TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Have you ever used redlining since it's practical, reliable and efficient No, because I'm not a lender; but the firm I work with uses credit scores, criminal record, and current employment status as brightlines for hiring cut-offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I've asked that question of every mindless progressive dolt from Exiled and New Bills to conner and Dr.Doofenshmirtz, and as far as I can tell, it works like this: 1) Raise taxes on rich. 2)Talk about abortion. 3) ??????? 4) Prosperity for all!!! Or something like that. It's pretty simple: advanced economies are demand-driven. Since the bottom 80% spend all of their income, if you raise the top tax rate and simultaneously lower the rate for the bottom.80%, aggregate demand and growth will rise. An example: If you raise the top's tax by a $100, consumption will fall by about $75 and savings will fall by $25; offset that with a tax cut for the bottom by $100, and consumption will increase by $100. The net effect is a positive increase in demand by $25 with a balanced budget. In fact, you'd also generate more tax revenues because the increased demand will raise employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 in what category would you put redlining? Has nothing to do with race either. I looked at getting a car when I was under 25 and living in south Minneapolis. The insurance rates were through the roof. Same age, same car, only living in a suburb instead, and the rates were MUCH cheaper. Last I checked, my race didn't change so couldn't have been a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) TPS: Which ignores the reasons individual actors make micro-transactions, begins with the assumption that all investment (purchases) yield profits, and ignores that a product must first exist (supply) before it can be demanded. Also, you seem to be conflating the terms "modern economies" and "service economies", which is more than just a little bit intellectually dishonest, and the term "modern" has implied connotations in the language. Edited November 12, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 It's pretty simple: advanced economies are demand-driven. Since the bottom 80% spend all of their income, if you raise the top tax rate and simultaneously lower the rate for the bottom.80%, aggregate demand and growth will rise. An example: If you raise the top's tax by a $100, consumption will fall by about $75 and savings will fall by $25; offset that with a tax cut for the bottom by $100, and consumption will increase by $100. The net effect is a positive increase in demand by $25 with a balanced budget. In fact, you'd also generate more tax revenues because the increased demand will raise employment. yea!!! somebody gets it, growth depends on a balance of money for capital formation and money for demand, we have a surplus of the former and a dearth of the latter- what is killing economies in the developed west is not social spending but neo-liberal economics and the race for the lowest possible labor costs- jobs moved from high wage developed countries to developing counties where wages are a 10th to a 40th removes consumptive ability from the world economy- while this was masked for awhile by increased debt levels and taking equity out of various bubbles the chickens have now come home to roost and without demand money goes from investing in productive capacity to speculating and bubble creating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Only if you're the sort of nitwit who believes that uncreated future labor (debt) has tangible and absolute value. How're those mortgage backed securities treating you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) TPS: Which ignores the reasons individual actors make micro-transactions, begins with the assumption that all investment (purchases) yield profits, and ignores that a product must first exist (supply) before it can be demanded. Exactly. And when there is more money and the same supply.. boom, inflation. Back to square one. (Seems like an oversimplification, but it really is that simple.) Edited November 12, 2012 by sodbuster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The beer summit he spoke indelicately and obviously favored the professor. I think gates was his friend. I hope that his motivations for speaking impulsively were not racial. I'm not sure though. I still don't understand the meaning of his comments on Trayvon Martin (the "if he had a son" commentary). That seemed somewhat outside the scope of presidential decorum to speak on that issue. He should have the Justice Dept look into any claims of voter intimidation - to include the alledged intimidation by the Black Panther folks. I don't know know many of the details. I do know that intimidation at the polls, from any source, is problematic. I'm not sure what he or the Justice Department can do about threats to Mr. Zimmerman. That is a job for local law enforcement. Food Stamp thing is sad for myriad reasons. I think that that is something that should have been in the public discourse pre-vote. Those are the kinds of things that people should know before going into the voting booth. It implicates the budget, public resources, and the allocation of tax monies. If those numbers were held for that reason, that would be pretty pathetic. They were held for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 It's pretty simple: advanced economies are demand-driven. Since the bottom 80% spend all of their income, if you raise the top tax rate and simultaneously lower the rate for the bottom.80%, aggregate demand and growth will rise. An example: If you raise the top's tax by a $100, consumption will fall by about $75 and savings will fall by $25; offset that with a tax cut for the bottom by $100, and consumption will increase by $100. The net effect is a positive increase in demand by $25 with a balanced budget. In fact, you'd also generate more tax revenues because the increased demand will raise employment. So let me get this right: what you're saying is Obama wants to take money from those who earn it and have it but also have enough save some of it, and redistribute it to those who don't earn it, don't have it and are too too stupid to save money anyway, just so they can get that churning into the economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 So let me get this right: what you're saying is Obama wants to take money from those who earn it and have it but also have enough save some of it, and redistribute it to those who don't earn it, don't have it and are too too stupid to save money anyway, just so they can get that churning into the economy? Yeah. Quite comical when you think about it. Libs like to say that poor people are poor because rich people hold them down, but that whole economic model is is based on the idea that poor people can't handle having money on their hands. Bonkers. (Not all poor people, but generally...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Exactly. And when there is more money and the same supply.. boom, inflation. Back to square one. (Seems like an oversimplification, but it really is that simple.) I don't know, it sounds kind of complicated. You remind me of my friend who said if your village was hungry you would do best to plant more crops. It seems like it would be easier to just print more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I don't know, it sounds kind of complicated. You remind me of my friend who said if your village was hungry you would do best to plant more crops. It seems like it would be easier to just print more money. They're way ahead of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Yeah. Quite comical when you think about it. Libs like to say that poor people are poor because rich people hold them down, but that whole economic model is is based on the idea that poor people can't handle having money on their hands. Bonkers. (Not all poor people, but generally...) Have you seen these Fingerhut commercials? One came on when we were watching TV, and my wife said, "That commercial pisses me off!" Of course she blamed Fingerhut for marketing towards poor people, and I say people need personal responsibility but hey... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=634cv-rS5dg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMyV34VSAmA It ties into the comments here saying that poor people blow their money. The first one says, "We were poor and couldn't afford anything." At the end, the doorbell rings and the one says, "I hope it's my new espresso machine!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Have you seen these Fingerhut commercials? One came on when we were watching TV, and my wife said, "That commercial pisses me off!" Of course she blamed Fingerhut for marketing towards poor people, and I say people need personal responsibility but hey... https://www.youtube....h?v=634cv-rS5dg https://www.youtube....h?v=fMyV34VSAmA It ties into the comments here saying that poor people blow their money. The first one says, "We were poor and couldn't afford anything." At the end, the doorbell rings and the one says, "I hope it's my new espresso machine!" You are totally right Fez! I would like to add... With more choice comes more mistakes and errors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 It's pretty simple: advanced economies are demand-driven. Since the bottom 80% spend all of their income, if you raise the top tax rate and simultaneously lower the rate for the bottom.80%, aggregate demand and growth will rise. An example: If you raise the top's tax by a $100, consumption will fall by about $75 and savings will fall by $25; offset that with a tax cut for the bottom by $100, and consumption will increase by $100. The net effect is a positive increase in demand by $25 with a balanced budget. In fact, you'd also generate more tax revenues because the increased demand will raise employment. Poppycock. The money kept by the top wage earner is either spent or invested or given away. All 3 generate positive economic activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) Have you seen these Fingerhut commercials? One came on when we were watching TV, and my wife said, "That commercial pisses me off!" Of course she blamed Fingerhut for marketing towards poor people, and I say people need personal responsibility but hey... https://www.youtube....h?v=634cv-rS5dg https://www.youtube....h?v=fMyV34VSAmA It ties into the comments here saying that poor people blow their money. The first one says, "We were poor and couldn't afford anything." At the end, the doorbell rings and the one says, "I hope it's my new espresso machine!" I remember a case from law school about these folks renting furniture and electronics from a "rent-a-center" type place. The plaintiffs had bought multiple items but the way that the contract read was that as long as they had an outstanding balance on any rented item, all items were subject to repossession in the event of a default. In effect, the individual would buy a couch for $1200.00. Then 18 months later when they were within $10 of paying off the couch, they'd buy a toaster for $200. 3 months later, after paying $75 towards the couch/toaster balance, something happens and they can't make the payment. They would lose the couch and the toaster because they would have defaulted on the aggregate balance...even though had they not bought the toaster, the couch balance would have been paid off and then some. It was the dreaded cross-collateralization clause. Of course the terms were hidden and somewhat userous. And the court found for the plaintiffs. But I don't think that cross-collateralization clauses are per se unconscionable. The plaintiffs were poor. Do you think in that instance that the store was correct and that the poor folks signed a contract and exercised poor responsibility and should, in fact, lose their couch? Or do you think that the terms were unconscionable and that the store in the wrong? I can't find the name of the case. Anyone have an L1 Contracts text? Should be first semester under the section on "unconscionability." Edited November 13, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The plaintiffs were poor. Do you think in that instance that the store was correct and that the poor folks signed a contract and exercised poor responsibility and should, in fact, lose their couch? Or do you think that the terms were unconscionable and that the store in the wrong? I'm of the mindset that if you can't afford it, you shouldn't buy it. If you NEED something, buy one at a time. Pay off your couch before deciding you need toast. But I know I'm a minority in that mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I'm of the mindset that if you can't afford it, you shouldn't buy it. If you NEED something, buy one at a time. Pay off your couch before deciding you need toast. But I know I'm a minority in that mindset. You expect people to live within their means? Radical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) I'm of the mindset that if you can't afford it, you shouldn't buy it. If you NEED something, buy one at a time. Pay off your couch before deciding you need toast. But I know I'm a minority in that mindset. Fair enough. But there are companies that prey on the proclivities of the ignorant and the less sophisticated. Those folks paid off that couch fair and square and if they understood what a cross collateralization transaction was, they may not have proceeded forward. Some places don't deal in good faith. They employ language and tactics that are difficult for most to comprehend. Just like we protect those under 18 from entering into contracts by making them "voidable," the law should protect the financially ignorant from predatory practices that the reasonable person would have no reason to think are predatory. And these companies should be ashamed of themselves for not dealing in good faith. Edited November 13, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Fair enough. But there are industries that prey on the proclivities of the ignorant and the less sophisticated. Those folks paid off that couch fair and square and if they understood what a cross collateralization transaction was, they may not have proceeded forward. Some places don't deal in good faith. But they didn't pay off the couch. They still owed $10 on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts