While delivering papers in the heat this week, I had another thought about the national decline in customer service that I harp on from time to time. Maybe this is a North-South thing, but I remember when I was a kid that lots of businesses had water fountains for customers. Nearly every gas station did, usually right by the pop machine, plus lots of department stores, grocery stores, even fast-food restaurants. I think every Dairy Queen in Texas had a water fountain.
Now? On my delivery route, with well over a hundred stops, I can think of two with water fountains, at the courthouse and at a home for seniors. Maybe there is one at Rimrock Mall. When I do the Medical Corridor route, I can hit the water fountains at Billings Clinic. Are there others? I can't think of any. If I want water (and I constantly do), I have to pay a buck a quart for it.
P.S. The general comment should not cover up the kindness of certain businesses, or at least of certain employees. Off the top of my head, I can think of a half-dozen occasions when businesses either offered me a drink for free or refused to take my money when I tried to buy something. I won't name names for fear of endangering the job of a good-hearted employee who may be working for a hardhearted owner.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Crash and burn
I don't get many days off, and occasionally it catches up to me. Yesterday was one of those days. Slept and read, bought groceries, hot tub, finally scraping together enough energy to cook some Indian food in belated recognition of my wife's birthday. The simple life -- it's easy to miss.
The Babe
In all the hoopla over Barry Bonds and the home run record, it's worth remembering that no modern player comes close to Babe Ruth in terms of overall dominance of the game. In his prime years, Babe Ruth hit more home runs all by himself than any other team in baseball. In 1927, the Red Sox and Senators combined didn't hit as many home runs as Ruth did -- and neither of those teams finished last in the league in home runs. To have that kind of impact today, a player would have to hit 200 home runs a season.
Had he remained a pitcher, Ruth probably could have made the Hall of Fame on that alone. As it was, he set a World Series pitching record that lasted for decades.
And then there was the Ruth charisma: rags to riches, a boy in a man's body, abounding in excess, full of life and charm, the American dream in a pot-bellied package. He was one of a kind, and no number of asterisks will ever change that.
Had he remained a pitcher, Ruth probably could have made the Hall of Fame on that alone. As it was, he set a World Series pitching record that lasted for decades.
And then there was the Ruth charisma: rags to riches, a boy in a man's body, abounding in excess, full of life and charm, the American dream in a pot-bellied package. He was one of a kind, and no number of asterisks will ever change that.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Backup
Aren't they transferring the wrong guy? Seems to me that failing to back up a fellow officer, whether you like him or not, would be extremely dangerous and a firing offense.
To me, if you have a left fielder who won't back up throws to third base because he doesn't like the third baseman, you get rid of the outfielder, not the infielder.
To me, if you have a left fielder who won't back up throws to third base because he doesn't like the third baseman, you get rid of the outfielder, not the infielder.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Somewhere over the striped apparition
I don't read much contemporary fiction, unless it has Montana or Wyoming roots, but I am wasting the summer reading "Absolute Power," a potboiler of a political thriller that was made into a movie starring Clint Eastwood and Gene Hackman.
The only thing worth mentioning is that the author, David Baldacci, has sold 40 million books. Forty million. And he can't write a lick. Maybe he learned something after writing "Absolute Power," which was his first novel, but this one has clunkers on every page. The New York Times called it a "mountain of thudding prose" -- and that was the film critic. I can imagine what the book critic must have thought.
You'd think a guy who wants to write novels for a living would bother to learn the craft. But if he can sell 40 million books, maybe it doesn't matter.
I won't waste your time by quoting from the book, except for this brilliant bit: In one strained metaphor, he refers to "the pot of gold at the end of the striped apparition."
OK. I'm ready to die now.
UPDATE: 6 Generations asks, sensibly enough, why waste time reading a poorly written book? Several reasons:
1. Bad habits. I finish bad books for the same reason I eat everything on my plate. There's some poor kid in China who would give anything to have a badly written book.
2. Some poorly written books are worth reading. Exhibit 1: David Halberstam. Terrible writer, in my view, but a terrific reporter who must be read. He is the example I use when journalism students go into despair that they can't write well enough to make a living at it. This particular novel has an premise interesting enough that I still want to know how it turns out (although I have been reading very ... very ... slowly).
