Is the Government Lying to the Bankrupt and Why

Multiple people I know have had to declare bankruptcy this year. Health care costs and reduced income are the biggest reasons.

If you have never had to declare, good for you. But if you're an American, you pay taxes, and some of those tax dollars goes toward this.

There is now a requirement that people take a course before and after. Your government REQUIRES they do this.
http://bk.summitfe.org/Start/HomePage.aspx

At first, I thought it sounded like a good idea. It sounds like something that could help people.

Then I witnessed it. One of the bankrupt people I know doesn't have a computer or Internet, so he came over to use mine.

The before stuff made sense. It is designed to help people make a budget. Figure out if they'll be able to deal with bills and such after bankruptcy. Very logical, mathematical, and sensible. Good information.

But then there's the after course. The person using my computer opted for the less expensive written version. So I saw this, written in black and white. I didn't mishear a video.

There is a section that, not subtly, suggests the reason people go bankrupt is because they aren't investing properly. Okay, I can see that as a possibility. But then it says that people should take $100 and invest it. Not easy, but okay, it's a round number. Then it shows how that starting $100, at a 10.5% interest rate, will grow over the years. And the idea is you keep adding every week.

BUT

It starts with ONLY $100.

With ONLY $100, invest it somewhere that is guaranteed to earn 10.5% minimum interest rate for the next decade.

🐂💩

Giving it the benefit of the doubt (my massive, massive, insanely over sized doubt), I began researching. That percentage rate is available in a bank in Vietnam, but you have to be a citizen and meet other requirements, and a bank in Argentina, but you need a MUCH larger deposit, way more zeros.

I've taken a few classes on money management and investing. (One from The University of Geneva.) So I had an idea of what I was looking for, but I couldn't find anything.

After several hours of searching, I decided to see if someone in the finance field knows:

Question on @Quora: What has a guaranteed minimum 10.5% interest rate with only $100 starting investment?

You should check out some of the answers. But, basically, the replies are a unanimous no. I think some of the people wondered if I was living in fantasy land.

But if you don't put $100 somewhere that makes 10.5% interest, ... bankruptcy.

If you were doing that, you'd be able to afford cancer treatments and expensive drugs because you could live off the interest.

Did that sound mean? Did that sound condescending and insensitive?

Guess where I got it from.

Look up information on the course. It isn't from the 1950's or something. This just came out. It isn't old information.

What should be a useful class has turned out to be victim blaming. It suggests that YOUR PROBLEM is that you haven't done something which is currently not in existence. I'm not okay with that.

There should be real solutions. If the course wants to suggest this $100 opener getting 10.5%, there should be a "click here to use this magic unicorn bank to grow your funds!" No one has to use it, but at least bankrupt people would have an opportunity to use the imaginary plan. As it is, they go out to a regular bank and discover that less than 1% interest is all that's available. So they aren't going to invest. That's how the problem gets worse. 

As people tend to feel shame when it comes to bankruptcy, no one is talking about this. People are just out there feeling guilty that they can't find a 10.5% interest rate investment. So, today, on this little blog, I've shared the reality with you.

Please don't blame yourself if you take $100 around America looking for a place with a 10.5% interest rate to invest it and can't find anywhere.

But hey, if you do, let me know!

Gym, English, and Government Revelation Instead of Revolution to Spur on the New Year

Happy New Year

Because of a dream last night, I woke up with a revelation.

Though we felt miles apart, perhaps the knowledge levels of my fellow middle school students and I wasn't actually that far apart.

In gym class, we'd play various sports, like baseball (or softball or t-ball or kickball...). The rules were never explained in class. "Just do what everyone else does." There were 3 to 5 students who magically possessed the knowledge of the rules. They wouldn't tell you what the rules were, only if you broke them.

I broke those rules ALL THE TIME. The biggest reason that I sucked at sports, at gym class, was because I kept breaking rules. (This sucking reasoning is closely followed by my poor coordination, but that's not the point.) "You're out. You can't drop the bat that way." (I still, to this day, don't know the proper way to place a bat down after hitting the ball.) "You're out because Joe was stealing second and you were on second and didn't make it to third in time." (I didn't even know what stealing a base was, but stealing is a word that means a very bad action, so I wouldn't have wanted to do it. Plus, did it ever occur to Joe that this was going to backfire? There's no way I would have known I had to run. And even if I did know, there's no way I was going to make it. Why did he think I would? Did he think that through, or was he just trying to get his own teammate "out" because it somehow made him look better? Why is that? I really don't know.)

But then there was English class. I seemed to know a lot of "rules" that hadn't been taught. I read a lot of books, and learned grammar as a result. Joe didn't read a lot of books, he was busy with Little League and such.

Is it possible that we were equal in our knowledge levels, but that he was being taught rules of a sport while I was learning the rules of language? Yet we each felt superior to the other because we knew so much about something that the other did not.

What might life have been like if we took the time to help each other? If we had both acknowledged that we excelled in different areas, and then tried to help each other? Except that's NOT how the world works. So when we had to do group work, I carried my "team." I did the lion's share so that I wouldn't fail, and they benefited with a higher grade. When we played baseball, Joe did the lion's share so our team would win and (I suppose) I benefited by being on a winning team. (This didn't alter my gym grade, so I don't understand the benefit to me one way or the other, but I'll assume there was supposed to be one.) We each walked away from those experiences with almost no knowledge gained. Joe wasn't really better at English class, I wasn't really better at Gym class.

Is this also how our government is set up?
Could the wealthy person at the BIG CHAIR be teaching people how to do better financially, while those people also taught him or others how to do whatever they happen to be good at? But, instead, is that person "stealing second" without a thought about the person on third, trying to win some game while not caring if his own teammates are "out" because of it? And even if the team doesn't win, does he feel like he did a good job because he tried to win a team game by himself? Is he doing all the group work to get an A, not caring if no one else in the group learns anything, thinking they should just be glad to have an A for a change?

What if we really did help each other? Not just what we perceive as help ("You were on a winning team, weren't you?" "You got an A, didn't you?"), but actually sharing our knowledge to elevate each other. It's a New Year. Maybe new thinking is in order.