"Data portability has become an increasing need for our customers and partners as more information is stored and shared in digital formats. One scenario that has come up recently is how to further improve platform-independent access to email, calendar, contacts, and other data generated by Microsoft Outlook.
As a linux mail admin, I'm excited that there may soon be a possibility for Dovecot to deliver mail directly into a 2 GB.pst file sitting on my mail server because the PST format*snort* is so*choke* superior to maildHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry--I couldn't keep a straight face.
Wow. I just checked out their site. For the same price as an AT&T unlimited plan, I can get a family unlimited plan. Now if they only had the HTC Hero subsidized...;)
That Service or Goods Business you plan on creating better not use any Public Roads or other Public Services and then you can ask those mythical bonuses you plan on giving out to our employees that they have to pay as they go.
I never said that taxes should be abolished.
But on the other hand, the town I grew up in had a toll bridge. It was privately owned for a long time. It paid for the upkeep of the bridge.
Somehow years later the state got the bridge. The rates doubled and tripled. The bridge is still in a decent state of repair, but the city of a few hundred people has a fireworks budget that rivals the New York City display.
I'd be pretty happy if private companies took over maintaining roads and I paid a yearly use-fee. I'd bet money that you'd never see a crew of 9 people sitting around while one guy replaces a stop sign again...
But you still want good roads and schools, right? If you want to have your tax locus in nevada, then move there. There are plenty of startups in seattle, so we don't need vultures like you skipping out on their obligations.
I'm not saying cut taxes entirely. We do need tax money to pay for certain services. These services are usually provided by your state or local government. If you find their tax rates, policies, or projects to be poorly thought out, move to another state.
To be perfectly blunt, I could give a crap about schools. I went to public schools and they are so focused on teaching the mass of students, that they don't bother with individuals. If I can afford it, my kids will go to private school.
Let me be even more blunt. Nothing I learned in school prepared me for the work force in any way, except for two things: One term of keyboarding taught me how to type a resume, and two terms of a specially-created class (just for me) which consisted of helping run the high school network taught me how not to run a network.
Remember that a business is designed for one thing: profit
No one wants to invest in a business or be involved with a business that isn't going to make money. Money pays for employees, benefits, etc...
In my humble opinion, the best way to deal with this is have the state tax money spent on goods and services. That way whenever any person or company spends money in the state, the state gets their cut. Drop the other bajillion tax rules and loopholes.
Well, I can only assume you didn't try T-Mobile or AT&T. They've both connected me using a bare SIM card in an unlocked cell phone. I'm on T-Mobile with no contract and an unlocked phone right now.
I didn't try T-Mobile, I'll give them a shot next time. I did try AT&T though and they said they couldn't get me signed up without a two year contract. Period. (That was their response in-store. I didn't bother calling their customer service though.)
Really? Bonuses for individual employees that do great work are more important to you than the greater social good that is potentially created by a fair and balanced taxation system? Universal medicare for example?
So how much money do you give every year (out of your own pocket) to pay for your neighbors healthcare?
And why would you want to compel me to pay for someone elses healthcare?
No really. My neighbor constantly sits outside smoking and drinking. He has cancer from the smoking. He calls the ambulance weekly and never goes to the hospital. I constantly see him doing yardwork, yet he can't seem to get a job because of his disability.
So tell me again why you want to have the government force me to pay for his bad decisions?
And then tell me why you aren't shelling money out of your own pocket to pay (or partially pay) for those without healthcare?
I thought slavery had been replaced by salaried employees "forced" into working unpaid overtime? Same shit different wrapping. Especially if you put no-compete clauses into the equation.
Apparently I'm in the same situation as you. Lots of work to be done, no overtime pay, and signed a no-compete.
The difference is that I recognize that I voluntarily entered into the contract, where you are apparently complaining that it's unfair that you entered in to that contract.
Would you also accept that a murderer could choose to go to court in a no-death-penalty state if they committed a murder in a death-penalty state?
There's quite a difference between doing what you can legally to avoid giving the government butt-loads of money and the government saying "you're guilty" and killing you.
It's not that anyone cares that MSFT booked the revenue in Nevada.
Really? I'll best most people in Washington (state) do.
I live in Washington State, and no, not really--I don't mind.
I'm thinking of starting my own business, and I would love to pay less in taxes, giving me the ability to spend the profit on other more important things like bonuses for employees that do great work, healthcare plans to entice better workers, and money for a general office slush fund for things like parties, a well stocked beer/soda fridge, etc...
Furthermore US consumers are locked into a contract which ensures a steady income for the service providers.
There's a challenge for you. Go and buy an unlocked cell phone. Then go to any of the major carriers and try to signup for service without a contract.
I tried this a few years ago and not a single carrier would sign me up without a two year contract. (What's the point of buying an unlocked phone if you can't take it from network to network without locking in to a contract. I might as well get the damn subsidized phone.)
The content on here has definitely changed. I still find some engaging comment threads, but it just seems like the truly geeky content has gotten watered down with posts about new products, jokes, etc.
Exactly. And since both nature and my cat abhor vacuums, where the hell are the good geek new sites now?
I currently have to settle for reading mildly interesting arguments about IPv6 on NANOG.
Ya, having half to a quarter the vulnerabilities doesn't count as a feature for most people because it is something you cant see. What my last scans on a xp box showed (fully patched) was around 167 vulnerabilities, a fully patched windows 7 box not on a domain is 10, on the domain is 50 or so...Not to mention that a child can hack an xp box.
Really? 167 vulnerabilities that either Microsoft doesn't know about and you do--or Microsoft just hasn't bothered to fix them? How many of them can raise local privileges? How many are remotely exploitable? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing to my fully-patched XP box*. This is pure FUD.
* Before you can attempt to hack my fully-patched XP box, I have to stop running Linux on one of my computers...;)
I believe that the newer versions of OSX server will perform indexing on the volume so the clients do not have to.>
That's a novel idea. The day after Windows Search was made available through Windows Updates, I spent about 45 minutes trying to figure out why my storage server was totally maxing out the disk and users were complaining about the network crawling. Apparently Windows Search on 45 machines decided it was time to index "My Documents" which is actually stored on the server thanks to folder redirection.
I spent another hour stopping the Windows Search service on every freaking PC and disabling it. Finally I realized my mistake and I created a group policy that administratively forces the service to be disabled on startup so no new machines would make the same mistake.
The idea is great. PulseAudio is an excellent solution for networked audio and thin unix clients.
I have a few thin client setups using Ubuntu 9.04 with PulseAudio. The audio is choppy on every thin client. That's when it's working. Half the time Pulse crashes while playing, changing the volume icon to muted and then refusing to work until the thin client is rebooted.
Sure, maybe it's some strange Ubuntu issue, but it's damn annoying.
The other night at my wife's mothers place there was this crummy telemovie on. I nearly had a fit. It was a remake of The Andromeda Strain. You know, that original movie isn't so bad....
(this line left intentionally blank).
Yeah--I should have clarified. The book is awesome. The old 1970ish movie is great, the current movie was remade so the entire point was environmentalist garbage.
If I want to get preached at, I'll go to church--not a movie theater.
You can calculate what someone can afford under the assumption that their circumstances don't change. Take the persons income. Subtract an estimate of what they can afford to live on). Self employed people are trickier to deal with but you can estimate tolerably from their past records. Then subtract some safety margin in case your estimates of thier minimum living costs are off. What you've got left is the maximum payment you can be reasonablly sure they can afford to make on a loan.
Great answer.
But while collateral reduces the risk it is IMO both evil and stupid to use collateral that appears to be rising in value as a substitute for checking that the borrower can reasonably pay the loan. All that does is drive a bubble and when that bubble pops both the lender and the customers who can't afford thier loans are screwed big time.
Very true. But realize what you're saying. Some people are idiots and make bad decisions. I have three friends that voluntarily entered into crappy loans because they wanted houses--and they are still paying them back despite being upside down. What you're advocating would have denied them loans for their homes even though they are responsible people--because there are idiots out there.
These two lines set off my bullshit detector. A $315 monthly payment would have to be either a pretty short loan (36 or maybe 48 months), or a decent quality small car (in the $15-20k price range). If your car is about to die a full year before you've even finished paying off the loan on it, something not quite normal is going on.
The straight dope is that before my wife and I were married, the engine in her previous car blew up right in front of a dealership. She didn't know what she was getting herself into and they sold her a car that was probably only worth $8k for about $11k. They gave her 24.9% (ouch!) interest on the crappy thing and IIRC it's a 48 month loan. When I lost my job, I missed a few payments and they bumped the loan to 26% (seriously ouch!).
The other side to that conundrum is me being an IT tech for a bunch of small businesses in the 'area'. I regularly put 1,500 to 2,000 miles per month on the thing. It's already well over 120,000 and badly in need of maintenance and a tune-up--which it will get as soon as I pay it off and can free up some cash in order to perform said maintenance.
The positive side to all this is that it forced me to go from a teenager/early-twenties moron who spent every paycheck on whatever I wanted to being much more responsible with my money. The down-side being I had the $60k/year job when I was younger...;)
Again, I can barely imagine someone actually coming up with such a thing, in the same way that I can barely imagine someone coming up with the story of Noah and believing it. It's the sort of idea people only receive as part of belonging to a cult. I'm suspecting the cult of Ayn Rand here.
To me, it sounded like you were saying morality needed to be legislated...so I asked you if that's what you meant. Then you went all crazy left-wing on me and started bible bashing and Ayn Rand bashing. WTF does *any* of that have to do with my question?
Well, no, obviously not. Which is understandable, given that you're just using the tactic of "I'll repeat back my opponent's disparaging remark, changing a couple of words"
That's ok--since you flat-out didn't refute my argument, but rather are trying to antagonize and pick a fight by bashing on various groups' personal beliefs.
The idea that the existence of regulation is the cause of the current crisis is like saying that AIDS is caused by the existence of doctors.
Nice analogy. But completely wrong. Try reading something on the topic.
It's just so crazy that you must have obtained it from some repository of craziness — the odds of any given individual coming up with it himself are just way too slim.
More crazy. Instead of providing examples or proof that my statement is wrong, you imply that I must have gotten the idea from a 'repository of craziness' and that a single individual couldn't come up with that idea. (I can understand how you'd feel that an individual can't think for themselves if you graduated from government schools). But in your previous post you say I must have received the idea fro 'talk radio'.
Aren't those shows one person broadcasting over the radio? I.E. an individual? You sir are an idiot.
Yes, because they know. If they act unethically, regulation will be necessary.
There are so many things wrong with that statement...
You feel it's necessary to legislate morality?
You feel it's necessary to make legislation to prevent idiots from being idiots?
According to your views, they've been screwing up and can't be trusted to assess loans. The government? They got the banks here in the first place with stupid regulations.
Did a gun-carrying radio talkshow host tell you that? It's not an idea anyone could have spontaneously formed.
Did the government education system teach you to refute arguments with irrelevant drivel? That's the only way anyone could have spontaneously come up with that reply.
Do you really *need* a new car? Or do you need a used car? And do you really need to own that car? Or can you just get by with just leasing/borrowing/sharing one for now?
I won't mention public transportation, special ride sharing programs, moving closer to your workplace, switching jobs, or getting yourself a moped/bicycle. For all I know, you live in the snowy mountains some place, and you need a reliable car with 4 by 4 capabilities -- so you don't kill yourself the next time the road is icy.
And if that's the case, I apologize in advance, because I think you would be the exception -- not the rule. Most people do not *need* a new car. It's just that most people think they're entitled to a new (or an almost new) car just because they see their neighbors have one.
I never said I needed a *new* car, just that I needed *a* car.
I work as an IT contractor for smaller businesses that don't need full-time IT staff. I travel roughly in a 100 mile radius from the company office, and I am on-call pretty much all the time.
This destroys any possibility of public transportation, ride sharing, car pooling, and makes renting or leasing very expensive.
I also live in the pacific northwest. It rains 11.5 months out of the year. I can't drive a moped or a motorcycle. Plus, I have to arrive at client sites in a dress shirt and dress pants--so I can't get all wrinkly by putting riding gear over top of my cloths.
A new car would be nice--but it's unnecessary like you said. The price of the car would drop significantly the moment I drove it off the lot.
A used car would be great, but that still costs money. I didn't see any 'decent' used cards un the paper for under a few thousand. Since I am currently in debt and all my money is going to pay that debt back, I don't have a few thou saved for a car yet.
So really, my option is to get a loan or pray that my current vehicle holds out for another few months so I can free up cash.
But that's all a bit off topic for the discussion that banks *should* be allowed to loan money to anyone they want under any terms they want--as long as the borrower is free to refuse the loan and terms.
No; according to my views their ability to assess loans hasn't changed; what's changed is their willingness to give loans to those they know cannot repay.
So you can see the future?
Do you know if I will repay my car loan or not?
Could you tell me, because I'm curious myself in these 'tough' economic times.
Tell me *exactly* how you determine if someone can repay a loan that doesn't come down to the unscientific method of saying "He seems like an honest guy".
So what they're really doing is guaranteeing that they'll have to take their customer's house and sell it plus they get a tidy bonus on top for the few months they were paid.
Or written another way: 'The customer is putting the house up as collateral against their loan, and the bank is taking taking the collateral when someone defaults on their loan'.
I'd like to see you open a bank without that stipulation in your loans. I'd be your first customer.
Idiots with willfully-negligent loan advisors.
First off--I would never trust an advisor that works for the company/bank that is trying to get money out of me. Secondly, people who do are idiots. Thirdly, people who do trust that advisor and then bitch, moan, and try to get a bailout from the feds after they get bad advice should immediately hand in their 'adult card' and go back to a nice little padded room where they aren't allowed to make 'grown up' decisions anymore.
Perhaps because the banks don't actually have anything backing the loans they offer? The whole system is a scam which depended upon an increasing number of new suckers to take credit every year
I whole-heartedly agree with you. I don't bank anymore. No credit cards, no checks. Now-a-days everyone seems to forget about good 'ol cash and the text 'For all debts public and private'.
The only company I had problems with after I dropped my bank was my landlord/rental company. They refused to accept cash because they didn't like having lots of money in their office, and they often couldn't make change.
I told them they could apply any overpayment to the rent due next month and that they can't refuse cash.
No, I'm saying that if you can only afford to pay back a $5000 loan then they shouldn't offer you a $50000 loan...
But who determines how much is too much? The bank? According to your views, they've been screwing up and can't be trusted to assess loans. The government? They got the banks here in the first place with stupid regulations.
To be blunt, I'm a 'risk'. They could loan me $100,000 and I could pay back every cent. Hell--I could win the lottery tomorrow and pay the loan in full immediately. Of course I could also get fired or laid off from my job tomorrow too and then jump off a bridge. They'd never see a red cent. They'd have to sell the house and hope to get a return.
It all boils down to risk/reward. Are you going to dump tons of money on someone who might just screw you over? If the potential reward is big enough you will. That's what banks are doing.
They may be willing to give me $100,000 if they know that after 30 years they will have made an extra $20k on it. And if the risk is that I don't repay--they can take my house, sell it, and hopefully make some/all of the $100,000 back.
Only idiots buy $250,000 houses that are really worth $150,000 when all they can afford is $100,000.
But in the end, the banks that 'risked' it are getting screwed because they lent $250,000 for a $150,000 house, made $20,000 off the borrower, and then got stuck $80,000 in the hole.
...and now you, I, and everyone else that pays taxes are bailing out the banks that lost big-time.
When did the government get the power to take money from me for the bad decisions of banks and sub-prime borrowers?
Look, what I'm saying is that they shouldn't have been given the loans in the first place.
The humane thing to do is to give your customers the benefit of your wisdom not use it against them to exploit them - as happened here.
So over the last 3 years, I lost my job (which caused me to go into debt, etc...), cut my spending, got a new job and have been living in a crappy $400/mo rental, skipping meals, not heating during the winter, dropped my cell phone plan, etc...all so I could pay my bills back. I'm about 3 months away from having *everything* paid off--car, credit cards, etc...and I will be 1 month ahead on all my major bills.
But my credit report will still look bad until those 3 months are up. Are you saying hands-down that a bank should refuse to loan me money for a new car?
My current vehicle probably won't last another month. I *need* a car loan.
Most banks would look at me and still consider me a risk (all my 'bad' ratings go away in 3 months--but for the moment they are still there). So you're saying you morally feel that a bank should refuse to lend to me under any circumstances?
Thanks.
I'd rather banks take a look at me and say "You're a risk. We'd be willing to risk it if you pay x% interest. Then it would be worth it to us."
That way I can get my car, pay off all my other bills in 3 months, and then free up $1k/mo to go towards paying back a new car that I need right now. The faster I over-pay my car loan, the less interest I'll actually end up paying in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
"Data portability has become an increasing need for our customers and partners as more information is stored and shared in digital formats. One scenario that has come up recently is how to further improve platform-independent access to email, calendar, contacts, and other data generated by Microsoft Outlook.
As a linux mail admin, I'm excited that there may soon be a possibility for Dovecot to deliver mail directly into a 2 GB .pst file sitting on my mail server because the PST format*snort* is so*choke* superior to maildHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry--I couldn't keep a straight face.
TMobile is very friendly to unlocked phones.
Wow. I just checked out their site. For the same price as an AT&T unlimited plan, I can get a family unlimited plan. Now if they only had the HTC Hero subsidized... ;)
That Service or Goods Business you plan on creating better not use any Public Roads or other Public Services and then you can ask those mythical bonuses you plan on giving out to our employees that they have to pay as they go.
I never said that taxes should be abolished.
But on the other hand, the town I grew up in had a toll bridge. It was privately owned for a long time. It paid for the upkeep of the bridge.
Somehow years later the state got the bridge. The rates doubled and tripled. The bridge is still in a decent state of repair, but the city of a few hundred people has a fireworks budget that rivals the New York City display.
I'd be pretty happy if private companies took over maintaining roads and I paid a yearly use-fee. I'd bet money that you'd never see a crew of 9 people sitting around while one guy replaces a stop sign again...
But you still want good roads and schools, right? If you want to have your tax locus in nevada, then move there. There are plenty of startups in seattle, so we don't need vultures like you skipping out on their obligations.
I'm not saying cut taxes entirely. We do need tax money to pay for certain services. These services are usually provided by your state or local government. If you find their tax rates, policies, or projects to be poorly thought out, move to another state.
To be perfectly blunt, I could give a crap about schools. I went to public schools and they are so focused on teaching the mass of students, that they don't bother with individuals. If I can afford it, my kids will go to private school.
Let me be even more blunt. Nothing I learned in school prepared me for the work force in any way, except for two things: One term of keyboarding taught me how to type a resume, and two terms of a specially-created class (just for me) which consisted of helping run the high school network taught me how not to run a network.
Remember that a business is designed for one thing: profit
No one wants to invest in a business or be involved with a business that isn't going to make money. Money pays for employees, benefits, etc...
In my humble opinion, the best way to deal with this is have the state tax money spent on goods and services. That way whenever any person or company spends money in the state, the state gets their cut. Drop the other bajillion tax rules and loopholes.
Well, I can only assume you didn't try T-Mobile or AT&T. They've both connected me using a bare SIM card in an unlocked cell phone. I'm on T-Mobile with no contract and an unlocked phone right now.
I didn't try T-Mobile, I'll give them a shot next time. I did try AT&T though and they said they couldn't get me signed up without a two year contract. Period. (That was their response in-store. I didn't bother calling their customer service though.)
Really? Bonuses for individual employees that do great work are more important to you than the greater social good that is potentially created by a fair and balanced taxation system? Universal medicare for example?
So how much money do you give every year (out of your own pocket) to pay for your neighbors healthcare?
And why would you want to compel me to pay for someone elses healthcare?
No really. My neighbor constantly sits outside smoking and drinking. He has cancer from the smoking. He calls the ambulance weekly and never goes to the hospital. I constantly see him doing yardwork, yet he can't seem to get a job because of his disability.
So tell me again why you want to have the government force me to pay for his bad decisions?
And then tell me why you aren't shelling money out of your own pocket to pay (or partially pay) for those without healthcare?
I thought slavery had been replaced by salaried employees "forced" into working unpaid overtime? Same shit different wrapping. Especially if you put no-compete clauses into the equation.
Apparently I'm in the same situation as you. Lots of work to be done, no overtime pay, and signed a no-compete.
The difference is that I recognize that I voluntarily entered into the contract, where you are apparently complaining that it's unfair that you entered in to that contract.
Would you also accept that a murderer could choose to go to court in a no-death-penalty state if they committed a murder in a death-penalty state?
There's quite a difference between doing what you can legally to avoid giving the government butt-loads of money and the government saying "you're guilty" and killing you.
Really? I'll best most people in Washington (state) do.
I live in Washington State, and no, not really--I don't mind.
I'm thinking of starting my own business, and I would love to pay less in taxes, giving me the ability to spend the profit on other more important things like bonuses for employees that do great work, healthcare plans to entice better workers, and money for a general office slush fund for things like parties, a well stocked beer/soda fridge, etc...
Furthermore US consumers are locked into a contract which ensures a steady income for the service providers.
There's a challenge for you. Go and buy an unlocked cell phone. Then go to any of the major carriers and try to signup for service without a contract.
I tried this a few years ago and not a single carrier would sign me up without a two year contract. (What's the point of buying an unlocked phone if you can't take it from network to network without locking in to a contract. I might as well get the damn subsidized phone.)
The content on here has definitely changed. I still find some engaging comment threads, but it just seems like the truly geeky content has gotten watered down with posts about new products, jokes, etc.
Exactly. And since both nature and my cat abhor vacuums, where the hell are the good geek new sites now?
I currently have to settle for reading mildly interesting arguments about IPv6 on NANOG.
Even easier with better impact, just give a simple security message that any wrong action on their part can open a security hole
Didn't Microsoft already try UAC and fail miserably...
Ya, having half to a quarter the vulnerabilities doesn't count as a feature for most people because it is something you cant see. What my last scans on a xp box showed (fully patched) was around 167 vulnerabilities, a fully patched windows 7 box not on a domain is 10, on the domain is 50 or so...Not to mention that a child can hack an xp box.
Really? 167 vulnerabilities that either Microsoft doesn't know about and you do--or Microsoft just hasn't bothered to fix them? How many of them can raise local privileges? How many are remotely exploitable? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing to my fully-patched XP box*. This is pure FUD.
;)
* Before you can attempt to hack my fully-patched XP box, I have to stop running Linux on one of my computers...
I believe that the newer versions of OSX server will perform indexing on the volume so the clients do not have to.>
That's a novel idea. The day after Windows Search was made available through Windows Updates, I spent about 45 minutes trying to figure out why my storage server was totally maxing out the disk and users were complaining about the network crawling. Apparently Windows Search on 45 machines decided it was time to index "My Documents" which is actually stored on the server thanks to folder redirection.
I spent another hour stopping the Windows Search service on every freaking PC and disabling it. Finally I realized my mistake and I created a group policy that administratively forces the service to be disabled on startup so no new machines would make the same mistake.
Awesome job Microsoft.
The idea is great. PulseAudio is an excellent solution for networked audio and thin unix clients.
I have a few thin client setups using Ubuntu 9.04 with PulseAudio. The audio is choppy on every thin client. That's when it's working. Half the time Pulse crashes while playing, changing the volume icon to muted and then refusing to work until the thin client is rebooted.
Sure, maybe it's some strange Ubuntu issue, but it's damn annoying.
PulseAudio is NOT unneeded.
First, Bluetooth audio _sucks_ without PulseAudio.
You got bluetooth audio working with Pulse? I spent several days dorking around with it and never got it.
Second, you NEED to have a sound daemon to properly manage the sound system and other sound daemons suck.
Never had any problems with the Alsa sound daemon...
Third, ALSA's volume controls are horrible and PulseAudio really helps here.
True
Fourth, PulseAudio has a ton of other nice features: streams tagging and automatic volume control, joined devices, mic boost, etc.
True--but like others have said, 'playing audio' would be a nice feature.
The other night at my wife's mothers place there was this crummy telemovie on. I nearly had a fit. It was a remake of The Andromeda Strain. You know, that original movie isn't so bad....
(this line left intentionally blank).
Yeah--I should have clarified. The book is awesome. The old 1970ish movie is great, the current movie was remade so the entire point was environmentalist garbage.
If I want to get preached at, I'll go to church--not a movie theater.
A virus that messes too much with the host PC has a low survival rate.
You're making me want to read The Andromeda Strain again. (Read the book, the movie is meh!)
You can calculate what someone can afford under the assumption that their circumstances don't change. Take the persons income. Subtract an estimate of what they can afford to live on). Self employed people are trickier to deal with but you can estimate tolerably from their past records. Then subtract some safety margin in case your estimates of thier minimum living costs are off. What you've got left is the maximum payment you can be reasonablly sure they can afford to make on a loan.
Great answer.
But while collateral reduces the risk it is IMO both evil and stupid to use collateral that appears to be rising in value as a substitute for checking that the borrower can reasonably pay the loan. All that does is drive a bubble and when that bubble pops both the lender and the customers who can't afford thier loans are screwed big time.
Very true. But realize what you're saying. Some people are idiots and make bad decisions. I have three friends that voluntarily entered into crappy loans because they wanted houses--and they are still paying them back despite being upside down. What you're advocating would have denied them loans for their homes even though they are responsible people--because there are idiots out there.
These two lines set off my bullshit detector. A $315 monthly payment would have to be either a pretty short loan (36 or maybe 48 months), or a decent quality small car (in the $15-20k price range). If your car is about to die a full year before you've even finished paying off the loan on it, something not quite normal is going on.
The straight dope is that before my wife and I were married, the engine in her previous car blew up right in front of a dealership. She didn't know what she was getting herself into and they sold her a car that was probably only worth $8k for about $11k. They gave her 24.9% (ouch!) interest on the crappy thing and IIRC it's a 48 month loan. When I lost my job, I missed a few payments and they bumped the loan to 26% (seriously ouch!).
;)
The other side to that conundrum is me being an IT tech for a bunch of small businesses in the 'area'. I regularly put 1,500 to 2,000 miles per month on the thing. It's already well over 120,000 and badly in need of maintenance and a tune-up--which it will get as soon as I pay it off and can free up some cash in order to perform said maintenance.
The positive side to all this is that it forced me to go from a teenager/early-twenties moron who spent every paycheck on whatever I wanted to being much more responsible with my money. The down-side being I had the $60k/year job when I was younger...
Again, I can barely imagine someone actually coming up with such a thing, in the same way that I can barely imagine someone coming up with the story of Noah and believing it. It's the sort of idea people only receive as part of belonging to a cult. I'm suspecting the cult of Ayn Rand here.
To me, it sounded like you were saying morality needed to be legislated...so I asked you if that's what you meant. Then you went all crazy left-wing on me and started bible bashing and Ayn Rand bashing. WTF does *any* of that have to do with my question?
Well, no, obviously not. Which is understandable, given that you're just using the tactic of "I'll repeat back my opponent's disparaging remark, changing a couple of words"
That's ok--since you flat-out didn't refute my argument, but rather are trying to antagonize and pick a fight by bashing on various groups' personal beliefs.
The idea that the existence of regulation is the cause of the current crisis is like saying that AIDS is caused by the existence of doctors.
Nice analogy. But completely wrong. Try reading something on the topic.
It's just so crazy that you must have obtained it from some repository of craziness — the odds of any given individual coming up with it himself are just way too slim.
More crazy. Instead of providing examples or proof that my statement is wrong, you imply that I must have gotten the idea from a 'repository of craziness' and that a single individual couldn't come up with that idea. (I can understand how you'd feel that an individual can't think for themselves if you graduated from government schools). But in your previous post you say I must have received the idea fro 'talk radio'.
Aren't those shows one person broadcasting over the radio? I.E. an individual? You sir are an idiot.
Yes, because they know. If they act unethically, regulation will be necessary.
There are so many things wrong with that statement...
You feel it's necessary to legislate morality?
You feel it's necessary to make legislation to prevent idiots from being idiots?
According to your views, they've been screwing up and can't be trusted to assess loans. The government? They got the banks here in the first place with stupid regulations.
Did a gun-carrying radio talkshow host tell you that? It's not an idea anyone could have spontaneously formed.
Did the government education system teach you to refute arguments with irrelevant drivel? That's the only way anyone could have spontaneously come up with that reply.
Do you really *need* a new car? Or do you need a used car? And do you really need to own that car? Or can you just get by with just leasing/borrowing/sharing one for now?
I won't mention public transportation, special ride sharing programs, moving closer to your workplace, switching jobs, or getting yourself a moped/bicycle. For all I know, you live in the snowy mountains some place, and you need a reliable car with 4 by 4 capabilities -- so you don't kill yourself the next time the road is icy.
And if that's the case, I apologize in advance, because I think you would be the exception -- not the rule. Most people do not *need* a new car. It's just that most people think they're entitled to a new (or an almost new) car just because they see their neighbors have one.
I never said I needed a *new* car, just that I needed *a* car.
I work as an IT contractor for smaller businesses that don't need full-time IT staff. I travel roughly in a 100 mile radius from the company office, and I am on-call pretty much all the time.
This destroys any possibility of public transportation, ride sharing, car pooling, and makes renting or leasing very expensive.
I also live in the pacific northwest. It rains 11.5 months out of the year. I can't drive a moped or a motorcycle. Plus, I have to arrive at client sites in a dress shirt and dress pants--so I can't get all wrinkly by putting riding gear over top of my cloths.
A new car would be nice--but it's unnecessary like you said. The price of the car would drop significantly the moment I drove it off the lot.
A used car would be great, but that still costs money. I didn't see any 'decent' used cards un the paper for under a few thousand. Since I am currently in debt and all my money is going to pay that debt back, I don't have a few thou saved for a car yet.
So really, my option is to get a loan or pray that my current vehicle holds out for another few months so I can free up cash.
But that's all a bit off topic for the discussion that banks *should* be allowed to loan money to anyone they want under any terms they want--as long as the borrower is free to refuse the loan and terms.
No; according to my views their ability to assess loans hasn't changed; what's changed is their willingness to give loans to those they know cannot repay.
So you can see the future?
Do you know if I will repay my car loan or not?
Could you tell me, because I'm curious myself in these 'tough' economic times.
Tell me *exactly* how you determine if someone can repay a loan that doesn't come down to the unscientific method of saying "He seems like an honest guy".
So what they're really doing is guaranteeing that they'll have to take their customer's house and sell it plus they get a tidy bonus on top for the few months they were paid.
Or written another way: 'The customer is putting the house up as collateral against their loan, and the bank is taking taking the collateral when someone defaults on their loan'.
I'd like to see you open a bank without that stipulation in your loans. I'd be your first customer.
Idiots with willfully-negligent loan advisors.
First off--I would never trust an advisor that works for the company/bank that is trying to get money out of me. Secondly, people who do are idiots. Thirdly, people who do trust that advisor and then bitch, moan, and try to get a bailout from the feds after they get bad advice should immediately hand in their 'adult card' and go back to a nice little padded room where they aren't allowed to make 'grown up' decisions anymore.
Perhaps because the banks don't actually have anything backing the loans they offer? The whole system is a scam which depended upon an increasing number of new suckers to take credit every year
I whole-heartedly agree with you. I don't bank anymore. No credit cards, no checks. Now-a-days everyone seems to forget about good 'ol cash and the text 'For all debts public and private'.
The only company I had problems with after I dropped my bank was my landlord/rental company. They refused to accept cash because they didn't like having lots of money in their office, and they often couldn't make change.
I told them they could apply any overpayment to the rent due next month and that they can't refuse cash.
No, I'm saying that if you can only afford to pay back a $5000 loan then they shouldn't offer you a $50000 loan...
But who determines how much is too much? The bank? According to your views, they've been screwing up and can't be trusted to assess loans. The government? They got the banks here in the first place with stupid regulations.
...and now you, I, and everyone else that pays taxes are bailing out the banks that lost big-time.
To be blunt, I'm a 'risk'. They could loan me $100,000 and I could pay back every cent. Hell--I could win the lottery tomorrow and pay the loan in full immediately. Of course I could also get fired or laid off from my job tomorrow too and then jump off a bridge. They'd never see a red cent. They'd have to sell the house and hope to get a return.
It all boils down to risk/reward. Are you going to dump tons of money on someone who might just screw you over? If the potential reward is big enough you will. That's what banks are doing.
They may be willing to give me $100,000 if they know that after 30 years they will have made an extra $20k on it. And if the risk is that I don't repay--they can take my house, sell it, and hopefully make some/all of the $100,000 back.
Only idiots buy $250,000 houses that are really worth $150,000 when all they can afford is $100,000.
But in the end, the banks that 'risked' it are getting screwed because they lent $250,000 for a $150,000 house, made $20,000 off the borrower, and then got stuck $80,000 in the hole.
When did the government get the power to take money from me for the bad decisions of banks and sub-prime borrowers?
Look, what I'm saying is that they shouldn't have been given the loans in the first place.
The humane thing to do is to give your customers the benefit of your wisdom not use it against them to exploit them - as happened here.
So over the last 3 years, I lost my job (which caused me to go into debt, etc...), cut my spending, got a new job and have been living in a crappy $400/mo rental, skipping meals, not heating during the winter, dropped my cell phone plan, etc...all so I could pay my bills back. I'm about 3 months away from having *everything* paid off--car, credit cards, etc...and I will be 1 month ahead on all my major bills.
But my credit report will still look bad until those 3 months are up. Are you saying hands-down that a bank should refuse to loan me money for a new car?
My current vehicle probably won't last another month. I *need* a car loan.
Most banks would look at me and still consider me a risk (all my 'bad' ratings go away in 3 months--but for the moment they are still there). So you're saying you morally feel that a bank should refuse to lend to me under any circumstances?
Thanks.
I'd rather banks take a look at me and say "You're a risk. We'd be willing to risk it if you pay x% interest. Then it would be worth it to us."
That way I can get my car, pay off all my other bills in 3 months, and then free up $1k/mo to go towards paying back a new car that I need right now. The faster I over-pay my car loan, the less interest I'll actually end up paying in the long run.