3. You can learn a lot from poor writing. The trouble with good writers is that they are so skilled I can't figure out how they do it. With bad writers, I can see all of the seams between the joints, all the badly fitted boards and missing nails. I think: I could do better than that. The good ones just intimidate me.
The only thing worth mentioning is that the author, David Baldacci, has sold 40 million books. Forty million. And he can't write a lick. Maybe he learned something after writing "Absolute Power," which was his first novel, but this one has clunkers on every page. The New York Times called it a "mountain of thudding prose" -- and that was the film critic. I can imagine what the book critic must have thought.
You'd think a guy who wants to write novels for a living would bother to learn the craft. But if he can sell 40 million books, maybe it doesn't matter.
I won't waste your time by quoting from the book, except for this brilliant bit: In one strained metaphor, he refers to "the pot of gold at the end of the striped apparition."
OK. I'm ready to die now.
UPDATE: 6 Generations asks, sensibly enough, why waste time reading a poorly written book? Several reasons:
1. Bad habits. I finish bad books for the same reason I eat everything on my plate. There's some poor kid in China who would give anything to have a badly written book.
2. Some poorly written books are worth reading. Exhibit 1: David Halberstam. Terrible writer, in my view, but a terrific reporter who must be read. He is the example I use when journalism students go into despair that they can't write well enough to make a living at it. This particular novel has an premise interesting enough that I still want to know how it turns out (although I have been reading very ... very ... slowly).
3. You can learn a lot from poor writing. The trouble with good writers is that they are so skilled I can't figure out how they do it. With bad writers, I can see all of the seams between the joints, all the badly fitted boards and missing nails. I think: I could do better than that. The good ones just intimidate me.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Nigerians still at it
Just got my all-time favorite Nigerian e-mail, this from an outfit claiming to collect money from "fraudstars" to refund to scam victims.
It starts:
And it ends:
If you aren't a victim, just wait. Your time is coming.
It starts:
GOOD DAY,
FIRST WE INTRODUCES THIS COMMISSION, Economic & Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) WE FIGHT CYBER CRIME FRAUD SCAM MONEY LAUNDERING IN AFRICA.OUR COMMISSION HAS BEEN IN EXSITANCES SINCE 2004.
OUR DUTIES IS TO STOP INTERNET FRAUD SCAM. AS FOR TODAY WE HAVE PUT ALOT OF PEOPLE FRAUDSTERS BEHIND BARS ALOT OF THEM ARE IN JAIL WE GO ALL OVER AFRICA TO PICK THIS THIEFS.
And it ends:
WE ARE AWARE THIS FRAUDSTARS HAS BROKEN ALOT OF HOME, MADE ALOT OF PEOPLE TO LOSE THEIR JOB, SELL THEIR PROPERTIES, CLOSED THEIR BUSINESS, PUT MANY ON THE STREET, AND MADE ALOT TO EVEN LOSE THEIR LIFE. PLEASE YOU ARE TO REACH US IN OUR EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE FOR FUTHER CLERIFICATIONS ON HOW YOU ARE TO RECEIVE YOUR LOST FUNDS YOU ARE TO FORWARD YOUR FULL PARTICULARS AND RECENT TELPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS TO OUR EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE ON IF YOU ARE A VICTIM.
If you aren't a victim, just wait. Your time is coming.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
The government sector
KBLG has been running a promo for "The Radio Factor" in which Bill O'Reilly says that the only things that government can do are run the military and collect taxes. Even allowing for the usual O'Reilly exaggeration, this seems like an awfully short list.
And I'm not even sure it's accurate. Does government really run the military that well? Granted, the United States has the most powerful military history has ever seen. But since armies are nearly always run by governments, the U.S. military can't really be compared to a private sector army, can it? And while I don't doubt that the U.S. Army today is a better-run outfit than the one I served in 35 years ago, certain inefficiencies common to any bureaucracy appear to be built in to the military hierarchy.
To give just one of many possible examples: Since I was stationed with a small detachment of soldiers on the East German border, we had to drive to Bremerhaven to conduct much Army business: medical appointments, shipping goods, clearing up paperwork. On narrow and crowded German roads, it was about a seven-hour round trip, and a military vehicle generally made the run at least once a week.
