The title of a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5RGo98T-8

It addresses an interesting question, but a complex one. He notes,
early on, that it would be impossible to be "post-scarcity" in
the strict economic sense; for people to have everything they want,
as many common wants are unreasonable ones.

John Savard

On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 23:22:16 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:

> The title of a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5RGo98T-8
>
> It addresses an interesting question, but a complex one. He notes, early
> on, that it would be impossible to be "post-scarcity" in the strict
> economic sense; for people to have everything they want,
> as many common wants are unreasonable ones.
>
> John Savard

I'm on my slow computer that doesn't have speakers, so I read
captions until the video hung, about six minutes in. So I
scrolled down through the comments and...from them I gather this
video is about him adopting three children.

Charles Packer wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 23:22:16 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > The title of a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5RGo98T-8
> >
> > It addresses an interesting question, but a complex one. He notes, early
> > on, that it would be impossible to be "post-scarcity" in the strict
> > economic sense; for people to have everything they want,
> > as many common wants are unreasonable ones.
> >
> I'm on my slow computer that doesn't have speakers, so I read
> captions until the video hung, about six minutes in. So I
> scrolled down through the comments and...from them I gather this
> video is about him adopting three children.

Well, like most Isaac Arthur videos, it goes on to a web of other ideas,glancing through subjects covered from another angle, such as "Post-Discontent Societies" (as that video title links it with "Machine Overlords," you might guess where it is coming from) and "Creating a Sense of Purpose in a Post-Scarcity Society."

One of the topics he takes up later in this video is the Hierarchy of Needs, which allows viewing the early comments as those who've secured their biological needs and safety needs are working to meet each other's beloningness needs.

--
-Jack

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:0a33876b-9579-4dab-a24a-
76f5c3f850e2n@googlegroups.com:

> The title of a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5RGo98T-8
>
> It addresses an interesting question, but a complex one. He notes,
> early on, that it would be impossible to be "post-scarcity" in
> the strict economic sense; for people to have everything they want,
> as many common wants are unreasonable ones.
>
There are too many people who want only "more than you have."

Or "what you have."

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 1/17/2023 11:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:0a33876b-9579-4dab-a24a-
> 76f5c3f850e2n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> The title of a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5RGo98T-8
>>
>> It addresses an interesting question, but a complex one. He notes,
>> early on, that it would be impossible to be "post-scarcity" in
>> the strict economic sense; for people to have everything they want,
>> as many common wants are unreasonable ones.
>>
> There are too many people who want only "more than you have."
>
> Or "what you have."

Too many people want my 2019 F-150 4x4. They stop me and ask me how
much I would take for it. I tell them to go buy a new one. They say
that $60K is too much. I agree, they should have bought a new truck in
2019 before the current scarcity society. I paid $40K for mine in 2019,
the list price was $54K. Now you pay list price.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tq6thb$3c6cv$1@dont-email.me:

> On 1/17/2023 11:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:0a33876b-9579-4dab-a24a- 76f5c3f850e2n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> The title of a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5RGo98T-8
>>>
>>> It addresses an interesting question, but a complex one. He
>>> notes, early on, that it would be impossible to be
>>> "post-scarcity" in the strict economic sense; for people to
>>> have everything they want, as many common wants are
>>> unreasonable ones.
>>>
>> There are too many people who want only "more than you have."
>>
>> Or "what you have."
>
> Too many people want my 2019 F-150 4x4. They stop me and ask me
> how much I would take for it. I tell them to go buy a new one.
> They say that $60K is too much. I agree, they should have
> bought a new truck in 2019 before the current scarcity society.
> I paid $40K for mine in 2019, the list price was $54K. Now you
> pay list price.
>
The dealership I bought my car from in 2017 keeps calling me,
trying to buy it back because a) they've done all the factory
maintenance on it, so they know it's in excellent shape, b) quality
used cars are hard for them to get, and c) new inventory is still
hard to get, and exepsnive. At one point, they even admitted they
had someone looking for that exact model and color.

Pity they won't offer me a straight up trade for a brand new car,
eh?

It's gotten annoying enough that there's a better than even chance
my next car won't be a Toyota.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:44:06 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:tq6thb$3c6cv$1...@dont-email.me:
> > On 1/17/2023 11:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >> news:0a33876b-9579-4dab-a24a- 76f5c3...@googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >>> The title of a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5RGo98T-8
> >>>
> >>> It addresses an interesting question, but a complex one. He
> >>> notes, early on, that it would be impossible to be
> >>> "post-scarcity" in the strict economic sense; for people to
> >>> have everything they want, as many common wants are
> >>> unreasonable ones.
> >>>
> >> There are too many people who want only "more than you have."
> >>
> >> Or "what you have."
> >
> > Too many people want my 2019 F-150 4x4. They stop me and ask me
> > how much I would take for it. I tell them to go buy a new one.
> > They say that $60K is too much. I agree, they should have
> > bought a new truck in 2019 before the current scarcity society.
> > I paid $40K for mine in 2019, the list price was $54K. Now you
> > pay list price.
> >
> The dealership I bought my car from in 2017 keeps calling me,
> trying to buy it back because a) they've done all the factory
> maintenance on it, so they know it's in excellent shape, b) quality
> used cars are hard for them to get, and c) new inventory is still
> hard to get, and exepsnive. At one point, they even admitted they
> had someone looking for that exact model and color.
>
> Pity they won't offer me a straight up trade for a brand new car,
> eh?
>
> It's gotten annoying enough that there's a better than even chance
> my next car won't be a Toyota.

About a year ago, I could have sold my 2019 Tesla with 50k miles
for 20k MORE than I'd paid for it new. Now, with the recent price cuts
and Federal subsidies, the new model 3 is back close to what I paid
in 2019, though it's much improved.

Pt

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 11:44:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:tq6thb$3c6cv$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 1/17/2023 11:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>> news:0a33876b-9579-4dab-a24a- 76f5c3f850e2n@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> The title of a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5RGo98T-8
>>>>
>>>> It addresses an interesting question, but a complex one. He
>>>> notes, early on, that it would be impossible to be
>>>> "post-scarcity" in the strict economic sense; for people to
>>>> have everything they want, as many common wants are
>>>> unreasonable ones.
>>>>
>>> There are too many people who want only "more than you have."
>>>
>>> Or "what you have."
>>
>> Too many people want my 2019 F-150 4x4. They stop me and ask me
>> how much I would take for it. I tell them to go buy a new one.
>> They say that $60K is too much. I agree, they should have
>> bought a new truck in 2019 before the current scarcity society.
>> I paid $40K for mine in 2019, the list price was $54K. Now you
>> pay list price.
>>
>The dealership I bought my car from in 2017 keeps calling me,
>trying to buy it back because a) they've done all the factory
>maintenance on it, so they know it's in excellent shape, b) quality
>used cars are hard for them to get, and c) new inventory is still
>hard to get, and exepsnive. At one point, they even admitted they
>had someone looking for that exact model and color.
>
>Pity they won't offer me a straight up trade for a brand new car,
>eh?

But ... but ... but that might work to your advantage.

And They Can't Have That.

>It's gotten annoying enough that there's a better than even chance
>my next car won't be a Toyota.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:6vbgshtjjjl2tg1f1eaiqm9ogk747nu15j@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 11:44:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:tq6thb$3c6cv$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 1/17/2023 11:00 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>> wrote:
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>> news:0a33876b-9579-4dab-a24a- 76f5c3f850e2n@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> The title of a YouTube video by Isaac Arthur.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5RGo98T-8
>>>>>
>>>>> It addresses an interesting question, but a complex one. He
>>>>> notes, early on, that it would be impossible to be
>>>>> "post-scarcity" in the strict economic sense; for people to
>>>>> have everything they want, as many common wants are
>>>>> unreasonable ones.
>>>>>
>>>> There are too many people who want only "more than you have."
>>>>
>>>> Or "what you have."
>>>
>>> Too many people want my 2019 F-150 4x4. They stop me and ask
>>> me how much I would take for it. I tell them to go buy a new
>>> one. They say that $60K is too much. I agree, they should
>>> have bought a new truck in 2019 before the current scarcity
>>> society. I paid $40K for mine in 2019, the list price was
>>> $54K. Now you pay list price.
>>>
>>The dealership I bought my car from in 2017 keeps calling me,
>>trying to buy it back because a) they've done all the factory
>>maintenance on it, so they know it's in excellent shape, b)
>>quality used cars are hard for them to get, and c) new inventory
>>is still hard to get, and exepsnive. At one point, they even
>>admitted they had someone looking for that exact model and
>>color.
>>
>>Pity they won't offer me a straight up trade for a brand new
>>car, eh?
>
> But ... but ... but that might work to your advantage.
>
> And They Can't Have That.

