On 1/28/2022 10:20 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:> Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, >>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html >>>>> >>>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much >>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary. >>>> >>>> Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system. >>>> >>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj >>>> >>>> The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and >>>> productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to >>>> sane policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They >>>> are riding the tiger's back. >>>> >>>> Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock >>>> value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane. >>> >>> Just in time for their 100th birthday. >>> >>> Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100 >>> years. >> >> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was >> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up >> to a fixed multiple of their assets. >> >> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then >> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as >> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. >> >> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and >> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, >> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going >> beyond them into the impossible. > > Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in > most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most > consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have > been a mistake.The conservative's most consistent behavior is pretending he's anything but a vengeful petty tyrant still ruminating over decades-old grudges most reasonable people would have long forgotten, playing the role of a "rational man."> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of > threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to > people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new > law, just a misuse of one. > > Northern Rock had some reason to expect Fannie, Freddie, Goldman, > Lehman, et al, to buy the debt. But they could have loaned 1000 times > assets if the loans were repaid. The left steadfastly refuses to see > that it was the policies of the left that were the overriding factor. > > https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.htmlThe left has little real power to do much of anything of substance in America. You'd expect there'd at least be a national healthcare system and the military budget would be a lot less than whatever absurd figure that it is, if it did, but that's not the America we live in. Oh you mean Democrats, yes Democrats have had fifty years to do something significantly different than neoconservatives do. But they vote for defense spending increases as well as anyone, and on the occasions they do try they get hamstrung by literally two people, from their own party. Lol> The last paragraph briefly alludes to the work of then HUD secretary > Andrew Cuomo. As an aside, in SED 16 months ago I mentioned his work as > New York governor that caused the deaths of 10-15k elderly in 2020, > which you and Bill Sloman were quick to dismiss as right wing propaganda > as if you know more about what happens in New York than I do. Democrats > were quick to remove him on weak sexual harrassment charges to prevent a > serious look into that, because it would cast doubt on all their COVID > policies.He also has a tendency towards paranoia.> Yeah let's not pressure them to remain solvent. Instead let's pressure > them to loan to the poor and then declare there weren't enough > regulations. And let's not regulate government entities like Fannie and > Freddie - just private companies because they cause all the trouble.And naturally doesn't like the poor very much, figuring anyone who is must have done something very bad to deserve it. He might be skeptical of vaccines against Covid, but would never turn down the opportunity to be vaccinated against poor-cooties.
bang-bang control loop
Started by ●January 25, 2022
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
On 1/28/2022 8:59 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html >>>> >>>> >>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much >>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary. >>> >>> Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system. >>> >>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj >>> >>> >>> The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and >>> productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane >>> policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding >>> the tiger's back. >>> >>> Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock >>> value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane. >> >> Just in time for their 100th birthday. >> >> Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100 >> years. > > One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was > repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up > to a fixed multiple of their assets. > > At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then > spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as > Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. > > Repealing laws only works when people are decent and > honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, > or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going > beyond them into the impossible.Almost like your typical American conservative is pretty far from anything resembling the concepts of "decent" or "honest", and knows full well what type of environment he thinks he'll be the most prosperous in. "Are you questioning my honor?" "I'm not questioning your honor, I am denying its existence..." <https://youtu.be/fTItsm9meX8>
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
On 1/28/2022 1:03 PM, bitrex wrote:> On 1/28/2022 8:59 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much >>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary. >>>> >>>> Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system. >>>> >>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj >>>> >>>> >>>> The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and >>>> productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane >>>> policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding >>>> the tiger's back. >>>> >>>> Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock >>>> value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane. >>> >>> Just in time for their 100th birthday. >>> >>> Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100 >>> years. >> >> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was >> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up >> to a fixed multiple of their assets. >> >> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then >> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as >> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. >> >> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and >> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, >> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going >> beyond them into the impossible. > > Almost like your typical American conservativenote that incidentally, I can't say I've ever met an atypical one.
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:> Tom Gardner wrote: > > On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, > >>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:<snip>> > One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was > > repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up > > to a fixed multiple of their assets. > > > > At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then > > spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as > > Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. > > > > Repealing laws only works when people are decent and > > honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, > > or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going > > beyond them into the impossible. > > Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in > most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most > consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have > been a mistake. > > The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of > threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to > people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new > law, just a misuse of one.That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm. When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks. It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst. <snipped the rest> -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●January 29, 20222022-01-29
On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, >>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > <snip> > >>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was >>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up >>> to a fixed multiple of their assets. >>> >>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then >>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as >>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. >>> >>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and >>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, >>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going >>> beyond them into the impossible. >> >> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in >> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most >> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have >> been a mistake. >> >> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of >> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to >> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new >> law, just a misuse of one. > > That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm. > > When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks. > > It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst. > > <snipped the rest> >The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd. Who were they so afraid of and what consequences. Major lenders settle class actions by citizens all the time for chump change, they're not afraid of this it's a cost of doing business. <https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-rise-of-bank-prosecutions> Only times they get really hit hard is when they fuck with the federal government itself like in tax evasion, money laundering, and anti-trust suits, that is to say the big gangsters got the impression the little gangsters were trying to screw them over on their cut. They were never afraid of violating anyone's "civil rights", come on. "Upon closer examination, the recent string of bank prosecutions, while noteworthy, fails to address persistent concerns that deterrent fines are not routinely imposed, that compliance terms designed to rehabilitate firms are not used effectively, and that individuals remain largely un-prosecuted." They're not afraid of shit
Reply by ●January 29, 20222022-01-29
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:>On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote: >> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>> Tom Gardner wrote: >>>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, >>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was >>>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up >>>> to a fixed multiple of their assets. >>>> >>>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then >>>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as >>>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. >>>> >>>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and >>>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, >>>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going >>>> beyond them into the impossible. >>> >>> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in >>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most >>> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have >>> been a mistake. >>> >>> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of >>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to >>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new >>> law, just a misuse of one. >> >> That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm. >> >> When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks. >> >> It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst. >> >> <snipped the rest> >> > >The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were >somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on both ends. -- I yam what I yam - Popeye
Reply by ●January 29, 20222022-01-29
On 1/29/2022 1:45 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote: >>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>> Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, >>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was >>>>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up >>>>> to a fixed multiple of their assets. >>>>> >>>>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then >>>>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as >>>>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. >>>>> >>>>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and >>>>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, >>>>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going >>>>> beyond them into the impossible. >>>> >>>> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in >>>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most >>>> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have >>>> been a mistake. >>>> >>>> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of >>>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to >>>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new >>>> law, just a misuse of one. >>> >>> That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm. >>> >>> When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks. >>> >>> It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst. >>> >>> <snipped the rest> >>> >> >> The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were >> somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd. > > They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad > loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on > both ends.Yep, there was a profit motive to do it, the customers were looking to buy despite their lack of funds, and "it seemed like a good idea at the time", no one had to pull a gun and the Civil Rights Act out on anyone to make it happen. Business can be pretty equitable all by itself about stuff like race and class if and when it seems like there's a better buck to be made in not fretting it. Some of the first businesses to independently de-segregate in the South were railroads, hauling around two types of passenger car and paying someone to enforce the distinction, was a money-loser long before 1964.
Reply by ●January 29, 20222022-01-29
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:10:04 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:> On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote: > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > >> Tom Gardner wrote: > >>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > >>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, > >>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was > >>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up > >>> to a fixed multiple of their assets. > >>> > >>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then > >>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as > >>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. > >>> > >>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and > >>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, > >>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going > >>> beyond them into the impossible. > >> > >> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in > >> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most > >> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have > >> been a mistake. > >> > >> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of > >> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to > >> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new > >> law, just a misuse of one. > > > > That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm. > > > > When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks. > > > > It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst. > > > > <snipped the rest> > > > The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were > somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.It is absurd. The banks loaned the money because they would not hold the note for more than a few weeks. It would be someone else who actually took the risk. Meanwhile they had met all the requirements so the note could be sold. -- Rick C. -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●January 29, 20222022-01-29
On 1/28/2022 2:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:21:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: >> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much >>>>>>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary. >>>>>>>> Or none that John Larkin can understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as >>>>>>>> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the >>>>>>>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable >>>>>>>> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control, >>>>>>>> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the >>>>>>>> economy has crashed. >>>>>>> "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs. >>>>>> What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity." >>>>> Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism. >>>>> >>>>> Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did. >>>>> >>>>> China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage. >>>>> >>>>> Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult >>>>> >>>>> The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism. >>>> I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US: >>>> >>>> https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income >>> >>> says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth. >> You have to have income to create wealth, Sloman. > Or make good investments. Having a bigger income can make it easier to invest, but not everybody does. > >> Lower income implies lower wealth - where did the large difference come from? > Australia now has universal health care. Unexpected illness used to be a drain on many peoples finances - the 1960's Melbourne poverty survey high-lighted it as the most common event tipping people into poverty. > >>>> while the income tax rates are HIGHER: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28 >>> If you've got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US doesn't have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don't get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth. >> That bullshit says nothing about the unexplained Australian wealth. > Not to you. > > > Much of the US has health insurance thru their employer. And there are other government supplied health insurance plans. > > None of which stop unexpected illness being the most likely cause for an American to fall into bankruptcy. > >>> Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it's gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity. >> More libtard bullshit - you don't have inheritance in OZ? I really doubt it. > Of course we do. It's just that it's not the only way to pay for your education, and because out primary and secondary education systems are funded on a state by state basis, you can get decent education even if you live in an area of low average income. The US system of tiny school districts means that the kids of rich parents grow up going to better-funded schools. > >> Especially if your suspect wealth figures are true (a couple would have nearly half a million dollars to give to their kids). Does the OZ government give you a car or a house? > There is "social housing" - if not enough of it. Nobody gets a free car, but there's quite a lot of public tansport. > >> Income inequality comes from differences in education, training and motivation. > And opportunity, Growing up with rich neighbours generates quite a lot of opportunities. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design > > goes into that. > >> Anyone in the US who can't afford college and doesn't want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition). > If you are fit and healthy enough for the military to let you enlist. And the US has a wide range of educational institutions. John Larkin went to Tulane. > It seems are awfully jealous of John's accomplishments. Why don't you quit trying to denigrate him and do something for yourself that you can be proud of. Readers see your posts and it's always you trying to make yourself look better by climbing on someone else. Just stop. Mikek -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Reply by ●January 29, 20222022-01-29
On 1/29/2022 2:56 PM, Rick C wrote:> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:10:04 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote: >> On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote: >>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>> Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, >>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was >>>>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up >>>>> to a fixed multiple of their assets. >>>>> >>>>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then >>>>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as >>>>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. >>>>> >>>>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and >>>>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, >>>>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going >>>>> beyond them into the impossible. >>>> >>>> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in >>>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most >>>> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have >>>> been a mistake. >>>> >>>> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of >>>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to >>>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new >>>> law, just a misuse of one. >>> >>> That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm. >>> >>> When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks. >>> >>> It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst. >>> >>> <snipped the rest> >>> >> The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were >> somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd. > > It is absurd. The banks loaned the money because they would not hold the note for more than a few weeks. It would be someone else who actually took the risk. Meanwhile they had met all the requirements so the note could be sold. >I'm going to tell the local Lamborghini dealership they need to lease me one at $299/month or they will be violating my civil rights
