Several months ago, while I was actively looking for a new web hosting service, I lost the ChangeInTerms.com site (by only a few days). I had a backup of the site’s database and files, but lacked the skills to restore the site from these files. The problem has been, I am not a programmer. I’ve asked several people, but I suppose they either didn’t know how, or did not want to help. With many thanks to the creator of this instructional video, I finally learned enough to restore the site, myself.
Over the summer (while teaching two courses) I have received phone calls and emails, informing me about what has been going on with Chase behind the scenes, as a settlement was in the works. I won’t say from whom, but rest assured these notices were not from Chase. The news was motivating to me, and I really wanted to restore the site to announce this:
A ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR CHASE CREDIT CARD SETTLEMENT
Here’s the other news (that’s nothing new): After using “the Google” searching on the phrase “100 million dollar Chase credit card settlement” I found one Reuters.com “hit” (which I do appreciate) followed by a number of law-class-action-type website hits, and nothing else on the first results page that was even remotely associated with the mainstream media. Yes, I did also search on the variations “100 million dollar Chase settlement” and “$100 million dollar Chase lawsuit” with about the same results. I admit that these three aforementioned phrases are not exhaustive, but if this story was being covered as robustly as some of the latest celebrity break-ups or coverage of their acts of infidelity (drug problems, trashiness, handbags, shoes, whatever), these search terms would be more than good enough to show a plethora of hits.
Well, I’ll at least give the mainstream media credit where it is due. There has been coverage of the horrifying events in Aurora Colorado, and don’t get me wrong, there should be. I mainly object to the lack of coverage on the banking industry because of the obvious reason, it advertises so heavily that it can effectively minimize the impact of media attention.
Did you click on the above Reuters link yet? Did you see the part, “JPMorgan spokesman Paul Hartwick declined to comment. The bank had argued that the changes in loan terms was a sensible means to reduce risk amid uncertain economic conditions”?
I guess that means that those of us who were impacted by Chase’s extremely egregious (but admittedly not murderous) acts won’t be receiving an apology either after they each receive their share of $4 per person and a coupon for a free ATM transaction (I made the per-person share up, but I doubt that whatever the amount may be, plaintiffs are made whole relative to the heartache and aggravation they have suffered).
As for the argument made by Chase about being “sensible,” it’s always “sensible” from the point of view of bankers to “reduce risk” (interweaving an element of truth, I note, allows for obfuscation at its best). However, what Chase and certain unscrupulous members of the banking industry at large have done, in their zeal to change terms (unfairly), is place every one of us at risk by melting down our financial system. It was bankers’ greedy practices that brought on “uncertain economic conditions” in the first place, remember? (I don’t think “uncertain economic conditions” have subsided for my family; how about yours?) Of course, Chase probably needed to reduce risk relative to some of its operations so that Jamie Dimon’s posse would have money to (party, play, gamble) utilize elsewhere. I submit that “gambling elsewhere” is arguably the case in the instance of Chase’s more recent (estimated) multibillion dollar trading losses.
Yeah, individual consumers and small business credit card users needed to help Chase free-up capital and “reduce risk in an uncertain economy” for that.
Tisk, tisk, how sad, a few of the gamblers are going to lose their bonuses (until the next bailout?).