BigTuk said:
Strazdas said:
BigTuk said:
650% Return....be serious. No seriously. be serious.. if someone comes with a deal *that* good that should set off alarms like muslim reciting the quaran in an airport terminal.
well, the fast credit firms do get 650% returns out of suckers that borrow money from them.
in fact jsut last year a law passed that their loan rate cannot legally go above 1500% and quite a few had to cut it down to comply. 1500% loan rate. and people use them.
Yeah but loans are risks. as in They're only worth something if the borrower actually you know, pays back.
In theory, yes. in practice, some loads are lost, some are insured, some are extorted back. while the quick loan with this percentage usually dont have this, the regular bank loans are insured to the point where if you fail to pay back they actually get more out of it.
Ninmecu said:
That's why I find the "Science of Economics" so god damned funny. Unlike other fields of science which develop more complex theories and methodologies to analyze things they couldn't have imagined without the more advanced theories developed, the economics field creates complexity simply to hide from common knowledge how certain things work. Watch a few interviews where people ask how certain aspects of the financial market work, they either dodge the question entirely or simply laugh it off and try and change the subject. It's lamentable to me that we still rely on Fractal Reserve Banking. But that's a whole other issue.
I dont know how much of a "Scientist" you would consdier me, but i got a bachelors in economics with masters in accounting, so i experienced the "Science" for many years. I would like to disagree with that completely. In fact ALL our current economic models are simplified to be understood more easily in comparison to more complex reality, which often lead to not precise prognosis of course. the problem is that the real life market invents new tricks to avoid being caught in simplified models, hence we can sometimes be blind to coming problems (our models are too simple). another problem, that is HUGE, is that economics "Science" is extremely politicized. you could prove with facts that raising tax X would be beneficial in the long run, but the guy wants to be reelected in 6 months and wont do it.
financial market is a cancer of economy really. the speculation part of it is anyway. its made there for sole purpose to make money out of nothing and runs on hearsay more than anything else. its hard to explain how it works in practice is because its hard to explain humans. thats like trying to explain human psychology without getting into terminology - wont happen. I do agree that a lot of "public people" dodge questions about it, for what i can only assume is their personal motivation. there is also a lot more inner disagreement here. to pick a popular example, whole economy community is basically split into Smithsonian and Keynesian economy view of life, and thants to piliticizing it goes as far as "your dumb to believe that when i believe another" almost to the level of people who use "liberal" as an insult. see, the problem with economy is that unlike, say, physics, its changing all the time and inventing new things, whereas physics are mostly static. yes there are brekathroughs, but its not like somone is going to invent a imaginarry product that will disable gravity at will in a year. on the other hand they managed to invent a nonexisting product that caused the crysis of 2008 within couple years.
tl;dr do not underestimate science of economy.
Isra said:
Floppertje said:
Wow, that's not racist at all...
Islam is not a race.
Ironically, racism isnt all about race. Legally, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.{source} [http://www.hri.org/docs/ICERD66.html]
