Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Harry Bosch]

A 15% cap in interest rates would be tremendously effective at boosting the buying power of the lower and middle class without raising wages. And as we all know, when members of the middle class experience an increase in their ability to buy the goods and services they want and need, the entire economy gets a boost.

You're committing the usual leftist sin of thinking that stomping out bad options will magically make good options appear. In reality a 15% cap in interest rates would mean credit was simply unavailable to those who are poor credit risks.

No, it means the small, locally owned banks and credit unions will get all the customers needing small loans and modest credit allotments until the big banks devise a new way to pump and dump them.

.

Not sure what you mean here. Generally, banks charge an interest rate based on risk. The lower the risk, the lower rate. For example, a person buying a building (collateral) with strong personal credit and strong company cash flow can get a very low interest rate on a building loan. If the same person with good credit, but no collateral wants a credit card, the rate will be higher (because of no collateral). The same person with poor credit rating will receive a higher still rate. Does that make sense? The higher rate compensates the lender for the greater risk being taken. Most of the pay lenders are non banks. If they can't get a high enough rate to compensate for their projected losses, they will simply drop out of the market. No capitalist is going to offer a service that loses more money than it takes in long term.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're committing the usual leftist sin of thinking that stomping out bad options will magically make good options appear.

Most people tend have the batshit crazy notion that stomping out bad options is worthwhile because they are bad options. Otherwise feed your kids bleach, there is no guarantee that not doing this means they definitely will do well at university.

The problem is when you simply stomp out bad options you force people into even worse options. I'm sure you know what road is paved with good intentions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Payday loans are extreme risk and have high origination costs (the labor is pretty much the same regardless of the size of the loan. Small loans mean the labor cost is a much higher percentage), cap them at 15% and they'll simply disappear.

What they should do is take steps to curb the abusive practices.

But are the really extreme risk? While a good amount of loans default, isn't this after the loans have been effectively paid off via interest? IE, the payday store collected $200 in interest on a $100 loan... in less than a year. So even losing the $100 principle, they made 100%.

1) You're neglecting their costs in doing it. They didn't make anything like $100.

2) Lets apply her 15% rule. They got $15 in interest and lost $100 + costs. Nope, the people aren't going to get a loan in the first place. Instead they're going to the loan shark.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

High crime rates are not a legitimate grounds for asylum. Neither is lack of well-paying jobs. Asylum is supposed be a way to protect people who are being persecuted in their home countries, not facilitate mass migration from the poor countries into richer ones.

It's not the high crime rates that are triggering the asylum claims. Rather, it's the pressure to take part in the crime. Join our gang or else!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ah, you silly boy. The only people that benefit from increased productivity in the US is the CEO and investor classes.

View attachment 21480

Repeating this ad nauseum doesn't make it relevant.

These days most good jobs are salaried, not hourly, and thus are not part of that graph.

No, what you're saying is irrelevant. I don't know whether this chart's data pulled from salaried, hourly, or both, but the basis is still the same. I'm not going to do your homework for you, because you're not worth it, but there are plenty of studies that show the salary converted to an hourly equivalent and the results are identical. So you're just blowing smoke, as usual.

If there are plenty of such studies why are they never cited?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, what you're saying is irrelevant. I don't know whether this chart's data pulled from salaried, hourly, or both, but the basis is still the same. I'm not going to do your homework for you, because you're not worth it, but there are plenty of studies that show the salary converted to an hourly equivalent and the results are identical. So you're just blowing smoke, as usual.

Yes, any study I've seen which shows this same result merely *normalizes* total income by hour. I'm pretty sure this graph is simply taking data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which doesn't just sample from people who are earning an hourly wage, it samples from wage/salary earners and asks how many hours they work a week and how much they earn total and then normalize by hour.

So Loren's claim, is as usual, merely a reflection of his persistent ability to deny any empirical facts that contradict the neat and tidy models he has decided are unadulterated truth.

I see the same data presented in contexts that make it clear it's not counting salaries and in contexts where it's not labeled. Why in the world should I think the unlabeled ones are counting salaries? Hourly and salaried income have shifted in the US, for them to produce the same curve would make no sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A 15% cap in interest rates would be tremendously effective at boosting the buying power of the lower and middle class without raising wages. And as we all know, when members of the middle class experience an increase in their ability to buy the goods and services they want and need, the entire economy gets a boost.

You're committing the usual leftist sin of thinking that stomping out bad options will magically make good options appear. In reality a 15% cap in interest rates would mean credit was simply unavailable to those who are poor credit risks.

No, it means the small, locally owned banks and credit unions will get all the customers needing small loans and modest credit allotments until the big banks devise a new way to pump and dump them.

Meanwhile, having less of their hard earned cash going to service debt means those folks will have more money to spend on upgrading their current life situation. They might be able to afford a home or buy new furnishings or patronize restaurants more often or buy new boots instead of trying to salvage an old pair with Shoe Goo. And as I'm sure we all realize, the more demand there is for goods and services, the more the economy expands.

Nobody's going to provide small lending at 15% interest rates. You want to borrow $100 for a month, the law caps interest at 15%. You have gold-plated credit, will they do it? Nope--they're going to make $1.25 on it, that won't pay the labor. The only way you get such small loans is automated systems--credit cards and the like.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it means the small, locally owned banks and credit unions will get all the customers needing small loans and modest credit allotments until the big banks devise a new way to pump and dump them.

.

Not sure what you mean here. Generally, banks charge an interest rate based on risk. The lower the risk, the lower rate. For example, a person buying a building (collateral) with strong personal credit and strong company cash flow can get a very low interest rate on a building loan. If the same person with good credit, but no collateral wants a credit card, the rate will be higher (because of no collateral). The same person with poor credit rating will receive a higher still rate. Does that make sense? The higher rate compensates the lender for the greater risk being taken. Most of the pay lenders are non banks. If they can't get a high enough rate to compensate for their projected losses, they will simply drop out of the market. No capitalist is going to offer a service that loses more money than it takes in long term.

It's yet another example of the leftist mistake of thinking stomping out bad options will make good options appear.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "It is just as politicized a maneuver to not impeach in the face of overwhelming evidence as it is to impeach w/o cause. Congress swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That includes impeachment. We have a duty to preserve our institutions + uphold the rule of law.… https://t.co/8uT5GQN8lL" noting Rep. Mark Pocan on Twitter: "Stonewalling Congress on witnesses and the unredacted Mueller report only enhances the President’s appearance of guilt, and as a result, he has pushed Congress to a point where we must start an impeachment inquiry."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Just as what happens in the House doesn’t control Senate, what happens in the Senate shouldn’t control the House. DoJ outlined ev of 10 criminal instances. Pres is now obstructing legally binding subpoenas. We need to do our job & vote on impeachment. What Sen does is on them.… https://t.co/vJ3E2TIfXC" noting Mark Pitcavage on Twitter: "The question some might raise--and to which I do not have a good answer--is whether or not impeaching without chance of success actually preserves rather than weakens institutions, given that a failure could actually embolden some to weaken the rule of law still further.… https://t.co/kEREdWVv7r"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Remember, Clinton was also impeached - that failed in Sen too. Our institutions didn’t suffer then, but they have been damaged greatly today w unwillingness to impeach. Whether it’s Dem fear or GOP recklessness, doesn’t matter. Failure to impeach now is neglect of due process."

Seems like she is reluctantly supporting impeachment. She did not campaign on impeachment, and she prefers to do more positive things.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, it means the small, locally owned banks and credit unions will get all the customers needing small loans and modest credit allotments until the big banks devise a new way to pump and dump them.

.

Not sure what you mean here. Generally, banks charge an interest rate based on risk. The lower the risk, the lower rate. For example, a person buying a building (collateral) with strong personal credit and strong company cash flow can get a very low interest rate on a building loan. If the same person with good credit, but no collateral wants a credit card, the rate will be higher (because of no collateral). The same person with poor credit rating will receive a higher still rate. Does that make sense? The higher rate compensates the lender for the greater risk being taken. Most of the pay lenders are non banks. If they can't get a high enough rate to compensate for their projected losses, they will simply drop out of the market. No capitalist is going to offer a service that loses more money than it takes in long term.

It's yet another example of the leftist mistake of thinking stomping out bad options will make good options appear.

Maybe if people weren't making shit wages, which you support, payday lending wouldn't be needed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, it means the small, locally owned banks and credit unions will get all the customers needing small loans and modest credit allotments until the big banks devise a new way to pump and dump them.

.

Not sure what you mean here. Generally, banks charge an interest rate based on risk. The lower the risk, the lower rate. For example, a person buying a building (collateral) with strong personal credit and strong company cash flow can get a very low interest rate on a building loan. If the same person with good credit, but no collateral wants a credit card, the rate will be higher (because of no collateral). The same person with poor credit rating will receive a higher still rate. Does that make sense? The higher rate compensates the lender for the greater risk being taken. Most of the pay lenders are non banks. If they can't get a high enough rate to compensate for their projected losses, they will simply drop out of the market. No capitalist is going to offer a service that loses more money than it takes in long term.

It's yet another example of the leftist mistake of thinking stomping out bad options will make good options appear.

So like child labor laws.

 

[ZiprHead]

Short Term Loans In Norway

Benefits of Fleksikreditt include:

First 30 days interest free
No establishment fee
Flexible repayment
Direct transfer
Fees and charges:

Borrow 1,000 to 20,000
Flexible loan framework with 12.5% ​​as the minimum repayment per month
Withdrawal fee: 12.5% ​​of the amount withdrawn
Establishment fee: 0, –
Termination fee: 0, –
Invoice by email: 0, –
Invoice by post: 39, –

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Payday loans are extreme risk and have high origination costs (the labor is pretty much the same regardless of the size of the loan. Small loans mean the labor cost is a much higher percentage), cap them at 15% and they'll simply disappear.

What they should do is take steps to curb the abusive practices.

But are the really extreme risk? While a good amount of loans default, isn't this after the loans have been effectively paid off via interest? IE, the payday store collected $200 in interest on a $100 loan... in less than a year. So even losing the $100 principle, they made 100%.

1) You're neglecting their costs in doing it. They didn't make anything like $100.

I didn't neglect much. I put forth an honest question regarding the costs of a loan defaulting, which is typically what people use to justify the ridiculous sky high interest rate. If a person is paying back 2x to 3x the loan principle before defaulting, the bank isn't exactly getting killed on the loss of principle, as the PayDay Loan Store is getting that money from another back for a "tad" bit lower rate.

2) Lets apply her 15% rule. They got $15 in interest and lost $100 + costs. Nope, the people aren't going to get a loan in the first place. Instead they're going to the loan shark.

Here is the thing... are people going to default on $115 or are people defaulting on $300 for a $100 loan? PayDay Loans can be self propagating defaults.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Working family-focused policies + Game of Thrones gender convos Elect you an official that can do both (+ keep an eye out this week for another vid on something we’re working on!)… https://t.co/AYdAMWki5p" noting Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "It’s been over 24 hours. No more spoiler alerts. Here’s why @AOC and I are officially on #TeamSansa now.… "
That's their discussion of the ending of the Game of Thrones series.

CSPAN on Twitter: ".@RepAOC @AOC asks about One Strike Rule and No-Fault Policy and if Secretary Carson would support moving the policies over to a more holistic/case-by-case review. @SecretaryCasron: "I'm always in favor of more flexibility."… https://t.co/5Nyyj1vNCf"
Justice Democrats on Twitter: "“Under your watch and your helm, would you let your grandmother live in public housing under [current] conditions?” -@AyannaPressley Ben Carson had no clear answer.… https://t.co/wD7aoZ7iQK"
Suzy Khimm on Twitter: ".@AyannaPressley rips into Ben Carson for proposing steep cuts to public housing, showing photos of horrific health/safety conditions. "Would you let your grandmother live in public housing, under these conditions?" Carson refuses to answer."
What a nincompoop Ben Carson is.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Who says progressives can’t get stuff done? Thank you @SecretaryCarson for your testimony in front of the Financial Services Committee today. We have many crises in housing, & I look forward to reversing the unjust legacy laws from the War on Drugs in our public housing system.… https://t.co/oeNSBoAiwh" noting Michael McAuliff on Twitter: "How about that. @aoc just got qualified support for her second bill from Trump administration Housing Secretary Ben Carson. The bill would roll back some one-strike policies that throw families out of public housing. ‘‘Fair Chance at Housing Act: https://t.co/uzlkapR0nn"

Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "We are now at the point where we must begin an impeachment inquiry. I don't say that lightly. We've taken every step we can w/subpoenas and witnesses. Trump obstructs everything. A president who thinks he's king, accountable to nobody & ,above the law is absolutely unacceptable.… https://t.co/5NYLAhssRb" noting Laurence Tribe on Twitter: ".@RepJayapal & Rep @davidcicilline now agree @HouseJudiciary should begin formal #ImpeachmentHearings into whether Trump has committed impeachable offenses if McGahn obeys Trump’s order to defy the Committee’s subpoena to testify on May 21. @RepJerryNadler @jamie_raskin @tedlieu"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: ".@AyannaPressley is breathing in FSC right now and it is glorious to watch. Good job sis." -- the Financial Services Committee.

 

[bilby]

It's yet another example of the leftist mistake of thinking stomping out bad options will make good options appear.

Maybe if people weren't making shit wages, which you support, payday lending wouldn't be needed.

^This

There is nothing so useless as doing, with great efficiency, that which should not be done at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's yet another example of the leftist mistake of thinking stomping out bad options will make good options appear.

Maybe if people weren't making shit wages, which you support, payday lending wouldn't be needed.

Once again, you're trying to take away bad options.

If there were good jobs to be had the bad jobs would go unfilled. Therefore it is clear there are not good jobs to be had. Getting rid of bad ones won't change that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) You're neglecting their costs in doing it. They didn't make anything like $100.

I didn't neglect much. I put forth an honest question regarding the costs of a loan defaulting, which is typically what people use to justify the ridiculous sky high interest rate. If a person is paying back 2x to 3x the loan principle before defaulting, the bank isn't exactly getting killed on the loss of principle, as the PayDay Loan Store is getting that money from another back for a "tad" bit lower rate.

2) Lets apply her 15% rule. They got $15 in interest and lost $100 + costs. Nope, the people aren't going to get a loan in the first place. Instead they're going to the loan shark.

Here is the thing... are people going to default on $115 or are people defaulting on $300 for a $100 loan? PayDay Loans can be self propagating defaults.

Reality check time: Payday loans aren't for a year. From what I've seen of ads they're probably for a month.

$100 loan, 15%/12 = 1.25% total interest, $1.25 in interest. That's not a viable business even with no defaults.

 

[angelo]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/11/ocasio-cortez-a-new-depth-of-stupidity.php.

Nothing like hiccuping more old blog posts of the same info... over and over and over... in an attempt to make it look like new material.

You want newer material? Be my guest............................................. .........

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I didn't neglect much. I put forth an honest question regarding the costs of a loan defaulting, which is typically what people use to justify the ridiculous sky high interest rate. If a person is paying back 2x to 3x the loan principle before defaulting, the bank isn't exactly getting killed on the loss of principle, as the PayDay Loan Store is getting that money from another back for a "tad" bit lower rate.

Here is the thing... are people going to default on $115 or are people defaulting on $300 for a $100 loan? PayDay Loans can be self propagating defaults.

Reality check time: Payday loans aren't for a year. From what I've seen of ads they're probably for a month.

$100 loan, 15%/12 = 1.25% total interest, $1.25 in interest. That's not a viable business even with no defaults.

Wait, you are giving me a ‘reality check’ that is based on your watching of commercials?

The truth is payday loans usually roll over into extended loans and take a while to pay off because people that need the money can’t easily pay off that loan. So the one month loan turns into six, eight, and longer loans. This is where the ultra interest is a massive problem.

 

[marc]

Ok, I found a politician who is actually advocating for open borders. That far-leftist nutjob Ronald Reagan