Have government regulate the financial sector even more!
Plz no!
Regulation imposes costs and unintentionally legalizes certain behaviors since anything not on the naughty list is presumed to be nice. In addition, it gives business another few layers of paperwork to hide behind.
I suggest we cease regulating entirely, and go back to good old-fashioned lawsuits. If you catch someone doing something bad, and can prove it, you should be able to sue in the interests of your group as a member of that group. That way, you do not need to have toxic waste on your lawn to sue on behalf of your community.
Industry loves an unending flow of people too inexperienced to know that they are being taken advantage of. It wants people age 25-35 that it can grind up, spit out, and roll right over. Instead of focusing on working smarter, our industry has become a mill into which we pour youngsters and out of which fall cynical outsiders.
So, by this analogy, the subprime mortgage industry was a frustum whose bottom face kept getting smaller and whose height and top face kept getting bigger.
Let's see... where was government in this?
It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007.
The housing bubble was inflated by federal policies created by President Bill Clinton, then expanded by President George W. Bush. The policies were supported by Senator and then President Barack Obama.
The policies were intended to help low-skilled Americans — especially African-Americans — and Hispanic immigrants gain housing wealth by pushing down mortgage requirements, such as down-payments.
But the government policy had the reverse effect, and the housing collapse after 2007 eliminated much of the wealth held by African-American and Hispanic families.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.
The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."
The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton's presidency.
Under Clinton's Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in "credit-deprived" areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn't comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits.
These new HUD rules lowered down payments from the traditional 20 percent to 3 percent by 1995 and zero down-payments by 2000. What's more, in the Clinton push to issue home loans to lower income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job history was also thrown aside. The phrase "subprime" became commonplace. What an understatement.
There's no point in trying to ban foreign competition when you guarantee that it's actually half-local competition.
If you want total control, having a domestic company which does not report its statistics outside your borders can be helpful. A regime may wish to avoid ride-sharing that allows people to attend demonstrations or get to forbidden locations, for example.
but increasing ethnic homogeneity would require draconian policies, massive effort for no clear (especially economic) benefit, and crimes against humanity
Would it? And does it matter? If a policy is toxic, we reverse it because its results will also be destructive.
Diversity is relative, by number of nations at least half are on the higher side of the diversity scale
Do you have a better source than the biased Wikipedia?
In my experience, most cause/effect relationships are like building a campfire: if you make a circle of rocks, pile wood in it, put newspaper and kindling under that, and soak it in lighter fluid, you have a complete fire awaiting a spark.
All of these little failures contribute to the conditions required for the economy to crash.
In that you are right; the 19 months of the Trump presidency is not really enough to judge the economic impact, since changes in policy often take a long time to effect change in the economy.
I disagree. We can see the effects of some of what he has done. It depends on the act and how long it takes to see its effects generally; not all choices are equal in how deeply they permeate before taking effect and thus how long it is required to see their effects.
I reject left/right, and I reject team sports politics.
Team sports politics is an artifact of democracy.
The Left/Right axis however is clear in philosophy and history: Leftists are egalitarians, and Rightists are those who support the methods used before Leftism came along.
What if HR were divided into ten groups of 150 people each? There would be internal competition there, and variation in choices, so no longer a monolithic HR entity.
Rotten Tomatoes has been gamed by industry for years, just like most online review sites are gamed. Who has a legion of employees who badly want for something to succeed? They all have internet devices and are busy posting away and voting up their own projects. If that fails, they can always buy vote blocks like they do on Reddit. Most of what we consider "free" social media is in fact simply propaganda; the difficulty is that the propaganda does not come from the publisher, necessarily, but from shills and brigades hired by a third party.
(There are many scriptwriters, and you can always hire more, but the talent is a fixed percentage of the population.)
The book The Bell Curve made this point: all human attributes fit within a standard distribution, so there is always a shortage of higher expertise and an excess of lower.
North Korea is very, very stable - what is good about that stability?
I would not categorize them as stable, but I see repression as a sign of leaders in a precarious position. They seem dependent on China, to have a disastrous economy, and to experience frequent failures of food production.
I'd say racism is wrong by the standard of maximizing median happiness in a society and avoiding negative extremes in the range of society members' happiness.
A utilitarian argument, however, this one is a begging-the-question fallacy because you assume society must be diverse in the first place.
Again, Americans do not want it because it allows poor people into their neighborhoods. You have not really done anything except offer tangentials here, and then you made accusations, and now you seem to be just confused.
Slashdot Mirror
Plz no!
Regulation imposes costs and unintentionally legalizes certain behaviors since anything not on the naughty list is presumed to be nice. In addition, it gives business another few layers of paperwork to hide behind.
I suggest we cease regulating entirely, and go back to good old-fashioned lawsuits. If you catch someone doing something bad, and can prove it, you should be able to sue in the interests of your group as a member of that group. That way, you do not need to have toxic waste on your lawn to sue on behalf of your community.
Industry loves an unending flow of people too inexperienced to know that they are being taken advantage of. It wants people age 25-35 that it can grind up, spit out, and roll right over. Instead of focusing on working smarter, our industry has become a mill into which we pour youngsters and out of which fall cynical outsiders.
Good analogy, I think.
Let's see... where was government in this?
and
and
and
I covered this one here: http://www.amerika.org/politic...
Most of what we do at jobs is make-work or wasted work. Send people home to get self-actualized instead.
If you want total control, having a domestic company which does not report its statistics outside your borders can be helpful. A regime may wish to avoid ride-sharing that allows people to attend demonstrations or get to forbidden locations, for example.
Rightists see no need for egalitarianism, therefore both have no judgment of it but see it is irrelevant.
Would it? And does it matter? If a policy is toxic, we reverse it because its results will also be destructive.
Do you have a better source than the biased Wikipedia?
Depends on prior rates and what these rail systems are doing relative to the point of suburbinner city transportation.
"Bake that cake!"
In my experience, most cause/effect relationships are like building a campfire: if you make a circle of rocks, pile wood in it, put newspaper and kindling under that, and soak it in lighter fluid, you have a complete fire awaiting a spark.
All of these little failures contribute to the conditions required for the economy to crash.
At this point, none is needed, but your Reddit-style "Source?!?!" deflection is noted.
No team politics under the kings.
"There are no truths, only interpretations."
There are always new commuter systems; however, it depends on where they go and how useful they are.
Houston, for example, adopted a new line that runs between downtown destinations. Does it head to the suburbs? Heck no. There is a reason for that.
Not all rail systems are equal or even alike. You have to dig deeper.
In the meantime, you still refused to address the core point, which is that class warfare makes mass transit unpopular in the USA.
I disagree. We can see the effects of some of what he has done. It depends on the act and how long it takes to see its effects generally; not all choices are equal in how deeply they permeate before taking effect and thus how long it is required to see their effects.
Most societies are not very diverse. Further, times change, and with them, policy changes, so it makes no sense to make that assumption.
Team sports politics is an artifact of democracy.
The Left/Right axis however is clear in philosophy and history: Leftists are egalitarians, and Rightists are those who support the methods used before Leftism came along.
Where do you fit on that?
What if HR were divided into ten groups of 150 people each? There would be internal competition there, and variation in choices, so no longer a monolithic HR entity.
Who else is going to report on this but Right-wing sources?
Which facts from the articles do you dispute?
Rotten Tomatoes has been gamed by industry for years, just like most online review sites are gamed. Who has a legion of employees who badly want for something to succeed? They all have internet devices and are busy posting away and voting up their own projects. If that fails, they can always buy vote blocks like they do on Reddit. Most of what we consider "free" social media is in fact simply propaganda; the difficulty is that the propaganda does not come from the publisher, necessarily, but from shills and brigades hired by a third party.
The book The Bell Curve made this point: all human attributes fit within a standard distribution, so there is always a shortage of higher expertise and an excess of lower.
Cute conversation. What is your political alignment?
Did you think that was clever?
* https://www.dailywire.com/news...
* https://www.zerohedge.com/news...
* http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
* https://www.wnd.com/2015/04/tw...
There's a good starter list. Also, in the post you replied to, Jack Dorsey was the name, not Jeff Bezos. Cerebral flatulence.
I would not categorize them as stable, but I see repression as a sign of leaders in a precarious position. They seem dependent on China, to have a disastrous economy, and to experience frequent failures of food production.
A utilitarian argument, however, this one is a begging-the-question fallacy because you assume society must be diverse in the first place.
Again, Americans do not want it because it allows poor people into their neighborhoods. You have not really done anything except offer tangentials here, and then you made accusations, and now you seem to be just confused.