On 10/12/09 17:15, Darren New wrote:
> Could be. It's certainly possible to use it responsibly. I'd have to
> look at the statistics to see why there are so many bankruptcies. (I've
> also heard that most bankruptcies at least until the last few years or
> so were caused by medical bills. That wouldn't surprise me, but I have
> nothing better than newspaper comments there anyway. For something like
> that, I'd want to go to the sources.)

	Essentially, it's a study stating that medical bills were a significant 
factor in bankruptcies - but not necessarily the main cause or the 
problem that led them to file.

	Like you getting sick, getting expensive treatment, paying for it (by 
money that you do have), and then 6 months later you lose your job and 
can't continue to pay other, unrelated debts (e.g. house). So you file 
for bankruptcy. The medical bills didn't cause the problem, but they 
were a factor. You may have filed for bankruptcy even if you hadn't 
gotten sick - if you didn't get a job quickly enough, etc.

	I can look up the details and provide links, if you want.

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/12/09 14:07, andrel wrote:
>> Well, yes. We still have a mite bit more freedom than that in this
>> country. :-) People are still allowed to deal purely in cash if they
>> want.
>
> Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?

	When the Bush administration was caught monitoring phone conversations 
en masse (and likely illegally), their defense was along the lines of 
"If you're not calling terrorists, why are you worried about it?"

	
	

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/12/09 17:39, andrel wrote:
>> What, Iraq wasn't enough? :-) I'm asking would *you* trust *our*
>> government.
>
> I know, and I said: yes. I stick to that even knowing about Iraq. Of
> course I know that there are many people in your politics that are into
> it solely for their own purposes. That does not mean that the system is
> wrong. It means that you have to not vote for those people.

	OK - Shift the distrust to the people, then.<G>

	In the end, though, it's a question of rights. The government doesn't 
have the right (at least here), to know all the details of what type of 
stuff I'm buying.

	Now of course, that doesn't mean private stores are legally bound to 
accept cash to preserve those rights. They're private and are free to do 
what they want (in this regard). However, given the US governments' 
abuse of powers in relation to these types of things throughout the 20th 
century (and beyond), a lot of people have good reason not to trust the 
government. So most businesses accept cash.

	(And BTW, most small businesses here prefer cash - they get charged a 
fee every time a customer uses a card - so they make more money on cash 
transactions).

	Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain "good" 
people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The president 
can't just change everything if he wants to.

	I'm guessing that in your country, those kinds of abuses have probably 
been a lot rarer - hence more trust for the government.

>> That's what I'm saying, yes. I'm not saying it's inappropriate for you
>> to trust your government. I'm saying I'm not sure how approppriate it
>> is for *me* to trust *my* government to that extent.
>
> If you don't do it they will never learn to think about the citizens
> first and themselves next. And campaign and vote for those that you
> trust. That is more important than if what they promise will cost you
> .05% less of your income.

	Voting for people you trust is usually how corrupt politicians get 
elected (as well as good politicians). Did you think they rigged the 
elections to get there?

	We're straying from the original topic, but as lots of people say, the 
key to a good democracy is an informed population. And most people here 
are really, really uninformed about most things. Chances are if they 
read the news moderately, they're even more uninformed.

	Don't know how this compares to other countries, though.

> I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks are
> after money while the government is trying to prevent people from
> getting into trouble without them doing something wrong. The reason
> being that if you let that pass it will often cost the community more
> than what it costs now. Examples are health care and homelessness.

	In the US, there's a general belief that if a person wants to screw 
himself, the government should stay out of it. Of course, they may have 
stuff like suicide hotlines, etc.

	The US does have a lot of a certain kind of freedom. It sucks in many 
other ways, so they cling to that freedom even more when under 
criticism. Kind of like how C/C++ programmers will respond to most 
criticisms with "But in your language, how fast can you..."

	Of course, it's not that black and white in reality, but they try to 
stick to the principle that you shouldn't put too many barriers against 
shooting yourself in the foot if you're really bent on it.

	So you want a huge loan for your house that you can't reasonably pay 
off? The government won't stop you. You want to buy unhealthy food items 
that will kill you earlier? They won't stop you. They may set up an 
agency to inform the public what the government thinks is healthy or 
not, but they won't force any food manufacturer to change their 
ingredients (unless it's so bad that they ban the ingredient 
altogether). Recently I found out that the FDA cannot take punitive 
action against stores that continue to sell products that the FDA has a 
recall for (e.g. salmonella, etc).

	Of course, if the consequences are really bad (or affect others) (e.g. 
smoking, unbridled lending, etc) - they then consider changing the rules 
for the betterment of society.

	And since we don't have universal health care paid for by taxes, and 
perhaps many other tax supported benefits that you may have, the cost to 
the community is not big (financially).

	And to be honest, over here financial costs are the ones everyone cares 
about. That does suck, but it's a sad reality. All other kinds of 
"costs" go into two categories: 1. We'll figure out a solution to take 
care of those problems without impinging on people's rights. (usually 
wishful thinking) 2. No one forced the guy to do something stupid, and 
so it's his fault (perhaps a poor perspective on reality)

	Finally, you have to realize that the US population is much, much 
bigger than your country's. So there's a lot of inertia, and it has to 
get quite bad before things can change. Something small may cost your 
community pretty quickly and pretty noticeably. Over here it has to be 
that much bigger before people notice the problems.

> In this crowded country there is logic to it. Take a large city like
> Amsterdam. People want to work there because that is where the jobs are.
> Now within an hour driving distance are a couple of smaller towns with
> more green, bigger houses for the same money, and better environment for
> the kids to grow up. So everybody wants to live in those smaller towns.
> Ok now from the perspective of the smaller town: people come live there
> but don't work, don't take part in the local society and don't use the
> local shops. So nearly no income from these people, but they still have
> to do the streets, the lighting and the other infrastructure for them.
> Seen from this perspective anyone wanting to live in their town that is
> working in the big city costs the local community money. Besides they
> will make every town expand to the same density as the big city,
> effectively destroying the whole idea of a smaller town. So they pass a
> law that you have to have a strong relation with the town to live there.
> Very democratic.

	Well, either way is democratic, if the people supported it. Not sure 
what your point is.

	My first thought is that they seem kind of spoiled to expect all the 
comforts in a town if they're not willing to pay for it. But perhaps I 
misunderstood the situation.

	Over here, though, the concept won't work. A law like that would be 
very unpopular. People like the freedom to live wherever they want. They 
value it more than a lot of what we consider "luxuries", but you may 
consider "necessities". It's as democratic as what you have, because 
that's how the people want it.

	Also, there's history behind this. Such laws over here would be viewed 
as intending to keep "people we don't like" out (race, religion, etc). 
Although perhaps they find legal ways to do that already.

	And BTW, over here if you live in city A and work in city B, your city 
taxes go to A, and not B. So that may somewhat take care of the problem.

> I don't like it that I can not live everywhere that I want, but I
> understand the logic and accept it. The concept is that it may harm me
> now, but will benefit society (and therefore me and my grandchildren) as
> a whole in the long run. A concept that seems to be alien to many
> Americans.

	Well, yes and no. It depends on, more or less, your beliefs. Many 
Americans believe that the very freedom that you restricted in your 
country may actually result in a better society if you don't restrict 
it. And if problems like yours arose, they try to find solutions that 
don't restrict those freedoms.

	Ultimately, you feel differently because of what you're used to, and 
you suspect the opposite would really suck. And Americans feel their way 
for the same reasons - except on the opposite side.

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/12/09 17:01, andrel wrote:
> Sure, but for us the whole concept of a bank was handling money
> including changing into a different currency.

	Yes, but you may have been the first person in a year or longer asking 
for that currency in that particular branch/bank. I'm guessing in your 
country the need to change currency per capita is much, much higher. 
Over here, we mostly only change currencies when traveling 
internationally. And few Americans do that with any frequency.

>> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.
>
> I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.

	Well, it's not exactly binary. You can trust the government in some 
things, and not in others. And as Darren hinted at, there are good 
reasons to mistrust them in some things - they have a history of abusing 
their powers.

> Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd
> understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless
> capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different
> meaning to you)

	Yes, but we're not that confident that we'll consistently get a "good" 
government. Over here, the corporate world has a big impact on 
government decisions. The one thing that does suck about society here is 
the focus on money.

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message

On 13-10-2009 1:45, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

>> I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks 
>> are after money while the government is trying to prevent people from 
>> getting into trouble without them doing something wrong.
> 
> I trust the banks more because I can walk away from the abusive bank. 

On banks (may respond to the other things later):

We had an interesting thing going on this week. We have a bank that 
deliberately sold product to people that they could not afford and in 
some cases did not even ask for. Thing on the edge of what is legal but 
definitely crossing the order of unethical. Many families got in trouble 
by that. In an undutch way many lawsuits followed but were getting nowhere.
Finally last week someone, who was trying to negotiate compensation for 
the victims in vain, basically asked for a bank run on tv. M€600 was 
withdrawn from the bank and yesterday they had to enter the first stage 
of bankruptcy and control was transferred to our national bank.

I am not sure if it helps their victims and some people find it rather 
irresponsible to deliberately collapse a bank. In any case there is a 
lesson to be learned here for arrogant and irresponsible bankers: 
customers can collapse your bank and you are going to be held responsible.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     I can look up the details and provide links, if you want.

Interesting. I'll take your word for it. No need. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Finally last week someone, who was trying to negotiate compensation for 
> the victims in vain, basically asked for a bank run on tv.

There ya go. Not only can you walk away, if you get enough people doing it, 
you can eliminate the entire problem bank. :-)

> I am not sure if it helps their victims and some people find it rather 
> irresponsible to deliberately collapse a bank. 

It's really not that unusual. Odd for a *bank*, given that banks print their 
own money, but lots of companies will go belly-up when their customers hear 
of nastiness perpetrated by the owners. Especially now in the days of internet.

> customers can collapse your bank and you are going to be held responsible.

Exactly.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Now of course, that doesn't mean private stores are legally bound to 
> accept cash to preserve those rights.

In the USA, you're legally required to accept cash (as in, federal reserve 
notes) for debts. If I owe you the money, you have to take cash. But if I 
don't *already* owe you the money, you don't have to take cash.

E.g., if I walk into your restaurant, before I eat I don't owe you anything, 
so you're free to tell me that you don't take cash.

If I'm behind on my rent or owe you for my phone bill, you have to take 
cash. If you refuse my cash, then I no longer owe you that money.

>     Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain 
> "good" people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The 
> president can't just change everything if he wants to.

Plus, the USA's legal system isn't like europe. We don't have a parliment 
where it makes sense to run a few people on one specific platform like the 
Pirate Party. You have to pick someone who has a whole mix of views (about 
which they are likely lying), and hope they agree with you more than they 
disagree, even if they get elected. That's why the hot issues like abortion 
are *such* hot issues. They're very polarizing if someone whips up a big 
crowd of people to have an opinion stronger on that than anything else.

>     Over here, though, the concept won't work. A law like that would be 
> very unpopular. 

And probably unconstitutional. The same laws that say "you're allowed to get 
together to complain to the government" have been applied to say "you're not 
allowed to refuse to rent one apartment to two unrelated families" (like, 
kids in college sharing a house).

>     And BTW, over here if you live in city A and work in city B, your 
> city taxes go to A, and not B. So that may somewhat take care of the 
> problem.

Heh.  Actually, it's more like if city A has a 10% tax and city B has a 7% 
tax, they tax you at 10%, give 7% to B and 3% to A.  In other words, *both* 
places tax you, but they're nice and let you write off your taxes from one 
place on the taxes from another place.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/09 10:40, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I can look up the details and provide links, if you want.
>
> Interesting. I'll take your word for it. No need. :-)

	Don't take my word too seriously. ;-) There were quite a few subtleties 
and I may have some of them wrong, or forgotten others.

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/09 11:06, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> In the USA, you're legally required to accept cash (as in, federal
> reserve notes) for debts. If I owe you the money, you have to take cash.
> But if I don't *already* owe you the money, you don't have to take cash.
>
> E.g., if I walk into your restaurant, before I eat I don't owe you
> anything, so you're free to tell me that you don't take cash.

	But if I tell you this, and you eat, and then refuse to pay in anything 
but cash, then I'm duty bound to take the money or let it go?

	Makes some sense - I guess that's why car rental places won't rent 
unless you provide a card in advance. Probably to avoid that exact scenario.

>> Over here, though, the concept won't work. A law like that would be
>> very unpopular.
>
> And probably unconstitutional. The same laws that say "you're allowed to
> get together to complain to the government" have been applied to say
> "you're not allowed to refuse to rent one apartment to two unrelated
> families" (like, kids in college sharing a house).

	Perhaps. Not a lawyer ;-)
	
>> And BTW, over here if you live in city A and work in city B, your city
>> taxes go to A, and not B. So that may somewhat take care of the problem.
>
> Heh. Actually, it's more like if city A has a 10% tax and city B has a
> 7% tax, they tax you at 10%, give 7% to B and 3% to A. In other words,
> *both* places tax you, but they're nice and let you write off your taxes
> from one place on the taxes from another place.

	Really? What if A has 5% tax and B has 7% tax? I still end up paying 
7%? And how much does A get?

	I've never looked into this, as I always lived in the same city where I 
worked. Even more fun would be when you live in a different state from 
where you work. I lived in a town right on the border, and people often 
worked in a nearby city which was in the other state. I always assumed 
you only paid income taxes for the state you live in.

-- 
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.

Post a reply to this message