You attribute some evil motive to the fact that they won't give me
a brand new car that they sell for more - and make more profit on -
than the used car they want to buy from me?

Really?

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 5:33:25 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> You attribute some evil motive to the fact that they won't give me
> a brand new car that they sell for more - and make more profit on -
> than the used car they want to buy from me?

No doubt he thought he was not attributing to them more than
you were.

The situation you described seems simple enough to me.

They sold you a car.

Since then, because of the microchip shortage, low-margin chips,
such as the cheap ones used for basic functions in cars, have
become essentially unavailable, although high-margin chips,
like CPUs for home computers, are available again.

So they can't get new cars to sell. Your car is now worth more
than what you paid for it. So if you needed the money you spent
on your car back, they have a deal for you...

I don't attribute to them an _evil_ motive for not offering to you
the thing that they can't get (a new car), but they should have
better things to do than bother you. Like laying off staff.

I mean, people buy cars because they need a car more than a
pile of money in the bank. So exchanging the car for money, at
a time when the money won't buy a car, won't make sense unless
your needs have drastically changed.

They think you're stupid, or they hope you're stupid, and if so,
they want to take advantage of it. Or at least, that's how it
seems. If they only want a mutually beneficial transaction on
the off chance your needs _have_ changed... they wouldn't
be calling you quite that often.

Taking advantage of those who are stupid... I'd call that an "evil motive",
even if it's just free enterprise at work.

While still agreeing that offering only money and not a car is
*not* motivated by evil, it's due to the situation that sparked
the activity to begin with.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:f1d0a328-2d73-43c8-8dcb-446b60dd33adn@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 5:33:25 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> You attribute some evil motive to the fact that they won't give
>> me a brand new car that they sell for more - and make more
>> profit on - than the used car they want to buy from me?
>
> No doubt he thought he was not attributing to them more than
> you were.
>
> The situation you described seems simple enough to me.
>
> They sold you a car.
>
> Since then, because of the microchip shortage, low-margin chips,
> such as the cheap ones used for basic functions in cars, have
> become essentially unavailable, although high-margin chips,
> like CPUs for home computers, are available again.
>
> So they can't get new cars to sell. Your car is now worth more
> than what you paid for it.

I didn't say that. Just worth more than it would normally be.

> So if you needed the money you spent
> on your car back, they have a deal for you...
>
> I don't attribute to them an _evil_ motive for not offering to
> you the thing that they can't get (a new car),

Neither do I, but Paul certainly seems to be doing so.

> but they should
> have better things to do than bother you. Like laying off staff.

You're hallucinating something you wish I'd said so that you could
insult me over it. Again.

What they *should* do is stop calling after I've told them to. If
not the first time, then the second, or third, or twelvth. It's
been *at* *least* a dozen calls since I told them I was not, and
_would never be_ interested in selling the car. I drive them until
the die. (When I bought the current car, the salesman assured me
I'd be surprised at how much they'd give me as a trade-in on the
old car, until I answered with, "Well, I suppose it *technically*
still runs." But the blow head gasket made it unsuitable even to
cart down to Mexico for a quick flip, which is the fate of cars too
beat up for the US market.)
>
> I mean, people buy cars because they need a car more than a
> pile of money in the bank.

Or pile of debt in the bank.

> So exchanging the car for money, at
> a time when the money won't buy a car, won't make sense unless
> your needs have drastically changed.

And I live in southern California, where it is very nearly
impossible to hold down a job without a car, because everything is
so spread out and public transportation doesn't really exist (if
you must ride the bus, bring a towel to wipe the urine off the seat
before you sit down, because the homeless have to pee *somewhere*.
I'm *not* kidding.)
>
> They think you're stupid, or they hope you're stupid, and if so,
> they want to take advantage of it.

Or they think that if they harass me enough, I'll give in to make
them go away.

> Or at least, that's how it
> seems. If they only want a mutually beneficial transaction on
> the off chance your needs _have_ changed... they wouldn't
> be calling you quite that often.

Actually, when I bought the car, they sold me on the most basic
level of extended warrranty, which extended the 7 year coverage of
the drive train to the entire car. The reason they convinced me was
that the finance manager told me (and it's true) that because all
the electronics are *so* expensive to get fixed, if I didn't have
at least that, there was at least a 50% chance I'd buy my next car
somewhere else, and they didn't want to sell me *this* car, they
wanted to sell me my *next* car. They do get the idea of long term
relationships with customers (which is *good* business management).
Or did, anyway. (On the other hand, the used car side is different
people than the new car side. I haven't talked to the new car guys
for six years. Maybe I should.)
>
> Taking advantage of those who are stupid... I'd call that an
> "evil motive", even if it's just free enterprise at work.

I'd call it desperation to get hold of high end goods to sell, when
the alternative is to go hungry. Desperate people aren't evil,
they're desperate.

I supposed if I told you they were all black, lesbian women, you
would open approve of their behavior, because people who are not
white men are inherently incapable of ever doing anything wrong
(and women have *boogies!).
>
> While still agreeing that offering only money and not a car is
> *not* motivated by evil, it's due to the situation that sparked
> the activity to begin with.
>
It's sparked by their not being able to get enough inventory to
meet demand. What makes *stupid* is that they *know* that here, you
have to have a car. What makes it annoying enough to reconsider who
I spend my next $20k+ (probaby more like $25k+) somewhere *else* is
that the fuckers won't *stop* despite being told to over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and probably over some more. Were it not for
the "preexisting business relationship," it'd be flat illegal.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:16:58 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Actually, when I bought the car, they sold me on the most basic
>level of extended warrranty, which extended the 7 year coverage of
>the drive train to the entire car. The reason they convinced me was
>that the finance manager told me (and it's true) that because all
>the electronics are *so* expensive to get fixed, if I didn't have
>at least that, there was at least a 50% chance I'd buy my next car
>somewhere else, and they didn't want to sell me *this* car, they
>wanted to sell me my *next* car. They do get the idea of long term
>relationships with customers (which is *good* business management).
>Or did, anyway. (On the other hand, the used car side is different
>people than the new car side. I haven't talked to the new car guys
>for six years. Maybe I should.)

Rather like my current car where the payments were made by my former
company (I had to take over the payments when I retired and went in
and paid it off without delay. That was when I found out they had sold
the loan to a well known bank who when I made my payment at the auto
dealer told me all about it and since I had known THEM for 15 years
though the bank was strangers was happy with it - until the bank
charged our store an extra payment they had no business charging -
charging as if I had paid off the loan a month after I actually had. I
told the finance manager - who I had known for years - that I'd never
buy from them except for cash though I didn't tell him hell would
freeze over before I bought from them unless it was truly "too good to
be true". And since it's a 2016 minivan it's likely to be awhile now
I'm retired)

The car itself is fine - but the manufacturer's finance arm is pure
scum.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:dfksshl144baot3ldmdf9slmrv1dqvfehr@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:16:58 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually, when I bought the car, they sold me on the most basic
>>level of extended warrranty, which extended the 7 year coverage
>>of the drive train to the entire car. The reason they convinced
>>me was that the finance manager told me (and it's true) that
>>because all the electronics are *so* expensive to get fixed, if
>>I didn't have at least that, there was at least a 50% chance I'd
>>buy my next car somewhere else, and they didn't want to sell me
>>*this* car, they wanted to sell me my *next* car. They do get
>>the idea of long term relationships with customers (which is
>>*good* business management). Or did, anyway. (On the other hand,
>>the used car side is different people than the new car side. I
>>haven't talked to the new car guys for six years. Maybe I
>>should.)
>
> Rather like my current car where the payments were made by my
> former company (I had to take over the payments when I retired
> and went in and paid it off without delay. That was when I found
> out they had sold the loan to a well known bank who when I made
> my payment at the auto dealer told me all about it and since I
> had known THEM for 15 years though the bank was strangers was
> happy with it - until the bank charged our store an extra
> payment they had no business charging - charging as if I had
> paid off the loan a month after I actually had. I told the
> finance manager - who I had known for years - that I'd never buy
> from them except for cash though I didn't tell him hell would
> freeze over before I bought from them unless it was truly "too
> good to be true". And since it's a 2016 minivan it's likely to
> be awhile now I'm retired)
>
> The car itself is fine - but the manufacturer's finance arm is
> pure scum.
>
The dealerships makes a lot from car sales, but finance is where
the manufacturer makes a lot of money. (Not that there isn't plenty
to go around for both).

