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

And your steadfast belief that your viewpoint is the only legitimate one fosters discourse? Watch the rocks man, that house is fragile.

Right, so I'll expect you to quote where I said my viewpoint is the only legitimate one or that it wasn't defeasible, particularly in light of me not being an expert on the industry. I believe I said that I had just enough knowledge / information to detect the bull#### being peddled in that segment.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Right, so I'll expect you to quote where I said my viewpoint is the only legitimate one or that it wasn't defeasible, particularly in light of me not being an expert on the industry. I believe I said that I had just enough knowledge / information to detect the bull#### being peddled in that segment.

Sigh, don't be a moon about this. It's quite obvious from your words and tone that you feel your and only your opinion on this is correct. You're really getting worked up about something you said you were done with.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It shouldn't be obvious. I'm annoyed by the segment, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more nuance of which I'm unaware that would modify my position. On the matter of being sued, though, I admit to being unable to think of a reason it would make sense to just ignore a lawsuit when it's put in your hands. But if someone can give me a good reason, I'm all ears.

And yeah, I'm taking the bait... but come on, you just said something about me that was wrong. On the internet. One can't just let these things go, you know.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It shouldn't be obvious. I'm annoyed by the segment, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more nuance of which I'm unaware that would modify my position. On the matter of being sued, though, I admit to being unable to think of a reason it would make sense to just ignore a lawsuit when it's put in your hands. But if someone can give me a good reason, I'm all ears.

And yeah, but come on, you just said something about me that was wrong. On the internet. Once can't just let these things go, you know.

The same reason voter ID laws are garbage. Not everyone has the means to fight a lawsuit. You can argue the merits of debt and debt repayment until you're blue in the face but at the end of the day not everyone can hire a lawyer and take time off work to go deal with legal issues. Not everyone is part of the Alberta 1% club.

[calumniate]

I still fail to see what was truly misleading about the piece though. It did have an obvious slant but thought the point of it was more to say how far most americans are in debt and default on loans, and the structure and processes that exist in recovering the debt?

[V]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Not worth any more time, but suffice it to say, that was a bunch of bull####, and it makes me wonder what other reports of his I've watched where he's misled me about topics on which I'm wholly ignorant and can't see through said bull#### (as opposed to being barely informed enough to tell I'm being bs'd, as I am here).

You write pages and pages about completely irrelevant semantics, but now with this, something interesting, you're just going to stop? C'mon man!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

The same reason voter ID laws are garbage. Not everyone has the means to fight a lawsuit. You can argue the merits of debt and debt repayment until you're blue in the face but at the end of the day not everyone can hire a lawyer and take time off work to go deal with legal issues. Not everyone is part of the Alberta 1% club.

I thought I had addressed this? Let's leave aside the existence of free legal clinics that deal in stuff exactly like this every day. You don't need a lawyer. If you show up to court, and the other side fails to prove its case - for example, by not having the loan documents handy, or other convincing evidence that you owe what they say you owe - you don't even have to say a word. The case is getting thrown out. Now, if you want to say that there should be a mechanism in place for you to be better compensated for the waste of your time or even a penalty for going to trial with lawsuits that have no reasonable prospect of success, I'm open to those ideas. But this does not justify ignoring lawsuits. It should be pretty obvious that that is a terrible idea.

Moreover, even if you were right, from a principled standpoint, this only applies in cases where the person in question doesn't actually owe the money. The bookkeeping may not be good, and debt purchasers may just be buying a spreadsheet, but that's just bad records practice on their part. There are obviously exceptions, but most of the lines in that spreadsheet weren't pulled out of thin air. Those are bad records, but underlying those bad records are actual receivables on actual debt that people actually borrowed.

If you go to court to defend a lawsuit over a debt you actually owe, and win, it's you who gamed the system. You borrowed money and didn't pay it back. If you don't, if you ignore the lawsuit (for still no good reason I can see), and the creditor gets a default judgment against you... well, you borrowed money and didn't pay it back. That's what lawsuits are for.

Originally Posted by calumniate

I still fail to see what was truly misleading about the piece though. It did have an obvious slant but thought the point of it was more to say how far most americans are in debt and default on loans, and the structure and processes that exist in recovering the debt?

My interpretation of the point of the piece was "the debt resale industry is inherently sleazy and corrupt, profiting off the backs of innocent people using underhanded shady tactics. Basically, they're a bunch of goat pimps."

Originally Posted by V

You write pages and pages about completely irrelevant semantics, but now with this, something interesting, you're just going to stop? C'mon man!

Despite my protestations, as Resalien said, I haven't really stopped... but obviously we have different ideas about what is "irrelevant". Also, what the definition of "semantics" is; but I'll just stick with the OED on that one.