Turner: BOK to punish North Tulsans tax stand

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

USRuf:

Most "working poor" are as intelligent as I am.  They may not be as educated as I am, but certainly they are as intelligent as I.  And I do not think it requires an advanced degree to realize that on $30,000 a year it is unlikely one can afford to pay $15,000 towards a mortgage.   They know what they are getting into it, and most hop in hoping it will work out in the end or assuring themselves that they will save money to make it work.

To decry the poor as unintelligent masses is a very draconian 17th century mentality.  The poor are stupid.  I know so because they are poor.

What's more, in order to put such practices fairly to use the government would have to evaluate everyones intelligence.  "Smart enough to decide for themselves" or "too stupid, government needs to take care of them."  Clearly, no one wants that.  Who draws the line and where?  

Frankly, its an unworkable system that assumes poor people are stupid.

He was scolding Friendly Bear for posting an antisemitic "joke".  In this since deleted post, FB proved not only that he wasn't funny, but that he had poor math skills.

[cannon_fodder]

Ahhh, well... my point still stands.  I did not intend to imply that Ruf thinks poor people are stupid or anything.  But in light of heavy moderation I did take his post out of context.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

He was scolding Friendly Bear for posting an antisemitic "joke".  In this since deleted post, FB proved not only that he wasn't funny, but that he had poor math skills.

you forgot to add, "and a bigot"...

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

He was scolding Friendly Bear for posting an antisemitic "joke".  In this since deleted post, FB proved not only that he wasn't funny, but that he had poor math skills.

you forgot to add, "and a bigot"...

Ditto..........!

[brunoflipper]

Freindly Bigot

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.

The same is becoming true for philantropy.

It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.

Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.

Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.

Like they never thought of it before.

When the public is involved or has skin in the game they get some say on how/where/what development moves forward. We want cohesive river development not wily-nily storge lots and convenience stores.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.

The same is becoming true for philantropy.

It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.

Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.

Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.

Like they never thought of it before.

When the public is involved or has skin in the game they get some say on how/where/what development moves forward. We want cohesive river development not wily-nily storge lots and convenience stores.

Maybe someone should invent Zoning. It's way less expensive.

[carltonplace]

Nice try, but zoning only designates parcels for Residential, Office Light, Commercial, and so forth. It doesn't regulate the type of developement that is deployed. How do you think we got a cement compound on the river in the first place?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

USRuf:

Most "working poor" are as intelligent as I am.  They may not be as educated as I am, but certainly they are as intelligent as I.  And I do not think it requires an advanced degree to realize that on $30,000 a year it is unlikely one can afford to pay $15,000 towards a mortgage.   They know what they are getting into it, and most hop in hoping it will work out in the end or assuring themselves that they will save money to make it work.

To decry the poor as unintelligent masses is a very draconian 17th century mentality.  The poor are stupid.  I know so because they are poor.

What's more, in order to put such practices fairly to use the government would have to evaluate everyones intelligence.  "Smart enough to decide for themselves" or "too stupid, government needs to take care of them."  Clearly, no one wants that.  Who draws the line and where?  

Frankly, its an unworkable system that assumes poor people are stupid.

He was scolding Friendly Bear for posting an antisemitic "joke".  In this since deleted post, FB proved not only that he wasn't funny, but that he had poor math skills.

Lighten up, people.  

It was meant in jest, launching on the Conditional Philanthophy of the richest man in Oklahoma.

Faux Generosity.  The World's Shortest Book just got shorter.

Would that make Mr. K an Indian Giver?

Sorry Swake....There's that handy slang expression used again.

[Hometown]

You know Cannon, sometimes Liberals and Libertarians cross paths and since we have agreed once or twice, I've had a question mark about you, but I realize now that you suffer from a severe case of dogma.

I can imagine the conversations in your home:  Mrs. Cannon to Mr. Cannon.  Honey, don't forget to take out the trash.  Mr. Cannon responds:  If I was supposed to take out the trash the market would have created incentives for me to do so.

