parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Put a plate over the drain before turning it on.I never thought to #2 in the garbage disposal, million dollar idea!
Put a plate over the drain before turning it on.I never thought to #2 in the garbage disposal, million dollar idea!
The hill where i am not a sucker? Sure. I like that hill.Is this a hill you want to thrive on?
Sounds like an apt description of your posts in hereconstant attention-seeking antics and ridiculous arm-waving over the top rhetoric.
Always a good laugh when people go from democratic socialism to calling it communism.The phoney narrative put out about this Hollywood-like creation is interesting with the media and the left eating it all up as if it was true is funny. The defense of her ignorant statements and shallow agenda which is basically communism wrapped in faux environmentalism is also humorous. She deserves to be made fun of for her constant attention-seeking antics and her ridiculous arm-waving over the top rhetoric. The far-left so badly wants to put her on a pedestal so she can champion their vision of government-based economic agenda whose foundation is simply printing an endless supply money.
That's what pigs are for. Tasty, tasty pigs.It really isn’t. It would be like Lattimore not knowing what a garbage disposal is, which I’d buy. Haven’t had many in south Louisiana.
"An" is correct. For instance Dino was an herbivore. (The dinosaur, not Martin.)“A” is more common, I find “an” smoother in my own speech and I type how I speak.
I have one in line with my toilet. It grinds down those growlers so they go down easy, no clogs, no plungers needed.I never thought to #2 in the garbage disposal, million dollar idea!
I believe the argument is that while it is quite soft we do pronounce the "h" in "historic" and don't in "herbivore." As to that argument, I care so little you would think I was a Republican Congressman."An" is correct. For instance Dino was an herbivore. (The dinosaur, not Martin.)
And when you're done with the garbage disposal, you hit it with a sledgehammer and you can make dinner. Circle of life.That's what pigs are for. Tasty, tasty pigs.
not sure this will ever reach jumpy & quo status, or even pour salt in the womb for that matter, but always appreciate a solid pun attempt in the forearmsthis thread has taken a turd for the worst
They want the US Post Office to become a lending institution ? What type of drugs are they on?Can we change the subject off of garbage for a moment?
AOC has teamed up with Bernie Sanders to unroll a new, large scale lending proposal today. Two main points:
1. Credit cards and paycheck companies will be limited to charging 15% as their maximum interest rate.
2. The US Post Office will start making low interest loans.
How do you guys feel about these ideas?
Apparently it used to do it, a century ago.They want the US Post Office to become a lending institution ? What type of drugs are they on?
Sounds good. Doesn't affect me since I've never paid a dime in CC interest. The question I have is, do they charge these high rates just to 'steal' $ from the stupid or is it because it needs to be that high because of defaults? Can't imagine lowering it 10% will curtail defaults. May even exacerbate them.Can we change the subject off of garbage for a moment?
AOC has teamed up with Bernie Sanders to unroll a new, large scale lending proposal today. Two main points:
1. Credit cards and paycheck companies will be limited to charging 15% as their maximum interest rate.
2. The US Post Office will start making low interest loans.
How do you guys feel about these ideas?
Well, it gives them something to do.They want the US Post Office to become a lending institution ? What type of drugs are they on?
The argument that Bernie gave is that these lending institutions are borrowing their money at 2% and loaning it at 25-30%- so in other words the rich get richer and the poor are exploited. Now that's probably not the whole story and I'm betting that you're right, defaults probably do play a part. Still, I think there is some truth to his argument. And some truth to yours. The answer lies somewhere inbetween but I'm not sure where.Sounds good. Doesn't affect me since I've never paid a dime in CC interest. The question I have is, do they charge these high rates just to 'steal' $ from the stupid or is it because it needs to be that high because of defaults? Can't imagine lowering it 10% will curtail defaults. May even exacerbate them.
15% is too low for anyone with poor credit. It wouldn't save people money as much as restrict access to credit.Can we change the subject off of garbage for a moment?
AOC has teamed up with Bernie Sanders to unroll a new, large scale lending proposal today. Two main points:
1. Credit cards and paycheck companies will be limited to charging 15% as their maximum interest rate.
2. The US Post Office will start making low interest loans.
How do you guys feel about these ideas?
This is the topic of one of my all-time favorite papers. The gist of it is that if a CC-issuing bank lowers its interest rates, it attracts mainly consumers who are lousy credit risks, so nobody wants to lower their rates, so CC rates are disconnected from the cost of loanable funds. It's a special type of "adverse selection."Sounds good. Doesn't affect me since I've never paid a dime in CC interest. The question I have is, do they charge these high rates just to 'steal' $ from the stupid or is it because it needs to be that high because of defaults? Can't imagine lowering it 10% will curtail defaults. May even exacerbate them.
I imagine AOC and Bernie will attempt to force companies to loan at the lower rates. But I'm not sure. Obviously if you're right, it would make the situation even worse, as loan sharks would move in to fill the need, and who knows how much they would charge: 40%? 60%?15% is too low for anyone with poor credit. It wouldn't save people money as much as restrict access to credit.
The post office idea has lots of problems but I'd rather discuss this interest rate cap.
It's certainly a good argument.This is the topic of one of my all-time favorite papers. The gist of it is that if a CC-issuing bank lowers its interest rates, it attracts mainly consumers who are lousy credit risks, so nobody wants to lower their rates, so CC rates are disconnected from the cost of loanable funds. It's a special type of "adverse selection."
On an annual basis, loan sharks are going to be much higher than that. Average Payday Loan store APR is like 400%.I imagine AOC and Bernie will attempt to force companies to loan at the lower rates. But I'm not sure. Obviously if you're right, it would make the situation even worse, as loan sharks would move in to fill the need, and who knows how much they would charge: 40%? 60%?