One week, the Army changed its policy and decided that soldiers had to have an appointment before they could conduct any business in Bremerhaven. Nobody told us, of course, and we drove up as usual. And even though the clerk in Army personnel appeared to have nothing whatever to do, he wouldn't help any of us -- a half-dozen soldiers wasting a full day apiece for absolutely no good reason. This sort of thing happened all the time, and nobody in charge cared very much because nobody had to meet a bottom line.
Still, I don't really want to know how a government-run army would stack up against a privately run army because I don't want big private armies running around out there. This is one monopoly I'm happy for government to keep. The same goes for prisons and courts of law, where I'm willing to accept a little government inefficiency in exchange for the power to vote for or against the people in charge.
Beyond all that, it seems to me that government does do some things well -- at least as well and perhaps better than the private sector. A few come to mind:
1. National parks. Does anybody think that Yellowstone would be a better place if Disney ran it? I don't.
2. Campgrounds. Sight unseen, I would prefer any federal or state campground over
any private campground. In my experience, government-run campgrounds are nearly always prettier and cheaper. The amenities may not be as good, but I don't care much for amenities when I go camping, and I don't like camping close to people who do.
3. Highways. A few privately funded highways have been built in high-traffic areas, but government-built highways suit me just fine, even allowing for the occasional bridge collapse.
4. Public libraries. Nothing else comes close.
5. Mail service. People always bitch about this, but I have never understood why. Almost without exception everywhere I have lived, mail service has been reliable and cheap, and postal employees have been pleasant to deal with. I don't argue that my experience is typical, but I have no gripes.
6. Customer service. Another supposed government weak point, but again it doesn't fit with my experience. Private sector customer service keeps getting worse, in my view, and government service keeps getting better.
7. Fire protection. Who complains about the fire department?
8. Museums.
9. NPR. Not strictly government run, but it gets a few federal dollars, and it is vastly superior to commercial radio in every respect (except sports coverage).
That's not a complete list, but it's a fairly big chunk of what government does. And while you certainly might argue that turning all those services over to the private sector would save a few tax dollars, it's hard for me to see that we would ultimately really be better off.
UPDATE: Two more I neglected to mention:
1. Trash pickup. I never even see those guys, but the trash is always picked up.
2. Water. In all the cities I have lived in over the years, I can't recall that I ever once had any contact with a municipal water department. Why? Because I never once had a problem -- water always has been cheap, plentiful and clean.
And I'm not even sure it's accurate. Does government really run the military that well? Granted, the United States has the most powerful military history has ever seen. But since armies are nearly always run by governments, the U.S. military can't really be compared to a private sector army, can it? And while I don't doubt that the U.S. Army today is a better-run outfit than the one I served in 35 years ago, certain inefficiencies common to any bureaucracy appear to be built in to the military hierarchy.
To give just one of many possible examples: Since I was stationed with a small detachment of soldiers on the East German border, we had to drive to Bremerhaven to conduct much Army business: medical appointments, shipping goods, clearing up paperwork. On narrow and crowded German roads, it was about a seven-hour round trip, and a military vehicle generally made the run at least once a week.
One week, the Army changed its policy and decided that soldiers had to have an appointment before they could conduct any business in Bremerhaven. Nobody told us, of course, and we drove up as usual. And even though the clerk in Army personnel appeared to have nothing whatever to do, he wouldn't help any of us -- a half-dozen soldiers wasting a full day apiece for absolutely no good reason. This sort of thing happened all the time, and nobody in charge cared very much because nobody had to meet a bottom line.
Still, I don't really want to know how a government-run army would stack up against a privately run army because I don't want big private armies running around out there. This is one monopoly I'm happy for government to keep. The same goes for prisons and courts of law, where I'm willing to accept a little government inefficiency in exchange for the power to vote for or against the people in charge.
Beyond all that, it seems to me that government does do some things well -- at least as well and perhaps better than the private sector. A few come to mind:
1. National parks. Does anybody think that Yellowstone would be a better place if Disney ran it? I don't.
2. Campgrounds. Sight unseen, I would prefer any federal or state campground over
any private campground. In my experience, government-run campgrounds are nearly always prettier and cheaper. The amenities may not be as good, but I don't care much for amenities when I go camping, and I don't like camping close to people who do.
