RE: Capitalism

RE: Capitalism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Capitalism (3/12/2010 12:05:19 PM)
Then to you too---no one is arguing that point. That's because it's incredibly obvious. Are you, then, also questioning whether rule just signs whatever without understanding it? That's where she lost me. And if it's unreasonable to call her on that, please explain to me why such a silly mischaracterization is unreasonable.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Capitalism (3/12/2010 12:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then to you too---no one is arguing that point. That's because it's incredibly obvious. Are you, then, also questioning whether rule just signs whatever without understanding it? That's where she lost me. And if it's unreasonable to call her on that, please explain to me why such a silly mischaracterization is unreasonable. No, rulemylife is attempting to strawman the issue. What he said is not what Windchymes said, only what rule wants us to believe she said, so he can argue a case in the extreme. Firm

windchymes -> RE: Capitalism (3/12/2010 1:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Then to you too---no one is arguing that point. That's because it's incredibly obvious. Are you, then, also questioning whether rule just signs whatever without understanding it? That's where she lost me. And if it's unreasonable to call her on that, please explain to me why such a silly mischaracterization is unreasonable. You didn't simply call me out. Rather, when I was able to defend and support myself, you decided, since we all weren't agreeing with you, that you were lost and it must be my fault, and, rather than carry on an intelligent discussion with me, you resorted to calling me names and making condescending statements, when you realized you weren't garnering support for that, either, you ran away with your tail between your legs. I see your latest is starting a thread to be condescending with another poster you don't "understand", either. How plebeian.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Capitalism (3/12/2010 1:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I don't think anyone is seriously arguing against that. We do, however, have an environment where agreement terms change on the fly. I'm then expected to stop everything, reexamine the agreement, and reconsider---where my options are agree or close out the position. I agree here. Mortgages used to be static, now, they are dynamic like credit card agreements. When I take out a credit card, those terms should be fixed as well, and not susceptible to arbitrary changes that are not legislated by congress. If the banks cant handle that risk, then credit cards should be as tough to get as mortgages used to be.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Capitalism (3/12/2010 2:01:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes I don't advocate "let the buyer beware." I advocate "let the buyer be responsible." With the housing crisis, I was struck by how many of these individual homeowners were behaving just like a business would have behaved. Any business that builds a factory but soon runs into an unprofitable situation does not have any loyalty to the building, the bank that funded the building, or the community. I think the bulk of homeowners didn't get into trouble by being stupid, I think they paid current over-prices for their area (what else are they going to do, they want to get on with building their own equity rather than building someone else's equity by renting) and ended up in trouble upon the popping of the bubble and declining housing values in their region, or more directly from job loss. They ended up with an unprofitable situation, and they behaved just like any business would when they mailed their house keys back to the bank. But the roar from the peanut gallery was all about the actions of irresponsible buyers. No business that moves into an area and creates jobs can be locked into a commitment to provide jobs and a tax base for 30 years, so why do we hold homeowners to a different, stricter standard? I would LOVE to see the business world behave more like responsible homeowners, but I'm not holding my breath on seeing that return in my lifetime. Why shouldn't the homeowner make decisions in the best interest of their family by escaping a property just like any unprofitable business would? Why is the homeowner held to a different responsibility standard? Maybe that responsibility discrepancy was always there, and it wasnt as big of a problem when an irresponsible business owner left mortgage holders high and dry when those workers could easily find a replacement job locally. But those replacement jobs no longer exist, and the core jobs are under attack as business moves abroad. When you can't replace that income as easily today, then yes, people begin to expect the same ability to get out of a bad deal as any business would.

Vendaval -> RE: Capitalism (3/12/2010 2:19:44 PM)
I find it repugnant that such businesses are legal in this country.

subfever -> RE: Capitalism (3/12/2010 10:50:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval I find it repugnant that such businesses are legal in this country. I couldn't agree more. His family's situation, filled with one tragedy after another, is a symptom of a much larger problem. No one is born with prejudice and greed. These are learned, accepted, and eventually defended by the majority. People aren't the problem. The problem is the structural system that people are born into. Our system is failing to serve the needs of the people. It's outdated, flawed, and utterly corrupt.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism (3/13/2010 2:26:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery However, a basic assumption of market systems is that buyers and sellers have open and equal information. True enough. There is nothing wrong with investing to earn a return - after all there has to be something in it for you to make it worthwhile. But capitalism assumes people are reasonable - which of course isn't quite correct. I would advocate regulation in this case - which I suppose is the whole point of law i.e. resolving disagreements. And this regulation doesn't need to be enforced; it can quite easily be governance (aimed at self-regulation) where businesses are obliged to report where and when they are not compliant with good governance (the idea being that consumers can then make an informed choice on whether or not they wish to deal with such businesses).

sravaka -> RE: Capitalism (3/13/2010 3:40:25 AM)
~Fast reply~ I wonder how these things work in other countries. (glancing at NorthernGent? or anyone else from Europe who cares to get involved). Do payday loan places even exist in the "developed" world outside the US? To me, the key point with the story the OP posted is not that the protagonist was an idiot, but that he had no reasonable alternatives. And that entirely because of 1) the fucked up health care system in the US and 2) lack of regulation over money lenders. This is the thing: not everyone in the US is enough of a mathematical + verbal whiz to manage this stuff, given how absurdly and, yes, predatorily complicated it's gotten. Why? because an equally absurd proportion of them can't read or do math or think critically at an serious adult level to begin with. I find myself initially agreeing with Windchymes-- yeah! take responsibility for yourselves! and then circling back to, "jesus, how can they?? they don't have the tools." I for one can't entirely blame them if, already disadvantaged, they can't come up with the wherewithal to dig themselves out of whatever holes they have fallen into, esp. when the system is best served in keeping them stuck down there. The guy in the OP wanted to help his daughter. $5000 is a decent chunk of money in some schemes, but petty cash in others. If he has a history of paying bills (as seems to have happened with the cancer treatment), does it really need to be a fucking minefield?? Fix education, fix health care... then we can talk about personal responsibility.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Capitalism (3/13/2010 8:03:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka To me, the key point with the story the OP posted is not that the protagonist was an idiot, but that he had no reasonable alternatives. And that entirely because of 1) the fucked up health care system in the US and 2) lack of regulation over money lenders. Let's look at this. I agree that the gentleman in the original post was unfairly screwed over, however - if the industry was regulated as most seem to think it should be and rates were capped and terms of payment fixed, than the gentleman in the OP would not have been able to get any loan at all. The banks all turned him down. This does not imply that he was a model citizen with a perfect credit record - it implies that he had one or more issues in his background that made them unwilling to extend him any form of loan. I don't really have a bone to pick in this debate - I could take either side - but the real question is - is it better to allow lenders to extend less than favorable terms of credit to high risk members of society or is it better for them not to be able to get any kind of loan at all? You're seeing the same thing play out in the credit card industry - the lenders are reducing credit cards limits and issuing fewer and fewer cards to the lower and lower-midle classes. Under the new rules, they see no advantage to loaning them any money at all. Is this an improvement?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125