Yep, and I almost put that in my post, too. Lots of people seem to think that being pro-free market means you want the government to be on the side of business, teaming up against the little guy. That’s not a free market, that’s crony capitalism.
Uh, if you want to rant about Capitalism, then open a real thread on the subject. Let me second John Mace’s comment about not knowing what it is the hell you are talking about.
I was going to comment on other things (not on the OP, as I don’t have any interest in Bankruptcy or Ayn Rand for that matter (I didn’t like her style of writing and her tone was confusing as it relates to the invisible hand – I only read Atlas Shrugged back in high school), but other posters have beat me to it. However, I would like to know what “Hamburger Flipper” is making ~$42,000/yr, the average household income in 2002.
If that was the case, I wouldn’t have wasted my parent’s money or my time with a college education, or taken out ~$70k+ in student loans to go to law school (scholarship my ass!) – then again, without the education, I wouldn’t have known that it was economically better for me to not go to school 
Unless, this is some professional “Hamburger Flipper” job that requires advanced degrees that I am unaware of.
Yes, and if you don’t actively regulate the “free” market, what you invariably get is a capitalist oligarchy, because people who do well under the free market INVARIABLY use their wealth to influence the government to make it possible, nay, easy, for them to remain wealthy, no matter the vagaries of the “free” market. So unless you actively support laws that strictly enforce a ban on such activities, free marketers are in fact fnas of capitalist oligarchy, or crony capitalism as it’s called. See: Halliburton. See: Enron.
Then actively support laws that stricty enforce a ban on such activities.
note: neither of those two companies exist in a free market environment.
Wake up call, you really need to tone it down. These comments do nothing to promote the discussion and your direct personal insults in the second quoted line are a direct violation of the rules of this Forum.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
How’s this? For all practical purposes, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) removes Chapter 7 as an option for the middle class? To be specific, the new law adds an objective test to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b), an abuse prevention mechanism in place since the reform act of 1979 (where the Act was replaced by the Code). Under the new law, abuse is presumed if: (i) in the six months prior to filing for protection, the average monthly income for the debtor’s household multiplied by 12 is greater than the median income for the state in which the debtor files; and (ii)(a)the debtor’s disposable income over five years is greater than $10,000, i.e. $166.67 per month; or, (b) if over a five year period, the debtor’s disposable income is between 6,000 and $10,000, i.e. $100 per month to $166.67 per month, so long as such disposable income would pay at least 25% of the debtor’s general unsecured debt (>$24,000).
In other words, if you live in a metropolis in a rural state, even a modest lower middle class income would exceed the state’s median income, so you have to comply with the “means test.” Therefore, if you have more than $166 a month left over after paying necessary expenses (as determined for your area by the IRS) and secured and priority (IRS, child support) debt, then that $166 plus goes to pay your unsecured creditors. No big deal you say? Well, sure if you’re fine with five years of no hic-ups, no unintended expenses and upwards of $3,000 in administrative costs to pay pro rata ten stinking grand in debt that in many cases is the result of a medical emergency. I can go into more detail with many doomsday scenarios. Suffice it to say, the bill is draconian.
You are making an assumption here and then moving forward as if your assumption is fact. Fair enough…I actually agree with your assumption, though from a different angle. I guess your base assumption is that Government is corruptable (oh, I know you didn’t say this, but bottom line, this is what you are getting at)…probably a good assumption. If Government is corruptable then certainly folks will try and corrupt it. Ok, I buy that too. Obviously people who corrupt government are going to be those who have the means to corrupt it.
So, the problem to me seems to be a corruptable government…not the free market per se. Since no one here is advocating NO government regulations (I’m certainly not despite Wake Up Calls rant at me) of the market, seems to me what you should be regulating isn’t the market but government and its corruptability. Its really not the thread for it, but if you want to talk about WHAT should be regulated (and what shouldn’t) then start a thread and keep an open mind.
No free market advocate is going to be a fan of crony capitalism or capitalist oligarchy…it distorts the market. Thats a bad thing. Both Halliburton and Enron are possible because of your vaunted government controls (and the manipulation of said controls), especially Halliburton who uses its power and influence against to secure GOVERMENT contracts and favors. You see, your government, as you already pointed out, is corruptable…and companies have the means of corrupting it. All your controls do is force them to find new and interesting ways around them…oh, and also distort the market while they are at it.
