Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 10:54 am

rayjay
This racial discrimination finding is very weak


Then why did this happen? (settlement)
Black, Hispanic, and Asian car buyers have been getting a raw deal, according to the US Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The federal agencies on Tuesday (July 14) settled a discriminatory lending suit with Honda Motor’s finance arm, alleging the car company’s auto dealers charged higher interest rates on loans to minorities than for loans issued to white customers. The CFPB also has been investigating Toyota Motor and Nissan Motor for similar practices.
Between January 2011 and December 2013, African-American customers paid an average of $250 more in interest than comparable white customers paid during the terms of their loans, because of discrimination, the Justice Department said. Likewise, Hispanics and Asians paid $200 and $150 more, respectively.

https://qz.com/453693/us-government-is- ... an-whites/


Rayjay
BTW, some of the litigious nature of the US that you correctly point to, is started by the regulatory agencies, and not the corporations

Actually its starts back at the form of governance. You've got competing legislatures and competing branches of government, and competing regulatory bodies, and a court system that somehow entertains every form of legal dispute....
Its often noted on this forum that the US Constitution was written in order to ensure that compromise would be required by the various elected officials in order to produce good governance. And perhaps that vision worked until party politics was developed. And especially stopped since an effective duopoly developed.
But it strikes me that the US Constitution and the form of government now create nothing but conflict and inertia. Except where monies interests wield their influence.

I see nothing wrong with some agency or another enforcing regulations that would make consumer lending completely transparent. Including car loans. I doubt you do either.
What is wrong about empowering consumers with complete information about the costs of their loans? Why would any legislator interested in the well being of his constituents fight legislation or regulation intended to accomplish such transparancy?


Fate
More importantly, is it right in a democracy to create an agency with an independent stream of funding?

You mean like public utilities?
The four main financial regulators?
Or how about the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This law permitted local and federal law enforcement agencies to divvy up the seized assets and cash. And lead to the promotion of such seizures in random traffic stops, as police departments sought to fund equipment...

Fate your arguments are typically American, and illustrate exactly the point I was trying to make with Rayjay... You constantly point to minutia, or debate interpretations of the constitution or legalistic interpretations or competing regulatory or government branches...
In countries that work well for the working and middle class, governance is simpler, more transparent and prone to far less conflict as a result.
When the question of "should we protect consumers from predatory lending practices", doesn't follow with a yes. And doesn't then follow with a committed attempt to find and apply the best way of accomplishing this...
Then governance isn't working.
In this case, I would bet that congress men and senators that are fighting the CFPB are receiving enormous campaign contributions from those interested in continuing the practices the CFPB is rooting out.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -sponsors/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20959
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 11:23 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
More importantly, is it right in a democracy to create an agency with an independent stream of funding?

You mean like public utilities?
The four main financial regulators?


No, no, no, no, and . . . NO!

What is wrong with you? Is English a foreign language for you?

Does the CPFB function as a "utility?" It functions like a cross between the IRS and the FBI. But, even those agencies are dependent upon Congressional funding.

Or how about the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This law permitted local and federal law enforcement agencies to divvy up the seized assets and cash. And lead to the promotion of such seizures in random traffic stops, as police departments sought to fund equipment...


Which Constitutionalists, like me, are against. But, that has nothing to do with the CPFB.

Fate your arguments are typically American, and illustrate exactly the point I was trying to make with Rayjay... You constantly point to minutia, or debate interpretations of the constitution or legalistic interpretations or competing regulatory or government branches...


Yes, yes, it's "terrible" to demand government agencies be accountable to the people. The CPFB is designed to be immune from inspection, oversight, or accountability. It is a rogue agency by design, accountable to no one.

When the question of "should we protect consumers from predatory lending practices", doesn't follow with a yes. And doesn't then follow with a committed attempt to find and apply the best way of accomplishing this...
Then governance isn't working.


This is absolute fertilizer. We didn't need the CPFB to accomplish this. If we want to outlaw payday loan outlets, we could pass a law. States can do that.

In this case, I would bet that congress men and senators that are fighting the CFPB are receiving enormous campaign contributions from those interested in continuing the practices the CFPB is rooting out.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -sponsors/


If my choice is between corrupt politicians and corrupt bureaucrats immune from oversight, I'll go with corrupt politicians. We have recourse with them. We can vote them out. We can impeach them. The only recourse with the CPFB and government agencies of its ilk is deconstruction or revolution.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4734
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 1:37 pm

Ricky:
Then why did this happen? (settlement)
Black, Hispanic, and Asian car buyers have been getting a raw deal, according to the US Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The federal agencies on Tuesday (July 14) settled a discriminatory lending suit with Honda Motor’s finance arm, alleging the car company’s auto dealers charged higher interest rates on loans to minorities than for loans issued to white customers. The CFPB also has been investigating Toyota Motor and Nissan Motor for similar practices.
Between January 2011 and December 2013, African-American customers paid an average of $250 more in interest than comparable white customers paid during the terms of their loans, because of discrimination, the Justice Department said. Likewise, Hispanics and Asians paid $200 and $150 more, respectively.

https://qz.com/453693/us-government-is- ... an-whites/


From your cite:

Since car dealers don’t directly collect the race or ethnicity of buyers, the government used a proxy method that analyzes the probability of race and ethnicity based on a person’s name and geographic location.
Honda, whose finance arm is the ninth-largest auto lender in the US, said it had a “difference of opinion” over how the government made its determinations. Still, it said it would pay $24 million to compensate affected customers and that it would revamp its 1,000 dealership’s loan policies because “we nonetheless share a fundamental agreement in the importance of fair lending.”


You do realize that $250 over the 5 or so year car loan of something like $20,000 based on statistical evidence (i.e. where people live I presume because no one kept stats on actual races) is not that much, right. Perhaps Honda calculated it was better to pay $24 million than to have their reputation besmirched and have a federal agency go after them in all sorts of ways. Under your vision of utopia the CFPB can go after them for emissions, miles per gallon infractions, tax fraud, safety violations, import violations, employee discrimination, toxic waste from their repair services, unfair sales practices. These agencies are very powerful, especially when they can get into areas that aren't their responsibility.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4734
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 1:44 pm

Ricky:
And perhaps that vision worked until party politics was developed.
1787?

Ricky:
And especially stopped since an effective duopoly developed.
1792?

It does remind me of something I recently heard: America: founded by geniuses, run by idiots.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 2:58 pm

Rayjay
1787?

I suppose if you count the Jeffersonian v Hamilton as true parties. The Federalists were not exactly organized to fight elections...
I don't think it really took hold till 1828. There was the formation of different political parties competing for ascendancy into the duopoly after that, until the two current parties have controlled Congress since 1856.

And especially stopped since an effective duopoly developed
.
In the earlier days, party discipline was never what one sees in Parliamentary systems though, and there was ample room for independent action within the party. Until as recently as the 1990s in fact.
The difference in a multi party system, is that you have room for compromise between entire parties.... and still retain party discipline. It actually tends to lead to more compromise then the entrenched duopoly.
The other thing that happens in a duopoly with constant elections... the campaigning never ends. There's little time spent actually governing One side is always attempting to gum up the works and stop the other side from getting anything done. And it doesn't help when a minority of voters, can put enough representatives in place to essentially stop governance due to the undemocratic nature of your representation.
Then there's the unnatural way government is funded... In a parliamentary system, if the government failed to pass a budget (fund the government) either a change of governing parties or an election is triggered. You don't just close the doors. (and I know that's not actually what happens...)
I guess the point is Ray, that especially when one of the parties is really against government as a concept, electing them to run a government ends up with unsurprising results. And putting them in opposition means they use all of the myriad of tools given them in your system to gum up the works.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 3:15 pm

Does the CPFB function as a "utility?

Utilities are monopolies that were created because it most more efficient to deliver the service or product as a monopoly... In order to ensure that they provide a reasonable level of service at a fair price. The CPFB's operating revenue is regulated the same way utilities operating revenues are regulated.

Under the Dodd-Frank law, the CFPB gets its money from transfers from the Federal Reserve System, up to specific caps set by the law. The Fed can’t turn down requests under that cap.
The caps are fixed percentages of the Fed’s operating expenses, which works out to the following:
–10% of Fed operating expenses in fiscal 2011 or $498 million — 11% of Fed operating expenses in fiscal 2012 or $547.8 million — 12% in fiscal 2013 or $597.6 million
–12% each fiscal year thereafter, subject to annual adjustments for inflation


What this does is keep the CPFB immune from congressional influence. Considering how corrupted congress is by campaign financing having a body working on behalf of consumers independent of that corruption seems like a decent idea.
I don't know what happens to the revenue CFPB generates with fining fraudsters and scam artists like wells Fargo, ...
But if this income is taken into consideration ... maybe they are actually breaking even?
Fate was catching Wells Fargo a good thing?
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-u ... -accounts/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20959
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 3:43 pm

Incredible. Your level of gullibility is off the charts.

rickyp wrote:
Does the CPFB function as a "utility?

Utilities are monopolies that were created because it most more efficient to deliver the service or product as a monopoly... In order to ensure that they provide a reasonable level of service at a fair price. The CPFB's operating revenue is regulated the same way utilities operating revenues are regulated. [/quote

Um, utilities actually deliver something on an as-needed basis. I turn on the tap and . . . voila, water! I turn on the light switch and it works.

The CPFB provides . . . water, electricity, cable TV?

Nope, "oversight" into things IT chooses to involve itself in.

Under the Dodd-Frank law, the CFPB gets its money from transfers from the Federal Reserve System, up to specific caps set by the law. The Fed can’t turn down requests under that cap.
The caps are fixed percentages of the Fed’s operating expenses, which works out to the following:
–10% of Fed operating expenses in fiscal 2011 or $498 million — 11% of Fed operating expenses in fiscal 2012 or $547.8 million — 12% in fiscal 2013 or $597.6 million
–12% each fiscal year thereafter, subject to annual adjustments for inflation


What this does is keep the CPFB immune from congressional influence. Considering how corrupted congress is by campaign financing having a body working on behalf of consumers independent of that corruption seems like a decent idea.


You've neatly defined its undemocratic, insulated from the ELECTORATE structure. Seriously, to WHOM is it accountable? Who can put the CPFB in check?

I don't know what happens to the revenue CFPB generates with fining fraudsters and scam artists like wells Fargo, ...


Right. So, Wells Fargo (which I've been boycotting for decades) would never have been brought to justice without the CPFB? Really? Evidence that NO OTHER government agency would have nailed them? That would be amazing since it appears the LA Times first uncovered WF's misdeeds. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-w ... story.html

The CPFB came into existence halfway through 2011 and by 2013 uncovered this?

Um, no.

But if this income is taken into consideration ... maybe they are actually breaking even?


Not a chance. Furthermore, the problem is that NO government agency should be beyond the reach of the people. The CPFB is insulated from oversight. That is NOT democracy.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15906
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 4:56 am

Doctor Fate wrote: .

I said “overall economy,” not “job growth.” So, should I say you are creating propaganda?
please show which other economic indicators you are using, and how significantly they differ from 2010 - 2016 trends. GDP growth is a little higher than 2015 and 2016, but overall the trend is not much different to the period since the recovery started.

Besides I remember when Obama was President and job numbers at the same level as now came out and you kept calling them too low and a poor reflection of the economy. What changed (other than your team winning elections)?

Generally speaking, corporations are taking care of their workers right now. As someone who has worked in middle management, I understand why: good workers are hard to come by. Bonuses, stock, and raises help with retention. In a growing economy, employee retention is important in a skills and service-based environment.
Middle management in what sector, and what kind of markets? Corporations exist for their owners. Workers are a means to an end. Automation is going to be a huge issue socially as well as economically. And a key dimension is how we get skilled employees - education and training are key. Are corporations willing to contribute to that aspect of their own resource needs?


Again, you are arguing beyond the scope of what I said. Maybe too much caffeine?
I am arguing at my original scope - what corporations are about and who the work for. You also didn't answer my question on where you did your middle management. My experience is in the corporate financial sector, and in IT services.

Kimberly Clark are on record as having used tax break money to help them lay off staff. Not sure how that is looking after their employees, or if it is a good use of government policy, but I am sure it will help owners to make more profit.


And, again, no one said, “Kimberly Clark looked after their employees by laying them off.” Furthermore, I’m dubious that it was the tax breaks that motivated them.

Not your finest bit of argumentation.
[/quote]I didn't say it "motivated" them, I am pretty sure the motivation was profit. What I am saying is that they said it helped them to do it. Tax breaks enabled them to budget for severence etc.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20959
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 9:47 am

Danivon,

No. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm not playing that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4734
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 12:15 pm

Danivon:
please show which other economic indicators you are using, and how significantly they differ from 2010 - 2016 trends. GDP growth is a little higher than 2015 and 2016, but overall the trend is not much different to the period since the recovery started.


Yesterday's market rout is the result of the wage growth numbers that came out on Friday. They showed that year over year wage increases were 2.9%, which is their highest since June 2018 - June 2019.

This sort of wage growth eluded the Obama years. As Ricky mentioned, the median income had not been increasing, and now it has. On the flip side, we may start having inflation and the fed may have to raise interest rates to chill us, especially if we restrict immigration.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Feb 2018, 12:22 pm

Right. The Fed will step in to "cure" the problem of labor costs rising...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Feb 2018, 12:27 pm

Also, unemployment has been on a steady downward plunge since early in the the Obama years. It has now reached a level which puts pressure on wages. To give Trump credit when he got in at the tail end of what has been a steady downward plunge seems a bit unwarranted. Anyway, the Fed will step to nip those pay raises for the average worker in the bud...

I would note how we the prevailing ideology conditions us to think that something must be done when we start seeing wages go up...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20959
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 12:50 pm

freeman3 wrote:Also, unemployment has been on a steady downward plunge since early in the the Obama years. It has now reached a level which puts pressure on wages. To give Trump credit when he got in at the tail end of what has been a steady downward plunge seems a bit unwarranted. Anyway, the Fed will step to nip those pay raises for the average worker in the bud...

I would note how we the prevailing ideology conditions us to think that something must be done when we start seeing wages go up...


Wait and see.

Of course, we would all love to see inflation go crazy. Who doesn't long for the days of Ford and Carter?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Feb 2018, 1:14 pm

High inflation sucks. But there has to be a way for our economy to allow for real (above inflation) wage increases for the average worker.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4734
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Feb 2018, 6:15 am

freeman3 wrote:High inflation sucks. But there has to be a way for our economy to allow for real (above inflation) wage increases for the average worker.


2.9% wage increases in an economy of 2% inflation is what we have and you are complaining about it.