or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 127

post #1891 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kajak View Post

This story amused me:

http://theweek.com/articles/542937/why-clintonbush-presidential-racefills-nothing-butdespair

Mostly because it reflects the despair that I feel about October - Harper going for a decade of slowly turning into an American, Trudeau being a giant pussy and shitting on his father's legacy (1), and an NDP party that probably can't win against the Trudeau name and Harper fear-mongering idiot-wrangling. I can't even get to the economic side of the platforms because the Grittory machine has such unsavory crime and anti-privacy platforms.


1- this referring to the good part of PET's legacy - the Charter and patriation of the Constitution. The FLQ crisis is more open to interpretation.

The best thing about an ongoing Harper government is the delicious tears of all the union thugs I grew up with.
post #1892 of 5129

In a previous career, I worked on cases under the Fair Housing Act and have a pretty decent familiarity with racial steering, which involves real estate agents encouraging or discouraging people from buying a house in a particular area because of their race. While the exact scenario that Rumpelstiltskin described seems pretty far-fetched for many of the reasons Piobaire described, the basic concept that he was describing is not. Racial steering cases are not particularly common, but there are plenty of well-documented ones.

 

Whether one thinks the Fair Housing Act, particularly the racial steering aspects, is a good or productive law is one thing. However, I would not so easily dismiss the real estate scenario described.

post #1893 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Have there been instances of government overreach?  Yes, only a fool would say otherwise.  But it seems to me that America is the most free when there is some government intervention in private business.  Americans, like most humans, have proven time and time again that ethics, religious morality, even profit be damned and they will only do the right by their fellow citizens when they are forced and/or shamed to do so.  

Oh for fuck's sake. Who do you think runs America? It's those same petty humans you are describing. Giving humans power always has the same result. Al-fucking-ways. They abuse it. It's an incontrovertible rule of nature.
post #1894 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

In a previous career, I worked on cases under the Fair Housing Act and have a pretty decent familiarity with racial steering, which involves real estate agents encouraging or discouraging people from buying a house in a particular area because of their race. While the exact scenario that Rumpelstiltskin described seems pretty far-fetched for many of the reasons Piobaire described, the basic concept that he was describing is not. Racial steering cases are not particularly common, but there are plenty of well-documented ones.

Whether one thinks the Fair Housing Act, particularly the racial steering aspects, is a good or productive law is one thing. However, I would not so easily dismiss the real estate scenario described.

Then it's a shame there's not some international freely-accessible listing of properties for sale that any human being on the planet can access from a $20 pre-paid smart phone. Real Estate agents are truly the gatekeepers to home ownership in 2015.
post #1895 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

In a previous career, I worked on cases under the Fair Housing Act and have a pretty decent familiarity with racial steering, which involves real estate agents encouraging or discouraging people from buying a house in a particular area because of their race. While the exact scenario that Rumpelstiltskin described seems pretty far-fetched for many of the reasons Piobaire described, the basic concept that he was describing is not. Racial steering cases are not particularly common, but there are plenty of well-documented ones.

Whether one thinks the Fair Housing Act, particularly the racial steering aspects, is a good or productive law is one thing. However, I would not so easily dismiss the real estate scenario described.

I would not dismiss the concept, as we all know things like this have happened, but I would dismiss what I did dismiss about it in 2015. I would also fail to dismiss the question of government's role in rectifying the situation. One could argue, for instance, torts would be how to handle this and a good expose in our free press would probably shame some folks into submission.
post #1896 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

One could argue, for instance, torts would be how to handle this and a good expose in our free press would probably shame some folks into submission.


One could, I suppose. Most individuals who are impacted by acts like racial steering may not have an understanding about what is happening to them. Another example of something similar is predatory lending. Generally, these types of cases require a pattern to show wrongdoing. An individual may not know what happened to him specifically, but it becomes more apparent when there is a larger investigation of many people. The resources to investigate on a case by case basis are simply not available to most individuals or even to many groups that may advocate on behalf of individuals. There certainly are some non-governmental groups that investigate, but many usually receive federal grants. That puts the government in a unique position to be able to investigate these types of cases.

