|
PT6A posted:So: strong, but in disagreement with the orthodoxy on the CanPol thread? (Fried Watermelon gave you the more succinct answer, pitched at about the level of discourse that your original comment warranted, but for the sake of any interested third parties here's a longer version) Because the marginal propensity to consume (the likelihood that you'll spend money you take in as income) varies a great deal meaning that large amounts of money going from low-income households to the financial sector is not automatically a good thing for the rest of the economy. A poor person lacking in financial literacy is actually more likely to spend their money in the local economy, transforming it into income for a local business, whereas a financial institution or corporation is much more likely to sit on that money and wait for a good investment opportunity, or to send that economy outside national boarders. In fact this tendency for corporations to avoid investing their profits is so widely commented on at this point that even the bank of Canada has made note of it. Predatory lending doesn't free up wastefully spent money and put it to better or more efficient uses. It sucks money out of local economies and quite often it, as far as the rest of us need be concerned, they might as well be tossing that money into a ditch and setting it on fire. The rest of the economy doesn't become better off because a sketchy lender just bilked someone. The best that can be said about some of these lenders -- in terms of their impact on the rest of the economy -- is that by fronting this guy the money to buy dumb poo poo they have helped sustain effective demand at a time when other sources of demand were weak. But by loading consumers with debt they also put a drag on future effective demand. In fact, over leveraged consumers is one of the biggest risks to our economy, and you look like an idiot when you start cheer leading for that tendency. Here's an example of the debt cycle in action: Global News posted:Jillane Mignon just needed cash to pay for day care. So in some short term sense this PayDay lender she went to helped stimulate demand by giving her cash to pay to the daycare. Since then it has probably done a lot to suck demand out of the local economy by biting into her paycheck and forcing her to forgo on necessary items. Your assumption is that all the money she (and by extension, the local economy where she spends most of her pay cheque) losses to this PayDay loan will magically end up going to a better use somewhere else, which is totally unsupported by the evidence. Stepping back and taking a bigger picture view of this argument, your blase attitude toward the distribution of income in society -- based on the premise that eventually it ends up as tax income for the government -- is dangerous because it ignores the important impact that institutions have on economic development. To quote from the conclusion to an econ paper on the topic of institutions and their impact on distribution: Is There an Institutional Theory of Distribution?, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ISSUES, Vol. XXXIX No. 4 December 2005, p. 12 posted:A highly skewed distribution of income is detrimental to the development of the type of broad-based consumerism that buoyed the United States economy in the post-1945 era. It is questionable whether the “golden age” (1945–1972) expansion of output and productive capacity could have been achieved without the ameliorative effects of the minimum wage, unionism and collective bargaining, progressive taxation, and income transfers. While we're talking about a more basic issue than the overall distribution of income in society, I cite this paper as worthy of consideration because the implication of your statement is that we don't need to worry much about institutions or the distribution of income as long as we have a vaguely progressive tax system. I'd suggest that's a really dangerous and foolhardy attitude. We have no reason to celebrate an economy in which an increasing percentage of consumer spending goes into debt servicing.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2016 21:08 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:52 |
|
Fried Watermelon posted:All that money from the fools and plebs goes to corporate, which then goes to Panama or another tax haven never to be seen again. My goodness! That sounds like a very significant problem -- maybe we should be focused on that, which is not industry-specific, instead of whining that short-term credit is bad and the lenders are a bunch of big, mean poopy-heads. It's funny, really: if you extend small amounts of money at usurious rates to people who otherwise would have no access to credit in the developing world, you get a Nobel Peace Prize. Here in Canada, where it's arguably easier to access money and people are more educated in general, it's somehow bad. PT6A fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Apr 26, 2016 |
# ? Apr 26, 2016 21:08 |
|
Forcing predatory lenders to be less terrible, fixing the social safety net and instituting fair & comprehensive tax laws aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Governments can do many things at once. Also, strangely enough, loaning money to broke people at usurious rates has bad effects in poor places too. Like debtors having to publicly sell all of their belongings or kill themselves. These lenders should also be forced to act in a less horrible way. quote:http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/is-it-micro-usury/267394 flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Apr 26, 2016 |
# ? Apr 26, 2016 21:44 |
|
PT6A posted:My goodness! That sounds like a very significant problem -- maybe we should be focused on that, which is not industry-specific, instead of whining that short-term credit is bad and the lenders are a bunch of big, mean poopy-heads. They gave Obama a peace prize for hopefully not spending the next 8 years at war. Sometimes they make poor choices. All of these companies explicitly target people who could never pay the loans back. The ad above is telling people "not having money is shameful and you shouldn't ever admit to that because people will call you an idiot".
|
# ? Apr 26, 2016 21:46 |
|
senae posted:All of these companies explicitly target people who could never pay the loans back. The ad above is telling people "not having money is shameful and you shouldn't ever admit to that because people will call you an idiot". Do they, though? They're targeting people who value instant gratification over financial well-being. Credit card companies do this too, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. Sometimes these people could very easily pay down their debts if they were willing to lower their spending -- I know a couple who make over $200k per year, and still have over $30k in credit card debt. Where I will draw the line is targeting poor people who couldn't otherwise afford things that one could reasonably consider necessities, as with the person whose story Helsing quoted who used payday loans to pay for child care. That's a problem with the social safety net in general, though -- removing access to short-term credit will do very little indeed to solve the underlying problem. Lots of people will end up in circumstances in which they want or need to use short-term lending. Trying to remove all access to such is not going to solve the problem.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2016 22:31 |
|
I've been saving money and calculating interest from the crib. Societal pressure? As if (thanks aspbergers). If these dumb wanker cunts can't save it's not my problem.. How can enabling their poor financial decisions effect me?better for them to be bankrupt than limit my access to pay day loans. Cigars
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:02 |
|
flashman posted:I've been saving money and calculating interest from the crib. Societal pressure? As if (thanks aspbergers). If these dumb wanker cunts can't save it's not my problem.. How can enabling their poor financial decisions effect me?better for them to be bankrupt than limit my access to pay day loans. Cigars No mention of a prominent politician's weight, I give you 8/10.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:07 |
|
Stephen Harper acted honourably in Mike Duffy investigation; now it's time for other authorities to step up] Stephen Harper Acted Honourably in Mike Duffy investigation From Harper's lawyer.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:09 |
|
There's social pressure to take payday loans? What on earth...?
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:10 |
|
The less enlightened among us find value in consumption and strive to match their peers spending even when not financially astute. Not having money is seen to as a personal failing by these dullard half wits, and the simpering weak willed cretins buy into this shite as if it were real and consume accordingly. Either that or they are disgusting corpulent manifestations of nenshiesque proportions who can't stop consuming food lol. I have personally ascended this need to base my personal value on what I buy. I would rather spend my money on luxurious automobiles, fine tobacco, aged liquors, and trips around the world than waste it trying to impress people.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:25 |
|
flashman posted:The less enlightened among us find value in consumption and strive to match their peers spending even when not financially astute. Not having money is seen to as a personal failing by these dullard half wits, and the simpering weak willed cretins buy into this shite as if it were real and consume accordingly. Either that or they are disgusting corpulent manifestations of nenshiesque proportions who can't stop consuming food lol. I have personally ascended this need to base my personal value on what I buy. I would rather spend my money on luxurious automobiles, fine tobacco, aged liquors, and trips around the world than waste it trying to impress people. I'm not against consumption or baffled by it. In fact, as you have so sarcastically pointed out, I'm a big fan. At the same time, I've decided not to buy things because I can't afford them rather than go into debt just to prove something to someone. If you can't exercise that level of self control, you really shouldn't be going out in public regularly. Or surfing the Internet, for that matter. Admittedly, this could be because I've socialized with people who both have a whole lot more and a whole lot less than I do. There's nothing wrong with turning something down because you don't have the money. I don't think less of anyone who would do it, nor has anyone I've dealt with thought less of me (except for one dude and I told him to gently caress himself). Perhaps if you've grown up in a more economically homogenous social circle, there's more pressure to conform. PT6A fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Apr 27, 2016 |
# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:33 |
|
https://twitter.com/AndrewLawton/status/725054906709762050
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:47 |
|
Helsing posted:The best that can be said about some of these lenders -- in terms of their impact on the rest of the economy -- is that by fronting this guy the money to buy dumb poo poo they have helped sustain effective demand at a time when other sources of demand were weak. But by loading consumers with debt they also put a drag on future effective demand. In fact, over leveraged consumers is one of the biggest risks to our economy, and you look like an idiot when you start cheer leading for that tendency.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:10 |
|
Guess they didn't pray hard enough to be found innocent. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/meningitis-trial-verdict-1.3552941
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:21 |
|
Ikantski posted:Guess they didn't pray hard enough to be found innocent. I hope they go to prison for five years, as is the maximum sentence. It should be more, but the law's the law I guess.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:26 |
|
PT6A posted:I hope they go to prison for five years, as is the maximum sentence. It should be more, but the law's the law I guess. Hnnnngggg https://www.facebook.com/PrayersForEzekiel/posts/1190390867638163
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:38 |
|
Must not touch poop. Must not touch poop. I must. Not touch. The poop.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:44 |
|
They're deleting all the comments critical of the parents and those agreeing with the verdict, leaving pure concentrated craziness. Yes, the only reason they were guilty was because the jurors were paid off! Well also the fact that people didn't pray hard enough apparently.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:47 |
|
mik posted:They're deleting all the comments critical of the parents and those agreeing with the verdict, leaving pure concentrated craziness. Yes, the only reason they were guilty was because the jurors were paid off! Well also the fact that people didn't pray hard enough apparently. I know a lot of folks don't care for my passionate/hyperbolic side, but can you really tell me that no one in that gaggle of morons would be improved by a savage beating?
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:50 |
|
mik posted:They're deleting all the comments critical of the parents and those agreeing with the verdict, leaving pure concentrated craziness. Yes, the only reason they were guilty was because the jurors were paid off! Well also the fact that people didn't pray hard enough apparently. Of course the OP's profile picture is a tiny dog. Of course. e: "Proud to be vegan today" CanPol Megathread: I FEEL SO NOT FREE vyelkin fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Apr 27, 2016 |
# ? Apr 27, 2016 02:08 |
|
Go read the rottentomatoes user reviews for that anti-vax movie.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 02:28 |
|
cowofwar posted:Go read the rottentomatoes user reviews for that anti-vax movie. Will it make me have violent thoughts again?
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 02:30 |
|
vyelkin posted:CanPol Megathread: I FEEL SO NOT FREE Mods?
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 02:31 |
|
PT6A posted:Will it make me have violent thoughts again? They aren't all bad.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 02:31 |
|
PT6A posted:Will it make me have violent thoughts again? On my second readthrough of that abject lunacy, I feel like I finally understand you. Or, at least, the angry part.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 02:32 |
|
vyelkin posted:They aren't all bad. They will be after they remove dissenting posts again. Edit: I thought it was the Facebook thing, not the movie reviews. Never mind. PT6A fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Apr 27, 2016 |
# ? Apr 27, 2016 02:37 |
|
I'm the JEHOVAH WHITENESS in there. Like I hope it was a frothing typo and nothing more, and yet...
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 03:00 |
|
My wife came from an Adventist background and still has a ton of em on Facebook. I bet they're frothing at the mouth at this verdict. I should grab her phone and take a peek.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 04:18 |
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-does-not-and-will-not-pay-ransom-to-terrorists-trudeau/article29761342/quote:Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Canada will not pay Abu Sayyaf terrorists any ransom to release remaining hostages, which leaves open the question of whether Ottawa and its allies could launch a rescue mission to free those held by the Filipino jihadis. Canadian lives are pretty worthless so paying a ransom would be a waste of TAX DOLLARS anyway. Well done prime minister selfie.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 04:26 |
|
quote:Mr. Trudeau said Canada “is determined to bring these terrorist criminals to justice” and has talked to Philippines President Benigno Aquino III, whose government is coming under pressure to free remaining hostages. lmao ooh well then quote:Security sources say the CIA, Australia’s intelligence service and the Communications Security Establishment, which is Canada’s ultrasecret signals intelligence agency, would be assisting the RCMP as the lead agency in seeking the release of the hostages. hahahahahah
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 04:26 |
|
i think it's great that canada is the world leader in tactical diaper technology thanks to war hero romeo dallaire. at least our soldiers will die in dignity with dry underpants
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 04:32 |
|
Vincent Otf Valentine posted:YOU CAN'T BE INFORMED ABOUT MEDS BUT KNOW IT'S WRONG BUT YET NO CHOICE , NO RIGHT OF REFUSAL OF ANY THING. "You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 04:50 |
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Stephen Harper acted honourably in Mike Duffy investigation; now it's time for other authorities to step up] Stephen Harper Acted Honourably in Mike Duffy investigation True for certain Newspeak values of "honourable".
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 05:03 |
|
Completely unrelated but one of my friends posted this gem today
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 05:03 |
|
THC posted:Completely unrelated but one of my friends posted this gem today I have a difficult time believing that this is a real post written by a real person
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 05:15 |
|
EvilJoven posted:My wife came from an Adventist background and still has a ton of em on Facebook. I bet they're frothing at the mouth at this verdict. I should grab her phone and take a peek. I left the Adventist church a long time ago. I don't recall them being anything but positive about modern medicine and vaccinations. Have they gone back to their 19th century roots with corn flakes to prevent masturbation and chiropractic to fix everything else?
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 05:25 |
|
It must be nice to be so comfortable that you can outright reject modern health care.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 05:26 |
|
THC posted:Completely unrelated but one of my friends posted this gem today natural selection marches on, despite our best efforts
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 07:47 |
|
Hexigrammus posted:I left the Adventist church a long time ago. I don't recall them being anything but positive about modern medicine and vaccinations. Have they gone back to their 19th century roots with corn flakes to prevent masturbation and chiropractic to fix everything else? At least from what I've seen. Tons of fad diets and green smoothies, the word 'toxins' being thrown about along with poo poo like 'I'm going on a cleanse' which is code for eating nothing but papya or some poo poo for a week then spending the weekend sitting on the toilet. Spending thousands on health seminars where they tell you that you can get a proper diagnosis for any ailment via iridology and yes some vocal anti vaxxers.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 13:31 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:52 |
|
quote:In light of recent events I am going to focus this update solely on the CBC article that has come out and created a great deal of trouble for my wife and I. It is this CBC article that has served to be the reference point for which many other articles have taken their information (or misinformation) from. I will be breaking down some of the points that were covered in that article that at best were mistakes, and at worst, an intentional dissemination of misinformation that has served to be extremely provocative and defaming of my wife and I and the organization that I work for. Ultimately this has created a hostile environment for my wife and I to be in. Let me put this straight, my wife and I are now in a situation that we have so much animosity being directed our way that we are actually concerned for our security and are currently considering legal action against CBC.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2016 13:35 |