Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 304 posts

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#291

Post by yumraj »

smidgeoncoup wrote: post #211
dc_gregory wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With what money?

any consumer rights attorney will take debt collector abuse cases on contingency - 40% cut. Abuse is so rampant (at least it was after the last financial crisis) it literally is like playing whack-a-mole for $1k/pop for every violation. A collector that repeatedly called my place of employment after being told I couldn't accept calls there, and threatened jail time, was forced to pay me $10k to me for their violation…

You should write a blog post on it. Seriously..

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#292

Post by lsc »

busterarm wrote: post #282
lsc wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you know your history, it's the "middle class" that has directed just about every non-marxist revolution. One can make a strong argument (even from marxist sources) that even the marxist revolutions were mostly directed by the middle class; most of the marxists call it the intelligentsia, but these were mostly educated men at a time when that meant more than it does now. (and even now, I think most people conside…

I completely agree with you, I just didn't want to trigger any socialists into a flamewar.

Really, I think the argument is weaker on the other side; I mean, there are a fair number of revolutions that were lead by the elites; the American revolution and the ACW to name two; I mean, the latter a lot more than the former, but even in the former, a whole lot of the leaders were rich enough that they didn't need to work more than they wanted to; most of them literally and legally owned other human beings, a level of wealth that is impossible today.

(but now it could be said that I'm changing the definition of elite to mean someone who has so much capital that they don't need to work. Still, I think that in both those wars, some of the leaders were also some of the richest people around. I'm also using a right-ish definition of revolution, especially in calling the ACW a revolution and not a reaction. I personally feel that 'reaction' might be reasonably applied to the ACW, at least, just because it was a clear attempt to roll back what would be called, really then and now, progress.)

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#293

Post by adreamingsoul »

gruez wrote: post #238
adreamingsoul wrote: post #199

Just my opinion, but... Our survival depends on local farms and businesses that are able to produce real value for people. I define "real value" as resources having the ability to be bought, sold, and traded for other resources. For example, one hour of labor is worth X pounds of produce from a local farmer. Our culture has too much of a dependence on global supply chains that will become increasingly expensive and s…

>Our survival depends on local farms and businesses that are able to produce real value for people. "real value" - that's a vague term. can you expand on that more? how does $6/lb (random guess at the price) bananas from california , provide more "real value" than $0.4/lb bananas from central america? >Our culture has too much of a dependence on global supply chains that will become increasingly expensive and scarce…

Yes, in the long term having less of a dependence on the global supply chain is better for the local economy, climate, and people. But during that transition, a lot of people are going to be negatively affected.

Today, it's my opinion that our culture has an unhealthy fascination and addiction towards products and goods that have a cost that is not reflective of the real value to sustainable supply the demand. Too many things these days are subsidized to create consumer demand and those dependencies are unhealthy and unsustainable.

"Like the links in a chain, one by one they will start to give until the chain collapses."

Ideally, consumers will have to pay the real value for those products and goods or go without until they can afford it.

It's entirely possible that in your example, both prices are reflective of the real cost to grow, maintain, and distribute bananas.

As a consumer, the price of $0.4/lb is cheaper and will keep more money in my pocket (or does it?) when compared to the $6/lb price.

However, as a consumer I should take into account the other factors of that cost, for example, how much did it cost to ship those bananas to my local store? How much does it cost for the farmers to support their families? Should I even be eating bananas right now? Can I take a break from bananas and save up to afford the bananas that are closer to me? Is it better to support the local farmers in my region, or the farmers across the world? Maybe both?

We need to be asking more questions about the big picture.

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#294

Post by 01100011 »

arthur_pryor wrote: post #264
01100011 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ex mother in law was a lazy, morbidly obese dependent of the state who received well over a million USD in care during the last 10 years of her life. Even when her moron of a husband cancelled their insurance policy she still managed to spend months in the critical ICU section of UC Irvine while they cut out a bread loaf-sized section of necrotic flesh and rebuilt her intestinal tract. They didn't, and couldn't, p…

i don't see anything here that contradicts the parent. which is to say, preventative and maintenance care are important, and i don't see any of that in what you described. parent's talking about emergency care. you're describing emergency care.

She did generally have good access to preventative care once she had a condition. Since she generally always had something wrong with her, she generally always had access. I see your point though.

I'll also say that people like her are why preventative care isn't always what it's cracked up to be. There are plenty of people like her with conditions like diabetes(which she also developed due to her sedentary lifestyle and poor eating habits) who willfully disregard their doctors' attempts at moderating their behaviors.

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#295

Post by ajross »

01100011 wrote: post #294
arthur_pryor wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't see anything here that contradicts the parent. which is to say, preventative and maintenance care are important, and i don't see any of that in what you described. parent's talking about emergency care. you're describing emergency care.