Real life is full of nuance and shades of gray and very little clear cut black and white.  To dismiss predatory lending as a matter of market forces is simplistic.  Predatory lenders target elderly, immigrants and poor folks because their research tells them these are the people least able make an informed decision.  In your vision, if a multi-billion dollar banking corporation targets an elderly widow, foists an inappropriate loan on her, and then takes her life savings and her home from her when she is unable to make payments, it is just a matter of market forces.  I don't think so, Cannon.

Now, if I was Roscoe Turner and I was unhappy with Bank of Oklahoma and their relationship to my constituents, I would look at what role BOK has played in sub-prime lending.  I would also take a close look at their record of lending to my neighborhood to see if they might be guilty of redlining low income neighborhoods.  If I found anything that cast an unfavorable light on BOK in this regard I would think long and hard about what I would do with the information.  But it might come in handy.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Lighten up, people.  

It was meant in jest, launching on the Conditional Philanthophy of the richest man in Oklahoma.

We've already been over this ground in this thread.  All philanthropy is conditional.  Call up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and demand a free Trans Am.  Tell us how that works out for you.  You, especially you, don't deserve a handout.  Quit demanding one.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Lighten up, people.  

It was meant in jest, launching on the Conditional Philanthophy of the richest man in Oklahoma.

We've already been over this ground in this thread.  All philanthropy is conditional.  Call up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and demand a free Trans Am.  Tell us how that works out for you.  You, especially you, don't deserve a handout.  Quit demanding one.

When I make a charitable contribution to American Red Cross, United Way, Salvation Army, or any of my other favorite charities, I do NOT set any terms or conditions on my gift.

None.

Occasionally, I can direct the contribution toward a particular aspect of the Charity or Non-Profits operations, such as specific dollars for Thanksgiving Meals.

That's about it.  

Nothing conditional about my giving.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Lighten up, people.  

It was meant in jest, launching on the Conditional Philanthophy of the richest man in Oklahoma.

We've already been over this ground in this thread.  All philanthropy is conditional.  Call up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and demand a free Trans Am.  Tell us how that works out for you.  You, especially you, don't deserve a handout.  Quit demanding one.

When I make a charitable contribution to American Red Cross, United Way, Salvation Army, or any of my other favorite charities, I do NOT set any terms or conditions on my gift.

None.

Occasionally, I can direct the contribution toward a particular aspect of the Charity or Non-Profits operations, such as specific dollars for Thanksgiving Meals.

That's about it.  

Nothing conditional about my giving.

If the Red Cross closed the day after you mailed your check, wouldn't you want your money back?

A huge percentage goes to the Red Cross fro "Katrina Relief" or "9-11 families" which is just as conditional.

You can write a check to a church and put any condition you want in the memo field.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

but I realize now that you suffer from a severe case of dogma.

. . .

Real life is full of nuance and shades of gray and very little clear cut black and white.  To dismiss predatory lending as a matter of market forces is simplistic.  Predatory lenders target elderly, immigrants and poor folks because their research tells them these are the people least able make an informed decision.  In your vision, if a multi-billion dollar banking corporation targets an elderly widow, foists an inappropriate loan on her, and then takes her life savings and her home from her when she is unable to make payments, it is just a matter of market forces.  I don't think so, Cannon.

1) Dogma, by definition, is adherence to a belief with lack of support and in spite of proof to the contrary.  My market force explanations are the most LOGICAL explanations I am able to formulate in most situations.  They are welcome to challenge and are not unfounded.    Nor, for that matter, are they proclaimed as true.  They merely make the most sense to me and I can rely upon them to both explain and predict behaviors - a good test for any hypothesis.

2) Mrs. Fodder would not have to ask me to take out the trash, either she or I would see that it needs to be done and it would be so.  

Of course, such a discussion is worthless to the topic of market forces - since the prospect of hiring someone or governmental regulation on my trash taking out is not really an option.  The reason such a discussion is valid in the case of predatory lending is because home ownership represents a major asset, a major expense, a large business, and is subject to heavy governmental regulation.  

3) Predatory lending is a problem, I did not imply that it was not.  I merely said that there is nothing practical the government can do to stop it that will appease any party.   The government can not say "if a person is poor and stupid you can not loan them money."

In fact, the US government in the 1990's encouraged banks to make alternative loans to "at risk" and moderate income families.  They did.  They went bad.  What is the bank suppose to do?  Take the loss?  

"Multi-Billion Dollar Banks" nor any other lending institution should make loans they expect a high percentage to default.  However, when they do not make these loans they are accused of racism and class bias.  When they do make them and they are forced to repossess they are evil "multi-billion dollar banks" that are out to hurt the little guy.  They can't win.

Here is a news flash:  BANKS LOSE MONEY ON REPOSSESSIONS.  They do not want to make loans that fail.  They do not want to take the bad PR, the financial losses, nor the human toll of a home repossession (don't forget, corporations don't DO anything - people do).

So lets look at the market forces at play - since you keyed that in your response in spite of the fact that I scantly mentioned it:

a) Governmental interference in encouraging lenders to make loans to "at risk," minority, and fixed income groups.  They did this by publishing a report that lists the loan rate for each group and chastising those banks that were too careful in their lending - which was used by groups to show racist lending policies.  Thus, this market interference led to over lending in at risk sections.

b) Exuberance of originators to sell as many mortgages as possible.  They were encouraged to draft notes to anyone that could sign on the dotted line and some bank somewhere would purchase the note.  The originators are the only ones that win out in the long run and were encouraged to make poor loans by the compensation structure.

c) Availability of capital.  The availability of capital in a rising housing market meant that anyone could get a loan.  If BOk would not lend the money, BoA certainly would.  In most areas, the rising real estate market guaranteed the banks asset.

d) Federal law encourages home ownership.  The staple of American law giving tax incentives to own homes strongly encourages people to own homes.  For their financial better or detriment.

e) Greed.  That staple of market forces.  People's eyes are often larger than their wallet.  Coupled with originators that are trying to sell loans and capital markets willing to fund them the greedy were able to acquire more property than they could really afford.

f) Ignorance.  Market theory operates in a vacuum, it assumes everyone has equal perfect knowledge (just like gravity ignores the fact of wind resistance in stating 9.8m/s^2).  Of course, such is not the case and many borrowers lacked proper knowledge when making the largest purchase of their lives.  Unfortunately, this was enabled by originators encouraged to lend, government policy encouraging them to buy, and lenders willing to take on the risk.

- - -

So there is my 2 minute market analysis of the predatory lending issue.  You'll note that government interference is 2/5 causes I pegged - that's why I'm doubtful that MORE government will cure the problem.  In all likelihood, any governmental solution will be a new form the buyer signs saying "XY and Z" were explain to them and will have no effect what so ever.

Really, what can the government do?  Unless you want them to pre-qualify every loan in the country or set national standards on who can buy a home there is very little the government can do.  Shall it police what the "best product" for a given situation is?  Perhaps set minimum incomes for home ownership - if it does, will there be exceptions for minorities (White people must make $45K, Black people can buy a house at $38K)?  Maybe require a college degree or a finance course before you can buy a house, but what about the people that are not good with finance but earn plenty of money?  Not to mention the minority problem would still be there since minorities are less likely to go to college.

Clearly there is a problem.  And clearly it IS explained by market forces (inherently, large scale lending activity is).  I believe (and hope) the large losses taken by the banks is incentive enough to correct the problem.  However, the result will be a lower rate of lending to the poor, to minorities, and to people on fixed incomes.

I would be happy to hear your proposed solutions to the problems.  Not to just punish people who acted in ways you do not like, but how do we actually solve the problem in such a way that parties with more risk can get loans, people will want to make loans, and banks are willing to take the risk on such loans?  

While you accuse me of simplifying the problem and attributing it dogmatically to market forces, I strongly contend that I have reasoned the causes and pondered solutions to this issue before replying.  Again, I would welcome discussion on solutions to this issue that would satisfy all needed parties.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

When I make a charitable contribution to American Red Cross, United Way, Salvation Army, or any of my other favorite charities, I do NOT set any terms or conditions on my gift.

Sure you do.  What do you mean by "favorite" charities?  Is the Anti-Defamation League among them?  When you give to the Red Cross you do so knowing that it will go towards disaster relief and blood drives.  They have a specifically outlined, narrowly focused mission, and you give knowing that they will adhere to that mission.  You choose charities according to your own terms and conditions.