Private sector parasites
- Thread starter AK Forty Seven
- Start date
There is no doubt that capital needs to be concentrated for many projects, but it can be concentrated from many sources. People who make money merely by renting it are parasites, no matter what pretty labels are put on them. Sure, there's some admin work, some risk, some necessary contacts to it, but dad teaches the kids how to do those, croaks, and passes a comparatively free ride on to the kids. Everyone sees this in operation, why do so many kids of politicians get into politics? Children of movie stars get into movies?
Sure as soon as all taxation state, federal, local together comes under 8% of my income.
Right and that's why they were dirt poor for the whole fricking time except the vatican.
Since jews had no such restrictions they were the only ones who developed capital wealth. The jealousy of such wealth I'm sure has to do with their historical persecution.
Also note Jews as a racial group have the highest IQ. A clear sign of both nature and nurture's confluence and impact ie SOCIAL DARWINISM.
yes, success begets success who knew?
I have to seriously question this: "...then lenders were forced to loan to people that were high risk..."
Though you are not claiming this, it is a common misconception that the CRA had something to do with the recent financial crisis. It didn't. For all practical purposes the law had no teeth and there were no penalties for non-compliance other than a poor CRA rating.
see for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act from which the following is quoted
"[t]he law,... emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution. ... An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA."
I'm equally puzzled by this remark:
"The government guaranteed those loans even though we were barely out of the crisis caused by guaranteeing Savings and Loans. That effort to help the poor resulted in the whole country's working class being pushed towards poverty. "
Which does not seem to follow from any of your preceding remarks.
You are surely aware that the extreme income disparity in the U.S. today that has resulted in some of those at the low end of the middle class falling back into poverty, according to data, had its genesis in the 1970's but then grew dramatically afterward, and was particularly influenced by fiscal policy in the 1980's during the Reagan years.
(From 1981-89, after the final revenue adjustments were made in 1986, those at the top saw a 42% reduction in the highest bracket rate, although those at the bottom saw their rate go from 11 to 15%. The net effect of the two income tax bracket adjustments during Reagan's time was to eliminate much of the "progressive nature" of the income tax and make it flatter, though not entirely flat. What I find especially curious about the Reagan presidency was that on top of the income tax tinkering came the largest peacetime tax increase ever, so far at least as I am aware. That was TEFRA , but that wasn't about income tax rates. That was about closing loopholes and increasing excise taxes. In the end, overall government revenues during Reagan's time almost perfectly matched those of prior decades at near 18.2% of GDP, but the source of revenues was significantly altered. )
There's a reason why I used "recent" in the prior post, the reply from the forum's idiot was brushed aside months ago when the report came out, at least from the same blog, (I know of others doing the same), What Does the New Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Paper Tell Us?
Some people find it in their interests to re-write history. Others are like foolish sheep and just blindly follow along regardless of the facts.
Just a sample of the problem:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IyqYY72PeRM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Just a sample of the problem:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IyqYY72PeRM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
