EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 423
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 12 2013 04:42 aksfjh wrote: If I'm not mistaken, that greatly hinders their flexibility for reinvestment and compensation. Seems like it would give a bank a competitive advantage in acquiring and keeping personnel, as well as the advantage of innovation. Sounds like a good explanation for why credit unions are so small even with a tax break  | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 12 2013 04:52 sam!zdat wrote: my point about private property is more about derivatives, shareholder value, mutual funds, and things like that. They defeat the whole point of private property because the point of private property is that the owner is there taking care of things, and also taking moral responsibility for it. Stocks let you evade moral responsibility because all you care is that the number goes up, you don't care how it happens. What's the alternative? I only see either foregoing modern technology or creating an even relatively wealthier elite. That's an unreasonable cost for less moral ambiguity in my book. I'd rather just deal with the moral ambiguity. I don't mind gray. Or are you supposing that collective action via government can avoid the moral ambiguity of private collective action? | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 11 2013 22:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I've also heard of people being evicted or homes being demolished because the people there got the house number wrong. Shit can happen no matter what. The difference being that if you destroy my home while I have a title on it I sue you for a new home. With the securitization process the actual title goes missing, so who do I sue? A private partnership registered in the BVI that holds the top 30% of my mortgage tranche? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
I believe in local small busieness and communities. How you think that translates to foregoing technology and wealthier elite (??) is beyond me | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 11 2013 22:57 xDaunt wrote: Good lord. Are we actually going to demonize the very financial instruments that allow people get into homes or easily purchase other high-value assets in the first place? The concept of divisible property rights (the "bundle of sticks") is one of the most important economic developments in history, and one that greatly benefits those without capital. It enables those without capital to do things that they otherwise could not do. Focusing on the debt and the consequences of not paying it is ass-backwards, if not disingenuous. No, obviously different people have different preferences on temporal disposal of their income. The issue that I have is that sometimes financial 'innovation' ends up innovating a property holders right straight into thin air. Not because they abolish it but because they make it almost impossible for an average American to pursue the 'legal owner' of his mortgage. And if that requires that people who get mortgages pay higher interest rates or have a higher down payment, whats wrong with that? Too many people are buying houses who shouldnt -- isnt that the Republican refrain? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:17 Sub40APM wrote: The difference being that if you destroy my home while I have a title on it I sue you for a new home. With the securitization process the actual title goes missing, so who do I sue? A private partnership registered in the BVI that holds the top 30% of my mortgage tranche? I think your lawyer could figure out how to sue (follow the money). I imagine you'd want to go after whoever is running the security. Shouldn't you hold title until you've been foreclosed anyway? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
lawyering is the privatization of citizenship rights. Can't afford to pay a good enough lawyer? You are sub-citizen | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:20 sam!zdat wrote: jonny you don't deal with the moral 'ambiguity' you just ignore it and stare at your spreadsheet. It's the banality of evil. It's fine for you to say you're okay with it, you're the asshole sitting at his desk half a world away. The arrogance. I believe in local small busieness and communities. How you think that translates to foregoing technology and wealthier elite (??) is beyond me You want a world where you can point at an individual and say "he's the bad guy". The world is too complex for that, sorry. Not everything is black and white. Modern technology often requires scale. If you think you can build cars in a small business you know nothing of the technology employed. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:20 Sub40APM wrote: No, obviously different people have different preferences on temporal disposal of their income. The issue that I have is that sometimes financial 'innovation' ends up innovating a property holders right straight into thin air. Not because they abolish it but because they make it almost impossible for an average American to pursue the 'legal owner' of his mortgage. And if that requires that people who get mortgages pay higher interest rates or have a higher down payment, whats wrong with that? Too many people are buying houses who shouldnt -- isnt that the Republican refrain? Who whose fault is it if the borrower goes bankrupt? The lender for offering the loan or the borrower for agreeing to take the loan in the first place? It takes two people to form a contract. What exactly are you advocating? Are you saying that the lender should be prohibited from making the offer in the first place? Stated another way, are you saying that borrowers should have a harder time getting access to capital when they need it? What you're describing isn't a structural problem with the system. It's an intended consequence of taking a risky loan or otherwise failing to sufficiently save income. Put another way, it is the result of the American public becoming financially illiterate over the past couple generations. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On September 12 2013 04:52 sam!zdat wrote: my point about private property is more about derivatives, shareholder value, mutual funds, and things like that. They defeat the whole point of private property because the point of private property is that the owner is there taking care of things, and also taking moral responsibility for it. Stocks let you evade moral responsibility because all you care is that the number goes up, you don't care how it happens. oh so your point is not about private property it's about a certain well-defined set of objects that are considered private property. still an awful stupid argument only caring that the numbers go up is highly irresponsible and more likely than not will lead to the destruction of your property's value. your argument can be made for any piece of property (and still be just as bad) so i don't know why you've backtracked on it let me guess, you got control of some that dirty dirty oil money and got burned in the market so now you're doubly bitter about your disgusting inherited wealth you 1%er | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 12 2013 04:52 sam!zdat wrote: my point about private property is more about derivatives, shareholder value, mutual funds, and things like that. They defeat the whole point of private property because the point of private property is that the owner is there taking care of things, and also taking moral responsibility for it. Stocks let you evade moral responsibility because all you care is that the number goes up, you don't care how it happens. I'm not sure why the "moral responsibility" should matter; it certainly is irrelevant when considering property rights from a legal point of view. I'll have to wait to respond until I get to that part in Das Kapital. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: You want a world where you can point at an individual and say "he's the bad guy". The world is too complex for that, sorry. Not everything is black and white. Modern technology often requires scale. If you think you can build cars in a small business you know nothing of the technology employed. and you want a world where you can BE the bad guy and pretend like you are not, because it is oh so complex fuck cars build me some trains. Yes the gubbamint should do that. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:31 sam!zdat wrote: oh yes, this 'lawyer' that all that money you have allows you to afford lawyering is the privatization of citizenship rights. Can't afford to pay a good enough lawyer? You are sub-citizen Yes, damn the lawyers for helping protect the rights of the citizenry and asking to be paid for it! | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:37 xDaunt wrote: I'm not sure why the "moral responsibility" should matter Mr Plinkett's voice: "whaaaat????" | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:37 sam!zdat wrote: and you want a world where you can BE the bad guy and pretend like you are not, because it is oh so complex fuck cars build me some trains. Yes the gubbamint should do that. No I want a world where I can try to be the good guy and if I end up doing bad I don't find Sam outside with a bible and a bag of rocks ready to exert divine justice. So how is the government going to do away with the moral ambiguity you think arises from collective action? Who will you blame when bad things happen? Just run a bunch of government purges? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:41 xDaunt wrote: Yes, damn the lawyers for helping protect the rights of the citizenry and asking to be paid for it! I'm not blaming lawyers, I'm blaming the society that makes the ability to hire a good lawyer the prerequisite of full citizenship | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:44 sam!zdat wrote: I'm not blaming lawyers, I'm blaming the society that makes the ability to hire a good lawyer the prerequisite of full citizenship So what's the alternative? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 12 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No I want a world where I can try to be the good guy and if I end up doing bad I don't find Sam outside with a bible and a bag of rocks ready to exert divine justice. So how is the government going to do away with the moral ambiguity you think arises from collective action? Who will you blame when bad things happen? Just run a bunch of government purges? don't be ridiculous I want a world where people can see what they are doing rather than have the effects of their actions hidden away behind many layers of mediation. Making things simpler and more local would help do that. Your money is doing a lot of bad things, which if you could see would trouble you, but you don't because we live in an economic system whose guiding philosophy is 'ignorance is bliss'. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
make things simpler and smaller so things are less confusing and you don't need as many lawyers (who are essentially freelance bureaucrats). also make access to a good lawyer a basic right. Ie pay public defenders and etc more, to end the class inequality built into our legal system | ||
| ||
