Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

[georgephillip]

When considering that the CRA generally pushed banks to lend more to the poor and minorities in particular, this isn't surprising

What explains the sub-prime treatment of prosperous minority communities like Prince George's County?

"Even the most stable of P.G. County homeowners wound up with subprime mortgages, presumably made to believe that subprime was their only option.

"Not even a good credit score would have spared blacks from these discriminatory lending practices.

"The Center for Responsible Lending found that during the housing boom, 6.2 percent of whites with a credit score of 660 and higher received high-interest mortgages but 21.4 percent of blacks with a score of 660 or higher received these same loans."

Staggering Loss of Black Wealth Due to Subprime Scandal Continues Unabated

"As the wealthiest black-majority county in the United States, Prince George's has long represented the pinnacle of black success.

"The county's median household income is $73,568-a full $20,000 more than the median household income of the United States as a whole.

"Only 7.1 percent of U.S. firms are black-owned, but in Prince George's that number stands at a whopping 54.5 percent."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

White supremacy defines what this country is today as you can see from prison demographics

I don't care what color you are, commit crime, go to jail.

Tell your friends.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The Center for Responsible Lending found that during the housing boom, 6.2 percent of whites with a credit score of 660 and higher received high-interest mortgages but 21.4 percent of blacks with a score of 660 or higher received these same loans."

What was the white default rate?
What was the black default rate?

 

[georgephillip]

What are the default rates among borrowers with a FICO score of 660 or higher by race?

Why don't you research that question?

 

[georgephillip]

How many European countries did the USSR invade and occupy?

Why did Russia worry about another European/American invasion AFTER winning WWII?

 

[dblack]

Why did Russia worry about another European/American invasion AFTER winning WWII?

Because the USSR was a totalitarian regime. They, quite rightly, saw us an enemy.

 

[georgephillip]

The USSR generally took more the kind of approach we did with Latin America. We had certain regimes we toppled with CIA-supported coups, while they had ones they did clandestinely.

In 1945 the very last thing Stalin needed was a Cold War with a continental superpower whose homeland's infrastructure was untouched by the sort of bombing campaigns that leveled much of Europe and Japan.

In that same year the US had nuclear weapons and Russia did not. That led American leaders to deny the ballot to popular (communist) elements in Korea, Greece, and Italy. When the Russians saw what was happening, they responded by creating a buffer zone around their homeland in self-defense and quickly acquiring their own nuclear arsenal..

 

[bripat9643]

Why don't you research that question?

What the commies were demanding is not people with the same score paying higher rate. They wanted people with much lower FIFO scores to pay the same rate and put down the same downpayment..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you research that question?

You're the one whining about mortgages.

Prove the supposed disparity was unjust.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why did Russia worry about another European/American invasion AFTER winning WWII?

Because Russia sucks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That led American leaders to deny the ballot to popular (communist) elements in Korea, Greece, and Italy.

Wah.......we resisted the spread of communism. Unfair. DURR.

 

[georgephillip]

The atrocities being committed there are still happening today in modern times: apparently the ruling socialist governments haven't gained an appreciation for human life. Nor have they made any progress toward achieving allowing their

How many atrocities have US capitalists committed since 9/11?

How many millions of innocent human beings have been murdered, maimed, and displaced to advance the Dow Jones?

"The Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World" hasn't changed since 1968.

"A single top secret American strike cell launched tens of thousands of bombs and missiles against the Islamic State in Syria, but in the process of hammering a vicious enemy, the shadowy force sidestepped safeguards and repeatedly killed civilians, according to multiple current and former military and intelligence officials.

"The unit was called Talon Anvil, and it worked in three shifts around the clock between 2014 and 2019, pinpointing targets for the United States’ formidable air power to hit: convoys, car bombs, command centers and squads of enemy fighters."

Civilian Deaths Mounted as Secret Unit Pounded ISIS

 

[georgephillip]

I believe if we can keep socialism and its evils from prevailing, the USA will continue to be a beacon of hope and liberty for the world, as it has been for over a century. Remember, all those immigrants who flood our borders are running from places with a socialist and inhumane system of government.

Most of the immigrants flooding our southern border are running from right-wing death squads commanded by graduates of the School of Americas. Those death squads advance the interests of US corporations and investors along with local elites who enrich themselves with US dollars while their general population struggles to survive. There is no more inhumane system of government than US imperialism.

 

[georgephillip]

Unfortunately, your perception is not entirely correct: those banking systems you refer to are espousing liberal socialist policies that are outside civilized, capitalist investment norms: those loans are only forgiven for political obedience, not because they are good ideas and successful.

Liberal socialist economic policies usually include a central bank authorized to spend money when necessary to revive an economy. The Maastricht and Lisbon treaties (along with the German constitution) deprive the EU of having such an institution which obliges governments to save bondholders from loss instead of writing down bad debt.

The Brexit Silence | Michael Hudson

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Liberal socialist economic policies usually include a central bank authorized to spend money when necessary to revive an economy. The Maastricht and Lisbon treaties (along with the German constitution) deprive the EU of having such an institution which obliges governments to save bondholders from loss instead of writing down bad debt.

The Brexit Silence | Michael Hudson

Liberal socialist economic policies usually include a central bank authorized to spend money when necessary to revive an economy.

What do the central banks spend money on?

The Maastricht and Lisbon treaties (along with the German constitution) deprive the EU of having such an institution

The EU doesn't have a central bank?

which obliges governments to save bondholders from loss instead of writing down bad debt.

Bondholders never have losses? Bad debt is never written down?

 

[georgephillip]

Those systems that are failing are failing because the investors also control the militaries and political systems and aren't allowed to fail as would normally be the case under capitalism.

Isn't that exactly what has been happening under US finance capitalism since 2008?

Noam Chomsky Quote

"One of the best predictors of policy around is Thomas Ferguson's investment theory of politics...I mean, to say it in a sentence, he describes elections as occasions in which groups of investors coalesce and invest to control the state."

 

[georgephillip]

On one hand, I would like to say "SO WHAT"? As long as the borrowers are paying their debt in an agreeable fashion, there is no problem

What happens when debts can't be repaid, when debt grows faster than the economy?

"If the economy overall grows by x% per year, and returns on investments grow by more than x% per year, then it follows with mathematical necessity that a larger and larger fraction of total income goes to owners and correspondingly that a smaller and smaller fraction of total income goes to workers.

"Put differently, owning things becomes more profitable over time, while doing things for pay becomes less and less profitable over time."

What is the most important takeaway from Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What happens when debts can't be repaid, when debt grows faster than the economy?
View attachment 575463
"If the economy overall grows by x% per year, and returns on investments grow by more than x% per year, then it follows with mathematical necessity that a larger and larger fraction of total income goes to owners and correspondingly that a smaller and smaller fraction of total income goes to workers.

"Put differently, owning things becomes more profitable over time, while doing things for pay becomes less and less profitable over time."

What is the most important takeaway from Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century?

What happens when debts can't be repaid, when debt grows faster than the economy?

Why would that make debts unpayable?

"If the economy overall grows by x% per year, and returns on investments grow by more than x% per year, then it follows with mathematical necessity that a larger and larger fraction of total income goes to owners and correspondingly that a smaller and smaller fraction of total income goes to workers.

If only there were a way for workers to buy shares........

"Put differently, owning things becomes more profitable over time, while doing things for pay becomes less and less profitable over time."

Piketty is a hack.

 

[bripat9643]

You're the one whining about mortgages.

Prove the supposed disparity was unjust.

I've read a number of articles that point out that for a given credit worthiness, loan rates were identical. The mortgage commies wanted people who did not have good credit to get prime mortgages. These are the people wo cause the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

 

[bripat9643]

Why did Russia worry about another European/American invasion AFTER winning WWII?

They didn't. That was just an excuse Stalin used to hold on to Easter Europe.

Apparently you expect us to believe that Stalin was some kind of reasonable person.