Jobless at 6.7%

[100% Wolf]

Yeah, I heard the're issuing subprime loans again but calling it something else. Democrats haven't done **** but spend money.

In finance, subprime lending (also referred to as near-prime, non-prime, and second-chance lending) means making loans to people who may have difficulty maintaining the repayment schedule, sometimes reflecting setbacks such as unemployment, divorce, medical emergencies, etc.[1] Historically, subprime borrowers were defined as having a FICO scores below 640, although "this has varied over time and circumstances."

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

Just to be clear, are you saying banks should never lend to people with poor credit scores ever again?

[Sava]

Banking should be an entirely public institution. Private banks should be illegal.

[Kidlicious]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_lending
Just to be clear, are you saying banks should never lend to people with poor credit scores ever again?

Yes, that's s sound banking principle.

[snoopy369]

I love it when both the conservatives AND the liberals in the thread are bat**** crazy. Makes for more interesting reading then when it's a one-sided beat down.

[DinoDoc]

I don't think any reasonable person can say we're not on the road to a full recovery right now,

We've been on the road to recovery for 5 years after the recession ended 6 months into Obama's presidency.

[Sava]

I was just thinking about prohibition. If we banned private insurance and banking, would there be a underground market for such services? Aside from loan-sharking, I'd have to say no. There is no natural demand for these services. Everything a bank does can be accomplished via a low-cost public service. The need for insurance goes away in much the same fashion. It's not like making alcohol or weed illegal. People actually like those things. Nobody likes insurance. Nobody likes banking. We need those industries simply because no public alternative exists. If one did, private industry equivalents would go out of business... fast.

It's really more about economic efficiency. Public systems are vastly more efficient because nobody is skimming (profit) from the organization. Or rather, when it does happen, it's to the tune of low six figures and can be prosecuted as a crime... rather than the excess 8-9 figure losses that "profit" allows for.

[100% Wolf]

Your plan isn't like banning private sales of alcohol and pot because the state isn't stepping in and selling pot and alcohol at reasonable prices. If we tried to ban lending at interest like in teh middle ages there would certainly be a black market in financial services.

[PLATO]

Just a little education for the brainiacs who believe this was Republican's fault...

1.) Janet Reno stuffed the community reinvestment act down the banks throat in 1998 and basically mandated that they make crappy loans in underprivledged areas. (well not crappy loans, but that they MUST lend more to these areas...the only products that these people qualified for was a crappy loan)

2.) President Bush tried to work with Congress on reforming Fannie and Freddie in 2003 and 2004. BARNEY FRANK blocked every attempt (The biggest HYPOCRITE EVER!) and the result was fannie and freddie going way beyond their initial mandate and speculating in crappy loans.

Those are facts about two of the main causes of the meltdown that lie squarly on the Democrats shoulders.

Now...about those new jobs added in February...guess what? Nealy all of them were for employees working less than 30 hours per week. Why? Because employers are not stupid and don't want to have to meet the mandates of Obamacare. We are beginning to see a major shift in jobs from full time to part time for lower income positions. This will have an enormously negative impact of the poorest people in the country. Thanks Obama...you dumbass.

[PLATO]

I was just thinking about prohibition. If we banned private insurance and banking, would there be a underground market for such services? Aside from loan-sharking, I'd have to say no. There is no natural demand for these services. Everything a bank does can be accomplished via a low-cost public service. The need for insurance goes away in much the same fashion. It's not like making alcohol or weed illegal. People actually like those things. Nobody likes insurance. Nobody likes banking. We need those industries simply because no public alternative exists. If one did, private industry equivalents would go out of business... fast.

It's really more about economic efficiency. Public systems are vastly more efficient because nobody is skimming (profit) from the organization. Or rather, when it does happen, it's to the tune of low six figures and can be prosecuted as a crime... rather than the excess 8-9 figure losses that "profit" allows for.

If there was a negative rating for economic understanding, it would surely be yours.

[Sava]

If we tried to ban lending at interest like in teh middle ages there would certainly be a black market in financial services.

Not if the government offered interest-free or negative interest loans... or just paid people outright for existing and participating in the economy.

This is not even taking into account the morality of currently allowing policies that are wrong. From a purely economic standpoint, you want to drive economic activity. You want more people participating in the economy. Poverty takes consumers out of the economy, for all intents and purposes. It is counter-productive to society, productivity, technological development... and just about every other method of measuring human civilization.

The thought process behind Capitalism, or rather, our current economic system (which is by no means "capitalism" by any possible measure) is obsolete. True economic progress is measured by how much we consume. Any sustainable policy which maximizes economic activity is most beneficial to every living person on the planet... and probably to more than a few zombies too.

[Sava]

If there was a negative rating for economic understanding, it would surely be yours.

From you, this is a compliment, thank you.

[100% Wolf]

Not if the government offered interest-free or negative interest loans... or just paid people outright for existing and participating in the economy.

This is not even taking into account the morality of currently allowing policies that are wrong. From a purely economic standpoint, you want to drive economic activity. You want more people participating in the economy. Poverty takes consumers out of the economy, for all intents and purposes. It is counter-productive to society, productivity, technological development... and just about every other method of measuring human civilization.

The thought process behind Capitalism, or rather, our current economic system (which is by no means "capitalism" by any possible measure) is obsolete. True economic progress is measured by how much we consume. Any sustainable policy which maximizes economic activity is most beneficial to every living person on the planet... and probably to more than a few zombies too.

How much would this taxpayer subsidy cost? Student loan subsidies already cost billions every year and student loans aren't even being offered at the 0% interest you're proposing. Plus, there's a tax deduction for paying student loan interest.

It's also not true that the cost of credit determines the level of economic activity. Economic activity creates demand for credit, so we can't treat the cost of borrowing as an independent variable here. A booming economy could easily have higher interest rates than what we have now.

[Sava]

In short, the government should manipulate what we understand to be currency in order to further sustainable growth. That's all. Every thought you have about money is not applicable to what I am proposing. Private markets will still exist. They are a natural function of human society. People want things and will trade for them. These proposals are a more efficient means to achieving the goal of expanding trade.

Imagine it like you would the impact agriculture had on the development of society. Less people were needed to make food. They could do other things. This is an extension of that. Less people have to work than ever before. High unemployment with automated productivity systems is the preferable result. You want the vast majority of society being completely independent of our ability to produce and distribute resources, goods, and services.

[100% Wolf]

That sounds sort of like a basic income...?

[Sava]

There are similarities. The goals and points of focus are different. The system is also not motivated by the moral need to help people. It just turns out that making sure everyone is healthy and smart and not busting their asses to provide basic necessities for their family... is a good thing for productivity.