Pages

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Dink and... Doink

In 2009-2010, politicians (mostly Democratic) went after banks. The CARD act in 2009, Dodd-Frank in 2010, and other laws were passed to restrict various fees and limit interest rates being charged by banks. The obvious result of this was that banks began making a lot less money, particularly in certain areas - for example, banks could no longer charge retailers "swipe fees" for every transaction using their debit cards.

The even more obvious result is that banks, starting with Bank of America, will now charge debit card fees of $5 per month. Whoops!

Here is what inherently bothers me about how people stupidly approach regulations: There is never an end to them. Unless you completely restrict all free choice and eliminate the free market (and there are those who advocate this... as long as it's not for them), there is no way to "control" the market. People and companies do things and create primarily because it is worthwhile for them to do so. As soon as it ceases being worthwhile, they will stop. This is not "evil". This is reality. 

The shortsighted approach people and politicians have when it comes to how regulations impact the economy is mind-boggling. I recently was reading about GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain, and was pointed to video of a 1990s town hall meeting on President Clinton's healthcare plan, where then pizza company CEO Herman Cain challenged the effects of President Clinton's proposed plan on businesses such as his own. While Clinton's handle on the subject was solid, Cain was quite masterful in showing that for most businesses the impact would be quite harsh... and even though Clinton suggested passing that cost on to customers (!), that simply would not be enough, nor would smaller or midsize companies be able to compete long enough with the largest ones in that situation. 

Let's forget for a minute that restricting freedom is wrong. What happens when a rule is made? There is a reaction. And if that reaction does not fit perfectly into the rule-makers' designs? Another rule is made... and this goes on forever, never solving the original problem fully while creating entirely different sets of problems along the way. In the comments to the last post, Vox Populi and I were having another positive and interesting debate, and one of the features was an aside on whether government should support people's post-high school educations. He was of the opinion that we could make college completely free for all, and this would service us better as a country. I strongly disagree for many reasons, and some of these are obvious objections, but for fun, we debated how this would work.

Essentially, what would end up happening in such a scenario (and I'm going to exaggerate on this, don't take it too seriously) is that there would be created a myriad of rules, as the response to every flaw in a rule is simply creating another rule: College education is free, to help people get a leg up in society. But, we don't want people going to school forever and never contributing, so we'll cap it at two degrees. But what if someone's first degrees don't work out or become obsolete? We'd have to make an exception. But then others would take advantage of this exception. Plus, what about people going to medical school? And what if someone is demonstrably better, and getting this third degree would help them contribute more? But that wouldn't be fair to the other person who didn't grow up with some of those advantages. But maybe we shouldn't support people who aren't going to contribute as much? Or maybe we should cap the number of people in each major? Or perhaps we should create a board which determines who should go into what field based on the skill sets they currently have. Also, now that we have X number of X major, but there aren't enough jobs for them, that would be a waste of taxpayer resources, so we should force companies to hire these students. The extra expense could be a tax credit to those businesses, picked up by the taxpayers. ...and so on. Meanwhile, costs would continue to skyrocket with no real value added - certainly not a value worth the cost. 

A good example of value not worth the cost was the "stimulus", and another good one is President Obama's latest jobs proposal. Essentially, he wants to spend about $450 billion dollars, which would hopefully create about 2 million jobs. Essentially, the cost per job created would be $200,000 per job. How is that logical? I'm unemployed - I'll take $100,000, stop collecting unemployment, and government can keep the difference, is that a good deal? I'm betting that 4.5 million unemployed people would take that deal - how would that impact the unemployment rate, you think?

The silly approach of ignoring the consequences of regulations and other approaches within government needs to end. Instead, it's used to vilify individuals and corporations for doing what actually makes sense given the cards they are consistently being dealt by reality and government.

51 comments:

  1. >He was of the opinion that we could make college completely free for all, and this would service us better as a country.

    This reminds me of a video with Milton Friedman

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FCuWrxPg3o&feature=related

    I personally am a bit afraid of a society that gets something (and something big in this instance) for nothing. Whatever good the country may receive (and yes, there would be good things. There are always positives and negatives) would be overshadowed in the long run by a society of entitlement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Socialists will use the available means to create a socialist state. If this entails increasing misery, they increase misery.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A. The thing with the card fees was not necessarily a bug, but a feature.

    B. Re your larger point: Just because you don't want to be tasked with administering it, doesn't mean it's impractical. Securities laws are also really annoying. So is the tax code. It's silly not to regulate securities or not to collect taxes because the rules are going to be complicated. None of the problems you describe seem insurmountable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. B - I think you missed that point. It's not about impractical so much as it's:

    1) Wasteful
    2) Wrong
    3) Takes away liberties and freedoms

    Securities laws ARE annoying, but worse, many of them are horrible and horribly enforced. The SEC is terrible at anything but going after everyone when a scam finally goes bust... and even that they're bad at. (Note: I have seen this directly and personally.) They're not bright, and their regulations add huge costs to companies for little value, while allowing truly bad people to point to their being regulated as proof that they're A-OK. Many, many people are often not very smart about how to invest, which is why they shouldn't do it on their own for the most part. But because they think that it's regulated and therefore safe, they do - and they lose their money to the very people regulations are supposed to protect them from. If there were not these regulations, most of them would simply use trusted firms to manage their money instead of doing it themselves.

    Taxes should be simplified not because it's "hard", but because it's a horrible system that is gamed to support people who support politicians the right way. Why should the IRS employ as many people as it does (over 100K), and why should so many billions of dollars be wasted on tax planning and tax preparation, plus $12.6 billion (with a b) on IRS expenses? The estimate this year was that 6.1 billion hours were spent preparing individual returns this year, and that the tax code is now 3.8 million words long. That's just insane.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >1) Wasteful
    2) Wrong
    3) Takes away liberties and freedoms

    Then these are new arguments. At least in regards to universal post-secondary education, you haven't shown why it's wrong or particularly wasteful. You've identified potential areas of abuse, but again, these aren't particularly hard problems to solve. But then you turn around and say those remedies are also problems because then they make the plan too complicated with regulations, and then we're back to it being wasteful and wrong, whatever that means. So, what do you want, already? And you haven't even touched on how it takes away from liberties and freedoms.

    All the problems you identify with the securities regulations and tax code I (mostly) agree with. But then what? No tax collection? No regulation of securities whatsoever? Obviously not. The correct response is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but to try and regulate as best as possible, knowing full well a legislative utopia does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think these are new - I think I've always been clear that I think all of these are true and primary.

    Universal post-secondary education is as wrong as universal kollel is: It serves little to no utility with huge costs.

    I'm honestly not sure why this is even an issue: Are student loans so overbearing for people? The more expensive the university the higher your likely income, and you can get associate or other degrees for very little.

    My point about even trying to offer it would be that it would turn into an incredible bureaucracy which would ultimately be forced to create regulations and panels which would start choosing majors and professions for people to reduce waste. You can say that's absurd, but look at how other areas of government began vs. where they are now.

    The correct response is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but to try and regulate as best as possible, knowing full well a legislative utopia does not exist.

    No - the response is to have as few regulations structured in the most simplistic format possible and enforce those extremely well, making it prohibitively difficult (and also essentially not worth it) for people to skirt those guidelines.

    For example, taxes: Going to a flat tax would not only get rid of literally tens and tens of billions dollars and billions of hours of waste, but it would also make collection extremely simple and make tax avoidance both difficult and not worthwhile. It's a lot easier for a person to a) self-justify and b) avoid taxes when their combined tax rate is near 50% when there are a million various tax loopholes and clauses and exemptions they can claim. A person with a couple million in income can easily save $50K in taxes by tweaking a few numbers on his return as it stands now. If you're at a 20-25% rate with no exemptions, you'd have to literally hide straight income to save money, and is it really worth it? Deregulation and simplification is all about risk/reward. Lower the reward and raise the risk of being caught, and the skirting goes down.

    I would LOVE to restructure the capital market in one shot: Full transparency. All trading would have to be in the open - i.e. everyone would know who is buying and who is selling at all times. Truthfully we're not far from this, but it has nothing to do with regulations. The problem now is that the onerous and costly regulations that exist now do little to enhance information for investors and do everything to protect people who are good at cooking books. If you want a cleaner, better market then you just demand full transparency and no other regulations.

    The irony is that for all the required reporting that is a waste, any worthwhile company gets their books audited by a trusted accounting firm regardless even if they're privately owned and not required. And I'd be willing to bet that if we did a comparison of valuations and investment structures of privately held companies vs. publicly held ones, we'd find that the privately held ones more accurately match true value of the companies - because being on a "regulated" market encourages people to buy and sell stupidly, something they can't and wouldn't do privately.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >Universal post-secondary education is as wrong as universal kollel is: It serves little to no utility with huge costs.

    Little to no utility? Bluh?

    >Are student loans so overbearing for people?

    Yes! Were you educated by benevolent storks that came to visit you in the middle of the night, tuition-free? Education is expensive!

    >The more expensive the university the higher your likely income,

    I'm sorry. Is your argument that since Harvard Law grads have an okay time of things, then there is no problem in larger society?

    >and you can get associate or other degrees for very little.

    Yeah, those are garbage degrees. As it happens, people get themselves into crippling debt because of garbage degrees too. There are lots of for-profit colleges out there that just get gullible idiots to sign up for loans for garbage degrees. The kids fail out, because the schools are garbage, and they owe the money and don't even have the degree. Then you have the millions of people who go to decent schools but graduate, you know, in a recession. So no income and big debt. Then there are the poor kids with a lot of potential who can't afford to go to college. Not everyone is comfortable borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if it would be a good bet. Then you have the kids with potential who borrow some money, but have to work full time jobs to put themselves through college, and maybe support a family at the same time. And this is everything goes well, and nobody gets suddenly sick or loses their job, so they can stay in school.

    There's a reason states subsidize college, and there's a reason school is cheaper in every other country in the world.

    >You can say that's absurd, but look at how other areas of government began vs. where they are now.

    Listen, anything could happen, but I don't know why your chief argument against something is that this exceedingly odd result would happen. But again:

    A. There's no reason to limit by major. You could limit by time spent in college.

    B. Nothing is stopping you from paying for all the college you want by yourself. Or borrowing the money. This is just how much the state will pay for. By definition, you cannot be in a worse position than you were if you had to pay for it yourself. Because you get all you would get if you paid for it by yourself + what the government is willing to pay for.

    You can't argue both sides of this - first, that the program would be ridiculouly expensive because you couldn't limit the consumption of education - then, that it harms liberty because it limits the consumption of education.

    The consumption of education is already limited - by the fact that people can't afford to pay for whatever they want.

    >No - the response is to have as few regulations structured in the most simplistic format possible and enforce those extremely well,

    No. Why does few regulations = goodness? I think you're just being dogmatic on this point. You regulate what needs to be regulated to the extent it needs to be regulated. Some regulations will need to be more complicated than others, even in an ideal world. Some regulations will be longer because of special interests. For instance much of the confusion and complexity of the tax code and the SEC regs comes from the exemptions that various groups get for themselves. Then you have the complications that are added because of public policy. For example, we've decided to tax non-profits at a different level than profits. Whether this is a good idea or not, it's a legitimate idea.

    Who are child-like regulations supposed to benefit? It's not like average joes are just going to go around making securities offerings.

    >full transparency

    That's pretty much what the Securities Act does.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The even more obvious result is that banks, starting with Bank of America, will now charge debit card fees of $5 per month. Whoops!

    Why is this a whoops? Whereas previously banks were charging fees that they (correctly) hoped many of their customers wouldn't notice, now they have to charge fees that are obvious to the customer. That levels the playing field and the customers can choose whether $5 per month is worth it to them rather than having to go over their statements with a fine-toothed comb every month to look for how BOA is trying to screw them this time.

    Here is what inherently bothers me about how people stupidly approach regulations: There is never an end to them.

    Of course not. It's an arms race of sorts. That's what caused the latest meltdown -- the regulations had lagged too far behind the industry's innovations on how to get around the spirit of the laws.

    People and companies do things and create primarily because it is worthwhile for them to do so. As soon as it ceases being worthwhile, they will stop. This is not "evil". This is reality.

    It's evil if "worthwhile" means "profitable" no matter who we screw over or what the long term causes are. The whole function of regulations is to make those things "not worthwhile" for the exploiters.

    You also need to look at the costs of not regulating when comparing them to the costs of regulating. Anything else is dishonest.

    Essentially, he wants to spend about $450 billion dollars, which would hopefully create about 2 million jobs. Essentially, the cost per job created would be $200,000 per job. How is that logical?

    See I don't understand this kind of argument. You're not an idiot. You realize that the money is going towards things like schools and infrastructure that have value, no? And that some of it is going to tax cuts, right? He's not just lighting most of the money on fire and giving the rest out as salaries. So are you stupid or are you just pretending to be stupid?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Are student loans so overbearing for people?

    Out of touch much?

    ReplyDelete
  10. >Out of touch much?

    For every student that too out a loan, and went to college, I would simply tell them:

    "Your welcome"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Love that compassionate conservatism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >Love that compassionate conservatism.

