Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kuro_suna]

I would actually chalk that up to a buyer beware situation.  Too many people expect everything to be happy and fair.  Nobody reads the fine print, nobody figures out the actual costs... they assume that the bank is doing what's best for the person taking out the loans when, in fact, the bank is looking to make money.  If you can't pay to meet the terms of the loan, legally you have no foot to stand on.  You signed into that.

But from a practical perspective how do keep people, both buyers and bankers from doing short sighted things that aren't in any ones best long term interest or if not how to deal with the extreme boom bust cycles that will result from such actions.

[Andir]

Not sure I would want to keep people from making shortsighted decisions... it would seem to me like you are looking for a solution where no choice is involved, no risk, no reward... just plain old rationing of goods.    That's a no win scenario because it wouldn't prevent parents from procreating (baby boomers, China...) because they have the necessities of life and churn out more people to ration to.

The only logical thing I can think of that would help keep it from happening in excess is education, but that's a tough cookie to crack in kids today because they are under some guise that they just need to get lucky and become rich by gambling (lottery, new casinos), sue someone for not rubber coating every surface of their store, or become a famous sports athlete.

[kuro_suna]

Not sure I would want to keep people from making shortsighted decisions... it would seem to me like you are looking for a solution where no choice is involved, no risk, no reward... just plain old rationing of goods.    That's a no win scenario because it wouldn't prevent parents from procreating (baby boomers, China...) because they have the necessities of life and churn out more people to ration to.

Couldn't their be some sane middle ground between a communist police state and having no restrictions on banks hiding their true financial status.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Yeah, but apparently it's called socialism which is evil.

[Ampersand]

To quote George Orwell, as the Conservatives have been attempting to do lately;

"My recent novel [Nineteen Eighty-Four] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter)"

[Sir Pseudonymous]

@Andir: No. Just... No.

Not sure I would want to keep people from making shortsighted decisions... it would seem to me like you are looking for a solution where no choice is involved, no risk, no reward... just plain old rationing of goods.    That's a no win scenario because it wouldn't prevent parents from procreating (baby boomers

Post-war economic boom, not charity...

, China

China was actually, you know, even more squalid and starving both before and as the population boomed? Also had a lot to do with the government wanting more bodies for industry and the military.

...) because they have the necessities of life and churn out more people to ration to.

Again, no. To start with, not providing the most basic necessities for people who can't afford them wouldn't kill them, were you to even suggest that starving them to death is an adequate solution. If you were try to cut off any safety net, people would still get by, just in wretched, violence-inducing conditions. Look at India: squalid fucking slums with no support, but booming populations in said slums. It's exactly the same as you had in the US before enough people started thinking that perhaps all those newfangled ideas about the poor being evil bastards who should be forgotten or even outright killed were bullshit. And hey, it only took them a century to figure this out, and start doing what they were doing up until the middle of the 19th century again! >:|

The only logical thing I can think of that would help keep it from happening in excess is education

What do you know, you hit the nail on the head here! Sort of. Education directly correlates with quality of life, and negatively correlates with reproduction rates. However, to improve education, you need to better fund it, and radically overhaul the quite outdated system we have now. But that's, you know, harder than just bitching about all those poor people tricking the Noble Billionaires into using them to scam each other and the government.

, but that's a tough cookie to crack in kids today because they are under some guise that they just need to get lucky and become rich by gambling (lottery, new casinos)

No, only small children and idiots believe they can get rich by gambling.

, sue someone for not rubber coating every surface of their store

What do you know, people are opportunistic fucks? You get hurt under conditions for which a rich company are responsible, you're probably going to take the chance to try to get money out of it. And of course you're going to tell people it's your right, because if you said "yeah it was my fault for fucking up" you give up any hope of getting a lot of money for nothing. But of course, there really aren't any cases of truly frivolous cases winning, because what do you know, rich companies can give millions to their lawyers, to stop your little plans. Judges are also not retarded, and tend to throw out inane suits. Even when people are injured as a result of negligence on the part of a company, they still don't win on a consistent basis. Especially when compared to actual frivolous lawsuits brought by rich companies against individuals, which almost always win, because see above about the lawyer thing.

, or become a famous sports athlete.

Again, no one but small children and retards think this unless they're actually an athlete who doesn't suck, in which case it's no different than a math nerd planning on being a rich accountant.