A lot has changed since the 80s. This isn't the case now with credit pre-screened offers and other techniques to market to the "right" consumers.IvanKaramazov said:This is the topic of one of my all-time favorite papers. The gist of it is that if a CC-issuing bank lowers its interest rates, it attracts mainly consumers who are lousy credit risks, so nobody wants to lower their rates, so CC rates are disconnected from the cost of loanable funds. It's a special type of "adverse selection."
Any good articles on this? Would love to read more about how CC issuers are targeting their consumers.A lot has changed since the 80s. This isn't the case now with credit pre-screened offers and other techniques to market to the "right" consumers.
Sure, but I think the author's adverse selection story would still imply high and sticky interest rates even with advances in marketing.A lot has changed since the 80s. This isn't the case now with credit pre-screened offers and other techniques to market to the "right" consumers.
Half century. You could open a savings account at the usps in the 60s.timschochet said:Apparently it used to do it, a century ago.
But I don't know why, if this is what they want, they don't simply propose establishing a national bank for personal low interest loans.
One of the first things to do is to separate discussions about credit card rates slightly above 15% APR and Payday lenders at 400% APR. They are entirely different discussions.timschochet said:It's certainly a good argument.
And yet- I don't think you can deny that Bernie and AOC are at the very least highlighting a problem- people are borrowing way too much at interest rates they can't afford, and there are vultures out there (I'm especially thinking of these paycheck companies) who are taking advantage. It's not good for poor people, and it's also not good for the rest of us. If AOC's solution to this problem is fairly predictable and problematic, (and I can see your point that it is), what should we do about it?
And people interested in the latter should check out Lisa Servon’s book to get a read on how complicated the issue is. Here’s a brief article about it and she’s done a bunch of interviews as well (on NPR, etc.).One of the first things to do is to separate discussions about credit card rates slightly above 15% APR and Payday lenders at 400% APR. They are entirely different discussions.
Did you read the book? I assume there must be better examples in the book if you are giving it a reco. The examples in the article are ridiculous.And people interested in the latter should check out Lisa Servon’s book to get a read on how complicated the issue is. Here’s a brief article about it and she’s done a bunch of interviews as well (on NPR, etc.).
I haven’t read the book. I’ve seen multiple interviews with her. She’s definitely worth listening to on the issue of why people use check-cashing services. People aren’t automatically stupid for choosing the least bad among the limited bad options available. Depriving people of an option usually isn’t helping them.Did you read the book? I assume there must be better examples in the book if you are giving it a reco. The examples in the article are ridiculous.
The first example is a guy that is paying cash to illegal workers. So sure, he is paying 97.50 to a check cashing place, but he is saving far more in taxes.
The second example doesn't even make any sense. She pays two dollars to cash a ten dollar check instead of using an ATM because the ATM wont give her less than 20 dollars and she doesn't have 20 dollars. And this happens to her on a regular basis??? What does she have a legal settlement that direct deposits 10 dollars in the bank every week?
Those don't sound like good examples to dispel "popular misconceptions".
There is another thread on here discussing this and I know that same article was posted previously in it. I will try and find it because there were some other reports posted in there too that were kind of fascinating. IIRC the average payday loan receiver is a very repeat customer and is generally happy with the service. I found that odd. Don't quote me on that because perhaps I am mixing up check cashing service users.I haven’t read the book. I’ve seen multiple interviews with her. She’s definitely worth listening to on the issue of why people use check-cashing services. People aren’t automatically stupid for choosing the least bad among the limited bad options available. Depriving people of an option usually isn’t helping them.
That is absolutely true. My understanding is the customer service is pretty good with friendly employees too. (Perhaps unlike, say, the post office.)There is another thread on here discussing this and I know that same article was posted previously in it. I will try and find it because there were some other reports posted in there too that were kind of fascinating. IIRC the average payday loan receiver is a very repeat customer and is generally happy with the service. I found that odd. Don't quote me on that because perhaps I am mixing up check cashing service users.
Dead on. If this is actually a real policy (it isn't) then anyone with a credit score under 750 can forget getting a standard CC.
Low interest loans to whom? Are we going to get the Fannie/Freddie risk management personnel moved over to this department?timschochet said:2. The US Post Office will start making low interest loans.
It’s not like poor people not having access to money is some long buried secret suddenly getting some light. No one has solved it because It’s a hard problem to solve.timschochet said:It's certainly a good argument.
And yet- I don't think you can deny that Bernie and AOC are at the very least highlighting a problem- people are borrowing way too much at interest rates they can't afford, and there are vultures out there (I'm especially thinking of these paycheck companies) who are taking advantage. It's not good for poor people, and it's also not good for the rest of us. If AOC's solution to this problem is fairly predictable and problematic, (and I can see your point that it is), what should we do about it?
I dont really understand the push for post offices as banks. Direct deposit and debit cards pretty much eliminate the need to cash a paycheck. Most employers want you to have direct deposit.It’s not like poor people not having access to money is some long buried secret suddenly getting some light. No one has solved it because It’s a hard problem to solve.
Trying to equip the post office to be a government subsidized payday lender facility is ridiculous.
Thank Charles Keating.Why don't we look into ways to encourage the growth of Credit Unions more? That seems like a better policy than price controls and government run competitors
Give me example of what she's actually doneThis lady has done everything right. She is awesome and deserves recognition for it. What an awesome person/mind to have in our government.
This lady has done everything right. She is awesome and deserves recognition for it. What an awesome person/mind to have in our government.
She saved New York for gaining 75,000 jobs and prevented $30 billion of unnecessary tax revenues to her constituents.Give me example of what she's actually done
Yeah makes sense to me. Grow stuff people in the area know how to prepare and like to eat.Assuming the crop grows well in the climate, choosing "culturally familiar" plants in a community garden makes sense to me.