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 Apr 23, 2018 17:11:53 GMT -5
... While "whites with a FICO rating of 750" and "non-whites with a FICO rating of 750" may have a statistically significant difference in their collective risk of default (due to factors the credit score doesn't measure), ... You mean a factor like being charged a higher rate of interest, thus increasing their payment? I've already listed the factors twice: income, collateral, loyalty, size of customer account. If you're complaining about the feedback between high interest rates and likelihood of default: i) this is reflected in credit scores and doesn't apply here, and ii) at reasonably low rates of interest, the feedback is negligible. For example, the difference in chances Joe will default on a loan at 5% versus a loan at 4% strictly because of the 1% margin is tiny compared to the total risk implied by financing at 5% versus 4%. For higher interest rates, the feedback becomes much more significant. A 75% rate of interest absolutely has to account the fact that the interest payments themselves are what will break the borrower. One of the reasons why the risk-to-rate curve rises exponentially as opposed to linearly.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 16:57:43 GMT -5
... Indeed. But again I emphasize re the earlier theory: a "race-based surcharge" is only the lesser evil if the risk disparity is exceptionally large. ... I understand that you find it acceptable that all the black folk in the country be held responsible for the behavior of all the other black folk in the country because, you know, they are all black folk. I understand that you find it unacceptable that you would face anything other than minor consequence because of the behavior of some of those black folk because, you know, you aren't one of those black folk. Your conclusion doesn't follow from what you've quoted. The predicate in the quoted passage ("the risk disparity is exceptionally large") is false. It is false precisely because credit scores reduce risk disparity, and do a decent job of it. Even if the predicate were true and your conclusion was correct, my judgment isn't so "because, you know, they are all black folk". It applies in any situation, minority or not, race-based or not, where the predicate is met, with the one additional caveat from Reply #17: that the demographics involved have to be sufficiently large. If you're honestly not trying to race bait here, I don't get what about this is so hard for you to understand.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 16:43:18 GMT -5
That's horrible. It does sound like he was killed as a cover up. How so? It sounds to me as though the village either suspected or knew he was guilty, and delivered swift justice. Mr. Suárez states the shaman died painfully, which is perhaps an indication she didn't die immediately and was able to name her assailant. Hopefully they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt he was guilty.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 15:45:01 GMT -5
Preliminaries are: large vehicle (some say "bus", some say "van") runs into pedestrians along a stretch of Yonge St. in North Toronto. Presently 1 Dead, 4 Critical. Several others ranging from Serious - Fair.
Nobody knows anything about the driver or his motives, although it does appear to be a deliberate act.
My recommendation: turn off the TV, wait until tomorrow morning, and get the facts all in one shot. No point stressing out over it tonight while the reporting is so fluid.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 15:26:15 GMT -5
It's a good thing our board definitely isn't, say, 95% of the way to being an echo chamber. We value diversity of opinion here. Incidentally, it's "liberal", not "liberal". Even more incidentally, at least one Canadian TV station is running PSAs asking people not to use the word "retarded" as a pejorative. This would probably include "liberal" too. I rarely use that word, so I don't know how to spell it; I agree it's a nasty nickname too similar to 'retard.'
