People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

As much as some of you wish to simply deny anything Anthonyvop states as fact, anyone that had actually looked into the issue much would have found there are quite a number of credible sources that have had this same opinion for quite some time.

---

Which does not mean they are true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Let me ask you a simple question. How can a collapse in the credit default market lead to 100's of thousands of Foreclosures?

---

CDS's were collated debt securities. The thing was no-one who traded these had the financial prudence to check on the underlying backing.
It was a bit like putting a whole heap of lamb chops into boxes and then passing the boxes around. No-one bothered to open the boxes to look and see if the meat had gone off.

When defaults started to happen, it caused a tightening of credit markets, which again tightened up the credit on which people's mortgages was financed by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Are the people losing their homes for failure to make payment because they had invested in CDS's?

---

No. This is a non-sequitur.
You give part of the reason below though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

To put it simply it was the collapse of the housing bubble(which was so predictable that even I knew it was coming). Combined this with the jump in property taxes and you have an accelerated foreclosure collapse which then killed the Credit Default Swap Market

---

A few defaulters will cause a credit crunch and an accompanying flight to quality which is precisely what happened. In that respect the 2008 credit crunch was similar to the credit crunches of the 1960s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

And yes.....The top lenders were FORCED to lend to less than creditworthy people. That is an undisputed fact. It is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to do.

---

Did you bother to read the document you posted?

"Lenders must continue to ensure that their lending practices are consistent with safe and sound operating policies"
The document advises for the most part that factors like race, creed and colour should not be the basis to discriminate when lending. Not once does it suggest as you make out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to lend to anyone.

Lenders lent to people who should have never have been lent to in the first place. That's not the fault of regulation but rather a lack of it. I also note that there is no subprime market at all in Australia because bankruptcy rules mean that even if someone defaults and hands back the keys to the house, they're still liable for the debt as a result of the mortgage; even if the house is sold for less than the value of the mortgage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

My personal opinion is that with the government pressure involved in the sub-prime loans, many of these financial institutions banked on the fact that the government would be somewhat forced to help them out when the bubble burst.

---

I think that this is quite a valid opinion.

Penn Central (1970), Lockheed (1971), Chrysler (1980), the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989, all support this opinion nicely. There wasn't any reason to think that if a bank went bust, that the government wouldn't step in. In fact it did just that when Continental Illinois exploded in 1984.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In what sense does any of what you've posted in your last couple of contributions state that, as you say above, lenders were forced to offer mortgages regardless of creditworthiness and because of race or sex? All I can see is that they were obliged not to refuse on discriminatory lines, which is a very different thing.

---

But in the eyes of the government, just about anything is discrimination.

Age, sex, marital status, national origin, and religion are all included. Thus the companies were forced to treat everyone the same, regardless of statistical information which would show them that there are always certain demographics that would tend to be more or less credit worthy. That leaves them in a position to either overcharge the persons they deem more credit worthy, or extend the reasonable rates to people they might deem less credit worthy.

I'm glad such laws have somehow been avoided by the auto insurance industry. If they existed an 18 year old with a clean driving record would get the same rates as a 50 year old with a clean driving record. Which would mean the older drivers would pay more, since statistics show younger drivers in a higher risk group.

Why should older people pay more for life insurance? That is age discrimination! Charging people who skydive more for medical insurance is discrimination based on sex, since somewhere around 80 percent of people that skydive are men.


Discrimination happens every day. Often it is based on facts. Those facts aren't represented in laws that disallow discrimination as such laws are not inclusive of all the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In what sense does any of what you've posted in your last couple of contributions state that, as you say above, lenders were forced to offer mortgages regardless of creditworthiness and because of race or sex? All I can see is that they were obliged not to refuse on discriminatory lines, which is a very different thing.

---

Did you even read it?
Do you grasp what it means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

But in the eyes of the government, just about anything is discrimination.

Age, sex, marital status, national origin, and religion are all included. Thus the companies were forced to treat everyone the same, regardless of statistical information which would show them that there are always certain demographics that would tend to be more or less credit worthy. That leaves them in a position to either overcharge the persons they deem more credit worthy, or extend the reasonable rates to people they might deem less credit worthy.

---

So the banks ignored the line that Rollo posted which stated they should carry on with safe and sound operating practices which include risk stratification?

Or are you trying to argue something else, that even matched for creditworthiness some ethnic groups, nationalities or religions are still more likely to default than others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Did you even read it?
Do you grasp what it means?

---

Please point out (a) my error, and (b) where the documentation you provided states that lenders were forced to do anything of the sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

But in the eyes of the government, just about anything is discrimination.

Age, sex, marital status, national origin, and religion are all included. Thus the companies were forced to treat everyone the same, regardless of statistical information which would show them that there are always certain demographics that would tend to be more or less credit worthy. That leaves them in a position to either overcharge the persons they deem more credit worthy, or extend the reasonable rates to people they might deem less credit worthy.

---

But in no sense did that legislation compel, force, order, call it what you will, the lenders to do anything. The fact, for example, of it now being illegal for landlords to discriminate against potential tenants on grounds of race does not mean that a landlord is therefore forced to let a property to, say, an Afro-Caribbean person over and above a white Caucasian person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Or are you trying to argue something else, that even matched for creditworthiness some ethnic groups, nationalities or religions are still more likely to default than others?

---

In which case, surely individuals from those ethnic groups, nationalities and religions would never be allowed credit under any circumstances.

What we have here, I think, is an example of people twisting the meaning of a piece of legislation to suit their own ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But in no sense did that legislation compel, force, order, call it what you will, the lenders to do anything. The fact, for example, of it now being illegal for landlords to discriminate against potential tenants on grounds of race does not mean that a landlord is therefore forced to let a property to, say, an Afro-Caribbean person over and above a white Caucasian person.

---

But if a landlord has a history of statistical evidence showing that one race group is more reliable in paying their rent on time, they can't act on that, as it would be labeled discrimination. Thus they must rent to everyone with equal financial means and debt load, etc or not rent at all. Being all business desires to make money, they are tied and bound by government regulation stating that discrimination is against the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But in no sense did that legislation compel, force, order, call it what you will, the lenders to do anything. The fact, for example, of it now being illegal for landlords to discriminate against potential tenants on grounds of race does not mean that a landlord is therefore forced to let a property to, say, an Afro-Caribbean person over and above a white Caucasian person.

---

What part of this do you not understand?

"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices," the official policy statement warned.

If you knew anything about Washington if they think you discriminated you did. It is up to you to prove otherwise. One can go broke hiring lawyers to lend the money to anyone and let Washington worry about the consequences which is exactly what happened.
Remember the U.S. is now a country where if one calls a member of a minority or underpriviledged a word the member does not like, one can be sued and it is up to the one to prove the one did nothing wrong. The accuser suffers nothing.
If said same member of a group says the member was discriminated against in lending, the memeber can sue no questions asked and it is up to the accused to prove otherwise.

To say this would not happen is ignorance of U.S. politics in a gross manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

But in the eyes of the government, just about anything is discrimination.

Age, sex, marital status, national origin, and religion are all included.

---

Are you saying those aren't potential causes for discrimination? At least they don't include employment and financial status, as far as I know. And those are what matter. I'd hate a situation where I'm denied a loan just because someone else of the same age, sex,marital status, national origin and religion has not repaid his when I know that I myself can and will pay back mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

What part of this do you not understand?

---

Specifically what if anything it's got to do with the abandonment of prudent lending practices some 14 years later. If it had had some meaningful effect, it would have taken place almost three business cycles earlier.

Surely the invention of "no doc" and "low doc" loans as a result of deregulation and exacerbated by the Bush/Greenspan tax cuts following the DotCom bubble created the easy credit market which led to the mess.
Joseph Stiglitz had that opinion when he wrote about it in 2007.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - How the Bubble Started

I call shenanigans on anthonyvop's hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What does that have to do with anything? You asked for an example of a private company being in a monopoly position. I provided one.

To answer your question, someone might not be able to drive, or they may have chosen for some reason not to drive. The concept is not difficult to grasp.

---

I asked for an example of a private company beingin a monopoly position. Your example is not a true monopoly. It is a state run monopoly for "public" transportation. But even at that, it isn't a monopoly as there is an alternative ... truly private trasportation. Your own car, your friend's car, taxi, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Again, there may be all sorts of reasons why not.

---

True there may be many reasons why you want to buy your coffee on the high street. Fact of the matter is, no one is forcing you, you do have choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

This will be a key question for all of us as time goes on IMHO.

Rather than ask why support someone who is expensive, perhaps we should be asking why are they expensive and what could be done to make them less so?

---

As long as you are talking about reducing expensise through the free market system, I'm all for it. And in the long run, the free market will chose the highest value product (not always lowest cost). But if you are talking about some sort of government intervention to somehow try and force down prices (which seems to be the point of the OWS people), then count me out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

But if a landlord has a history of statistical evidence showing that one race group is more reliable in paying their rent on time, they can't act on that, as it would be labeled discrimination.

---

And quite right too. Surely these things must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis?

On the Janet Reno/mortgages bit. Hopefully the link works

http://www.ots.treas.gov/_files/25022.pdf

Quote:

---

Evidence of "disparate impact." when a lender applies a practice uniformly to all applicants but the practice has a discriminatory effect on a prohibited basis and is not justified by business necessity.

---

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I asked for an example of a private company beingin a monopoly position. Your example is not a true monopoly. It is a state run monopoly for "public" transportation.

---

No, you misunderstand completely. What I was talking about was not state-run at all. I was clearly referring to the involvement of private companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

But even at that, it isn't a monopoly as there is an alternative ... truly private trasportation. Your own car, your friend's car, taxi, etc.

---

Much as I suspected, your belief in 'choice' only goes so far. In this instance, you seem to be saying that the choice is private transportation or nothing; that if one chooses not to have one's own private transportation, one abandons the right to be presented with a choice. Why should the choice only be between a private sector monopoly in the provision of public transport, or private transportation? Surely, if you believe in choice, you should also believe in the right to have a choice between different forms of service provision? The problem with the view held by you and others on the right when it comes to choice is that you only like it to be exercised within a certain pre-defined mainstream.

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.

---

The process by which that can happen, maybe. But nowhere does it say that they will be forced to do so. Surely the interpretation ought to be down to the individual lender?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

No, you misunderstand completely. What I was talking about was not state-run at all. I was clearly referring to the involvement of private companies.

---

Perhaps it's because I am honestly not that familiar with the train system in the UK. My (basic) understanding is that it is government managed, but they contracted out the actual running to private companies. Those companies then, as you say, ran the trains poorly. Private involvment in a public project, at least in the cases that I'm more familiar with, don't really represent the free market. I will admit that I could be wrong in your particular example, I am truly ignorant of the specifics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Much as I suspected, your belief in 'choice' only goes so far. In this instance, you seem to be saying that the choice is private transportation or nothing; that if one chooses not to have one's own private transportation, one abandons the right to be presented with a choice. Why should the choice only be between a private sector monopoly in the provision of public transport, or private transportation? Surely, if you believe in choice, you should also believe in the right to have a choice between different forms of service provision? The problem with the view held by you and others on the right when it comes to choice is that you only like it to be exercised within a certain pre-defined mainstream.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The process by which that can happen, maybe. But nowhere does it say that they will be forced to do so. Surely the interpretation ought to be down to the individual lender?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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 am still quite mad that some people seem to think that they have the right to stick their noses into business that doesn't effect them in anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

---

I can see somethings that fit your definition, and are important. Where have I once said that the public sector could not provide services?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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

---

Quite the oposite in fact. I encourage people to make their own choices as long as they feel they benefit themselves, and do not harm me. However, public services in many instances do harm me and society as they are a financial drain on society, and (now here's the key point) I am FORCED to pay for them. So I no longer have any choice in the market. My "invisible hand" now has no power to sway the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

---

I would not say that the private sector is inherently superior. I would say that a free market system allows for failure, and therefore in the long-ish run, services provided by the free market tend to increas value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

---

How is my choice narrow? If you don't believe that life has value, I don't think I can help you there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

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.

---

That is not ture. Rail networks and utilities started out as private enterprises that competed with each other. Only after time and politicians thinking they had the best interests of societies in mind did they develop into "natural monopolies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

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.

---

If both are/were funded by the public then neither one could be clasified as "private", the free market was not at work, people were FORCED into subsidizing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I am still quite mad that some people seem to think that they have the right to stick their noses into business that doesn't effect them in anyway.

---

So your argument would seem to be that one's life has no value, with the possible exception of your own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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"?

---

Legislation is a piece of statutory law; made by a government or legislature. This is not one of those.

Considering that this is a policy document which deals with discrimination, then that's what the scope of the document is about. You would expect the DoJ to seek prosecutions on that basis.

It does not suggest though that a lending institution should adopt imprudent lending practices.
"Lenders must continue to ensure that their lending practices are consistent with safe and sound operating policies"
Not lending to people on the basis that they as an individual case can not pay it back is not being discriminatory. Not lending to people because they come from a low income area is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

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.

---

The (mobile)telephone operators are a very good example of an utility that was a public service with a national network, that succesfully transitioned to a free-market private service.
The privatising of the railroads failed mainly because it is impossible to operate at the high level of service for the low price the people expect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Not lending to people on the basis that they as an individual case can not pay it back is not being discriminatory.

---

It is if a memember of a minority cries wolf and one finds oneself in court defending what you rather naively call "safe and sound lending policies."

Lawyers cost money, liberal lawyers jump at "discrimination" case like fleas jump on dogs.

It is cheap and easy to say "they did not have to do x, y or z but they are the ones who have to pay lawyers to fight discrimination charges, not internet self-appointed experts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

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.

---

I don't think there's much direct comparison to be made between them, to be honest, given the much narrower remit of Network Rail.

BR was making massive leaps forward at the time of privatisation; all were immediately cancelled out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I can see somethings that fit your definition, and are important. Where have I once said that the public sector could not provide services?

---

You clearly don't like it doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Quite the oposite in fact. I encourage people to make their own choices as long as they feel they benefit themselves, and do not harm me. However, public services in many instances do harm me and society as they are a financial drain on society, and (now here's the key point) I am FORCED to pay for them. So I no longer have any choice in the market. My "invisible hand" now has no power to sway the market.

---

I believe my influence over enormous corporations is minimal, should I decide not to buy their products/services. My 'choice', therefore, is all but irrelevant to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

How is my choice narrow? If you don't believe that life has value, I don't think I can help you there.

---

Your definition of choice is narrow. If you applied your same desire for a free choice to all aspects of life, you would be in favour of offering people an entirely free choice on issues such as abortion. But you don't. You feel free choice has its limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

The (mobile)telephone operators are a very good example of an utility that was a public service with a national network, that succesfully transitioned to a free-market private service.

---

I don't consider that a fair comparison, because mobile telephone services have never been provided by the state, in Britain at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

The privatising of the railroads failed mainly because it is impossible to operate at the high level of service for the low price the people expect.

---

And I believe this to be totally wrong — an extremely sweeping statement. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject would cite many other reasons, such as the manner of privatisation, the sort of companies that took over, etc, etc, etc.