Deadbeat nation
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 4 Jun 2010 17:29 Jim Thompson wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:49:09 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >"Sure,Not" wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 3, 5:11 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> > >> wrote: > >> > "Sure,Not" wrote: > >> > > >> > > > The original article in the NYT said if you were underwater in yourmortgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. That's > >> > > > roughly a quarter of America. > >> > > >> > > > It had a number of people explaining the best strategies, that you > >> > > > could count on about a year living rent-free before being evicted, and > >> > > > could save up all that money. > >> > > >> > > > So, that's welching, then stealing. > >> > > >> > > Hmm. Why not subscribe to the NYT, refuse to pay the bill and let > >> > > them feel some pain. If they try to collect, you simply say that you > >> > > never got the paper. Prove that it was delivered. > >> > > >> > So it's ok to be a thief in the Carolinas? > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to > >> > have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. > >> > >> Not at all. Most people in the Carolina's could care less about the > >> NYT. > > > > > > If that is typical of the ethics there, I'm glad that I've never > >lived there. I have no use for the NYT, but I'm not going to steal from > >them. > > When the terrorists lay waste to NYC they'll lay waste to NYT as well Are you kidding? The NYT seems to think they are just misunderstood minorities. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: dagmargoodboat on 4 Jun 2010 17:43 On Jun 4, 3:48 pm, "Sure,Not" <bamberb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 12:39 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 8:58 am, "Sure,Not" <bamberb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 2, 3:01 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 12:48 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > "Spehro Pefhany" <speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message > > > > > >news:vl4d06ttpkggskohj2jq4gpuhmi7hqfjig(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > It would be a business decision if the person went bankrupt and had to > > > > > > liquidate basically all their assets, if necessary, in order to repay > > > > > > as much as possible of the money owed to the lender. > > > > > > If we held businesses to the same standard I'd tend to agree... but it's very > > > > > standard business practice that, if one of your divisions is underperforming, > > > > > you close it down, defaulting on any outstanding loans, and keep on going -- > > > > > even if strictly speaking the ovreall company is in generally good health and > > > > > could have afforded to keep the company around with, e.g., one division > > > > > propping up the other. > > > > > > > So-called non-recourse states have distort the market with legislation > > > > > > limiting or obstructing lender's rights to go after the deadbeat for > > > > > > ALL the money owed. > > > > > > There's likely some reform needed there that I'd readily vote for, but as-is > > > > > such laws have to be viewed just as the cost of doing business. > > > > > > This sort of issue is very messy to deal with legally since pretty much any > > > > > protection you give to people who had every intention of meeting their > > > > > obligations can also be abused by people out to defraud others. (And of > > > > > course it's very common that incomptence gives the appearance of malice and > > > > > vice versa...) > > > > > > ---Joel > > > > > The original article in the NYT said if you were underwater in yourmortgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. That's > > > > roughly a quarter of America. > > > > > It had a number of people explaining the best strategies, that you > > > > could count on about a year living rent-free before being evicted, and > > > > could save up all that money. > > > > > So, that's welching, then stealing. > > > > > The "Yes we can's" in the comment section were chilling. The > > > > taxpayers ultimately absorb it, since Freddie and Fannie have > > > > guaranteed so much of it. > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers, > > > > James Arthur- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > It's not welching if they honor the agreement and walk away when they > > > stop making themortgagepayments. > > > Sure it is. Suppose you want to buy a house, the bank helps you by > > lending you the money, and you promise to pay them back. Then you buy > > it, and the appraised value falls, so you decide not to pay. That's > > the bank's fault? > > > If we retroactively change mortgages to mean "If the value rises I'll > > take the gain, if the value falls then you take the loss," then no one > > will lend money. Socially, that's a great harm. We're kind of there > > now. > > > Twenty years ago my brother stretched very hard and bought a house. > > It turned out it was at a price peak and he promptly was underwater, > > for a decade. What did he do? The honorable thing: he paid his > > mortgage, every ... single ... month. No whining, no complaining. > > > Sometimes people default for reasons beyond their control. That's > > still a default, but at least it's partially understandable. You > > belly up, take your lumps and society eventually forgives you. > > Bailing because you're underwater, to skip out on money you borrowed > > and owe? That's welching. > > > > It is stealing, if they stay there > > > knowing that they aren't paying the mortgage. > > > True. > > > The contract specifies the conditions. It is an unsecured load, and > if you don't pay, the bank takes the property. Simple. I think you meant "secured loan." Sure, it's that, and if the bank miscalculated on its collateral then you have them at a disadvantage-- they tried to help you, they went out on a limb for you, and they shouldn't have--they screwed up. Cheating on your wife is legal too, but it's still wrong. Again the lending-to-the-wrong-people problem is moral hazard--Freddie and Fannie created perverse incentives, and the market responded. It's corrupting, if not outright corruption. Now the moral taint, the corrupting influence, is metastasizing as those who play fairly see they're being treated very unfairly--it pays them far better to cheat. (Oh, BTW, Freddie and Fannie? Not part of the Democrats' "Wall Street" "reform". It's quite appalling. e.g. http://newsok.com/financial-reform-package-lets-down-u.s.-taxpayers/article/3465591, if you're interested.) -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Joel Koltner on 4 Jun 2010 18:04 <dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e56e63fe-cd09-4536-8a45-3344b5abf082(a)z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... On Jun 4, 3:48 pm, "Sure,Not" <bamberb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Cheating on your wife is legal too, but it's still wrong. You're never going to be a good politician if you actually believe that (rather than just paying it lip service), James. :-)
From: dagmargoodboat on 4 Jun 2010 21:05 On Jun 4, 5:04 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:e56e63fe-cd09-4536-8a45-3344b5abf082(a)z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 4, 3:48 pm, "Sure,Not" <bamberb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Cheating on your wife is legal too, but it's still wrong. > > You're never going to be a good politician if you actually believe that > (rather than just paying it lip service), James. :-) Oh I'd be a terrible politician, a far better statesman, but there's zero chance of me ever getting elected so it's not like it matters. If you were a lawyer, however, you'd notice I said _his_ wife... :-) -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 4 Jun 2010 22:47
dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On Jun 4, 12:05 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: [snip] > > > They > > come out the other side of the process with a nod and a wink from Wall > > Street. And a clean credit rating. > > That's not a "nod and a wink" in the sense of moral approval or > endorsing the behavior, just a rational, cold appraisal--the entity > without the obligation load is, obviously, a much better risk. This doesn't sound like the same Wall Street that screams 'moral hazard' when people want to renegotiate their mortgages. -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Entropy: When your shoelace comes untied, you can't fix it by walking backwards. |