But I keep reading there's an apocalypse of reposessions coming, as
more and more people fall behind on their payments, and more and
more pandemic protections expire. So there's likely to be a glut of
used cars soon.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 01:24:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:16:58 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually, when I bought the car, they sold me on the most basic
>>level of extended warrranty, which extended the 7 year coverage of
>>the drive train to the entire car. The reason they convinced me was
>>that the finance manager told me (and it's true) that because all
>>the electronics are *so* expensive to get fixed, if I didn't have
>>at least that, there was at least a 50% chance I'd buy my next car
>>somewhere else, and they didn't want to sell me *this* car, they
>>wanted to sell me my *next* car. They do get the idea of long term
>>relationships with customers (which is *good* business management).
>>Or did, anyway. (On the other hand, the used car side is different
>>people than the new car side. I haven't talked to the new car guys
>>for six years. Maybe I should.)
>
>Rather like my current car where the payments were made by my former
>company (I had to take over the payments when I retired and went in
>and paid it off without delay. That was when I found out they had sold
>the loan to a well known bank who when I made my payment at the auto
>dealer told me all about it and since I had known THEM for 15 years
>though the bank was strangers was happy with it - until the bank
>charged our store an extra payment they had no business charging -
>charging as if I had paid off the loan a month after I actually had. I
>told the finance manager - who I had known for years - that I'd never
>buy from them except for cash though I didn't tell him hell would
>freeze over before I bought from them unless it was truly "too good to
>be true". And since it's a 2016 minivan it's likely to be awhile now
>I'm retired)
>
>The car itself is fine - but the manufacturer's finance arm is pure
>scum.

My mortgage (now paid off) fell into the hands of
GMAC, which (since the name stands for General Motors Acceptance
Corporation) appears to be a vehicle manufacturer's finance arm.

Their constant insistance that I was a "customer" was irritating (I
was /not/ a customer; they had simply bought my loan) was irritating
enough, but I must say that when the end came they were
johnny-on-the-spot with a final payment amount.

Which included a fee for removing the lien on the house.

A few years later, I found myself part of a class action lawsuit. It
seems that /collecting/ the fee was something they were able to do
quite well; actually /releasing/ the lien, however, didn't happen.

And a few years after that, they proudly announced that they had
bought an internet bank with a good reputation and adopted its name as
their own, in the sure and certain belief that a tiger /can/ change
its stripes.

I have no idea what happened to them after that. Something
appropriately drastic, not to the people but to the company, I hope.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:q7gtshp9crurpveq02j072lhj5ng7l6b8i@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 01:24:27 -0800, The Horny Goat
> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:16:58 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, when I bought the car, they sold me on the most basic
>>>level of extended warrranty, which extended the 7 year coverage
>>>of the drive train to the entire car. The reason they convinced
>>>me was that the finance manager told me (and it's true) that
>>>because all the electronics are *so* expensive to get fixed, if
>>>I didn't have at least that, there was at least a 50% chance
>>>I'd buy my next car somewhere else, and they didn't want to
>>>sell me *this* car, they wanted to sell me my *next* car. They
>>>do get the idea of long term relationships with customers
>>>(which is *good* business management). Or did, anyway. (On the
>>>other hand, the used car side is different people than the new
>>>car side. I haven't talked to the new car guys for six years.
>>>Maybe I should.)
>>
>>Rather like my current car where the payments were made by my
>>former company (I had to take over the payments when I retired
>>and went in and paid it off without delay. That was when I found
>>out they had sold the loan to a well known bank who when I made
>>my payment at the auto dealer told me all about it and since I
>>had known THEM for 15 years though the bank was strangers was
>>happy with it - until the bank charged our store an extra
>>payment they had no business charging - charging as if I had
>>paid off the loan a month after I actually had. I told the
>>finance manager - who I had known for years - that I'd never buy
>>from them except for cash though I didn't tell him hell would
>>freeze over before I bought from them unless it was truly "too
>>good to be true". And since it's a 2016 minivan it's likely to
>>be awhile now I'm retired)
>>
>>The car itself is fine - but the manufacturer's finance arm is
>>pure scum.
>
> My mortgage (now paid off) fell into the hands of
> GMAC, which (since the name stands for General Motors Acceptance
> Corporation) appears to be a vehicle manufacturer's finance arm.
>
> Their constant insistance that I was a "customer" was irritating
> (I was /not/ a customer; they had simply bought my loan) was
> irritating enough, but I must say that when the end came they
> were johnny-on-the-spot with a final payment amount.
>
> Which included a fee for removing the lien on the house.
>
> A few years later, I found myself part of a class action
> lawsuit. It seems that /collecting/ the fee was something they
> were able to do quite well; actually /releasing/ the lien,
> however, didn't happen.
>
> And a few years after that, they proudly announced that they had
> bought an internet bank with a good reputation and adopted its
> name as their own, in the sure and certain belief that a tiger
> /can/ change its stripes.
>
> I have no idea what happened to them after that. Something
> appropriately drastic, not to the people but to the company, I
> hope.

It is now (since 2009) Ally Financial, and seems to be thriving:

Ally is one of the largest car finance companies in the U.S.,
providing car financing and leasing for 4.5 million customers and
originating 1.4 million car loans annually. It is on the list of
largest banks in the United States by assets and has 2.0 million
depositors.[2] Its electronic trading platform has approximately
350,000 funded accounts.[1] The company has sold more than 5
million vehicles, including 270,000 vehicles sold in 2019 via its
SmartAuction online marketplace for auto auctions, launched in
2000.

(A discrimination lawsuit in 2013 did cost them $80 million,
though, if that makes you feel any better.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:48:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:q7gtshp9crurpveq02j072lhj5ng7l6b8i@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 01:24:27 -0800, The Horny Goat
>> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:16:58 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>>><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, when I bought the car, they sold me on the most basic
>>>>level of extended warrranty, which extended the 7 year coverage
>>>>of the drive train to the entire car. The reason they convinced
>>>>me was that the finance manager told me (and it's true) that
>>>>because all the electronics are *so* expensive to get fixed, if
>>>>I didn't have at least that, there was at least a 50% chance
>>>>I'd buy my next car somewhere else, and they didn't want to
>>>>sell me *this* car, they wanted to sell me my *next* car. They
>>>>do get the idea of long term relationships with customers
>>>>(which is *good* business management). Or did, anyway. (On the
>>>>other hand, the used car side is different people than the new
>>>>car side. I haven't talked to the new car guys for six years.
>>>>Maybe I should.)
>>>
>>>Rather like my current car where the payments were made by my
>>>former company (I had to take over the payments when I retired
>>>and went in and paid it off without delay. That was when I found
>>>out they had sold the loan to a well known bank who when I made
>>>my payment at the auto dealer told me all about it and since I
>>>had known THEM for 15 years though the bank was strangers was
>>>happy with it - until the bank charged our store an extra
>>>payment they had no business charging - charging as if I had
>>>paid off the loan a month after I actually had. I told the
>>>finance manager - who I had known for years - that I'd never buy
>>>from them except for cash though I didn't tell him hell would
>>>freeze over before I bought from them unless it was truly "too
>>>good to be true". And since it's a 2016 minivan it's likely to
>>>be awhile now I'm retired)
>>>
>>>The car itself is fine - but the manufacturer's finance arm is
>>>pure scum.
>>
>> My mortgage (now paid off) fell into the hands of
>> GMAC, which (since the name stands for General Motors Acceptance
>> Corporation) appears to be a vehicle manufacturer's finance arm.
>>
>> Their constant insistance that I was a "customer" was irritating
>> (I was /not/ a customer; they had simply bought my loan) was
>> irritating enough, but I must say that when the end came they
>> were johnny-on-the-spot with a final payment amount.
>>
>> Which included a fee for removing the lien on the house.
>>
>> A few years later, I found myself part of a class action
>> lawsuit. It seems that /collecting/ the fee was something they
>> were able to do quite well; actually /releasing/ the lien,
>> however, didn't happen.
>>
>> And a few years after that, they proudly announced that they had
>> bought an internet bank with a good reputation and adopted its
>> name as their own, in the sure and certain belief that a tiger
>> /can/ change its stripes.
>>
>> I have no idea what happened to them after that. Something
>> appropriately drastic, not to the people but to the company, I
>> hope.
>
>It is now (since 2009) Ally Financial, and seems to be thriving:
>
>Ally is one of the largest car finance companies in the U.S.,
>providing car financing and leasing for 4.5 million customers and
>originating 1.4 million car loans annually. It is on the list of
>largest banks in the United States by assets and has 2.0 million
>depositors.[2] Its electronic trading platform has approximately
>350,000 funded accounts.[1] The company has sold more than 5
>million vehicles, including 270,000 vehicles sold in 2019 via its
>SmartAuction online marketplace for auto auctions, launched in
>2000.
>
>(A discrimination lawsuit in 2013 did cost them $80 million,
>though, if that makes you feel any better.)
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial

IIRC, they bought Ally and decided to rebrand themselves because of
Ally's stirling reputation. Perhaps that wore off on GMAC.

Then again, car loans are not home loans ... for one thing, AFAIK, car
loans don't involve filing liens on your house.

IIRC, the lawsuit fizzled -- GMAC declared bankruptcy, the payout
amount crumbled, and that never showed up. For all I know, the lien is
still in place -- I do get some strange mail that would only make
sense if I were still paying on the mortgage (fully paid since 2006).
But that may be an unrelated scam based on something else, who can
say?

The "Final Notice! Your Home Warranty Is Expiring" would, if it
weren't so clearly a scam, not be unreasonable: it purports to be
selling service contracts on household appliances. Not, perhaps, the
best of ideas, but a service contract, as such, is not necessarily a
scam -- if you actually get the service when you need it, that is.
This, however, appears to be a scam, since it pretends I already have
such a thing when I don't.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:48:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:q7gtshp9crurpveq02j072lhj5ng7l6b8i@4ax.com:
>>

>>> I have no idea what happened to them after that. Something
>>> appropriately drastic, not to the people but to the company, I
>>> hope.
>>
>>It is now (since 2009) Ally Financial, and seems to be thriving:
>>
>>Ally is one of the largest car finance companies in the U.S.,
>>providing car financing and leasing for 4.5 million customers and
>>originating 1.4 million car loans annually. It is on the list of
>>largest banks in the United States by assets and has 2.0 million
>>depositors.[2] Its electronic trading platform has approximately
>>350,000 funded accounts.[1] The company has sold more than 5
>>million vehicles, including 270,000 vehicles sold in 2019 via its
>>SmartAuction online marketplace for auto auctions, launched in
>>2000.
>>
>>(A discrimination lawsuit in 2013 did cost them $80 million,
>>though, if that makes you feel any better.)
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial
>
>IIRC, they bought Ally and decided to rebrand themselves because of
>Ally's stirling reputation. Perhaps that wore off on GMAC.
>
>Then again, car loans are not home loans ... for one thing, AFAIK, car
>loans don't involve filing liens on your house.

Why would you expect a car loan to result in a lien on a house?

There is an implicit lien on the car itself, of course, until the
debt is satisfied.

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 10:21:58 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

> >Then again, car loans are not home loans ... for one thing, AFAIK, car
> >loans don't involve filing liens on your house.

> Why would you expect a car loan to result in a lien on a house?

> There is an implicit lien on the car itself, of course, until the
> debt is satisfied.

Maybe the lender thinks you are a poor driver, and so what is left
of the car after you default on the loan won't be enough security.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:d45a7251-ea91-44ae-9c86-115050ebb2c5n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 10:21:58 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal
> wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>
>> >Then again, car loans are not home loans ... for one thing,
>> >AFAIK, car loans don't involve filing liens on your house.
>
>> Why would you expect a car loan to result in a lien on a house?
>
>> There is an implicit lien on the car itself, of course, until
>> the debt is satisfied.
>
> Maybe the lender thinks you are a poor driver, and so what is
> left of the car after you default on the loan won't be enough
> security.
>
If you can't afford the car loan, odds are, you don't own anything
else worth the bother of a lien.

