Credit cards up to 29.9 percent. Banking fees are unregulated so they can make them whatever the fuck they want.
I gave you all the states. ,you could have read it. But Nevada and New Hampshire have no Usury laws. Colorado has 45 percent. That may not be high enough pretty soon. Bankers are greedier than that.
There’s a lot of stupidity in this post. What I’m having most trouble with is the Mother Jones article (which spammed the shit out of me,) that shows a chart where the top 1% actually start off making less than the top 1-5%
Liberal math?
Do any of your links have anything to do with anything?
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/safeharbor.pdf Different states permit payday lenders and banks free reign.
It’s impolite to give a huge cite and not quote the relevant excerpts.
As for the rate thing? Meh, that’s why I use a local credit union.
No, just math. They separate out various income groups, setting their base levels equal in 1979. Then they show the changes since then. I’m not sure what your problem is. The only unusual part is that they don’t set the base year to 100, because they’re dealing with income shares. Translating, the income share of the top 1% has gone up more than twice, the 1-5% range has increased by about 15%, while the remainder have declined. The part about the conservative professional class being hoodwinked was my observation: its based upon the disparity between the top 2 income groups, especially since the mid 1990s.
Apropos nothing, I see a lot of comments by modern conservatives like “Liberal math”, or “Pelosi math”. They’re so far in the tank that they believe that the very foundations of mathematics have a liberal bias. It’s interesting. And it helps explain why they glom on to information sources like Fox news and Limbaugh that peddle blatantly incoherent stances, zombie lies and utter falsehoods. Just to take some links from the past week. But conservatives need the reassurance, so their media provides solid value. It’s not that modern conservatives are dumb or evil: it’s just that their delicate characters spawn mental blocks that limit their understanding.
Oh for the days of Nixon, when tough minded conservatives just wanted the goddamn facts.
The OWS heroes have no shortage of cogent policy analysis. Heck, open up an introductory or intermediate text in macroeconomics, find the heading under liquidity trap, and you will find their policy prescriptions.
I think this is a good point. Starting in the 1970s, the middle class began to be offered some solid bargains in the financial sector. But you really need to do your homework and not be taken in by some of the big brands. And go out of your way to give the 18-25 crowd some guidance: there are some real traps out there.
If you are in the top 1% of earners , your income can never be below those who make less than you, right ?
By definition.
But you can on that chart.
What’s up with that?
So here’s the thing. You realize that a bank is a business providing a service, right? And you aren’t really supposed to be carrying a huge credit card balance month after month.
The banks tried giving out mortgage loans to anyone who wanted one. It ended badly.
That will come as s surprise to credit car companies. They would be out of business tomorrow if nobody carried a balance.
What does the lack of small business loans have to do with loose mortgage practices?
It’s ambiguously labelled but I think they’re dividing it into the top 1% and then the next four percent (those not in the top 1% but still in the top 5%). And then the 5-20% bracket, and the other four quintiles separately. And since they’re lumping that four percent together, it can indeed rise above the one-precenters.
Ahhhh, That makes sense. You are very wise handsome and intelligent. Many thanks.
Granted, that chart STILL sucks, because having a negative share of national income (or more than a 100% share) makes precious little sense without further explanation.
I mean, it could be talking about rate of change of the share of income (from the shape of the graph, that seems actually pretty likely), but that’s not what the label says.
The chart is comparing the percentage change in national income since 1979, which is the baseline year. So the top 1% has seen huge, volatile gains in their share of the national income, the top 5%-1% has seen decent gains (though far below the top 1%), and everyone else has stayed stagnant or declined.
It’s really a very simple chart to understand, and I think it’s cute how much effort is expended trying not to understand.
Not only was giving mortgages having nothing to do with business loans, but how does giving mortgages create jobs?
The Repubs are guaranteeing a sinking economy. They want to cut government spending. They stupidly claim the government does not create jobs. Of course the Dept. of Homeland Security has 200,000 employees.
They want to slash teaching jobs, police, firemen and government employees. How does that create a vibrant economy? They want to end unemployment insurance . How does that help the country?
They don’t want to fix the infrastructure. Can you figure out where that will end? We have a crumbling infrastructure that costs far more to fix after it breaks. Of course a few people dying in bridge collapses is just financial collateral damage.
I suppose a big factor is to get Obama out. They are willing to allow millions to suffer if they achieve that end. It may be about keeping the Supreme Court an arm of the Right Wing. There are a few justices about to step down. If Obama got to appoint them it might change the court sufficiently to remove Corporate Personhood and get back campaign financing reform. They don’t want that.
But, of course. The rich accumulate money that they don’t spend, that money is invested, money makes more money, the miracle of compounded interest. Who said it? That if you have a hundred dollars, making a thousand dollars can be difficult, but if you have a million dollars, making a thousand more is almost inevitable.
That mass of money metastasizes, it gobbles up more and more money. Its rather like the deficit, but rather than being vile and evil, it is private property, which is holy and sacred.
And that money is almost sentient, it protects itself, it hires people to protect it, and some of those people are Congressgits. Its not surprising that our economy has become top heavy, our economy is doing precisely what we designed it to do!
You do realize that money is invested, right, making all kinds of good things happen? Even if it’s in a bank earning compound interest.
Some of it is. Lots of it is in offshore accounts. The reason Panama is getting looked at as a trading partner ,is because they will be another secret bank haven like the Caymans.
Money in order to work ,has to be used, not stashed. Financial pros are screaming for the rich to actually invest in businesses. But they fear the future of the economy they created. There are trillions of dollars that could spur a better economy. But right now, they don’t want one. They want Obama gone. So stifling the economy is an easy decision when getting a Repub in charge again will give them much more.
Rich are settling for small but steady income on their money now. But that does not create jobs. It just pads their accounts.
Really? No shit? Wow, talking to you is really informative! According to you, that is.
Shodan is right. You are scarily ignorant. You shouldn’t talk on this subject.
Oh the dead head rightys agree. what a shock. McConnel said ,many times, his mission was to make sure Obama was a one term president.
Sorry light does not penetrate your Fox bunkers.
Well then, how surprising that you left that little fact out of your little scenario, suggesting that money compounding interest in a bank is idle money. perhaps you should spend less time trying to to be semi-humourous from time to time and more time trying to to appear like you know what you’re talking about. Just a thought.