[cooperthedog]

I would evaluate it on the following points, in order of importance:

0) Is the amount something you are comfortable losing?
1) Are their any personal issues (substance abuse, gambling, etc.)?
2) Are they throwing good money after bad?
3) Do you trust the person?
4) How close is the relationship?
5) Is this an anomaly or a consistent pattern of financial mismanagement?
6) What are the consequences of them not receiving the loan?
7) What is their specific plan for repayment, is it realistic, & what contigencies may hamper thier efforts?

If you do go forward, discuss the need for them to communicate openly if the loan can’t be repaid on schedule, and that it is OK if, and only if, it’s due to circumstances beyond their control (and completely unacceptable if they are putting discretionary spending before repayment).

Finally, if the sum is significant, ask for collateral. Have them sign over their vehicle(s) & draft a loan contract. If they take offense, remind them that it is only an issue if they don’t pay you back. If they still refuse, don’t lend the money.

In my opinion, friends/relatives who are *truly* in need deserve some help. If they respect you and have the means, your money will be repaid. If they lack the means, but are trying in earnest, consider the loan a gift until things turn around. If they have the means and don’t repay you, then you’ve just discovered the depth of your relationship.

[cooperthedog]

I would evaluate it on the following points, in order of importance:

0) Is the amount something you are comfortable losing?
1) Are their any personal issues (substance abuse, gambling, etc.)?
2) Are they throwing good money after bad?
3) Do you trust the person?
4) How close is the relationship?
5) Is this an anomaly or a consistent pattern of financial mismanagement?
6) What are the consequences of them not receiving the loan?
7) What is their specific plan for repayment, is it realistic, & what contigencies may hamper thier efforts?

If you do go forward, discuss the need for them to communicate openly if the loan can’t be repaid on schedule, and that it is OK if, and only if, it’s due to circumstances beyond their control (and completely unacceptable if they are putting discretionary spending before repayment).

Finally, if the sum is significant, ask for collateral. Have them sign over their vehicle(s) & draft a loan contract. If they take offense, remind them that it is only an issue if they don’t pay you back. If they still refuse, don’t lend the money.

In my opinion, friends/relatives who are *truly* in need deserve some help. If they respect you and have the means, your money will be repaid. If they lack the means, but are trying in earnest, consider the loan a gift until things turn around. If they have the means and don’t repay you, then you’ve just discovered the depth of your relationship.

[cooperthedog]

I would evaluate it on the following points, in order of importance:

0) Is the amount something you are comfortable losing?
1) Are their any personal issues (substance abuse, gambling, etc.)?
2) Are they throwing good money after bad?
3) Do you trust the person?
4) How close is the relationship?
5) Is this an anomaly or a consistent pattern of financial mismanagement?
6) What are the consequences of them not receiving the loan?
7) What is their specific plan for repayment, is it realistic, & what contigencies may hamper thier efforts?

If you do go forward, discuss the need for them to communicate openly if the loan can’t be repaid on schedule, and that it is OK if, and only if, it’s due to circumstances beyond their control (and completely unacceptable if they are putting discretionary spending before repayment).

Finally, if the sum is significant, ask for collateral. Have them sign over their vehicle(s) & draft a loan contract. If they take offense, remind them that it is only an issue if they don’t pay you back. If they still refuse, don’t lend the money.

In my opinion, friends/relatives who are *truly* in need deserve some help. If they respect you and have the means, your money will be repaid. If they lack the means, but are trying in earnest, consider the loan a gift until things turn around. If they have the means and don’t repay you, then you’ve just discovered the depth of your relationship.

[cooperthedog]

I would evaluate it on the following points, in order of importance:

0) Is the amount something you are comfortable losing?
1) Are their any personal issues (substance abuse, gambling, etc.)?
2) Are they throwing good money after bad?
3) Do you trust the person?
4) How close is the relationship?
5) Is this an anomaly or a consistent pattern of financial mismanagement?
6) What are the consequences of them not receiving the loan?
7) What is their specific plan for repayment, is it realistic, & what contigencies may hamper thier efforts?

If you do go forward, discuss the need for them to communicate openly if the loan can’t be repaid on schedule, and that it is OK if, and only if, it’s due to circumstances beyond their control (and completely unacceptable if they are putting discretionary spending before repayment).

Finally, if the sum is significant, ask for collateral. Have them sign over their vehicle(s) & draft a loan contract. If they take offense, remind them that it is only an issue if they don’t pay you back. If they still refuse, don’t lend the money.

In my opinion, friends/relatives who are *truly* in need deserve some help. If they respect you and have the means, your money will be repaid. If they lack the means, but are trying in earnest, consider the loan a gift until things turn around. If they have the means and don’t repay you, then you’ve just discovered the depth of your relationship.

[cooperthedog]

I would evaluate it on the following points, in order of importance:

0) Is the amount something you are comfortable losing?
1) Are their any personal issues (substance abuse, gambling, etc.)?
2) Are they throwing good money after bad?
3) Do you trust the person?
4) How close is the relationship?
5) Is this an anomaly or a consistent pattern of financial mismanagement?
6) What are the consequences of them not receiving the loan?
7) What is their specific plan for repayment, is it realistic, & what contigencies may hamper thier efforts?

If you do go forward, discuss the need for them to communicate openly if the loan can’t be repaid on schedule, and that it is OK if, and only if, it’s due to circumstances beyond their control (and completely unacceptable if they are putting discretionary spending before repayment).

Finally, if the sum is significant, ask for collateral. Have them sign over their vehicle(s) & draft a loan contract. If they take offense, remind them that it is only an issue if they don’t pay you back. If they still refuse, don’t lend the money.

In my opinion, friends/relatives who are *truly* in need deserve some help. If they respect you and have the means, your money will be repaid. If they lack the means, but are trying in earnest, consider the loan a gift until things turn around. If they have the means and don’t repay you, then you’ve just discovered the depth of your relationship.

[cooperthedog]

If your credit is shot due to errors and inaccuracies, through no fault of your own, then you should easily be able to resolve the issue yourself.

Review the FCRA laws and file disputes with all the major credit bureaus. Document everything. Follow up to make sure the errors are removed, if not, consult an attorney who will force the creditor to correct the files and you may be entitled to damages.

If the credit problems are your fault, then you won’t be able to do much about it, other than filing disputes hoping the creditor won’t respond, or using some “unorthodox” tactics. If you are still considering a credit repair service for such, make sure that your fee is dependent on results and not paid up front.

[cooperthedog]

If your credit is shot due to errors and inaccuracies, through no fault of your own, then you should easily be able to resolve the issue yourself.

Review the FCRA laws and file disputes with all the major credit bureaus. Document everything. Follow up to make sure the errors are removed, if not, consult an attorney who will force the creditor to correct the files and you may be entitled to damages.

If the credit problems are your fault, then you won’t be able to do much about it, other than filing disputes hoping the creditor won’t respond, or using some “unorthodox” tactics. If you are still considering a credit repair service for such, make sure that your fee is dependent on results and not paid up front.

[cooperthedog]

If your credit is shot due to errors and inaccuracies, through no fault of your own, then you should easily be able to resolve the issue yourself.

Review the FCRA laws and file disputes with all the major credit bureaus. Document everything. Follow up to make sure the errors are removed, if not, consult an attorney who will force the creditor to correct the files and you may be entitled to damages.

If the credit problems are your fault, then you won’t be able to do much about it, other than filing disputes hoping the creditor won’t respond, or using some “unorthodox” tactics. If you are still considering a credit repair service for such, make sure that your fee is dependent on results and not paid up front.

[cooperthedog]

If your credit is shot due to errors and inaccuracies, through no fault of your own, then you should easily be able to resolve the issue yourself.

Review the FCRA laws and file disputes with all the major credit bureaus. Document everything. Follow up to make sure the errors are removed, if not, consult an attorney who will force the creditor to correct the files and you may be entitled to damages.

If the credit problems are your fault, then you won’t be able to do much about it, other than filing disputes hoping the creditor won’t respond, or using some “unorthodox” tactics. If you are still considering a credit repair service for such, make sure that your fee is dependent on results and not paid up front.

[cooperthedog]

If your credit is shot due to errors and inaccuracies, through no fault of your own, then you should easily be able to resolve the issue yourself.

Review the FCRA laws and file disputes with all the major credit bureaus. Document everything. Follow up to make sure the errors are removed, if not, consult an attorney who will force the creditor to correct the files and you may be entitled to damages.

If the credit problems are your fault, then you won’t be able to do much about it, other than filing disputes hoping the creditor won’t respond, or using some “unorthodox” tactics. If you are still considering a credit repair service for such, make sure that your fee is dependent on results and not paid up front.

[cooperthedog]

Vagabondo,

I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer. When confidence falters (whether consumer, bank, mfg. etc.) it tends to sprial and take the entire economy down. What is our free market solution to this? Stimulus checks, federal reserve “loans” to prop the credit markets, tax breaks for homebuilders, etc. etc. etc. My point is that many business owners have no problem accepting “socialist” programs when it benefits them directly. In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system.

As you put it, we are a society that believes in job stability (barring poor personal performance or severe company/economic problems). This job stability and wage indexing to inflation is not a governmental mandate or initial influence as our fathers (and grandfathers) worked for a few companies their entire life. Loyalty was expected on both sides. I think a shift has occurred where employees now realize there isn’t as much stability, and that employers view “at will” as a goal (outsourcing/automation) vs. an insurance policy for poor performance. Thus the entitlement is more due to historical precedent than gov’t bloat. The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, “how can we compete” comes down to the lowest common denominator. Another issue is that the US employee is also the primary global consumer, creating all kinds of feedback loops when wages, outsourcing, etc. are accounted for.

As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union. As far as taxes, vouchers can be used, though I am no expert, and I do not know the degree of offset these provide. You could also move to the Cayman islands and avoid most taxes & educational mandates. The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?

[cooperthedog]

Vagabondo,

I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer. When confidence falters (whether consumer, bank, mfg. etc.) it tends to sprial and take the entire economy down. What is our free market solution to this? Stimulus checks, federal reserve “loans” to prop the credit markets, tax breaks for homebuilders, etc. etc. etc. My point is that many business owners have no problem accepting “socialist” programs when it benefits them directly. In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system.

As you put it, we are a society that believes in job stability (barring poor personal performance or severe company/economic problems). This job stability and wage indexing to inflation is not a governmental mandate or initial influence as our fathers (and grandfathers) worked for a few companies their entire life. Loyalty was expected on both sides. I think a shift has occurred where employees now realize there isn’t as much stability, and that employers view “at will” as a goal (outsourcing/automation) vs. an insurance policy for poor performance. Thus the entitlement is more due to historical precedent than gov’t bloat. The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, “how can we compete” comes down to the lowest common denominator. Another issue is that the US employee is also the primary global consumer, creating all kinds of feedback loops when wages, outsourcing, etc. are accounted for.

As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union. As far as taxes, vouchers can be used, though I am no expert, and I do not know the degree of offset these provide. You could also move to the Cayman islands and avoid most taxes & educational mandates. The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?

[cooperthedog]

Vagabondo,

I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer. When confidence falters (whether consumer, bank, mfg. etc.) it tends to sprial and take the entire economy down. What is our free market solution to this? Stimulus checks, federal reserve “loans” to prop the credit markets, tax breaks for homebuilders, etc. etc. etc. My point is that many business owners have no problem accepting “socialist” programs when it benefits them directly. In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system.

As you put it, we are a society that believes in job stability (barring poor personal performance or severe company/economic problems). This job stability and wage indexing to inflation is not a governmental mandate or initial influence as our fathers (and grandfathers) worked for a few companies their entire life. Loyalty was expected on both sides. I think a shift has occurred where employees now realize there isn’t as much stability, and that employers view “at will” as a goal (outsourcing/automation) vs. an insurance policy for poor performance. Thus the entitlement is more due to historical precedent than gov’t bloat. The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, “how can we compete” comes down to the lowest common denominator. Another issue is that the US employee is also the primary global consumer, creating all kinds of feedback loops when wages, outsourcing, etc. are accounted for.

As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union. As far as taxes, vouchers can be used, though I am no expert, and I do not know the degree of offset these provide. You could also move to the Cayman islands and avoid most taxes & educational mandates. The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?

[cooperthedog]

Vagabondo,

I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer. When confidence falters (whether consumer, bank, mfg. etc.) it tends to sprial and take the entire economy down. What is our free market solution to this? Stimulus checks, federal reserve “loans” to prop the credit markets, tax breaks for homebuilders, etc. etc. etc. My point is that many business owners have no problem accepting “socialist” programs when it benefits them directly. In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system.

As you put it, we are a society that believes in job stability (barring poor personal performance or severe company/economic problems). This job stability and wage indexing to inflation is not a governmental mandate or initial influence as our fathers (and grandfathers) worked for a few companies their entire life. Loyalty was expected on both sides. I think a shift has occurred where employees now realize there isn’t as much stability, and that employers view “at will” as a goal (outsourcing/automation) vs. an insurance policy for poor performance. Thus the entitlement is more due to historical precedent than gov’t bloat. The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, “how can we compete” comes down to the lowest common denominator. Another issue is that the US employee is also the primary global consumer, creating all kinds of feedback loops when wages, outsourcing, etc. are accounted for.

As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union. As far as taxes, vouchers can be used, though I am no expert, and I do not know the degree of offset these provide. You could also move to the Cayman islands and avoid most taxes & educational mandates. The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?

[cooperthedog]

Vagabondo,

I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer. When confidence falters (whether consumer, bank, mfg. etc.) it tends to sprial and take the entire economy down. What is our free market solution to this? Stimulus checks, federal reserve “loans” to prop the credit markets, tax breaks for homebuilders, etc. etc. etc. My point is that many business owners have no problem accepting “socialist” programs when it benefits them directly. In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system.

As you put it, we are a society that believes in job stability (barring poor personal performance or severe company/economic problems). This job stability and wage indexing to inflation is not a governmental mandate or initial influence as our fathers (and grandfathers) worked for a few companies their entire life. Loyalty was expected on both sides. I think a shift has occurred where employees now realize there isn’t as much stability, and that employers view “at will” as a goal (outsourcing/automation) vs. an insurance policy for poor performance. Thus the entitlement is more due to historical precedent than gov’t bloat. The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, “how can we compete” comes down to the lowest common denominator. Another issue is that the US employee is also the primary global consumer, creating all kinds of feedback loops when wages, outsourcing, etc. are accounted for.

As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union. As far as taxes, vouchers can be used, though I am no expert, and I do not know the degree of offset these provide. You could also move to the Cayman islands and avoid most taxes & educational mandates. The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?

[Author]

Posts