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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jan 2018, 1:18 pm

Ray Jay wrote:CFPB was thriving under Obama, and it has now been curtailed.


It needs to be abolished. It is, without a doubt, its own, independent, unchecked, branch of government. It is as unconstitutional as anything Congress has ever done.
Last edited by Doctor Fate on 30 Jan 2018, 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 30 Jan 2018, 1:22 pm

freeman3 wrote:I plead guilty to being biased. And obviously this predisposed me to look for arguments that undercut the underlying (implied) argument of your post which is that tax reform has had positive benefits for workers. And of course with the internet each side has sources it can cite to in support of its position. And it can get kind of annoying if the other side just immediately rejects a post.

But one cannot expect people on the other side to be impartial. But you can expect people to fight fairly. Don't misrepresent the other side's position, don't put as the other side's position strawmen that you know don't exist, don't take things out of context, try to use sources that have some basis for being trusted, etc. In other words, argue in good faith. When people argue in good faith against my position, when they make good arguments...that will tend to make me refine my position. You cannot expect people to change fundamental beliefs, but some reevaluation is in order if you realize that the other side has a good argument on a particular point. When intelligent people argue in good faith from different points of view..that's apt to lead to a more nuanced understanding of the issue for all concerned. That's a good thing, no?


Yes!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Jan 2018, 2:48 pm

rayjay
It's good to agree. The reality is that some regulation is good, and some regulation is bad.


What I think is good about the CFPB include:
- transparency laws for mortgages and consumer lending.
- protection from usury (payday loans and exorbitant credit card interest and fees)
- protection from predatory lending, like college loans
- protection from false advertising, especially from for profit schools

The balance of power between corporations and individual consumers, without regulation and enforcement by some agency, swings heavily in the favor of the corporation. I'm certain that however this has been accomplished in the US its probably overly complex and difficult. But the objective is worthy. Perhaps if the laws weren't written by lobby groups they could be simpler?

Rayjay
The CFPB decided to go after the $900 billion auto loan industry anyway by going after the banks that do some of the loans. This had nothing to do with protecting the economy

Did it have something to do with protecting consumers from deceptive sales practices or opaque terms and conditions?
Maybe it had something to do with empowering consumers to be able to make well informed purchase decisions?
Or has the auto loan business sector always been a paragon of virtuous marketing?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Jan 2018, 2:59 pm

rayjay
Those crumbs are people's livelihoods. They are the reason that in spite of Trump being the biggest a$$hole President ever, he will have a 2nd term ...


If people think the economy is really working for them, he might.
However, it will take a great deal to return working class or middle class people to where they were twenty or twenty five years ago.
And the "crumbs" won't do that.
At the same time, the PR announcements regarding employee benefits will come under scrutiny.
Like this"
Consider Verizon, HuffPost’s parent company, which said it would give all its workers 50 shares, which will vest over two years. With about 161,000 employees, at $54 per share at the time of the announcement, the total benefit would come to about $434 million. Since the company said it would save $3.5 billion to $4 billion from the tax bill, the stock award represents somewhere between 10 percent and 28 percent of Verizon’s annual tax savings, and just 1.4 percent of the company’s profit in 2017.
Meanwhile, Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, announced it would spend an additional $700 million over the next two years on employee pay, thanks to the tax bill. That’s less than 5 percent of the company’s most recent annual profit. Walmart announced the closure of 63 Sam’s Club stores, which will result in hundreds of layoffs, the same week.


If people believe they are getting crumbs, that getting ahead isn't getting easier, and that the tax plan was written for and by the wealthy .... Maybe the re-election won't happen.

.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jan 2018, 3:08 pm

rickyp wrote:Rayjay
The CFPB decided to go after the $900 billion auto loan industry anyway by going after the banks that do some of the loans. This had nothing to do with protecting the economy

Did it have something to do with protecting consumers from deceptive sales practices or opaque terms and conditions?
Maybe it had something to do with empowering consumers to be able to make well informed purchase decisions?
Or has the auto loan business sector always been a paragon of virtuous marketing?


IF that's a problem, Congress should handle it, not an unelected bureau funded outside of the Congressional budgeting process. Congress is to pass laws. Congress cannot hand that responsibility to a non-democratic, unaccountable group of bureaucrats.

#unconstitutional
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 30 Jan 2018, 3:12 pm

Ricky:
Rayjay
The CFPB decided to go after the $900 billion auto loan industry anyway by going after the banks that do some of the loans. This had nothing to do with protecting the economy

Did it have something to do with protecting consumers from deceptive sales practices or opaque terms and conditions?
Maybe it had something to do with empowering consumers to be able to make well informed purchase decisions?
Or has the auto loan business sector always been a paragon of virtuous marketing?


It may be that someone at the agency had a bad experience buying a car, or perhaps they were trying to build their career by doing something dramatic. Or perhaps they don't like capitalism or cars. Who knows? It certainly had nothing to do with what was authorized by Congress under Dodd Frank.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Jan 2018, 4:07 pm

rayjay
It may be that someone at the agency had a bad experience buying a car, or perhaps they were trying to build their career by doing something dramatic. Or perhaps they don't like capitalism or cars. Who knows?


Look, its fairly easy to find out why. And it isn't because of a hate for capitalism.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced today that it will sue banks that finance predatory auto dealer loans. The goal is to prevent dealerships, which are exempt from the agency's oversight, from hiking up interest rates offered on loans. The hikes lead to banks getting their rate and sellers pocketing the rest. The practice is known as the "dealer's markup," and according to CFPB, it also leads to racial discrimination.
"Consumers should not have to pay more for a car loan simply based on their race," said CFPB director Richard Cordray. "Today's bulletin clarifies our authority to pursue auto lenders whose policies harm consumers through unlawful discrimination."
According to the agency, research shows that the markup practice may lead to African-American and Latinos paying higher markups than white consumers with similar income levels and credit records. It's the kind of predatory lending that was a major factor in the nation's economic and home foreclosure crisis. lot of blacks and Latinos found that they were being treated in a discriminatory fashion?

In addition, the Dodd - Frank Act passed by Congress in 2010 gives the FTC new and expanded authority regarding motor vehicle dealers. Since 2011, the FTC has been gathering information on possible consumer protection issues that may arise in the sale, financing or lease of motor vehicles through a series of roundtables and by seeking public comments.


Is it a good idea to try and protect people from predatory lending or discrimination based on race?(this is a yes or no,)

The FTC certainly had the authority to act against these practices... Did the CFPB have those specific powers? Not sure. But if the intent was that someone act to protect consumers in this fashion, then quibbling about which agency does the dirty work is so American. Or the industry defending itself by wrapping itself up in the constitution based upon a distinction about which group should be acting to defend consumers ...
Its why you end up with such a ridiculous regulation regimen.
If the objective makes sense, find the most obvious and transparent way to enforce the regulation in a fair manner.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Jan 2018, 6:25 pm

rickyp wrote:Did the CFPB have those specific powers? Not sure. But if the intent was that someone act to protect consumers in this fashion, then quibbling about which agency does the dirty work is so American.


Yes, yes, all this hullabaloo over what do those silly Americans call it? Oh, right, "The Constitution." Why can't they just be like other countries and not worry about what the government does? I mean, what's the worst thing that can happen, right?

Government is good. Always. Get over it people!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 4:25 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Agreed. Which is not the same thing as the best interests of the country, or of working people.


True. The State and the proletariat are not the concerns of corporations.
Well, by "country" I meant all of the people in it, not the government (which in US terms is of, for and by the people).

On the other hand, the overall economy seems headed in the right direction, more so than anytime in a decade.
it has been heading in the direction it is now for about the last 6 years. Job growth is a little slower than in 2016. But hey, propaganda seems to work better than data for you.

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?

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.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 7:39 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Agreed. Which is not the same thing as the best interests of the country, or of working people.


True. The State and the proletariat are not the concerns of corporations.
Well, by "country" I meant all of the people in it, not the government (which in US terms is of, for and by the people).

On the other hand, the overall economy seems headed in the right direction, more so than anytime in a decade.
it has been heading in the direction it is now for about the last 6 years. Job growth is a little slower than in 2016. But hey, propaganda seems to work better than data for you.


Cheap shot.

I said “overall economy,” not “job growth.” So, should I say you are creating propaganda?

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?

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.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 8:15 am

Yes, yes, all this hullabaloo over what do those silly Americans call it? Oh, right, "The Constitution." Why can't they just be like other countries and not worry about what the government does? I mean, what's the worst thing that can happen, right?
Government is good. Always. Get over it people!


You know that other countries also have constitutions, right?
The first line of the Swedish constitution is
All public power derives from the people


The Constitution in Sweden hasn't become the oligarchs tool for managing the proletariat. It actually empowers the working and middle class to ensure that the government does indeed work for them. A working class person in Sweden
has free education, free health care, a generous pay check, 4 weeks vacation a year. and a social security check when you’re old, that is about 2–3 times of what you get in the US. These are also countries with very little crime, no guns allowed and very clean and beautiful surroundings. You are safe, your children are safe. There is no poverty, no illiteracy and no lying, crooked politician.


I'll link you to some Scandinavians describing this in a forum called Quara...

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Swedish-p ... ccountable

So the question i asked was:
Is it a good idea to try and protect people from predatory lending or discrimination based on race?(this is a yes or no,


If this is a good idea Fate, who should take the task on? And how?
If its not a good idea, why not?

The "constitutional argument" that has been raised about the CFPB acting on this, acts as a defence of the practice. In this use; the Constitution isn't "for the people, by the people or about the people. Its merely a tool used to protect the practice.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 8:21 am

Ricky:
Look, its fairly easy to find out why. And it isn't because of a hate for capitalism.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced today that it will sue banks that finance predatory auto dealer loans. The goal is to prevent dealerships, which are exempt from the agency's oversight, from hiking up interest rates offered on loans. The hikes lead to banks getting their rate and sellers pocketing the rest. The practice is known as the "dealer's markup," and according to CFPB, it also leads to racial discrimination.
"Consumers should not have to pay more for a car loan simply based on their race," said CFPB director Richard Cordray. "Today's bulletin clarifies our authority to pursue auto lenders whose policies harm consumers through unlawful discrimination."
According to the agency, research shows that the markup practice may lead to African-American and Latinos paying higher markups ...

In addition, the Dodd - Frank Act passed by Congress in 2010 gives the FTC new and expanded authority regarding motor vehicle dealers. Since 2011, the FTC has been gathering information on possible consumer protection issues that may arise in the sale, financing or lease of motor vehicles through a series of roundtables and by seeking public comments.


Is it a good idea to try and protect people from predatory lending or discrimination based on race?(this is a yes or no,)

The FTC certainly had the authority to act against these practices... Did the CFPB have those specific powers? Not sure. But if the intent was that someone act to protect consumers in this fashion, then quibbling about which agency does the dirty work is so American. Or the industry defending itself by wrapping itself up in the constitution based upon a distinction about which group should be acting to defend consumers ...
Its why you end up with such a ridiculous regulation regimen.
If the objective makes sense, find the most obvious and transparent way to enforce the regulation in a fair manner.


Ricky, what you wrote above is problematic on many levels.

1. This racial discrimination finding is very weak. We are talking about the dealer reserves which are paid to the auto dealers to source car loans. The dealers typically make less than 1% on these loans, and the found discrimination is smaller than that. The CFPB said that the can bring suit even if they don't find the discrimination to be intentional. Now they go after businesses because of small statistical differences that are not evidence of predatory lending or discrimination.

2. It's not ok for agencies to go after companies in industries that congress specifically said they cannot go after because another agency did not. That's insane government. I've bolded and underlined the point from your unsourced post. Are you saying you are fine with any regulator going after any business because they want to? Dems protest when other agencies try to go after illegal immigrants. Now businesses have to worry about regulators of any federal department, some of whom may have an agenda or grudge.

3. In today's WSJ in the back pages, we learn about the CFPB going after PHH Corp for $109 million. This is a company with a $300 million market cap. (It was lower before the decision.)The appellate court, with a majority of Democratic Judges, rules that the CFPB use incorrect legal interpretations and applied them retroactively. I'll leave it to Freeman to explain the legal nuances.

BTW, some of the litigious nature of the US that you correctly point to, is started by the regulatory agencies, and not the corporations.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 8:30 am

I don't know why I drink coffee. Your posts are all I need. You're an unintentionally-funny man.

rickyp wrote:
Yes, yes, all this hullabaloo over what do those silly Americans call it? Oh, right, "The Constitution." Why can't they just be like other countries and not worry about what the government does? I mean, what's the worst thing that can happen, right?
Government is good. Always. Get over it people!


You know that other countries also have constitutions, right?
The first line of the Swedish constitution is
All public power derives from the people


The Constitution in Sweden hasn't become the oligarchs tool for managing the proletariat. It actually empowers the working and middle class to ensure that the government does indeed work for them. A working class person in Sweden
has free education, free health care, a generous pay check, 4 weeks vacation a year. and a social security check when you’re old, that is about 2–3 times of what you get in the US. These are also countries with very little crime, no guns allowed and very clean and beautiful surroundings. You are safe, your children are safe. There is no poverty, no illiteracy and no lying, crooked politician.


Well then, maybe you should emigrate there and escape the ****hole that is Canada! Of course, there are some areas you won't want to leave your women-folk alone in, but that's none of my business.

I'll link you to some Scandinavians describing this in a forum called Quara...


Is that the plural of "Quora?"

So the question i asked was:
Is it a good idea to try and protect people from predatory lending or discrimination based on race?(this is a yes or no,


Wow, that is such a deep question. I wonder, was it against the law before the CPFB came into being?

If this is a good idea Fate, who should take the task on? And how?
If its not a good idea, why not?


Answer my question first. And, was it ever enforced before the CPFB came into being?

More importantly, is it right in a democracy to create an agency with an independent stream of funding? And, should the head of said agency be accountable to virtually no one?

The "constitutional argument" that has been raised about the CFPB acting on this, acts as a defence of the practice. In this use; the Constitution isn't "for the people, by the people or about the people. Its merely a tool used to protect the practice.


Oh brother. So how, exactly (using precise language), is the CPFB accountable "to the people?"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 8:31 am

Danivon:
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.


KC has a market cap of $40B.They have $700 million of cash on their balance sheet. I don't understand why the tax cut money helps them layoff people.

BTW, the key to the tax law change is on the supply side, not the demand side. Also from the back pages of today's WSJ, ATT announced they will spend $23B on cap X in 2018. (Their gain from the federal tax law was $20 B.)

Similarly Boeing reported that its tax savings will be invested in product development, workforce training, automation, and factories. They may develop a new midsize plane. They are competing with Airbus and the playing field just got leveled.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 01 Feb 2018, 8:34 am

Danivon:
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?


In the case of Boeing, yes. You know, when unemployment rates fall to 4% (or even lower in Mass.,) it is very hard to hire people. I wouldn't be surprised if it heads to 3%, especially with immigration restrictions. Automation is really necessary for companies to survive.