April 5, 2008

Fewer Loans Means Fewer Borrowers

Justin Katz

Opinions are split concerning the significance of plummeting federally backed loans to small businesses in Rhode Island:

"There is capital available today that you can access without the [SBA] guarantees," said Kenneth B. Martin, executive vice president and director of business banking for the bank's parent, Citizens Financial Group. "That is typically the case when you have a good economy and a very competitive banking landscape."

In other words, the small-business loans offered through the SBA are being replaced by other types of bank loans that are often "less expensive," Martin said, and therefore more attractive.

Not so, said Mark S. Deion, president of a business-planning consulting firm, Deion Associates & Strategies Inc., and a small-business advocate. He said that what appears to be a lack of demand is actually the result of businesses getting discouraged with banks.

"Let's put it this way: If you know you're going to get laughed at in the face, why ask?" Deion said. "People are using home-equity loans and their credit cards ... and they're paying 13 percent [interest]. The reason is it's easier to get the money. ... It's the path of least resistance."

Personally, I'd suggest that readers turn a few pages to my own "R.I.'s economic clock runs down," which may persuade them that another possibility ought to be considered: that the strata of residents who would normally seek small business loans are fleeing the state. There are fewer of the sorts of people who could and would turn loans into profit and economic growth, which ought to weigh heavily on our minds as the state responds to people who live off of the economic stream that our government siphons away.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Why not stop spending so damned much on the ridiculous war in Iraq and make some of the money available to the SBA? Reducing war spending would also stop so many people from fleeing this earth.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at April 5, 2008 4:17 PM


In an earlier post, you reacted to a comment saying public school teachers don't care about children with this:

"what hubris. How in hell can you speak for all public school teachers. You might just as well say that all _____(fill in the blank) are _____ (fill in the blank). A stupid and meaningless assertion."

And then you come up with this:

"Why not stop spending so damned much on the ridiculous war in Iraq and make some of the money available to the SBA? Reducing war spending would also stop so many people from fleeing this earth."

The only intelligent reaction to that is --a stupid and meaningless assertion.

Posted by: msteven at April 5, 2008 4:37 PM

We can argue over semantics, but let's face it: the war has drained a lot of money out of the economy. Not to mention those families whose breadwinner is in the Guard and on a third (or more) tour of duty - think of the economic consequences there.

Posted by: rhody at April 5, 2008 6:24 PM

Justin, I think I saw Sen. Alves and Rep. Costantino in line at the tryouts for "Deal or No Deal" at Twin River today. They did say they would examine all possible revenue sources, right? You may want to reconsider your analysis.

Posted by: observer at April 5, 2008 7:52 PM

Obviously you know nothing about intelligence.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at April 5, 2008 9:20 PM

Now I know I'm going to Hell...

Instead of going to war so the DIA could steal 500,000 barrels of oil a day from the Iraqi people in order to compete with the CIA's self-funding from opium sales we could have either really lowered taxes on the American people or solved dozens of problems within and because of our government.

Please begin the "Black helicopter" cracks from the idiot peanut gallery that truly believes that Congress runs the government and not the Alphabet Soup Intel agencies.

Posted by: Greg at April 5, 2008 10:06 PM

"Instead of going to war so the DIA could steal 500,000 barrels of oil a day from the Iraqi people"

Greg, if you're being serious, can you please provide a link that demonstrates that we are stealing even one barrel of oil from the Iraqi people?

Posted by: Monique at April 6, 2008 7:33 AM

Oil hell. We stole Iraq from the Iraqi people.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at April 6, 2008 8:45 AM

Oooookay. I put up a link to a NY Times story about the disappearance of the oil and now it's gone.

Posted by: Greg at April 7, 2008 7:42 AM

Honestly, Greg, I don't recall seeing that comment come through, but I'll check when I get home this evening. If I accidentally deleted it with the morning spam, I'll repost. Either way, if you still have the link, since nobody deliberately nixed it, feel free to put it up again.

Posted by: Justin Katz at April 7, 2008 10:13 AM

aHA! Justin is working for the Bush administration, as evidenced by his deleting that link.

Yes, Greg did post such a link. It stated that a US government report indicated that a lot of Iraqi oil was unaccounted for - presumed to have been siphoned and stolen.

Greg's point was that the CIA (or, presumably, the US gov't) had stolen that oil. While his link makes that the point that a bunch of oil was stolen, it didn't point to the culprit. Plus, if it were the US gov't, why would they rat themselves out by issuing this report?

I'm not saying the CIA or the US gov't did not steal this oil. I'm only saying that Greg's link did not appear to make the case.

Posted by: Monique at April 7, 2008 6:12 PM

OK. Here's Greg's missing comment. I must have, when scanning the comment list for spam, seen the generic-looking URL at the very top of the comment and checked the spam box.



Billions in Oil Missing in Iraq, U.S. Study Says

Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq?s declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report.

Posted by: Justin Katz at April 7, 2008 7:56 PM

Most times the best evidence has to be searched for. The loss of this oil continues to this day and no cause has been determined, but in this time of high oil prices, there is ZERO media 'outrage' of this issue. Virtually no coverage of it at all.

The absence of serious, in depth, frontpage coverage itself is HUGELY telling.

Posted by: Greg at April 7, 2008 8:01 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.