Gaming the system

Barefootwoman

Level 2 Member
I'm going to use some East Indian terminology here. Google the terms for precise definitions.
Prakriti (nature) - You sow the seeds, raise plants, make your bread and eat it.
Vikriti (imbalance) - A person doesn't do any of the above but tries to steal bread from others.
Sanskriti (culture) - You share your bread with others.

Which one are you?
A combination of 1 and 3. Those who pay taxes automatically participate in #3. Some go beyond and give charitably.
 

smittytabb

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, I understand that part. MHY's point was that if penalties for not paying debt were more severe, the situation might have turned out differently and I agree with that assessment.
The only way a person can get out of their debts is if they have less than about $100 in disposable income and if they cannot get out of their debts, creditors can seize their property and foreclose on their property.
 

Barefootwoman

Level 2 Member
As you grow, and that circle/sphere grows with you I think more people become the family, it goes beyond the child and into 'fellow man' and you start to become focused on helping a greater society.

It's not an odd concept, it's a common issue many face as part of the human life cycle, particularly after one has crossed into some material success. I've seen other forums address this as a communal charitable project.

I can easily come up with worthy causes that could benefit from our collective efforts and hobby.

http://www.travelersaid.org/ and/or organizations that arrange flights or hotel arrangements for those needing medical care outside of their home locations, similar to Ronald McDonald House, etc.

We are still a relatively wealthy country where for-profit corporations can easily afford to throw off the opportunities that we here avail ourselves of....it's a gift than can keep on giving.
 
Last edited:

smittytabb

Moderator
Staff member
Of course different cultures have different philosophies, that's a given. I thought that we here were having a discussion stemming from Matt's original question about gaming the system in the U.S.
What is done to game the U.S. system is not isolated from the global.

Taking this a step further for clarification, the point I am trying to make here is that the system being gamed is by its very nature not a "U.S. system". The fact that some of the things we have available to us are different than in other countries may be a direct result of a different set of circumstances here, but once we tie into rewards and other perks that are part of multinational systems, they cease to be merely national, but transnational.
 

Matt

Administrator
Staff member
As you grow, and that circle/sphere grows with you I think more people become the family, it goes beyond the child and into 'fellow man' and you start to become focused on helping a greater society.

It's not an odd concept, it's a common issue many face as part of the human life cycle, particularly after one has crossed into some material success. I've seen other forums address this as a communal charitable project.

I can easily come up with worthy causes that could benefit from our collective efforts and hobby.

http://www.travelersaid.org/ and/or organizations that arrange flights or hotel arrangements for those needing medical care outside of their home locations, similar to Ronald McDonald House, etc.

We are still a relatively wealthy country where for-profit corporations can easily afford to throw off the opportunities that we here avail ourselves of....it's a gift than can keep on giving.
Well in that case, why the hell has nobody nominated a charity for Q3 yet!?
 

Barefootwoman

Level 2 Member
What is done to game the U.S. system is not isolated from the global.
I'm going to let you have the last word - here, please take it. I can't see the point you're trying to make (sound bite type statements are hard to decipher) and I am certain you aren't getting mine.
 

Peridot83

Level 2 Member
This comes across as a weird concept and it really requires more explanation that I can give here. Basically, I'm trying to say that if you are reduced to an animalistic level, you might (I might..) put my own family above another person. I may steal food for their survival, if we were in some weird place where there was no other option.

But what I'm trying to say there is that once perhaps it was just you, and you might steal for you. And then it may be you and a child, and you might steal for them.

And then, it might be that you believe you aren't in such a crazy extreme, and instead help other families find ways to eat.

Another example might be that if attacked in an alley I might on one occasion simply defend myself with no care for the assailant, and another time may try to help the assailant exit safely.

As you grow, and that circle/sphere grows with you I think more people become the family, it goes beyond the child and into 'fellow man' and you start to become focused on helping a greater society.

Its an odd concept perhaps..
This is a pretty established anthroprological concept. Our minds are set up to sort everyone into "ingroup" and "outgroup". At the basic level you are delineating between my family and everyone else. But concepts like nationalism are based on extrapolating this basic ingroup/outgroup thinking to a large group of people. Within the ingroup, being altruistic is a social benefit. But viewing those in the outgroup as less worthy of altruism, is also beneficial for defending group resources.
 