 

Even if a tort was available, there are not strong incentives for individuals to pursue a case. What benefit is an individual getting from bringing a tort? You would be relying on an individual to have some amount of altruism to benefit society at large, but at a personal expense to himself. It's a nice, but largely unrealistic, thought.

 

The press does report on this stuff. I used to follow it, so I'm probably more aware of it, though. There has been a recent case that involves both predatory lending and racial steering in Buffalo. The press there has been reporting on it, and it's popped-up in some larger national press. The press reported a lot of the Donald Sterling Fair Housing Act case a number of years ago. His case involved some elements of racial steering.

post #1897 of 5129
Quote:
An individual may not know what happened to him specifically, but it becomes more apparent when there is a larger investigation of many people.

Stupid people buying shit they can't afford. Explain to me why I should pay to counteract that? Please. I'm serious, why should I care? Why should I have to pay money out of my meager pocket to assist morons and drug addicts?
post #1898 of 5129
If you have to ask the query "should I rent or buy?" The answer is "RENT."

That's like rule fucking 1.
post #1899 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marginalize
So I ask you again, how can the disenfranchised force change on society when they are definitionly lacking the power to do so? This is an important question and key to why you think the way you have expressed you do here.

Substantively, I have some sympathy for the position Rumpy is voicing. It occurs to me, though, that "By definition . . ." is up there with "It's been scientifically proven that . . ." among red flag introductory phrases.
post #1900 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post


One could, I suppose. Most individuals who are impacted by acts like racial steering may not have an understanding about what is happening to them. Another example of something similar is predatory lending. Generally, these types of cases require a pattern to show wrongdoing. An individual may not know what happened to him specifically, but it becomes more apparent when there is a larger investigation of many people. The resources to investigate on a case by case basis are simply not available to most individuals or even to many groups that may advocate on behalf of individuals. There certainly are some non-governmental groups that investigate, but many usually receive federal grants. That puts the government in a unique position to be able to investigate these types of cases.

Even if a tort was available, there are not strong incentives for individuals to pursue a case. What benefit is an individual getting from bringing a tort? You would be relying on an individual to have some amount of altruism to benefit society at large, but at a personal expense to himself. It's a nice, but largely unrealistic, thought.

The press does report on this stuff. I used to follow it, so I'm probably more aware of it, though. There has been a recent case that involves both predatory lending and racial steering in Buffalo. The press there has been reporting on it, and it's popped-up in some larger national press. The press reported a lot of the Donald Sterling Fair Housing Act case a number of years ago. His case involved some elements of racial steering.

Predatory lending is not about the government forcing folks to do business with each other which was the topic at hand. I guess if we throw enough crap on the wall some is bound to stick though.

Tossing out the idea of torts was also not designed to be exhaustively descriptive of possible solutions but rather to point out labeling government as the sole source of enforcement is something that's specious. Even if the idea of a tort bringing resolution is not overly probable the very fact it is possible negates the premise that Rumple is working under. For instance, I'm pretty sure it was torts that forever changed the tobacco industry and not all the gory pictures on TV commercials and warnings on the cigarette boxes.

Edit: I used the word "enforcement" and that was poor word choice. Using government as the agent of change would be more apt.
Edited by Piobaire - 3/16/15 at 10:54am
post #1901 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Substantively, I have some sympathy for the position Rumpy is voicing. It occurs to me, though, that "By definition . . ." is up there with "It's been scientifically proven that . . ." among red flag introductory phrases.

Rumple's position is something I completely reject. He's voiced it in several iterations now so there's no misunderstanding his position and I reject it. While I do not dismiss a role for government that is far different from completely ceding these issues to government control and not even questioning the rightness of the situation. He also has yet to answer the quandary I've posed him which is probably a large part of why he holds the position he does. I do not see all white folks (WASPs in his terms) and only being part of society change when forced to be the government. He's not connecting all the dots too well.
post #1902 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Predatory lending is not about the government forcing folks to do business with each other which was the topic at hand. I guess if we throw enough crap on the wall some is bound to stick though.

Tossing out the idea of torts was also not designed to be exhaustively descriptive of possible solutions but rather to point out labeling government as the sole source of enforcement is something that's specious. Even if the idea of a tort bringing resolution is not overly probable the very fact it is possible negates the premise that Rumple is working under. For instance, I'm pretty sure it was torts that forever changed the tobacco industry and not all the gory pictures on TV commercials and warnings on the cigarette boxes.

 

Predatory lending laws can be about the government forcing folks to do business with each other. I worked on predatory lending cases for a few years at the Federal Trade Commission and encountered businesses who used predatory tactics specifically with the intent to dissuade black customers from doing business with them.

 

You're right that the government is not the sole source of enforcement, but it is often the most effective. I mentioned that there are certain non-governmental groups who work on fair housing cases. Back in law school, I worked on a fair housing case with my school's legal clinic. We had some success there. However, the constant theme throughout is that these services are free for the alleged victim. It's very difficult to make it financially feasible otherwise.

 

The tobacco industry is not the best comparison, because private attorneys could point to actual damages suffered by people harmed by tobacco. There's not really the same type of damage in a lot of civil rights cases. Also, I wouldn't discount the Federal Trade Commission's role in the changes to the tobacco industry. As I mentioned, I used to work there, doing stuff with deceptive marketing and advertising practices, if that gives me any credibility.

post #1903 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

Predatory lending laws can be about the government forcing folks to do business with each other. I worked on predatory lending cases for a few years at the Federal Trade Commission and encountered businesses who used predatory tactics specifically with the intent to dissuade black customers from doing business with them.

You're right that the government is not the sole source of enforcement, but it is often the most effective. I mentioned that there are certain non-governmental groups who work on fair housing cases. Back in law school, I worked on a fair housing case with my school's legal clinic. We had some success there. However, the constant theme throughout is that these services are free for the alleged victim. It's very difficult to make it financially feasible otherwise.

The tobacco industry is not the best comparison, because private attorneys could point to actual damages suffered by people harmed by tobacco. There's not really the same type of damage in a lot of civil rights cases. Also, I wouldn't discount the Federal Trade Commission's role in the changes to the tobacco industry. As I mentioned, I used to work there, doing stuff with deceptive marketing and advertising practices, if that gives me any credibility.

I'll bet you're a big Elizabeth Warren fan, yes?
post #1904 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

Predatory lending laws can be about the government forcing folks to do business with each other. I worked on predatory lending cases for a few years at the Federal Trade Commission and encountered businesses who used predatory tactics specifically with the intent to dissuade black customers from doing business with them.

You're right that the government is not the sole source of enforcement, but it is often the most effective. I mentioned that there are certain non-governmental groups who work on fair housing cases. Back in law school, I worked on a fair housing case with my school's legal clinic. We had some success there. However, the constant theme throughout is that these services are free for the alleged victim. It's very difficult to make it financially feasible otherwise.

The tobacco industry is not the best comparison, because private attorneys could point to actual damages suffered by people harmed by tobacco. There's not really the same type of damage in a lot of civil rights cases. Also, I wouldn't discount the Federal Trade Commission's role in the changes to the tobacco industry. As I mentioned, I used to work there, doing stuff with deceptive marketing and advertising practices, if that gives me any credibility.

I think "effective" could have many different metrics, and tossing unintended consequences into the mix, might require rethinking what's effective and what is not.

As to tobacco....I would submit that even after the deceptive advertising was handled the industry remained essentially unchanged and it was the mega-billions paid out.
post #1905 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Z, I mentioned Richard Epstein a page or so back. He's apparently a well known legal scholar and seems to ask the same sort of question I do on this topic. As I know lawyers tend to value the input of other lawyers on such topics what do you think of his arguments?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob