People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

This is not an all or nothing proposal, and I have never said as such. I think there may be valid cases for public transportation. But to somehow claim, as you seem to be, that public transportation does not or should not have to compete against private transportation is foolish at best. Supporting the desires of the few at the expense of the many for ever more, isn't what I would call a recipe for finacial solvency.

---

But, extrapolated, the end result of what you suggest is 'all or nothing'.

You and others like you don't really espouse choice — what you espouse is an unfettered free market, and that in itself does not always guarantee choice, let alone benefit society. You like choice on your terms. Outside them, you don't want to know. To put it another way, it's not those in the centre or on the left who have for years sought to deny people the choice to have an abortion, or the choice to marry a same-sex partner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Yes it should be down to the individual lender. But the document I just quoted from, an offical US Federal Government document, clearly states that it is no longer a decision the individual lender can make.

---

I repeat: while it may say that discrimination on grounds of ethnic group, skin colour, etc is no longer permissible, where is the line where it says (I paraphrase): 'You must lend to them come what may'? That does not follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But, extrapolated, the end result of what you suggest is 'all or nothing'.

You and others like you don't really espouse choice — what you espouse is an unfettered free market, and that in itself does not always guarantee choice, let alone benefit society. You like choice on your terms. Outside them, you don't want to know. To put it another way, it's not those in the centre or on the left who have for years sought to deny people the choice to have an abortion, or the choice to marry a same-sex partner.

---

Sorry but you are wrong. You choose not to see my argument. You seem to be advocating for public transportation, costs be damned. However, what I am saying is that if public transportation can compete in the free market against private industry, I'm ok with that. How is that "all or nothing"? How am I denying anyone any sort of choice?

It seems that somehow you have decided that you don't like my argument, so you pull out this crap about me not wanting choice. And then to top it off you pull out a non-sequiter of abortion and same sex marriage, which have absolutly zero to do with this debate, and I have not said one word about them. This last post of yours seems to be the last desperate all out attack on someone who has an idea you don't agree with, but you feel you are loosing the debate. Come on man you are better than that. You have rational arguments and ideas, why resort to this type of "failure" rhetoric?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I repeat: while it may say that discrimination on grounds of ethnic group, skin colour, etc is no longer permissible, where is the line where it says (I paraphrase): 'You must lend to them come what may'? That does not follow.

---

I'll repeat my quote that was taken directly from the document in question.

Quote:

---

Example of "disparate impact". A lender's policy is not to extend loans for single family residences for less than $60,000.00. This has been in effect for ten years. This minimum loan amount policy is shown to disproportionately exclude potential minority applicants from consideration because of their income levels or the value of the houses in the areas in which they live.

---

So what this is explicitly saying is that even if you apply criteria equally accross everyone we, the Federal Government, can still step in and tell you that you MUST loan more to minority applicants even if they do not meet your equally applied criteria.

To break it down farther. A bank chooses that low end housing lending is too risky for them to engage in (not loaning for housing under $60,000) because they have a higher than average default rate. And said bank happens to do business in an area where all the minorities tend to seek loans for houses less than $60,000. Therefore the bank will just happen not to lend to "enough" minorities according to the Federal Government. So the government may then go in and force the bank to change their lending practices such that they now must give mortgages for homes under $60,000. Now predictable, as the bank saw coming, those mortgages start defaulting. So the bank starts loosing money, again just as was predicted. It all spirals until things fail. Where do you see that logic failing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Sorry but you are wrong. You choose not to see my argument. You seem to be advocating for public transportation, costs be damned. However, what I am saying is that if public transportation can compete in the free market against private industry, I'm ok with that. How is that "all or nothing"? How am I denying anyone any sort of choice?

---

Choice ends up being denied when market forces, as they inevitably do, take over, the good of society be damned. At that point, choice goes out of the window. We see the creep of the private sector into the public services already. In many ways, I fundamentally disagree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

It seems that somehow you have decided that you don't like my argument, so you pull out this crap about me not wanting choice. And then to top it off you pull out a non-sequiter of abortion and same sex marriage, which have absolutly zero to do with this debate, and I have not said one word about them. This last post of yours seems to be the last desperate all out attack on someone who has an idea you don't agree with, but you feel you are loosing the debate. Come on man you are better than that. You have rational arguments and ideas, why resort to this type of "failure" rhetoric?

---

Not at all. It is entirely relevant to my argument — that you, and those like you, have a very narrow view of what constitutes 'choice'. Clearly, this is a point you have no desire to address.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Choice ends up being denied when market forces, as they inevitably do, take over, the good of society be damned. At that point, choice goes out of the window. We see the creep of the private sector into the public services already. In many ways, I fundamentally disagree with it.

---

How is choice denied? If there is no public sector service but there are multiple private services, that is clearly a choice. Society be damned? What are you talking about? If a government is forced to continue to subsidize a service that continues to loose money, plunging the government deeper and deeper into debt, how in the world does that benefit society?

You are not advocating for choice in a free market system. You are advocating for public sector services at any cost. That I fundamentally disagree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Not at all. It is entirely relevant to my argument — that you, and those like you, have a very narrow view of what constitutes 'choice'. Clearly, this is a point you have no desire to address.

---

You have no clue what my views are on those points, for the simple fact that they do not enter into this debate at all. But if you must know....

I believe that abortion should be outlawed in just about every case. I value human life. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. So killing out of mere convinence is not really respecting human life. It's a human life, a child, a beautiful thing to be cherishied, it's not a "choice" as so many would like us to believe. The "chioce" was to get pregnant in the first place. Responsibilty matters. Now here comes the "what about rape" crowd. If after much counciling and so-forth if the woman really can't bring that child into the world and put him/her up for adoption perhaps I could see that. But those cases are so very rare, and should be kept as such.

As for same sex marriage, the government should not have any role in marriage at all same sex or oposite sex. I think marriage is a contract between two people and God. If one wishes to enter into some sort of co-habitation contract or arrangement outside of God/chuch, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. Why should governments have any say one way or another?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So right there in the document itself it clearly lays out the process by which banks will be forced to lend to minority households even if they can not afford the loan.

---

No it doesn't.

http://www.ots.treas.gov/_files/25022.pdf
Example of "disparate impact". A lender's policy is not to extend loans for single family residences for less than $60,000.00. This has been in effect for ten years. This minimum loan amount policy is shown to disproportionately exclude potential minority applicants from consideration because of their income levels or the value of the houses in the areas in which they live.

It says that the policy excludes people on the basis of their income. The remedy would be to provide loans of less than $60,000 at level which people could afford. It does not at all suggest that prudent lending practices be abandoned in order to do so.

There is no order to force banks to lend any money to anyone. Furthermore as this is only a policy document, it's not actual legislation which does define the manner in which lending practices are to take place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No it doesn't.

http://www.ots.treas.gov/_files/25022.pdf
Example of "disparate impact". A lender's policy is not to extend loans for single family residences for less than $60,000.00. This has been in effect for ten years. This minimum loan amount policy is shown to disproportionately exclude potential minority applicants from consideration because of their income levels or the value of the houses in the areas in which they live.

It says that the policy excludes people on the basis of their income. The remedy would be to provide loans of less than $60,000 at level which people could afford. It does not at all suggest that prudent lending practices be abandoned in order to do so.

---

No it says that if a bank doesn't want to make loans on residences of less than $60,000, if that happens to be mostly minorities, that they will prosecute the lending institutions based on the impact of their policies.

If the prudent lending practice, as determined by the lending instituion, is to not make loans under $60,000, then this document will force them to abandon their own established prudent lending practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

There is no order to force banks to lend any money to anyone. Furthermore as this is only a policy document, it's not actual legislation which does define the manner in which lending practices are to take place.

---

It is a Department of Justice document outlining the basis of prosecutions that they will seek on lending institutions. How is that not "actual legislation"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

How is choice denied? If there is no public sector service but there are multiple private services, that is clearly a choice. Society be damned? What are you talking about? If a government is forced to continue to subsidize a service that continues to loose money, plunging the government deeper and deeper into debt, how in the world does that benefit society?

---

There are services that the public sector provides that could not continue on a commercial basis, but are extremely important nonetheless. Those are the instances beyond which I believe the societal benefit of public provision goes beyond the financial bottom line.

You seem to have a problem with people wishing to make different choices to your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You are advocating for public sector services at any cost. That I fundamentally disagree with.

---

Where have I said 'at any cost'? Nowhere. Of course there must be limits. I just wouldn't set them quite as low as yours. Nor do I believe that the private sector is in any way inherently superior when it comes to the provision of said services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You have no clue what my views are on those points, for the simple fact that they do not enter into this debate at all. But if you must know....

I believe that abortion should be outlawed in just about every case. I value human life. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. So killing out of mere convinence is not really respecting human life. It's a human life, a child, a beautiful thing to be cherishied, it's not a "choice" as so many would like us to believe. The "chioce" was to get pregnant in the first place.

---

Again, your view of what constitutes 'choice' is exceptionally narrow, to the point at which I again say you are not genuinely interested in giving people a choice except when it pertains to asserting the superiority of the private sector and the free market.

I just can't get my head around the idea of a private sector in markets that are 'natural monopolies' e.g. rail network, utilities.etc. Since such markets require such an infrastructure they require a national network, this creates barriers to entry that mean 'real' competition can not develop.

Does the private owned Network Rail do a better job than the public owned British Rail? Not really, neither make/d a profit, both are/were funded by the public.