What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[DGuller]

Main point is: if there's demand for something, that demand will be supplied.

Now I am not saying that ANY oversight into the lending market is bad, quite the contrary, but saying that ITS FIFTEEN PERCENT AND NOT A CENT MORE just drives people to illegal loan sharks who are NOT payday lenders.

Payday lenders are scum of the earth but they rip off the poor and helpless in broad daylight and their victims have legal ways to get out of under their thumb. But you can't declare bankrupcy to a criminal.

You have to be a little pragmatic with the policy sometimes.  At some interest rate point people are not really making a rational decision to get themselves into a debt hole, they just sink into it through a combination of lack of education and lack of foresight.  Unless you need money for a taxi ride to turn in your winning lottery ticket, there comes a point where interest rate is just too high for any rational person to choose it, and people get it only because they fall into it in some way.

[viper37]

they just sink into it through a combination of lack of education and lack of foresight. 

and the second often comes with the first.
that is why education is preferable to arbitrary rules.

[viper37]

My understanding is that the calculation is actually quite the reverse: banks decide how much they can gut you before their own actions force you to default, rather than how much they charge you to compensate the risk you represent.

and you would be wrong.  Risks determines everything.  That is why you and I would pay more for a car loan at a bank than André Desmarais would, even if he were to borrow 1M$ for a used car.

From the outside, yes it appears as you see it, but it's totally wrong in a free market.
In Canada, given the low numbers of banks available to us, we have to pay enormous fees each month or maintain a very high balance in our checking accounts.  But you face the same problem everywhere there is no competition, even in govt services: taxes are leveled as high as the govt can think it can get away with without promoting black market transactions too much.  If taxes were leveled for the current needs of government, then there would never be deficits or surplus, the tax rates would be adjusted in real time to reflect budgetary forecasts.

But in reality, in a democracy, government spends as much money as they can get away with to please a part of the electorate while not displeasing the theoritical deficit hawks.

[crazy canuck]

My understanding is that the calculation is actually quite the reverse: banks decide how much they can gut you before their own actions force you to default, rather than how much they charge you to compensate the risk you represent.

and you would be wrong.  Risks determines everything. 

The need to generate bank profits greater than the last determine everything.

[HVC]

risks determine the lower bound, but not always the upper bound.

[DGuller]

they just sink into it through a combination of lack of education and lack of foresight. 

and the second often comes with the first.
that is why education is preferable to arbitrary rules.

That's like arguing for sex education in an abortion debate.  It's a useful personal skill, but beside the point in a discussion.

I would also argue that in general, there are limits to education as a solution.  Education to protect yourself from predation is a societal waste, since it's just an arms race between predators and prey.  The most important job of the government is to protect its citizens from all sorts of predators so that the citizens can focus on more productive activities.

[Admiral Yi]

risks determine the lower bound, but not always the upper bound.

Competition should determine the lower bound.

[HVC]

risks determine the lower bound, but not always the upper bound.

Competition should determine the lower bound.

I guess a mixture of risk and competition. would you follow a loss leader to the bottom, or let them fail out?

[viper37]

My understanding is that the calculation is actually quite the reverse: banks decide how much they can gut you before their own actions force you to default, rather than how much they charge you to compensate the risk you represent.

and you would be wrong.  Risks determines everything. 

The need to generate bank profits greater than the last determine everything.

that's part of the risk calculations for everyone in the foodchain.

[Berkut]

they just sink into it through a combination of lack of education and lack of foresight. 

and the second often comes with the first.
that is why education is preferable to arbitrary rules.

But education doesn't actually work for a LOT of people.

Studies have shown that there are a lot of people who just make bad decisions, even when they are completely educated and aware that they are making bad decisions.

There have been some interested studies done on this - an example that is often used is the Miranda warning. The social pressure to accede to the demands of authority figures is surprisingly high for a lot of people. A lot of people, even after being informed of their right to not talk, talk to the police anyway, even when it is abundantly clear that they should absolutely not do that.

I'm not really sure what we should do about that as a society. But I think the analogy to predatory lending is apt - we mostly focus on making sure people are informed. But there are a lot of people, who even when completely informed, still make decisions that are objectively terrible for them.

I used to pretty much say "Well, tough shit for them". But now I think a lot more that the "tough shit for them" response is not very useful.

On the other hand, the alternative is almost certainly some form of nanny-statism, right? And I am not fan of that either.

I think this is why I mostly come down on the "It depends on the particular circumstances" on damn near everything now - there aren't any principles at more than a very fundamental level.

Humans are what we are - people make bad decisions *predictably*. How do we account for that in policy?

[crazy canuck]

There is very little in a modern society that is not governed by laws and regulations.  The laws and regulations in the area we are discussing do not favour the credit card customers.

[Syt]

Donald J. Trump‏
@realDonaldTrump

Has anyone noticed that all the Boston @RedSox have done is WIN since coming to the White House! Others also have done very well. The White House visit is becoming the opposite of being on the cover of Sports Illustrated! By the way, the Boston players were GREAT guys!

4:29 AM - 13 May 2019

[Admiral Yi]

If you get in invited to THE WHITE HOUSE you too can rub the MAGIC GOLDEN ORB!  Just imagine the POWERS you will gain!

[jimmy olsen]

Trump's playing chicken again and one of these days he's not going to swerve out of the way in time.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/15/washington-orders-some-us-government-employees-to-leave-iraq.html

Washington ordered the departure of non-emergency government employees from Iraq on Wednesday, after repeated U.S. expressions of concern about threats from Iranian-backed forces.

The U.S. State Department has ordered the pullout of the employees from both the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and its consulate in Erbil, the embassy said in a statement.

"Normal visa services at both posts will be temporarily suspended," it said, recommending those affected depart as soon as possible. It was unclear how many staff would leave.

On Tuesday, the U.S. military reaffirmed concerns about possible imminent threats from Iran to its troops in Iraq, although a senior British commander cast doubt on that and Tehran has called it "psychological warfare."

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has stepped up sanctions pressure by ending waivers for some countries to purchase Iranian oil — part of efforts to roll back the Islamic Republic's expanding regional clout.

Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Tuesday he was getting indications from talks with both the United States and Iran that "things will end well" despite the rhetoric.

Washington has sent additional military forces to the Middle East, including an aircraft carrier, B-52 bombers and Patriot missiles in a show of force against what U.S. officials have said is a threat to its troops and interests in the region.

A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander has said Tehran would retaliate against any aggressive U.S. moves.

A U.S. State Department spokesman said the decision to withdraw non-emergency staff was based on a security assessment, but would not give details on how many personnel were leaving.

"Ensuring the safety of U.S. government personnel and citizens is our highest priority and we are confident in the Iraqi security services' (ability) to protect us," he said.

"But this threat is serious and we want to reduce the risk of harm."

[Tamas]

Will we get a nice presentation in front of the UN on impending doom again, or they won't bother this time around?