She did generally have good access to preventative care once she had a condition . Since she generally always had something wrong with her, she generally always had access. I see your point though. I'll also say that people like her are why preventative care isn't always what it's cracked up to be. There are plenty of people like her with conditions like diabetes(which she also developed due to her sedentary lifestyl…

> good access to preventative care once she had a condition

That is literally the opposite of what "preventative care" means.

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#296

Post by crazynick4 »

ajross wrote: post #290
crazynick4 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to 'extreme' health care incidents. I don't consider it fraud if a person has their back against the wall fighting for their life, and on top of that is dealing with a system that prefers surgery to stem cell injections because of the extra operating room hours that it can bill. Just my personal interpretation.

And my point was that "extreme" health care incidents represent only a small part of treatments needed, and that people NEED INSURANCE, not to be told "it's OK, you can just not pay". Your point about "fraud" is just a nitpick over a moral vs. legal definition of the term, and it too isn't helping anyone live a happy life. Get. Insurance.

Believe it or not, even with the ACA, not everyone can afford it. $150 a month is too much if you're making 15K a year, or around that number + you have children. If I was still in that income bracket when the ACA came out I would have simply had to take the fine and have it wipe my tax return because there was really no other way.

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#297

Post by ajross »

crazynick4 wrote: post #296
ajross wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my point was that "extreme" health care incidents represent only a small part of treatments needed, and that people NEED INSURANCE, not to be told "it's OK, you can just not pay". Your point about "fraud" is just a nitpick over a moral vs. legal definition of the term, and it too isn't helping anyone live a happy life. Get. Insurance.

Believe it or not, even with the ACA, not everyone can afford it. $150 a month is too much if you're making 15K a year, or around that number + you have children. If I was still in that income bracket when the ACA came out I would have simply had to take the fine and have it wipe my tax return because there was really no other way.

Then the proper advice becomes "get your ass out there and vote for a party that will preserve and protect your access to health care" and not "hur, dur, it's all good, you don't have to pay!"

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#298

Post by AnthonyMouse »

auggierose wrote: post #274
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly feel like it’s nuts that we don’t collectively fund healthcare, precisely because I don’t want to live in a world where I may be ruined by an illness and I am willing to pay to make sure others don’t have to live in that world. Isn't this the exact thing insurance solves, in particular catastrophic coverage insurance? Nobody really gets "ruined" by paying out of pocket for one X-ray and two aspirin. The…

The problem is that the patient doesn't know what the right price is, and what the difference in products will be when going to a competing lower price offer. It's fine to try out a competing smartphone at a lower price point; I would not want to gamble with my health that way.

> The problem is that the patient doesn't know what the right price is, and what the difference in products will be when going to a competing lower price offer.

This is why there are regulations to ensure a minimum standard of care. Above that, the provider is the one who has to convince the patient that their service provides some benefit over the lowest cost provider.

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#299

Post by sobani »

headmelted wrote: post #288
iamaelephant wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it bananas that you can't just walk away from a debt? The foreclosure system in USA is a significant part of what caused the mortgage crisis.

You should absolutely be able to walk away from a debt. If I'm a bank, and you come to me for a $75k mortgage on a $100k house, the $25k down is my security. That should be the beginning and end of our transaction. If you stop paying the mortgage, the bank gets the house. If the bank reasonably believed there was a chance of the house being worth less than the amount borrowed during the term, they shouldn't have made…

In other countries (for example the Netherlands) YOU take the loan, not your house. To make sure the bank won't be left holding the bag, you use the house you're about to buy as collateral.

In the occasion you stop paying, the bank will foreclose the house, but YOU are still liable for the rest of the loan. If you still don't pay, an official collection agency (not your bank, that would be a conflict of interest) will try to cut a deal, come and take your stuff and/or garnish your wages to pay of the loan. You can insure yourself against calamities like divorce and losing your job, for which the bank will give you a discount on the interest rate.

Mortgages are limited by what you can afford, so a predatory mortgage loan is practically an oxymoron.

Down payments are uncommon, especially for a first time buyer. The only money you need to bring with you is transaction costs (~5% : taxes, notary, financial advisor, etc.) and whatever you think you need for decorating.

Re: Can We Survive the Next Financial Crisis?

#300

Post by metalliqaz »

icedchai wrote: post #284
betterunix2 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you are wondering why you're comment is being downvoted, the issue is not that investing is too complicated for most of the population, it's that most of the population lacks the money to invest in the first place. When you add up the cost of keeping yourself fed, clothed, and sheltered, along with the cost of kids, and maybe also a stay-at-home-spouse as a dependent, and deducting contributions to retirement…

Thanks, but I totally understand why it was being downvoted. I have seen and heard all of that before. I am fairly convinced, based on the spending attitudes of many people I know, that even if they had extra money, they still would not invest. They would just spend it on a new 4K TV, new car, or a bigger house that they don't need. Most people seek immediate gratification.

Lack of financial education is another symptom of being poor.
Post reply on HN