I would use the word 'snowflake' instead, but lately it seems to it should be more appropriately applied to the far right fringe, whose members can't say a non-whiney thing about how the DOJ are being so mean to the Donald.... As I've pointed out to others, "snowflake" derives from the expression "special snowflake": somebody who believes their opinion is inherently special, valuable and something society ought to be made to respect. It doesn't refer to whining so much as it refers to insistence that authorities act to curtail whatever the "snowflake" finds offensive.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 15:09:42 GMT -5
you're glad people were run over? I'm pretty sure she's glad I'm OK, and not that Torontonians were run over. ...but she has been getting a bit more sadistic lately.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 15:06:47 GMT -5
A grand competing theory to your earlier explanation that this is a positive change in regulation since it allows for a race based surcharge. Indeed. But again I emphasize re the earlier theory: a "race-based surcharge" is only the lesser evil if the risk disparity is exceptionally large. In this case, with dealers having access to credit scores, it's likely impossible for the risk disparity to be exceptionally large. While "whites with a FICO rating of 750" and "non-whites with a FICO rating of 750" may have a statistically significant difference in their collective risk of default (due to factors the credit score doesn't measure), if it's a 200%+ disparity, I'll pet a snow leopard. Hence if this kind of surcharge was the only thing the regulation prevented, repealing it would not be a positive change in my books. Out of the three theories in Reply #15, only the first (unnumbered) theory makes the repeal a public service.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 14:43:10 GMT -5
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 10:04:52 GMT -5
This is almost too outrageous for words. Imagine: you're the head of a working-class family living below the poverty line in an impoverished country, earning less than $2 a day. You can't afford to store your most valuable possessions (meager though they are) indoors, and so you've built up a rock wall around them, right next to your tent, hoping to keep them safe. But it's all for naught. In the night, a thief comes, greed and malice in his heart, and steals away what is yours. When you wake, your voice rises in anguish. You've been robbed again. It could mean the difference between life and death. Food on the table or starvation. "Surely this thief must pay," you think, your heart filling with righteous indignation. But the greater indignity is yet to come. As you leave your tent, you're approached by a man. A pretentious westerner. He looks at you with disgust, but then manages a passable bit of faux sympathy: "Robbed again? Oh my. Going to kill the thief, are you? How savage. How unenlightened. How pathetic." Behind him stands the rest of your village. You can't understand why they're not helping you. What has this westerner said to them? What has he done to them? Your resolve faltering, you plead with him man to man: "This is all that I have. The thief will come again." He sneers again. "That's what thieves do." This horror story is playing out in a dozen villages all across Asia. The western media is silent. Western leaders do nothing. It's up to us--lovers of peace and enemies of oppression--to speak out against men like this westerner and the powerful lobby that supports him: the SLC. Watch the video (it's only 8 minutes), witness the horrific truth for yourself, and join with me to end this injustice. Are you with me, good people?
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 9:27:54 GMT -5
Individuals within a pool of credit scores are charged an interest rate based on the percentage likelihood the collective members of that pool will default. What is being discussed here is the appropriateness of a surcharge added to that rate based on the percentage likelihood the collective members of that individual's race will default. Granted there are factors, such as unforseeable medical situations, which can negatively impact an individual's score. However, an individual's personal actions are the main reason for their score. I don't think it is reasonable to tack on a surcharge based on a circumstance of birth factor. This is (as I call it) the "actuarial theory", but it's not the only theory. The second of my three theories doesn't involve discrimination based on collective risk. In the second theory, think of the surcharge as a "guaranteed unless...". As soon as anyone walks in the door, their markup is automatically 2.5% above what their credit score would suggest. They buy a car, and start negotiating financing. "OK, Mr. Billis, I can offer you a financing rate of ( x+2.5)%." "Wow. You know, this is the third car we've bought from you..." "You're absolutely right. I see that here in your file. How about this: just for you, because you're such a good customer, I'll knock off 1%. You'll get a rate of ( x+1.5)%. How does that sound?" "Better. But it's still really high." "It's the best I can do, I'm afraid." "You know, I'm an architect pulling in $10K a month. I can easily go elsewhere for this loan." "Well, if you're willing to provide an income statement, I can probably get my boss to agree to ( x+0.5)%. But that's the absolute best I can do, because it means there's literally no chance you'll ever miss a payment." "I can live with (x+0.5)%." "Good. Great. I'll confirm with my boss and we'll lock it in." Is Mr. Billis white? Non-white? Who knows. He's getting a good deal because of his specific customer profile as it relates to risk, loyalty, etc. Even so, if there happen to be more whites than non-whites sharing Mr. Billis' advantageous circumstances, any study looking at correlation between rates and race will find one. The CFPB can't/won't establish the specific mechanisms to explain the correlation, and hence they fall back to "We don't know if it's deliberate. We do know we want Ally to put pressure on dealers to make the correlation disappear." I trust you'll agree with me that if the disparity in rates is indeed due to this kind of incidental correlation, and the dealers are simply doing what dealers do to sweeten deals without caring one whit about customers' race, punishing them for it is unfair, anti-competitive, and harmful to the public interest.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 8:51:00 GMT -5
A magnitude 3.6 quake is like a forest fire that burns down 6 trees.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 8:48:55 GMT -5
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 8:45:33 GMT -5
Who's going to punish them? The state?
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 8:43:21 GMT -5
It turns out to be irrelevant. I read a bit deeper into the suit against Ally and confirmed the discrimination occurs at the level of the dealerships. The dealers have a 2.5% discretionary margin on financing rates. They send in a requested rate within the permissible range and Ally gives it to them. Ally is named in the suit because the CFPB/DoJ can't go after dealerships directly. The NYT coverage of the story also makes it clear what the "fix" is: no discretionary margin on financing rates. Obviously. Since even if the different rates fairly reflect factors beyond the dealers' control, they're beyond the dealers' control. They can't magically erase correlations to race. As I said in my very first post: capitalism versus socialism. And if socialism leaves dealers with no margins to work with legitimately (for all the reasons listed in Reply #8), socialism can take a flying hike. Unbridled free market capitalism has caused exploitation in the past, hence various laws. Having laws does not make our system socialism anymore than not having unfettered capitalism means there is no capitalism left.
You think its capitalism which causes these people in the dealers which has them asking for bigger profits in loans in less liked groups instead of good old bias against those groups? Much of greed and exploitation occurs because the exploiters can take advantage of certain people easily. Its not because they need to, that they are doing it for a higher reason. Notice they listed Asian/Pacific Islanders too. Odds are their default rates are less than whites, but some people don't like them, so they took advantage of them when the opportunity arose.
You misunderstand me. I'm a socialist at heart on a lot of issues. For this particular issue, and specifically concerning the "no margin" proposed "fix": no mas. Does this enable unethical dealers to discriminate for no good reason? Yes. Greater freedom always comes at the cost of less security. But it's a worthwhile trade-off in this case. You'll note that the margin is capped at 2.5%, meaning even the status quo isn't unfettered capitalism. A purely capitalistic system would have no cap on the margin except that negotiated by the bank and the dealer.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 8:12:57 GMT -5
You know, I think it's funny when people complain about the liberals in their 'echo chambers' hanging out on their liberal websites only listening to what other liberals have to say. It's a good thing our board definitely isn't, say, 95% of the way to being an echo chamber. We value diversity of opinion here. Incidentally, it's "liberal", not "liberal". Even more incidentally, at least one Canadian TV station is running PSAs asking people not to use the word "retarded" as a pejorative. This would probably include "liberal" too.
|
|
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 Apr 23, 2018 7:52:15 GMT -5
Virgil, since the car dealership usually gets loan info to the client in real time so it is not necessary to put the race on an application. Plus you have the fact that many people's names will telegraph that they might be Hispanic or Black. It turns out to be irrelevant. I read a bit deeper into the suit against Ally and confirmed the discrimination occurs at the level of the dealerships. The dealers have a 2.5% discretionary margin on financing rates. They send in a requested rate within the permissible range and Ally gives it to them. Ally is named in the suit because the CFPB/DoJ can't go after dealerships directly. The NYT coverage of the story also makes it clear what the "fix" is: no discretionary margin on financing rates. Obviously. Since even if the different rates fairly reflect factors beyond the dealers' control, they're beyond the dealers' control. They can't magically erase correlations to race. As I said in my very first post: capitalism versus socialism. And if socialism leaves dealers with no margins to work with legitimately (for all the reasons listed in Reply #8), socialism can take a flying hike.