3. Highways. A few privately funded highways have been built in high-traffic areas, but government-built highways suit me just fine, even allowing for the occasional bridge collapse.
4. Public libraries. Nothing else comes close.
5. Mail service. People always bitch about this, but I have never understood why. Almost without exception everywhere I have lived, mail service has been reliable and cheap, and postal employees have been pleasant to deal with. I don't argue that my experience is typical, but I have no gripes.
6. Customer service. Another supposed government weak point, but again it doesn't fit with my experience. Private sector customer service keeps getting worse, in my view, and government service keeps getting better.
7. Fire protection. Who complains about the fire department?
8. Museums.
9. NPR. Not strictly government run, but it gets a few federal dollars, and it is vastly superior to commercial radio in every respect (except sports coverage).
That's not a complete list, but it's a fairly big chunk of what government does. And while you certainly might argue that turning all those services over to the private sector would save a few tax dollars, it's hard for me to see that we would ultimately really be better off.
UPDATE: Two more I neglected to mention:
1. Trash pickup. I never even see those guys, but the trash is always picked up.
2. Water. In all the cities I have lived in over the years, I can't recall that I ever once had any contact with a municipal water department. Why? Because I never once had a problem -- water always has been cheap, plentiful and clean.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Who's next?
Now that Rupert Murdoch has Dow Jones, which newspaper company will be the next to go? Most likely Gannett, according to the Wall Street Journal. Lee Enterprises doesn't rate a mention until deep in the comments (3:12 p.m. Aug. 1).
Bad Pat
I like Pat Buchanan because he is mean and smart and a real-deal conservative. But I think he would be a terrible president and would never vote for him. Today on MSNBC, I got a reminder of why.
Buchanan was bloviating on this story, which pits the forces of good (English speakers) against the forces of evil (Spanish speakers) over what languages beach rules should be printed in. That this should be news even in Merrimack is remarkable, but it is astounding that it became national news.
It happened, of course, because guys like Buchanan are willing to go on national TV to express outrage that any language other than English should be heard between the unpatriotically named Rio Grande and the Great Lakes. Judging from the comments, many Merrimack readers, no matter how slipshod their own grasp of English, feel the same way.
As someone who has spent a fair chunk of time struggling with unfamiliar languages (German, French, Spanish, even a semester of Old English), I think I have learned a couple of things:
1. The purpose of language is to communicate, not to make political statements. So if your goal is to have people understand what the beach rules are, you should print the signs in a language they understand. If you have some other goal in mind, then maybe you need to think about why you have signs in the first place.
2. Yes, English is the language of success in America, but even the most diligent students of English are going to struggle for a few years. They deserve a break.
3. In German, the beach is masculine, the sign is neuter and the sea is feminine. Do I have to make you a sign?
P.S. The German equivalent of "That's Greek to me" is "Das kommt mir Spanisch vor," or "That's Spanish to me."
Buchanan was bloviating on this story, which pits the forces of good (English speakers) against the forces of evil (Spanish speakers) over what languages beach rules should be printed in. That this should be news even in Merrimack is remarkable, but it is astounding that it became national news.
It happened, of course, because guys like Buchanan are willing to go on national TV to express outrage that any language other than English should be heard between the unpatriotically named Rio Grande and the Great Lakes. Judging from the comments, many Merrimack readers, no matter how slipshod their own grasp of English, feel the same way.
As someone who has spent a fair chunk of time struggling with unfamiliar languages (German, French, Spanish, even a semester of Old English), I think I have learned a couple of things:
1. The purpose of language is to communicate, not to make political statements. So if your goal is to have people understand what the beach rules are, you should print the signs in a language they understand. If you have some other goal in mind, then maybe you need to think about why you have signs in the first place.
2. Yes, English is the language of success in America, but even the most diligent students of English are going to struggle for a few years. They deserve a break.
3. In German, the beach is masculine, the sign is neuter and the sea is feminine. Do I have to make you a sign?
P.S. The German equivalent of "That's Greek to me" is "Das kommt mir Spanisch vor," or "That's Spanish to me."
Monday, July 30, 2007
The cruelty of war
If you roam the blogosphere at all, you have encountered this story, or at least the controversy about it. The remarkable thing is that anyone finds it remarkable.
I can understand why soldiers in Iraq might be offended if the stories Beauchamp tells turn out not be true. He makes other soldiers -- and himself -- look bad for no good reason. And I can understand why certain people just want to bash The New Republic. That's an entertaining thing to do.
But the idea that soldiers do mean things in wars is hardly news. Military history is full of the banal cruelty of war. Even under the best of circumstances, putting young men together under stress is likely to have coarse consequences. Just go to a rugby practice or cowboy bar. Give 20-year-olds superior firepower, and most anything could happen. That is no slur on soldiers, unless it is a slur to say that soldiers are human beings.
In "Goodbye to All That," Robert Graves describes moving with a bunch of soldiers during World War I through a trench past a soldier who had been buried so deep under an artillery shell that only one hand remained visible. As the soldiers passed by, each shook the hand in turn.
Now, Graves was a humane and erudite man. And the British Army is among the most disciplined and "civilized" in the world. Yet in Graves' memoirs, this grotesque act (imagine the response if rescue workers at a mining accident did such a thing) seems perfectly understandable and, yes, even funny. War does peculiar things to people.
That's one reason why using wars to pursue diplomatic aims so often backfires. Armies are good at breaking things, but not very good at putting them back together again.
And that may be why so many pro-war bloggers with no personal stake in the truth or falsity of The New Republic's claims have taken such offense. Having been wrong so long about how this war would turn out, they take every cruel detail as an affront.
The odd thing is that so many of those appalled by these stories are among those who think the war should be even crueler. We should loosen rules of engagement. We should torture prisoners. We should expand the war to Iran. Such actions inevitably expand the number of war stories that people like Scott Thomas Beauchamp tell.
War tests to its limits our capacity for civilized behavior. If we can't accept the consequences of pushing those limits, we have no business fighting wars.
I can understand why soldiers in Iraq might be offended if the stories Beauchamp tells turn out not be true. He makes other soldiers -- and himself -- look bad for no good reason. And I can understand why certain people just want to bash The New Republic. That's an entertaining thing to do.
But the idea that soldiers do mean things in wars is hardly news. Military history is full of the banal cruelty of war. Even under the best of circumstances, putting young men together under stress is likely to have coarse consequences. Just go to a rugby practice or cowboy bar. Give 20-year-olds superior firepower, and most anything could happen. That is no slur on soldiers, unless it is a slur to say that soldiers are human beings.
In "Goodbye to All That," Robert Graves describes moving with a bunch of soldiers during World War I through a trench past a soldier who had been buried so deep under an artillery shell that only one hand remained visible. As the soldiers passed by, each shook the hand in turn.
Now, Graves was a humane and erudite man. And the British Army is among the most disciplined and "civilized" in the world. Yet in Graves' memoirs, this grotesque act (imagine the response if rescue workers at a mining accident did such a thing) seems perfectly understandable and, yes, even funny. War does peculiar things to people.
That's one reason why using wars to pursue diplomatic aims so often backfires. Armies are good at breaking things, but not very good at putting them back together again.
And that may be why so many pro-war bloggers with no personal stake in the truth or falsity of The New Republic's claims have taken such offense. Having been wrong so long about how this war would turn out, they take every cruel detail as an affront.
The odd thing is that so many of those appalled by these stories are among those who think the war should be even crueler. We should loosen rules of engagement. We should torture prisoners. We should expand the war to Iran. Such actions inevitably expand the number of war stories that people like Scott Thomas Beauchamp tell.
War tests to its limits our capacity for civilized behavior. If we can't accept the consequences of pushing those limits, we have no business fighting wars.