-XT
That mindset is astonishing for its sheer myopia. The burger flipper flips his burgers, clocks out, and goes home. But the franchise owner has invested his own equity into the business at the risk of losing it all. If the burger flipper flips a burger successfully, someone gets a decent hamburger. But if the owner runs his business successfully, several burger flippers, cashiers, waiters, cooks, supervisors and managers get paychecks. And those are just from him. The companies he buys his supplies from profit as well, and pay their employees. What the hell do you want, that the burger flipper get rewarded for risking nothing?
Oh, dear God.
I have taken, of late, to participating in discussions by taking as premises the presumptions of the OP. In other words, I am participating in discussing issues from a nontheoretical point of view. See, for example, the thread about the Democrats’ contract with America.
Uh huh. I have a long history of advocating piling new laws on top of old laws. The more the merrier, eh?
Don’t do that here. Don’t hijack this fellow’s thread so you can bellow at my philosophy. Don’t pretend to be stupid just to start a fight. Why don’t you take it to the Pit or something. Or open a new thread. Or maybe you could just paste your list.
I see. That’s too bad… maybe it ought to be.
I understand that one would rightly need professional guidance to get through the process, but it seems he could also use some remedial attention, like getting an alcoholic sober then requiring him to attend meetings.
Probably a lousy analogy, but on the surface it seems to work.
there’s actually a “budget making/smart spending” type class debtors have to take to receive a discharge
Thanks, whole bean, let’s hope we never have to attend.
That may be a very GOOD analogy, in the case of compulsive spenders. I imagine some people do get a rush out of going on a massive shopping spree. Then, they crash when the bills start coming in.
OK… and in place of Antabuse[sup]®[/sup], we could give them Monopoly money, or better yet, give them a fake credit card number and lock them in a room, empty except for a phone and a big screen TV tuned to The Shopping Network.
Couldn’t agree more. My earlier sentiments regarding weather-related and natural disaster “catastrophe recidivists” were misplaced - if they want to go through the hassle year after year, more power to them. Maybe businesses should be offered the option to purchase “Bankruptcy Insurance”… otherwise, SOL. Depending on the fine print, I might consider it, then try some really risky stuff!
In a nutshell, the new bankruptcy law will make it more difficult for financially devastated families to get relief. Here are just 3 specifics. There is a lot more if you really dig into the 400 pages of the new law.
1- All debtors will have to get credit counseling before they can file for bankruptcy – and additional counseling on budgeting and debt management before their debts can be wiped out. You know. Many people who lose their jobs, when their spouse disappears (death, divorce), or are hit with severe illness, are probably good at budgeting and managing their finances. The last thing they need at the time of despair is attending classes. They need to spend their time to put bread on the table, rather than spending time with credit counselors and harassment by the collectors of 35% interest rates “institutions”.
2- Because the new law imposes new requirements on lawyers, it will be tougher and more expensive to find an attorney to represent you in a bankruptcy case. Net effect: The lawyers get richer, the poor bankrupt guy gets poorer.
3- If your income is more than “the median”, you must pass “the means test” in order to file for Chapter 7. Oops. Now, go and dig into the new law and see how “the median income” is defined, and by whom.
You may disagree with Ralph Nader here, maintaining that the new law has converted the government into a glorified collection agency working for the avaricious merchants of consumer debt. But the truth of the matter is that most bankruptcy petitions are filed by people with real financial problems, often the result of family illness, loss of jobs, accidents and divorce.
First of all, I am sick and tired of some dopers with dogmatic, categorical and egocentric views calling anyone who disagrees with them “Ranters” and “Trolls”. That is a tired and old technique used by hooligans that merely mock their opposition, rather than presenting a rational and convincing argument backed by credible references. You simply denigrate yourself and lose credibility by calling people “Ranters” – right off the bat.
Second, in answer to your question, “change” can be good or bad, depending on what is the purpose of the change, and who is benefiting from it at what cost to the effected. The lines of people that I am supposedly “Ranting about” is a clear indication that the change in the laws is bad for the people with real financial problems cause beyond their control, as cited above.
The Pit is quite unnecessary; this is merely a question about how your philosophy operates in practice. (Indeed, I’ve never held any particular animus towards you even though we have our differences; you have pitted me on a couple of occasions, but I have never felt the need to return the favor.)
However, I’m happy to open a new thread, and have done so. I look forward to your participation.