smittytabb

Moderator
Staff member
Mortgage companies made subprime loans because there was a market of borrowers for those subprime loans. If harsher penalties were imposed in the case of defaulting on loans (such as a debtors prison or the inability to discharge debts during bankruptcy), borrowers would think twice before deciding to bite off more than they can chew. The inability of borrowers to repay loans led to the market collapsing when wave after wave of creditors realized they were holding highly discounted paper.
In Anglo-American jurisprudence, we tried debtors' prison for over half a millennium until the mid 1800s and it didn't work. From 1543 until 1706, there was no discharge in bankruptcy, the thinking being exactly what you posit. Since 1706, however, it has been clear to lawmakers in the U.K. and the U.S. that a discharge in bankruptcy is actually a greater benefit for the public good. Experience has also proven that creditors are easily able to monitor debtors for prospective nonpayment. Indeed, in the time period you reference, the profits earned by credit institutions were the highest in history. Those credit institutions were perfectly happy to earn exorbitant profits with the understanding that a very small percentage of unqualified debtors whom they targeted would inevitably default.
 

zozeppelin

Level 2 Member
Any ideas on how to automate an Etihad award search? EY is not covered by Award Nexus or Expert Flyer, and while the KVS Tool can search EY, it doesn't offer automated searches.
Ethiad is one of the easiest scrapes out there. Or you could automate KVS. I've done both.
 

raenye

Lever 2 Membel
I wasn't advocating for the installation of debtors prisons... I was illustrating that the borrowers more-so than the lenders were at fault for the collapse.

"profits earned by credit institutions were the highest in history"
"exorbitant profits"

^Th0se are the talking points that leftists spout to evoke a since of hatred towards "the man" and large successful corporations to further their constituents' reliance on tax-payer sponsored assistance.

"Exorbitant profits" isn't quantifiable or else I'd include it as the goal of every business plan.
"Profits earned by credit institutions were the highest in history", I assume you believe profits are a bad thing. Perhaps stagnation and deflation is what we've been missing.
I'd say that both sides are at fault -- the borrower who bit more than he could chew and the lender who preferred the short term gain and extended credit generously instead of truthfully assessing the risk.
 

smittytabb

Moderator
Staff member
I wasn't advocating for the installation of debtors prisons... I was illustrating that the borrowers more-so than the lenders were at fault for the collapse.

"profits earned by credit institutions were the highest in history"
"exorbitant profits"

^Th0se are the talking points that leftists spout to evoke a since of hatred towards "the man" and large successful corporations to further their constituents' reliance on tax-payer sponsored assistance.

"Exorbitant profits" isn't quantifiable or else I'd include it as the goal of every business plan.
"Profits earned by credit institutions were the highest in history", I assume you believe profits are a bad thing. Perhaps stagnation and deflation is what we've been missing.
If indeed the explanation for the crash can be laid at the feet of irresponsible debtors, I'd be interested in your explanation of why the crash happened over three years after the passage of the 2005 Bankruptcy bill in which credit institutions got every reform they wanted, with an eye to crack down on supposedly abusive debtors?
 

Peridot83

Level 2 Member
Due to this thread I was pondering what opportunities are out there to help people with miles and points, and then I opened up my Facebook and saw a woman I my daughter was in a playgroup with just suddenly and unexpectedly became a widow. She has 2 small children and only works PT at a grocery store, they had no life insurance, or savings. I messaged her and extended my gas points (ironically from the store she works at) and offered to help with hotel rooms or flights for OOT family to come to the funeral. My hope is that they would be better able to help her out with burial expenses then. The points break deal on a local staybridge suite is opening up tomorrow, so hopefully I could really stretch those UR to help out this family.
 

Annie H.

Egalatarian
I'd say that both sides are at fault -- the borrower who bit more than he could chew and the lender who preferred the short term gain and extended credit generously instead of truthfully assessing the risk.
Let's not leave out the fact that lenders *deliberately* targeted lower income, less educated borrowers with sub-prime loans and higher interest rates.
 

Annie H.

Egalatarian
True, but a lack of education is not an excuse for taking on debt you cannot repay.
I'm not making that case.

Debt wasn't framed that way and neither lenders or borrowers discussed it in those terms. I counseled lots of debtors and even helped some save their homes because of deceptive lender practices. Lenders preyed, lied, cheated and robosigned in many cases. Does that excuse borrowers, no but the deck was stacked.

In those days it wasn't "can I afford this mortgage if rates go up 2-3 pts?" but rather "you can always refnance" which is basically what *everyone* was doing-- until they couldn't. It's happening again. My point is that folks, most of them first time home buyers, did not understand the system, the obligation or credit in general-- it's why so many are prey to payday lenders.

Hell, the government has had to step in time and time again in the current reverse mortgage market targeted to seniors because lenders are "breaking" the law, lying to seniors, not explaining how easy it can be to lose one's home, minimizing fees, etc.

I know this is not of interest to everyone in this thread-- I guess the OP meant "us" gaming the system, not the system gaming us!
 

Andrew Beall

Level 2 Member
I'm not making that case.

Debt wasn't framed that way and neither lenders or borrowers discussed it in those terms. I counseled lots of debtors and even helped some save their homes because of deceptive lender practices. Lenders preyed, lied, cheated and robosigned in many cases. Does that excuse borrowers, no but the deck was stacked.

In those days it wasn't "can I afford this mortgage if rates go up 2-3 pts?" but rather "you can always refnance" which is basically what *everyone* was doing-- until they couldn't. It's happening again. My point is that folks, most of them first time home buyers, did not understand the system, the obligation or credit in general-- it's why so many are prey to payday lenders.

Hell, the government has had to step in time and time again in the current reverse mortgage market targeted to seniors because lenders are "breaking" the law, lying to seniors, not explaining how easy it can be to lose one's home, minimizing fees, etc.

I know this is not of interest to everyone in this thread-- I guess the OP meant "us" gaming the system, not the system gaming us!
Blatant lying, cheating, fraud, etc. is a different story. I certainly agree that there should be consequences to lenders for that type of behavior. Both lenders and borrowers have an obligation, it's not just one party's fault.
 

raenye

Lever 2 Membel
Sure, but why can't individuals educate themselves? Not all education has to be formal education.
Right, they'll just sit in their jacuzzi with their golden ipad air and read bogleheads, while the au-pair takes the kids to the mall.
#RealityCheck
 

Annie H.

Egalatarian
I'm arguing that it IS a fact that all individuals are self interested, not merely my own opinion. We're arguing about what self interest means. Anything you do to help someone else that makes you feel good is ultimately still a selfish act.
Fine, if you want to continue repeating the same things over and over and believe that makes them fact or truth, go ahead. Psychological egoism is a philosophy-- perhaps you have faith in it, it's your belief or truth or something else -- that does NOT make it a fact or true.

Let's agree to disagree.
 

Annie H.

Egalatarian
Very true. I was more yearning to the more recent days in the late 90's and early 00's when oil was ridiculously cheap and airlines were doing price wars. Maybe $300 to Europe is a bit exaggerated but I do remember coast to coast flights for less than $200.

So what would an ideal ethical "system gamer" do?
MS offsets?;)
 

Barefootwoman

Level 2 Member
They all had blood on their hands: the government, the lenders and the borrowers who did not read the contracts they signed.

When do we start talking about derivatives?
 

MickiSue

Level 2 Member
That's an interesting POV, but I don't agree with it since that's not how the world works. To me, that's like kids believing in unicorns. If you knew how much you were getting screwed over by the government and corporations, I don't see how you can hold that POV.

For example, the cash in your paycheck that's supposed to go to Social Security (12.4% of your total WAGE-BASED compensation) doesn't really go there. It's forced participation in a pyramid scheme, not a contribution for the next generation's retirement. The SS trust fund is a form of fiction created by accounting. The Treasury IOUs in the fictional trust fund are inferior to real T-bonds since repayments can be skipped without triggering a general US Treasury default. They're not real T-bonds. If you think they're real debt instruments, why not put in real T-bonds, corporate bonds, or stocks that can be sold on the open market? Because it's a pyramid scheme with a 0% funded pension. Retirees are actually paid via the current year federal budget. 24% of the federal budget is to pay SS. That money doesn't come from a "trust fund". If you wonder where your SS taxes actually go to, look at the military in the Middle East or the overpriced payments to big pharma and healthcare. So don't feel bad when you game SS with the file and suspend strategy or claim a bigger benefit because your ex-spouse is worth more dead than alive.

If you belong to an HMO or Medicare Advantage, you won't know how much they've skimped your care until you go to a non-HMO physician. Kaiser HMO folks are happy because they're ignorant of the non-formulary drugs and treatments that are never offered when cheaper (and often less effective) alternatives are available. Here, gaming the system is via a PPO to pay for catastrophic expenses and pay cash for "concierge medicine" and "executive medicine". Only peons deal with 15 minute doctors' appointments.

College students don't understand why their education is overpriced and often useless until they're out of school with a ton of debt that cannot be discharged in BK. Private education and higher education are cartels funded by student loans.

Why is cannibis illegal all over the world? It's not due to the supposed dangerous effects of that plant. Look at big pharma if you want to know why weed is illegal. What's legal is not always ethical.

The only reason why I would suggest not going all-in with gaming and cheating with bots is to avoid shutdowns and blacklists. Even violating the TOS doesn't matter as long as you don't get caught. Other than that, game the system and bot as much as you can get away with.
Oh, for Pete's sake. I am not talking about messing with banks. They deserve any bad that ever happens to them, especially their credit card operations.
 

nomadwfs

New Member
Many of the situations described here involve asymmetric information. From a finance perspective:

A situation in which one party in a transaction has more or superior information compared to another. This often happens in transactions where the seller knows more than the buyer, although the reverse can happen as well. Potentially, this could be a harmful situation because one party can take advantage of the other party's lack of knowledge.

Read more: Asymmetric Information Definition | Investopedia
Until all people become omniscient, information asymmetry will always exist. We use information asymmetry to "game the system" by milking businesses for cash back and other benefits. How is that asymmetric information? They assume we are the "average" customer who will not pay his CC statement in full, forget to cancel a subscription, or "fall in love" with their service. We know better (because we know ourselves) so we gain.

Another point not mentioned is that for most of us, we have advantages over others. For example, in the Wal Mart example of the person sending $50 and paying an exorbitant fee, that person may simply not have access to the money transfer methods we do. He may not have the time to develop those money transfer methods, even if he did know about and had access to them. It may very well be possible that he understands the costs, and it is still worth the fee because he doesn't have to think too hard about sending money, and just know it will get done so he can move on to other things.

Is information asymmetry moral? Is the fact that some people have advantages over others moral? I would say it depends, both based on the situation, and the perspectives of those involved. Some may say that Wal Mart is acting "bad" because they "exploit" people by charging high fees to send money, but on the other hand, it is convenient. Wal Mart is everywhere and after you send money, you can also take care of some personal errands. Is that "bad" or is it in fact "good"?

The reason businesses accept credit cards (and also pay rewards to people) despite all the fees is a trade-off. In general, people with credit cards spend more money per visit than people who do not.
http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-cards/credit-cards-make-you-spend-more
 

Barefootwoman

Level 2 Member
As far as I can tell, after spending a little over a year learning many of the ins and outs of this "hobby" it seems there are three schools of thought:

(1) Businesses put these opportunities out there and they wouldn't do it if it didn't benefit them somehow and there is nothing illegal/immoral/unethical about it - so all's fair game.

(2) It's ok to find loopholes in some of these opportunities in order to exploit them in ways the businesses did not originally intend - mistake fares, accidental programming errors resulting in certain fees going uncharged, etc.....though maybe unethical, hey, these are just businesses, not people.

(3) Cajoling customer service reps into doing things that could threaten their employment - no problem

I guess each person has to find his/her own comfort level.
 

MickiSue

Level 2 Member
Numbers two and three are questionable to me, Barefootwoman. Taking advantage of mistake fares is no more unethical than stores raising the prices on cauliflower because it's popular for those who eat low carb.

It's not that "these are businesses, not people" it's that the transaction is a business transaction: you offer your product for a certain price, and if I like the price, I'll pay it. If you offered the price in error, it was still a business transaction, just as is selling tickets for seats in the same area of the same airplane for prices that vary by hundreds or thousands of dollars.

I know of very few people who are willing to put a minimum wage worker's job in jeopardy--at least, not if they think it through. The opposite is much more this issue, usually: the minimum wage worker who misunderstands the rules, and chooses to interpret them as harshly as possible, either from fear of reprisal from the boss, or from a sense that YOU are not to be trusted, because anyone "rich" enough to buy money orders or load a Serve card with a debit card much be a crook.
 

GettingReady

Level 2 Member
I have mixed feeling about loopholes. They exist everywhere not just with MS. A loophole doesn't make it illegal. What about Roth contributions? People over income limitations can do a back door Roth. It's perfectly acceptable. What about the loophole that was recently closed with SS changes? What about the loophole where millionaires can get healthcare subsidies from Obamacare?

Bottom line: Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The hard part is determining the line, and sometimes it's hard to know until you cross over it it and it doesn't feel right.
 

MickiSue

Level 2 Member
Well, GR, that's a good thing then, isn't it? Learning from one's mistakes is good. And, having felt not quite right about an action, one would hope that the person who made that mistake would think things through a little harder the next time.

Most, if not all, of the bad stuff that happens in MS happens because it wasn't thought through.

I would posit that even Tahsir's unlovely evening the other day could have been avoided by not buying so danged many MOs at ANY WM. It was perfectly legal. It hurt no one, most especially not the nasty clerk who chose to override her assistant manager. But a little more circumspection, a lot smaller MSing--when he's making his money elsewhere, in reality--could have avoided what is still, potentially, a world of ouch for him.
 
Top