Author Topic: "Inequality For All"  (Read 12432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #75 on: July 22, 2014, 08:05:51 AM »
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.

An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.

Yes, because an unintelligent person would be an excellent choice.

Your intelligence metric is awfully aristocratic.  Also, you aren't getting what I'm blogging.

Intelligent people come from all walks of life, but it's incredibly hard to graduate from an ivy league college when you are unintelligent.

Also, I get what you're blogging, but Reich's privilege has no bearing on his knowledge of economic inequality or the stance he has chosen to take on it.

It is very hard to get into an ivy league school if you are not intelligent, wealthy, or both. Everyone who gets in graduates, though. The rate is like 97%. I doubt the 3% who fail would manage to pass at any other university.

Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #76 on: July 22, 2014, 08:49:40 AM »
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.

Agreed, b

ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?

Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.

housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.

Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?

no

Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.

You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.

Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.

that's what he said

It's clearly not.

Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.

Glass-Steagall is what used to keep lenders following standard underwriting. Separating lenders from the stock market was actually a good thing the government did after the depression.

Correct.

The repeal of it wasn't just something big bad guvment decided to repeal for the heck of it. It was done because the finance industry wanted to diversify their business.

Offline Asteriskhead

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 9371
  • giving new meaning to the term "anger juice"
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #77 on: July 22, 2014, 10:27:09 AM »
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.

An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.

Yes, because an unintelligent person would be an excellent choice.

Your intelligence metric is awfully aristocratic.  Also, you aren't getting what I'm blogging.

Intelligent people come from all walks of life, but it's incredibly hard to graduate from an ivy league college when you are unintelligent.

Also, I get what you're blogging, but Reich's privilege has no bearing on his knowledge of economic inequality or the stance he has chosen to take on it.

It is very hard to get into an ivy league school if you are not intelligent, wealthy, or both. Everyone who gets in graduates, though. The rate is like 97%. I doubt the 3% who fail would manage to pass at any other university.

So, you're of the opinion that Ivy League schools just hand out degrees once individuals are accepted and enrolled? I think we both know better. Individuals make it into Ivy League schools because they are both highly intelligent and highly motivated, and most of the time very wealthy.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #78 on: July 22, 2014, 10:29:35 AM »
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.

An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.

Yes, because an unintelligent person would be an excellent choice.

Your intelligence metric is awfully aristocratic.  Also, you aren't getting what I'm blogging.

Intelligent people come from all walks of life, but it's incredibly hard to graduate from an ivy league college when you are unintelligent.

Also, I get what you're blogging, but Reich's privilege has no bearing on his knowledge of economic inequality or the stance he has chosen to take on it.

It is very hard to get into an ivy league school if you are not intelligent, wealthy, or both. Everyone who gets in graduates, though. The rate is like 97%. I doubt the 3% who fail would manage to pass at any other university.

So, you're of the opinion that Ivy League schools just hand out degrees once individuals are accepted and enrolled? I think we both know better. Individuals make it into Ivy League schools because they are both highly intelligent and highly motivated, and most of the time very wealthy.

I think that basically everyone who shows up to class and makes an effort ends up with a degree, yes.

Offline Asteriskhead

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 9371
  • giving new meaning to the term "anger juice"
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #79 on: July 22, 2014, 10:31:13 AM »
okay

Offline chuckjames

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #80 on: July 22, 2014, 10:59:13 AM »
 I have no idea how this turned into a referendum on an Ivy League education. But it's possible to admit someone is intelligent while also disagreeing with them. That is allowed.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #81 on: July 22, 2014, 11:07:15 AM »
I'm not saying that unintelligent people get into ivy league schools. I don't believe GW Bush would have been able to get into Yale on his own merits, but he was still intelligent enough for the school to accept him. Once you are in, though, what would make the school any harder to graduate than any other school? It's not like you are competing against the other students for a diploma and the classroom sizes are small. The schools set you up for success.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53680
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #82 on: July 22, 2014, 11:10:32 AM »
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.

Agreed, b

ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?

Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.

housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.

Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?

no

Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.

You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.

Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.

that's what he said

It's clearly not.

Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.

Glass-Steagall is what used to keep lenders following standard underwriting. Separating lenders from the stock market was actually a good thing the government did after the depression.

Correct.

The repeal of it wasn't just something big bad guvment decided to repeal for the heck of it. It was done because the finance industry wanted to diversify their business.

yeah, they were originally trying to say this was some form of reparations for housing discrimination. :lol:

Offline chuckjames

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #83 on: July 22, 2014, 11:14:14 AM »
This whole Ivy Leauge debate remind me of a time in Intermediate Micro Economics we had new professor whom had a degree from Dartmouth, and she was teaching Knox's game theory formula and a guy raised his hand and said this is Kansas State University not Yale and walked out.

Offline Asteriskhead

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 9371
  • giving new meaning to the term "anger juice"
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #84 on: July 22, 2014, 11:26:51 AM »
This whole Ivy Leauge debate remind me of a time in Intermediate Micro Economics we had new professor whom had a degree from Dartmouth, and she was teaching Knox's game theory formula and a guy raised his hand and said this is Kansas State University not Yale and walked out.

 :lol:

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #85 on: July 22, 2014, 11:28:35 AM »
 :lol:

Offline chuckjames

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #86 on: July 22, 2014, 11:36:57 AM »
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that. 

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #87 on: July 22, 2014, 11:38:35 AM »
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.

That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.

Offline chuckjames

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #88 on: July 22, 2014, 11:48:57 AM »
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.

That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.

Probably not with an Economics degree from the 72nd best Economics program in the country but I bet he got some kind of degree. Marketing perhaps?

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #89 on: July 22, 2014, 11:51:37 AM »
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.

That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.

Probably not with an Economics degree from the 72nd best Economics program in the country but I bet he got some kind of degree. Marketing perhaps?

Probably not. Our graduation rate is 27%, so knowing nothing about the guy, odds are he didn't graduate. The fact that he walked out in the middle of a class like that puts his odds around 4 or 5%, in my opinion.

Offline chuckjames

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #90 on: July 22, 2014, 12:00:28 PM »
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.

That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.

Probably not with an Economics degree from the 72nd best Economics program in the country but I bet he got some kind of degree. Marketing perhaps?

Probably not. Our graduation rate is 27%, so knowing nothing about the guy, odds are he didn't graduate. The fact that he walked out in the middle of a class like that puts his odds around 4 or 5%, in my opinion.

Holy Crap it's that low? I never knew that. I figured it was in the high 50s judging by my friend group. Learn something new everyday in the pit.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #91 on: July 22, 2014, 12:02:25 PM »
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.

That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.

Probably not with an Economics degree from the 72nd best Economics program in the country but I bet he got some kind of degree. Marketing perhaps?

Probably not. Our graduation rate is 27%, so knowing nothing about the guy, odds are he didn't graduate. The fact that he walked out in the middle of a class like that puts his odds around 4 or 5%, in my opinion.

Holy Crap it's that low? I never knew that. I figured it was in the high 50s judging by my friend group. Learn something new everyday in the pit.

Well, that is the 4 year graduation rate according to US News. I think it is closer to 50% if you factor in a 5th year.

Offline Jabeez

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 525
  • #Currie4USPrez
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #92 on: July 22, 2014, 12:51:41 PM »
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.

Is George Bush intelligent in your opinion?

Yes, it takes a great deal of intelligence to graduate from Yale. Also, you should be more specific as to which George Bush you are referring to.
*Unless you're parents are rich alumni

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #93 on: July 22, 2014, 01:51:40 PM »
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.

Agreed, b

ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?

Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.

housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.

Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?

no

Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.

You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.

Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.

that's what he said

It's clearly not.

Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.

Glass-Steagall is what used to keep lenders following standard underwriting. Separating lenders from the stock market was actually a good thing the government did after the depression.

Correct.

The repeal of it wasn't just something big bad guvment decided to repeal for the heck of it. It was done because the finance industry wanted to diversify their business.

yeah, they were originally trying to say this was some form of reparations for housing discrimination. :lol:

That isn't what I was saying at all.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53680
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #94 on: July 22, 2014, 01:55:01 PM »
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.

Agreed, b

ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?

Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.

housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.

Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?

no

Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.

You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.

Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.

that's what he said

It's clearly not.

Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.

Glass-Steagall is what used to keep lenders following standard underwriting. Separating lenders from the stock market was actually a good thing the government did after the depression.

Correct.

The repeal of it wasn't just something big bad guvment decided to repeal for the heck of it. It was done because the finance industry wanted to diversify their business.

yeah, they were originally trying to say this was some form of reparations for housing discrimination. :lol:

That isn't what I was saying at all.

:dunno:

There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.

Agreed, but government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?

Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.

housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.

Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #95 on: July 22, 2014, 02:08:31 PM »
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53680
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #96 on: July 22, 2014, 02:56:40 PM »
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.

What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #97 on: July 22, 2014, 03:22:05 PM »
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.

What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?

Intentional race-based lending discrimination doesn't really exist (but never say never, I suppose). You're probably referring to "disparate impact" which basically means "well, there's no intentional discrimination, but based upon the statistical impact of various guidelines against minorities, we're going to call it discrimination anyway." Meanwhile, the lenders are thinking "WTF? I'm just trying to lend to people who I think can actually pay me back."
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53680
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #98 on: July 22, 2014, 03:32:18 PM »
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.

What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?

Intentional race-based lending discrimination doesn't really exist (but never say never, I suppose). You're probably referring to "disparate impact" which basically means "well, there's no intentional discrimination, but based the statistical impact of various guidelines against minorities, we're going to call it discrimination anyway." Meanwhile, the lenders are thinking "WTF? I'm just trying to lend to people who I think can actually pay me back."

No, I'm referring to things like redlining districts and denying FHA-backed mortgages to black families who could afford to pay until the 70's or so.

I'm not sure if any form of it exists today, but I don't know much about it and it wasn't what I was commenting on.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #99 on: July 22, 2014, 05:41:35 PM »
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.

What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?

I guess I missed where this turned into a race thing.  :dunno: