Out of Pod Experience

Too bad republicans also seem to be much better at lying to make a point. From your own article:

Despite blue states having a rougher time of it over the past four years, their average credit scores still exceed those in red states, 759 compared with 740.

Translation: after four years of a bad economy, blue states are finally getting close to being as bad at paying bills as red states.

Or what about this quote?

Blue states maintain slightly higher levels of debt overall, with an average household debt of $24,349, compared with $24,181 for red states.

So there's less than 1% difference in average debt levels, hardly a compelling argument that republicans are better at staying out of debt.



Even if you ignore the actual numbers, it's still a stupid argument. Let's look at a more likely cause:

Poor people tend to vote democrat (since republican policy is even more biased in favor of rich people than the democrats).

Poor people tend to have more financial hardships, like having to put food on a credit card because you just paid the rent with your last cash, accept high-interest payday loans because of an unexpected expense, etc.

Poor people tend to be faced with credit-destroying decisions more frequently. For example, if you have to choose between missing a credit card payment and feeding your family, you buy the food and take the credit score penalty. On the other hand, someone with more money is more likely to have a choice like cancelling their EVE subscription or paying the credit card bill, making it a lot easier to choose the option that keeps their credit score intact.

Poor people tend to have more trouble paying off debt. A wealthier person could choose to cut back on luxuries, but someone without that extra income has a lot less room to cut before they're giving up essentials like food, clothes, etc. And of course without the luxury of spending time and money on college/job training/etc, they're a lot less likely to gain additional income in the future.

End result: the poorer you are, the easier it is for you to get into debt, and the harder it is for you to pay off your debt once you have it. And guess what that means: lower credit scores, and higher average debt. This has nothing at all to do with being lazy/selfish/etc.

The statement was about paying bills on time, not their levels of debt.

Oh and I just have to laugh, here you are, "Even if you ignore the actual numbers, it's still a stupid argument." ... so if you ignore the facts, it is a stupid argument ... got it. So, the sky is red if you ignore the fact that it is blue ... uh, ok then.

You really do need to do your own research before you trot out the standard refrain of the left media. Columbia University, and others, have done a number of studies on this subject. It is a much more mixed bag than you want to believe.

It is you that just recently in this thread whined about establishment media and how they are the ones giving out facts, right? How do you know their facts are correct? You just trust them, don't you? Try bing, google, yahoo and do some of your own research instead of trusting a bunch of lame talking heads that make their money from appealing to your confirmation bias. Of course doing that would mean having to challenge your own world view, and that can always be scary.

As to your other point, it is true that poor are often more subject to the errors they may make with regards to credit and debt. They have much less room for error when it comes to finical matters. They tend to be more easily hooked on government assistance, they are more easily exploited by lenders, They are also hurt by being invisibly taxed by inflation, those who have the means and knowledge, to reconfigure their wealth, are not.

The poor tend to be more ignorant about economics and finance and provided the proper tools on how to deal with such matters. Proper education on such things would be helpful, of course these sorts things are never taught in government run schools. No one wants educated debt slaves. Much less entitlement slaves to vote for anything other than the party that will give them freebies.

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul." - George Benard Shaw

Congratulations on missing the point that "ignore the numbers" was an assumption in YOUR favor. Even if we ignore the numbers that clearly say otherwise and pretend that people in blue states have trouble paying their bills, there are obvious reasons for that failure beyond "I'm lazy, so I'll let someone else pay it".

If we actually use the numbers, you're even more doomed since blue states have better credit scores (IOW, pay their bills on time better).



You know, we have a word for a political system in which the government doesn't tax or regulate industry: anarchy.

Also, since this ideal capitalist state has never existed (at least in any relevant modern society), how can you be so sure that it's a good thing?



Yes, how inefficient it is when corporations have to obey laws about things like unsafe working conditions...



Err, lol? You do realize that large corporations are hardly a modern invention, right? And that the situation has been FAR worse in the past? You know, back when monopolies were common, and there were no laws banning a wide variety of unfair tactics used by corporations to ensure that any potential competition was immediately crushed. But I guess it's easier to just ignore all of the cases where government intervention was required to break a monopoly and allow competition to exist.

Also, the driving force behind large corporations is NOT expensive regulations, it's the fact that modern communication and transportation technology have created a global market and allowed efficient operation on massive scales, while the cost of developing new products has increased in many cases*. Once the tools exist, the natural market forces lead directly to large corporations.



*For example, creating a new computer chip requires millions of dollars in manufacturing equipment, design tools, etc, and that's not even counting the labor costs of designing it in the first place. Even if you rent it from someone, you're paying millions before you even make your first sale. Good luck getting into THAT market if you aren't a large corporation.

Of course not. I've heard more than enough excuses for how Somalia (or any other real anarchy) is not a "true" anarchy to know that it's a hopeless cause. But then I don't really need to make the connection. The horrifying nature of an ideal anarcho-capitalist state speaks for itself, really.

(Not that an ideal anarcho-capitalist state is anything other than a fantasy in the minds of people who think Ayn Rand novels are the best porn ever made. Thankfully one has never existed, and never will exist.)



Oh, you mean like how people did before the government stepped in to regulate business?

(Hint: the corporations brought in mercenaries to bring a rather violent end to the demands.)



Oh, I'm sure you will. I've dealt with enough people like you to know that everything can be traced back to the existence of government. No matter how badly a corporation behaves or how much harm it causes, if you look back far enough you can always find some kind of government involvement, no matter how minor, that excuses it.



Hint for the clueless: this only applies to technological advances within an industry. Let me make this very simple for you:

If you think you can run a farm better than everyone else in 1700, the barriers to entry are minimal. Land is cheap, equipment is cheap, and your own labor is the main cost.

If you want to start a restaurant in 1900, the barriers to entry are minimal. Rent is reasonably cheap, equipment is cheap enough to be within your ability to buy on credit, and your biggest expense is your labor/raw food/etc.

If you want to start a CPU company in 2012 the barriers to entry are massive. Even if you have the complete design for your chip already (something that usually takes teams of experts), you need software that costs millions of dollars to license, you have to pay production setup costs in the millions of dollars, and you have to rent production capacity from a semiconductor manufacturer with tools that probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars (or more).

Like it or not, advanced technology requires organization on a scale FAR beyond an individual person, or even a small business. Even in your ideal fantasy world large corporations will exist, and you're an idealistic moron if you think they're going to behave any better than they do in the real world.

You didn't read my post. Try again.

Isn't like anyone with a house car and internet the top 10% of the world?

-Vix

Evasion and red herrings




And government stepped in to enforce a level playing field. But then overcompensated on the side of labor over the years, United States v. Enmons et alia.



ROFL, yeah, more evasion, don't want to take up the challenge to prove your point. I'll let that speak for it self.



Again, you are speaking about structural issues when the topic was regulatory issues. Sorry but the equivocation game is full of fail, or you can be cited for moving the goal posts, pick a fallacy of your choice, both will do.

Pretty much, don't you feel rich!?

Reason why small farms are going under is because the big farms can beat them on price.

I was more inferring the small farms owned by a familiy for generations but meh things that go by unnoticed if you dont live in the area.