Episode 70: Les stratégies géopolitiques de la Chine pour affaiblir la primauté du dollar américain dans le commerce mondial
70% du commerce mondial se fait en dollar américain. Cela signifie que, partout dans le monde, il y a une forte demande pour le dollar. L’augmentation constante de la valeur du dollar dans le monde ralentit le taux d’inflation aux États-Unis alors qu’elle augmente le taux d’inflation dans une grande partie du reste du monde géopolitique.
Salut. Vous êtes sur Podcast Apostroph et je suis votre hôte Dr. Bobb Rousseau. Dans l’épisode d’aujourd’hui, je vous explique les stratégies géopolitiques de la Chine pour affaiblir la primauté du dollar américain dans le commerce mondial.
70% du commerce mondial se fait en dollar américain. Cela signifie que, partout dans le monde, il y a une forte demande pour le dollar. L’augmentation constante de la valeur du dollar dans le monde ralentit le taux d’inflation aux États-Unis alors qu’elle augmente le taux d’inflation dans une grande partie du reste du monde géopolitique.
La position du dollar en tant que monnaie dominante dans le monde a exaspéré de nombreux pays dotés d’économies dominantes et émergentes. Ainsi, en 1999, de nombreux pays européens ont créé l’euro comme monnaie commune pour contrer la hausse du dollar en Europe. Comme ils le disent, la hausse du dollar améliore l’économie américaine, mais elle affaiblit par conséquent l’économie mondiale. Avec l’euro, les pays européens prouvent qu’une monnaie échangeable entre plusieurs nations peut être plus puissante que le dollar.
Récemment, la Chine a pris des mesures similaires pour contrer la primauté du dollar dans l’économie mondiale. Avec le Brésil, la Russie, l’Inde et l’Afrique du Sud, elle a formé une alliance internationale appelée BRICS pour façonner les politiques économiques mondiales, promouvoir la stabilité financière et renforcer la coopération économique. De plus, elle a fait de plus grands pas en intégrant ou vouloir intégrer plus de vingt autres pays dans les BRICS afin de renforcer sa vision de la coopération économique.
Concrètement, les BRICS entrent sur la scène géopolitique pour construire un ordre international plus juste et plus équilibré que les États-Unis ne domineront plus. De plus, elle a étendu son empreinte en négociant un important accord commercial avec l’Iran et l’Arabie Saoudite. A noter que l’Arabie Saoudite est le premier producteur et exportateur mondial de pétrole. L’importance de cet accord est que la Chine veut qu’il s’agisse d’un accord rejetant le dollar américain, mais favorisant le Yuan chinos.
On peut déjà voir comment la Chine cherche à dominer l’économie mondiale et comment cette domination mondiale de la Chine pourrait affecter la position du dollar dans le monde. Un dollar dévalué sur le plan international obligerait l’Amérique à renforcer ses instruments de puissance nationale par le biais des relations diplomatiques, de la collecte d’informations et de la préparation militaire pour protéger et défendre ses intérêts économiques et géopolitiques.
En résumé, le dollar américain est la principale monnaie utilisée dans le commerce mondial. Cela donne un fort avantage à l’économie américaine et ainsi provoque la colère de nombreux pays européens; les incitant à créer l’euro comme contrepoids. La Chine a également pris des mesures pour défier le dollar, formant l’alliance BRICS et négociant un accord commercial avec l’Iran et l’Arabie Saoudite. Des débats font craindre que le dollar est en train de perdre sa domination mondiale pour aboutir à monde bipolaire. Des experts en relations internationales et sciences militaires avancent que désormais, les États-Unis doivent renforcer leurs instruments de pouvoir national, qui sont la Diplomatie, l’Information, la puissance militaire et l’économie (DIME) pour pouvoir conserver sa dominance mondiale.
C’est tout pour aujourd’hui mes amis, C’était Podcast Apostroph avec votre hôte Dr. Bobb Rousseau.
Bob Rousseau, Ph.D.
Présentateur du podcast Apostrophe
70% du commerce mondial se fait en dollar américain. Cela signifie que, partout dans le monde, il y a une forte demande pour le dollar. L’augmentation constante de la valeur du dollar dans le monde ralentit le taux d’inflation aux États-Unis alors qu’elle augmente le taux d’inflation dans une grande partie du reste du monde géopolitique.
La position du dollar en tant que monnaie dominante dans le monde a exaspéré de nombreux pays dotés d’économies dominantes et émergentes. Ainsi, en 1999, de nombreux pays européens ont créé l’euro comme monnaie commune pour contrer la hausse du dollar en Europe. Comme ils le disent, la hausse du dollar améliore l’économie américaine, mais elle affaiblit par conséquent l’économie mondiale. Avec l’euro, les pays européens prouvent qu’une monnaie échangeable entre plusieurs nations peut être plus puissante que le dollar.
Récemment, la Chine a pris des mesures similaires pour contrer la primauté du dollar dans l’économie mondiale. Avec le Brésil, la Russie, l’Inde et l’Afrique du Sud, elle a formé une alliance internationale appelée BRICS pour façonner les politiques économiques mondiales, promouvoir la stabilité financière et renforcer la coopération économique. De plus, elle a fait de plus grands pas en intégrant ou vouloir intégrer plus de vingt autres pays dans les BRICS afin de renforcer sa vision de la coopération économique.
Concrètement, les BRICS entrent sur la scène géopolitique pour construire un ordre international plus juste et plus équilibré que les États-Unis ne domineront plus. De plus, elle a étendu son empreinte en négociant un important accord commercial avec l’Iran et l’Arabie Saoudite. A noter que l’Arabie Saoudite est le premier producteur et exportateur mondial de pétrole. L’importance de cet accord est que la Chine veut qu’il s’agisse d’un accord rejetant le dollar américain, mais favorisant le Yuan chinos.
On peut déjà voir comment la Chine cherche à dominer l’économie mondiale et comment cette domination mondiale de la Chine pourrait affecter la position du dollar dans le monde. Un dollar dévalué sur le plan international obligerait l’Amérique à renforcer ses instruments de puissance nationale par le biais des relations diplomatiques, de la collecte d’informations et de la préparation militaire pour protéger et défendre ses intérêts économiques et géopolitiques.
En résumé, le dollar américain est la principale monnaie utilisée dans le commerce mondial. Cela donne un fort avantage à l’économie américaine et ainsi provoque la colère de nombreux pays européens; les incitant à créer l’euro comme contrepoids. La Chine a également pris des mesures pour défier le dollar, formant l’alliance BRICS et négociant un accord commercial avec l’Iran et l’Arabie Saoudite. Des débats font craindre que le dollar est en train de perdre sa domination mondiale pour aboutir à monde bipolaire. Des experts en relations internationales et sciences militaires avancent que désormais, les États-Unis doivent renforcer leurs instruments de pouvoir national, qui sont la Diplomatie, l’Information, la puissance militaire et l’économie (DIME) pour pouvoir conserver sa dominance mondiale.
C’est tout pour aujourd’hui mes amis, C’était Podcast Apostroph avec votre hôte Dr. Bobb Rousseau.
Bob Rousseau, Ph.D.
Présentateur du podcast Apostrophe
Episode 69: Effects of redlining and gentrification on American neighborhoods
Maybe you did not notice, or maybe it didn’t happen to you when you were looking for your home. Based on your income, home address and sometimes on your color, your bank would pre-approve you for a specific loan amount. With your pre-approval letter, your realtor would not show you houses in particular neighborhoods because your pre-approval tells your realtor what kinds of neighborhoods you are predisposed to live in.
Hello. I am Bobb Rousseau and this is Apostrophe Podcast. On today’s show; the differences between redlining and gentrification and how they shape the socio economic fabric of American cities.
Before I go any further, I want you to do two things for me. Select a poor neighborhood and a suburban neighborhood. Now, stop the podcast, drive through the neighborhoods you selected, and when you come back, I will tell you exactly what you saw.
As you were driving through the median or poor neighborhood, I am sure that you wondered why this family could afford a Tesla and a Cadillac while that family could barely afford a Toyota Celica. As you were driving through the suburban neighborhood, you saw the rich kids, in terms of public services and amenities, having good everything while the middle-class kids have crappy nothing. I bet also that you saw that the residents in the median neighborhood look alike, and the residents in the wealthy community look alike. Am I lying?
Maybe you did not notice, or maybe it didn’t happen to you when you were looking for your home. Based on your income, home address and sometimes on your color, your bank would pre-approve you for a specific loan amount. With your pre-approval letter, your realtor would not show you houses in particular neighborhoods because your pre-approval tells your realtor what kinds of neighborhoods you are predisposed to live in.
Your pre-approved loan amount puts you in specific neighborhoods, and this is why you see people who look like you, living in the same neighborhoods as you are, although sometimes their income may be way higher or lower than yours.
What you witnessed in the two neighborhoods is a longstanding pattern of discriminatory housing practices in America called redlining and gentrification.
Redlining is systematically denying mortgages, loans, and other financial services to residents of certain neighborhoods, usually based on race or ethnicity. This practice was widespread in the 1930s and 1940s when the federal government created maps that designated certain neighborhoods as “risky” or “undesirable” for lending purposes. Banks and other financial institutions then used these maps to discriminate against people living in those neighborhoods, making it difficult or impossible for them to access affordable credit and other financial services.
However, under the banner of commercial development, the same banks offer business loans to rich people to return to these neighborhoods. This is gentrification, which is the process of revitalizing or “upgrading” a neighborhood, often through the introduction of new housing and new amenities that poor residents cannot afford. Because of gentrification, the prices of properties and basic goods increase, and poor people can no longer afford to live there.
In a nutshell, redlining and gentrification allow rich people to chase poor people out of many neighborhoods that, before, the government classified as too low class, too risky, too not desirable, and too dangerous for white people to live in.
In summary, this conversation examines the differences between redlining and gentrification, two real estate financial policies that have profoundly impacted American cities’ socioeconomic fabric. Redlining involves denying people mortgages based on income and race, while gentrification occurs when wealthier people move into formerly poor neighborhoods, driving up housing prices. Both policies have had a long-lasting impact on the economic inequality in U.S. cities, as redlining prevents people from getting the loans they need to buy homes. At the same time, gentrification drives up the cost of living and pushes out those who cannot pay the increased prices. Ultimately, these policies have had a detrimental effect on the economic mobility of many people, leaving them unable to climb the economic ladder and access better opportunities.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Host of Apostrophe Podcast
Before I go any further, I want you to do two things for me. Select a poor neighborhood and a suburban neighborhood. Now, stop the podcast, drive through the neighborhoods you selected, and when you come back, I will tell you exactly what you saw.
As you were driving through the median or poor neighborhood, I am sure that you wondered why this family could afford a Tesla and a Cadillac while that family could barely afford a Toyota Celica. As you were driving through the suburban neighborhood, you saw the rich kids, in terms of public services and amenities, having good everything while the middle-class kids have crappy nothing. I bet also that you saw that the residents in the median neighborhood look alike, and the residents in the wealthy community look alike. Am I lying?
Maybe you did not notice, or maybe it didn’t happen to you when you were looking for your home. Based on your income, home address and sometimes on your color, your bank would pre-approve you for a specific loan amount. With your pre-approval letter, your realtor would not show you houses in particular neighborhoods because your pre-approval tells your realtor what kinds of neighborhoods you are predisposed to live in.
Your pre-approved loan amount puts you in specific neighborhoods, and this is why you see people who look like you, living in the same neighborhoods as you are, although sometimes their income may be way higher or lower than yours.
What you witnessed in the two neighborhoods is a longstanding pattern of discriminatory housing practices in America called redlining and gentrification.
Redlining is systematically denying mortgages, loans, and other financial services to residents of certain neighborhoods, usually based on race or ethnicity. This practice was widespread in the 1930s and 1940s when the federal government created maps that designated certain neighborhoods as “risky” or “undesirable” for lending purposes. Banks and other financial institutions then used these maps to discriminate against people living in those neighborhoods, making it difficult or impossible for them to access affordable credit and other financial services.
