cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 23, 2013 18:38:33 GMT -5
Did I say any such thing? Of course I didn't. But don't let that stop you from making shit up. He really is going all twisty with words today. I think he is doing this to avoid admitting that he was clearly wrong that the families are sending the food home because they are simply generous and taking care of each other. It is easier to shift the subject and try to accuse you of saying something you clearly did not. Meh...really no different than any other day.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 23, 2013 18:42:15 GMT -5
You have actual proof of your assertion or are you just bloviating once again? I have a brain. Let's just think about this for, I dunno- a nanosecond or so: The recipients of the food subsidies ostensibly cannot afford food, is that about right? So, they buy enough food with subsidies to load up a 55 gallon drum, and ship it to the Caribbean- absorbing the cost of shipping and the drum- to say nothing of a huge supply of food when they can't afford it which is why they're on assistance, and they have money left over to pay the shipping costs? Sorry, but there's money in it- or it wouldn't be happening.Not everyone, everywhere is focused on how much money they can grab, paul. You may be, but everyone isn't.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 23, 2013 18:43:20 GMT -5
Did I say any such thing? Of course I didn't. But don't let that stop you from making shit up. He really is going all twisty with words today. I think he is doing this to avoid admitting that he was clearly wrong that the families are sending the food home because they are simply generous and taking care of each other. It is easier to shift the subject and try to accuse you of saying something you clearly did not. Ahh! I see the manipulations aren't working on you, or on cereb, either.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 23, 2013 19:19:44 GMT -5
Well, actually I'm not the one "getting all twisty with the logic". The logic from the other side is, "well, gee whiz, Wally- they're only trying to help their families". What I'm pointing out is that this is not the purpose of taxpayer funded food subsidies. We already spend a ghastly amount of money on foreign aid to these shit holes- which, like welfare, just keeps them shit holes. I said there's money it it because there MUST be. It's only logical.
And if you must know, yes- I have PLENTY of firsthand experience in the poor Caribbean countries- Haiti in particular. On one trip I went on with a bunch of do-gooders, bless their naive little hearts, they thought it would be really neat to buy all the kids in this village (which we had built on the "teach a man to fish" principle where there is now a school, and animal husbandry, and agriculture) a back pack and stock it with crayons, a blanket, stuffed animals and other toys, etc. I said that it was a nice thought, but that they would be disappointed. They asked me what I meant by that? I said, "Well YOU will be disappointed. I will actually enjoy the show."
We were only in this particular village for a day- a small rural-ish area just outside of Cité Soleil- a major shithole outside Port au Prince. At the beginning of the day, the kids came out and greeted us-- all smiling, they LOVE to have their picture taken and then look at it on any digital devices, and they took the toys with glee, and sang a thank you song in their native Creole. By the end of the day, most of the toys were in the hands of two shrewd entrepreneurs who had traded for them, and we know this because on the road on the way out of the village bordering on Cité Soleil, they had a vendor booth set up and were trading and selling the toys.
As we went by, one lady leaned over and said, "I see what you mean."
It's possible, yea probable, that there's a pretty good trade in all this food going to the Caribbean. That's all I'm saying- and it's only logical. Hell, they've figured out enough to trade in the barrels. If nothing else, I bet there's a damn good trade in those down there.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 23, 2013 19:25:37 GMT -5
You are arguing a point that no one has made or is trying to make. No one said this was an acceptable use of taxpayer funds. All we are saying is they aren't doing it for profit, unlike what you claimed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2013 23:03:26 GMT -5
i would posit that there is a poverty industry, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with government**. because of that, it really bothers me when people infer or directly state that it is. **project censored covered this story in 1996. the Houston Chronicle (a very good paper for investigative reporting) reported on it. it was picked up by precisely ZERO papers and TV stations in the "liberal" media at the time, and died a quiet death. all of this is nicely archived HERE: www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-cashing-in-on-poverty/Yeah- that was really revealing. Before I read that I had no idea that bad credit risks paid more in interest than good credit risks. Of course, there is a solution- no credit for bad credit risks at all. That's the right answer, but our entitlement society isn't ready to hear that just yet. nobody- and i mean NOBODY- is such a bad risk that 2100% interest makes any sense whatsoever.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2013 23:05:17 GMT -5
You have actual proof of your assertion or are you just bloviating once again? I have a brain. Let's just think about this for, I dunno- a nanosecond or so: . that would be nice. how about assessing how much it costs to ship a container of food, and how much that food would cost in the destination country for a minute? after that, how about looking into what the article actually says, rather than just guessing, for once?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2013 23:07:33 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to correct you. They aren't sending what they have. They're sending taxpayer dollars that they qualified for ostensibly because they don't have enough to eat- or at least that is the spirit of the program. If they don't need the food, we should cut them off. It's not really that complicated- if they're getting a 55 gallon drum worth of surplus food they don't need- buh bye. They're done. No more aid for them. This isn't generosity, it's a rip off- profit, or no. And again, there's profit. When you have stores that sell food in Caribbean neighborhoods also selling the barrels that is by definition, an 'industry'. There's money in this, or it would not be happening. I am not arguing about whether it is an ok use of the food stamp money. I am just arguing that the senders are not making a profit, which is what you clearly were implying when you said: and They are giving this food away to their families and not to make a profit off of it. Sure there is a surrounding industry making a profit, but that isn't what you were referring to in your statements. spot on, as usual, Angel.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2013 23:09:06 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to correct you. They aren't sending what they have. They're sending taxpayer dollars that they qualified for ostensibly because they don't have enough to eat- or at least that is the spirit of the program. If they don't need the food, we should cut them off. It's not really that complicated- if they're getting a 55 gallon drum worth of surplus food they don't need- buh bye. They're done. No more aid for them. This isn't generosity, it's a rip off- profit, or no. And again, there's profit. When you have stores that sell food in Caribbean neighborhoods also selling the barrels that is by definition, an 'industry'. There's money in this, or it would not be happening. oh there is money all right. the grocery stores and shipping companies get it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2013 23:11:55 GMT -5
Well, actually I'm not the one "getting all twisty with the logic". The logic from the other side is, "well, gee whiz, Wally- they're only trying to help their families". . no, that is not the "logic". that is how it is. now, you have every right to object to that. but making it seem like anything OTHER than that is .. kinda just weird.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 24, 2013 0:34:43 GMT -5
Yeah- that was really revealing. Before I read that I had no idea that bad credit risks paid more in interest than good credit risks. Of course, there is a solution- no credit for bad credit risks at all. That's the right answer, but our entitlement society isn't ready to hear that just yet. nobody- and i mean NOBODY- is such a bad risk that 2100% interest makes any sense whatsoever. ...except for the guy with a less than 5% chance of paying back his loan.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2013 0:55:08 GMT -5
nobody- and i mean NOBODY- is such a bad risk that 2100% interest makes any sense whatsoever. ...except for the guy with a less than 5% chance of paying back his loan. that would be 20x as risky as average, which would equate to 105%. let me know when i can loan you some money at 105%, Virgil. no, that person is rightly unbankable. and that is how it SHOULD work. however, you are making this case in a vacuum, since you have no proof that those loans have that kind of risk. in fact they do NOT have that kind of risk. not even close. sometimes stuff is a scam, Virgil. don't defend it unless you know it isn't.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,985
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 24, 2013 7:02:10 GMT -5
The 'rich people' see it (of course, we're not talking about really 'rich' people, but 'high income earners') because it's theirs. The 'poor' (who are not poor at all, but just dependent) see it because it was taken from those to whom it belongs and given to them. "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it" - Frederic Bastiat Are you talking about venture capitalists or pirates?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 24, 2013 7:08:16 GMT -5
The 'rich people' see it (of course, we're not talking about really 'rich' people, but 'high income earners') because it's theirs. The 'poor' (who are not poor at all, but just dependent) see it because it was taken from those to whom it belongs and given to them. "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it" - Frederic Bastiat Are you talking about venture capitalists or pirates? ?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 24, 2013 7:22:16 GMT -5
Yeah- that was really revealing. Before I read that I had no idea that bad credit risks paid more in interest than good credit risks. Of course, there is a solution- no credit for bad credit risks at all. That's the right answer, but our entitlement society isn't ready to hear that just yet. nobody- and i mean NOBODY- is such a bad risk that 2100% interest makes any sense whatsoever. Are you suggesting that interest rates be price fixed? Obviously it makes sense to the lenders, but it also makes sense to the borrowers, or they would not take out the loans. Nobody is putting a gun to their head and forcing the "poor" to borrow money at 2100% interest. The 2100% you're suggesting is probably the amortized annual rate anyway. The payday lenders that charge these rates often do so in exchange for the privilege of 'rolling over' the loan- that is literally, the borrower fails to repay the loan and rather than reporting the borrower's default to a credit bureau and starting collection efforts, the lender chooses instead- with the consent of the borrower- to 'roll over' the loan and keep charging interest until the borrower repays the money they chose to borrow as agreed. There's plenty of consumer information available to anyone seeking a loan, as well as alternatives to expensive payday loans. www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0097-payday-loans
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 24, 2013 8:49:47 GMT -5
...except for the guy with a less than 5% chance of paying back his loan. that would be 20x as risky as average, which would equate to 105%. let me know when i can loan you some money at 105%, Virgil. no, that person is rightly unbankable. and that is how it SHOULD work. however, you are making this case in a vacuum, since you have no proof that those loans have that kind of risk. in fact they do NOT have that kind of risk. not even close. sometimes stuff is a scam, Virgil. don't defend it unless you know it isn't. If a potential borrower has a 95% chance of taking your x dollars and bailing, never to be seen again, and a 5% chance of paying back the loan plus 2,100% interest, i.e. x + 21 x, your return in an expected value sense is 0.95(0) + 0.05(22 x) - x = 0.1 x, or 10%. If you were to make a large number of such loans, your net ROI would be close to 10%. The argument is academic (hence the ) and facetious. No reasonable lender would lend money to a borrower with a 20% risk of bailing, let alone a 95% risk. At the same time, your claim is that "nobody- and i mean NOBODY- is such a bad risk that 2100% interest makes any sense whatsoever". My response is: there are in fact innumerable people who are such a bad risk that 2,100% interest "makes sense". It just happens to make far more sense never to lend these people money.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2013 12:05:02 GMT -5
nobody- and i mean NOBODY- is such a bad risk that 2100% interest makes any sense whatsoever. Are you suggesting that interest rates be price fixed? sure, i'll bite. why not?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2013 12:06:30 GMT -5
that would be 20x as risky as average, which would equate to 105%. let me know when i can loan you some money at 105%, Virgil. no, that person is rightly unbankable. and that is how it SHOULD work. however, you are making this case in a vacuum, since you have no proof that those loans have that kind of risk. in fact they do NOT have that kind of risk. not even close. sometimes stuff is a scam, Virgil. don't defend it unless you know it isn't. If a potential borrower has a 95% chance of taking your x dollars and bailing, never to be seen again, and a 5% chance of paying back the loan plus 2,100% interest, i.e. x + 21 x, your return in an expected value sense is 0.95(0) + 0.05(22 x) - x = 0.1 x, or 10%. If you were to make a large number of such loans, your net ROI would be close to 10%. The argument is academic (hence the ) and facetious. No reasonable lender would lend money to a borrower with a 20% risk of bailing, let alone a 95% risk. At the same time, your claim is that "nobody- and i mean NOBODY- is such a bad risk that 2100% interest makes any sense whatsoever". My response is: there are in fact innumerable people who are such a bad risk that 2,100% interest "makes sense". It just happens to make far more sense never to lend these people money. correct. but you are assuming that the rate is risk weighted. it isn't. the risk is actually minimal.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,985
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 24, 2013 12:16:59 GMT -5
Are you talking about venture capitalists or pirates? ? When you said 'when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society' I don't know if you're talking about venture capitalists or actual pirates - two groups that make a lot of money by plundering.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 17:31:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 12:34:19 GMT -5
When you said 'when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society' I don't know if you're talking about venture capitalists or actual pirates - two groups that make a lot of money by plundering. Just curious why you think venture capitalism is plundering.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 24, 2013 13:14:54 GMT -5
When you said 'when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society' I don't know if you're talking about venture capitalists or actual pirates - two groups that make a lot of money by plundering. I was referring to the government, and those dependent upon government plundering "rich" and successful people on their behalf. What Obama and the left are about is institutionalized plunder. They are about redistributive change- to paraphrase little Barry.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,985
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 24, 2013 14:42:54 GMT -5
When you said 'when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society' I don't know if you're talking about venture capitalists or actual pirates - two groups that make a lot of money by plundering. I was referring to the government, and those dependent upon government plundering "rich" and successful people on their behalf. What Obama and the left are about is institutionalized plunder. They are about redistributive change- to paraphrase little Barry. I know what you meant, Paul, I was just trying to point out that there are other groups of men who also plunder. I posted this once before, but here's an example of white collar plundering: www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/17/barclays-pledges-to-fight-us-energy-fine/2523871/I don't know why the far right only ever seems to fret about what the poor people are getting for free, when there is plenty of white collar plundering going on.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2013 14:47:29 GMT -5
When you said 'when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society' I don't know if you're talking about venture capitalists or actual pirates - two groups that make a lot of money by plundering. I was referring to the government, and those dependent upon government plundering "rich" and successful people on their behalf. What Obama and the left are about is institutionalized plunder. They are about redistributive change- to paraphrase little Barry. the radical, leftist Lincoln administration were the first proponents of this idea.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 24, 2013 14:51:10 GMT -5
I was referring to the government, and those dependent upon government plundering "rich" and successful people on their behalf. What Obama and the left are about is institutionalized plunder. They are about redistributive change- to paraphrase little Barry. I know what you meant, Paul, I was just trying to point out that there are other groups of men who also plunder. I posted this once before, but here's an example of white collar plundering: www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/17/barclays-pledges-to-fight-us-energy-fine/2523871/I don't know why the far right only ever seems to fret about what the poor people are getting for free, when there is plenty of white collar plundering going on. Um, you realize you're actually making the point I was making- "fines" are just another form of plunder by government. Of course Barclays is going to fight this nonsense.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 24, 2013 14:53:19 GMT -5
And you don't really want to get me started on FERC. What a bunch of bullshit that is. Not only should they not pay the fine, FERC should be eliminated.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,985
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 24, 2013 15:00:21 GMT -5
When you said 'when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society' I don't know if you're talking about venture capitalists or actual pirates - two groups that make a lot of money by plundering. Just curious why you think venture capitalism is plundering. Because of what companies like Bain Capital sometimes do: Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as "notorious for its failure to plow profits back into its businesses," being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital,[141] was increased by a 1970s court ruling that allowed companies to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, instead of only their "hard assets", in determining how much money was available to pay dividends.[142] In at least some instances, companies acquired by Bain borrowed money in order to increase their dividend payments, ultimately leading to the collapse of what had been financially stable businesses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital
Buying up a company, milking it of assets until it goes bankrupt = pirates
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,985
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 24, 2013 15:08:02 GMT -5
Um, you realize you're actually making the point I was making- "fines" are just another form of plunder by government. Of course Barclays is going to fight this nonsense. Fines are government plunder? If a company violates federal regulations against market manipulation, what kind of punishment should there be? Or do we just congratulate the manipulators for doing a great job squeezing as much profit out of those idiot utility customers? Don't answer that, I think I know...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2013 15:20:13 GMT -5
Just curious why you think venture capitalism is plundering. Because of what companies like Bain Capital sometimes do: Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as "notorious for its failure to plow profits back into its businesses," being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital,[141] was increased by a 1970s court ruling that allowed companies to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, instead of only their "hard assets", in determining how much money was available to pay dividends.[142] In at least some instances, companies acquired by Bain borrowed money in order to increase their dividend payments, ultimately leading to the collapse of what had been financially stable businesses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital
Buying up a company, milking it of assets until it goes bankrupt = pirates i think that vulture capitalism is a good term for it. except vultures are generally not responsible for killing off their food.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 24, 2013 15:41:56 GMT -5
If a potential borrower has a 95% chance of taking your x dollars and bailing, never to be seen again, and a 5% chance of paying back the loan plus 2,100% interest, i.e. x + 21 x, your return in an expected value sense is 0.95(0) + 0.05(22 x) - x = 0.1 x, or 10%. If you were to make a large number of such loans, your net ROI would be close to 10%. The argument is academic (hence the ) and facetious. No reasonable lender would lend money to a borrower with a 20% risk of bailing, let alone a 95% risk. At the same time, your claim is that "nobody- and i mean NOBODY- is such a bad risk that 2100% interest makes any sense whatsoever". My response is: there are in fact innumerable people who are such a bad risk that 2,100% interest "makes sense". It just happens to make far more sense never to lend these people money. correct. but you are assuming that the rate is risk weighted. it isn't. the risk is actually minimal. In that case you should start up your own low-rate loan business and make a killing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 24, 2013 15:52:46 GMT -5
correct. but you are assuming that the rate is risk weighted. it isn't. the risk is actually minimal. In that case you should start up your own low-rate loan business and make a killing. scripture precludes me from charging usury. only heathens do that sort of thing. edit: dig my post count, bro!
|
|