> Wouldn't be nice to fail upward like that?
It's almost like the banking system was designed by rich people to suit the needs of rich people or something.
And to tax the poor but that's a more recent component.
It's almost like the banking system was designed by rich people to suit the needs of rich people or something.
And to tax the poor but that's a more recent component.
How would this scenario play out differently?
A bank is underwater on loans to a certain house. If they pull the plug now, the bank takes a loss. If they work with the household to raise the household wealth, then they can recoup their loan amount from the new wealth.
So what's your alternative solution, in the world where banks are designed for the poor?
I ask because I don't see how the personal assets of the people who designed this system come into play, at all
Food for thought: If they didn’t have an investment manager before this, and their primary asset was a big house they couldn’t afford… these people weren’t rich. They were working class, over extended themselves into a house, and got lucky.
Your premise may have some validity but the story in this thread may be an example of a bank making a working class family rich.
Under that logic you get howlers of counter-factuals like "Kings were rich and therefore there was never a war between kings." It is up there with the abject stupidity of System of a Down accidentally going pro-monarchist by asking why don't presidents fight the war.
Apply some actual thought, please. The job of a bank is to accumulate idle money to put to use in investment to generate returns. "Why does money accumulate in the money accumulator that generates more the more money is put inside of it?"
Hold on: in what possible way, by what conceivable metric, are the wealthy a disfavored group? Name for me any way a wealthy person struggles. It is some mad "leave the billionaire alone" cope to try and say the literally most privileged, by definition, class of folks on the planet are somehow oppressed.
> and being literally unable to comprehend that groups are made up of different people.
Of course they are, but as a group of people who share commonalities of experience, priorities, and oftentimes physical location and interaction, they necessarily also have more in common with one another than with people who are far disconnected from them. That is why people like Ellen Degeneres are taking pictures with George Bush: George Bush has far more in common with Ellen than Ellen does to the vast, vast, vast majority of her audience.
This goes double for economic interest. A world that no longer privileges wealth, even putting aside bogeymen like taxation or confiscation, will be unappealing to every wealthy person, because their wealth currently makes the world bend over backwards for them, and that's pretty sweet and nobody apart from the most principled people on the planet would willingly give that up.
> Under that logic you get howlers of counter-factuals like "Kings were rich and therefore there was never a war between kings." It is up there with the abject stupidity of System of a Down accidentally going pro-monarchist by asking why don't presidents fight the war.
I mean if you don't think it makes politicians of any stripe, kingly or otherwise, more ready to declare war if they know full well they themselves will not be expected to take up arms, then you have far more faith in people than I do.
Though I don't know where you got that quote from, if it is indeed a quote. I'm a much bigger fan of "when the rich wage war, it's the poor who die." And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a conflict where, outside some strange exceptional occurrence, that wasn't quite true.
> The job of a bank is to accumulate idle money to put to use in investment to generate returns. "Why does money accumulate in the money accumulator that generates more the more money is put inside of it?"
I don't object to the money accumulator accumulating money, I object to the money accumulator, when it malfunctions, having it's money replenished with tax dollars it did not earn by performing it's function, from which the guy who owns the accumulator draws a substantial salary afterwards, despite overseeing when the accumulator stopped working.