<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Business Week: Consumer Credit Arbitration &amp;#8212; you lose!</title><link>http://themoderatevoice.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://themoderatevoice.disqus.com/business_week_consumer_credit_arbitration_8212_you_lose/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:43:18 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Business Week: Consumer Credit Arbitration &amp;#8212; you lose!</title><link>http://themoderatevoice.com/religion/ideologies/capitalism/20259/business-week-consumer-credit-arbitration-you-lose/#comment-12795965</link><description>&lt;p&gt;While the conflict of interest concerns are appropriate, the time per arbitration factor, while it may be bad, is not necessarily a problem if most of the cases involve simple defaults or failures to state a claim (e.g. I can't afford to make a payment because ... ).  Limited jurisdiction state courts are similarly swift in dispatching those kinds of cases and those kinds of cases make up a large percentage of all limited jurisdiction state court collection cases.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It isn't entirely clear to what extent these are bona fide contested "disputes over bills," and to what extent these are simply unpaid bills that lenders are enforcing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ohwilleke</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:43:18 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>