Should we simplify or is it too late?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2011, 03:00 PM
 
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
(15-02-2011 01:50 PM)The_observer Wrote:  Is your problem with complexity mostly around law Dregs, or do you see it as a problem in general?

This thread seems to have drifted to the law area, but my point was much broader. There are many areas that I'd like to see simplified, though I'm realstic that I won't.
Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2011, 07:38 PM
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
On medical malpractice, my view is basically: shit happens. If the doctor did his best, then he did his best. If he was really negligent, like operates on the wrong arm or something, then that is very different but I don't think doctors should be pounded because the world is imperfect.

I 100% completely disagree with you on the debt reduction thing. I don't have time right now but in a few days when I'm back on line I can go chapter and verse on what credit card companies are some of the scummiest entities on the planet. Go do some research on the bankruptcy reform from a few years ago and see what you find. It is amazing what some of these swarmy entities get away with. Also do some research on "payday loans". The credit industry are mostly a bunch of bottom swelling scum suckers and while I think society has a huge dearth of personal responsibility I equally think that what the credit industry does goes well, well beyond asking people to be responsible for their debts. It is a completely rigged game.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2011, 05:06 AM
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
I think you forgot to point out red lining and reverse red lining on the matter.
I find that also despicable.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2011, 06:50 AM
 
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
(15-02-2011 07:38 PM)BnW Wrote:  I 100% completely disagree with you on the debt reduction thing. I don't have time right now but in a few days when I'm back on line I can go chapter and verse on what credit card companies are some of the scummiest entities on the planet. Go do some research on the bankruptcy reform from a few years ago and see what you find. It is amazing what some of these swarmy entities get away with. Also do some research on "payday loans". The credit industry are mostly a bunch of bottom swelling scum suckers and while I think society has a huge dearth of personal responsibility I equally think that what the credit industry does goes well, well beyond asking people to be responsible for their debts. It is a completely rigged game.

No, I hear you on CC company's and Payday Lenders but out curiosity how much responsibility do you put with the 'buyer'. I mean the first time I saw a Payday Loan place knowing nothing about them my red flag machine started into overdrive! I have some minor debt issues (nothing exciting) but I spent the money when I didn't have it, and I'll correct it. However as with everything grey area exists. The two examples as far as debt go though torch my as are the ads where people say they had their TAX debt reduced from $25000 to only $300. I just think look I don't like to pay taxed either, but somehow this dork amassed 25K in tax debt, and my first question is why weren't you paying your damn taxes? The other is these subprime home loans. I bought my house right in the heart of all that and I looked at these loans and they all seemed to be too good to be true so steered way clear. I locked my rate and got a standard 30 year fixed with a well established lender.
Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2011, 09:36 AM
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
As far as repaying debts, I myself was a victim of planning an out of country vacation on the money of my next month and being fired when I returned home. By the time I got any money to possibly pay my debts groups like my bank would not accept the amounts. I principally owed $322 and they would not accept $500, because it had been long enough that that was not sufficient. But whatever amount they ask for I'll need more. You know what my answer was? Then you're not getting my $500 because you'll just ask for more. I take personal responsibilities and have not filed bankruptcy, but at the same time I've continued to be unemployed, and when I do find employment a lawyer is going to help negotiate with my debtors on the fact that these 2+ years I was not paying their debt I had no financial means to do so. Lowering the amount they get doesn't mean they lose money it just means I'm actually going to pay them some. If I seriously am going to be expected to pay $3000, because I needed $500 then I will just ignore it.

As far as general complexity i already stated my views in that simplicity is only possible in the beginning. Nothing can become simple from complexity. Those complexities in many cases are a good thing. Just remember that if you prefer the scientific method over theism then you are a supporter of complexity. God may be wrong, but he's a lot less complex than matter.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2011, 10:17 AM
 
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
Great example of what I would consider a grey area. I indeed think that your situation was ridiculous, and you should have been able to simply file some kind of grievence have it reviewed and then be allowed to pay back your debt, which you were willing to do. Now in reality you signed a document stating what would happen if you did not pay them back on time so it is borower beware. I mean if I lose my job tomorrow I'm going to lose my house and car, and so on no matter how genuine my intentions are. So we're stuck on one hand your situation presented a very simple remedy that was dimissed out of hand because of the agreement you signed. So where's that leave us? Don't know? Seems like there should be a common sense injection somewhere in here. Maybe thats the simplicity I'm looking for. Maybe I'm not so anti-complication, but I'm just seeking more personal responsibility and common sense all around, which in certain circumstances could look like simplicity, no?
Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2011, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2011 11:16 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
Yes it could, but currently corporations are seen as more far reaching than individuals. an individual's interests lie with themselves whereas theoretically a corporation's interests lie with all the people involved in the corporation. This creates the problem of it being preffered. Along with the fact that US Bank has a lot more political power than Lilith.

Simplicity sounds good but which side wins for simplicity? If you want to forget about the why's then it's obvious US Bank wins since their interests are more far reaching than mine. And, even if you look to the fact I agreed to the borrowing. You are forgetting that I was not planning on being unemployed, and feel that I should be given a little leeway in the fact that I want to pay them back but am unable.

The only part of common sense that is common is the term common sense itself. Few things are really agreed to be true by almost everyone .

I can't agree with that decision. As long as there are opposing views simplicity becomes oppression, because you choose who wins either way but in simplicity you always choose the same side.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2011, 01:03 PM
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
I think a main issue of loaning is that you can't make it into a business if you don't charge interest. Depending on the interest , some loaners are decent others are completely outrageous.
Complexity here I feel is a bad thing since the bureaucracy can push people against a wall and inflate their interest rates.

^^^^^Tell me if this was a bad example

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2011, 08:08 PM
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
Dregs

Ok, here is my chapter and verse on this and I apologize for the length of this rant.

First, I'm a big fan of personal responsibility. I think it is an overwhelmingly lacking trait in our society. No one is ever accountable, no one is ever responsible, and everyone has an excuse or an out or someone else to blame. In the future historical anthropologists will analyze our fallen civilization and they will, I believe, pin our downfall on two key things: our total lack of personal responsibility and the fax machine. So, on that score, I think we are probably in full agreement. The problem I have, however, is the only people who are ever held accountable are the poorest, weakest members of our society. The "deadbeats" are always those at the bottom of the economic ladder who are ruining it for the poor, hardworking people (usually white and usually rich) who just want a fair shake from the man.

Before I get into specifics, let's look at one watershed moment: the birth of the tea party movement. The movements "official" start was when CNBC Business News Network editor Rick Santelli went on a rant over the government plan to refinance mortgages for poor people in the US. His rant was televised from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Now, for those not familiar with the exchange, they trade commodities like rice and other food stuffs, as well as gold, copper, etc. In 2008 or so speculative trading on the Exchange drove up food prices globally and causes world wide food riots. This was a big problem for a lot of people, but not the MOFOs who did the trading because they all got rich(er) off the deal. And the MOFOs in question here are Goldman Sachs, Citi, JPMC, AIG Financial, etc. It's easy to figure out who they are because they basically fund CNBC with their advertising. But, I digress.

So, anyway, Santelli goes off on this rant and concludes with the call for tea parties and common sense. His issue was that he, the producer in the economy, was now being "forced" by the government to give to the societal parasites who bit off more than they could afford in mortgages. The bill in question was the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan and it would have given $75B to help people stay in their houses. Now, for those of us who are not good at math, $75B is a mere TEN PERCENT of the bailout we gave to the banks who underwrite CNBC in the TARP bailout fiasco. A pittance in comparison but all of the sudden home owners who can't pay their mortgages are the societal parasites.

And, forgot what you read about TARP because it's a giant red herring. The bail out for these banks was not the $750B we gave them in TARP. That was just the cover story. The actual bail out was in the TRILLIONS of dollars. In addition to TARP you had:
1. TALF - a trillion dollar bailout from the Federal Reserve itself which, because it did not use US Treasury funds, did not have to go through Congress
2. The conversion of Investment banks like Goldman to Commercial banks overnight and outside the normal process, which gave them access to the Fed Discount window. So, what that means is banks like Goldman, who made some really bad investments and couldn't pay off their credit cards, now got a better credit rating and were able to borrow money for free to pay off the debts they could not afford. Did anyone offer you that deal? I'm pretty sure they did not.
3. The AIG bailout - the government bailed out AIG so they could pay off their creditors, primarily Goldman, Sachs and Société Générale. Two quick side notes here: the first is after this happend Goldman paid back its TARP funds, claimed a $3B profit and claimed they were well within their rights to pay millions in bonuses to their shareholders while ignoring the fact that if the US government did not give AIG Financial $20B to pay back their main creditors and at tax payer expense, at least $9B of which went to Goldman, there was no Goldman, Sachs anymore; the second is that I think Goldman, Sachs is evil incarnate and its tough for me to be objective when writing about them.

There is more but I think you get the point. And, the point is: to claim that the societal parasites are the home owners who are getting the $75B bailout after the trillions we gave to the banks who causes this is simply fucking insane.

So, no to specifics. On credit cards - the entire business model is built around keeping you in debt. The mob can not get away with the types of fees and rate increases that the credit card companies have traditionally gotten away with. And, where is there responsibility? In the 90s and into the tech crash they were handing out credit cards to anyone and everyone. I probably got 25 - 30 unsolicited credit card applications a week, minimum. If they don't qualify their borrowers at all, shouldn't they be responsible for some of the risk? Well, they did not think so and in 2005 were able to successfully lobby Congress to enact legislation that the industry basically wrote.

The best part of it was that the credit cards are mostly underwritten by the very same banks that fucked their investors over in the tech crash 3 years earlier. So, first these guys pushed stocks that they knew were garbage, then when it all came crashing down and people lost their jobs and savings accounts and couldn't pay their bills, the same banks then cried to Congress about how unfair it all was and managed to get credit card debt exempted from bankruptcy. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, tech companies were going bankrupt left and right, writing off their debts - including debts owed to former employees that were given in the form of layoff packages, and starting over scott free. But, not the averager American. No, that guy was a parasite who the banks needed protection from.

I knew a guy who worked for a company called Global Crossings. In 2001 or so they told their employees they could either take a fairly generous exit package or keep their jobs and take their chances that they would not get laid off, and were told the layoff packages would not be as generous. So, this guy took the generous package. Two weeks later, before he received his money, GC went chapter 11 and his package went "poof!" into the night. He ended up with nothing.

As for the sub-prime rates and the rest of it, I'll say this: if you bought a 500,000 home with no money down on a 3 year interest only mortgage and paid $500 a month for 3 years and then lost the house when the payments went to $3,000 on month 37, then you're a schmuck who got what he deserved. And, if you used your house as an ATM and then couldn't pay down the note when your house value crashed, you're a schmuck too. However, that is not the norm. The norm is a story of outright fraud, greed and the same people who got bailed out getting filthy stinking rich off the whole thing. The narrative where poor Americans put one over on the financial industry is just a load of shit. Two great books on the whole thing are "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis and "House of Cards" by ... I forget. Make sure you have a bucket handy when reading.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2011, 08:00 AM
 
RE: Should we simplify or is it too late?
BnW thanks for that it was a very good read, and you are right that we are mostly on the same page. All that you wrote annoys the hell out of me too. However one thing I will add is that doesn't it seem that every time and I mean every time the government tries to "help" a situation in any way the poor somehow get fucked! Even if the bill is designed specifically to help them. Maybe I can expound later, but my 7 year old wants breakfast.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: