It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
This IS the reason we are in a financial crisis. It is the lack of personal responsibility for actions you FREELY took that are causing the problem.
People buy homes that are more than they can afford. Banks give loans to people that shouldn't get them.
Your bachelor's degree, what is that getting you these days???
The bankers did nothing. And their insistence that you pay back much more than you "borrowed" has historically been called "usury" - both an immoral act, and a crime.
Charging loan interest higher than the rates allowed by law. Interest rates in consumer credit contracts are controlled by state law, and the highest permitted rate is called the usury rate or the usury ceiling. Since the early 1980s, many state legislatures relaxed statutory controls on consumer credit because rather than protecting consumers from unscrupulous lenders, such controls often make it more difficult for consumers to obtain credit. To alleviate this, and to keep banks from moving their credit card operations to states with more liberal statutes, lawmakers revised state statutes to allow interest rates to be set by market competition, rather than specified by laws. Several states have abolished usury ceilings; most states have raised the interest ceilings to encourage more rate competition among financial institutions, and most of these laws have a Sunset Clause calling for periodic review every three to five years. Some states, including New York, Delaware, and South Dakota have no limits on consumer credit. New York does, however, have a criminal usury ceiling of 25%, a maximum rate of interest that lenders may charge on consumer credit. State usury laws generally are enforceable only through civil suits filed by debtors claiming excessive interest charges. Most state laws have stiff penalties for illegal interest, ranging from forfeiture of interest owed on the entire loan balance, or forfeiture of both principal and interest. Commercial credit in most states is exempt from usury statutes; agricultural credit is unregulated, though not exempt from state interest rate controls.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Therefore I was arguing we should address the problem by rewarding people who are financially responsible as well as people who contribute their time towards pursuits that have significant social benefits, especially those that require a large upfront initial investment.
Why do we allow a person who doesn't even possess a high school degree to accumulate 10 or 20 credit cards, max out the limit, and then declare bankruptcy with little more than a slap on the wrist?
Why is it that the government is trying to placate people (through mortgage rate renegotiation, abatement, and subsidies) who purchased homes they couldn't afford?
Investment bankers who lied should be forced to return their bonuses and pay other monetary damages. If they can't afford to do it immediately, they can pay it back over time.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
The majority of people look to benefit themselves however they can. Judge those people all you want, but your sense of righteous indignation won't matter much because their value system is based on dramatically different principles from your own.
He had also -- quite without meaning to -- designed a beautiful economic experiment. By measuring the money collected against the bagels taken, he could tell, down to the penny, just how honest his customers were. Did they steal from him? If so, what were the characteristics of a company that stole versus a company that did not? Under what circumstances did people tend to steal more, or less?
Entering the summer of 2001, the overall payment rate had slipped to about 87 percent. Immediately after Sept. 11, the rate spiked a full 2 percent and hasn't slipped much since.
Originally posted by odd1out
Haha..This country would NOT have ANY DOCTORS if people "acted responsibly"
Around 1900 there was a concerted effort on the part of physicians in the U.S. to restrict the supply of doctors; as they termed it, "To practice professional birth control."
As a result of this restriction the income of doctors went up. In the long run the benefits of the restricted supply of doctors did not all accrue to doctors. The restriction generated economic rents which others found ways to garner. The medical schools, with their quotas on admission, could charge higher tuitions. Consequently now many doctors graduate from medical school with enormous debts for their educations. So now it appears that doctors need to receive high incomes to pay for their expensive education.
In terms of economic analysis, what was involved was the creation of a cartel of doctors. A cartel functions as a protected monopoly. If a monopoly is created in an industry that was previously competitive, the first thing the monopolist does is raise the price and reduce production. The same thing is accomplished by reducing production and allowing the price to be bid up. This is the procedure in the case of a cartel.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
I agree. I would have liked to go to medical school myself, but I could not afford to, and didnt want to indebt myself for life. Instead, I worked in construction overseas to save up the money to pay cash for a Bachelors degree.
Kudos to you. You HAVE acted RESPONSIBLY. If more people in this country were like you, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.