    This is true compassion JA. Not the false compassion that allows you to feel good about yourself. Did these students GET the education? Yes. Were they able to pay for it on their own? No. Were they able to get family to pay? No. So they got a loan. It is their moral obligation to pay off their debt. Nobody forced them to get it the first place. It is true compassion that requires people to take responsibility for their actions. Yes....I said it. The "R" word.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Right, because the reason people are struggling with paying back their loans is insufficient responsibility. *eyeroll*

    It's not compassionate to pretend that everybody struggling is just too lazy or irresponsible to succeed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. >It's evil if "worthwhile" means "profitable" no matter who we screw over or what the long term causes are.

    What you mean is, it's evil if its profitable. Period. The people that get screwed (as you say), are by definition anyone that doesn't have a piece of that pie. It's not that they were ACTUALLY screwed by people making a profit.

    I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday. His guest was one of the members that were pushing the Occupy LA rally. His simple question to Michael was: Do you not see anything morally abhorrent with someone making millions of dollars while someone else does not have anything?

    I applauded this guest because at least, he was truly honest at what bothers the left.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What you mean is, it's evil if its profitable. Period. The people that get screwed (as you say), are by definition anyone that doesn't have a piece of that pie. It's not that they were ACTUALLY screwed by people making a profit.

    Please don't put words in my mouth. Profit is great. Profit while socializing the risks, which is what caused the recent crash, is exploitative. The banks got richer and the country got screwed.

    Do you not see anything morally abhorrent with someone making millions of dollars while someone else does not have anything?

    I think it would be abhorrent if those making millions didn't have to help those with nothing, yes. So does the Torah you claim to believe in, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey what happened to my awesome response to Ezzie last night? It was there after I posted it, and now it's gone. Ah, lame. Anyway, trust me, I totally won the argument.

    For your amusement, did you know there's a Communist Party of Canada? Their platform is actually less crazy than Hyrax's Lloyd's.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Canada

    ReplyDelete
  17. >Please don't put words in my mouth.

    Well yes, I did put words in your mouth because that is what is really meant. That is why the Occupy rallies are happening. By definition any large profit is going to be definition somehow exploit someone that should be getting some of that pie.

    >I think it would be abhorrent if those making millions didn't have to help those with nothing, yes. So does the Torah you claim to believe in, of course.

    Who said they aren't helping?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let me elaborate on that a bit more. To the left, large profits by definition in its essence is exploitive. It HAS to have that component in there. It's an axium. It's the whole proletariat vs bourgeoisie issue.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well yes, I did put words in your mouth because that is what is really meant. That is why the Occupy rallies are happening.

    First, I've never even been to one of the rallies, so I don't see why you'd put them in my mouth even if that's what they believe, which it isn't, probably.

    By definition any large profit is going to be definition somehow exploit someone that should be getting some of that pie.

    Well, it's probably true that once you get up to the astronomical level you are probably exploiting others to make that much. Not necessarily -- you might really be that valuable -- but probably usually.

    Have you seen the comparisons of relative CEO pay in the U.S. vs. the rest of the world? Why do you think that disparity exists?

    Let me elaborate on that a bit more. To the left, large profits by definition in its essence is exploitive. It HAS to have that component in there. It's an axium. It's the whole proletariat vs bourgeoisie issue.

    I wouldn't say HAS to, but probably usually, when we're talking about a million+ per year.

    ReplyDelete
  20. >Have you seen the comparisons of relative CEO pay in the U.S. vs. the rest of the world? Why do you think that disparity exists?

    Therefore what? If their shareholders see a value to this CEO, and they can afford it, why should I care if this CEO makes more than the rest of the world. The fact that we can make so many utter successful people is a positive thing for this country, not a negative. Do I really want the government behind the barrels of their guns stating what is allowed and what is not allowed?

    ReplyDelete
  21. >I wouldn't say HAS to, but probably usually, when we're talking about a million+ per year.

    Usually? I would say then it usually there is exploitation from everyone. Including the middle class. Whether Unions, or even regular people finding ways to screw the system for their own benefits. My short life, and many jobs has led me to see this first hand.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Therefore what? If their shareholders see a value to this CEO, and they can afford it, why should I care if this CEO makes more than the rest of the world.

    It should make you realize there's an underlying problem.

    The fact that we can make so many utter successful people is a positive thing for this country, not a negative.

    The problem is the bottom 90% of the country hasn't seen their real incomes go up in half a century. A few people at the top being "utterly successful" doesn't help them at all.

    Do I really want the government behind the barrels of their guns stating what is allowed and what is not allowed?

    Get out of here with that "barrels of their guns" drama queen stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  23. >It should make you realize there's an underlying problem.

    No, what is the problem exactly? That we are a more successful nation that private companies that have the freedom to pay what they deem right? Or is the rest of the world less greedy?

    >The problem is the bottom 90% of the country hasn't seen their real incomes go up in half a century.

    Therefor private companies can't pay what they want? Hey, I get payed $20/hr, but that is my problem. It's my problem that I don't put more individual effort to do XYZ to make more money. That has no barring on executives at Apple from deciding what to pay their executives.

    See, there is a core difference here which is the REAL issue. Everything is just idle chat. I believe this country was founded on the notion of the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it guarantee anything. It's the beauty of the system. The Left resents wealth because by definition, not everyone can have it, it's not equal, therefore you have to redistribute it. Wealth must exist by exploiting the proletariat. Now, therefore, we start talking about greed and CEO's getting payed too much. It's unfair. The Left would prefer to eliminate liberty in its quest for equality of result. Get the government involved

    As George Will wrote:

    "[government]is instituted to facilitate individual striving, a.k.a. the pursuit of happiness."


    >Get out of here with that "barrels of their guns" drama queen stuff.

    It's not drama. Afterall, the left has demands to fix society and make it more equal by using government to facilitate those demands. The government uses their guns to enforce their demands.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In essence, you are saying the same thing Marty Kaplan did here in the LA Jewish Journal

    "...the surging number of American children living in poverty; the gap between the rich and the rest growing so extreme that the U.S. is now the 42nd most unequal country in the world, below Cameroon and the Ivory Coast, and only just above Uganda and Jamaica. "

    http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/how_did_this_happen_to_america_20110906/


    A letter to the editor had me almost clapping:

    "Criticizing America, Marty Kaplan writes: “[T]he gap between the rich and the rest [is] growing so extreme that the U.S. is now the 42nd most unequal country in the world, below Cameroon and the Ivory Coast, and only just above Uganda and Jamaica.” This is the most misleading and irrelevant statistic to the success of a country and the well-being of its citizens that I can imagine. In America, the “poor” have it better than most people in the world. Furthermore, the reason the gap between the rich and the poor is so high in America is because there are so many rich and successful people! But this is a problem for Mr. Kaplan, who would rather us be more like Cameroon, the Ivory Coast, Kosovo, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Egypt and Kenya — all countries ahead of America in income distribution equality because everyone is poor!"

    Sammy Levine
    via e-mail

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm not advocating wage ceilings, HH. I'm for progressive taxation and social spending and regulations that prevent the worst harms of a completely free market.

    Do you really still believe that Wall Street has done nothing wrong? That getting "too big to fail" and gambling the entire U.S. economy on CDSs and all the other tricks they were doing is something that we as a society should just allow them to do again?

    ReplyDelete
  26. >and social spending

    And you don't think that any social spending has played any role in the situation we are in?


    >That getting "too big to fail" and gambling the entire U.S. economy on CDSs and all the other tricks they were doing is something that we as a society should just allow them to do again?

    Of course they have done harm, but so did people knowingly taking loans they could not pay and paying that just decided to default on their loans even though they can afford it. I was against the whole bailout. They should have faced the consequences to their actions as any business would. But the whole Occupy Wall St. goes deeper than the real-estate bubble. They are simply against rich in general and corporations in general. I don't even think they know what they want. It's just a bunch of emotion laced tirades.

    >and regulations that prevent the worst harms of a completely free market.

    We have never had a completely free market. The market was regulated before. Remember the "Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight?" That was there to regulate Fannie and Freddie. So how can you come out against a totally free market when we don't have one and didn't have one before this mess?

    ReplyDelete
  27. btw, wasn't most of the money from TARP payed back....with interest?

    ReplyDelete
  28. btw, the other side of this would have been more unemployed if all those banks had to shut their doors.

    ReplyDelete
  29. And you don't think that any social spending has played any role in the situation we are in?

    It wouldn't have been an issue without the Bush tax cuts and wars.

    Of course they have done harm, but so did people knowingly taking loans they could not pay and paying that just decided to default on their loans even though they can afford it.

    Outside of your own assumptions, do you have any reason to believe that a significant number of such people even exist?

    I was against the whole bailout. They should have faced the consequences to their actions as any business would.

    We would have all faced the consequences, unfortunately. We should have tied regulations to the bailouts.

    But the whole Occupy Wall St. goes deeper than the real-estate bubble. They are simply against rich in general and corporations in general. I don't even think they know what they want. It's just a bunch of emotion laced tirades.

