Profits made by payback of bailouts excuse?

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Profits made by payback of bailouts excuse?

While it is true that the bailouts worked and the tax payers made a profit, how the fuck does that excuse the initial behavior that caused the mess in the first place?

While we had no choice to bail out the banks and car companies, and we did make some profit in doing so, how the fuck does this excuse the behavior in the first place? The profits we did make did not go directly to the individuals fleeced by the scams, nor did the individuals who lost their homes or their jobs get back what they lost.

Not to mention that this is a bad model for ANY country to live by. Basically it amounts to advocating a ponzy scheme.

Our economy would be clearly better if the crimes committed never happened, despite the profit we made. What we have gained pales in the damage it has caused in the lagging "recovery" and the trust in our free market. The profits we made on these bailouts pail compared to the damage done.

To say the bailouts worked is to reward bad behavior.  Certainly you can rob a bank or steel a priceless painting and sell it on the black market for a profit, but that does not make the initial crime moral or good long term for society.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I agree. But even the

 I agree. But even the "profit" is only a profit if you look specifically at the money put into TARP. When you calculate all the other funds involved in propping up Fannie and Freddie, cash for clunkers and all the surrounding "stimulus" programs the government created to prop up the housing and car markets it is still a massive cost to the taxpayers. It is kind of like a store declaring they are making a profit because the made $10 selling gum while ignoring the fact that it didn't sell anything else and is thousands of dollars in debt to pay the overhead. Things would be much better if we had let them fail and if we cut the cord between the government and Fannie and Freddie.

 

Give banks the freedom to manage their funds and if they fail, let them go under. We can argue about the social safety net, but a safety net for banks/business only encourages recklessness and poor risk management, especially since the safety net seems to be strongly biased towards those with strong DC ties.

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I agree. But even the "profit" is only a profit if you look specifically at the money put into TARP. When you calculate all the other funds involved in propping up Fannie and Freddie, cash for clunkers and all the surrounding "stimulus" programs the government created to prop up the housing and car markets it is still a massive cost to the taxpayers. It is kind of like a store declaring they are making a profit because the made $10 selling gum while ignoring the fact that it didn't sell anything else and is thousands of dollars in debt to pay the overhead. Things would be much better if we had let them fail and if we cut the cord between the government and Fannie and Freddie.

 

Give banks the freedom to manage their funds and if they fail, let them go under. We can argue about the social safety net, but a safety net for banks/business only encourages recklessness and poor risk management, especially since the safety net seems to be strongly biased towards those with strong DC ties.

 

So we both agree that "too big to fail" should not exist.

BUT, "give banks the freedom to manage their funds"

IS EXACTLY WHAT FUCKING LED TO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So we both

Brian37 wrote:

So we both agree that "too big to fail" should not exist.

BUT, "give banks the freedom to manage their funds"

IS EXACTLY WHAT FUCKING LED TO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE

 

No, what led to it is something called the Community Reinvestment Act which prosecuted banks for not loaning money to poor (and generally minority) communities. The supporters of the act claimed that banks were racist and that is why they refused to loan to certain communities. In reality, poor people are more likely to default on their loans and have fewer assets you can sue for when they do. When houses in poor communities foreclosed they were harder to sell. Therefore, loans to poor people are inherently more risky. Banks were avoiding risky loans by black listing whole communities. The left wing thought it was racist when it was really just good business.

 

So what did the banks do? They lobbied for government guarantees in the for of FHA, Fannie and Freddie. This allowed banks to take assets they knew were crap and sell them as highly rated bonds because they were guaranteed by the government. When this actually worked is when you saw mortgage brokers and some banks go off the deep end loaning money to everyone who came through the door regardless of their ability to pay. The knew they could sell any loan because it was government guaranteed. Consumers started to realize they could get much bigger loans and spend more money on houses and the housing boom was born. The result was obvious for anyone paying attention but the individuals involved were making enough money not to worry about the future because of the huge new market that was created.

 

I'm not saying bankers and mortgage brokers are innocent. But they were not free. They HAD to write loans they knew were bad, so they pulled shenanigans to make them profitable. The governments guarantee on the loans simply made them more comfortable with the risky loans. If the banks were free, some might make crappy loans but they would be punished when they failed and no one bailed them out. There would be no incentive to write bad loans if you're forced to take the loss yourself. Get rid of the government guarantees and allow banks to decide what loans to issue and which not and there would not have been a subprime mortgage crises.

 

Even now Fannie Mae is pushing a program called Affordable Advantage in which it buys up loans that are made with no down payment. WTF, that type of lending is exactly what caused this mess. If you can't afford a substantial down payment, you have no business buying that house. Buy a cheaper one or save your money and wait. When the banks were free to deny people loans the general rule of thumb was you had to have a 20% down payment or they would charge you more for PMI or a higher interest second mortgage.

 

Let the banks decide where to loan money. Some will make bad choices and fail. So what? With no government guarantee, most banks will err on the side of caution. When banks know the government is going to bail them out, there is no reason for caution because high risk loans pay better interest than low risk loans. 

 

Read up on CRA, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Get out of the way" has

"Get out of the way" has been the rethuglican mantra for the past 30 years and it has allowed corporate America to buy off lawmakers to look the other way and whatever over sight is set up is stacked with former lobbyists.

I really am tired of your bullshit trying to claim that more of the same will solve problems.

Rethuglicans are like the teen whose parents come back from a weekend vacation and find the house trashed, then the teen kisses their ass and promises not to do it again, but the very next month they do the same shit.

More jobs ISN'T ENOUGH, creating mostly crappy paying jobs only makes the shareholders and CEOs rich, it doesnt do shit for the most people who have to live off of what they get paid WITH the cost of living and pay gap exploding.

AGAIN, our future is to look like China and India and that IS NOT, nor will ever be my idea of competition.

I am sick of your bullshit. And I am damned glad more and more people are standing up to corporate bullies.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

In general and on the short term, I am on board. On the details, not so much. Beyond Saving may have more details than I do but in gerneral money is not handled honestly. There are categories. Roughly speaking:

 

M1 is what is in your pocket and your banking accounts.

 

M2 is the money that your bank makes on mortgage interest.

 

M3 is kind of the rest of it. Largely it comes from investements.

 

While the system is grossly dishonest, it pays our rent. As long as we all work together to keep the system going, it works. However, when an economic bubble pops, we have a huge problem. The latest one was requiring banks to let people who have no buisness not renting to buy. We could debate what the cutoff on that should be but it did create a market where peeople got money by flipping real estate.

 

M4 is not even seriously talked about much but that is the stimulus money.

 

Holy crap! Our house of cards needs a crap load of cash. Let us print a trillion or so and hope for the best.

 

Did people make money on the deal? Sure. Every time money moves, someone slices off a bit for themselves. But they did it with money that was so fake that it is normaly not even considered as existing.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

In general and on the short term, I am on board. On the details, not so much. Beyond Saving may have more details than I do but in gerneral money is not handled honestly. There are categories. Roughly speaking:

 

M1 is what is in your pocket and your banking accounts.

 

M2 is the money that your bank makes on mortgage interest.

 

M3 is kind of the rest of it. Largely it comes from investements.

 

While the system is grossly dishonest, it pays our rent. As long as we all work together to keep the system going, it works. However, when an economic bubble pops, we have a huge problem. The latest one was requiring banks to let people who have no buisness not renting to buy. We could debate what the cutoff on that should be but it did create a market where peeople got money by flipping real estate.

 

M4 is not even seriously talked about much but that is the stimulus money.

 

Holy crap! Our house of cards needs a crap load of cash. Let us print a trillion or so and hope for the best.

 

Did people make money on the deal? Sure. Every time money moves, someone slices off a bit for themselves. But they did it with money that was so fake that it is normaly not even considered as existing.

 

Well it is not just that. It is bad enough that banks lent money to people who didn't qualify. What the top are not doing is long term is creating a higher paid society that COULD become a good risk, instead of keeping wages down.

Our economy is "whatever the market can get away with" instead of building a stable society. It never occurs to the top that IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF those in the middle and the bottom have stability and a future, then they COULD put more people in houses and not create the bubble they did for their own selfish benefit.

AGAIN this is a result of the black and white thinking that life is only about choices and never about what someone else can do to you beyond your own choices. Actions affect others no matter what some might think.

It may be legal to do some things, but legal doesn't constitute moral or even long term benefit for society.

The top likes to blame the victim not understanding that they are the ones who raped the victim in the first place.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You know what Beyond, I am

You know what Beyond, I am no longer angry at you. I feel sorry for you. But I am also in the mood for gloating because I know I am not alone and that the middle and poor classes outnumber the rich and this one country that WILL NOT put up with looking like India and China.

From the time of the Revolution up until WW2 there were only two classes. People like you think it would be good to return to that state in order to compete globally. I don't. I think we are better than that to expect humans to be robots or slaves to work. I am positive that the middle class and poor will fight back and win long term.

YOU are on the losing side of history and are too stupid to realize it. The working force of this country is tired of working longer hours for less and less and tired of bailing out the rich every time they fuck up the economy.

YOU WILL LOSE UNLESS YOUR CLASS STARTS CARING.

TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE NEWS, YOU WILL LOSE. WE OUTNUMBER YOU

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian, if the banks had been left alone, the current crap never would have happened. Banks pretty much are not in the business of extending bad loans. They are in it for the money and that tends to mean deciding who can have it based on parameters and math.

 

What went wrong this time was that a crap load of federal loan guarantees were put out there, specifically targeted at getting them to extend themselves past the point where they had any business being.

 

The intent may have been, well, I will not call it noble but good hearted. However, it was so badly thought out that it created the industry of people not working because it was easier to flip houses for profit.

 

Now things suck far worse than ever and a trillion dollars of fake money were made to fix it. People who were keeping an old car on the road because that is the cheap way to run all had to buy cars that the insurance on is fairly expensive. Banks which are too big to fail (and where did that idea come from?) managed to make a profit on moving money that never existed.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian, if the banks had been left alone, the current crap never would have happened. Banks pretty much are not in the business of extending bad loans. They are in it for the money and that tends to mean deciding who can have it based on parameters and math.

 

What went wrong this time was that a crap load of federal loan guarantees were put out there, specifically targeted at getting them to extend themselves past the point where they had any business being.

 

The intent may have been, well, I will not call it noble but good hearted. However, it was so badly thought out that it created the industry of people not working because it was easier to flip houses for profit.

 

Now things suck far worse than ever and a trillion dollars of fake money were made to fix it. People who were keeping an old car on the road because that is the cheap way to run all had to buy cars that the insurance on is fairly expensive. Banks which are too big to fail (and where did that idea come from?) managed to make a profit on moving money that never existed.

 

It is PRECISELY because they burned books and over conflated their worth and paid off congress to look for victims they knew couldn't pay, but didn't care. It is no different than credit cards today. When my mom got her first one, if you didn't pay, you got cut off. NOW however, bad credit will get you a card faster than someone who does the right thing and pays on time. WHY because volume, not quality, is what business cares about now.

Bull crap, who do you think payed lobbyists to make the laws to allow them to set up bad loans? Again, "They forced me to do it" IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.  I admit, they did do a good job selling the idea that it wasn't their idea. A pick pocket can hit you without you seeing it and then suggest maybe you put it down somewhere and forgot it.

Blame the left blame the buyer. You think this will work now? Sorry, the scam is exposed and the lies wont work any more.

YOU WILL LOSE this battle. Now, if you don't want your ass handed to you, metaphorically, and even literally by the middle class and poor, start caring, but don't expect me to buy the same old bullshit.

The middle class and poor DID NOT cause this mess. PERIOD! We were taken advantage of and we are suffering BECAUSE of your bullshit lies.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Brian, did you miss the

 Brian, did you miss the part where I pointed to very specific laws and government agencies involved? Your ignorance is so overwhelming I don't even know what to say except you really should do some research on your own and not rely on political sound bytes. I know you aren't going to believe anything I say and that is fine, you shouldn't, but I can and have pointed you to direct sources where you can do your own research.

 

Saying the banks were unregulated is simply false. You might argue they were poor regulations and that maybe someone could create better ones. I believe that is unlikely to happen and am aware of no one in congress who has proposed good regulations. Could you point me to a specific regulation that is positive?

 

You continually fall back to blaming the republicans, and I agree the republicans failed miserably, but it wasn't because they shrunk government- they didn't. They talked like they would, but when in power they increased the size and power of federal government just in different areas which is why I left the republican party. Do you deny that Bama and the democrats have been engaging in corporate asskissing and circle jerks? It isn't a republican vs democrat problem. It is an American freedom vs power hungry politicians problem.   

 

You seem to have some interest in the subject since you are an active participant whenever it comes up. I would strongly encourage you to do some research on exactly what all these banking regulations are and the effect they had on the market. Read the CRA, it is government law and is available on the internet, research Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- the government DID put massive pressure on banks to make subprime loans with the CRA. And Fannie & Freddie were used to purchase questionable loans from banks, thereby providing them a safety net. It is as fucking factual as the sun rising in the east every morning.

 

The STATED goal of these programs was to provide poor people loans to purchase houses and it worked. A bunch of poor people bought houses and a bunch of middle class people bought houses they couldn't afford. When bankers saw that these loans could be profitable and had the safety net of government they realized they could make a killing and banks/mortgage brokers that specialized in only subprime loans sprung up everywhere. So yeah, the "greed" in the market was a factor, but it was only possible because of the CRA being a catalyst to force the initial loans and Fannie/Freddie being the safety net to cover their losses that most bankers knew would come eventually.

 

Remove the catalyst and remove the safety net, most bankers wouldn't risk their money and those that did would have had a much harder time selling the securities because the ONLY reason they had a AAA rating was because of the implicit government guarantee. Which means they would have needed to sell lower rated securities at a higher interest rate thereby making subprime lending less profitable. Less profitable means fewer bankers would have taken the risk because they are greedy- they take risks based on how potentially profitable they are.

 

The definition of an economic bubble is when demand is temporarily inflated causing over production of the good. Demand was temporarily inflated because a bunch of people who couldn't get loans in the past suddenly qualified therefore substantially increasing demand and stimulating the values. When that demand disappeared because people couldn't or wouldn't pay for the loans, the market collapsed. Also note that the poor are not the only subprime failures. Many were people with money "flipping" houses for profit because the rapidly rising real estate values made it profitable adding even more artificial demand. Perhaps an unintended consequence of the governments regulations but a predictable one. 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is

Brian37 wrote:

It is PRECISELY because they burned books and over conflated their worth and paid off congress to look for victims they knew couldn't pay, but didn't care. It is no different than credit cards today. When my mom got her first one, if you didn't pay, you got cut off. NOW however, bad credit will get you a card faster than someone who does the right thing and pays on time. WHY because volume, not quality, is what business cares about now.

Any evidence that a person with bad credit can get a card faster? Cause I'm pretty sure if I decided I wanted another credit card I could get one sent to me immediately. I certainly get enough mailings begging me. I believe that credit card companies have significantly restricted their standards due to the recent recession and the CARD act, at least that is the impression I have gotten from the news stories, maybe the journalists are wrong it wouldn't be the first time but I am too lazy and don't care enough to look up credit issuance numbers. If you find some evidence link me to it and I will look, otherwise I'll chalk that up as another random baseless assertion. 

 

Do you think it is a bad thing that people with less than perfect credit can get credit cards? So far the credit card companies have been able to whether any defaults caused by the current recession while still making record profits so concerns that the CC market will collapse like the housing market did seem completely unfounded. CC's are inherently risky and recognized as such which is why the interest rates on them are so high compared to other loans, high rates of default are built into the pricing schemes. That is radically different from the subprime loans made at low interest rates and sold as AAA rated securities. They simply are not reported on a banks balance sheet the same way. The CC securities market has virtually disappeared but that is mostly due to Dodd-Frank while banks shuffle around their money to figure out how best to comply with the new regulations so they don't get shut down.

 

True, many card issuers clearly care more about quantity rather than quality of their customers but American Express clearly cares much more about quality. So there are companies that cover both markets. What is your problem with that? I don't have a problem with them lending to anyone they judge as a worthy credit risk. If they are wrong, they and their investors will lose money, if they are right, they will make money. 

 

I used to engage in peer to peer lending to earn decent interest rates by lending money to high risk borrowers. Unfortunately, the state of Ohio saw fit to decree that I am not allowed to risk my money by giving it to someone who might not pay me back. Still kind of pisses me off, I enjoyed to opportunity to help people in need and make a little money as well. I think I should be allowed to loan my money to whomever I want, for any collateral I want, at any interest rate the borrower and I agree on, for whatever term we agree on. Is that radical?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well, Beyond, I never made the kind of cash to count as a quality source for the CC companies. Even so, I had a maxed out card, stopped using it and went on autopay. The same month that it finally went to zero, they gave me an extra thousand dollars to work with. That is so responsible on their part that I have not used it for a long time.

 

 

@Brian, I see you as somewhat right but only to a point. The tea party has been the first group to speak up but now we have the hippies on wall street. Local rumor is that pissed of ex-veterans are looking to get in on the deal. Heavily armed and combat trained people going up against the NYPD? This could get interesting.

 

 

Back to Beyond: Consider not leaving home unarmed. I don't know your location at all but we have a many city deal going on that could get ugly. I am not willing to wear any of the swords in public just yet but I trivially can.

 

 

If ugly happens, you would do best to have my back and I will have yours.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Brian,

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Brian, did you miss the part where I pointed to very specific laws and government agencies involved? Your ignorance is so overwhelming I don't even know what to say except you really should do some research on your own and not rely on political sound bytes. I know you aren't going to believe anything I say and that is fine, you shouldn't, but I can and have pointed you to direct sources where you can do your own research.

 

Saying the banks were unregulated is simply false. You might argue they were poor regulations and that maybe someone could create better ones. I believe that is unlikely to happen and am aware of no one in congress who has proposed good regulations. Could you point me to a specific regulation that is positive?

 

You continually fall back to blaming the republicans, and I agree the republicans failed miserably, but it wasn't because they shrunk government- they didn't. They talked like they would, but when in power they increased the size and power of federal government just in different areas which is why I left the republican party. Do you deny that Bama and the democrats have been engaging in corporate asskissing and circle jerks? It isn't a republican vs democrat problem. It is an American freedom vs power hungry politicians problem.   

 

You seem to have some interest in the subject since you are an active participant whenever it comes up. I would strongly encourage you to do some research on exactly what all these banking regulations are and the effect they had on the market. Read the CRA, it is government law and is available on the internet, research Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- the government DID put massive pressure on banks to make subprime loans with the CRA. And Fannie & Freddie were used to purchase questionable loans from banks, thereby providing them a safety net. It is as fucking factual as the sun rising in the east every morning.

 

The STATED goal of these programs was to provide poor people loans to purchase houses and it worked. A bunch of poor people bought houses and a bunch of middle class people bought houses they couldn't afford. When bankers saw that these loans could be profitable and had the safety net of government they realized they could make a killing and banks/mortgage brokers that specialized in only subprime loans sprung up everywhere. So yeah, the "greed" in the market was a factor, but it was only possible because of the CRA being a catalyst to force the initial loans and Fannie/Freddie being the safety net to cover their losses that most bankers knew would come eventually.

 

Remove the catalyst and remove the safety net, most bankers wouldn't risk their money and those that did would have had a much harder time selling the securities because the ONLY reason they had a AAA rating was because of the implicit government guarantee. Which means they would have needed to sell lower rated securities at a higher interest rate thereby making subprime lending less profitable. Less profitable means fewer bankers would have taken the risk because they are greedy- they take risks based on how potentially profitable they are.

 

The definition of an economic bubble is when demand is temporarily inflated causing over production of the good. Demand was temporarily inflated because a bunch of people who couldn't get loans in the past suddenly qualified therefore substantially increasing demand and stimulating the values. When that demand disappeared because people couldn't or wouldn't pay for the loans, the market collapsed. Also note that the poor are not the only subprime failures. Many were people with money "flipping" houses for profit because the rapidly rising real estate values made it profitable adding even more artificial demand. Perhaps an unintended consequence of the governments regulations but a predictable one. 

 

Arguing with you is like arguing with Cap. You suffer from metaphysics economics. Lots of buzz words failing to realize that the car has already crashed and you were the one driving and still want to drive. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that your buddies crashed the car. Don't get mad at the middle class and poor for the car your buddies crashed. AND MOST CERTAINLY do not expect the rest of us after the fact to think it would be a good idea to allow you to drive another car.

You keep saying you know what you are doing, but considering our economy is in the tank because of your greedy asshole buddies, you have to be out of your fucking mind to expect me to swallow your crap.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Arguing with

Brian37 wrote:

Arguing with you is like arguing with Cap. You suffer from metaphysics economics. Lots of buzz words failing to realize that the car has already crashed and you were the one driving and still want to drive. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that your buddies crashed the car. Don't get mad at the middle class and poor for the car your buddies crashed. AND MOST CERTAINLY do not expect the rest of us after the fact to think it would be a good idea to allow you to drive another car.

You keep saying you know what you are doing, but considering our economy is in the tank because of your greedy asshole buddies, you have to be out of your fucking mind to expect me to swallow your crap.

 

Look in the mirror. So far I have pointed to specific laws and specific government agencies that were set up and detailed a specific explanation on how it led to the housing bubble. What have you supplied? RICH PEOPLE ARE GREEDY!!!! Who is using buzz words? All you use is buzz words. Arguing with you is kind of like yelling at a campaign commercial.

 

You have asserted that the banking industry was unregulated- that is demonstrably false. You have said the government didn't pressure banks to make risky loans- again demonstrably false read the law. 

 

Show me where I am wrong. Link me to a single regulation written or proposed you consider positive. There have been thousands of regulations written in the last few years. Go find one that you think is great an link me to it. You keep saying we need to regulate- ok, what should the regulations say?

 

Is your debit card getting a new fee? You probably are screaming at the "greedy" bankers about it while being completely ignorant of the provisions in the Dodd-Frank bill that have made it necessary. My point is that government regulations have consequences. The market is not operate out of morality or ideology and never will, it is profit motivated. If a regulation makes an action more profitable you will see more of it in the market. If it makes it less profitable, you will see less of it, if a regulation bans/lowers a revenue stream companies will seek out replacement revenue streams.

 

The CRA made banks take on riskier loans, Fannie made it possible for those risky loans to not only be profitable, but to be more profitable than regular loans. So the market did what markets do when an extremely profitable and low risk opportunity comes around- it flooded the market. Voila, you have a massive bubble that fed itself until it burst. Without the government creating those conditions, sub-prime loans would have remained high risk-low profit so banks, being greedy, would have limited their exposure to them.

 

What is wrong with my line of thinking? How could sub-prime loans be profitable without Fannie and Freddie? Suppose there were absolutely no banking regulations other than bans on theft and fraud (basically the infractions that can cost you serious jail time) and you had an idea to make profits on sub-prime mortgages but didn't have the cash. Sell me on the idea. If I provided the financial backing, how are we going to make a profit? 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 The Community Reinvestment

 The Community Reinvestment Act was designed to keep reduce redlining and other discriminatory credit practices against low income neighborhoods. It was also supposed to make it possible for commercial banks to meet the needs of their communities, no matter their income level. If the banks bound by the CRA (most of the sub-prime lenders weren't) knowingly encouraged people to take loans beyond their ability to pay (perhaps to later foreclose on some really nice property), are you saying that the banks who did so are in violation of that act? 

Put it together with the fact that the CRA, like so many other bank "regulations" is basically unenforceable  and you have the mess we have. If someone can't be punished for violating a regulation is it really a regulation?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: The

jcgadfly wrote:

 The Community Reinvestment Act was designed to keep reduce redlining and other discriminatory credit practices against low income neighborhoods. It was also supposed to make it possible for commercial banks to meet the needs of their communities, no matter their income level. If the banks bound by the CRA (most of the sub-prime lenders weren't) knowingly encouraged people to take loans beyond their ability to pay (perhaps to later foreclose on some really nice property), are you saying that the banks who did so are in violation of that act? 

Put it together with the fact that the CRA, like so many other bank "regulations" is basically unenforceable  and you have the mess we have. If someone can't be punished for violating a regulation is it really a regulation?

Here's Beyond's simplistic utopia mantra, "Free market good",

Depends. It can be a good thing, but it can also be abusive, which Beyond is in total denial of.

Pools are fun to swim in, but can be unsafe if designed wrong, and if they don't have a lifeguard. In fact, most pool companies are no longer allowed to sell the small kidney bean shaped pools with diving boards. And many companies still sold them after the medical community told them it was a bad idea to dive into them. I've hit my head on the incline from the deep end myself because the length of the deep end was too short and not deep enough.

It is also why it took car companies almost two decades to put seatbelts into cars, and most of these improvements were not self done, but a result of regulation made by government. But those regulations in BOTH cases have saved lives.

And again, Beyond's doesn't understand that political ideology in practice are never as simplistic as how they are sold. He wants government out of the way, but the private sector almost always has to be forced to do the right thing. He could have less government, quite simply and quickly IF they would self regulate AND CARE, which far too much of big business is not doing.

This is not the fault of just republicans or democrats, this is the fault of 30 years of republican policy that BOTH parties let linger and grow. The pay gap is far too lopsided and the cost of living is through the roof and the jobs are disappearing. Good paying jobs anyway.

He thinks too simplistically which is the SAME mistake Marx made. NOTHING is ever as simple as a cliche and nothing is ever black and white. And nothing is either all bad, or all good.

My last boss was a good boss, he rewarded me TWICE with a raise that I did not even ask for. And he also knew even during the down season, that there was a minimum of hours I needed, and he never broke that trust.

My current boss merely seems out for money and uses the down season as an excuse even after he made record profits he cut my hours way below my needs EVEN AFTER HE SAID "NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE", at the first meeting after he bought the place. He renigged on that.

. Sure, legally he can do that. But this isn't just about me. This is about far too many people not having enough of what my last boss had, compassion and caring. No, they were not legally obligated to care, but because they did, we all were better off. They didn't have to pay unemployment and I didn't have to starve.

WHAT I DO KNOW is what I have seen over the past 30 years. And more of the same wont work.

The other thing he doesn't get is that he uses the same tactic I have seen from theists.

He claims I don't know everything about economics, now, while true, I have not studied economics, I AM FEELING THE AFFECT OF IT. I cant fly a jet either, but if I am on TWA and the plane suddenly flips over, I know damned well that isn't right and something bad will happen.

It is the same stupid logic that Cap uses when he says, "You're not a scientist", No, I am not, but I do know what scientific method is.

Just like I don't know how to build a car engine doesn't mean that a rust bucket will run simply because the sleezy used car salesman says it will.  And just because I don't know how to build a car engine doesn't mean I cant drive a car.

What I do know is that the same policies have been passed down for the past 30 years and things have gotten worse, not better. I think 30 years has been long enough for the republican tactics. And this mentality was in place that caused the great depression. That was caused by the same extraction market we are seeing today.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:My last boss

Brian37 wrote:

My last boss was a good boss, he rewarded me TWICE with a raise that I did not even ask for. And he also knew even during the down season, that there was a minimum of hours I needed, and he never broke that trust.

My current boss merely seems out for money and uses the down season as an excuse even after he made record profits he cut my hours way below my needs EVEN AFTER HE SAID "NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE", at the first meeting after he bought the place. He renigged on that.

 

Do you pay people for things you don't need? Do you pay to get your hair cut every day? Apparently your new boss decided that your labor was not needed just like you decide you don't need your hair cut everyday. Granted, sucks for you since you apparently liked the number of hours you worked before, but if the hours you were working were worthless because they were not needed then your time has just been freed up so you can do something to provide your fellow citizens with a useful product. I'm sure the barber would love if you got your hair cut everyday but obviously you don't care enough about your barber, your just greedy.

 

Now before you go off on me I will admit you new boss could be wrong. Maybe cutting your hours will lead to longer wait times for the customers or poorer quality food and they will get fed up and go eat elsewhere. If that happens, his move will ultimately cause him to lose money. If he is right and he makes more money and customers continue to come back, then your labor has apparently been unnecessary. You might as well have stayed home and dug holes. But now your time has been freed from doing unwanted and unnecessary labor, so find something to do that is wanted and improve the economy in your little corner of the country.  

 

90% of running a business is adapting it to trends. Those damn customers think they have the freedom to come and go as they please, change their buying habits or even go elsewhere. It would be much easier if all customers showed up at the same time every week, ordered the same product and paid the same price. They don't, so we have to adjust our business to make sure we can meet their demands when they are made and make sure we are not being wasteful. Companies that get in the habit of paying excess employees for the sake of it or purchasing excess product almost always find themselves failing in the future, even if current revenue is enough to make up for the waste. His move might suck for you personally at this moment, but it is not unreasonable to believe that it very well might help keep the doors open if the business goes through a rough revenue period. A business with a few employees that stays open is better for everyone than one that runs out of money and shuts down because it had too many. And it doesn't take an economist to notice that a rough revenue period is likely to come up in the near future.

 

What I can't wrap my head around is why you would WANT to do a job that is apparently unnecessary. I understand you want/need the income. But apart from that, I don't know why anyone would want to use a portion of their lives to do something that doesn't provide value to anyone and isn't for personal entertainment. You only have X number of days left in your life, using them to provide value to others is a lot more fulfilling than doing a pointless job for the sake of having a job. Personally, I would go absolutely nuts working a pointless job, if I am going to do something pointless I would rather do something I enjoy. If I am going to sacrifice a portion of my life, it better be for something useful, my life is too valuable to me to waste digging holes. 

 

As much as I think your a crazy left-wing nut Brian, I have kind of grown to like your rants. I sincerely hope that you find a place in the economy where you can be happy and provide for your needs and wants. My suggestion is that you take a look at your fellow citizens and figure out what they need or want and find a way to provide it to them. A few years from now you might look back at this guy cutting your hours and think it is the best thing that ever happened to you because it gave you the incentive to find something better. What you look at now as a liability very well could become an opportunity. Good luck. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: The

jcgadfly wrote:

 The Community Reinvestment Act was designed to keep reduce redlining and other discriminatory credit practices against low income neighborhoods. It was also supposed to make it possible for commercial banks to meet the needs of their communities, no matter their income level. If the banks bound by the CRA (most of the sub-prime lenders weren't) knowingly encouraged people to take loans beyond their ability to pay (perhaps to later foreclose on some really nice property), are you saying that the banks who did so are in violation of that act? 

Put it together with the fact that the CRA, like so many other bank "regulations" is basically unenforceable  and you have the mess we have. If someone can't be punished for violating a regulation is it really a regulation?

 

The problem is the banks were in a catch-22. They were told they had to make loans in poor communities. The reason banks didn't loan in these communities was because they were poor and when a house foreclosed, the banks were unlikely to be able to get their investment back by selling the house. Poor communities tend to have higher crime, more drug problems etc. that lead to vacant houses being trashed. So banks simply refused to loan to purchase houses in certain areas regardless of your credit because they determined it was too big of a risk. Since black poverty is substantially higher than white poverty in our country, it makes sense that many of the communities that were redlined had high populations of blacks. I think it is absurd to argue that the banks were racist, they had sound financial reasons for not making those loans. 

 

Now the government comes along and says you can't do that. You must loan to these communities. Banks start making loans but find, surprise surprise, that most people living in poor communities, are poor. They don't qualify for conventional loans. The only way to make the loans the government insisted they make was some pretty shady lending practices. (ARMs, second mortgages, relaxed financial reviews etc) Which also relied on the ignorance of the borrowers. They had a choice, make some shady loans or face government regulators crawling up your ass. In an industry as regulated as finance, government regulators can make your life hell even without slapping an outward penalty on you. Having someone come into your office and demand to look over every transaction your bank has done and explain them takes massive man hours (and therefore money) to make that bureaucrat happy. If you have ever been audited, you know what I mean. 

 

Now if you leave that on its own the likely result is that banks make just enough loans to keep the government off their back and just write the loans as a loss on the balance sheet. Initially, sub-prime loans were only repurchased by Freddie Mac and it would only take some of them. So in the mid-90's there wasn't a lot of incentive for banks to make these risky loans and they didn't. 

 

By the late 90's Fannie Mae started accepting sub-prime loans and dramatically lowered its standards. The initial banks that fell under the CRA saw an opportunity to get value out of mortgages they thought were worthless. They bundled them into mortgage backed securities which got a AAA rating because of the implicit government guarantee. Now the banks were making really large profits on these loans, the rapidly rising housing costs helped. Mortgage brokers and bankers realized Fannie and Freddie could be used to make sub-prime mortgages very profitable and the scum started coming out of the woodwork like flys to shit. The sub-prime market was born and throughout the early to mid 2000's was extremely profitable. 

 

Your right that at the time of the crash many of the mortgages were not CRA covered, but the ONLY reason the sub-prime market came into existence with the force it did was because those initial CRA mortgages were extremely profitable. Without the CRA, Fannie and Freddie never guarantee sub-prime mortgages and without Fannie and Freddie those mortgages are never profitable, the companies that make them lose money and you have no sub-prime meltdown and no bailout. I believe it is most accurate to describe the CRA as the primer, it didn't cause the explosion but it started the flame that eventually led to it.

 

And Brian is right, the regulators looked the other way, but it is because the government was pushing for giving loans to everyone. Fannie continually lowered the standards on the mortgages it would accept. I'm sure many bankers did in fact lobby for this to happen, but I don't see why it is relevant who supported it for what reasons. The bottom line is the government has no business guaranteeing loans with our tax money regardless of whether the bankers want it for higher profits or some liberal wants it to make lending "fair" or any other reason. I don't care who is at fault or who voted for it or who lobbied for it and whether their intentions were good or bad. It is not a role the government should have any involvement in at all. It should not guarantee loans or tell banks who they must loan money to or who they can't loan money to. And it sure as hell pisses me off that my tax money was freely spread around to all the people who gamed the system that shouldn't have existed in the first place.   

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 The Community Reinvestment Act was designed to keep reduce redlining and other discriminatory credit practices against low income neighborhoods. It was also supposed to make it possible for commercial banks to meet the needs of their communities, no matter their income level. If the banks bound by the CRA (most of the sub-prime lenders weren't) knowingly encouraged people to take loans beyond their ability to pay (perhaps to later foreclose on some really nice property), are you saying that the banks who did so are in violation of that act? 

Put it together with the fact that the CRA, like so many other bank "regulations" is basically unenforceable  and you have the mess we have. If someone can't be punished for violating a regulation is it really a regulation?

 

The problem is the banks were in a catch-22. They were told they had to make loans in poor communities. The reason banks didn't loan in these communities was because they were poor and when a house foreclosed, the banks were unlikely to be able to get their investment back by selling the house. Poor communities tend to have higher crime, more drug problems etc. that lead to vacant houses being trashed. So banks simply refused to loan to purchase houses in certain areas regardless of your credit because they determined it was too big of a risk. Since black poverty is substantially higher than white poverty in our country, it makes sense that many of the communities that were redlined had high populations of blacks. I think it is absurd to argue that the banks were racist, they had sound financial reasons for not making those loans.

So the banks created the poor communities by not giving loans so people could improve their communities and punished them for living there? That's what it looks like. If you don't want ghettos and slums in your town, don't contribute to their creation. Seems simple.

Quote:
 

Now the government comes along and says you can't do that. You must loan to these communities. Banks start making loans but find, surprise surprise, that most people living in poor communities, are poor. They don't qualify for conventional loans. The only way to make the loans the government insisted they make was some pretty shady lending practices. (ARMs, second mortgages, relaxed financial reviews etc) Which also relied on the ignorance of the borrowers. They had a choice, make some shady loans or face government regulators crawling up your ass. In an industry as regulated as finance, government regulators can make your life hell even without slapping an outward penalty on you. Having someone come into your office and demand to look over every transaction your bank has done and explain them takes massive man hours (and therefore money) to make that bureaucrat happy. If you have ever been audited, you know what I mean.

So why didn't the banks make an effort to educate the borrowers? Perhaps so they could jack up the adjustable rates on those ARMs (they adjust up as well as down, you know) so that the loan can't be paid. Then they could sell the land to a developer who will also do business with that bank because of the favorable land deal they got. I don't see a money loss there. And yes I do know what you mean by the auditing process.

Quote:

Now if you leave that on its own the likely result is that banks make just enough loans to keep the government off their back and just write the loans as a loss on the balance sheet. Initially, sub-prime loans were only repurchased by Freddie Mac and it would only take some of them. So in the mid-90's there wasn't a lot of incentive for banks to make these risky loans and they didn't. 

 

By the late 90's Fannie Mae started accepting sub-prime loans and dramatically lowered its standards. The initial banks that fell under the CRA saw an opportunity to get value out of mortgages they thought were worthless. They bundled them into mortgage backed securities which got a AAA rating because of the implicit government guarantee. Now the banks were making really large profits on these loans, the rapidly rising housing costs helped. Mortgage brokers and bankers realized Fannie and Freddie could be used to make sub-prime mortgages very profitable and the scum started coming out of the woodwork like flys to shit. The sub-prime market was born and throughout the early to mid 2000's was extremely profitable. 

 

Your right that at the time of the crash many of the mortgages were not CRA covered, but the ONLY reason the sub-prime market came into existence with the force it did was because those initial CRA mortgages were extremely profitable. Without the CRA, Fannie and Freddie never guarantee sub-prime mortgages and without Fannie and Freddie those mortgages are never profitable, the companies that make them lose money and you have no sub-prime meltdown and no bailout. I believe it is most accurate to describe the CRA as the primer, it didn't cause the explosion but it started the flame that eventually led to it.

So the banks gamed the CRA, Fannie and Freddie - not the individual borrowers. Not sure how this helps your case.

Quote:

And Brian is right, the regulators looked the other way, but it is because the government was pushing for giving loans to everyone. Fannie continually lowered the standards on the mortgages it would accept. I'm sure many bankers did in fact lobby for this to happen, but I don't see why it is relevant who supported it for what reasons. The bottom line is the government has no business guaranteeing loans with our tax money regardless of whether the bankers want it for higher profits or some liberal wants it to make lending "fair" or any other reason. I don't care who is at fault or who voted for it or who lobbied for it and whether their intentions were good or bad. It is not a role the government should have any involvement in at all. It should not guarantee loans or tell banks who they must loan money to or who they can't loan money to. And it sure as hell pisses me off that my tax money was freely spread around to all the people who gamed the system that shouldn't have existed in the first place.   

You mean the banks that gamed the system? or were there wealthy/upper middle class folks gaming it as well? I can't see poor folks gaming the system - as you said, they're ignorant of the process. Or are there some true financial geniuses that remain in poverty for reasons of their own?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian, economic problems do not begin at your memory horizon (which appears to be during the Reagan administration). Let's go for centuries ago on this one.

 

The Massachusetts bay company was a huge business deal. That is why it was called a company. It was individual investors and not originally a government deal. Eventually, the business climate shifted and the government got involved.

 

By 1770, we were bleeding the economy dry. So the government started a tax on windows. We bricked them up. Then they forbade steel making. We invented the wooden shovel.

 

They sent mercenaries to Caluctta to steal a ship load of tea. The general plan was to sell it to us at half price but we got wind of the deal. Boston harbor became the biggest cup of tea ever.

 

It took two wars and burning Toronto to the ground to sort that one out. Today, their nuclear tipped missile are on loan from us.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So the banks

jcgadfly wrote:

So the banks created the poor communities by not giving loans so people could improve their communities and punished them for living there? That's what it looks like. If you don't want ghettos and slums in your town, don't contribute to their creation. Seems simple.

They didn't loan to poor communities because they were poor. True, a poor person might need a loan more but a poor person is also less likely to pay it back. I can get much larger amounts of credit now than I could when I was poor and in college but I don't use it because I don't need it. But history clearly shows that lending money to people does not necessarily lead to them improving their financial situation. The whole meltdown was because the people who took the loans did not improve their finances and were therefore unable to pay back the loans.

 

If you want to improve a ghetto, you are more than welcome to take your own money and loan it or simply donate it. I don't think it is right to use the power of government to force someone else to do it. I have loaned money to people that are a bad credit risk by a banks definition, I think it ought to be up to the lender to decide if the risk is worthwhile.  

 

jcgadfly wrote:

So why didn't the banks make an effort to educate the borrowers? Perhaps so they could jack up the adjustable rates on those ARMs (they adjust up as well as down, you know) so that the loan can't be paid. Then they could sell the land to a developer who will also do business with that bank because of the favorable land deal they got. I don't see a money loss there. And yes I do know what you mean by the auditing process.

Because banks are in the business of financing not education. They aren't going to go through the effort to teach anyone anything unless they expect to make a profit from it. The neighborhoods that were redlined could not be sold to a developer because the land simply wasn't worth developing. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean the banks that gamed the system? or were there wealthy/upper middle class folks gaming it as well? I can't see poor folks gaming the system - as you said, they're ignorant of the process. Or are there some true financial geniuses that remain in poverty for reasons of their own?

Did I ever say the poor folks were gaming the system? My criticism is that the system existed to be gamed. It shouldn't have existed in the first place. Although, in many cases the borrowers certainly knew they couldn't afford the loans and were irresponsible so I don't think they are all innocent bystanders. I just think their role is irrelevant and was simply a symptom of the core problem of the government being involved in micromanaging lending.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

All of the freedoms you espouse (as do I) arise from economic problems. The basis of every modern government arise from the fact that Americans are total fuckers. TYPE IN CAPLOCK ALL YOU WANT (although it is annoying) but you are not really going anywhere by saying that the problem began with whatever the fuck you hate.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Beyond Saving wrote:
If you want to improve a ghetto, you are more than welcome to take your own money and loan it or simply donate it.

 

Nailed it in one sentence. The financial industry was forced to to dump cash into places with not even a prayer of a return on investment. The idea may have been well intended but letting bankers do their job has worked out well in the past.

 

Sure, there was redlining. However, it was not a “hate crime”. It was a business descsion.

 

Once the banks were forced to do stupid things, it led to the “house flipping” industry where those with more cash than brains were getting money from no useful economic activity. This was all the highly nonexistent M4 money supply.

 

Getting involved in the M3 money supply without a good plan will cause you to end up not having clothes to wear. Taking to your banker before you go there can net you slightly more cash than the general rate of inflation. But only as long as bankers are allowed to to their job. Use federal regulation to force them into what they should not be doing and nothing good can come from it.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the banks created the poor communities by not giving loans so people could improve their communities and punished them for living there? That's what it looks like. If you don't want ghettos and slums in your town, don't contribute to their creation. Seems simple.

They didn't loan to poor communities because they were poor. True, a poor person might need a loan more but a poor person is also less likely to pay it back. I can get much larger amounts of credit now than I could when I was poor and in college but I don't use it because I don't need it. But history clearly shows that lending money to people does not necessarily lead to them improving their financial situation. The whole meltdown was because the people who took the loans did not improve their finances and were therefore unable to pay back the loans.

 

 

If you want to improve a ghetto, you are more than welcome to take your own money and loan it or simply donate it. I don't think it is right to use the power of government to force someone else to do it. I have loaned money to people that are a bad credit risk by a banks definition, I think it ought to be up to the lender to decide if the risk is worthwhile.  

The banks created the poor communities by discouraging investment in them. I don't see you disputing this. I just see you blaming the bad ol' government for attempting to rectify the problem. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

So why didn't the banks make an effort to educate the borrowers? Perhaps so they could jack up the adjustable rates on those ARMs (they adjust up as well as down, you know) so that the loan can't be paid. Then they could sell the land to a developer who will also do business with that bank because of the favorable land deal they got. I don't see a money loss there. And yes I do know what you mean by the auditing process.

Quote:

Because banks are in the business of financing not education. They aren't going to go through the effort to teach anyone anything unless they expect to make a profit from it. The neighborhoods that were redlined could not be sold to a developer because the land simply wasn't worth developing.

I thought you said that they were in the business of making money. Informing people about not getting a loan that they would be unable to pay seems like it would be more profitable than what they did. Then again, they are in the business of making money -  even if they have to create poverty to do it. There is no land that "can't" be sold to a developer where the bank and the developer can't make money off it. Ever heard of re-gentrification?

 

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean the banks that gamed the system? or were there wealthy/upper middle class folks gaming it as well? I can't see poor folks gaming the system - as you said, they're ignorant of the process. Or are there some true financial geniuses that remain in poverty for reasons of their own?

Quote:

Did I ever say the poor folks were gaming the system? My criticism is that the system existed to be gamed. It shouldn't have existed in the first place. Although, in many cases the borrowers certainly knew they couldn't afford the loans and were irresponsible so I don't think they are all innocent bystanders. I just think their role is irrelevant and was simply a symptom of the core problem of the government being involved in micromanaging lending.

I didn't say you accused poor folks of anything. I did see you absolving the banks from blame because the mean ol' government "made them do it" which stands against your idea that banks don't do anything if they can't profit from it. Sounds more like you're mad that you didn't get in on the game.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Beyond Saving wrote:
If you want to improve a ghetto, you are more than welcome to take your own money and loan it or simply donate it.

 

Nailed it in one sentence. The financial industry was forced to to dump cash into places with not even a prayer of a return on investment. The idea may have been well intended but letting bankers do their job has worked out well in the past.

 

Sure, there was redlining. However, it was not a “hate crime”. It was a business descsion.

 

Once the banks were forced to do stupid things, it led to the “house flipping” industry where those with more cash than brains were getting money from no useful economic activity. This was all the highly nonexistent M4 money supply.

 

Getting involved in the M3 money supply without a good plan will cause you to end up not having clothes to wear. Taking to your banker before you go there can net you slightly more cash than the general rate of inflation. But only as long as bankers are allowed to to their job. Use federal regulation to force them into what they should not be doing and nothing good can come from it.

 

As the banks and the financiers got a significant ROI because they took advantage of the CRA and gamed the system, your first statement is bullshit. 

As for redlining - again, the redlined areas were created by the banks.  Never said it was a hate crime - just a fertile field of sheep to be fleeced.

Oh and you can't talk to your banker (and your banker can't talk to you) - Beyond Saving said they're not in the business of not-for profit education. Just financing.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Jc, everyone is gaming the system. It is called doing whatever pays the rent.

 

Sometimes the federal rules work and sometimes not. OSHA seems to have worked out fairly well. Freddy a bit less but at least they have the idea of aceptable losses. Fannie, less so than Freddie and they were forced by a CRA update to abandon the idea of acceptble losses.

 

Acceptable losses are firmly rooted in the territory of “whoops! The whole system fucked up”. It was rare but it did happen. For the most part, when it happened, it was a matter of figuring out how to deal with it.

 

Banks used to give people who lost their job a lot of forgivness. It has always been a fairly expensive thing but the alternative was to rip someone's house out from under them. Today, granting that much leeway could lead to a bank failing. Because they are all stuck holding so damned many crap loans.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Jc, everyone is gaming the system. It is called doing whatever pays the rent.

 

Sometimes the federal rules work and sometimes not. OSHA seems to have worked out fairly well. Freddy a bit less but at least they have the idea of aceptable losses. Fannie, less so than Freddie and they were forced by a CRA update to abandon the idea of acceptble losses.

 

Acceptable losses are firmly rooted in the territory of “whoops! The whole system fucked up”. It was rare but it did happen. For the most part, when it happened, it was a matter of figuring out how to deal with it.

 

Banks used to give people who lost their job a lot of forgivness. It has always been a fairly expensive thing but the alternative was to rip someone's house out from under them. Today, granting that much leeway could lead to a bank failing. Because they are all stuck holding so damned many crap loans.

 

That they made knowing that they were crap but not because the government "made them do it".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The banks

jcgadfly wrote:

The banks created the poor communities by discouraging investment in them. I don't see you disputing this. I just see you blaming the bad ol' government for attempting to rectify the problem. 

They didn't create poor communities, the communities would be poor regardless of whether or not the banks existed. The banks simply didn't give out charity loans to them and I don't see why the banks should. It is not their obligation to improve communities, it is their obligation to lend money in a manner that creates a profit for their investors while protecting/growing the funds of their depositors.  

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I thought you said that they were in the business of making money. Informing people about not getting a loan that they would be unable to pay seems like it would be more profitable than what they did. Then again, they are in the business of making money -  even if they have to create poverty to do it. There is no land that "can't" be sold to a developer where the bank and the developer can't make money off it. Ever heard of re-gentrification?

 

They are in the business of making money, and lending is how they make money. When the government passes a law telling them they can't redline the banks determined it was cheaper to simply issue loans and write them off as losses than to put significant resources into attempting to rebuild whole communities. And it is utterly false that banks can always turn a profit on land. When the market was over-inflated in the 2000's that was true, but before that and currently banks often get burned and take large losses on foreclosed property. There simply is not that much demand from developers. There were keynesian economists that were saying real estate could rise perpetually, obviously they were wrong. Even now there are a lot of areas where banks own a lot of houses they can't sell because no one wants them. 

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I didn't say you accused poor folks of anything. I did see you absolving the banks from blame because the mean ol' government "made them do it" which stands against your idea that banks don't do anything if they can't profit from it. Sounds more like you're mad that you didn't get in on the game.

 

Banks aren't blameless, but they were doing what they do. They are in business to profit, that is what they are supposed to do. Government created an environment where the sub-prime market was artificially stimulated. If the government uses its power to make a market more profitable you shouldn't be surprised when businesses jump into it. 

 

And I'm not mad, I profited from the whole ordeal quite well. The massive movement of the housing market has required mass reappraisal of houses which means more money in my pocket. I just have strong beliefs of what governments role in the economy is and it is quite irritating when politicians pass regulations that have predictable consequences then they pretend to be all outraged when what they made possible happens. Then they use the failure of their previous regulations to propose more regulations that will make things worse. The bottom line is that what happened was made possible and encouraged by government regulation. No regulation and any housing bubble would have been much smaller and far less damaging. There is simply no way the sub-prime market could have been profitable without the government being involved. 

 

If you really want to fix poverty in the ghettos, they don't need money thrown at them. They need serious cultural reform. The problem is that kids are raised in a culture where money is made by trafficking drugs and violence. Our school systems are generally geared towards preparing kids to do what they are told. You go to school, go apply for a job and do what your told to make money. Our entire culture seems to accept that the primary way to make money is to work for someone else. Working for someone else is an inefficient way to make money, but increasingly "thats the way it is". Why?

 

People sit around waiting for someone else to create a job for them. What makes them think someone else is going to create a job when they aren't willing to do it themselves? Established businesses are going to prioritize locations that will create a good ROI for them. Ghettos simply are not a profitable place compared to a middle class suburb. What is needed is for kids living in the ghettos to learn how to create legitimate businesses that turn a profit for them while bringing goods and services to poor areas. People generally aren't going to come from the outside to do so, only people living in the community are going to care enough to tolerate the business difficulties that come with being in a ghetto. 

 

If you want to fix the ghetto's you have to deal with the violence problem so legitimate businesses can operate, teach people how to create jobs for themselves rather than rely on others and remove the government barriers that make it expensive and difficult to start a business in a city. (zoning laws, expensive permits, etc.) The most difficult part is the violence which runs into a chicken or egg problem because poverty encourages violence and violence creates poverty. When you get into some areas of big cities the gangs have more power than the police and you simply can't start a business without their permission. I think legalizing drugs would significantly help undercut the funding of gangs and aid police in establishing law and order. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 I'm going to take these in

 I'm going to take these in reverse if you don't mind.

1a. They need cultural reform but let's not spend any money to make that happen? Isn't that called a non-starter? I do agree with you on legalizing drugs, though, but for more than the reasons you cite. The cops wouldn't be able to sell what they take during their raids either so that would do a lot for law and order as well.

1b. You want to deal with violence and educate the people who live in poor communities but you expect them to fund that themselves as well? 

1c. Did you learn to be an entrepreneur by yourself or did someone teach you? If the latter, did they do it for free? Again, you want poor people to start their own businesses and provide for jobs for themselves but you want to deny them the resources with which to work.

2. No regulation? The problem isn't regulation but enforcement. The CRA and other "regulations" you consider odious can't be enforced. If they were enforceable, no one would game the system.

3. So the banks were told they couldn't do more redlining so they screwed the poor communities that were already redlined further. Oh wait, they didn't create the communities by redlining them in the first place but they did..or didn't... or...

4. No demand from developers? Maybe not where you live but it's definitely not a nationwide issue.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: I'm going

jcgadfly wrote:

 I'm going to take these in reverse if you don't mind.

1a. They need cultural reform but let's not spend any money to make that happen? Isn't that called a non-starter? I do agree with you on legalizing drugs, though, but for more than the reasons you cite. The cops wouldn't be able to sell what they take during their raids either so that would do a lot for law and order as well.

1b. You want to deal with violence and educate the people who live in poor communities but you expect them to fund that themselves as well? 

1c. Did you learn to be an entrepreneur by yourself or did someone teach you? If the latter, did they do it for free? Again, you want poor people to start their own businesses and provide for jobs for themselves but you want to deny them the resources with which to work.

2. No regulation? The problem isn't regulation but enforcement. The CRA and other "regulations" you consider odious can't be enforced. If they were enforceable, no one would game the system.

3. So the banks were told they couldn't do more redlining so they screwed the poor communities that were already redlined further. Oh wait, they didn't create the communities by redlining them in the first place but they did..or didn't... or...

4. No demand from developers? Maybe not where you live but it's definitely not a nationwide issue.

 

 

1a. You can spend your money wherever you want. In fact, investing in rebuilding an economically depressed area is a noble endeavor I would cheer and if asked and I thought the plan would have a reasonable chance of being effective could be persuaded to invest myself. I am simply against using the force of government to force other people to donate their money. 

 

1b. Dealing with violence is a legitimate government expense. In fact, it is one of the very few proper roles of government and one in which they are failing miserably in some areas. I find it extremely disturbing that here in Ohio they are privatizing some prisons. The government's primary responsibility is to prevent us from using physical force against one another.

 

1c. I actually was fortunate in learning that at a young age. I just typed a rather extensive blog post on the subject. I learned mostly from my father and no, it wasn't free. He invested in my business ventures and expected a ROI like any 3rd party investor would. Obviously I had a little benefit in that he didn't require a credit check, he knew where I lived. Shortly after the military I learned a few lessons the hard way losing literally every dollar to my name in a bad investment. Perhaps someday I will type a blog story about the mistakes I made there. 

 

2. I think the case that the regulations led to the problem is pretty clear but I really have nothing to add to what I said previously.

 

3. In what way did the banks create the poverty? They simply assessed the situation as it existed. 

 

4. It is a nationwide issue now. The real estate market is trashed. There are some places that are still developing, but right now they are the exception. Many planned developments have been put on hold and few developers are interested in purchasing more land, especially in poor areas. Right now, demand for houses is extremely low compared to supply. When that turns back around developers will start to develop. Until then, most plans have been put on hold and even large developers like MI or Dominion are selling houses at much lower prices and accepting lower profits. Here in Ohio, one of the counties I have a contract with has experienced a decent rate of development. All the others have not and several large planned developments have been postponed indefinitely. I can get you numbers if you really want. I don't have time right now though. Maybe later if you insist.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 I'm going to take these in reverse if you don't mind.

1a. They need cultural reform but let's not spend any money to make that happen? Isn't that called a non-starter? I do agree with you on legalizing drugs, though, but for more than the reasons you cite. The cops wouldn't be able to sell what they take during their raids either so that would do a lot for law and order as well.

1b. You want to deal with violence and educate the people who live in poor communities but you expect them to fund that themselves as well? 

1c. Did you learn to be an entrepreneur by yourself or did someone teach you? If the latter, did they do it for free? Again, you want poor people to start their own businesses and provide for jobs for themselves but you want to deny them the resources with which to work.

2. No regulation? The problem isn't regulation but enforcement. The CRA and other "regulations" you consider odious can't be enforced. If they were enforceable, no one would game the system.

3. So the banks were told they couldn't do more redlining so they screwed the poor communities that were already redlined further. Oh wait, they didn't create the communities by redlining them in the first place but they did..or didn't... or...

4. No demand from developers? Maybe not where you live but it's definitely not a nationwide issue.

 

Quote:
1a. You can spend your money wherever you want. In fact, investing in rebuilding an economically depressed area is a noble endeavor I would cheer and if asked and I thought the plan would have a reasonable chance of being effective could be persuaded to invest myself. I am simply against using the force of government to force other people to donate their money.

But because you and other investors buy into the banks' statements that such investments have no reasonable chance of working, no such investment will be made. 

Quote:
1b. Dealing with violence is a legitimate government expense. In fact, it is one of the very few proper roles of government and one in which they are failing miserably in some areas. I find it extremely disturbing that here in Ohio they are privatizing some prisons. The government's primary responsibility is to prevent us from using physical force against one another.

 We agree here.

Quote:
1c. I actually was fortunate in learning that at a young age. I just typed a rather extensive blog post on the subject. I learned mostly from my father and no, it wasn't free. He invested in my business ventures and expected a ROI like any 3rd party investor would. Obviously I had a little benefit in that he didn't require a credit check, he knew where I lived. Shortly after the military I learned a few lessons the hard way losing literally every dollar to my name in a bad investment. Perhaps someday I will type a blog story about the mistakes I made there.

Not everyone has fathers who are able to provide start-up capital while expecting a minimal ROI. Most people don't have that luxury and can't afford to do it from scratch. Why do you want to deprive these people of at least a piece of the opportunity you had by expecting them to pay for training with money they don't have? I will look at your blog.

 

Quote:
2. I think the case that the regulations led to the problem is pretty clear but I really have nothing to add to what I said previously.

 Again, if the regulation can't be enforced is it a regulation? What penalties were assessed for noncompliance with the CRA for example?

Quote:
3. In what way did the banks create the poverty? They simply assessed the situation as it existed.

 And discouraged investment in areas that they had previously redlined by telling potential investors not to invest in those areas (and that they would not support those investors if they chose to do so)?

Quote:
4. It is a nationwide issue now. The real estate market is trashed. There are some places that are still developing, but right now they are the exception. Many planned developments have been put on hold and few developers are interested in purchasing more land, especially in poor areas. Right now, demand for houses is extremely low compared to supply. When that turns back around developers will start to develop. Until then, most plans have been put on hold and even large developers like MI or Dominion are selling houses at much lower prices and accepting lower profits. Here in Ohio, one of the counties I have a contract with has experienced a decent rate of development. All the others have not and several large planned developments have been postponed indefinitely. I can get you numbers if you really want. I don't have time right now though. Maybe later if you insist.

Please tell that to the developers who are building luxury apartments and homes here (Bloomington IN) like they're going out of style. Thanks.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The banks created the poor communities by discouraging investment in them. I don't see you disputing this. I just see you blaming the bad ol' government for attempting to rectify the problem. 

They didn't create poor communities, the communities would be poor regardless of whether or not the banks existed. The banks simply didn't give out charity loans to them and I don't see why the banks should. It is not their obligation to improve communities, it is their obligation to lend money in a manner that creates a profit for their investors while protecting/growing the funds of their depositors.  

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I thought you said that they were in the business of making money. Informing people about not getting a loan that they would be unable to pay seems like it would be more profitable than what they did. Then again, they are in the business of making money -  even if they have to create poverty to do it. There is no land that "can't" be sold to a developer where the bank and the developer can't make money off it. Ever heard of re-gentrification?

 

They are in the business of making money, and lending is how they make money. When the government passes a law telling them they can't redline the banks determined it was cheaper to simply issue loans and write them off as losses than to put significant resources into attempting to rebuild whole communities. And it is utterly false that banks can always turn a profit on land. When the market was over-inflated in the 2000's that was true, but before that and currently banks often get burned and take large losses on foreclosed property. There simply is not that much demand from developers. There were keynesian economists that were saying real estate could rise perpetually, obviously they were wrong. Even now there are a lot of areas where banks own a lot of houses they can't sell because no one wants them. 

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I didn't say you accused poor folks of anything. I did see you absolving the banks from blame because the mean ol' government "made them do it" which stands against your idea that banks don't do anything if they can't profit from it. Sounds more like you're mad that you didn't get in on the game.

 

Banks aren't blameless, but they were doing what they do. They are in business to profit, that is what they are supposed to do. Government created an environment where the sub-prime market was artificially stimulated. If the government uses its power to make a market more profitable you shouldn't be surprised when businesses jump into it. 

 

And I'm not mad, I profited from the whole ordeal quite well. The massive movement of the housing market has required mass reappraisal of houses which means more money in my pocket. I just have strong beliefs of what governments role in the economy is and it is quite irritating when politicians pass regulations that have predictable consequences then they pretend to be all outraged when what they made possible happens. Then they use the failure of their previous regulations to propose more regulations that will make things worse. The bottom line is that what happened was made possible and encouraged by government regulation. No regulation and any housing bubble would have been much smaller and far less damaging. There is simply no way the sub-prime market could have been profitable without the government being involved. 

 

If you really want to fix poverty in the ghettos, they don't need money thrown at them. They need serious cultural reform. The problem is that kids are raised in a culture where money is made by trafficking drugs and violence. Our school systems are generally geared towards preparing kids to do what they are told. You go to school, go apply for a job and do what your told to make money. Our entire culture seems to accept that the primary way to make money is to work for someone else. Working for someone else is an inefficient way to make money, but increasingly "thats the way it is". Why?

 

People sit around waiting for someone else to create a job for them. What makes them think someone else is going to create a job when they aren't willing to do it themselves? Established businesses are going to prioritize locations that will create a good ROI for them. Ghettos simply are not a profitable place compared to a middle class suburb. What is needed is for kids living in the ghettos to learn how to create legitimate businesses that turn a profit for them while bringing goods and services to poor areas. People generally aren't going to come from the outside to do so, only people living in the community are going to care enough to tolerate the business difficulties that come with being in a ghetto. 

 

If you want to fix the ghetto's you have to deal with the violence problem so legitimate businesses can operate, teach people how to create jobs for themselves rather than rely on others and remove the government barriers that make it expensive and difficult to start a business in a city. (zoning laws, expensive permits, etc.) The most difficult part is the violence which runs into a chicken or egg problem because poverty encourages violence and violence creates poverty. When you get into some areas of big cities the gangs have more power than the police and you simply can't start a business without their permission. I think legalizing drugs would significantly help undercut the funding of gangs and aid police in establishing law and order. 

You are so full of shit. OF COURSE POVERTY will always exist.

Germans have poverty too, what they don't have that your rethuglicans created over the past 30 years is the pay gap and health care costs. Would you like to compare the education of Germany's poor to ours? Would you like to compare their crime rate to ours?

Every man for themselves is the legal law rethuglicans created. The middle class was created after WW2 as a result of policies that rejected "every man for themselves".

You still cant get it through your head that there is a difference in "I don't owe you anything" AND YOU DONT, and "society"

YOU DON'T OWE ME SHIT, OK, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO FUCKING SAY THAT?

But you do have if you don't want our society to collapse, a duty to keep the temperature of the fish tank from going off the scales.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But you do

Brian37 wrote:

But you do have if you don't want our society to collapse, a duty to keep the temperature of the fish tank from going off the scales.

 

Why do I have that duty but you don't?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

But you do have if you don't want our society to collapse, a duty to keep the temperature of the fish tank from going off the scales.

 

Why do I have that duty but you don't?

We all have the duty - why do you wish to shirk it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

But you do have if you don't want our society to collapse, a duty to keep the temperature of the fish tank from going off the scales.

 

Why do I have that duty but you don't?

Your "duty" seems to be to yourself. Your problem isn't your individuality, but your attitude.

"Why do Have to share my Ritz Hotel with the maids"

You don't have to, by no means in a legal sense, you dont.

But when they cant feed themselves don't bitch about them being on food stamps.

You DON'T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING. How many times do I have to repeat myself.

You owe it to yourself to care.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 @JCYou are assuming that

 @JC

You are assuming that non-bank investors necessarily follow the lead of banks. We don't. Banks generally tend to be extremely conservative with money as there are strict government regulations regarding how much liquidity they must have to remain open. Many of the banks that "failed" didn't actually run out of money to pay their depositors, they just fell below the government required thresholds so there was a risk that IF a bunch of depositors requested their money, the bank might not have enough. So in general, banks tend to invest conservatively. Even during the housing crises most of the parties involved in the sub-prime market were mortgage brokers or banks set up specifically to handle sub-prime, not established banks. I think the number is like 1 in 4 sub-prime mortgages were through established banks. (That is off the top of my head)

 

Instead of following the lead of bankers, I tend to invest in people who couldn't get money from a bank. If they could get money from a bank, why would they be willing to give me a stake in the company when they could simply turn around and pay a much smaller amount of the profit as interest to a bank? So I usually don't take a banks opinion into account when considering an investment. Now what might stop me is the reality of violence. I would be extremely hesitant to invest in a business near Mound St. in Columbus, it is gang territory and extremely violent. Murders are fairly common and pretty much every square inch is covered in graffiti. The Clippers, our local minor league baseball team, used to have their stadium there, but people were too scared to go to the games because the area was so bad. They moved into downtown and a new stadium and now sell far more tickets. The Clippers leaving put the area into even more economic distress. Did they cause the poverty and crime? Of course not. Do you blame them for leaving? I don't. They weren't making a profit and never could in that area of town. It is simply a bad neighborhood for a variety of reasons outside the Clippers control. The Clippers could have sunk millions of dollars into the area and the result would have been millions of dollars worth of broken windows. 

 

I don't really know what the answer is to that kind of violence. I agree it sucks, but forcing companies or banks to invest money that is simply going to be stolen or destroyed isn't the answer. Poor, companies can deal with, there are plenty of successful companies that grow out of poor rural areas. Violence, they can't. How do you run a business that is robbed every week? Why would you even try? Until we find a solution to the violence and especially the gangs/drug cartels some areas simply are not going to see economic improvement. It is a political/cultural problem not an economic one. If you think throwing investment money at those types of areas will help, feel free to make as much money as you want to throw at them. I prefer to put my money somewhere it won't be wasted.

 

Educating people to become entrepreneurs is a good idea. I'm not sure that there is anyone in the country who honestly teaches business basics. I know I never got any in my formal schooling and public schools barely even teach basic economics. There are plenty of "motivational speakers" and companies that promise you can work from home and have "unlimited earning potential" but from what I have seen they are just a bunch of scams that demand money up front, screw people over and at most teach them how to "manage time". Bullshit. If your running your business well you don't have to manage time because you will have plenty of it to waste. I am starting to think there might be a serious market for people to simply learn the fundamentals of starting a new business.

 

All those young punks in New York complaining about corporations not giving them jobs saddens me. When you are young, you have nothing to lose, if you want a job and can't get one- make one. I'm afraid that they do in fact represent a large portion of our younger population. They think that other people are somehow obligated to give them jobs. Someone has to create a job. If you aren't going to do it, why do you expect others to? Just recently I am really starting to realize that our entire culture seems to be moving toward the attitude that nameless, faceless corporations provide jobs and if you don't have a job, it is "their" fault and
"they" seems to be anyone with enough money to take care of themselves. I find this concerning for two reasons. First, the people providing jobs are going to retire or die. Someone has to step up to the plate and take their place. Second, is the growing dependence on corporations and the corporate mindset. People seem to simply accept they are part of a large corporate machine. They don't strive to innovate, or improve things. They get their job, get paid their set wage and go home. I don't believe that is healthy for the economy. Our economy did not become great because people did their jobs. Our economy became great because geniuses like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs, Walton, Brin and Page didn't follow conventional wisdom. They shunned the way things were supposed to be done, they dared to dream that there was a better way and they literally changed the world and in the process, made America the wealthiest country in the world. They didn't sit around waiting for someone to give them a job.

 

In some ways I wonder if corporations are almost anti-capitalist in nature. The ideas of Adam Smith rely on the individual owning their own labor. The incentive to improve and innovate comes because the individual receives personal profit from even the smallest innovation. Yet so many people seem content to allow corporations to play a large and influential role. They sell themselves completely like indentured servants. Their pay is often unrelated to their actual production and orders from corporate are obeyed. There might be a little bitching at the water cooler, but few say screw it. I need to think more on this topic, I still don't understand why in a country where opportunities are unlimited, people voluntarily give up their lives to large bureaucratic corporations or why they constantly look at the employer/employee relationship as if it were some type of permanent dom/sub relationship. It seems that it has become one because people believe it is one.

 

And are you complaining about developers building luxury apartments near you? I'm confused. Generally, I would consider that a positive sign for the economy in your area.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:We all have

jcgadfly wrote:

We all have the duty - why do you wish to shirk it?

 

And exactly what duty is that? What are we all supposed to be doing?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

But you do have if you don't want our society to collapse, a duty to keep the temperature of the fish tank from going off the scales.

 

Why do I have that duty but you don't?

Your "duty" seems to be to yourself. Your problem isn't your individuality, but your attitude.

"Why do Have to share my Ritz Hotel with the maids"

You don't have to, by no means in a legal sense, you dont.

But when they cant feed themselves don't bitch about them being on food stamps.

You DON'T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING. How many times do I have to repeat myself.

You owe it to yourself to care.

If I am shelling out the cash for the Ritz there damn well better be at least a couple maids sharing the room. Oh, you mean the hotel staff? Well if she is good looking she can share the room. If she isn't good looking she can't share the room because I'm paying for it and she isn't. However, I will tip her more than generously anyway, even if she looks like Berta.

I guarantee that anyone I tip on a regular basis doesn't need food stamps. No one I employ needs food stamps. No one I sleep with needs food stamps. No one in my family needs food stamps. Exactly how many people do I need to ensure don't need food stamps to meet my duty? Do you have a similar obligation to keep people off food stamps? If so, are you meeting it? If not, why not?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

But you do have if you don't want our society to collapse, a duty to keep the temperature of the fish tank from going off the scales.

 

Why do I have that duty but you don't?

Your "duty" seems to be to yourself. Your problem isn't your individuality, but your attitude.

"Why do Have to share my Ritz Hotel with the maids"

You don't have to, by no means in a legal sense, you dont.

But when they cant feed themselves don't bitch about them being on food stamps.

You DON'T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING. How many times do I have to repeat myself.

You owe it to yourself to care.

If I am shelling out the cash for the Ritz there damn well better be at least a couple maids sharing the room. Oh, you mean the hotel staff? Well if she is good looking she can share the room. If she isn't good looking she can't share the room because I'm paying for it and she isn't. However, I will tip her more than generously anyway, even if she looks like Berta.

I guarantee that anyone I tip on a regular basis doesn't need food stamps. No one I employ needs food stamps. No one I sleep with needs food stamps. No one in my family needs food stamps. Exactly how many people do I need to ensure don't need food stamps to meet my duty? Do you have a similar obligation to keep people off food stamps? If so, are you meeting it? If not, why not?

Oh my god, you are so fucking delusional. My former boss had nut cancer. Most of his surgery was paid for by medicare, not his private insurance. In fact, I don't think even he had health insurance. But his wife did tell me that they applied for and got medicare for his surgery. So there is an example of welfare for the rich. But unlike you, I don't lack compassion and would only say to him, if you can do it, I can do it.

Now, if your solution is to get as many people off the government dime as possible, which I agree we should, then the only way to do that is to address the pay gap and cost of living gap.

But blaming the poor and the middle class and calling them lazy isn't going to work any more.

EVERY job is needed and no one can do everything by themselves. Until you see your workers as human and not mere tools for you to use, you will never understand what I am saying.

 

I

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

We all have the duty - why do you wish to shirk it?

 

And exactly what duty is that? What are we all supposed to be doing?

Giving back to the country so that it can continue to function?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

We all have the duty - why do you wish to shirk it?

 

And exactly what duty is that? What are we all supposed to be doing?

Giving back to the country so that it can continue to function?

NO no no no,. Thats not the way it works Fly. The way we can get back to functioning is to get back to doing more of the same so we can stay in this mess, have another "bubble boom" which puts a band aid on the problem so we can visit another great recession 10-15 years. If we are lucky, we might even be able to break the records of unemployment of the Great Depression.

Bread lines are the answer dude. We cant tax him, poor baby cant handle it.

He needs his money, cant you just let a selfish person be selfish? You are so heartless. I wonder if Aynd Rand knows how far up her ass Beyond's nose is?

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

But you do have if you don't want our society to collapse, a duty to keep the temperature of the fish tank from going off the scales.

 

Why do I have that duty but you don't?

Your "duty" seems to be to yourself. Your problem isn't your individuality, but your attitude.

"Why do Have to share my Ritz Hotel with the maids"

You don't have to, by no means in a legal sense, you dont.

But when they cant feed themselves don't bitch about them being on food stamps.

You DON'T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING. How many times do I have to repeat myself.

You owe it to yourself to care.

If I am shelling out the cash for the Ritz there damn well better be at least a couple maids sharing the room. Oh, you mean the hotel staff? Well if she is good looking she can share the room. If she isn't good looking she can't share the room because I'm paying for it and she isn't. However, I will tip her more than generously anyway, even if she looks like Berta.

I guarantee that anyone I tip on a regular basis doesn't need food stamps. No one I employ needs food stamps. No one I sleep with needs food stamps. No one in my family needs food stamps. Exactly how many people do I need to ensure don't need food stamps to meet my duty? Do you have a similar obligation to keep people off food stamps? If so, are you meeting it? If not, why not?

Good for you, but some people do need food stamps. And I pay taxes too and I don't mind my money going to others so they don't starve to death. Unlike you, I know that there are some things that no human should go without.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh my god, you

Brian37 wrote:

Oh my god, you are so fucking delusional. My former boss had nut cancer. Most of his surgery was paid for by medicare, not his private insurance. In fact, I don't think even he had health insurance. But his wife did tell me that they applied for and got medicare for his surgery. So there is an example of welfare for the rich. But unlike you, I don't lack compassion and would only say to him, if you can do it, I can do it.

Now, if your solution is to get as many people off the government dime as possible, which I agree we should, then the only way to do that is to address the pay gap and cost of living gap.

But blaming the poor and the middle class and calling them lazy isn't going to work any more.

EVERY job is needed and no one can do everything by themselves. Until you see your workers as human and not mere tools for you to use, you will never understand what I am saying.

 

 

I don't know what your bosses nut has to do with anything. I would say that if you can afford your own surgery, you have a moral obligation to pay for it. Medicare and such really ought to be used to pay for those who actually can't afford it. I am addressing the pay gap, everyone who works for me makes more money than they would if they didn't work, therefore their pay is higher. 

 

I am still missing exactly what my obligation you and JC seem to think I have but am shirking. "Give back the country" is a pointless generality, I don't have the country so what am I supposed to give and to whom? What specifically am I supposed to do? Is it simply money? Then in your idea of a perfect world exactly how much should I be paying? Are you paying and/or willing to pay an equal amount?

 

If I were to have a sudden conversion and say shit, Brian is right I AM shirking my moral obligation, what should I be doing differently? How much should I be paying my employees? Or is the only thing that matters to you my words and actions don't mean a thing?

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Oh my god, you are so fucking delusional. My former boss had nut cancer. Most of his surgery was paid for by medicare, not his private insurance. In fact, I don't think even he had health insurance. But his wife did tell me that they applied for and got medicare for his surgery. So there is an example of welfare for the rich. But unlike you, I don't lack compassion and would only say to him, if you can do it, I can do it.

Now, if your solution is to get as many people off the government dime as possible, which I agree we should, then the only way to do that is to address the pay gap and cost of living gap.

But blaming the poor and the middle class and calling them lazy isn't going to work any more.

EVERY job is needed and no one can do everything by themselves. Until you see your workers as human and not mere tools for you to use, you will never understand what I am saying.

 

 

I don't know what your bosses nut has to do with anything. I would say that if you can afford your own surgery, you have a moral obligation to pay for it. Medicare and such really ought to be used to pay for those who actually can't afford it. I am addressing the pay gap, everyone who works for me makes more money than they would if they didn't work, therefore their pay is higher. 

 

I am still missing exactly what my obligation you and JC seem to think I have but am shirking. "Give back the country" is a pointless generality, I don't have the country so what am I supposed to give and to whom? What specifically am I supposed to do? Is it simply money? Then in your idea of a perfect world exactly how much should I be paying? Are you paying and/or willing to pay an equal amount?

 

If I were to have a sudden conversion and say shit, Brian is right I AM shirking my moral obligation, what should I be doing differently? How much should I be paying my employees? Or is the only thing that matters to you my words and actions don't mean a thing?

 

Give back to the country - If I left out the "to" I'm sorry. You don't feel like the country and it's government has been of use to you? Or do you expect the services but just don't want to pay for it?

I don't care what you pay your employees - they signed an agreement with you. You also signed an agreement to support the country. Why do you wish to back out of it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Oh my god, you are so fucking delusional. My former boss had nut cancer. Most of his surgery was paid for by medicare, not his private insurance. In fact, I don't think even he had health insurance. But his wife did tell me that they applied for and got medicare for his surgery. So there is an example of welfare for the rich. But unlike you, I don't lack compassion and would only say to him, if you can do it, I can do it.

Now, if your solution is to get as many people off the government dime as possible, which I agree we should, then the only way to do that is to address the pay gap and cost of living gap.

But blaming the poor and the middle class and calling them lazy isn't going to work any more.

EVERY job is needed and no one can do everything by themselves. Until you see your workers as human and not mere tools for you to use, you will never understand what I am saying.

 

 

I don't know what your bosses nut has to do with anything. I would say that if you can afford your own surgery, you have a moral obligation to pay for it. Medicare and such really ought to be used to pay for those who actually can't afford it. I am addressing the pay gap, everyone who works for me makes more money than they would if they didn't work, therefore their pay is higher. 

 

I am still missing exactly what my obligation you and JC seem to think I have but am shirking. "Give back the country" is a pointless generality, I don't have the country so what am I supposed to give and to whom? What specifically am I supposed to do? Is it simply money? Then in your idea of a perfect world exactly how much should I be paying? Are you paying and/or willing to pay an equal amount?

 

If I were to have a sudden conversion and say shit, Brian is right I AM shirking my moral obligation, what should I be doing differently? How much should I be paying my employees? Or is the only thing that matters to you my words and actions don't mean a thing?

 

Your actions do mean something. And the people who think like you who tanked our economy spoke loudly with their actions.Your just pissed that we wont take it any more.

 

Ok, if someone  has the ability to pay they should. Lets go with that. Tell your rethuglican buddies to give up their health care packages I pay for and buy their own. Or is it socialism is only for those who can afford to buy off congress?

Quote:
How much should I be paying my employees?

Ask them yourself. I doubt you'd believe them if they said "not enough".

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Give back to

jcgadfly wrote:

Give back to the country - If I left out the "to" I'm sorry. You don't feel like the country and it's government has been of use to you? Or do you expect the services but just don't want to pay for it?

I don't care what you pay your employees - they signed an agreement with you. You also signed an agreement to support the country. Why do you wish to back out of it?

 

I do pay the country, quite a bit thank you very much. My position on taxes has always been that either everyone should pay the same percentage or it should be use based. Why should you pay back less to the country than I do? You live here too. 

 

And I never signed an agreement with the country. The IRS does not ask my permission or opinion. Unless you mean the Constitution, in which case it is past time for the government to start following that agreement. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to bail out wealthy bankers.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok, if

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, if someone  has the ability to pay they should. Lets go with that. Tell your rethuglican buddies to give up their health care packages I pay for and buy their own. Or is it socialism is only for those who can afford to buy off congress?

Sure, I don't think congressmen should get paid a quarter of what they currently make. I have been saying for years we should dramatically cut government jobs, government pay and especially the pay of politicians. They claim to "serve", well make them serve. They should be compensated on a scale similar to the boys in our military starting out at E-1. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
How much should I be paying my employees?

Ask them yourself. I doubt you'd believe them if they said "not enough".

I did ask them. We negotiated a deal when they were hired that both of us agreed with. They are welcome to leave at any time if they believe I don't pay enough or to renegotiate. Since my employees have a tendency to stick around, I imagine they are satisfied. But you are apparently unsatisfied with what I pay which is why I asked you even though I don't believe it is any of your damn business. 

 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Give back to the country - If I left out the "to" I'm sorry. You don't feel like the country and it's government has been of use to you? Or do you expect the services but just don't want to pay for it?

I don't care what you pay your employees - they signed an agreement with you. You also signed an agreement to support the country. Why do you wish to back out of it?

 

I do pay the country, quite a bit thank you very much. My position on taxes has always been that either everyone should pay the same percentage or it should be use based. Why should you pay back less to the country than I do? You live here too. 

 

And I never signed an agreement with the country. The IRS does not ask my permission or opinion. Unless you mean the Constitution, in which case it is past time for the government to start following that agreement. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to bail out wealthy bankers.

I don't know what you pay in taxes nor do I care. Ny your own admission you're getting a good ROI from the country. Doesn't a larger investment usually bring a larger return?

Use based? Per use or a user contract? It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure I really want to pay a toll to walk down my road to catch the bus.

Flat tax plans are interesting also but no one wants to agree on the percentage. Wouldn't a f;at tax pretty much guarantee that government wouldn't be able to supply services (unless the percentage was high enough to be considered predatory - what would you consider a predatory tax?) ? Which ones do you want to cut? Obviously not the ones you use but which ones?

It seems like the flat tax would present the same problems as a national sales tax. No one's going to be able to or want to buy anything if there's a 70% sales tax on it (what it would have to be to meet needs).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:. They are welcome to

Quote:
. They are welcome to leave at any time if they believe I don't pay enough or to renegotiate.

The fact that you said FIRST "They are welcome to leave if they believe I dont pay enough" says it all. That entire quote is code for "FUCK EM".

Don't lie, if someone doesn't believe you pay them enough, you'll tell them where the door is. Sure, by law you have every right to do that. Just because you own a busines and you have absolute rights over it, AS YOU SHOULD, does not mean in every instance you are justified or even moral. Legal and moral are not the same thing.

You're employees are not just there to stroke your ego. Thats why you said it like that. Maybe you need to see a shrink about your control issues.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Use based?

jcgadfly wrote:

Use based? Per use or a user contract? It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure I really want to pay a toll to walk down my road to catch the bus.

Like the gas tax, it taxes those who use the roads more higher while barely taxing those who don't use the road. People who drive heavier vehicles that cause more wear generally pay more than those who drive lighter more fuel efficient vehicles. It isn't perfect but I consider it pretty fair. Tolls are fair as well but in most areas I think they are completely impractical. There is no reason the post office couldn't be funded 100% through postage. I don't think funding the government 100% through use fees is practical but I think those types of taxes are fair.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Flat tax plans are interesting also but no one wants to agree on the percentage. Wouldn't a f;at tax pretty much guarantee that government wouldn't be able to supply services (unless the percentage was high enough to be considered predatory - what would you consider a predatory tax?) ? Which ones do you want to cut? Obviously not the ones you use but which ones?

My line on taxes is 50% including state/local/property, everything. The day the government gets more from my efforts than I get, I refuse to work. As far as the rate, it needs to be high enough to cover our bills. At our current spending the required rate would be 47% from dollar one. If we simply replaced current revenue with a flat tax the rate would be 25%. Personally, I think government could be cut down so that a flat 15% tax could fund everything ($1.27 trillion) if you insist on exempting the bottom 50% of the population you could set the rate at 17% for everyone who makes more than $33k per year to get around $1.25 trillion.

 

What should be cut? Absolutely everything that is not specifically mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Everything else should be taken care of at the state level. That is what our agreement says, and I think the government should abide by it. I know that in reality that isn't going to happen soon. I would start with setting the flat tax at a rate high enough to cover the federal expenditures. I suspect that when everyone is paying 40% suddenly there would be a lot more popular support to find things to cut. Right now there is no incentive as most people receive far more from the government than they pay for. It is easy to think something is worth the price when you don't pay the price. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

It seems like the flat tax would present the same problems as a national sales tax. No one's going to be able to or want to buy anything if there's a 70% sales tax on it (what it would have to be to meet needs).

And that is the problem. We have a huge spending problem and since people aren't paying for it, they don't care. If people actually paid for government, I suspect they would be far more pissed off over cronyism like Solyndra, over our politicians flying around the world in government paid jets, over our huge military fighting wars in countries that are no longer a threat, over the huge amounts of bailout money sent to Europe, over the money used to buy GM and bail out banks. There is plenty that can be cut even before you talk about the popular programs. It would also provide incentive to reform SS and medicare before they become even bigger problems. Until people are actually paying for things themselves, politicians have no incentive to cut. Spending money buys votes, cutting spending makes people mad. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken