Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
poorgradstudent
ParticipantCapitalist, free market economies only work when everyone makes rational financial decisions for themselves, ideally within the confines of the law.
When an institution chooses to lend money to an individual, there is a contract that exists between the institution and the individual. Both parties go in knowing the rules of the game and agree how to play. Both accept certain risks. It’s been hammered here in many threads, but when a bad loan is issued, in most cases both the lender and the borrower have at least some fault in the matter.
Borrowing from the bank is not like borrowing from your parents or brother. It is a business transaction, and default is always an option in business. Obviously it isn’t without cost, as that person isn’t going to be able to borrow money for a home again for a very very long time.
As for hurting the rest of us, I actually think at this point if more people walked away from homes they couldn’t afford it might help us all out in the long run (or at least those who would benefit from lower housing prices). More defaults means more inventory for the banks, which means they need to both negotiate more with underwater buyers and unload more of the properties they are holding for lower prices.
ParticipantCapitalist, free market economies only work when everyone makes rational financial decisions for themselves, ideally within the confines of the law.
When an institution chooses to lend money to an individual, there is a contract that exists between the institution and the individual. Both parties go in knowing the rules of the game and agree how to play. Both accept certain risks. It’s been hammered here in many threads, but when a bad loan is issued, in most cases both the lender and the borrower have at least some fault in the matter.
Borrowing from the bank is not like borrowing from your parents or brother. It is a business transaction, and default is always an option in business. Obviously it isn’t without cost, as that person isn’t going to be able to borrow money for a home again for a very very long time.
As for hurting the rest of us, I actually think at this point if more people walked away from homes they couldn’t afford it might help us all out in the long run (or at least those who would benefit from lower housing prices). More defaults means more inventory for the banks, which means they need to both negotiate more with underwater buyers and unload more of the properties they are holding for lower prices.
ParticipantIt’s funny when I disagree with over half of an article and yet agree with the central thesis, in this case that there should be labeling of GEOs in the US. Consumer choice and information is a critical part of a functioning free market.
In most cases I’d be thrilled to eat a GEO, especially if it cost 25% less than conventional (and by extension, 50% or more less than organic). Given the resistance to organic foods based on cost concerns, I think a lot of consumers would do the same. Of course, producers don’t want to grow GEOs and get 75% of the price of conventional; they want to grow GEOs and get full price but produce more.
I think there’s a certain portion of the US population that is way too alarmist when it comes to food and pollution. I also think that the majority of the US population is far too complacent, and that the alarmist contingent ratchets up their fear and anger to try to compensate for the blissfully ignorant. I find it ironic that many of the same people who argue that we don’t understand well enough how some systems work are the same people who are quick to accept any tedious link between presumed toxins in the environment and disease. Yes, there are some horrible, horrible toxins that we know we are polluting the air and water with. And sometimes we’re better safe than sorry. Still, the increase in food allergies in recent years is almost certainly a product of improved diagnosis, similar to the uptick in Autism (*ducking behind a corner in case one of the Anti-vax crowd comes after me for that one*).
ParticipantIt’s funny when I disagree with over half of an article and yet agree with the central thesis, in this case that there should be labeling of GEOs in the US. Consumer choice and information is a critical part of a functioning free market.
In most cases I’d be thrilled to eat a GEO, especially if it cost 25% less than conventional (and by extension, 50% or more less than organic). Given the resistance to organic foods based on cost concerns, I think a lot of consumers would do the same. Of course, producers don’t want to grow GEOs and get 75% of the price of conventional; they want to grow GEOs and get full price but produce more.
I think there’s a certain portion of the US population that is way too alarmist when it comes to food and pollution. I also think that the majority of the US population is far too complacent, and that the alarmist contingent ratchets up their fear and anger to try to compensate for the blissfully ignorant. I find it ironic that many of the same people who argue that we don’t understand well enough how some systems work are the same people who are quick to accept any tedious link between presumed toxins in the environment and disease. Yes, there are some horrible, horrible toxins that we know we are polluting the air and water with. And sometimes we’re better safe than sorry. Still, the increase in food allergies in recent years is almost certainly a product of improved diagnosis, similar to the uptick in Autism (*ducking behind a corner in case one of the Anti-vax crowd comes after me for that one*).
ParticipantIt’s funny when I disagree with over half of an article and yet agree with the central thesis, in this case that there should be labeling of GEOs in the US. Consumer choice and information is a critical part of a functioning free market.
In most cases I’d be thrilled to eat a GEO, especially if it cost 25% less than conventional (and by extension, 50% or more less than organic). Given the resistance to organic foods based on cost concerns, I think a lot of consumers would do the same. Of course, producers don’t want to grow GEOs and get 75% of the price of conventional; they want to grow GEOs and get full price but produce more.
I think there’s a certain portion of the US population that is way too alarmist when it comes to food and pollution. I also think that the majority of the US population is far too complacent, and that the alarmist contingent ratchets up their fear and anger to try to compensate for the blissfully ignorant. I find it ironic that many of the same people who argue that we don’t understand well enough how some systems work are the same people who are quick to accept any tedious link between presumed toxins in the environment and disease. Yes, there are some horrible, horrible toxins that we know we are polluting the air and water with. And sometimes we’re better safe than sorry. Still, the increase in food allergies in recent years is almost certainly a product of improved diagnosis, similar to the uptick in Autism (*ducking behind a corner in case one of the Anti-vax crowd comes after me for that one*).
ParticipantIt’s funny when I disagree with over half of an article and yet agree with the central thesis, in this case that there should be labeling of GEOs in the US. Consumer choice and information is a critical part of a functioning free market.
In most cases I’d be thrilled to eat a GEO, especially if it cost 25% less than conventional (and by extension, 50% or more less than organic). Given the resistance to organic foods based on cost concerns, I think a lot of consumers would do the same. Of course, producers don’t want to grow GEOs and get 75% of the price of conventional; they want to grow GEOs and get full price but produce more.
I think there’s a certain portion of the US population that is way too alarmist when it comes to food and pollution. I also think that the majority of the US population is far too complacent, and that the alarmist contingent ratchets up their fear and anger to try to compensate for the blissfully ignorant. I find it ironic that many of the same people who argue that we don’t understand well enough how some systems work are the same people who are quick to accept any tedious link between presumed toxins in the environment and disease. Yes, there are some horrible, horrible toxins that we know we are polluting the air and water with. And sometimes we’re better safe than sorry. Still, the increase in food allergies in recent years is almost certainly a product of improved diagnosis, similar to the uptick in Autism (*ducking behind a corner in case one of the Anti-vax crowd comes after me for that one*).
ParticipantIt’s funny when I disagree with over half of an article and yet agree with the central thesis, in this case that there should be labeling of GEOs in the US. Consumer choice and information is a critical part of a functioning free market.
In most cases I’d be thrilled to eat a GEO, especially if it cost 25% less than conventional (and by extension, 50% or more less than organic). Given the resistance to organic foods based on cost concerns, I think a lot of consumers would do the same. Of course, producers don’t want to grow GEOs and get 75% of the price of conventional; they want to grow GEOs and get full price but produce more.
I think there’s a certain portion of the US population that is way too alarmist when it comes to food and pollution. I also think that the majority of the US population is far too complacent, and that the alarmist contingent ratchets up their fear and anger to try to compensate for the blissfully ignorant. I find it ironic that many of the same people who argue that we don’t understand well enough how some systems work are the same people who are quick to accept any tedious link between presumed toxins in the environment and disease. Yes, there are some horrible, horrible toxins that we know we are polluting the air and water with. And sometimes we’re better safe than sorry. Still, the increase in food allergies in recent years is almost certainly a product of improved diagnosis, similar to the uptick in Autism (*ducking behind a corner in case one of the Anti-vax crowd comes after me for that one*).
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Don’t get me started on the bio-engineered Frankenstein food.[/quote]
To be fair, that bioengineering has the potential both to end world hunger and save millions of acres of rainforest. Crops with built-in immunity to fungus, blight or bugs don’t need to be sprayed nearly as much with chemicals to get a good yield. Although I’m no fan of Monsanto and their litigious practices, genetic engineering can and probably will be a huge boon to the third world, allowing more crop production with less destruction of natural environment.Participant[quote=jpinpb]Don’t get me started on the bio-engineered Frankenstein food.[/quote]
To be fair, that bioengineering has the potential both to end world hunger and save millions of acres of rainforest. Crops with built-in immunity to fungus, blight or bugs don’t need to be sprayed nearly as much with chemicals to get a good yield. Although I’m no fan of Monsanto and their litigious practices, genetic engineering can and probably will be a huge boon to the third world, allowing more crop production with less destruction of natural environment.Participant[quote=jpinpb]Don’t get me started on the bio-engineered Frankenstein food.[/quote]
To be fair, that bioengineering has the potential both to end world hunger and save millions of acres of rainforest. Crops with built-in immunity to fungus, blight or bugs don’t need to be sprayed nearly as much with chemicals to get a good yield. Although I’m no fan of Monsanto and their litigious practices, genetic engineering can and probably will be a huge boon to the third world, allowing more crop production with less destruction of natural environment.Participant[quote=jpinpb]Don’t get me started on the bio-engineered Frankenstein food.[/quote]
To be fair, that bioengineering has the potential both to end world hunger and save millions of acres of rainforest. Crops with built-in immunity to fungus, blight or bugs don’t need to be sprayed nearly as much with chemicals to get a good yield. Although I’m no fan of Monsanto and their litigious practices, genetic engineering can and probably will be a huge boon to the third world, allowing more crop production with less destruction of natural environment.Participant[quote=jpinpb]Don’t get me started on the bio-engineered Frankenstein food.[/quote]
To be fair, that bioengineering has the potential both to end world hunger and save millions of acres of rainforest. Crops with built-in immunity to fungus, blight or bugs don’t need to be sprayed nearly as much with chemicals to get a good yield. Although I’m no fan of Monsanto and their litigious practices, genetic engineering can and probably will be a huge boon to the third world, allowing more crop production with less destruction of natural environment.ParticipantAtheists as a whole are better educated and earn more money than people of faith, so that’s probably part of where the money comes from. Atheists as a whole make more money than agnostics (which is my own personal point of view, although I’m technically somewhere between Apathetic Agnostic and Secular Humanist).
Interestingly, atheists also tend to marry later, have fewer children, and are much less likely to get divorced (although comparable for believers who marry later and have similar education levels).
ParticipantAtheists as a whole are better educated and earn more money than people of faith, so that’s probably part of where the money comes from. Atheists as a whole make more money than agnostics (which is my own personal point of view, although I’m technically somewhere between Apathetic Agnostic and Secular Humanist).
Interestingly, atheists also tend to marry later, have fewer children, and are much less likely to get divorced (although comparable for believers who marry later and have similar education levels).
-
AuthorPosts
