the inability for marginalized groups to access credit in the united states is a part of the hierarchical systemic racism that keeps them impoverished.
the plan to go after institutions that are trying to expand credit to people with poor credit scores is consequently essentially a form of redlining.
it's a racist policy - and they don't get it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/13/your-credit-score-is-racist-heres-why
Thursday, June 13, 2019
the focus should not be on making it harder to get access to credit, but making it easier to get access to credit.
...because that's how the world works: you have to borrow money to get ahead.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/new-research-report-geography-credit-invisibility/
...because that's how the world works: you have to borrow money to get ahead.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/new-research-report-geography-credit-invisibility/
i support the expansion of credit to poor and marginalized people, and hope that the system of credit that amazon is designing can be taken advantage of by struggling entrepreneurs, many of them black and brown, that otherwise have no way to borrow money, and as such have no way to actualize their dreams.
the expansion of credit to the marginalized would be a central plank of any serious left-wing political movement.
the expansion of credit to the marginalized would be a central plank of any serious left-wing political movement.
so, i made another appointment with a different dentist down the street, in the same mall that i do groceries in. and, i'm just checking up on the differences in education, and it's profound.
the dentist i saw today got his dentistry qualifications from a small jesuit school in detroit. he otherwise has an undergraduate degree in physics. if he went to grad school, he's not advertising it.
the person i'll see tomorrow has a doctorate in dental medicine from boston university, a phd from the wayne state university school of medicine, and masters and bachelors from the shanghai second medical university. she's also licensed in canada.
in the end, i might be wrong; it would be hard for me to disagree with her, if she tells me she wants to drill. we'll see what happens.
the dentist i saw today got his dentistry qualifications from a small jesuit school in detroit. he otherwise has an undergraduate degree in physics. if he went to grad school, he's not advertising it.
the person i'll see tomorrow has a doctorate in dental medicine from boston university, a phd from the wayne state university school of medicine, and masters and bachelors from the shanghai second medical university. she's also licensed in canada.
in the end, i might be wrong; it would be hard for me to disagree with her, if she tells me she wants to drill. we'll see what happens.
this is useful:
https://www.animated-teeth.com/tooth_decay/t1_tooth_decay_cavities.htm
i am, at worst, in frame A. but, not even.
he should have told me to floss more regularly, at most.
so, i'm calling a different dentist. clearly.
https://www.animated-teeth.com/tooth_decay/t1_tooth_decay_cavities.htm
i am, at worst, in frame A. but, not even.
he should have told me to floss more regularly, at most.
so, i'm calling a different dentist. clearly.
do we have any dentists out there?
i can't tell which side is which, but they were concerned about the very back molars on my right (that is, *my* right) side. specifically, the very furthest one in the back.
i know i'm supposed to be looking for discolouration, but i also know it's supposed to be subtle. i need a better online tutorial...
i can't tell which side is which, but they were concerned about the very back molars on my right (that is, *my* right) side. specifically, the very furthest one in the back.
i know i'm supposed to be looking for discolouration, but i also know it's supposed to be subtle. i need a better online tutorial...
i should have asked for the x-rays.
i'm going to call and see what i have to do to get them.
within reason. obviously.
"you want your x-rays? well, you know, there's a guy out on sardinia street that's been bugging me. we'd like him gone. you do the deed, you get your reflections."
i'm kind of hoping it's something more like.
"x-rays? five dollars."
i'm going to call and see what i have to do to get them.
within reason. obviously.
"you want your x-rays? well, you know, there's a guy out on sardinia street that's been bugging me. we'd like him gone. you do the deed, you get your reflections."
i'm kind of hoping it's something more like.
"x-rays? five dollars."
so, i stopped by a dentist's office on the way home from a compost
run yesterday, and they penciled me in for an assessment this morning.
i know it had been a long time since i had a cleaning, so a little bit of build-up was expected. however, i've never had a cavity before, and i'm not experiencing any pain in my mouth, so i was really just expecting a cleaning - something i certainly am overdue for, granted, but i felt no reason to expect more than that.
in hindsight, i should have realized that the entire concept of the assessment was a red flag. i'll admit that i haven't gone to a lot of dentists, but the premise of being "assessed" implies that they're looking for a way to bill you. i mean, you don't get an assessment at a doctor's office - you get a checkup. you get an assessment at an auto shop, or a plastic surgery clinic.
you might argue that if it's been six years since my last appointment then i should expect some cavities, but it had been at least ten years since my last appointment before that, and i walked out without any cavities. so, if i went ten years without a cavity, why can't i go six? nor did the other dentist ask for an "assessment", but merely cleaned my teeth the first time, and then asked me to come in for something he called "painting", which consisted of topping up the enamel around the gums. he claimed i was brushing too hard, which is something they told me when i was a kid, too.
the second red flag was the suggestion that i should come in for cleanings every three months. that's a little excessive, and just seems like a way to squeeze money out of me. they'd be lucky if i agreed to yearly cleanings.
so, when they showed me some pictures of some "discolouration" on my back molars and claimed they needed to drill, i told them i'd like a second opinion. i'm not a dentist, but it didn't look like a cavity, to me. it didn't hurt when they pressed down on it.
i may have been more likely to agree to a drilling if i felt the analysis was more thorough. i mean, you'd think you'd try to clean it first, right, and then figure out if you need a filling after you've cleaned it, especially when it's been a long time since the last cleaning. as it is, it took him mere seconds to determine he needed to drill into my mouth - as though he'd already made up his mind before he walked in.
i'm evidence-based and everything, and in the end i may agree to the drilling, but the only thing that this place convinced me of is that they wanted to squeeze as much money out of me as they could. so, i'll need to make some calls this afternoon....
i need a cleaning. clearly. but, i don't think i need any fillings and i do expect the next dentist to agree.
in the mean time, i need to do a little research so that i'm able to make my own diagnosis of the evidence.
i know it had been a long time since i had a cleaning, so a little bit of build-up was expected. however, i've never had a cavity before, and i'm not experiencing any pain in my mouth, so i was really just expecting a cleaning - something i certainly am overdue for, granted, but i felt no reason to expect more than that.
in hindsight, i should have realized that the entire concept of the assessment was a red flag. i'll admit that i haven't gone to a lot of dentists, but the premise of being "assessed" implies that they're looking for a way to bill you. i mean, you don't get an assessment at a doctor's office - you get a checkup. you get an assessment at an auto shop, or a plastic surgery clinic.
you might argue that if it's been six years since my last appointment then i should expect some cavities, but it had been at least ten years since my last appointment before that, and i walked out without any cavities. so, if i went ten years without a cavity, why can't i go six? nor did the other dentist ask for an "assessment", but merely cleaned my teeth the first time, and then asked me to come in for something he called "painting", which consisted of topping up the enamel around the gums. he claimed i was brushing too hard, which is something they told me when i was a kid, too.
the second red flag was the suggestion that i should come in for cleanings every three months. that's a little excessive, and just seems like a way to squeeze money out of me. they'd be lucky if i agreed to yearly cleanings.
so, when they showed me some pictures of some "discolouration" on my back molars and claimed they needed to drill, i told them i'd like a second opinion. i'm not a dentist, but it didn't look like a cavity, to me. it didn't hurt when they pressed down on it.
i may have been more likely to agree to a drilling if i felt the analysis was more thorough. i mean, you'd think you'd try to clean it first, right, and then figure out if you need a filling after you've cleaned it, especially when it's been a long time since the last cleaning. as it is, it took him mere seconds to determine he needed to drill into my mouth - as though he'd already made up his mind before he walked in.
i'm evidence-based and everything, and in the end i may agree to the drilling, but the only thing that this place convinced me of is that they wanted to squeeze as much money out of me as they could. so, i'll need to make some calls this afternoon....
i need a cleaning. clearly. but, i don't think i need any fillings and i do expect the next dentist to agree.
in the mean time, i need to do a little research so that i'm able to make my own diagnosis of the evidence.
"taxpayers" made a roughly $2 000 000 000 profit on the loans made to the morgan-rockefeller bank during the crisis.
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/282-jpmorgan-chase
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/282-jpmorgan-chase
if this (the bailouts) is going to become a political issue again, i'm going to pick back up where i left off ten years ago and fight against the demagoguery and ignorance on social media and amongst the political class in ensuring that people actually know what the facts are, and are not misled by populists inside and outside of the media.
1) the so-called bailouts were actually loans and they have been paid back. if your concern is about "taxpayer's dollars" (an ill-defined concept, at best), you should realize that the state turned a profit on the process - the bailouts were profitable for taxpayers.
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
2) the one exception is the auto-industry, which did not pay back the loans. that is where your fiscally conservative arguments should be directed at, although i would have argued for full nationalization; for the auto industry, i don't think the bailouts went far enough.
3) the consequences of pushing for a social darwinist approach to market failure need to be understood. i don't support free markets. at all. we need to support industry with government, and we need to use government as a tool to decide which industry we should be supporting.
4) the consequences of letting banks fail for the account holders needs to be understood. we're talking about defaults, bankruptcies, foreclosures...
again: i would support structural measures to make the situation less likely to occur again. but, i do not support further dismantling the safety net, which exists for good reason.
we mostly got away with this in canada. we had bank solvency issues, we had bad mortgages, etc - but it didn't take the system down. and, the reason is that we didn't dismantle the system of socialism that we built up after the depression, and we were consequently able to absorb it.
this is an issue where bernie has often sounded like an ignorant moron, and i would offer him the opportunity to correct some of his past positions on the topic, which were beyond being wrong and into the realm of demonstrating a poor understanding of the actual issues. on that level, i'd like to hear him extrapolate - and give him the opportunity to take his foot out of his mouth.
1) the so-called bailouts were actually loans and they have been paid back. if your concern is about "taxpayer's dollars" (an ill-defined concept, at best), you should realize that the state turned a profit on the process - the bailouts were profitable for taxpayers.
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
2) the one exception is the auto-industry, which did not pay back the loans. that is where your fiscally conservative arguments should be directed at, although i would have argued for full nationalization; for the auto industry, i don't think the bailouts went far enough.
3) the consequences of pushing for a social darwinist approach to market failure need to be understood. i don't support free markets. at all. we need to support industry with government, and we need to use government as a tool to decide which industry we should be supporting.
4) the consequences of letting banks fail for the account holders needs to be understood. we're talking about defaults, bankruptcies, foreclosures...
again: i would support structural measures to make the situation less likely to occur again. but, i do not support further dismantling the safety net, which exists for good reason.
we mostly got away with this in canada. we had bank solvency issues, we had bad mortgages, etc - but it didn't take the system down. and, the reason is that we didn't dismantle the system of socialism that we built up after the depression, and we were consequently able to absorb it.
this is an issue where bernie has often sounded like an ignorant moron, and i would offer him the opportunity to correct some of his past positions on the topic, which were beyond being wrong and into the realm of demonstrating a poor understanding of the actual issues. on that level, i'd like to hear him extrapolate - and give him the opportunity to take his foot out of his mouth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)