Austan Goolsbee – Credit Card Bill Kicks in Today
July 2nd, 2010 | by admin |whitehouse asked:
Austan Goolsbee of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers talks about the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 – also known as the Credit Card Bill of Rights – which he worked hard on and which kicks in today. Watch the video to get a taste of the types of credit card headaches you won’t have to deal with anymore.
Michael
Tags: Accountability, Act, Bill Of Rights, Council Of Economic Advisers, Credit Card Bill, Disclosure, Headaches, Obama, S Council
25 Responses to “Austan Goolsbee – Credit Card Bill Kicks in Today”
By datzfast on Jul 6, 2010 | Reply
Kenneth
if you use a card your already stupid client of the system. so what will change, nothing. you will still be a stupid client.
By datzfast on Jul 9, 2010 | Reply
Manuel
Dude take you credit card and buy some hair.
By RifleEyes on Jul 10, 2010 | Reply
Suzanne
This guy is hilarious in a weird way.
By WesTheGod on Jul 13, 2010 | Reply
Allan
The people here who are focusing their “debate” on the comments he made about he could not understand credit card ToS’s are either complete trolls or conflict whores.
First of all, he was just trying to appeal to the audience. Even if it wasn’t his best choice of words, if you’re actually going to try to intellectually checkmate his choice to say it, then just stfu and/or gtfo.
How about actually discussing the pros and cons of the policies he was bringing to the table… my god…
By lordennis01 on Jul 14, 2010 | Reply
Roland
Lol well said
By Ducky1987 on Jul 14, 2010 | Reply
Lonnie
Again, you’re not seeing the irony. It seems like you’re refusing to. Hey, I tried.
By bobjman on Jul 17, 2010 | Reply
Andre
I’m sorry you can’t understand your own credit card statements Mr. Goolsbee.
I’m an economist too, and while my B.A. isn’t as impressive sounding as your Ph.D, I feel very sorry for you if you spent so money money on that education but can’t figure out a credit card statement. I have no problem with mine, I don’t pay fees. In fact the credit companies pay ME, because I take advantage of cash back programs.
I would be happy to help you and other Obama economists understand economic issues.
By bobjman on Jul 17, 2010 | Reply
Dolores
If you’re really an economist, then answer me this:
How can you improve the overall health of the economy by reducing the profitability of the US financial industry with this Bill at the SAME TIME you’re propping the same institutions with money from the treasury?
Also how does paying to destroy a perfectly good working asset (say a car), to buy a new one with loaned money help the overall economy?
By Captolamia on Jul 18, 2010 | Reply
Marian
Before the Fed we had a single currency. IE the dollar printed by the treasury. That point is mute. The FED is a failed system and your answer that you are skeptical is not an answer to the statement that the current dollar is worth 3.8 cents vs 1 dollar from 1913.
The Fed is the problem and without it you could eliminate Income Tax.
The Revolutionary war was not fought over taxes but the right of the STATES to print INTREST FREE MONEY. B. Franklin.
By lordennis01 on Jul 19, 2010 | Reply
Michael
There is no joke in credit card terms. I don’t see what the joke is. Understanding the legal binding between the credit card companies and their clients IS part of his job. I think the analogy you gave just makes my point even stronger, I don’t know a quantum physicist who does not understand pre-algebra, you might find me one.
By Ducky1987 on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply
Clifford
The joke lies in the disparity between his station–PhD–and the lowliness of credit card terms. The terms “should” be simple to somebody like him, but he’s ironically saying they’re not *objectively* simple (which is not to say he doesn’t get them). A proper analogy would be “I’m a quantum physicist and I can’t read this pre-algebra textbook.” Your president analogy doesn’t work b/c intel reports are actually part of his job, not something “below his pay grade” so to speak.
By lordennis01 on Jul 23, 2010 | Reply
Dean
First let’s clarify what he says. “I have a PhD in economics and I can barely read what these things [Terms and services] are.”
Following your logic, A president can say ” I am a president, and I can barely understand what intelligence reports mean.” He would then, by your standards, be exaggerating. There is no hyperbole, none that I can see.
He should try to appeal less to stupidity, and focus on the matter at hand.
By Ducky1987 on Jul 24, 2010 | Reply
Leslie
You’re making an unwarranted logical leap. If he can read the terms then he’s not necessarily lying. He can be exaggerating, and I think he’s clearly doing that here. He knows that credit card terms can be difficult to read. In saying that he can’t read them, he’s exaggerating their difficulty. That’s why I said hyperbole.
By lordennis01 on Jul 24, 2010 | Reply
Annie
How is that a Hyperbole? If he can’t read and understand terms of services then he is telling the truth, and therefore useless. If he can read and understand credit card terms he is lying and therefore should be removed. The latter is usually encouraged. However Hyperbole, as I understand it, is simply an exaggeration, not a lie.
By Ducky1987 on Jul 27, 2010 | Reply
Norman
Hyperbole. It’s of the same class as the statement that follows (”smallest print your printer can print”). He was just trying to ingratiate himself to the audience–of course he can read credit card terms.
By MessengerG on Jul 29, 2010 | Reply
Christina
They are already starting to try to go around the laws. JP Morgan Chase is preying on customers with low fixed balance transfer offers by increasing the minimum monthly payments. In my case they raised it by 3% or over $300 per month. They want you to default on your payments so that your interest rate automatically goes up. They get bailed out and we get bitten.
By lordennis01 on Jul 30, 2010 | Reply
Gordon
How so?
By CrescentSword on Aug 2, 2010 | Reply
Bryan
It’s abot time they fixed these dirty MFs.
By DigitalAquarius on Aug 3, 2010 | Reply
Leslie
Common sense in the white house is a sign of relief after 8 years of being confused.
Thank you Mr. President.
By Ducky1987 on Aug 5, 2010 | Reply
Jeffrey
He was being ironic.
By Kapan60 on Aug 7, 2010 | Reply
Rhonda
Can you show me one example in which the FED actually worked the way you describe?
The banking panic, was created in part, by the same bankers that benefited from the FED being created. Instead of the American People in control of the currency we gave our printing rights away to a banking cartel.
You claim it’s a policy issue. Then show me one policy the FED did that worked.
By Evulmeh on Aug 9, 2010 | Reply
Catherine
Actually FED was created to issue a single currency.
It was also created after The panic to give extra capitol to banks when they need it to prevent them from crashing and causing a spiral of destruction.
You must also understand that, if you are right about it failing to control prices, it could still lie with flawed policy and not system.
I’m also skeptical about the FED failing as hard as you make it out to be, but my knowledge of economics does not extend that far.
By Kapan60 on Aug 10, 2010 | Reply
Ron
The rate of inflation has decreased the purchasing power of a single dollar to less than $0.04 since the FED was created in 1913.
Flawed policy is certainly equal to a flawed system. The FED was created to control prices and yet it doesn’t do that very well at all.
Central economic planning doesn’t work.
By Evulmeh on Aug 12, 2010 | Reply
Pedro
It’s attributed to a failed monetary policy.
Alan Greenspan screwed up. He admitted he screwed up. But again, all you state is flawed policy.
Flawed policy =/= flawed system.
The failure that is Iraq doesn’t mean that the entire governmental system is a failure. It means the policy was wrong.
Getting rid of the FED isn’t the answer. The answer is to improve/change the policy.
By Evulmeh on Aug 14, 2010 | Reply
Francisco
That is not short term political pressure on the monetary policy.
Political pressure on the policy system would be to change policy again and again by the sway of the political allignments in congress.
This is merely doing things that the FED was designed to do in the first place.