And anybody who signs a car loan that is secured by anything other
than the car deserves whatever grief it brings them.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:21:53 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:48:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:q7gtshp9crurpveq02j072lhj5ng7l6b8i@4ax.com:
>>>
>
>>>> I have no idea what happened to them after that. Something
>>>> appropriately drastic, not to the people but to the company, I
>>>> hope.
>>>
>>>It is now (since 2009) Ally Financial, and seems to be thriving:
>>>
>>>Ally is one of the largest car finance companies in the U.S.,
>>>providing car financing and leasing for 4.5 million customers and
>>>originating 1.4 million car loans annually. It is on the list of
>>>largest banks in the United States by assets and has 2.0 million
>>>depositors.[2] Its electronic trading platform has approximately
>>>350,000 funded accounts.[1] The company has sold more than 5
>>>million vehicles, including 270,000 vehicles sold in 2019 via its
>>>SmartAuction online marketplace for auto auctions, launched in
>>>2000.
>>>
>>>(A discrimination lawsuit in 2013 did cost them $80 million,
>>>though, if that makes you feel any better.)
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial
>>
>>IIRC, they bought Ally and decided to rebrand themselves because of
>>Ally's stirling reputation. Perhaps that wore off on GMAC.
>>
>>Then again, car loans are not home loans ... for one thing, AFAIK, car
>>loans don't involve filing liens on your house.
>
>Why would you expect a car loan to result in a lien on a house?

Because the current reputation of Ally (that is, GMAC re-branded) was
based on its success at financing automobiles, while the lawsuit
against it was based on it's failure to release liens on mortgages
after collecting a fee to do exactly that.

IOW, apples and oranges.

>There is an implicit lien on the car itself, of course, until the
>debt is satisfied.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:21:53 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:48:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>(A discrimination lawsuit in 2013 did cost them $80 million,
>>>though, if that makes you feel any better.)
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial
>>
>>IIRC, they bought Ally and decided to rebrand themselves because of
>>Ally's stirling reputation. Perhaps that wore off on GMAC.
>>
>>Then again, car loans are not home loans ... for one thing, AFAIK, car
>>loans don't involve filing liens on your house.
>
>Why would you expect a car loan to result in a lien on a house?
>
>There is an implicit lien on the car itself, of course, until the
>debt is satisfied.

That was my immediate reaction as well and presuming you didn't give
them authorization to do so, illegal as well.

On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 1:15:18 AM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:

> That was my immediate reaction as well and presuming you didn't give
> them authorization to do so, illegal as well.

Certainly it's illegal to just go and put a lien on anything you feel like.

But I would have thought that authorization from the borrower is
only _one_ way in which this could be legal. If there's a default on
the loan, then the lender could go to court to get permission to
place liens on other property of the borrower in an attempt to
obtain recovery, I would have thought.

John Savard

On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 09:06:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 1:15:18 AM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
>> That was my immediate reaction as well and presuming you didn't give
>> them authorization to do so, illegal as well.
>
>Certainly it's illegal to just go and put a lien on anything you feel like.
>
>But I would have thought that authorization from the borrower is
>only _one_ way in which this could be legal. If there's a default on
>the loan, then the lender could go to court to get permission to
>place liens on other property of the borrower in an attempt to
>obtain recovery, I would have thought.

"Authorization" in the sense "agree to this or you don't get the
loan". Or buried in the paperwork.

Liens can be filed for other reasons as well. When we had our front
porch steps replaced, a Workman's Lien was filed to ensure that they
would be paid. It was news to me. But it all worked out: the work was
done, payment was made.

Basically, the item liened against has to have a value, it's sale has
to be a matter of public record (so there is somebody to pay the lien
when the item is sold), and there has to be something (usually a debt)
that the lien is paying.

Well, in theory anyway. Frivolous liens are one of the ways the
Sovreign Citizens (a few of which ended up being tried for Jan 6, at
which point they learned their nonsense doesn't work too well) harass
Judges and others.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."