Strictly, Usury is a general term for a lender taking unethical advantage of borrowers. Nearly always, this takes the form of exorbitant interest rates although technically there are other abuses. The bible speaks against it and Nicea banned clergy from collecting interest on loans, and from the 12th century, required that all Christians practicing usury be excommunicated. (this was often interpreted to mean collecting any interest at all, effectively banning Christians from the banking industry--opening the door for Jews).
Most states have limits on the interest a lender may charge a borrower. These rates vary. Minnesota had a very low rate: 8%, while most other states had higher limits. First of Omaha, which was able to run a nice credit card business in Nebraska, where the limit was 16%, tried to expand into Minnesota, but discovered that there wasn't much profit to be made when they were limited to 8% interest. So they sued and in 1978 the Supreme Court decided that a bank could charge up to whatever the limit in their home state allowed, irrespective of where the loan was being made. Within a few days, a great many banks had legally incorporated in states with higher limits and several states, attempting to corner the market on this new business, including South Carolina and Nevada, did away with the limit entirely.
Prior to this misguided supreme court decision, very few people had a credit card and the vast majority of legal loans were business and mortgage loans. But afterwards they sprang up like weeds, and the brand new predatory lending industry came into being. Today, the average household credit card debt is about $7K and the average individual with credit card debt has $11K of it. A high fraction of this is interest on unpaid interest.
Predatory lending serves no public need whatsoever and creates a lot of misery and corruption. It should be banned. Credit cards are useful, but there needs to be a mechanism to limit abuse. Usury limits will do both things. Limiting interest to about 8% above inflation is enough for the lenders to make a small profit, but too low to make extremely short term loans profitable, and will force the lenders to be diligent about who they are lending to. For most people, requiring their credit card to be paid off at the end of the month, or whenever their paycheck is issued, is the right limit. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has already done a great deal of good, but republicans have been too successful at weakening it.
19 October 2014
14 October 2014
Republicans are Outraged
The hits keep on coming. The latest is the director of NIH saying there would be a vaccine for Ebola by now had their budget not been drastically cut in the early 2000s.
A few more:
ATF, frustrated by the Republican controlled congress blocking every reasonable attempt to track or block firearms as they are being smuggled in huge numbers into a savage drug war in Mexico, comes up with a dubious scheme to track a few by salting the market with a few easily tracked examples. Some of them find their way back into the US where they are used in crimes. Republicans are outraged.
The state department, frustrated by Republican budget cuts, spreads their protective forces too thin and the embassy in Benghazi is attacked, killing the ambassador and three others, two of them from the security detail assigned to protect him. Republicans are beyond outraged.
The IRS, frustrated by Republican budget cuts, resorts to a simplistic filter to select groups for further study when establishing tax exempt-ness. Political groups on both the right and left were identified...nearly all were granted tax exempt status even though the law clearly says they shouldn't have been. Republicans were outraged--not by the violation of the law, but that the IRS would even speculate whether groups that identified themselves as Tea Party or Anti-Tax might possibly be political. Progressive groups got the same scrutiny.
Republicans trying desperately to overturn the PPACA before the voters find out that it's actually a good thing, shut down the government. They are outraged when their own shutdown results in Air Traffic Controllers preventing them from politicking. They are outraged when a DC park aimed at Veterans is shut down.
Veterans Administration health workers, frustrated by demand for their services tripling and costs doubling while Republicans blocked all but a tiny increase in their budget, resort to delaying or denying patient service and attempting to hide the fact they'd done it. Republicans are outraged.
Republicans take resources from a somewhat justifiable war in Afghanistan to put them and a lot more into a disastrously counterproductive war in Iraq, which they underfund and manage very badly in the early days. And cut taxes at the same time. It goes very badly in Iraq. Republicans are outraged, so they increase the budget in Iraq (and keep the tax cuts), which allows some small progress there but makes them hate us.
We pull out, on the schedule defined by the republican's president. Republicans are outraged.
One of the groups we antagonized (with "de-Baathification" and more) finds a strategy to gain power in Iraq and behaves very ruthlessly. They recognize that hostility towards America and Americans is a terrific recruiting strategy. Republicans fall for it and are outraged.
CDC and NIH, frustrated by Republican budget cuts and obstruction, are behind the curve on responding to Ebola. Republicans are outraged.
There is no surgeon general to deal with the public during the Ebola and other health crises. Republicans have blocked the nominee since Nov 2013.
All of these problems are self inflicted--by their own petard, as the expression goes. But they never seem to suffer.
A few more:
ATF, frustrated by the Republican controlled congress blocking every reasonable attempt to track or block firearms as they are being smuggled in huge numbers into a savage drug war in Mexico, comes up with a dubious scheme to track a few by salting the market with a few easily tracked examples. Some of them find their way back into the US where they are used in crimes. Republicans are outraged.
The state department, frustrated by Republican budget cuts, spreads their protective forces too thin and the embassy in Benghazi is attacked, killing the ambassador and three others, two of them from the security detail assigned to protect him. Republicans are beyond outraged.
The IRS, frustrated by Republican budget cuts, resorts to a simplistic filter to select groups for further study when establishing tax exempt-ness. Political groups on both the right and left were identified...nearly all were granted tax exempt status even though the law clearly says they shouldn't have been. Republicans were outraged--not by the violation of the law, but that the IRS would even speculate whether groups that identified themselves as Tea Party or Anti-Tax might possibly be political. Progressive groups got the same scrutiny.
Republicans trying desperately to overturn the PPACA before the voters find out that it's actually a good thing, shut down the government. They are outraged when their own shutdown results in Air Traffic Controllers preventing them from politicking. They are outraged when a DC park aimed at Veterans is shut down.
Veterans Administration health workers, frustrated by demand for their services tripling and costs doubling while Republicans blocked all but a tiny increase in their budget, resort to delaying or denying patient service and attempting to hide the fact they'd done it. Republicans are outraged.
Republicans take resources from a somewhat justifiable war in Afghanistan to put them and a lot more into a disastrously counterproductive war in Iraq, which they underfund and manage very badly in the early days. And cut taxes at the same time. It goes very badly in Iraq. Republicans are outraged, so they increase the budget in Iraq (and keep the tax cuts), which allows some small progress there but makes them hate us.
We pull out, on the schedule defined by the republican's president. Republicans are outraged.
One of the groups we antagonized (with "de-Baathification" and more) finds a strategy to gain power in Iraq and behaves very ruthlessly. They recognize that hostility towards America and Americans is a terrific recruiting strategy. Republicans fall for it and are outraged.
CDC and NIH, frustrated by Republican budget cuts and obstruction, are behind the curve on responding to Ebola. Republicans are outraged.
There is no surgeon general to deal with the public during the Ebola and other health crises. Republicans have blocked the nominee since Nov 2013.
All of these problems are self inflicted--by their own petard, as the expression goes. But they never seem to suffer.
12 October 2014
Gun Control
There was a shooting very late Friday night across the street from my building. I was on the balcony of my condo, 23 floors up on the opposite side of the building, and I heard it, but didn't see it. There were about a dozen police about a block north, as there often are at closing time for the night clubs and bars in the area. Surprisingly, while a few hundred people ran away from where the sounds seemed to be coming from, perhaps 50 ran towards the sounds. Some of them were cops. At first, the sounds seemed like a string of firecrackers--at least 4 shots going off within half a second, with several more following, but when I saw the look on the cops (from 250 feet away) I knew it was something else. One guy was killed on the scene, gun still in hand, two others were injured and were taken to the hospital, and the cops are still looking for another shooter. They're not saying whether the two injured people were bystanders or participants, but the two principals, the dead guy and the one that got away, had been friends.
The comments to the newspaper article are telling. Virtually all of them point out how upcoming initiative 594, which would require background checks for all gun transfers, would not have stopped this. Perhaps, but over time, things will be different. Right now, we have a gun culture. Too many people think, incorrectly, that having a gun makes them safer. The statistics say something quite different. As illustrated by Friday night's gunfight, the presence of a guns makes the situation much more dangerous for everybody, both those with the guns and others. This was most likely an argument that escalated. Had there been no guns, there might be bloody noses or even broken bones, but it's unlikely anybody would be dead. It doesn't sound like it in this case, but it could also be that it was gang related. Were possession of an unlicensed firearm a crime, the police could have stepped in before there was a problem. The only people who are made safer by having a gun are those who have a job that exposes them to armed and dangerous people all the time: basically police and active duty military. All have extensive training. A 19 year old pub crawler does not.
The backers of I-591 not withstanding, nobody is suggesting confiscating firearms (or anything else) without due process. Seriously, nobody, apart from those who are raising it as a strawman to be opposed. If you think such a thing is at any risk of happening in the United States, your sanity is in question.
This is not what is in the law, but here's how I think it should work: To buy or receive a gun as a gift, you should require a gun license. This is functionally similar to a drivers license--you would need to pass a test, which includes a background check for mental health and criminal issues, and a demonstration of safety and handling competence. The license itself should simply be a number--16 digits, like a credit card, should suffice--which represent an account in a universal database. In that account are stored your safety and background check history and photographs, and the registration number of any guns you have. When transferring a gun, the seller looks up the number on the smart phone and submits a new photograph of the buyer. The seller can look through the old photos to verify that this really is the person, but apart from yes/no on whether the purchase can be allowed, has access to no other information, not even the name and address of the buyer. Submitting a photo of a person other than the recipient of the gun would be a crime. There would be no general access to the database without a specific, court-issued warrant--e.g. look up the ownership history of a gun that was used in a crime, or look up the guns owned by an individual suspect of a crime. Broader searches, such as looking up all owners of a specific model of gun, should probably not be allowed, although there are fuzzy areas, such as if the registration number has been damaged.
There are some things that should be banned from general use: fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, explosive projectiles, projectiles above some caliber, etc. All of these things should be allowed on a safe range, or to be handled by specially trained and supervised individuals, but their use off-range or unsupervised should be a crime. A swat team member may, for example, use a fully automatic weapon, but should be supervised at all times. An individual (including one early in their training) may use such a weapon on a safe firing range, but taking it off range would be a crime. It should be relatively straightforward to establish a safe range. If you have a big field with berms in appropriate places, or a big basement with thick walls, an appropriate inspector can certify that the range is suitable and you can plink or blaze away all you want.
update:
Local sources tell me that the two bystanders who were injured were not involved at all. The person who was killed apparently had just arrived on the scene with intent to kill the other guy, but the other guy was a quicker draw, and apparently succeeded in blending with the crowd and making his getaway. A third person has been taken into custody.
The comments to the newspaper article are telling. Virtually all of them point out how upcoming initiative 594, which would require background checks for all gun transfers, would not have stopped this. Perhaps, but over time, things will be different. Right now, we have a gun culture. Too many people think, incorrectly, that having a gun makes them safer. The statistics say something quite different. As illustrated by Friday night's gunfight, the presence of a guns makes the situation much more dangerous for everybody, both those with the guns and others. This was most likely an argument that escalated. Had there been no guns, there might be bloody noses or even broken bones, but it's unlikely anybody would be dead. It doesn't sound like it in this case, but it could also be that it was gang related. Were possession of an unlicensed firearm a crime, the police could have stepped in before there was a problem. The only people who are made safer by having a gun are those who have a job that exposes them to armed and dangerous people all the time: basically police and active duty military. All have extensive training. A 19 year old pub crawler does not.
The backers of I-591 not withstanding, nobody is suggesting confiscating firearms (or anything else) without due process. Seriously, nobody, apart from those who are raising it as a strawman to be opposed. If you think such a thing is at any risk of happening in the United States, your sanity is in question.
This is not what is in the law, but here's how I think it should work: To buy or receive a gun as a gift, you should require a gun license. This is functionally similar to a drivers license--you would need to pass a test, which includes a background check for mental health and criminal issues, and a demonstration of safety and handling competence. The license itself should simply be a number--16 digits, like a credit card, should suffice--which represent an account in a universal database. In that account are stored your safety and background check history and photographs, and the registration number of any guns you have. When transferring a gun, the seller looks up the number on the smart phone and submits a new photograph of the buyer. The seller can look through the old photos to verify that this really is the person, but apart from yes/no on whether the purchase can be allowed, has access to no other information, not even the name and address of the buyer. Submitting a photo of a person other than the recipient of the gun would be a crime. There would be no general access to the database without a specific, court-issued warrant--e.g. look up the ownership history of a gun that was used in a crime, or look up the guns owned by an individual suspect of a crime. Broader searches, such as looking up all owners of a specific model of gun, should probably not be allowed, although there are fuzzy areas, such as if the registration number has been damaged.
There are some things that should be banned from general use: fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, explosive projectiles, projectiles above some caliber, etc. All of these things should be allowed on a safe range, or to be handled by specially trained and supervised individuals, but their use off-range or unsupervised should be a crime. A swat team member may, for example, use a fully automatic weapon, but should be supervised at all times. An individual (including one early in their training) may use such a weapon on a safe firing range, but taking it off range would be a crime. It should be relatively straightforward to establish a safe range. If you have a big field with berms in appropriate places, or a big basement with thick walls, an appropriate inspector can certify that the range is suitable and you can plink or blaze away all you want.
update:
Local sources tell me that the two bystanders who were injured were not involved at all. The person who was killed apparently had just arrived on the scene with intent to kill the other guy, but the other guy was a quicker draw, and apparently succeeded in blending with the crowd and making his getaway. A third person has been taken into custody.
02 October 2014
Call It Highway 9
I grew up in Cupertino, California, living there from 1962 to 1978. My father still lives there, and my mom did until she died.
Cupertino was named for a creek, discovered by the De Anza party of 1776 and named "Arroyo de San Jose de Copertino" for the patron saint of the day it was discovered, Saint Joseph of Copertino. The first American settler in Cupertino after it was won in the Mexican American war of 1846-8 was Elisha Stephens, who settled on the banks of the same creek. Not realizing it already had a name, other settlers named it for him. It's not known how Stephens became Stevens, but it did. The Spanish mission in Santa Clara had a tiny chapel on the creek, which as population grew became inadequate, and a new church, again named for Joseph of Copertino, was built a little over a mile away, near the intersection of what was then called Mountain View-Saratoga road and Stevens Creek Road. Both were dirt. Not long later, a small general store was built right at the intersection and named "The Cupertino Store". The picture below was taken while they were paving Mt View-Saratoga for the very first time in 1915. You can see the rails of the electric trolley that ran on Stevens Creek Road between 1907 and 1934. The camera here is looking due north. The house I grew up in is about half a mile northeast of this scene--and was built 46 years later... Saint Josephs church is invisible behind the haze from the steam roller.
Some time in the first half of the 20th century, the Mt View-Saratoga road became part of the state highway system and was called Highway 9. It no longer ran all the way to Mountain View, but stopped in Sunnyvale. But it was expanded up over the Santa Cruz mountains past Saratoga, through Saratoga gap, Boulder Creek, Felton and eventually to Santa Cruz.
When I moved to Cupertino in 1962, everybody called it "Highway 9". We knew it was also called "Saratoga Sunnyvale Road" but nobody called it that. There was a Highway 9 Auto Parts about half a mile north of this scene on the west side of the road (Apple Computer's current headquarters is across the street from that site). There were several other businesses with Highway 9 in their name.
In the mid '60s, a new freeway opened, called I-280. Initially, it connected Highway 9 and State highway 17. But it soon was expanded, going a little west, and then swinging north to connect to connect to US 101 in Mountain View. The northern swing was called Highway 85. It was planned for 85 to eventually connect to Los Gatos and eventually Blossom Hill, but that didn't happen until the 1980s (280 was connected to SF in 1972). But for some reason they decided that they needed to rename the Saratoga Sunnyvale road Highway 85. Highway 9 over the mountains continued to be called that, but once it got into Saratoga, it took a sharp right and went instead to Los Gatos.
So from about 1970 to 1985, there were two highway 85s in Cupertino: the short bit of the freeway that had been built, and the Saratoga to Cupertino part of what had been Highway 9. The part from Cupertino to Sunnyvale was called the Sunnyvale-Saratoga road. Once 85 was finished, the Saratoga end was called the Saratoga Sunnyvale road, and 85 was moved to the freeway. Cupertino, in the middle, was torn, not wanting to offend their neighbors, and really, being unhappy calling it anything but Highway 9. They hemmed and hawed for a long time, before settling on De Anza Blvd.
I say, screw the state highway system. Call it Highway 9. The other road was the Saratoga Los Gatos road before, and it still is labeled that on most maps. There's no good reason not to go back. Anybody who lived in Cupertino prior to 1980 calls it Highway 9 anyway, and a lot of people who came later do too.
Cupertino was named for a creek, discovered by the De Anza party of 1776 and named "Arroyo de San Jose de Copertino" for the patron saint of the day it was discovered, Saint Joseph of Copertino. The first American settler in Cupertino after it was won in the Mexican American war of 1846-8 was Elisha Stephens, who settled on the banks of the same creek. Not realizing it already had a name, other settlers named it for him. It's not known how Stephens became Stevens, but it did. The Spanish mission in Santa Clara had a tiny chapel on the creek, which as population grew became inadequate, and a new church, again named for Joseph of Copertino, was built a little over a mile away, near the intersection of what was then called Mountain View-Saratoga road and Stevens Creek Road. Both were dirt. Not long later, a small general store was built right at the intersection and named "The Cupertino Store". The picture below was taken while they were paving Mt View-Saratoga for the very first time in 1915. You can see the rails of the electric trolley that ran on Stevens Creek Road between 1907 and 1934. The camera here is looking due north. The house I grew up in is about half a mile northeast of this scene--and was built 46 years later... Saint Josephs church is invisible behind the haze from the steam roller.
Some time in the first half of the 20th century, the Mt View-Saratoga road became part of the state highway system and was called Highway 9. It no longer ran all the way to Mountain View, but stopped in Sunnyvale. But it was expanded up over the Santa Cruz mountains past Saratoga, through Saratoga gap, Boulder Creek, Felton and eventually to Santa Cruz.
When I moved to Cupertino in 1962, everybody called it "Highway 9". We knew it was also called "Saratoga Sunnyvale Road" but nobody called it that. There was a Highway 9 Auto Parts about half a mile north of this scene on the west side of the road (Apple Computer's current headquarters is across the street from that site). There were several other businesses with Highway 9 in their name.
In the mid '60s, a new freeway opened, called I-280. Initially, it connected Highway 9 and State highway 17. But it soon was expanded, going a little west, and then swinging north to connect to connect to US 101 in Mountain View. The northern swing was called Highway 85. It was planned for 85 to eventually connect to Los Gatos and eventually Blossom Hill, but that didn't happen until the 1980s (280 was connected to SF in 1972). But for some reason they decided that they needed to rename the Saratoga Sunnyvale road Highway 85. Highway 9 over the mountains continued to be called that, but once it got into Saratoga, it took a sharp right and went instead to Los Gatos.
So from about 1970 to 1985, there were two highway 85s in Cupertino: the short bit of the freeway that had been built, and the Saratoga to Cupertino part of what had been Highway 9. The part from Cupertino to Sunnyvale was called the Sunnyvale-Saratoga road. Once 85 was finished, the Saratoga end was called the Saratoga Sunnyvale road, and 85 was moved to the freeway. Cupertino, in the middle, was torn, not wanting to offend their neighbors, and really, being unhappy calling it anything but Highway 9. They hemmed and hawed for a long time, before settling on De Anza Blvd.
I say, screw the state highway system. Call it Highway 9. The other road was the Saratoga Los Gatos road before, and it still is labeled that on most maps. There's no good reason not to go back. Anybody who lived in Cupertino prior to 1980 calls it Highway 9 anyway, and a lot of people who came later do too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)