However, under the banner of commercial development, the same banks offer business loans to rich people to return to these neighborhoods. This is gentrification, which is the process of revitalizing or “upgrading” a neighborhood, often through the introduction of new housing and new amenities that poor residents cannot afford. Because of gentrification, the prices of properties and basic goods increase, and poor people can no longer afford to live there.
In a nutshell, redlining and gentrification allow rich people to chase poor people out of many neighborhoods that, before, the government classified as too low class, too risky, too not desirable, and too dangerous for white people to live in.
In summary, this conversation examines the differences between redlining and gentrification, two real estate financial policies that have profoundly impacted American cities’ socioeconomic fabric. Redlining involves denying people mortgages based on income and race, while gentrification occurs when wealthier people move into formerly poor neighborhoods, driving up housing prices. Both policies have had a long-lasting impact on the economic inequality in U.S. cities, as redlining prevents people from getting the loans they need to buy homes. At the same time, gentrification drives up the cost of living and pushes out those who cannot pay the increased prices. Ultimately, these policies have had a detrimental effect on the economic mobility of many people, leaving them unable to climb the economic ladder and access better opportunities.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Host of Apostrophe Podcast
Episode 68: China’s geopolitical strategies to weaken supremacy of American dollar in global trade
With the Euro, the creation of BRICS, and China’s newest deal with Iran and Saudi Arabia, less countries are relying on the dollar to conduct global transactions.
70% of global trade is conducted in the U.S. dollar. This means that, around the world, there is a strong demand for the dollar. Country A buys the dollar from the United States to pay for products it purchases from country B. The constant rising value of the dollar worldwide slows the rate of inflation in the U.S. while it increases the rate of inflation in much of the rest of the world.
The dollar’s posture as the world’s primacy currency infuriated many countries with leading and emerging economies such as Russia, China, India, and Syria, to name just a few.
As such, in 1999, many European countries created the Euro as a common currency to counter the dollar’s rise in Europe. As they put it, the rise of the dollar improves the American economy, but it weakens the global economy as a result. With the Euro, the European countries prove that a currency that can be traded among several nations may be more powerful than the dollar.
Lately, China has taken similar steps to counter the dollar primacy in the global economy. With Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa, it formed an international alliance called BRICS to shape global economic policies, promote financial stability, and bolster economic cooperation among them. Moreover, China has been making more big moves to integrate other countries into BRICS to bolster its vision of economic cooperation.
Practically, BRICS enters the geopolitical scene to build a more just and balanced international order that the United States will no longer dominate. Moreover, China extended its footprint by brokering an important trading agreement with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Note that Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil producer and exporter. The significance of that agreement is that China wants it to be a zero-based dollar or a Petro-Yuan deal so that the BRICS countries and other China allies will not use the dollar or they will simply use the Chinese Yuan to exchange products.
One can already see how China is seeking global dominance and how that China’s global dominance might affect the posture of the dollar worldwide. A declining dollar will compel America to re-enforce its instruments of national power through diplomatic ties, information gathering, and military readiness to protect and defend its interests.
In summary, the U.S. dollar is the primary currency used in global trade, giving a strong advantage to the U.S. economy. This has angered many countries with leading and emerging economies, prompting them to create the Euro as a counterbalance. China has also taken steps to challenge the U.S. dollar, forming an alliance with Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (BRICS) and brokering a trading agreement with Iran and Syria. This has led to worries that the dollar is losing its global dominance, and henceforth, the US must respond by reinforcing its instruments of national power, which are Diplomacy, Informational, Military, and Economy.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Host of Apostrophe Podcast
The dollar’s posture as the world’s primacy currency infuriated many countries with leading and emerging economies such as Russia, China, India, and Syria, to name just a few.
As such, in 1999, many European countries created the Euro as a common currency to counter the dollar’s rise in Europe. As they put it, the rise of the dollar improves the American economy, but it weakens the global economy as a result. With the Euro, the European countries prove that a currency that can be traded among several nations may be more powerful than the dollar.
Lately, China has taken similar steps to counter the dollar primacy in the global economy. With Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa, it formed an international alliance called BRICS to shape global economic policies, promote financial stability, and bolster economic cooperation among them. Moreover, China has been making more big moves to integrate other countries into BRICS to bolster its vision of economic cooperation.
Practically, BRICS enters the geopolitical scene to build a more just and balanced international order that the United States will no longer dominate. Moreover, China extended its footprint by brokering an important trading agreement with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Note that Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil producer and exporter. The significance of that agreement is that China wants it to be a zero-based dollar or a Petro-Yuan deal so that the BRICS countries and other China allies will not use the dollar or they will simply use the Chinese Yuan to exchange products.
One can already see how China is seeking global dominance and how that China’s global dominance might affect the posture of the dollar worldwide. A declining dollar will compel America to re-enforce its instruments of national power through diplomatic ties, information gathering, and military readiness to protect and defend its interests.
In summary, the U.S. dollar is the primary currency used in global trade, giving a strong advantage to the U.S. economy. This has angered many countries with leading and emerging economies, prompting them to create the Euro as a counterbalance. China has also taken steps to challenge the U.S. dollar, forming an alliance with Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (BRICS) and brokering a trading agreement with Iran and Syria. This has led to worries that the dollar is losing its global dominance, and henceforth, the US must respond by reinforcing its instruments of national power, which are Diplomacy, Informational, Military, and Economy.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Host of Apostrophe Podcast
Episode 67: Grand Jury vs. Trial Jury
Grand and trial juries are crucial in the justice system. While they have distinct differences, they work in tandem to ensure that individuals receive a fair trial and justice is served.
The American justice system relies on regular individuals to determine whether to bring charges or convict people of certain crimes. This series discusses the United States court system. Most importantly, it explains the essential roles of a Grand Jury and a Trial Jury in ensuring a fair and just legal system. Without further ado, let’s begin.
A Grand Jury comprises 16 to 23 individuals whose mission is to investigate potential criminal conduct. It is tasked to determine if the prosecution has, based on a preponderance of evidence, established probable cause for pressing charges. The individuals under investigation and their lawyers do not attend grand jury proceedings.
The grand jury proceedings usually involve a prosecutor who presents evidence to the jurors to establish probable cause that a crime has taken place. A unanimous decision is not required to decide whether to indict, which means the majority always has it. The grand jury’s decision to indict opens the opportunity for criminal trials, leading to a trial jury’s selection.
Trial juries are composed of 12 people who decide whether the accused individual is guilty or innocent. They hear evidence from the prosecution and the defense attorney and evaluate them to determine guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Unlike the Grand Jury decision, a trial jury conviction must be based on a unanimous decision. All 12 jurors must decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges brought against them.
Grand juries review evidence that the prosecution may have not obtained legally. Trial jurors, however, only have access to proof lawfully obtained by the prosecution and defense. A grand jury may request additional evidence before making a decision. In contrast, trial jurors will base their decision solely on the evidence that the prosecution and the defense present during the trial.
In summary, grand juries and trial juries are essential components of the American justice system. Grand juries determine whether to indict. In contrast, trial juries determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Host of Apostrophe Podcast
A Grand Jury comprises 16 to 23 individuals whose mission is to investigate potential criminal conduct. It is tasked to determine if the prosecution has, based on a preponderance of evidence, established probable cause for pressing charges. The individuals under investigation and their lawyers do not attend grand jury proceedings.
The grand jury proceedings usually involve a prosecutor who presents evidence to the jurors to establish probable cause that a crime has taken place. A unanimous decision is not required to decide whether to indict, which means the majority always has it. The grand jury’s decision to indict opens the opportunity for criminal trials, leading to a trial jury’s selection.
Trial juries are composed of 12 people who decide whether the accused individual is guilty or innocent. They hear evidence from the prosecution and the defense attorney and evaluate them to determine guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Unlike the Grand Jury decision, a trial jury conviction must be based on a unanimous decision. All 12 jurors must decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges brought against them.
Grand juries review evidence that the prosecution may have not obtained legally. Trial jurors, however, only have access to proof lawfully obtained by the prosecution and defense. A grand jury may request additional evidence before making a decision. In contrast, trial jurors will base their decision solely on the evidence that the prosecution and the defense present during the trial.
In summary, grand juries and trial juries are essential components of the American justice system. Grand juries determine whether to indict. In contrast, trial juries determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Host of Apostrophe Podcast
Episode 66: Debt Consolidation: Send one paycheck to all your creditors
To qualify for debt consolidation, borrowers must be behind or late in making their different monthly payments to their creditors. Click the link to learn how to get back on track while lowering interest rates and increasing credit score.
To qualify for debt consolidation, borrowers must be behind or late in making their different monthly payments to their creditors. Click the link to learn how to get back on track while lowering interest rates and increasing credit score.
Borrowers can merge all their debts, take out one loan, and pay all their creditors with one single check every month until they pay off all their debts. In this series, I talk about debt consolidation as a management tool helping borrowers pay off their debts faster in low fixed amounts and with low interest rates. Moreover, I discuss how borrowers who are behind in their payments can get back on track while lowering their interest rates and increasing their credit score.
The sad thing about bills is that they are due on different days of the month, are paid in different amounts, at different interest rates, and are spread across different terms.
Borrowers have three main options for debt consolidation. The first option is to take out a personal loan to pay off multiple debts. I suggest this option for credit cards and car loans because personal loans generally have lower interest rates than unsecured debts.
The second option is to transfer high-interest balances to a credit card with a lower rate. The way it works is to take funds they have on the credit cards with the highest interest rates and transfer them onto the one with the lowest interest rate. This option is more suitable for borrowers with good credit scores because they may qualify for a low-interest credit card. The third option suits homeowners with houses worth more than they owe. For example, they owe $100K on their house, which is worth $150K; therefore, the home equity is $50K. The borrower can borrow the $50K against the house to pay off their debts. However, they must repay their loans against their own house. This option is called consolidation through a home equity loan or line of credit.
Borrowers can complete either option through a debt relief or debt consolidation agency. They must meet certain fees and specific criteria before being approved for debt consolidation, one of which is late in their bills, causing them to default. Debt consolidation does not reduce or eliminate the debt, but the borrowers will obtain personal loans with low interest rates that they will use to pay off their debts with high interest rates.
Borrowers seeking to decrease or eliminate their debt would join a debt relief program or file for bankruptcy. Debt relief involves working with experienced negotiators who contact creditors to settle a debt for less than what is owed. Debt relief is also referred to as debt negotiation”, “debt settlement”, “debt resolution”, or “credit card modification.
Debt consolidation is a debt management tool helping borrowers to reduce interest rates and keep track of their payments while plausibly improving their credit scores and eliminating the pressure of multiple lenders. There are some debts that borrowers cannot consolidate. For example, borrowers cannot take a personal loan to pay off combined utility, rental, or mortgage bills.
In summary, debt consolidation combines multiple debts into one loan with a lower interest rate or more favorable repayment terms. It is an excellent solution for individuals struggling to meet their financial obligations as it helps them manage their debts more efficiently and reduce their financial stress. Borrowers can consolidate their debts by taking out a personal loan, transferring high-interest balances to a credit card with a lower rate, or using a home equity loan or a line of credit.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Borrowers can merge all their debts, take out one loan, and pay all their creditors with one single check every month until they pay off all their debts. In this series, I talk about debt consolidation as a management tool helping borrowers pay off their debts faster in low fixed amounts and with low interest rates. Moreover, I discuss how borrowers who are behind in their payments can get back on track while lowering their interest rates and increasing their credit score.
The sad thing about bills is that they are due on different days of the month, are paid in different amounts, at different interest rates, and are spread across different terms.
Borrowers have three main options for debt consolidation. The first option is to take out a personal loan to pay off multiple debts. I suggest this option for credit cards and car loans because personal loans generally have lower interest rates than unsecured debts.
The second option is to transfer high-interest balances to a credit card with a lower rate. The way it works is to take funds they have on the credit cards with the highest interest rates and transfer them onto the one with the lowest interest rate. This option is more suitable for borrowers with good credit scores because they may qualify for a low-interest credit card. The third option suits homeowners with houses worth more than they owe. For example, they owe $100K on their house, which is worth $150K; therefore, the home equity is $50K. The borrower can borrow the $50K against the house to pay off their debts. However, they must repay their loans against their own house. This option is called consolidation through a home equity loan or line of credit.
Borrowers can complete either option through a debt relief or debt consolidation agency. They must meet certain fees and specific criteria before being approved for debt consolidation, one of which is late in their bills, causing them to default. Debt consolidation does not reduce or eliminate the debt, but the borrowers will obtain personal loans with low interest rates that they will use to pay off their debts with high interest rates.
Borrowers seeking to decrease or eliminate their debt would join a debt relief program or file for bankruptcy. Debt relief involves working with experienced negotiators who contact creditors to settle a debt for less than what is owed. Debt relief is also referred to as debt negotiation”, “debt settlement”, “debt resolution”, or “credit card modification.
Debt consolidation is a debt management tool helping borrowers to reduce interest rates and keep track of their payments while plausibly improving their credit scores and eliminating the pressure of multiple lenders. There are some debts that borrowers cannot consolidate. For example, borrowers cannot take a personal loan to pay off combined utility, rental, or mortgage bills.
In summary, debt consolidation combines multiple debts into one loan with a lower interest rate or more favorable repayment terms. It is an excellent solution for individuals struggling to meet their financial obligations as it helps them manage their debts more efficiently and reduce their financial stress. Borrowers can consolidate their debts by taking out a personal loan, transferring high-interest balances to a credit card with a lower rate, or using a home equity loan or a line of credit.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Episode 64: Bankruptcy: Be debt-free in nine months
The most popular types of bankruptcies are Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. Chapter 7 compels qualified individuals to sell their assets to pay off their creditors, whereas Chapter 13 compels qualified individuals to reorganize their debts to pay their creditors in fixed monthly installments.
When certain individuals are unable to pay their debts, they tend not to pay them, which impacts their credit score. When debts surpass incomes, Individuals can legally have their debts reduced and ultimately, eliminated.
This series discusses bankruptcy. Most importantly, it explains the two main types of bankruptcies and how both of them can help individuals regain financial freedom. Without further ado, let’s dive right into it.
The thought that people file for bankruptcy because they have bad credit or because they do not have fiscal discipline is false. The other falsehood is that people who file for bankruptcy cannot apply for new credits and lose their assets. The main reason people file for bankruptcy is to eliminate their debts.
Bankruptcy is a way to either erase your debts or make a plan for you to pay them back. Bankruptcy erase some debts not all especially child support, alimony, student loans, to name just a few. However, it does erase unsecured debts such as personal belongings, credit cards, inexpensive cars, payday loans, mortgages, tax debts, and certain types of student loans. The government may guarantee student loans for individuals who have remained unemployed for over seven years after they have been out of school.
The most popular types of bankruptcies are Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. Chapter 7 compels qualified individuals to sell their assets to pay off their creditors, whereas Chapter 13 compels qualified individuals to reorganize their debts to pay their creditors in fixed monthly installments.
The goal of Chapter 7 is for qualified individuals to become debt-free in less than nine months while that of Chapter 13 is for qualified individuals to become debt-free between three to five years. Therefore, In layman’s terms, Chapter 7 is asset liquidation bankruptcy while Chapter 13 is a repayment plan bankruptcy, and neither one of them relieves individuals from their financial responsibility toward their creditors.
Bankruptcy cases stay on individuals’ credit reports for up to seven years. Even so, within these seven years, individuals can still apply and qualify for secured and unsecured loans.
I advise anyone contemplating the bankruptcy route to conduct ample research before filing. There are alternate methods to pay off debts without losing assets. Filing a consumer proposal may prevent individuals from selling their assets. A consumer proposal is a deal allowing qualified individuals to make reasonable monthly payments to their creditors until the debt is paid off.
In summary, bankruptcy is a legal process that allows people to have some of their debts erased or individuals to be debt free and, depending on the type of bankruptcy, keep their assets. People with good credit can still file for bankruptcy and preserve their assets. Chapter 7, which involves selling assets to pay off the debt in as little as nine months and Chapter 13, which involves reorganizing the debts and paying them off over 3-5 years are the main types of bankruptcies.
This series discusses bankruptcy. Most importantly, it explains the two main types of bankruptcies and how both of them can help individuals regain financial freedom. Without further ado, let’s dive right into it.
The thought that people file for bankruptcy because they have bad credit or because they do not have fiscal discipline is false. The other falsehood is that people who file for bankruptcy cannot apply for new credits and lose their assets. The main reason people file for bankruptcy is to eliminate their debts.
Bankruptcy is a way to either erase your debts or make a plan for you to pay them back. Bankruptcy erase some debts not all especially child support, alimony, student loans, to name just a few. However, it does erase unsecured debts such as personal belongings, credit cards, inexpensive cars, payday loans, mortgages, tax debts, and certain types of student loans. The government may guarantee student loans for individuals who have remained unemployed for over seven years after they have been out of school.
The most popular types of bankruptcies are Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. Chapter 7 compels qualified individuals to sell their assets to pay off their creditors, whereas Chapter 13 compels qualified individuals to reorganize their debts to pay their creditors in fixed monthly installments.
The goal of Chapter 7 is for qualified individuals to become debt-free in less than nine months while that of Chapter 13 is for qualified individuals to become debt-free between three to five years. Therefore, In layman’s terms, Chapter 7 is asset liquidation bankruptcy while Chapter 13 is a repayment plan bankruptcy, and neither one of them relieves individuals from their financial responsibility toward their creditors.
Bankruptcy cases stay on individuals’ credit reports for up to seven years. Even so, within these seven years, individuals can still apply and qualify for secured and unsecured loans.
I advise anyone contemplating the bankruptcy route to conduct ample research before filing. There are alternate methods to pay off debts without losing assets. Filing a consumer proposal may prevent individuals from selling their assets. A consumer proposal is a deal allowing qualified individuals to make reasonable monthly payments to their creditors until the debt is paid off.
In summary, bankruptcy is a legal process that allows people to have some of their debts erased or individuals to be debt free and, depending on the type of bankruptcy, keep their assets. People with good credit can still file for bankruptcy and preserve their assets. Chapter 7, which involves selling assets to pay off the debt in as little as nine months and Chapter 13, which involves reorganizing the debts and paying them off over 3-5 years are the main types of bankruptcies.
Episode 63: How abortion regulations drive women to become drive-by criminals
When my daughters get pregnant, I want them to have the freedom to decide but not be forced into making a choice on whether to abort or not. I will not want them to shuffle through multiple regulations to find out whether they will be criminals in this state but not criminals in that state.
In this series, I am not saying that women who have abortions are criminals. I rather discuss abortion policies and I am saying that, allowing abortion in certain circumstances and certain states, forces women to commit murder there instead of here. No offense intended. I use the word “murder” to convey my message more efficiently. It makes no sense that some states allow abortion while others do not. However, in those states that forbid it, a woman whose life is in danger, who was raped, or who was the victim of incest is allowed to abort. Thus, even when the pregnant woman is sick or a victim, lawmakers get to make her decision for her.
When something is made illegal, it is made criminal. A woman in whose state abortion is illegal can simply travel to another state to have one if such a state allows it. Practically abortion regulations are telling a woman, “You cannot kill here, but you can kill over there.” A woman must not be allowed nor must she be forbidden to have an abortion; she must want to have it or not have it whether she was raped, or whether her life and that of her fetus are in danger. Lawmakers are too much involved in a woman’s life. America is becoming so polarized that politicians take free will from a woman’s decision.
One side wants to allow abortion while the other wants to forbid it, and out of all those politics, the woman is being treated as a dumb child incapable of fending for herself. Having an abortion should not be a secret, let alone an act of shame and fear of being persecuted, cast out, chastised. Did you hear about that man in Texas who sued three women for helping his wife get an abortion? Abortion must not be about pro-choice or pro-life but about freedom to decide. It must be neither legal nor must it be illegal; it must simply be the woman’s decision to have one. Abortion regulations are unjust and unfair, not because they are arguably illegal but because they want a woman’s life to be in danger, or want the woman to be a victim for politicians to make her decision for her.
When my daughters get pregnant, I want them to have the freedom to decide but not be forced into making a choice on whether to abort or not. I will not want them to shuffle through multiple regulations to find out whether they will be criminals in this state but not criminals in that state.
When something is made illegal, it is made criminal. A woman in whose state abortion is illegal can simply travel to another state to have one if such a state allows it. Practically abortion regulations are telling a woman, “You cannot kill here, but you can kill over there.” A woman must not be allowed nor must she be forbidden to have an abortion; she must want to have it or not have it whether she was raped, or whether her life and that of her fetus are in danger. Lawmakers are too much involved in a woman’s life. America is becoming so polarized that politicians take free will from a woman’s decision.
One side wants to allow abortion while the other wants to forbid it, and out of all those politics, the woman is being treated as a dumb child incapable of fending for herself. Having an abortion should not be a secret, let alone an act of shame and fear of being persecuted, cast out, chastised. Did you hear about that man in Texas who sued three women for helping his wife get an abortion? Abortion must not be about pro-choice or pro-life but about freedom to decide. It must be neither legal nor must it be illegal; it must simply be the woman’s decision to have one. Abortion regulations are unjust and unfair, not because they are arguably illegal but because they want a woman’s life to be in danger, or want the woman to be a victim for politicians to make her decision for her.
When my daughters get pregnant, I want them to have the freedom to decide but not be forced into making a choice on whether to abort or not. I will not want them to shuffle through multiple regulations to find out whether they will be criminals in this state but not criminals in that state.
Episode 62: Les héros qui m’ont grandit
Laissez-moi vous dire comment mon éducation a été beaucoup plus significative que celle que vous recevez aujourd’hui. Écoutez cet article en audio sur Podcast Azazel en suivant ce lien.
Dans cette série, j’ai parlé d’une époque que si vous aviez moins de 30 ans, vous ne connaissiez pas. Vous êtes sur Azazel Podcast et je suis votre podcaster Dr. Bobb Rousseau. Sans plus tarder, laissez-moi vous dire comment mon éducation a été beaucoup plus significative que celle que vous recevez aujourd’hui.
Les personnes qui ont influencé ma vie pour faire de moi l’excellent élément de la société que je suis aujourd’hui n’avaient aucune plate-forme pour partager leurs opinions ; ils n’avaient que leurs modes de vie, leurs comportements et beaucoup d’autorité pour m’éduquer et m’orienter dans la bonne direction.
Lorsque j’avais le même âge que vous en avez à ce moment, ma communauté m’a grandi. Je me souviens quand mes mentors étaient de vraies personnes qui vivaient tout près de moi. Je me souviens quand mes modèles étaient n’importe qui, qui étaient plus âgés que moi. En grandissant, mes parents ne m’avaient pas dit comment me comporter, comment traiter les autres et qui devenir ; je savais qui je voulais être dès le départ. Plus important encore, je respectais les règles et les valeurs non écrites pour que je sois un citoyen positif capable de faire toujours ce qui était juste.
Je me souviens quand mes parents n’avaient pas peur de me laisser aller regarder la télévision chez le voisin. Ils n’avaient pas peur parce que ma communauté partageait les mêmes valeurs, et quel que soit le bien qu’ils souhaitaient pour leurs enfants ; ils voulaient ce même bien pour moi et aussi pour tous les autres enfants du quartier. Mes voisins étaient mes oncles, mes tantes, mes papis ou mes manmis. L’époque où une communauté de héros m’a élevé me manque grandement.
Quand mes amis et moi grandissions, nous n’avions pas à chercher nos modèles ailleurs ; ils étaient là à chaque coin de rue et nous n’avions d’autre choix que de réussir. Bien que nous n’étions pas autorisés à leur parler en raison de leur statut ou de leur rang dans la communauté, nous les voyons tous les jours et nous connaissions le respect qui accompagnait leur nom.
Quand nous nous comportions de manière inconvenante, la communauté nous punissait. Nos modèles nous ont permis de devenir des exemples pour nous-mêmes, notre communauté et les générations futures. Ils nous ont appris à être en charge de nos vies et à être responsables de nos actes.
De nos jours, nos héros sont ces gens que nous ne rencontrerons jamais en personne. Comment quelqu’un qui ne nous connaît pas puisse vouloir le bonheur de notre communauté? C’est, pour moi, inconcevable que nous décidons de mettre notre future dans la balance de quelqu’un que nous ne connaissons qu’à travers des vidéos et des tweets dépourvus de moralité et de bon sens. Nous ne connaissons ni leur passé ni leur famille. Ils apparaissent sur nos écrans plus rapidement que les pissenlits ne poussent dans les forêts.
Contrairement à nos anciens héros qui nous donnaient le bon exemple, ces nouveaux héros nous donnent des attentes et des idéaux irréalistes, ils favorisent des comportements équivoques et ils réduisent nos interactions sociales. Dans un monde où tout le monde recherche une gratification instantanée, nous nous concentrons davantage sur ce que nous portons ou les endroits où nous étions que sur ce qui est important.
Les héros avec lesquels ma génération a grandi sont toujours là pour montrer le positivisme, sauf qu’ils sont maintenant éclipsés par des héros qui n’ont pas pu regarder les bonnes personnes faire le bien dans leur communauté. Les héros avec lesquels ma génération a grandi sont maintenant remplacés par des héros qui deviennent des héros pour promouvoir l’indignation sélective, et non pour faire un impact positif sur nos vies et les comportements.
Certes, divers bons héros nous parlent sur notre écran, mais nous les négligeons car ils ne sont pas polarisés. Nous les avons remplacés par de nouveaux héros qui rendent la parentalité plus difficile et parfois inexistante.
En résumé, ma conversation reflète comment, en grandissant, j’étais entouré de héros communautaires qui m’ont fourni de bons exemples et m’ont enseigné les valeurs et le respect. Cela m’a permis de devenir un meilleur individu avec succès comme boussole. Cependant, mes héros ont disparu et remplacés par ceux qui créent des fractures sociales et promeuvent les comportements malsains.
C’est tout pour le moment mes amis. J’étais votre podcaster Dr. Bob Rousseau. Si cet article résonne avec vous, partagez-le avec votre réseau.
Les personnes qui ont influencé ma vie pour faire de moi l’excellent élément de la société que je suis aujourd’hui n’avaient aucune plate-forme pour partager leurs opinions ; ils n’avaient que leurs modes de vie, leurs comportements et beaucoup d’autorité pour m’éduquer et m’orienter dans la bonne direction.
Lorsque j’avais le même âge que vous en avez à ce moment, ma communauté m’a grandi. Je me souviens quand mes mentors étaient de vraies personnes qui vivaient tout près de moi. Je me souviens quand mes modèles étaient n’importe qui, qui étaient plus âgés que moi. En grandissant, mes parents ne m’avaient pas dit comment me comporter, comment traiter les autres et qui devenir ; je savais qui je voulais être dès le départ. Plus important encore, je respectais les règles et les valeurs non écrites pour que je sois un citoyen positif capable de faire toujours ce qui était juste.
Je me souviens quand mes parents n’avaient pas peur de me laisser aller regarder la télévision chez le voisin. Ils n’avaient pas peur parce que ma communauté partageait les mêmes valeurs, et quel que soit le bien qu’ils souhaitaient pour leurs enfants ; ils voulaient ce même bien pour moi et aussi pour tous les autres enfants du quartier. Mes voisins étaient mes oncles, mes tantes, mes papis ou mes manmis. L’époque où une communauté de héros m’a élevé me manque grandement.
Quand mes amis et moi grandissions, nous n’avions pas à chercher nos modèles ailleurs ; ils étaient là à chaque coin de rue et nous n’avions d’autre choix que de réussir. Bien que nous n’étions pas autorisés à leur parler en raison de leur statut ou de leur rang dans la communauté, nous les voyons tous les jours et nous connaissions le respect qui accompagnait leur nom.
Quand nous nous comportions de manière inconvenante, la communauté nous punissait. Nos modèles nous ont permis de devenir des exemples pour nous-mêmes, notre communauté et les générations futures. Ils nous ont appris à être en charge de nos vies et à être responsables de nos actes.
De nos jours, nos héros sont ces gens que nous ne rencontrerons jamais en personne. Comment quelqu’un qui ne nous connaît pas puisse vouloir le bonheur de notre communauté? C’est, pour moi, inconcevable que nous décidons de mettre notre future dans la balance de quelqu’un que nous ne connaissons qu’à travers des vidéos et des tweets dépourvus de moralité et de bon sens. Nous ne connaissons ni leur passé ni leur famille. Ils apparaissent sur nos écrans plus rapidement que les pissenlits ne poussent dans les forêts.
Contrairement à nos anciens héros qui nous donnaient le bon exemple, ces nouveaux héros nous donnent des attentes et des idéaux irréalistes, ils favorisent des comportements équivoques et ils réduisent nos interactions sociales. Dans un monde où tout le monde recherche une gratification instantanée, nous nous concentrons davantage sur ce que nous portons ou les endroits où nous étions que sur ce qui est important.
Les héros avec lesquels ma génération a grandi sont toujours là pour montrer le positivisme, sauf qu’ils sont maintenant éclipsés par des héros qui n’ont pas pu regarder les bonnes personnes faire le bien dans leur communauté. Les héros avec lesquels ma génération a grandi sont maintenant remplacés par des héros qui deviennent des héros pour promouvoir l’indignation sélective, et non pour faire un impact positif sur nos vies et les comportements.
Certes, divers bons héros nous parlent sur notre écran, mais nous les négligeons car ils ne sont pas polarisés. Nous les avons remplacés par de nouveaux héros qui rendent la parentalité plus difficile et parfois inexistante.
En résumé, ma conversation reflète comment, en grandissant, j’étais entouré de héros communautaires qui m’ont fourni de bons exemples et m’ont enseigné les valeurs et le respect. Cela m’a permis de devenir un meilleur individu avec succès comme boussole. Cependant, mes héros ont disparu et remplacés par ceux qui créent des fractures sociales et promeuvent les comportements malsains.
C’est tout pour le moment mes amis. J’étais votre podcaster Dr. Bob Rousseau. Si cet article résonne avec vous, partagez-le avec votre réseau.
Episode 61: Influencers we grew up with
The heroes my generation grew up with are still there showcasing positivism, except they are now overshadowed by heroes who did not get to watch good folks do right in the community. The heroes my generation grew up with are now booted off by heroes who become heroes to promote selective outrage, not to impact lives and behaviors positively.
In this series, I talked about an era that if you are under 30, you did not know. Without further ado, let me show you how my upbringing was much more meaningful than the ones we have today.
The people who influenced my life to make me the excellent element of society that I am today had no platform to share their opinion; they only had their lifestyles, their behaviors, and a whole lot of authority to school me and steer me into the right direction any way they chose. I am sorry I failed to pass the lessons I learned from my hometown heroes to the younger generations.
When we were at the same age you are right now, our communities, not strangers, raised us. I remember when our mentors were real people who lived next door. I remember when our models were anyone older than we were. As we were growing up, our parents did not tell us how to behave, treat others, and be; we knew who we wanted to become from the start. Most importantly, we respected the unsaid rules and the unwritten values to be pleasant and approachable; we were always trained to be what was right.
I remember when our parents were not scared to let us watch television at the neighbor’s house. They were not afraid because our community shared the same values, and whatever good they wanted for their children; they wanted that same good for all the other children in the community. Our neighbors were our uncles, our aunts, our papis and our mommies. I missed when the community, a community of heroes, raised us.
When my friends and I were growing up, we did not have to look elsewhere for our models; they were right there at every corner, and we had no choice but to succeed. Although we may not have been authorized to talk to them because of their social status or their ranking in the community, we saw them everyday and we knew the respect that came with their name. When we did not, or if we behaved unbecomingly, the community punished us. One of the good things our models did for us was they empowered us to become examples for our community and future generations. They taught us how to take control of our lives and be responsible for our actions.
Nowadays, our heroes are people we will never meet in person. We don’t know their past nor did we know their family. They pop up on our screen faster than dandelions grow in yards. Unlike our old heroes who led us by example, these new heroes provide us with unrealistic expectations and ideals, promote unhealthy behavior, and reduce social interactions. In a world where everyone is seeking instant gratification, we are becoming more focused on what we wear or places we have been than on what is important.
The heroes my generation grew up with are still there showcasing positivism, except they are now overshadowed by heroes who did not get to watch good folks do right in the community. The heroes my generation grew up with are now booted off by heroes who become heroes to promote selective outrage, not to impact lives and behaviors positively.
Granted, various good heroes talk to us on our screen, but we neglect them because they are not polarized, but they instead aim to unite the political and social divide.
In summary, my conversation reflects on how, when growing up, we were surrounded by hometown heroes who provided good examples and taught us values and respect. That enabled us to become better individuals and strive for success. However, these heroes have become extinct, and the visible ones tend to be focused on promoting unhealthy behavior and creating social divides. There are still some good role models out there, but they are overshadowed by those who promote selective outrage.
The people who influenced my life to make me the excellent element of society that I am today had no platform to share their opinion; they only had their lifestyles, their behaviors, and a whole lot of authority to school me and steer me into the right direction any way they chose. I am sorry I failed to pass the lessons I learned from my hometown heroes to the younger generations.
When we were at the same age you are right now, our communities, not strangers, raised us. I remember when our mentors were real people who lived next door. I remember when our models were anyone older than we were. As we were growing up, our parents did not tell us how to behave, treat others, and be; we knew who we wanted to become from the start. Most importantly, we respected the unsaid rules and the unwritten values to be pleasant and approachable; we were always trained to be what was right.
I remember when our parents were not scared to let us watch television at the neighbor’s house. They were not afraid because our community shared the same values, and whatever good they wanted for their children; they wanted that same good for all the other children in the community. Our neighbors were our uncles, our aunts, our papis and our mommies. I missed when the community, a community of heroes, raised us.
When my friends and I were growing up, we did not have to look elsewhere for our models; they were right there at every corner, and we had no choice but to succeed. Although we may not have been authorized to talk to them because of their social status or their ranking in the community, we saw them everyday and we knew the respect that came with their name. When we did not, or if we behaved unbecomingly, the community punished us. One of the good things our models did for us was they empowered us to become examples for our community and future generations. They taught us how to take control of our lives and be responsible for our actions.
Nowadays, our heroes are people we will never meet in person. We don’t know their past nor did we know their family. They pop up on our screen faster than dandelions grow in yards. Unlike our old heroes who led us by example, these new heroes provide us with unrealistic expectations and ideals, promote unhealthy behavior, and reduce social interactions. In a world where everyone is seeking instant gratification, we are becoming more focused on what we wear or places we have been than on what is important.
The heroes my generation grew up with are still there showcasing positivism, except they are now overshadowed by heroes who did not get to watch good folks do right in the community. The heroes my generation grew up with are now booted off by heroes who become heroes to promote selective outrage, not to impact lives and behaviors positively.
Granted, various good heroes talk to us on our screen, but we neglect them because they are not polarized, but they instead aim to unite the political and social divide.
In summary, my conversation reflects on how, when growing up, we were surrounded by hometown heroes who provided good examples and taught us values and respect. That enabled us to become better individuals and strive for success. However, these heroes have become extinct, and the visible ones tend to be focused on promoting unhealthy behavior and creating social divides. There are still some good role models out there, but they are overshadowed by those who promote selective outrage.