    I submit YOU have no idea what they want. That's because you're more interested in assuming the worst and strawmanning than genuinely trying to understand.

    We have never had a completely free market. The market was regulated before. Remember the "Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight?" That was there to regulate Fannie and Freddie. So how can you come out against a totally free market when we don't have one and didn't have one before this mess?

    The market was "too free" in some of the worst ways. That's what caused the problem.

    btw, the other side of this would have been more unemployed if all those banks had to shut their doors.

    You're the one who opposed the bailouts, not me. I'm not advocating shutting down the banks, just regulations that prevent them from effectively gambling the economy for their own profits.

    ReplyDelete
  30. >It wouldn't have been an issue without the Bush tax cuts and wars.

    Admittadly, I don't know much about the tax cuts, and I wager the wars havn't done the ill that the left professes. But you see the same problems in other nations that have been spending like mad and now finally realizing they have to tighten their belts. No Bush tax cuts there, no wars either.

    At what point does social spending stop??? Every time some new group comes up with a new social service that they claim is a human right and the public has to pay for. When does it stop?

    >Outside of your own assumptions, do you have any reason to believe that a significant number of such people even exist?

    How did those loans default, other than people not being able to pay them? I mean, when you take a large sum, ordinarily, you would need to have a plan to pay it off. AND, I know several people that simply decided to stop paying for the fact that their property is not worth what it was before. So they stopped paying. It's a little common sense here.

    >I submit YOU have no idea what they want. That's because you're more interested in assuming the worst and strawmanning than genuinely trying to understand.

    Assume the worst? What worst? They are simply anti-rich, anti- corporate and pro wealth distribution. And I would suspect many many people are simply like this:

    http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/10/07/some-‘occupy-sacramento’-protesters-lash-out-at-questions/

    Have you gone to their websites? There is nothing concrete about any solid demand other than usual rants. Check out the forums.

    >The market was "too free" in some of the worst ways. That's what caused the problem.

    That's a very nebulous comment. It doesn't mean anything. Thats sort of sounding like the no-true-scottsman fallacy.

    Regulations existed. Why weren't they doing their jobs to make sure bad loans weren't being sold.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I've been enjoying reading this; will try to pipe in soon.

    Separately for Vox, an interesting piece by George Will on the topic you were discussing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/electoral-college-reform-and-tilting-the-presidential-balance/2011/10/07/gIQAluwzTL_story.html

    ReplyDelete
  32. JA - There's so much stuff here! Argh.

    Let's start with one at a time?

    Student loans - I don't understand. If someone is unemployed - they can defer their loans. If they are suffering from hardship - same. I have loans, I've been unemployed for 2 of the last 3.5 years. I deferred the first time, this time I decided to keep paying. I don't understand this idea that people feel they shouldn't have to pay back their student loans, it's absurd. No medical student I know or law student I know thinks that their loans should be chucked; why is it different for these people?

    The whole purpose of taking out a loan is because you think it will advance your future earnings. If you took out a loan to get a bogus degree in a field no jobs exist for, that's your own fault. If it was for a field that is suffering now, that sucks - but that's life. We all make decisions and some of them don't turn out awesome, and we suffer the consequences.

    Irony of it all? If government weren't involved in these loans, nobody would be upset. It's only because people felt entitled to these loans which are supposed to be "easy" to repay that this has become an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  33. >but that's life.

    But Ezzie....

    It's not FAIR!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. check this out.

    http://the53.tumblr.com/

    ReplyDelete
  35. Student loans - I don't understand. If someone is unemployed - they can defer their loans. If they are suffering from hardship - same. I have loans, I've been unemployed for 2 of the last 3.5 years. I deferred the first time, this time I decided to keep paying. I don't understand this idea that people feel they shouldn't have to pay back their student loans, it's absurd. No medical student I know or law student I know thinks that their loans should be chucked; why is it different for these people?

    I wasn't saying loans should be chucked! I was just commenting on the fact that you didn't get how loans can be "overbearing" for some people. Yes, if you're temporarily unemployed between upper/upper-middle class jobs, you can temporarily defer and then be fine, but if the only work you can find is lower-paying, loans can make it tough to keep up, let alone get ahead.

    Irony of it all? If government weren't involved in these loans, nobody would be upset. It's only because people felt entitled to these loans which are supposed to be "easy" to repay that this has become an issue.

    I think the issue is that the cost of college has skyrocketed while the value of a college degree has stagnated or declined. Also, for some reason, it's now extremely hard or impossible (I'm not sure) to discharge student loans through bankruptcy, unlike every other kind of loan.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Admittadly, I don't know much about the tax cuts, and I wager the wars havn't done the ill that the left professes.

    Look it up, smart guy. The numbers are public.

    But you see the same problems in other nations that have been spending like mad and now finally realizing they have to tighten their belts. No Bush tax cuts there, no wars either.

    The issue is the economy tanking, not spending.

    At what point does social spending stop??? Every time some new group comes up with a new social service that they claim is a human right and the public has to pay for. When does it stop?

    It's always a tradeoff.

    How did those loans default, other than people not being able to pay them? I mean, when you take a large sum, ordinarily, you would need to have a plan to pay it off. AND, I know several people that simply decided to stop paying for the fact that their property is not worth what it was before. So they stopped paying. It's a little common sense here.

    You're shifting the goalposts here. Originally you claimed people "knowingly [took] loans they could not pay."

    Assume the worst? What worst? They are simply anti-rich, anti- corporate and pro wealth distribution... Have you gone to their websites? There is nothing concrete about any solid demand other than usual rants. Check out the forums.

    It's a big, complicated problem that they're against. There is no single, simple demand that could be made. Basically, they're upset that Big Money controls government and has screwed up the economy for the rest of us while simultaneously shipping jobs overseas.

    Regulations existed. Why weren't they doing their jobs to make sure bad loans weren't being sold.

    They didn't keep up with innovation because the government wasn't interested in keeping up, in large part due to Republican beliefs that regulations are always bad and that the financial sector can regulate itself.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I wasn't saying loans should be chucked! I was just commenting on the fact that you didn't get how loans can be "overbearing" for some people. Yes, if you're temporarily unemployed between upper/upper-middle class jobs, you can temporarily defer and then be fine, but if the only work you can find is lower-paying, loans can make it tough to keep up, let alone get ahead.

    OK, and that's how it goes. I'm not sure why that's considered overbearing. Any loans are overbearing if you don't get the income needed to pay them off. My car loan is "overbearing" since I'm unemployed, and my credit cards are, too. But that doesn't make me claim they should be forgiven, that's ludicrous! We have about $25K in student loans, and much higher expenses than most people (between kids, daycare, school, kosher food, Jewish neighborhood, etc.). I don't find the $150 or so a month "unbearable" on my $25K in loans, which according to the data is average ($23-24.5K).

    I'd love to analyze 100 average OccupyWallSt. members complaining about this to see what they spend on and what their degrees were in, what jobs they've pursued, etc. My friends coming out of law school have much greater debt and really bad prospects at the moment, but they aren't saying their debts should be forgiven.

    I think the issue is that the cost of college has skyrocketed while the value of a college degree has stagnated or declined. Also, for some reason, it's now extremely hard or impossible (I'm not sure) to discharge student loans through bankruptcy, unlike every other kind of loan.

    Blame the government for the latter. That was pushed as a protection when government expanded the ability and amounts for student loans. This is actually a perfect example of how government involvement caused greater problems: Because they wanted to make college education more accessible to all, they made loans easier to get. More people attending college made college degrees much less valuable - instead of being a dedicated individual who clearly has a large stake in their future, everyone just goes and studies whatever. Meanwhile, the government guarantees the loans, but obviously if those could get discharged in bankruptcy the first thing anyone would do is live it up in college, then declare bankruptcy - so they had to add a regulation.

    So now, people who really work hard enter the workforce with far more seemingly equal competition, because everyone has a degree; if they struggle for a number of years, they can't declare bankruptcy to start over, because the debt won't go away.

    All these bad moves just compound on one another because you can't give things out for free and expect it to work out positively, yet government seems to think you can. It's just stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  38. >The issue is the economy tanking, not spending.

    Right, and big part of that problem isssssss......


    >It's always a tradeoff.

    What exactly is a being traded then?

    >It's a big, complicated problem that they're against. There is no single, simple demand that could be made. Basically, they're upset that Big Money controls government and has screwed up the economy for the rest of us while simultaneously shipping jobs overseas.

    No, its not complicated. These are people of the left. They are anti wealth when they don't have it. It's not fair. Wealth has to be distributed whether one earned it or not. All this talk of Corporate greed is bullshit. Corporations are there to make money, but they don't like it.....because they don't have any of it.

    Remember, simply put, Left=Equality of Result. Everything stems from that.

    BTW- Don't confuse this with Liberals. Not every liberal is a leftist.

    >You're shifting the goalposts here. Originally you claimed people "knowingly [took] loans they could not pay."

