Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
JohnnyU

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lod001 said:

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.

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."  

Edit: The adverse selection story is spelled out in layman-friendly terms starting on page 70.

Edited by IvanKaramazov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Juxtatarot said:

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.

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%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

charging 25-30% interest is criminal.  it is absolutely preying on the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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."  

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

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%?

On an annual basis, loan sharks are going to be much higher than that. Average Payday Loan store APR is like 400%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a couple of us said in a different thread, this is a great way to curtail access to the less credit-worthy. AOC and Bernie can't force banks to make loans to people when they don't believe they're adequately rewarded for the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that mandating a cap on rates, while well intentioned, will have adverse and unexpected collateral consequences of reducing credit opportunities to the poor.  Now credit opportunities are a trap and a cruel one at that for 99 folks out of 100, rich or poor, well educated or not, but credit is also a marvelous thing if used correctly and it will be withheld from some under this plan.

I do not believe government should compete with private industry.

I do not want to expand the roll of government employees.  Is there an estimate of how many employees this would take.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 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."  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

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.

Any good articles on this? Would love to read more about how CC issuers are targeting their consumers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

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.

Mainly though, the reason why I love that paper is because it identifies an industry that by all rights should be perfectly competitive -- a large number of producers and consumers, perfect information, essentially identical products, no barriers to entry -- but where price is nowhere near marginal cost.  And it provides a pretty convincing explanation for a why a weird quirk of consumer behavior can account for that deviation.  I enjoy stuff like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 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.

Half century. You could open a savings account at the usps in the 60s. 

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, 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?

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

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.

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.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.).

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". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

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". 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

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. 

ETA: Yep, I am correct. 2/3 use it more than 5 times a year and almost 50% use it more than 10 times a year and of the 395k complaints received by the CPFB only 1% of them involved payday loans and customer satisfaction ratings are usually really good. 

Edited by parasaurolophus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, parasaurolophus said:

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. 

That is absolutely true.  My understanding is the customer service is pretty good with friendly employees too. (Perhaps unlike, say, the post office.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

It's like AOC and Bernie deliberately misunderstand how these systems work.  I'm kind of stunned that the deliberate ignorance is so blatantly bad.  Who would believe this claptrap?

 

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

2. The US Post Office will start making low interest loans.

Low interest loans to whom?  Are we going to get the Fannie/Freddie risk management personnel moved over to this department?

Edited by Sand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 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?

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.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jonessed said:

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.

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. 

I think the number of people that are stuck in a "bank desert" that dont have the ability to get to a bank ever to get an account setup is very small. 

According to this only 9% stated not having a bank near them was the reason.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slapdash said:

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 

Thank Charles Keating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazon rolls out job-replacing robots for its facilities.  I do wonder how many jobs will be around in ten years from those promised when Amazon was hub searching.


https://reut.rs/2YkZEXa

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's lesson from our hero:

Growing cauliflower is 'colonial approach' to vegetables

by John Gage

May 20, 2019 12:05 PM

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., explained Sunday that a “core component” of her Green New Deal legislation is ending “colonial” attitudes that dominate community gardens.

“What I love too is growing plants that are culturally familiar to the community. It’s so important,” the freshman congresswoman said in an Instagram video while exploring a Bronx community garden.

“So that’s really how you do it right. That is such a core component of the Green New Deal is having all of these projects make sense in a cultural context, and it’s an area that we get the most pushback on because people say, ‘Why do you need to do that? That’s too hard,’” Ocasio-Cortez said in another Instagram video of her walking the streets of New York after leaving the community garden.

“But when you really think about it — when someone says that it’s ‘too hard’ to do a green space that grows Yucca instead of, I don’t know, cauliflower or something — what you’re doing is that you’re taking a colonial approach to environmentalism, and that is why a lot of communities of color get resistant to certain environmentalist movements because they come with the colonial lens on them,” Ocasio-Cortez said. 

Ocasio-Cortez said she was visiting the community garden to help form a connection from her own D.C. community garden and her Bronx district.

In February, she said that the fight for the Green New Deal was directly tied to justice in “indigenous communities.”

"There is no justice and there is no combating climate change without addressing what has happened to indigenous communities," Ocasio-Cortez said. "That means that there is no fixing our economy without addressing the racial wealth gap."

Ocasio-Cortez frequently updates her Instagram following on the growth of her plants in her D.C. community garden.

In April, she asked her Twitter following for gardening tips. 

 

 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This lady has done everything right. She is awesome and deserves recognition for it. What an awesome person/mind to have in our government. 

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

This lady has done everything right. She is awesome and deserves recognition for it. What an awesome person/mind to have in our government. 

Give me example of what she's actually done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mario Kart said:

This lady has done everything right. She is awesome and deserves recognition for it. What an awesome person/mind to have in our government. 

:lmao:...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GROOT said:

Give me example of what she's actually done

She saved New York for gaining 75,000 jobs and prevented $30 billion of unnecessary tax revenues to her constituents.   :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She’s been setting herself up as opposed to Biden’s candidacy, heavily criticizing him more and more. Actually that’s great for Biden. (In the long run not bad for AOC either.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Juxtatarot said:

Assuming the crop grows well in the climate, choosing "culturally familiar" plants in a community garden makes sense to me.  