|
|
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 Apr 22, 2018 22:06:54 GMT -5
... Several minorities have a higher rate of defaulting on loans. Associated costs are passed along to consumers in the form of fees, higher rates, etc. This repeal would appear to allow actuarial calculations to take race into account when assessing risk, meaning penalties are paid by the minority rather than distributed over the entire population. ... ... and now you're race baiting. ... I am discussing the race issues you have introduced. "I find it interesting that you identify minorities as being apart from 'the public'." was the accusation. First of all, my statement "I do know [this theory I just spent a whole post describing] is a plausible explanation based on the facts presented in the two articles, and that the Republicans are the good guys if it's indeed the case," makes it perfectly clear which theory I'm referring to as "doing the public a service" when I ask "whether the Republicans are sticking it to minorities or doing the public a service" in the very next post. Minorities aren't being discriminated against in this theory, hence: baseless accusation. But let's say you assumed for no reason I was talking about the actuarial theory 8 posts earlier, and again consider: "I find it interesting that you identify minorities as being apart from 'the public'." I made it clear in that post: "In my mind, the appropriateness of the measure depends on the disparity in risk. For example, if first-generation Somali immigrants have a 7.5% risk of default versus 2.5 for the general population--a 200% disparity-I have no qualms with passing the costs onto first-generation Somali immigrants. If the difference is marginal--2.5% vs. 2.7%, say--the bad outweighs the good. The greater population will just have to take one for the team." Do I consider first-generation Somali immigrants not a part of the public? For this specific example (assuming the premise were true): yes. At least in the sense I consider them to be an extraordinarily risk-prone demographic as opposed to the not-extraordinarily-risk-prone complementary set. Does this necessarily apply to first-generation Somali immigrants for other examples?: no. Does this necessarily apply to other minorities, for default risk or any other example?: no. Does this necessarily never apply to white people?: no. Do the groupings matter in determining whether discrimination is a net public good?: no, provided they're sufficiently large. Hence again, "you identify minorities as being apart from 'the public'": baseless accusation.
|
|
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 Apr 22, 2018 19:10:11 GMT -5
If it's something more to you, perhaps you ought to determine whether the Republicans are sticking it to minorities or doing the public a service here. I find it interesting that you identify minorities as being apart from "the public". Does that mean "the public" the Republicans are doing the service for is us white folks? I'm part capitalist at heart. I believe it to be in the public interest for lenders to be able to offer lower rates to customers on the basis of greater income and collateral, to reward loyalty, and as an incentive to attract big accounts. In spite of its noble intentions, if the rate regulation we're discussing inadvertently penalizes lenders for doing these things, it is an encumbrance. A sufficiently great encumbrance works against the public good. A politician who removes an encumbrance working against the public good is performing a public service. There are two other possibilities as well: (1) The dealers are engaging in the same kind of discrimination as auto insurers. They don't bother to check income, collateral, loyalty, etc. on a customer-by-customer basis. However, having observed that minorities tend to perform more poorly in these regards on average, they offer this group higher rates. This I condone only if ( i) checking the above factors on a case-by-case basis is unreasonably burdensome and ( ii) the risk disparity between demographics is large (on the order of 300%), as I said before. (2) The dealers are simply sticking it to minorities because they can. They're flagging minority loan applications for higher rates (or flagging non-minority applications for lower rates) for some reason other than the two reasons given above. This I do not condone. I may not necessarily condone regulations either, since no regulation comes without side effects, and market forces will always limit the magnitude of discrimination at some point. It depends entirely on the regulation. You took your little shot at my indifference, and now you're race baiting. But if you haven't researched which of the above possibilities is really the case, what does this say about you? At best, you're as indifferent as I am.
|
|
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 Apr 22, 2018 16:21:37 GMT -5
... I'm not the one up in arms over the rescission of the rule. This is all an academic curiosity to me. ... It is certainly your privilege for this to just be an academic curiosity to you. If it's something more to you, perhaps you ought to determine whether the Republicans are sticking it to minorities or doing the public a service here.
|
|
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 Apr 22, 2018 8:02:37 GMT -5
The DMZ between North and South Korea was created 65 years ago. With a few very minor exceptions, no problem. Nations have had atomic and nuclear-capability for even longer without them being used. Why does North Korea have to disarm? The same reason as Iran. We don't trust them.
|
|
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 Apr 22, 2018 7:54:12 GMT -5
... I vote you help us out by looking at whatever documentation Sen. Toomey filed to target the rule for rescission, ... If you want to know a politician's rationalization for this, you should look it up yourself. I found this as good reason for the GOP top get rid of the whole thing. Ally to pay $98 million for car loan bias Federal officials said that Detroit-based Ally Financial and Ally Bank charged higher interest rates from about 235,000 car loan borrowers who were Hispanic, African-American, and Asian/Pacific Islanders since April, 2011.
The Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said an investigation into Ally's lending practices found that car dealers who arranged loans were allowed to mark up the interest rate over what would be justified by their credit profile.
The dealers and Ally split the additional interest payments. On average, the minority customers paid an additional $200 to $300 each over the life of the car loan. The other side of the story, ibid.: Federal officials said they are not alleging the discrimination was deliberate.
Ally issued a statement saying its dealers' contracts doesn't include information on a consumer's race or ethnicity, and that it doesn't believe its dealer network was deliberately discriminating.
"Regardless, Ally takes the assertions by the CFPB and DOJ very seriously and has agreed to the terms in the orders," it said.
...
The National Automobile Dealers Association denied that its members are engaged in any kind of discriminatory lending practices, which spokesman Bailey Wood term a "toxic allegation." He said that other studies have showed that dealers arrange loans at a lower interest rate than direct lenders, such as banks and credit unions. He questioned the investigation that the CFPB performed to determine that minority car buyers had been hurt.
"The CFPB continues to withhold the secret methodology it uses to determine whether unintentional discrimination has occurred," he said. The CFPB's methodology is key. If they're merely running a multi-factor analysis on interest rates, factoring out credit score, and finding a residual correlation with race, this is explainable by the phenomenon I just described. Meaning the car dealers may well be conducting routine non-discriminatory business, yet being sued due to statistical realities beyond their control. CNN states, "The Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said an investigation into Ally's lending practices found that car dealers who arranged loans were allowed to mark up the interest rate over what would be justified by their credit profile." The clause "allowed to mark up the interest rate" suggests something deliberate and malicious. It raises the question of how applications were flagged if dealer contracts contain no information on a consumer's race, especially in light of the fact that CFPB isn't alleging the act is deliberate. Combine this with an inscrutable methodology and Republican grumblings about "junk science", it's not a stretch to assume what CNN and the NYT (and possibly also the CFPB) are calling "allowed to mark up the interest rate" is the dealers' increased tendency to flag non-minority customers' applications with "give this guy a better rate", in the normal course of non-discriminatory business, due to the factors I previously identified. Hence the dealers and insurers run to the Republicans, saying, "Look, we're being sued for giving better deals to customers on a loyalty and lower-credit-risk basis, and the CFPB's methodology doesn't care." Is this what's happening? I don't know. I do know it's a plausible explanation based on the facts presented in the two articles, and that the Republicans are the good guys if it's indeed the case. I'm not the one up in arms over the rescission of the rule. This is all an academic curiosity to me. If my theory turns out to be correct, this issue would stand out as a prime example of how media outlets can report 90% of the facts with complete truthfulness, and yet by omission of that critical 10%, either deliberately or due to journalistic incompetence, lead the readership to a totally wrong conclusion.
|
|
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 Apr 21, 2018 18:39:07 GMT -5
Nine times in total since 1985, actually. But this could be lucky number 10. They have shut down a test site (which is apparently no longer usable). They have stopped nuclear testing. They have stopped missile testing. But remember Trump and "I didnt say when" missiles would fly? Kim: "I didn't say for how long" we wouldn't test. This thread is drowning in cynicism, and I'd like to be optimistic. How about this?: NK disarmament is not as hopeless as, say, peace between Israel and Palestine. There you have hatred between nations that can be traced back thousands of years. Every time their leaders shake hands over a peace agreement, I'm sitting there thinking, "Well, 12 people on board, just 12 million to go." But Kim Jong Un, as far as I know, has complete dictatorial power in NK. If only he can be convinced to disarm, by flattery, reason, financial incentives, his face being carved into Mt. Rushmore II beside Pres. Trump's, etc., it very well might happen. Now... it might turn out to be 1945 Japan, with the generals all on board to run a sword through dear leader before he agrees to American terms, but assuming there's no coup, it's just one man. Who happens to be particularly amenable to flattery. Not particularly riveted to principles. It could happen. The possibility isn't so remote that there's no hope.
|
|
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 Apr 21, 2018 18:09:15 GMT -5
(meanwhile) Virgil: "That is great. Where do I sign?" Insurer: "Right here. Whoops, I didn't realize you were male and age 21-35. That'll be $550 a month for your auto insurance, not $200 a month." Virgil: "But I'm an individual! I've never been in an accident." Insurer: "Sorry, sir. Maybe you should talk to all those people like you to get them to be more responsible." So which is it? Are we a socialist society where everyone pays equally for the bravado of young male drivers and increased minority credit risk, or are we a capitalist society where young males bear the brunt of being young and male and minorities bear the brunt of being a minority? I'd welcome passing my higher insurance costs onto women and older men. Remember that foolish consistency thing. That is where you are on this one. Here is a factor to consider with that insurance rate. I didn't pay that high a rate because I was in college in my early to mid twenties and received a good student discount. That is offered because insurance companies know it is a way to identify a lower risk individual and price accordingly. In the credit world, there is also a way to identify a lower risk individual. Do you know what it is? (A hint: as shocking as it might be to you it isn't skin color) It is called a credit score. For the most part, it is on what credit rates are based usually. If a person of race x with a credit score of C is statistically indistinguishable from a person of race y with a credit score of C for all x, y, and C, and if C is a datum accessible to all lenders, then discrimination on the base of race is unfair, I agree. At a baseline level, this is probably the case. My understanding is that any lender has a simple sheet: credit score of C, loan N = rate r. But this is only the base rate, since the credit score only represents the borrower's past performance on loans. There are factors it doesn't account for, some of which are no doubt correlated to race: income, access to collateral, size of account (e.g. does the customer do a lot of business with the lender), loyalty, etc. Every one of them can be used by the customer to negotiate a lower rate... unless the lender's hands are tied. By a well-meaning but overreaching rule, for instance, since the statistics would reflect differences in average loan rates to different races, which are prohibited. Is this the case here? The only thing the NYT says about the rationale for the rescission of the rule is: But business groups and Republicans cheered the move, saying it would ease lending restrictions for car purchases.
“The legislation is a measured response to the CFPB’s attempt to regulate the $1.1 trillion auto financing market, avoid congressional scrutiny by issuing ‘guidance,’ and impose a new policy without necessary procedural safeguards,” said Peter Welch, president of the National Automobile Dealers Association.
Mr. Toomey hailed the rollback of the auto-lending restrictions as the repeal of an “ill-conceived regulation” and a sign that Congress was ready to reassert control over government agencies that have exceeded their authority.
“Any guidance, in fact any rule-making, ultimately, should be subject to congressional review,” Mr. Toomey said. This doesn't answer our question. I vote you help us out by looking at whatever documentation Sen. Toomey filed to target the rule for rescission, which AFAIK should be in the public domain and contain his rationale. In the past, I've found the media... shall way say... "less than completely reliable"... in disclosing the full rationale for the passage or repeal of such rules. We want to be sure we're not being Fake News'd.
|
|
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 Apr 21, 2018 16:35:59 GMT -5
You DO realize that North Korea has agreed to this twice before and failed to keep their word, correct? Nine times in total since 1985, actually. But this could be lucky number 10.
|
|
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 Apr 21, 2018 16:19:19 GMT -5
... Several minorities have a higher rate of defaulting on loans. ... "Minorities" don't default, individuals default. (Using a technique I saw somewhere ) "Sir, we ran your credit and see you are eligible for an interest rate of 4.3%" "That is great. Where do I sign?" "Right here. Whoops, I didn't realize you were left handed. Left handed people default on loans at a higher rate so we will have to increase your interest rate to 5.3%." "But all the work I did to raise my score?" "Sorry Sir, maybe you should talk to all those people like you to get them to be more responsible." (meanwhile) Virgil: "That is great. Where do I sign?" Insurer: "Right here. Whoops, I didn't realize you were male and age 21-35. That'll be $550 a month for your auto insurance, not $200 a month." Virgil: "But I'm an individual! I've never been in an accident." Insurer: "Sorry, sir. Maybe you should talk to all those people like you to get them to be more responsible." So which is it? Are we a socialist society where everyone pays equally for the bravado of young male drivers and increased minority credit risk, or are we a capitalist society where young males bear the brunt of being young and male and minorities bear the brunt of being a minority? I'd welcome passing my higher insurance costs onto women and older men.
|
|
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 Apr 21, 2018 8:57:35 GMT -5
The GOP - Proudly in its fourth decade of working against the American people. "The Senate voted on Wednesday to overturn an Obama-era rule that restricted automobile lenders from discriminating against minorities by charging them higher fees for car loans, in the latest attempt by Republican lawmakers to roll back financial regulations." Several minorities have a higher rate of defaulting on loans. Associated costs are passed along to consumers in the form of fees, higher rates, etc. This repeal would appear to allow actuarial calculations to take race into account when assessing risk, meaning penalties are paid by the minority rather than distributed over the entire population. It's capitalism vs. socialism. There is no cast-in-stone right answer. In my mind, the appropriateness of the measure depends on the disparity in risk. For example, if first-generation Somali immigrants have a 7.5% risk of default versus 2.5 for the general population--a 200% disparity-I have no qualms with passing the costs onto first-generation Somali immigrants. If the difference is marginal--2.5% vs. 2.7%, say--the bad outweighs the good. The greater population will just have to take one for the team.
|
|
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 Apr 20, 2018 20:42:04 GMT -5
I realize it's a misleading, click-baity article title. And the article itself reads like a GoT fan theory written by an excitable pre-teen. But if the loopholes wind up being closed, and the closure saves enough to finance the wall, this'll be enough of a feather in Pres. Trump's cap that Paul and the CT deserve the win. As long as they don't double dip. Any money that goes to "the wall" remains as part of the deficit. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Mexico was $64.1 billion in 2017.link Indeed. The actual figure, assuming it could be calculated, would be the net present value of the wall-for-NAFTA deal (e.g. treating the wall as the initial outlay, and the net boost to US tax revenues from all provisions in the reworked NAFTA deal as future revenues) based on a discount rate of 5%/ann. A truly defensible analysis would also try to estimate the wall's PV impact on trade (probably zero, but who knows), and its PV impact on cutting costs of illegal immigration (which would be a considerable sum assuming it prevented significant net migration into the US). But we'll omit these from the present contest.
|
|
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 Apr 20, 2018 19:02:13 GMT -5
I believe what Paul is saying by "essentially agreeing to pay for the wall" is that Mexico closing tariff loopholes (in response to Pres. Trump's direction to negotiators) will conceivably save the US enough money to cover the costs of building the border wall. Supposing the loopholes will actually be closed, the US sacrifices nothing in exchange, and the money saved will indeed cover the costs of building the wall, describing Mexico's "agreeing to concessions that will cover the cost of the wall" as "essentially agreeing to pay for the wall" isn't too egregious a spin. It's enough of a stretch, however, that mention of the wall won't appear in any article about the tariff loopholes. So, in this episode of Paul et al. vs. YMAM, the stakes are high and the condition for victory is clear: If Mexico ultimately agrees to close the loophole (within 12 months of today), and if the CBO's projection of the closure's net financial benefit to America exceeds 50% of the total cost of the wall, Paul and team MAGA emerge triumphant. If Mexico does not close the loophole in a timely fashion, or if the net benefit to the US is not at least 50% of the total cost of the wall, team YMAM chalks up a win. I shall be the neutral foreign referee. Yes, but we could use that savings elsewhere and declare that Mexico paid down our debt, Mexico contributed to the VA or Mexico paid for Donald Trump's many golf outings. I realize it's a misleading, click-baity article title. And the article itself reads like a GoT fan theory written by an excitable pre-teen. But if the loopholes wind up being closed, and the closure saves enough to finance the wall, this'll be enough of a feather in Pres. Trump's cap that Paul and the CT deserve the win.
|
|
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 Apr 20, 2018 10:47:39 GMT -5
With Trump no lead is trivial, will be investigated right down to over due library books! Exactly. And for what? They've strained every last ounce of public faith in the media, the FBI, DoJ, now even the New York courts... for what? This rich, meaty collusion pie Mr. Mueller is going to be serving up any day. If it's not the richest, meatiest, most satisfying pie that ever pied...
|
|
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 Apr 20, 2018 10:17:33 GMT -5
... (Unfortunately it will cease being true in 2020.) ... Do I need to get moon/Laura to give me special dispensation to stay at that point? Your only hope would be to travel back in time to the year 2000, have young Moon start up YMAM (which would be quite the challenge since Proboards didn't exist until late 2001), sign up as the 20th member (including Moon), and wait until 2010, at which point your special status would resume. Although, if we count time in your personal frame of reference, you have the simpler option of waiting until Dec 10, 2020, traveling back exactly 10 years to 2010 and quickly signing up as member #20 after Moon founds the board. Then you'll enjoy your special status until 2099. For example, upon reaching Dec 10, 2020 a second time, you will have collectively been a member for 20 years (albeit in two separate timelines), and your ID concatenated with your year count will be 20 | 20 = 2020.
|
|