I think that's putting it mildly. A major issue with using Excel files for data transfer is, to put it bluntly, the lackadaisical way people treat Excel files. They are passed around and edited. Passed back once edited. Passing them around creates copies of them. They get goofy names as people try to manage the multiple editors and editions. There's no verifiable authority for the source or latest version of the data. None of the data or its state is externally verifiable. We've all seen where this goes south very quickly; we even have a meme for it: the FINAL FINAL FINAL suffix that gets appended to the filename. I suspect this is why/how zombie debt, as described by Oliver, gets resurrected: data quality issues: debt that is accidentally (or on purpose, to make another/recover a quick buck) sold again when it shouldn't have been. And the original owner of the debt, once sold, isn't interested in keeping track of it (they've already written it off). Some of the issue is that there are multiple parties involved. Real estate has title records as one way to solve this, which isn't necessarily a final solution (thus the existence of title insurance), but without even something resembling a centralized and agreed upon record of the history of the debt changing hands, it's impossible to reliably know anything about it. Excel files exacerbate that.

Further down in these comments, AstroJetson says that to forgive debt, they "they just delete the Excel file it's in". I find this to be a reasonable possibility for how this is handled. But deleting a file received from some other party doesn't make the file disappear. It's perhaps still in an attachment somewhere, in the sent mail folder, on the computer of the sender (perhaps moved to a "Sold Debt" folder).

None of this is necessarily solved by transfer methods like EDI or HL7, except for what amounts to a barrier to entry to access the data and make it available to begin with. EDI is a solution for purchase orders between Walmart and suppliers is because 1) there's often a limited number of parties (two) involved with the data, 2) Walmart is always one of the parties (so it is effectively centralized), 3) the data itself is verifiable against other, trusted sources like accounts payable and accounts receivable. It's also going into a system that has automation components. The people who are buying debt information and receiving it via Excel spreadsheets are just going to go over it by hand and call/contact people on it. It's going into some massive computer based process and generate reports for dozens of different departments like the data being transferred via EDI at Walmart is.

This is where someone mentions using a blockchain or git to track the way the debt changes hands and its current state. This would be a fine suggestion if it wasn't in the interest of the debt buyers/sellers to keep the system shitty with little visibility/oversight so they can take advantage of debtors and other debt buyers any way they can.

I didn't ask if they tracked all of it in an Excel file ;-)

If you consider the constraint that Last Week Tonight is primarily a comedy show themed around important newsworthy issues rather than an investigative journalism show it's hard to imagine it done any better.

He and Jon Stewart keep (kept in the case of Jon) using this excuse when they get things wrong, but when they get things right they take all the glory they can get. The show(s) have to have some sort of accountability.

For example Couric was just ripped for adding 6 seconds of dead air on a documentary....but that's literally what The Daily Show had been doing for years, making people look like idiots (so it fits their segment narrative). That's all good fun until you realize young people think people like Stewart and Oliver are trustworthy news sources.

I like what they do in many cases, but I despise this excuse that it's "just" a comedy show. Maybe NBC nightly news should just add an in-studio audience that laughs and suddenly they can get away with every screw up.

It's not meant to be an excuse, it's meant to be an accusation. If a comedy show is so much better at news than a news show, that's a major failing on the part of actual news shows.

That's exactly what it is. It's the equivalent of those people on YouTube who assault someone and then say 'it was just a prank!'

I think making fun of someone and trashing their reputation without being super careful to check all the facts first is really nasty and I don't like watching either of their shows.

Edit: I have heard Stewart say "we're not the news" in response to questions like "Do you feel a responsibility to cover every important issue?" where "we're not the news" means they only cover issues they can make funny (an example of something perhaps too sad to make funny is the Flint water crisis)

That doesn't mean I agree with the person they are interviewing, or that that person isn't ignorant...but there is no way you can see their reporting as objective.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-23/don-t-eve...

Jason Jones talks to two hunters, a non-fatal hunter and a fatal hunter, to see what method is better. (4:33)

If he's not going to actually consider the facts, why make jokes about current affairs rather than just totally making things up?

Should we hold these types of shows to a talk show standard or a news standard?

When CBS presented a fabricated military report about George W., they were rightly condemned for presenting false information and presenting it as fact. If, instead, the fabricated document had been shown on John Oliver, would we think it's OK simply because John Oliver is partly comedy?

As with The Daily Show, The Nightly Show, and the (former) Colbert Report, among others, the format is a variation of the format of a mixed news/commentary show of the type that is the staple of the cable news networks, and they all use that format because they are parodies of that kind of show.

    In his latest clip, he mocks information being passed by Excel.

Also, I find it incredibly irresponsible how the customers information is handled. They quite literally email spreadsheets around with thousands of names, addresses and SIN numbers. If someone nefarious got their hands on just one of the many thousands of those documents floating around, it's a great starting place for identity theft.

> No contracts, no history, no anything, just, this person now owe's you $X.

Going through the details isn't worth it to the buyers since its for such a small amount. They give them names, numbers and amounts to their phone bank and they see what they can get.

Killing off the secondary market would decrease the amount and cost of accessible credit to borrowers with bad or no credit history. It may or may not be right, but there is definitely a trade-off.

    Going through the details isn't worth it to the buyers since its for such a small amount. 

Lets pretend you have a false debt on one of these lists. It shows up on your credit report. You try to get a mortgage, but can't until this debt is settled. So now you either have to essentially pay their ransom to have it closed quickly, or proceed through length processes to have it forgiven if they don't have the appropriate documentation to prove it. Neither situation is ideal, and only exists because "going through the details isn't worth it".

Maybe credit is too cheap if we have to follow shoddy practices to afford it. Maybe credit shouldn't be accessible in such large quantities to the masses as it is today. Either way, it's probably too late to change that now.

Do you ever wonder why somebody would extend you a 30 day unsecured 0% interest loan (credit card)? Or a 15-25% interest unsecured rolling loan to someone with little or no credit history? You can choose to make policies that make it harder for creditors, but you can't pretend that won't impact the borrowing rate or the access of credit to many Americans. The idea that you can't buy and sell receivables seems silly.

I agree that some of the reasons people collect debt is unfortunate and unjust. But people need to be responsible and we need reasonable laws that prevent harassment.

In many cases, creditors should be more picky about whom they lend money too. Especially if they can't afford ethical collection the question becomes: Should this company even be giving credit?

If someone sold my debt (which is already stinky because after that I have relationship with a party I never entered any relationship with) I'd hope that what's being sold is bit more than my name with "iou" and some numbers. If not original agreement, then at least a statement from notary that had seen my credit agreement and someone who attests at some high penalty that it was not paid yet.