Yeah makes sense to me. Grow stuff people in the area know how to prepare and like to eat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how no one here thinks this gibberish isn't funny.  :lmao:

 

“But when you really think about it — when someone says that it’s ‘too hard’ to do a green space that grows Yucca instead of, I don’t know, cauliflower or something — what you’re doing is that you’re taking a colonial approach to environmentalism, and that is why a lot of communities of color get resistant to certain environmentalist movements because they come with the colonial lens on them,” Ocasio-Cortez said. 

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least a couple dozen pages later and my comment is still the same....if we put a tenth of the energy towards scrutinizing Trump's behavior, comments etc that we are in this freshman Congresswoman we'd be a lot better off as a country and Trump probably isn't even in office today....something to think about....nah, who am I kidding :lmao: 

ETA:  Turns out just 6-7 pages...point remains.  Truly amazing.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I like how no one here thinks this gibberish isn't funny.  :lmao:

 

“But when you really think about it — when someone says that it’s ‘too hard’ to do a green space that grows Yucca instead of, I don’t know, cauliflower or something — what you’re doing is that you’re taking a colonial approach to environmentalism, and that is why a lot of communities of color get resistant to certain environmentalist movements because they come with the colonial lens on them,” Ocasio-Cortez said. 

What’s funny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

What’s funny?

Everything.   It is utter nonsense.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Everything.   It is utter nonsense.    

Her point is that environmentalism can be more effective when there is a buy in from the community. That’s utter nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Someone? Or an entire political party? 

Like the party that talked impeachment the night Trump was elected? She makes stupid comments. People will call her out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, the moops said:

someone seems a wee bit obsessed

She has a movie made about her and a second one in the works.  There is even a comic-book out featuring her as a superhero.   Many of the leading democrats are working with her and endorsing her fairytale marxist-like utopia plans hoping for her support and endorsement.   She is a hero to many on the far-left who eat up her mindless rhetoric.  It is quite comical how people eat this up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

She has a movie made about her and a second one in the works.  There is even a comic-book out featuring her as a superhero.   Many of the leading democrats are working with her and endorsing her fairytale marxist-like utopia plans hoping for her support and endorsement.   She is a hero to many on the far-left who eat up her mindless rhetoric.  It is quite comical how people eat this up.  

What about her is Marxist?  And be specific not just the blanket “everything”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Her point is that environmentalism can be more effective when there is a buy in from the community. That’s utter nonsense?

That point isn’t nonsense. But her use of language- “colonialism”- is typical leftist university speak and rather silly. 

More importantly, she and other progressives pushing for Green New Deal type remedies are really getting it wrong. If you’re going to attempt the changes to existing structures that is being proposed, it’s not the “community” that needs to support you, it’s the landlords, small and large. You need to not only convince them of the necessity, you need to make it sweet for them. Otherwise this is never going to happen, no matter how much grass roots support you have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

What about her is Marxist?  And be specific not just the blanket “everything”.

She has stated that capitalism is “irredeemable”. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/433394-ocasio-cortez-capitalism-is-irredeemable%3famp

Thats a Marxist approach, sadly. 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

She has stated that capitalism is “irredeemable”. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/433394-ocasio-cortez-capitalism-is-irredeemable%3famp

Thats a Marxist approach, sadly. 

I’m pretty sure Jon can speak for himself Tim.

Also did you read the whole thing?  Because much of what she said is not close to Marx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

What about her is Marxist?  And be specific not just the blanket “everything”.

Do you comprehend what the green deal proposes?   It is a massive government take over of everything with the goal of equal outcomes for all.  She has zero use for capitalism and thinks everyone should get what they need regardless of what they do.   She thinks goods come from government.  Her thinking is quite bizarre coming from someone who has study economics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I’m pretty sure Jon can speak for himself Tim.

Also did you read the whole thing?  Because much of what she said is not close to Marx.

First off, if you ask a question like that one anyone should be able to answer it. It’s not a question specific to jon mx. 

Second, yes I did read the whole thing and I have also read plenty of Marx and yes it’s close. Marx was not a Communist of the Leninist/Maoist variety; his communism/socialism was far closer to the Democratic socialist model that AOC and Bernie have in mind. When AOC says that “the workers produce the wealth of society”, when she claims that capitalism was created by the bankers as a means to rob the workers of the wealth they created, when she calls it irredeemable, that’s pure Marxism. It’s distilled Das Kapital. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

First off, if you ask a question like that one anyone should be able to answer it. It’s not a question specific to jon mx. 

Second, yes I did read the whole thing and I have also read plenty of Marx and yes it’s close. Marx was not a Communist of the Leninist/Maoist variety; his communism/socialism was far closer to the Democratic socialist model that AOC and Bernie have in mind. When AOC says that “the workers produce the wealth of society”, when she claims that capitalism was created by the bankers as a means to rob the workers of the wealth they created, when she calls it irredeemable, that’s pure Marxism. It’s distilled Das Kapital. 

Sure. Though he made the claim about Marx...more than one.  And it’s going to be the predictable shift from the right coming soon with her and Bernie to paint them as communists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.