|
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. |
United States42691 Posts
On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned.
The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her.
You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me.
|
On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned.
Think this is the first time I've seen you express such support for Trump. You may frame it as just a decision that the alternative is terrible, but you have to consider the risk of having such a feeble minded person in the White House.
|
On July 06 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:12 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Logo - he is right. There are entire cities full of people that know nothing about finance. That isn’t their fault. We destroyed home economics courses long ago because our parents thought they knew better. I think the other thing that bears mentioning on the home ec courses is that the bar of required financial sophistication is far higher now than it used to be. Credit cards and other easy forms of credit completely changed the game. We're way past the simple balancing of a checkbook -- albeit the concept behind that particular skill is still the key to getting good credit and having as many financial tools as possible as your disposal. That is the problem. Our education system did not keep up with the complexity of systems we created. And at the same time we deregulated many of the companies running those systems. You can't just go to your local bank and ask to start a retirement fund with any confidence. So people just ignore he hall of mirrors and hope they can make due without. I'd imagine the recession also did a lot of damage to trust in financial services (I can find sources saying it's low or that it's declined, but nothing like a year over year chart) which probably hurts people's desire to participate in the system until they are dragged into it. The closest your grandparent's generation would have come to modern credit debt are the tales their grandparents would have told them about company scrip. Credit is a game changer and, just like the company store, the system has incentives that could not be more opposed to that of the participant. I don't understand why you need home economics courses to understand that money spent on credit is money owed. You have to be pretty stupid to not understand that, or is there an American cultural issue I am missing? Pension funds and investments are fairly complicated though. Come to America and you'll see. You're starting with an assumption that you don't buy things on credit if you have cash. That's not valid here. Revolving credit has been normalized in a very weird way and interest rates are viewed as less important than monthly payment amounts. It's hard to really explain, coming from the UK to the US. You don't buy cars in the US. You go to the weird megachurch car temple place and you tell them how much you can afford monthly. Then they tell you the biggest truck you can get for that (a Ford F150 costing the median annual salary pre-tax) and give you a shovel of popcorn, a giant soda and you watch a cinema screen of aspirational truck stuff. The good news is that there are no payments to make for 48 months and it's interest free for 72 months. Then three years later you go back and trade it in for a new one. The old truck is the down payment on the new truck and the balance owed on the old truck (which is all the balance) is rolled in to a greater debt in the new truck. "Normal" in the US is very much not normal. Interest isn't really understood. It's normal to be making payments, if the payments are affordable then you're fine, it's only if they're unaffordable that you're irresponsible. I've been in the US for 3 years and I have over 20 credit cards and access to $100,000 or so of credit without giving them any real indication that I can be trusted with that kind of thing. It's a really weird country. But people base their expectations on what they see around them. If they see people around them doing things then the things must be okay. My mind is blown. I can understand the free food and drink, but who would waste their time watching a movie/advert? There's a similar thing in the UK called PCP, but you have to pay a deposit and monthly payments. Then you can choose to stop payment, buy the car outright with the remaining money owed or trade the depreciated value of the car for a new car. Sometimes if you choose to buy the car outright, you will end up paying less than the listed price.
On July 06 2017 04:41 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:12 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Logo - he is right. There are entire cities full of people that know nothing about finance. That isn’t their fault. We destroyed home economics courses long ago because our parents thought they knew better. I think the other thing that bears mentioning on the home ec courses is that the bar of required financial sophistication is far higher now than it used to be. Credit cards and other easy forms of credit completely changed the game. We're way past the simple balancing of a checkbook -- albeit the concept behind that particular skill is still the key to getting good credit and having as many financial tools as possible as your disposal. That is the problem. Our education system did not keep up with the complexity of systems we created. And at the same time we deregulated many of the companies running those systems. You can't just go to your local bank and ask to start a retirement fund with any confidence. So people just ignore he hall of mirrors and hope they can make due without. I'd imagine the recession also did a lot of damage to trust in financial services (I can find sources saying it's low or that it's declined, but nothing like a year over year chart) which probably hurts people's desire to participate in the system until they are dragged into it. The closest your grandparent's generation would have come to modern credit debt are the tales their grandparents would have told them about company scrip. Credit is a game changer and, just like the company store, the system has incentives that could not be more opposed to that of the participant. I don't understand why you need home economics courses to understand that money spent on credit is money owed. You have to be pretty stupid to not understand that, or is there an American cultural issue I am missing? Pension funds and investments are fairly complicated though. You need to know how to build and maintain credit if you ever want to own a house (unless you're rich enough to pay all cash). So you need to know how to participate in that system to build credit. But then you get hit with medical expenses or other unpredictable expense while struggling to stay ahead in your budget and take on debt you can't just immediately pay off and are further dragged into the system. Or like even if you're just impulsive/bad at money management you can't just opt to not engage in the credit system to protect yourself if you want to own a house so you have to do something that's risky (for you).
Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes.
|
On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned.
I dispute the claim that trump was the best republican candidate. I'd also ask whether you mean in terms of winning chances, or ability to do the job of the office.
|
On July 06 2017 04:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:12 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Logo - he is right. There are entire cities full of people that know nothing about finance. That isn’t their fault. We destroyed home economics courses long ago because our parents thought they knew better. I think the other thing that bears mentioning on the home ec courses is that the bar of required financial sophistication is far higher now than it used to be. Credit cards and other easy forms of credit completely changed the game. We're way past the simple balancing of a checkbook -- albeit the concept behind that particular skill is still the key to getting good credit and having as many financial tools as possible as your disposal. That is the problem. Our education system did not keep up with the complexity of systems we created. And at the same time we deregulated many of the companies running those systems. You can't just go to your local bank and ask to start a retirement fund with any confidence. So people just ignore he hall of mirrors and hope they can make due without. I'd imagine the recession also did a lot of damage to trust in financial services (I can find sources saying it's low or that it's declined, but nothing like a year over year chart) which probably hurts people's desire to participate in the system until they are dragged into it. The closest your grandparent's generation would have come to modern credit debt are the tales their grandparents would have told them about company scrip. Credit is a game changer and, just like the company store, the system has incentives that could not be more opposed to that of the participant. I don't understand why you need home economics courses to understand that money spent on credit is money owed. You have to be pretty stupid to not understand that, or is there an American cultural issue I am missing? Pension funds and investments are fairly complicated though. Rampant, unrestrained consumerism. People love to spend money that they don't have on things that they want. There's not enough self-control to delay the desire for immediate gratification.
The funny thing is if people stopped spending on frivelous shit we'd go through another crisis.
|
On July 06 2017 04:58 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. Think this is the first time I've seen you express such support for Trump. You may frame it as just a decision that the alternative is terrible, but you have to consider the risk of having such a feeble minded person in the White House.
Therein lies the rub for me personally. I'm all ears if you want to get into all the problems Hillary exhibited as a candidate, but you can't just look at her in a vacuum, which some seem perfectly happy to do. I find it very hard to believe that, despite Trump's gross incompetence, Hillary is somehow worth spite voting against. If you want to vote against her on the basis of corruption, Trump beats her in a game of top trumps all day long. Even now he personally enriches himself by operating out of his personal golf clubs, and charging people a mint to have private meetings with him. Hillary at least has a history of being a hard working public servant, and knows how to play the game so she can get some results. Trump has been a lame duck since pretty much day 1.
|
On July 06 2017 05:04 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:12 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Logo - he is right. There are entire cities full of people that know nothing about finance. That isn’t their fault. We destroyed home economics courses long ago because our parents thought they knew better. I think the other thing that bears mentioning on the home ec courses is that the bar of required financial sophistication is far higher now than it used to be. Credit cards and other easy forms of credit completely changed the game. We're way past the simple balancing of a checkbook -- albeit the concept behind that particular skill is still the key to getting good credit and having as many financial tools as possible as your disposal. That is the problem. Our education system did not keep up with the complexity of systems we created. And at the same time we deregulated many of the companies running those systems. You can't just go to your local bank and ask to start a retirement fund with any confidence. So people just ignore he hall of mirrors and hope they can make due without. I'd imagine the recession also did a lot of damage to trust in financial services (I can find sources saying it's low or that it's declined, but nothing like a year over year chart) which probably hurts people's desire to participate in the system until they are dragged into it. The closest your grandparent's generation would have come to modern credit debt are the tales their grandparents would have told them about company scrip. Credit is a game changer and, just like the company store, the system has incentives that could not be more opposed to that of the participant. I don't understand why you need home economics courses to understand that money spent on credit is money owed. You have to be pretty stupid to not understand that, or is there an American cultural issue I am missing? Pension funds and investments are fairly complicated though. Rampant, unrestrained consumerism. People love to spend money that they don't have on things that they want. There's not enough self-control to delay the desire for immediate gratification. The funny thing is if people stopped spending on frivelous shit we'd go through another crisis.
The retail industry is slowing shitting itself as people go to Amazon and then realize that Amazon is filled with garbage. It is losing more jobs monthly than the entire coal industry.
|
United States42691 Posts
On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:12 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Logo - he is right. There are entire cities full of people that know nothing about finance. That isn’t their fault. We destroyed home economics courses long ago because our parents thought they knew better. I think the other thing that bears mentioning on the home ec courses is that the bar of required financial sophistication is far higher now than it used to be. Credit cards and other easy forms of credit completely changed the game. We're way past the simple balancing of a checkbook -- albeit the concept behind that particular skill is still the key to getting good credit and having as many financial tools as possible as your disposal. That is the problem. Our education system did not keep up with the complexity of systems we created. And at the same time we deregulated many of the companies running those systems. You can't just go to your local bank and ask to start a retirement fund with any confidence. So people just ignore he hall of mirrors and hope they can make due without. I'd imagine the recession also did a lot of damage to trust in financial services (I can find sources saying it's low or that it's declined, but nothing like a year over year chart) which probably hurts people's desire to participate in the system until they are dragged into it. The closest your grandparent's generation would have come to modern credit debt are the tales their grandparents would have told them about company scrip. Credit is a game changer and, just like the company store, the system has incentives that could not be more opposed to that of the participant. I don't understand why you need home economics courses to understand that money spent on credit is money owed. You have to be pretty stupid to not understand that, or is there an American cultural issue I am missing? Pension funds and investments are fairly complicated though. Come to America and you'll see. You're starting with an assumption that you don't buy things on credit if you have cash. That's not valid here. Revolving credit has been normalized in a very weird way and interest rates are viewed as less important than monthly payment amounts. It's hard to really explain, coming from the UK to the US. You don't buy cars in the US. You go to the weird megachurch car temple place and you tell them how much you can afford monthly. Then they tell you the biggest truck you can get for that (a Ford F150 costing the median annual salary pre-tax) and give you a shovel of popcorn, a giant soda and you watch a cinema screen of aspirational truck stuff. The good news is that there are no payments to make for 48 months and it's interest free for 72 months. Then three years later you go back and trade it in for a new one. The old truck is the down payment on the new truck and the balance owed on the old truck (which is all the balance) is rolled in to a greater debt in the new truck. "Normal" in the US is very much not normal. Interest isn't really understood. It's normal to be making payments, if the payments are affordable then you're fine, it's only if they're unaffordable that you're irresponsible. I've been in the US for 3 years and I have over 20 credit cards and access to $100,000 or so of credit without giving them any real indication that I can be trusted with that kind of thing. It's a really weird country. But people base their expectations on what they see around them. If they see people around them doing things then the things must be okay. My mind is blown. I can understand the free food and drink, but who would waste their time watching a movie/advert? There's a similar thing in the UK called PCP, but you have to pay a deposit and monthly payments. Then you can choose to stop payment, buy the car outright with the remaining money owed or trade the depreciated value of the car for a new car. Sometimes if you choose to buy the car outright, you will end up paying less than the listed price.
The bizarre thing is that total price and interest rate simply aren't part of the conversation when making large purchases anymore. What it costs, both the principal and the total amount you will pay if you finance it, just aren't viewed as important information. The important information in order of importance
1) Duration of promotional no payments period
2) Down payment required (often no down payment)
3) Amount of each payment
4) Amount of cash back they give you (this one will amaze you, so some of the time when you finance shit they actually give you a cash payment, so if you can't afford your rent then it may seem rational to upgrade your truck because you could really use that $2,000 cash back advance)
5) Amount of existing debt they will refinance into the new debt (so if instead of no down payment your situation is actually negative down payment, you owe more on the trade in than it is worth, that's still fine, you can roll that existing debt into the new debt's financing agreement)
6) Duration of promotional interest free period
7) Interest rate
8) Actual cost of the item you are buying
9) Total amount you will pay given 7 and 8
Try to get your head around that. You can buy shit with a negative amount as your down payment and have them add that negative amount to the total you'll owe and even get cash back, rolling that on top too. And people do it. All the time. This is just the normal for America now. It's how people operate. Everyone is in debt and everyone is fine with it and when you can't manage your debt anymore then you refinance to get the payments back under control and simply roll back the date until you've paid off the debt or go interest only for a while.
|
On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes.
Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job.
|
United States42691 Posts
On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job.
It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing.
A mortgage is essentially an investment in the housing market with leverage. And leveraged investments can be very safe for the party offering the leverage, as long as the party receiving it has enough exposure to cover variance. If I put $100,000 down on a $500,000 house then the bank doesn't give a shit if it drops to $450,000, nor if I stop making payments and it costs them $20,000 to reclaim and resell the asset. That's all coming out of my $100,000. The problem comes when the home owner can just moonwalk away because they have no skin in the game. And the problem is compounded when you start allowing the homeowner to not only not put any money in but also start cashing out equity whenever the value starts going up. You can put $0 down on a $500,000 house and owe $500,000. Then if the house goes up to $550,000 valuation you cash out $50,000 of equity so you now owe $550,000 on the house.
Financial markets in the US play interesting games and generate interesting outcomes.
|
Relevant: + Show Spoiler +
If you're dumbfounded by people that don't understand basic finance, thank your parents (or maybe your country's education system) for instilling that knowledge in you. There are a lot of skills that are easy to take for granted that actually need to be taught, and personal finance is one of them.
|
On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing.
Yeah, my answer was explaining the situation in America. If you give a 4% APR $100,000 zero down payment loan to an average American, chances are they will completely blow it along with some other loans that they already owe a shit ton on.
|
United States42691 Posts
On July 06 2017 05:23 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. Yeah, my answer was explaining the situation in America. If you give a 4% APR $100,000 zero down payment loan to an average American, chances are they will completely blow it along with some other loans that they already owe a shit ton on.
Ah. We cool. 
|
On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing.
During the height of the sub-prime boom, they used to have zero down payment, zero proof of employment loans. That is how far removed the US finance system is from the UK system. They have been deregulated to the point where they basically hucksters. But we have been under this garbage system for a generation at this point, so we have no context for how bad it has gotten.
|
On July 06 2017 05:23 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. Yeah, my answer was explaining the situation in America. If you give a 4% APR $100,000 zero down payment loan to an average American, chances are they will completely blow it along with some other loans that they already owe a shit ton on.
But in the US (maybe because of the 0 down loans?) you still need good credit even if you want to put 20%+ down.
|
kwarks perspective of normal car buying in the us is not representative of any car buying experience of my own or my families.
i can see how that's possible and someone out there does it but to call it normal does not resonate. shrug.
|
United States42691 Posts
Meanwhile, as xDaunt alluded to earlier, the systems put in place to help people who actually need help buying a house will be monopolized by the likes of me. Back when I was playing EVE Online there used to be something we called Malcanis' Law which stated Any mechanism put in place to help the newest players will inevitably end up being used exclusively by and for the oldest players
It's a conundrum. Each of the last three years the government has happily doled out $2,000 in retirement savings credits to my wife and I. Meanwhile the working poor don't get shit because they don't read the tax code.
|
On July 06 2017 05:26 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:23 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. Yeah, my answer was explaining the situation in America. If you give a 4% APR $100,000 zero down payment loan to an average American, chances are they will completely blow it along with some other loans that they already owe a shit ton on. But in the US (maybe because of the 0 down loans?) you still need good credit even if you want to put 20%+ down.
The financial system is crazy here...there are so many different products that it's still possible to sell some loans to people with almost no qualifications. Granted, this has been reined in since the 2008 crisis, but you'd be surprised what some banks are willing to offer. Even programs like the VA loans for service members are kind of crazy given how low of a bar they set to qualify.
|
On July 06 2017 05:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. During the height of the sub-prime boom, they used to have zero down payment, zero proof of employment loans. That is how far removed the US finance system is from the UK system. They have been deregulated to the point where they basically hucksters. But we have been under this garbage system for a generation at this point, so we have no context for how bad it has gotten.
Don't forget about payday loans! A death spiral there is no way to pull out of. Check out this sweet offer that used to run ALL THE TIME on tv.
+ Show Spoiler +
89.68% interest, your eyes do not deceive you. A $10k loan with 84 monthly payments (7 years) of a mere $743.99 a month! For a meager grand total of $62,495.16 what a steal!
|
On July 06 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:Meanwhile, as xDaunt alluded to earlier, the systems put in place to help people who actually need help buying a house will be monopolized by the likes of me. Back when I was playing EVE Online there used to be something we called Malcanis' Law which stated Show nested quote +Any mechanism put in place to help the newest players will inevitably end up being used exclusively by and for the oldest players It's a conundrum. Each of the last three years the government has happily doled out $2,000 in retirement savings credits to my wife and I. Meanwhile the working poor don't get shit because they don't read the tax code.
I feel like I am probably one of the people you describe. How do you recommend someone understands the tax code? I don't even know what I'd search. I am interested in being more efficient in the way you described, but the extent of that for me is just putting money in my 401k..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