Perverse ways
The new Republican strategy on waging war in Iraq seems wildly perverse. I keep arguing that the Constitution requires Congress to begin and end wars and the president to conduct them. This appears to be the exact opposite: The president can still decide when the war will end, but Congress will control the mission of the troops. Outside of the obvious political grandstanding in this maneuver, how can it possibly make sense?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Move on, Moveon
Trying to get advertisers to pull ads from Fox News strikes me as a terribly bad idea. Given the overwhelming -- if badly exaggerated -- perception that most news tilts left, it makes no sense for leftists to encourage businesses, which mostly tilt right, to make advertising choices based on political biases. It's brainless.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Wacky news
The wackiest talk radio news on delivery day this week was about this story. Duncan Hunter was pushing this bill on Hannity's Inanity radio show, where it passed conservative muster with a gleeful Hannity.
So people who think they are conservatives believe that it's OK for Congress to impose itself in the middle of the criminal appeals process, but at the same time they think Congress should keep its nose out of its constitutional duty to decide when wars begin and end.
How do these people get to claim they are conservatives? Has the term lost all meaning?
UPDATE: Slate lays out the legal case.
So people who think they are conservatives believe that it's OK for Congress to impose itself in the middle of the criminal appeals process, but at the same time they think Congress should keep its nose out of its constitutional duty to decide when wars begin and end.
How do these people get to claim they are conservatives? Has the term lost all meaning?
UPDATE: Slate lays out the legal case.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
BBI no go
Just got a phone call from our very own Public Service commissioner, Brad Molnar, R-Laurel, who says that the PSC voted today to deny a rehearing to Babcock and Brown Infrastructure on its $2.2 billion proposal to buy NorthWestern Energy. The vote was 5-0.
BBI can still appeal the decision or file for a new case, Molnar said.
He said that most commissioners were concerned that the request for rehearing contained deficiencies. His own concerns had to do with a couple of issues:
* BBI proposed to build a new transmission line that eventually would have made Colstrip electricity available for sale in California, driving up Montana rates.
* Fraudulent claims by NorthWestern Energy when it acquired Montana Power Co.'s assets cost Montana ratepayers $300 million, he said, and the proposal includes only $20 million in rate relief. "That's not a dime on the dollar," he said.
BBI also would take NWE profits out of Montana while leaving local ratepayers with debt, Molnar said. "It's like living on a credit card," he said.
The PSC plans a final vote on denying the purchase next week. The Lee State Bureau story is here.
BBI can still appeal the decision or file for a new case, Molnar said.
He said that most commissioners were concerned that the request for rehearing contained deficiencies. His own concerns had to do with a couple of issues:
* BBI proposed to build a new transmission line that eventually would have made Colstrip electricity available for sale in California, driving up Montana rates.
* Fraudulent claims by NorthWestern Energy when it acquired Montana Power Co.'s assets cost Montana ratepayers $300 million, he said, and the proposal includes only $20 million in rate relief. "That's not a dime on the dollar," he said.
BBI also would take NWE profits out of Montana while leaving local ratepayers with debt, Molnar said. "It's like living on a credit card," he said.
The PSC plans a final vote on denying the purchase next week. The Lee State Bureau story is here.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
The shadow economy
The Big Sky Business Journal considers the possibility that Montana's underground economy is twice as large as in other states.
Media salvation
Apparently, lack of media coverage is all that prevented protesters from going to jail here Saturday. In a e-mail about Saturday night's protest at the Yellowstone County Democrats' Truman Dinner, organizer William Crain says:
I have been to a Truman Dinner or two, but not this one. If I had gone, I might have jail time on my conscience. Apparently, at least one reporter was there, but I didn't see that she mentioned the protest in her story. Crain said that Baucus stopped to shake hands with one protester, saw her "Out of Iraq" sign and said, "We're working on it."
even the media didn't think these dupes [Tester and Baucus] were worth the time of day. Otherwise, we can assure you, when the police came and with the media there we'd have gone down for the cuffs! but alas no media and i really thought there be some there.
I have been to a Truman Dinner or two, but not this one. If I had gone, I might have jail time on my conscience. Apparently, at least one reporter was there, but I didn't see that she mentioned the protest in her story. Crain said that Baucus stopped to shake hands with one protester, saw her "Out of Iraq" sign and said, "We're working on it."
Whose ox?
When I read this letter in the Gazette, I couldn't help but wonder if the writer would feel the same way if her life savings had been part of the loss. If it were my money, I would say, "Let him rot."
Chasing Chase
I took the day off on the Fourth of July. It was my first, or maybe second, day off in six months, and one result was that I forgot to pay a Chase credit card bill. When I realized my mistake, I paid the bill, one or two days late.
The penalty? A $39 late fee, of course, which I expected. But Chase also tripled our interest rate. The monthly payment we had been making no longer even covers the cost of the interest, and our payment went up about $150 a month.
This wasn't our first bad experience with Chase. The first credit card the Outpost ever got had a reasonable 13 percent interest rate. We had it for three or four years and never went over our credit limit and never, in my memory, made a late payment. Then Chase bought the company that issued the card. Almost immediately, our credit limit was reduced, and our interest rate went to 29.9 percent. Pleas for mercy were ignored.
Fortunately, we have other alternatives. We have paid off the business card, and we will be able to close out our personal account. But the incidents set several thoughts in motion:
1. Defenders of the free market may say we have other options and shouldn't do business with unscrupulous companies. But in neither case did we choose to do business with Chase. In both cases, it bought out more honest companies that we had been dealing with. People with fewer options than we have can easily get trapped by scoundrels through no fault of their own.
2. The idea that usury is a crime runs deep in the human psyche, well back to biblical times and probably much longer. Credit card companies test the public's tolerance of usury at their peril.
3. As a small business owner, I don't have to speculate about how I would react if a loyal customer occasionally made a payment a day or two late. I would say, as I have said many times, "Don't worry about it. Thanks for your business." Honest customers are too precious to throw away on a triviality.
4. Just from a business standpoint, it would be interesting to hear how Chase thinks that what it does makes sense. We have been good customers for years. They have made money off us every single month. Now, because of one payment two days late, they will never make another nickel off us. How does that make sense?
5. What they did isn't a crime, but the penalty would be smaller if it were. All things considered, it would have cost me less to go to Chase headquarters and punch the CEO in the nose. The law takes a dim view of misdemeanor assault, but it also understands that some people need punching.
6. Every couple of weeks, we get a "preferred customer" offer from Chase asking us to borrow more money at low rates, sometimes as low as 4 percent. When the next offer comes, should we take it?
UPDATE: This story curled my toes.
The penalty? A $39 late fee, of course, which I expected. But Chase also tripled our interest rate. The monthly payment we had been making no longer even covers the cost of the interest, and our payment went up about $150 a month.
This wasn't our first bad experience with Chase. The first credit card the Outpost ever got had a reasonable 13 percent interest rate. We had it for three or four years and never went over our credit limit and never, in my memory, made a late payment. Then Chase bought the company that issued the card. Almost immediately, our credit limit was reduced, and our interest rate went to 29.9 percent. Pleas for mercy were ignored.
Fortunately, we have other alternatives. We have paid off the business card, and we will be able to close out our personal account. But the incidents set several thoughts in motion:
1. Defenders of the free market may say we have other options and shouldn't do business with unscrupulous companies. But in neither case did we choose to do business with Chase. In both cases, it bought out more honest companies that we had been dealing with. People with fewer options than we have can easily get trapped by scoundrels through no fault of their own.
2. The idea that usury is a crime runs deep in the human psyche, well back to biblical times and probably much longer. Credit card companies test the public's tolerance of usury at their peril.
3. As a small business owner, I don't have to speculate about how I would react if a loyal customer occasionally made a payment a day or two late. I would say, as I have said many times, "Don't worry about it. Thanks for your business." Honest customers are too precious to throw away on a triviality.
4. Just from a business standpoint, it would be interesting to hear how Chase thinks that what it does makes sense. We have been good customers for years. They have made money off us every single month. Now, because of one payment two days late, they will never make another nickel off us. How does that make sense?
5. What they did isn't a crime, but the penalty would be smaller if it were. All things considered, it would have cost me less to go to Chase headquarters and punch the CEO in the nose. The law takes a dim view of misdemeanor assault, but it also understands that some people need punching.
6. Every couple of weeks, we get a "preferred customer" offer from Chase asking us to borrow more money at low rates, sometimes as low as 4 percent. When the next offer comes, should we take it?
UPDATE: This story curled my toes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)