INCLUDE_DATA
ChangeinTerms.com Rotating Header Image

No problem extrapolating that Chase is going to harm millions of people

Let’s go ahead and expand the analysis I began with the posts concerning “approximately 780,000 cardholders” and “almost a million” in terms of estimating how many people Chase is going to hurt, while I am at it.

In either scenario  in the aforementioned posts, relative to “accounts” or “cards issued,” negatively affected parties may be associated with families, and/or small businesses.  When a bank messes around with a husband’s or wife’s account (in marriages where funds are co-mingled and shared), then it really is having an impact on more than one person.  The same logic applies to entire families, and small businesses with an owner who is dependent on credit cards as a source of capital: hurting one person may impact many others (in the latter case, employees of the business, the owner or owners, and their respective families — it’s a domino effect).

Back when I was in the newspaper industry (several years ago) average “pass-along” readership was around 2.2; this meant that for every paper in circulation, it would be read by 2.2 people.  Thus, using similar reasoning, that damaging one person financially can in fact harm others who are in the directly affected individual’s sphere of influence — maybe even several others — I have no problem extrapolating that Chase (and any major issuer that acts similarly, and we all know they copy one another, if not collude) is going to harm millions of people.  A few translations (in no particular order):

Congressional representatives: this means “millions” of constituents, i.e., voters;

Editors, writers, producers, talk-show hosts, and other members of the media: this means “millions” of readers, viewers, listeners, i.e., audience members;

Class action attorneys: this means “millions” who are harmed and should be made whole;

Taxpayers who will be wrestling with the “bail out” for years to come: this means “millions” of consumers who continue to live under financial distress, who can not spend, or support an economic recovery (and may even end up on the rosters of various support programs);

Advertisers: this means “millions” who may have the desire to buy, but not the ability;

Homeowners trying to sell (like me): this means “millions” of people who are financially distressed with lower credit scores of their own or in association with others who have close relations, who cannot buy a home (your property will languish on the market, some more);

Credit card company executives: this means “millions” of consumers will suffer so that you can pull the rip-cord on your golden parachutes (surely you jest!, if you think that you can convince anyone who knows anything about business that decimating your customer base is consistent with a long-term strategic plan for growth — no, you are going to loot, pillage, and leave the problems you’ve created behind for shareholders, employees, and the taxpayers who are paying for your bail out party-out-the-door and subsequent retirement).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • MySpace
  • Print
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Share/Bookmark

2 Comments on “No problem extrapolating that Chase is going to harm millions of people”

  1. #1 A lesson in executive logic (greed and sleaze at Chase) – ChangeinTerms.com
    on Dec 31st, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    [...] forcing them by coercion into door number 1, 2, or 3, to the detriment of account holders (and millions of others), and the benefit of Chase (relative to its change in terms, effective January 1, 2009).  [...]

  2. #2 Chase’s new 5% minimum payment: An increase so onerous, it would make a loan shark’s mother proud – ChangeinTerms.com
    on Mar 15th, 2009 at 10:21 am

    [...] Notwithstanding any determination one way or another through adjudication, Chase’s new 5% minimum payment demand is certainly coercive.  It enriches Chase and hurts account holders.  It places customers in harm’s way of being unable to remain solvent because that payment increase (multiply an account balance times 2.5) is so onerous that it would make a loan shark’s mother proud.  In the event that the account is held by a small business owner, or a person with a family (like me), then it will have consequences that will reverberate to impact many more persons than just the account holders themselves. [...]

Leave a Comment