So is your proposal that the government gives loans directly to borrowers? Is your proposal that banks continue to be the lenders but that they don't charge interest?
I just listed both as better alternatives yet somehow you’re perplexed? Maybe you need to figure out how to read before complaining about communication.
No, friend. I can read, but you'd be amazed how many people actually struggle with communicating effectively.
Reread your posts. You never explicitly state "my proposal is X"
You have explained how the system works
You have explained what you don't like about it
But you have not yet once put forward an idea.
Maybe your communication style is very indirect and sort of beating-around-the-bush. Maybe you expect me to infer what you mean from the various things you have said but that generally leads to misunderstandings when assumptions don't match expectations.
Or, maybe you don't actually have a proposal so you're being deliberately nebulous and vague.
Even when I've articulated what I think your proposal might be and asked you to confirm if I guessed correctly, you haven't said "yes, that is my proposal" or "no, that is not my proposal". You don't even play hot.or cold with me.
Reread your posts. You never explicitly state "my proposal is X"
If you require boomer tier essay slop hand guiding a position, it’s not a communication problem, it’s a comprehension problem.
You have explained how the system works You have explained what you don't like about it But you have not yet once put forward an idea. Maybe your communication style is very indirect and sort of beating-around-the-bush. Maybe you expect me to infer what you mean from the various things you have said but that generally leads to misunderstandings when assumptions don't match expectations.
I repeatedly said very clearly that what we have is corporate socialism and removing either variant (banks charging interest, or stopping government from paying the banks risk) is preferable to bring a system back to semi sanity without collapsing the market outright. Whether or not a new system could be built isn’t a feasible short term solution to change the market in a better direction before midterms. Realistically at this point it would honestly be cheaper to completely cut banks out as a middle man, but putting government in charge of home loans is only feasible for an egregiously short period, and unfortunately with bureaucracy that would never happen. Just as banks will never let government take away their golden egg of loss deductibles and bailouts.
I promise you, it is not a comprehension issue. It is a "I have done this a million times, and sometimes assuming, even when it is obvious, leads to mis-assumptions" and I do my very best to avoid any miscommunication. It's one of those damned if you do (guess wrong), damned if you don't (your insult earlier).
Anyway, thank you. It sounds like were getting somewhere.
So you say gov would not be a good long term avenue for loans on a consumer basis. But also think private lenders shouldn't be charging interest. My next thought then is, what incentive is there for banks to lend out money? If not profit motivation then what does motivate them to do it?
And if there is profit, but it's not from interest, in what form does that profit take? Does the borrower basically pay a fixed service fee to the bank at inception of the loan? Or yearly, monthly?
So you say gov would not be a good long term avenue for loans on a consumer basis. But also think private lenders shouldn't be charging interest. My next thought then is, what incentive is there for banks to lend out money? If not profit motivation then what does motivate them to do it?
There is no such thing currently as private lenders. I think that’s your big continued misconception. Banks have socialized risk through tax payers. We haven’t had a bank capable of collapsing from bad investments for decades now. So why should they profit from no risk?
And if there is profit, but it's not from interest, in what form does that profit take? Does the borrower basically pay a fixed service fee to the bank at inception of the loan? Or yearly, monthly?
Again, why are they profiting from something they never took risk on? Banks are the largest welfare recipients in the government bar none. Why are we paying interest to welfare queens who were given their money from the government in the first place?
I just listed both as better alternatives yet somehow you’re perplexed? Maybe you need to figure out how to read before complaining about communication.
No, friend. I can read, but you'd be amazed how many people actually struggle with communicating effectively.
Reread your posts. You never explicitly state "my proposal is X"
You have explained how the system works You have explained what you don't like about it But you have not yet once put forward an idea. Maybe your communication style is very indirect and sort of beating-around-the-bush. Maybe you expect me to infer what you mean from the various things you have said but that generally leads to misunderstandings when assumptions don't match expectations.
Or, maybe you don't actually have a proposal so you're being deliberately nebulous and vague.
Even when I've articulated what I think your proposal might be and asked you to confirm if I guessed correctly, you haven't said "yes, that is my proposal" or "no, that is not my proposal". You don't even play hot.or cold with me.
So yeah, I'm perplexed.
If you require boomer tier essay slop hand guiding a position, it’s not a communication problem, it’s a comprehension problem.
I repeatedly said very clearly that what we have is corporate socialism and removing either variant (banks charging interest, or stopping government from paying the banks risk) is preferable to bring a system back to semi sanity without collapsing the market outright. Whether or not a new system could be built isn’t a feasible short term solution to change the market in a better direction before midterms. Realistically at this point it would honestly be cheaper to completely cut banks out as a middle man, but putting government in charge of home loans is only feasible for an egregiously short period, and unfortunately with bureaucracy that would never happen. Just as banks will never let government take away their golden egg of loss deductibles and bailouts.
I have been respectful, please reciprocate.
I promise you, it is not a comprehension issue. It is a "I have done this a million times, and sometimes assuming, even when it is obvious, leads to mis-assumptions" and I do my very best to avoid any miscommunication. It's one of those damned if you do (guess wrong), damned if you don't (your insult earlier).
Anyway, thank you. It sounds like were getting somewhere.
So you say gov would not be a good long term avenue for loans on a consumer basis. But also think private lenders shouldn't be charging interest. My next thought then is, what incentive is there for banks to lend out money? If not profit motivation then what does motivate them to do it?
And if there is profit, but it's not from interest, in what form does that profit take? Does the borrower basically pay a fixed service fee to the bank at inception of the loan? Or yearly, monthly?
There is no such thing currently as private lenders. I think that’s your big continued misconception. Banks have socialized risk through tax payers. We haven’t had a bank capable of collapsing from bad investments for decades now. So why should they profit from no risk?
Again, why are they profiting from something they never took risk on? Banks are the largest welfare recipients in the government bar none. Why are we paying interest to welfare queens who were given their money from the government in the first place?