Desertman84 Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders is an independent feature-length documentary that chronicles abusive practices in the credit card industry.It uses interviews with creditors, debtors, academics, and others to illustrate its story.The main premises of the documentary is that banks and other creditors deliberately market to people who are more likely to have problems paying and that the creditors benefit from connections to government, the debt collection industry, and from lawmaker apathy.Director James D. Scurlock takes on America's debt crisis. Consequently, he touches on related issues like race, corporate malfeasance, and political subterfuge. His multi-media approach incorporates statistics, news excerpts, and interviews, but it's rarely dull. Instead of New York and Los Angeles, he concentrates on mid-size cities, like Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, and Seattle. Plenty of small towns also come into play. Though he never presses the point himself, Scurlock allows his subjects to note the similarities between the credit industry and the drug trade. One thing he neglects to mention, however, is pride. If house payments are ruining your life, selling that property may be the only solution. In most cases, however, it's hard not to feel for those individuals who didn't know what they were getting into before they signed their lives away. For some viewers, this will be a dispiriting documentary as three subjects recount the suicides of relatives who found their debt too much to bear but in explaining exactly how lenders and creditors make money, Maxed Out can help others to avoid some of their most egregious practices. In other words, debt may be a downer, but knowledge is power.

Vincent Rocca Excellent flick. I often felt that people were at fault for their own credit mess and to some extent, I still do.This movie opened my eyes to how many of these credit giants prey on the uninformed and manage to make money through bankruptcies.Someone charges $1000, makes a payment then goes delinquent. The late penalties cause that to become $3000, then after 180 days the bank writes that debt off and sells it at 50% to a debt collector for $1500. The bank still collects their principal, plus whatever payments the original person made, plus $500, plus takes a write off. It seems like a no brainer to hand money out like paper.When a predator offers candy to a child, do we blame the child for taking the sweet bait? No, because the child didn't know better. So are these people at fault?

gws-2 The collection strategies used by collection companies, some of which are illustrated in "Maxed Out," are unsavory by any measure and can't be gainsaid. Nevertheless, the film seems not to know the meaning of the term "Personal responsibility." The folks who get into the kinds of trouble depicted by the movie got there because they lived beyond their means, the difference between their income and outgo being financed by credit card companies, albeit at outrageous rates. Still, the debtors either knew or should have known what they were getting into.I agree, though, with the film's depiction of The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. The act was not really a "reform," but a limitation of the rights formerly provided to debtors to discharge their debts in bankruptcy. Even under the old law, nobody who wasn't desperate sought bankruptcy protection. To narrow its protections was an outrage, it seems to me.Despite its propagandistic tone, one-sidedness, and anti-business attitudes, "Maxed Out" is occasionally informative and makes some useful points. Marginally recommended – if you have some stomach medicine nearby.

Joseph K This film is an interesting portrait into the business of lending. You see the many sides of it. You see the many tragic stories of people who spent themselves into insurmountable debt. You see the profitability of debt collection. You see the aggressive expansion of the credit market into areas where creditors wouldn't have pursued before, since they used to not be profitable, like college students, and people with generally low income.What you don't see is why these previously risky and unprofitable sectors of the market have suddenly become profitable. You get the impression that suddenly these previously high risk areas have become profitable because the creditors have expanded into these markets and forced them to be profitable, with new strategies.But this is naive. Profitability has dramatically increased and new markets have become open to creditors because interest rates have been steadily dropping, to now rock bottom lows. A central factor is debt is the interest rates, and its hard to really praise a movie about the debt industry that doesn't even mention changes in interest rates or how the interest rates are are tampered with by the Federal Reserve. Consumer lending is extremely profitable, as the movie says, but it hasn't always been so profitable, and if you fail to make an argument about what has been the important change, you're left with an incomplete and misguided movie. The assumption is that people have somehow become addicted to spending and that the credit card companies are exploiting this addiction. And yet for some mysterious reason used to not spend as much as they do now.The reality is that the credit card companies previously didn't expand into these untapped markets precisely because they were way to risky and would result in more losses from credit that is never repaid than profits from late fees interest. But once the Federal Reserve drops the interest rates down to unprecedentedly low levels, the risk changes and even those people who may not be ultimately able to pay beck their debt, can become profitable. But God forbid anyone should want to blame the Federal Reserve and Alan Greenspan for all of the irresponsible spending.You see, when you lower the interest rate it doesn't just effect spending but it also effects saving. Lower interest rates mean lower returns on savings accounts, as well as lower losses on debt. It becomes more desirable to spend what money you have now (why save money you're going to earn almost no interest on?), and then continuing spending what money you don't even have yet. It's always preferable to have things now than have things in the future. So if a store offers you a plan where you buy a TV interest free for six months, then you can just say, "So what if I have don't have the money now, I'll have it in six months. If I buy the TV now, then I can enjoy the benefits of having the new TV and put off the costs of paying for it. That's a double bonus." The conclusions of the movie seem to be that we need is to regulate the credit industry to help all of these people who can't take care of themselves. Maybe we'll install credit cards with some sort of child-proof lock, which will somehow becomes active when you're about to make an imprudent purchase. More likely, though they would just raise the minimum age for getting a credit or regulating the credit limits available to low income people, or something like that. Both ideas sound equally bad. A better idea might be to prevent the Federal Reserve from tampering with interest rates so that we don't continue to encourage an ultimately unsustainable spend-now-pay-later economy in the mistaken belief that somehow the economy is driven by consumer spending.In short, this movie will show you a lot about the credit industry that you didn't know. If it serves any benefit, it will hopefully scare you out of spending yourself into insurmountable debt. Nonetheless, without any insight into what actually contributes to consumer debt (which includes economic factors, like interest rates) then the movie degrades into an anti-big-business polemic of misplaced blame.