[edna_mode]

The Russians have used a nuclear bomb to stop oil leaks five times in the past:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

Of course, context for technical solutions is everything. Don’t know the geological differences.

When is hurricane season again?

[edna_mode]

The Russians have used a nuclear bomb to stop oil leaks five times in the past:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

Of course, context for technical solutions is everything. Don’t know the geological differences.

When is hurricane season again?

[edna_mode]

The Russians have used a nuclear bomb to stop oil leaks five times in the past:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

Of course, context for technical solutions is everything. Don’t know the geological differences.

When is hurricane season again?

[edna_mode]

The Russians have used a nuclear bomb to stop oil leaks five times in the past:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

Of course, context for technical solutions is everything. Don’t know the geological differences.

When is hurricane season again?

[edna_mode]

The Russians have used a nuclear bomb to stop oil leaks five times in the past:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

Of course, context for technical solutions is everything. Don’t know the geological differences.

When is hurricane season again?

[edna_mode]

One other dimension to this discussion of “character” with regard to approval of mortgage loans: historically, this was an “dog whistle” word, an excuse on the part of the (usually older white male) bankers to continue the practice of redlining (using geographic maps to determine eligibility for loans that were segregated, usually by race). My understanding is that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was really the “Fair Housing Act”, and MLK’s economic basis against racism was specifically fighting against institutional economic behaviors such as redlining. In fact, in that sense, credit scores were viewed as an impartial remedy against discriminating against things like race or gender — a metric that was supposed to be an omnibus characteristic that was transparently and equitably applied to all, that would not permit an individual’s discriminatory powers to overrule what a computer put out. And that’s led to some interesting unintended consequences.

So in some ways, we’ve mercifully forgotten what exactly those people in supposedly halcyon earlier days meant by “character”, and thought they meant what we mean today. Would that it always meant “projected ability and willingness to live up to a contract”!

[edna_mode]

One other dimension to this discussion of “character” with regard to approval of mortgage loans: historically, this was an “dog whistle” word, an excuse on the part of the (usually older white male) bankers to continue the practice of redlining (using geographic maps to determine eligibility for loans that were segregated, usually by race). My understanding is that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was really the “Fair Housing Act”, and MLK’s economic basis against racism was specifically fighting against institutional economic behaviors such as redlining. In fact, in that sense, credit scores were viewed as an impartial remedy against discriminating against things like race or gender — a metric that was supposed to be an omnibus characteristic that was transparently and equitably applied to all, that would not permit an individual’s discriminatory powers to overrule what a computer put out. And that’s led to some interesting unintended consequences.

So in some ways, we’ve mercifully forgotten what exactly those people in supposedly halcyon earlier days meant by “character”, and thought they meant what we mean today. Would that it always meant “projected ability and willingness to live up to a contract”!

[edna_mode]

One other dimension to this discussion of “character” with regard to approval of mortgage loans: historically, this was an “dog whistle” word, an excuse on the part of the (usually older white male) bankers to continue the practice of redlining (using geographic maps to determine eligibility for loans that were segregated, usually by race). My understanding is that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was really the “Fair Housing Act”, and MLK’s economic basis against racism was specifically fighting against institutional economic behaviors such as redlining. In fact, in that sense, credit scores were viewed as an impartial remedy against discriminating against things like race or gender — a metric that was supposed to be an omnibus characteristic that was transparently and equitably applied to all, that would not permit an individual’s discriminatory powers to overrule what a computer put out. And that’s led to some interesting unintended consequences.

So in some ways, we’ve mercifully forgotten what exactly those people in supposedly halcyon earlier days meant by “character”, and thought they meant what we mean today. Would that it always meant “projected ability and willingness to live up to a contract”!

[edna_mode]

One other dimension to this discussion of “character” with regard to approval of mortgage loans: historically, this was an “dog whistle” word, an excuse on the part of the (usually older white male) bankers to continue the practice of redlining (using geographic maps to determine eligibility for loans that were segregated, usually by race). My understanding is that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was really the “Fair Housing Act”, and MLK’s economic basis against racism was specifically fighting against institutional economic behaviors such as redlining. In fact, in that sense, credit scores were viewed as an impartial remedy against discriminating against things like race or gender — a metric that was supposed to be an omnibus characteristic that was transparently and equitably applied to all, that would not permit an individual’s discriminatory powers to overrule what a computer put out. And that’s led to some interesting unintended consequences.

So in some ways, we’ve mercifully forgotten what exactly those people in supposedly halcyon earlier days meant by “character”, and thought they meant what we mean today. Would that it always meant “projected ability and willingness to live up to a contract”!

[edna_mode]

One other dimension to this discussion of “character” with regard to approval of mortgage loans: historically, this was an “dog whistle” word, an excuse on the part of the (usually older white male) bankers to continue the practice of redlining (using geographic maps to determine eligibility for loans that were segregated, usually by race). My understanding is that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was really the “Fair Housing Act”, and MLK’s economic basis against racism was specifically fighting against institutional economic behaviors such as redlining. In fact, in that sense, credit scores were viewed as an impartial remedy against discriminating against things like race or gender — a metric that was supposed to be an omnibus characteristic that was transparently and equitably applied to all, that would not permit an individual’s discriminatory powers to overrule what a computer put out. And that’s led to some interesting unintended consequences.

So in some ways, we’ve mercifully forgotten what exactly those people in supposedly halcyon earlier days meant by “character”, and thought they meant what we mean today. Would that it always meant “projected ability and willingness to live up to a contract”!

[edna_mode]

Ya’ll are thinking about this differently than I do. My concept is diversification — not of asset classes, but of *tax treatment*. Right now, 401(k) and traditional IRAs are treated the same — tax deferred upon contribution, taxed at withdrawal. Both Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s are treated the opposite.

I suspect the odds are high that there will continue to be at least these two classes of tax treatment over time for retirement accounts. So no matter how each changes, I am likely to benefit from not having all of my eggs in one tax treatment basket.

So I have a 401(k) with match at work, and a Roth IRA for myself. Two different tax treatments — for someone still decades from retirement. If I were closer, than I might be able to project more accurately what the govmint might do.

So neither is “better”, only “different”. This argument is like the stocks vs. bonds thing, in my eyes.

[edna_mode]

Ya’ll are thinking about this differently than I do. My concept is diversification — not of asset classes, but of *tax treatment*. Right now, 401(k) and traditional IRAs are treated the same — tax deferred upon contribution, taxed at withdrawal. Both Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s are treated the opposite.

I suspect the odds are high that there will continue to be at least these two classes of tax treatment over time for retirement accounts. So no matter how each changes, I am likely to benefit from not having all of my eggs in one tax treatment basket.

So I have a 401(k) with match at work, and a Roth IRA for myself. Two different tax treatments — for someone still decades from retirement. If I were closer, than I might be able to project more accurately what the govmint might do.

So neither is “better”, only “different”. This argument is like the stocks vs. bonds thing, in my eyes.

[edna_mode]

Ya’ll are thinking about this differently than I do. My concept is diversification — not of asset classes, but of *tax treatment*. Right now, 401(k) and traditional IRAs are treated the same — tax deferred upon contribution, taxed at withdrawal. Both Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s are treated the opposite.

I suspect the odds are high that there will continue to be at least these two classes of tax treatment over time for retirement accounts. So no matter how each changes, I am likely to benefit from not having all of my eggs in one tax treatment basket.

So I have a 401(k) with match at work, and a Roth IRA for myself. Two different tax treatments — for someone still decades from retirement. If I were closer, than I might be able to project more accurately what the govmint might do.

So neither is “better”, only “different”. This argument is like the stocks vs. bonds thing, in my eyes.

[edna_mode]

Ya’ll are thinking about this differently than I do. My concept is diversification — not of asset classes, but of *tax treatment*. Right now, 401(k) and traditional IRAs are treated the same — tax deferred upon contribution, taxed at withdrawal. Both Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s are treated the opposite.

I suspect the odds are high that there will continue to be at least these two classes of tax treatment over time for retirement accounts. So no matter how each changes, I am likely to benefit from not having all of my eggs in one tax treatment basket.

So I have a 401(k) with match at work, and a Roth IRA for myself. Two different tax treatments — for someone still decades from retirement. If I were closer, than I might be able to project more accurately what the govmint might do.

So neither is “better”, only “different”. This argument is like the stocks vs. bonds thing, in my eyes.

[edna_mode]

Ya’ll are thinking about this differently than I do. My concept is diversification — not of asset classes, but of *tax treatment*. Right now, 401(k) and traditional IRAs are treated the same — tax deferred upon contribution, taxed at withdrawal. Both Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s are treated the opposite.

I suspect the odds are high that there will continue to be at least these two classes of tax treatment over time for retirement accounts. So no matter how each changes, I am likely to benefit from not having all of my eggs in one tax treatment basket.

So I have a 401(k) with match at work, and a Roth IRA for myself. Two different tax treatments — for someone still decades from retirement. If I were closer, than I might be able to project more accurately what the govmint might do.

So neither is “better”, only “different”. This argument is like the stocks vs. bonds thing, in my eyes.

[Author]

Posts