Posted on 03/11/2005 9:27:36 PM PST by The Loan Arranger
Years ago, this country did away with debtors prisons. The nation in general, and poor people in particular, would be well served to bring them back. The harm to business from unpaid debt, and the reduced productivity and even business failure unpaid debt can bring, is obvious. Businesses or individuals who are not repaid the money they loaned or who are not paid for the goods or services they produced and sold on credit are prevented from accumulating needed and even expected capital for expansion, and they are frequently thrown into serious financial constraints making it hard to pay their own creditors and employees. This not only can theoretically choke the gross national product, many recessions and even the Great Depression have been in fact brought on at least partly by unpaid debt.
But debt relief measures, either in the form of actual debt forgiveness or in the form of relaxed procedures to collect debt (including the abolition of debtors prisons), are generally thought to help the poor. The idea that once again forcing poor people into involuntary servitude to pay for meager food and shelter is certainly a tough sell. But here goes.
A return to debtors prisons would help poor people in at least five ways: 1) increasing workforce participation; 2) increasing personal responsibility; 3) making it easier for the poor to climb the economic ladder through entrepreneurship; 4) reintroduction of the virtues which have proven the only reliable way of the poor to leave poverty; 5) making credit more readily available.
(Excerpt) Read more at jesbeard.com ...
My "temper"? Your lack of ability in reading comprehension is only matched by your quite dazzling inability to pierce the written word to decipher my "mood". And again, with the use of the word "liberal" as invective ? Too too funny for words!
Listen,precious, you're the one upset here,not I. What I am,though,is bored by and sick to death of uneducated newbies coming here to post their pathetic drivel and then getting all bent out of shape when they get handily refuted. :^)
So - it THAT . . your last word?
If you don't know why that is wrong then you are too ignorant to even be discussing the matter.
I suggest at least one class in statistics and one class in economics. Then maybe you will be better equipped to understand.
As to my figures, look them up. They are all there.
Ah the lovely times when unions ruled the country.
Fine. Take any one of those examples that I gave you. Why do you disagree? Why would you imagine the numbers to be any different? Tell me.
Whenever someone rhapsodizes about the "good old days",it's a sure and certain sign that they have NO idea what those times where really like.
You'll tire of this long before I shall,sweetums. ;^)
The "make it all up to suit one's agenda and/or post lie after lie" posters are the ones who ignore and/or lie about FACTS posted by others. Isn't that interesting?
Then I leave the last to you.
You were asked repeatedly if you disputed any of the examples that I posted. And you were always silent. You can't have it both ways, talking about fact and then ignoring it when it doesn't seem to support your opinion. That does suggest to me, of course, the old line people recite on the subject of statistics. But, even so.
What specific subset? What specific subsets? Explain what you mean.
He just should be glad the he was not in my college Mathematics and Statistics class. My professor was famous for giving what he called F minuses. Not content with just giving you a zero he would give you up to a -100 depending on how off your logic was. Nobody passed his class the first time around.
One class in economics. One class in statistics.
Then come back and we will talk.
With a prof like that one,YOU are the expert here; that's for sure. :-)
I was never so happy to see a C minus in my life. :)
Back when, I took so many classes in statistics, it could have been my minor. Now, I asked you a question. If you want to reply, then don't duck the question. Answer the question.
Econ?
You were asked many times to say whether or not you disputed all the various examples I gave. I don't recall you having done that. Instead, you relied upon character attacks and misrepresentation. And you still seem rather eager to have the last word, at any rate.
And you don't understand why your numbers are subsets of subsets?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.