Bloomberg for President

135678

Comments

  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 9,619
     Bloomberg seems to be the perfect counter to tRump right now.   I'm torn...

    Bloomberg once blamed end of ‘redlining’ for 2008 economic collapse

    Politics Feb 12, 2020 8:20 PM EST

    WASHINGTON (AP) — At the height of the 2008 economic collapse, then-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the elimination of a discriminatory housing practice known as “redlining” was responsible for instigating the meltdown.

    “It all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone,” Bloomberg said at a forum that was hosted by Georgetown University in September 2008. “Redlining, if you remember, was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said, ‘People in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages, tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas.'”


    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/bloomberg-once-blamed-end-of-redlining-for-2008-economic-collapse

    Right and tRump's company was fined for rent discrimination and no one cared
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
     Bloomberg seems to be the perfect counter to tRump right now.   I'm torn...

    Bloomberg once blamed end of ‘redlining’ for 2008 economic collapse

    Politics Feb 12, 2020 8:20 PM EST

    WASHINGTON (AP) — At the height of the 2008 economic collapse, then-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the elimination of a discriminatory housing practice known as “redlining” was responsible for instigating the meltdown.

    “It all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone,” Bloomberg said at a forum that was hosted by Georgetown University in September 2008. “Redlining, if you remember, was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said, ‘People in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages, tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas.'”


    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/bloomberg-once-blamed-end-of-redlining-for-2008-economic-collapse

    It's ridiculous for anyone to blame the FHA changes and Reg B prohibitions against redlining as THE cause of the 2008 crisis.  However, there is certainly an argument that loans into poor areas (regardless of color, I'm talking socioeconomic) is one of about 20 causes of the crisis.  Remember that disparate impact is defined as intentional or non-intentional, so banks are very, very cautious with this regulation.  HOWEVER... this line from the article is equally ridiculous.  

    “It’s been well documented that the 2008 crash was caused by unethical, predatory lending that deliberately targeted communities of color,” said Debra Gore-Mann, president and CEO of the Greenlining Institute, a nonprofit that works for racial and economic justice.

    “People of color were sold trick loans with exploding interest rates designed to push them into foreclosure. Our communities of color and low income communities were the victims of the crash, not the cause.”

    To argue that practice of stated income, interest only, balloon, ARMS and other new mortgage tools were only designed and targeted to people of color is about the silliest thing I've read in a while.  Everyone in the supply chain of industry, from teh consumer to the investment bankers that sold the loan portfolios on the market were complicit in getting people into larger homes/mortgages than they could afford.  

  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,928
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,928
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Nonsense. It was never even left to be developed. When one of my knocks on Obama is he should've crushed Jamie Dimonds nuts when he had the chance. It's the lack of enforcement and, especially with this administration,  the willfulness to look the other way. To say that CFPB has been ineffective I can agree with, but to say it cannot be improved and enforced is nonsense I'm sorry.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    edited February 14
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    A rousing defense of the US legal system.....
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    A rousing defense of the US legal system.....
    More of an indictment of the failed Communist system which has never been successful.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    A rousing defense of the US legal system.....
    More of an indictment of the failed Communist system which has never been successful.  
    And people say I deflect. 
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    There are plenty of underdeveloped markets, bloke.  Second, every generation born offers a new market and new product development. 
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    There are plenty of underdeveloped markets, bloke.  Second, every generation born offers a new market and new product development. 
    I'm not in finance--could you define "underdeveloped" in this context? 
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    There are plenty of underdeveloped markets, bloke.  Second, every generation born offers a new market and new product development. 
    I'm not in finance--could you define "underdeveloped" in this context? 
    Well that all depends on what your product is.  An underdeveloped market in the US is different than China, which is different than Vietnam, which is different in Africa.  For example, the renter/real estate market in the US is highly fragmented and underdeveloped from a modeling and analytics perspective, for the work I do.  But this product that I'm working on would have no applicability in China for 25 years, Africa for maybe 40 or 50, who knows.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    There are plenty of underdeveloped markets, bloke.  Second, every generation born offers a new market and new product development. 
    I'm not in finance--could you define "underdeveloped" in this context? 
    Well that all depends on what your product is.  An underdeveloped market in the US is different than China, which is different than Vietnam, which is different in Africa.  For example, the renter/real estate market in the US is highly fragmented and underdeveloped from a modeling and analytics perspective, for the work I do.  But this product that I'm working on would have no applicability in China for 25 years, Africa for maybe 40 or 50, who knows.  
    So something along the lines of "untapped, but ready for?"
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    There are plenty of underdeveloped markets, bloke.  Second, every generation born offers a new market and new product development. 
    I'm not in finance--could you define "underdeveloped" in this context? 
    Well that all depends on what your product is.  An underdeveloped market in the US is different than China, which is different than Vietnam, which is different in Africa.  For example, the renter/real estate market in the US is highly fragmented and underdeveloped from a modeling and analytics perspective, for the work I do.  But this product that I'm working on would have no applicability in China for 25 years, Africa for maybe 40 or 50, who knows.  
    So something along the lines of "untapped, but ready for?"
    That all depends on how precise you want to be with language.  Underdeveloped essentially means immature for the specific product or offering.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    There are plenty of underdeveloped markets, bloke.  Second, every generation born offers a new market and new product development. 
    I'm not in finance--could you define "underdeveloped" in this context? 
    Well that all depends on what your product is.  An underdeveloped market in the US is different than China, which is different than Vietnam, which is different in Africa.  For example, the renter/real estate market in the US is highly fragmented and underdeveloped from a modeling and analytics perspective, for the work I do.  But this product that I'm working on would have no applicability in China for 25 years, Africa for maybe 40 or 50, who knows.  
    So something along the lines of "untapped, but ready for?"
    That all depends on how precise you want to be with language.  Underdeveloped essentially means immature for the specific product or offering.  
    Ok, that helps me understand your point. Thank you. So your contention is that for capitalism (writ large--not individual products/markets) there are sufficient underdeveloped markets to sustain it without tapping the Chinese market?
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    There are plenty of underdeveloped markets, bloke.  Second, every generation born offers a new market and new product development. 
    I'm not in finance--could you define "underdeveloped" in this context? 
    Well that all depends on what your product is.  An underdeveloped market in the US is different than China, which is different than Vietnam, which is different in Africa.  For example, the renter/real estate market in the US is highly fragmented and underdeveloped from a modeling and analytics perspective, for the work I do.  But this product that I'm working on would have no applicability in China for 25 years, Africa for maybe 40 or 50, who knows.  
    So something along the lines of "untapped, but ready for?"
    That all depends on how precise you want to be with language.  Underdeveloped essentially means immature for the specific product or offering.  
    Ok, that helps me understand your point. Thank you. So your contention is that for capitalism (writ large--not individual products/markets) there are sufficient underdeveloped markets to sustain it without tapping the Chinese market?
    Well you're getting into acceptable rates of return for equity investments there.  So for someone or some company that lives off of a growing return and that return must be X NPV or IRR (net present value/internal rate of return), they would probably argue that at some point for them to sustain their acceptable growth targets, they need China.  But those are PE or VC type companies or investment banks.  That's just one small form of capitalism.  So to answer your question directly, no our mixed economy system does not need China to sustain.  
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    edited February 14
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    There are plenty of underdeveloped markets, bloke.  Second, every generation born offers a new market and new product development. 
    I'm not in finance--could you define "underdeveloped" in this context? 
    Well that all depends on what your product is.  An underdeveloped market in the US is different than China, which is different than Vietnam, which is different in Africa.  For example, the renter/real estate market in the US is highly fragmented and underdeveloped from a modeling and analytics perspective, for the work I do.  But this product that I'm working on would have no applicability in China for 25 years, Africa for maybe 40 or 50, who knows.  
    So something along the lines of "untapped, but ready for?"
    That all depends on how precise you want to be with language.  Underdeveloped essentially means immature for the specific product or offering.  
    Ok, that helps me understand your point. Thank you. So your contention is that for capitalism (writ large--not individual products/markets) there are sufficient underdeveloped markets to sustain it without tapping the Chinese market?
    Well you're getting into acceptable rates of return for equity investments there.  So for someone or some company that lives off of a growing return and that return must be X NPV or IRR (net present value/internal rate of return), they would probably argue that at some point for them to sustain their acceptable growth targets, they need China.  But those are PE or VC type companies or investment banks.  That's just one small form of capitalism.  So to answer your question directly, no our mixed economy system does not need China to sustain.  
    Capitalism, by definition, cannot merely sustain, so I should have used a different word 
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,666
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ecdanc said:
    mrussel1 said:
    And she's always on point:



    Should've been put in charge of the agency she created.
    The CFPB is great in theory, awful in practice.  The boots on the ground have zero experience in regulatory practices and have little to no understanding of the industries in which they are attempting to regulate.  They are kids who spend a few years there, file a bunch of lawsuits or consent orders, and attempt to rule making through the consents because they're ineffective through the any formal regulation or even victorious suits.  
    Probably because what they're trying to address is a feature, not a bug. 
    Or because they hire kids straight out of law school, some who just passed the bar, have no relevant experience, and pay them six figures.  
    You're merely describing aspects of the feature. 
    Oh right, you have your own legal system.  It starts with one party and ends with the gulag.  
    How's your legal system working?
    Better than the Soviet Union and China.  Fascinating to see doctors hauled away for re-education in China for initially exposing the spread of the virus.  But I'm sure they had right to counsel, speedy trial, Miranda, sixth amendment, etc.  There's still time for you to pick up your family and move to the workers' utopia!  
    Well you better start believing in China stories, because they are buying you up and your companies are bowing to them. So why does anyone wanting that "workers' utopia" need to move? They just need to sit back and keep watching Disney movies.
    I agree with this.  It angers me when I see Google, the NBA and other US organizations bowing to the Chinese government in order to access their market.  Don't get me amped up on how terribly the NBA misplayed the whole situation last fall.  It's infuriating.  
    Capitalism requires new markets. You can't be that angry that your preferred system is working, eh?
    Laissez-faire capitalism is not what I support.  I think we've been through this maybe 20x now.  
    I didn't say "laissez-faire." 
    A laissez-faire capitalist or possibly objectivist would support ignoring the political and cultural system in China.  I believe in reasonable regulations, oversight and taking into account political environments before entering certain markets.  
    Where you gonna find the necessary new markets, chap?
    There are plenty of underdeveloped markets, bloke.  Second, every generation born offers a new market and new product development. 
    I'm not in finance--could you define "underdeveloped" in this context? 
    Well that all depends on what your product is.  An underdeveloped market in the US is different than China, which is different than Vietnam, which is different in Africa.  For example, the renter/real estate market in the US is highly fragmented and underdeveloped from a modeling and analytics perspective, for the work I do.  But this product that I'm working on would have no applicability in China for 25 years, Africa for maybe 40 or 50, who knows.  
    So something along the lines of "untapped, but ready for?"
    That all depends on how precise you want to be with language.  Underdeveloped essentially means immature for the specific product or offering.  
    Ok, that helps me understand your point. Thank you. So your contention is that for capitalism (writ large--not individual products/markets) there are sufficient underdeveloped markets to sustain it without tapping the Chinese market?
    Well you're getting into acceptable rates of return for equity investments there.  So for someone or some company that lives off of a growing return and that return must be X NPV or IRR (net present value/internal rate of return), they would probably argue that at some point for them to sustain their acceptable growth targets, they need China.  But those are PE or VC type companies or investment banks.  That's just one small form of capitalism.  So to answer your question directly, no our mixed economy system does not need China to sustain.  
    Capitalism, by definition, cannot merely sustain, so I should have used a different word 
    Capitalism can sustain; however, the money will generally flow to where it will return the highest yield.  That's why the money wants to flow to China, for the NBA example.  And that's simply because of the number of eyeballs.  However, the NBA will not become insolvent if it does not enter China.    
Sign In or Register to comment.