    Didn't shift anything. I said both types of people exist.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I would love for someone to take a picture of all the nerve centers in the Occupy rallies that are full of computers, cameras, etc. OR, how about the bins they have outside, so people can listen to cd's or read books.

    All of these are created by greedy corporations with their only incentive to make money, with executives making millions. They just don't want to understand that even a corporation has the right or should have the right to run a business, and make goods that eventually............even these anti-corporations can use.

    But they can't understand that because they are so fixated on the fact that others owe them something. Entitlement is the disease of the left.

    http://the53.tumblr.com/


    I just hope these protests last a long long time. The more they are out there, the better it is for conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  40. BTW- Don't confuse this with Liberals. Not every liberal is a leftist.

    LOL, No True Strawman?

    ReplyDelete
  41. >LOL, No True Strawman?

    I'm helping you here shmuko. I recognize that being liberal does not making you a leftist. But most , if not all leftists , are liberals.

    I do believe there is a distinction, even though it does get harder to tell them apart many times.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Re George Will,

    He was making sense until he started disagreeing with me.

    But in all seriousness, he misses the basic issue at the root of both problems. That the electoral college is a screwy way to elect an active head of state. It just is. It's incredibly open to manipulation, hence the Penn. plan. It prizes arbitrary geographic boundaries over the votes of actual people. And on and on.

    His first mistake is equating the National Popular Vote plan with the Penn. plan. He assumes they're both essentially partisan tactics, and he attempts to refute them by demonstrating they could backfire for Democrats and Republicans, respectively. But the NPV has nothing to do with the Democratic party. Of course it's possible that Republicans will win the popular vote, it happens very frequently! But Republicans know that it's impossible that Democrats will win every district in PA. The NPV is designed to benefit democracy, the Penn. plan is designed to benefit the GOP.

    For instance this --

    >Deep-blue California supports the compact. But if it had existed in 2004, the state’s electoral votes would have gone to George W. Bush, even though 1.2 million more Californians favored John Kerry.

    -- is deeply stupid. He makes it sound like John Kerry won the election. After George Bush wins the popular vote (and the electoral college vote) it doesn't matter if California's votes "officially" get put in Bush's column. There's a principle here. In terms of elections, at least, majority rules.

    >Supporters of the compact say they favor direct popular election of presidents. But that exists — within each state.

    Also stupid. "Supporters of multi-party systems in China say they favor direct popular election of representatives. But that exists - you get to vote for whatever approved Communist you want." It's not a direct popular vote if the guy with less votes win, or if my votes are not direct, or if my votes are worth less than someone else's. Were it not for the fact that it's in the constitution, it would have to be struck down on equal protection grounds.

    >The Framers, not being simple, did not subordinate all values to simple majority rule.

    Eyeroll.

    >The electoral vote system shapes the character of presidential majorities, making it unlikely they will be geographically or ideologically narrow...ones suited to moderate, consensual governance of a heterogeneous, continental nation with myriad regional and other diversities.

    Wait - I was under the impression George Will was an American. Is he describing Canada's electoral system?

    Our majorities are incredibly narrow - not even majorities at all! How is Bush losing the pop. vote in 2000 evidence of a larger, wider coalition than Al Gore's? And how would requiring George Bush win the pop. vote in 2004 - which he did - make his coalition smaller? And if Kerry had gotten 40,000 more Ohio votes, would his coalition have been wider than Bush's, because he won the EC vote? It's asinine.

    ReplyDelete
  43. VP - I said it was interesting, didn't say I agreed. I liked his earlier points, but his final ones didn't make sense, particularly the line that we have majority rule within each state. I do think that the idea that the candidates are forced to have a broader group is a wise one, which was what I was trying to say earlier - that said, I don't know a good way to go about doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. >that said, I don't know a good way to go about doing it.

    I do. Popular vote. If you've got more than 50%, how narrow can it be?

    ReplyDelete
  45. You restricting to majority winners only?

    ReplyDelete
  46. >I do. Popular vote. If you've got more than 50%, how narrow can it be?

    What do you mean? By definition, if you a majority of voters, nobody has a bigger coalition than you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. If it's pure popular vote, you'll likely see a third party have a much better shot. So if it's 45-40-15, do you still think that's good enough?

    ReplyDelete
  48. >So if it's 45-40-15, do you still think that's good enough?

    Hey, if I ran the zoo, we wouldn't even have a President. We'd just have a single Parliament.

    But since we're doing this, majority > minority. Who else do you give the job too? The 40% guy because he managed to win more votes within arbitrary geographic boundaries?

    ReplyDelete