Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Capitalism


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Capitalism Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Capitalism - 3/12/2010 12:05:19 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Capitalism - 3/12/2010 12:18:02 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Capitalism - 3/12/2010 1:17:42 PM   
windchymes


Posts: 9410
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
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.   

_____________________________

You know it's going to be a GOOD blow job when she puts a Breathe Right strip on first.

Pick-up artists and garbage men should trade names.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Capitalism - 3/12/2010 1:22:25 PM   
DedicatedDom40


Posts: 350
Joined: 9/22/2005
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Capitalism - 3/12/2010 2:01:31 PM   
DedicatedDom40


Posts: 350
Joined: 9/22/2005
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to windchymes)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Capitalism - 3/12/2010 2:19:44 PM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		I find it repugnant that such businesses are legal in this country.

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Capitalism - 3/12/2010 10:50:07 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Vendaval)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Capitalism - 3/13/2010 2:26:56 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
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).

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Capitalism - 3/13/2010 3:40:25 AM   
sravaka


Posts: 314
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline 		~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.

_____________________________

Miseries hold me fixed, and I would gladly cut these roots to become a floating plant. I would yield myself up utterly, if the inviting stream could be relied upon. --Ono no Komachi

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Capitalism - 3/13/2010 8:03:28 AM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
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?



_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to sravaka)
Profile   Post #: 50
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Capitalism Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078