Maxed Out on Showtime

[Enorah]

vagabondo, I am not confused.

Nor am I saying that there is no need for cause and effect.

That is how we learn and grow.

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[meadandale]

@qwerty007

I’ve read the book that the film is based on (or was written during film production).

While I WAS dumbfounded by some of the behavior of the financial institutions (e.g. sending credit card offers to a woman who was currently being foreclosed on by the same bank) I did repeatedly see the same dumb behavior BY THE BORROWERS.

For instance, while it is stupid for the bank to be sending credit offers to a woman in foreclosure, how stupid is it for the woman to take advantage of those offers?

One of the points of the movie was that consumers increasingly see credit as a ‘badge of honor’. They figure (incorrectly) that the banks wouldn’t offer them credit if they can’t afford to make the payments.

All you have to do is look at people in the news to see that how well the movie captures this sentiment. People pulling money out of HELOC’s and putting it in a CD or Money Market account before the credit dries up. People who are near bankruptcy and foreclosure continuing to spend on vacations, cars, tv’s and maxing out their credit. People who refinanced and pulled out tens of thousands of dollars to pay off staggering credit card bills only to charge them back up.

Yes, companies are taking advantage of people. But many of those people are victims of their own stupidity and laziness as much as the financial institutions that people are villifying.

It’s like the woman I saw interviewed on consumerist.com the other day who was too lazy to walk a few blocks and use a bank to cash a check–she’d rather walk across the street and use a check cashing place and pay the fees. So, who is to blame, the check cashing place for charging the high fee or the stupid person paying the fee WILLINGLY?

[meadandale]

@qwerty007

I’ve read the book that the film is based on (or was written during film production).

While I WAS dumbfounded by some of the behavior of the financial institutions (e.g. sending credit card offers to a woman who was currently being foreclosed on by the same bank) I did repeatedly see the same dumb behavior BY THE BORROWERS.

For instance, while it is stupid for the bank to be sending credit offers to a woman in foreclosure, how stupid is it for the woman to take advantage of those offers?

One of the points of the movie was that consumers increasingly see credit as a ‘badge of honor’. They figure (incorrectly) that the banks wouldn’t offer them credit if they can’t afford to make the payments.

All you have to do is look at people in the news to see that how well the movie captures this sentiment. People pulling money out of HELOC’s and putting it in a CD or Money Market account before the credit dries up. People who are near bankruptcy and foreclosure continuing to spend on vacations, cars, tv’s and maxing out their credit. People who refinanced and pulled out tens of thousands of dollars to pay off staggering credit card bills only to charge them back up.

Yes, companies are taking advantage of people. But many of those people are victims of their own stupidity and laziness as much as the financial institutions that people are villifying.

It’s like the woman I saw interviewed on consumerist.com the other day who was too lazy to walk a few blocks and use a bank to cash a check–she’d rather walk across the street and use a check cashing place and pay the fees. So, who is to blame, the check cashing place for charging the high fee or the stupid person paying the fee WILLINGLY?

[meadandale]

@qwerty007

I’ve read the book that the film is based on (or was written during film production).

While I WAS dumbfounded by some of the behavior of the financial institutions (e.g. sending credit card offers to a woman who was currently being foreclosed on by the same bank) I did repeatedly see the same dumb behavior BY THE BORROWERS.

For instance, while it is stupid for the bank to be sending credit offers to a woman in foreclosure, how stupid is it for the woman to take advantage of those offers?

One of the points of the movie was that consumers increasingly see credit as a ‘badge of honor’. They figure (incorrectly) that the banks wouldn’t offer them credit if they can’t afford to make the payments.

All you have to do is look at people in the news to see that how well the movie captures this sentiment. People pulling money out of HELOC’s and putting it in a CD or Money Market account before the credit dries up. People who are near bankruptcy and foreclosure continuing to spend on vacations, cars, tv’s and maxing out their credit. People who refinanced and pulled out tens of thousands of dollars to pay off staggering credit card bills only to charge them back up.

Yes, companies are taking advantage of people. But many of those people are victims of their own stupidity and laziness as much as the financial institutions that people are villifying.

It’s like the woman I saw interviewed on consumerist.com the other day who was too lazy to walk a few blocks and use a bank to cash a check–she’d rather walk across the street and use a check cashing place and pay the fees. So, who is to blame, the check cashing place for charging the high fee or the stupid person paying the fee WILLINGLY?

[meadandale]

@qwerty007

I’ve read the book that the film is based on (or was written during film production).

While I WAS dumbfounded by some of the behavior of the financial institutions (e.g. sending credit card offers to a woman who was currently being foreclosed on by the same bank) I did repeatedly see the same dumb behavior BY THE BORROWERS.

For instance, while it is stupid for the bank to be sending credit offers to a woman in foreclosure, how stupid is it for the woman to take advantage of those offers?

One of the points of the movie was that consumers increasingly see credit as a ‘badge of honor’. They figure (incorrectly) that the banks wouldn’t offer them credit if they can’t afford to make the payments.

All you have to do is look at people in the news to see that how well the movie captures this sentiment. People pulling money out of HELOC’s and putting it in a CD or Money Market account before the credit dries up. People who are near bankruptcy and foreclosure continuing to spend on vacations, cars, tv’s and maxing out their credit. People who refinanced and pulled out tens of thousands of dollars to pay off staggering credit card bills only to charge them back up.

Yes, companies are taking advantage of people. But many of those people are victims of their own stupidity and laziness as much as the financial institutions that people are villifying.

It’s like the woman I saw interviewed on consumerist.com the other day who was too lazy to walk a few blocks and use a bank to cash a check–she’d rather walk across the street and use a check cashing place and pay the fees. So, who is to blame, the check cashing place for charging the high fee or the stupid person paying the fee WILLINGLY?

[meadandale]

@qwerty007

I’ve read the book that the film is based on (or was written during film production).

While I WAS dumbfounded by some of the behavior of the financial institutions (e.g. sending credit card offers to a woman who was currently being foreclosed on by the same bank) I did repeatedly see the same dumb behavior BY THE BORROWERS.

For instance, while it is stupid for the bank to be sending credit offers to a woman in foreclosure, how stupid is it for the woman to take advantage of those offers?

One of the points of the movie was that consumers increasingly see credit as a ‘badge of honor’. They figure (incorrectly) that the banks wouldn’t offer them credit if they can’t afford to make the payments.

All you have to do is look at people in the news to see that how well the movie captures this sentiment. People pulling money out of HELOC’s and putting it in a CD or Money Market account before the credit dries up. People who are near bankruptcy and foreclosure continuing to spend on vacations, cars, tv’s and maxing out their credit. People who refinanced and pulled out tens of thousands of dollars to pay off staggering credit card bills only to charge them back up.

Yes, companies are taking advantage of people. But many of those people are victims of their own stupidity and laziness as much as the financial institutions that people are villifying.

It’s like the woman I saw interviewed on consumerist.com the other day who was too lazy to walk a few blocks and use a bank to cash a check–she’d rather walk across the street and use a check cashing place and pay the fees. So, who is to blame, the check cashing place for charging the high fee or the stupid person paying the fee WILLINGLY?

[Enorah]

When one is reacting from a place of trauma or loss or desperation often logic can not and does not apply.

It is not stupidity or laziness.

I have felt desperate in my life and I made choices that could have been construed by others at the time as stupid (and were, in fact). For me, it was simply a matter of survival. I believed I had no other choice.

For those of you who have not felt desperate and do not know what it is to be in that situation, why not just be grateful.

For those of you who have and are now bitter, why not let it go?

[Enorah]

When one is reacting from a place of trauma or loss or desperation often logic can not and does not apply.

It is not stupidity or laziness.

I have felt desperate in my life and I made choices that could have been construed by others at the time as stupid (and were, in fact). For me, it was simply a matter of survival. I believed I had no other choice.

For those of you who have not felt desperate and do not know what it is to be in that situation, why not just be grateful.

For those of you who have and are now bitter, why not let it go?

[Enorah]

When one is reacting from a place of trauma or loss or desperation often logic can not and does not apply.

It is not stupidity or laziness.

I have felt desperate in my life and I made choices that could have been construed by others at the time as stupid (and were, in fact). For me, it was simply a matter of survival. I believed I had no other choice.

For those of you who have not felt desperate and do not know what it is to be in that situation, why not just be grateful.

For those of you who have and are now bitter, why not let it go?

[Enorah]

When one is reacting from a place of trauma or loss or desperation often logic can not and does not apply.

It is not stupidity or laziness.

I have felt desperate in my life and I made choices that could have been construed by others at the time as stupid (and were, in fact). For me, it was simply a matter of survival. I believed I had no other choice.

For those of you who have not felt desperate and do not know what it is to be in that situation, why not just be grateful.

For those of you who have and are now bitter, why not let it go?

[Author]

Posts