Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan.
- This topic has 265 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM #434246July 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM #433513
analyst
Participant[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
I’m sure it’s not how you see it. But it sure is very convenient to pretend that only the guardians of the gate are responsible, and those who take advantage of the unguarded gate are blameless.
By the way, TG, I think your writing style, and even just your style of arguing and dealing with others, is remarkable. I hope you’re being paid a lot for what you do at work. I know a lot of people in the industry I work in who appear less capable, and who are making over $500K/yr, or even over $1 mill/yr.[/quote]
Your analogy does not accurately describe the situation.
The borrower does not get any “gold”. Most of it went to the people from whom the borrower bought the home. The lender who arranged the deal took a portion of gold and kept it.
When the lenders were lending money for which they remained responsible, they were “guardians”. When they began selling their loans into clearly misrepresented mortgage-backed securities pools, they became active co-conspirators in a criminal enterprise designed to misappropriate a portion of investor “gold” by inducing the investors to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
Ultimately, the borrower also does not get to keep the home. I do not argue that they are blameless, only that they are minor players in the cause and cure of the problem, and that people are wasting their time and mental energy focusing on them, while the real cause and cure is not being properly addressed.
July 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM #433715Participant[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
I’m sure it’s not how you see it. But it sure is very convenient to pretend that only the guardians of the gate are responsible, and those who take advantage of the unguarded gate are blameless.
By the way, TG, I think your writing style, and even just your style of arguing and dealing with others, is remarkable. I hope you’re being paid a lot for what you do at work. I know a lot of people in the industry I work in who appear less capable, and who are making over $500K/yr, or even over $1 mill/yr.[/quote]
Your analogy does not accurately describe the situation.
The borrower does not get any “gold”. Most of it went to the people from whom the borrower bought the home. The lender who arranged the deal took a portion of gold and kept it.
When the lenders were lending money for which they remained responsible, they were “guardians”. When they began selling their loans into clearly misrepresented mortgage-backed securities pools, they became active co-conspirators in a criminal enterprise designed to misappropriate a portion of investor “gold” by inducing the investors to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
Ultimately, the borrower also does not get to keep the home. I do not argue that they are blameless, only that they are minor players in the cause and cure of the problem, and that people are wasting their time and mental energy focusing on them, while the real cause and cure is not being properly addressed.
July 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM #434026Participant[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
I’m sure it’s not how you see it. But it sure is very convenient to pretend that only the guardians of the gate are responsible, and those who take advantage of the unguarded gate are blameless.
By the way, TG, I think your writing style, and even just your style of arguing and dealing with others, is remarkable. I hope you’re being paid a lot for what you do at work. I know a lot of people in the industry I work in who appear less capable, and who are making over $500K/yr, or even over $1 mill/yr.[/quote]
Your analogy does not accurately describe the situation.
The borrower does not get any “gold”. Most of it went to the people from whom the borrower bought the home. The lender who arranged the deal took a portion of gold and kept it.
When the lenders were lending money for which they remained responsible, they were “guardians”. When they began selling their loans into clearly misrepresented mortgage-backed securities pools, they became active co-conspirators in a criminal enterprise designed to misappropriate a portion of investor “gold” by inducing the investors to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
Ultimately, the borrower also does not get to keep the home. I do not argue that they are blameless, only that they are minor players in the cause and cure of the problem, and that people are wasting their time and mental energy focusing on them, while the real cause and cure is not being properly addressed.
July 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM #434095Participant[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
I’m sure it’s not how you see it. But it sure is very convenient to pretend that only the guardians of the gate are responsible, and those who take advantage of the unguarded gate are blameless.
By the way, TG, I think your writing style, and even just your style of arguing and dealing with others, is remarkable. I hope you’re being paid a lot for what you do at work. I know a lot of people in the industry I work in who appear less capable, and who are making over $500K/yr, or even over $1 mill/yr.[/quote]
Your analogy does not accurately describe the situation.
The borrower does not get any “gold”. Most of it went to the people from whom the borrower bought the home. The lender who arranged the deal took a portion of gold and kept it.
When the lenders were lending money for which they remained responsible, they were “guardians”. When they began selling their loans into clearly misrepresented mortgage-backed securities pools, they became active co-conspirators in a criminal enterprise designed to misappropriate a portion of investor “gold” by inducing the investors to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
Ultimately, the borrower also does not get to keep the home. I do not argue that they are blameless, only that they are minor players in the cause and cure of the problem, and that people are wasting their time and mental energy focusing on them, while the real cause and cure is not being properly addressed.
July 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM #434261Participant[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
I’m sure it’s not how you see it. But it sure is very convenient to pretend that only the guardians of the gate are responsible, and those who take advantage of the unguarded gate are blameless.
By the way, TG, I think your writing style, and even just your style of arguing and dealing with others, is remarkable. I hope you’re being paid a lot for what you do at work. I know a lot of people in the industry I work in who appear less capable, and who are making over $500K/yr, or even over $1 mill/yr.[/quote]
Your analogy does not accurately describe the situation.
The borrower does not get any “gold”. Most of it went to the people from whom the borrower bought the home. The lender who arranged the deal took a portion of gold and kept it.
When the lenders were lending money for which they remained responsible, they were “guardians”. When they began selling their loans into clearly misrepresented mortgage-backed securities pools, they became active co-conspirators in a criminal enterprise designed to misappropriate a portion of investor “gold” by inducing the investors to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
Ultimately, the borrower also does not get to keep the home. I do not argue that they are blameless, only that they are minor players in the cause and cure of the problem, and that people are wasting their time and mental energy focusing on them, while the real cause and cure is not being properly addressed.
July 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM #433516patientrenter
ParticipantWe will have to agree to disagree, analyst. If I borrow $500,000 from you, then I owe you $500,000. The fact that I choose to use that $500,000 to pay far too much for a shack, or throw it down a well, or plough it into my business, or whatever… is irrelevant in my eyes.
Any arguments designed to deflect blame from me for failing to repay that debt to you just ring hollow to me. “I don’t need to repay you because Johnny stole my ice cream”. My reaction? So what. get over it and repay. Think more carefully next time you use other people’s money.
July 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM #433720ParticipantWe will have to agree to disagree, analyst. If I borrow $500,000 from you, then I owe you $500,000. The fact that I choose to use that $500,000 to pay far too much for a shack, or throw it down a well, or plough it into my business, or whatever… is irrelevant in my eyes.
Any arguments designed to deflect blame from me for failing to repay that debt to you just ring hollow to me. “I don’t need to repay you because Johnny stole my ice cream”. My reaction? So what. get over it and repay. Think more carefully next time you use other people’s money.
July 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM #434030ParticipantWe will have to agree to disagree, analyst. If I borrow $500,000 from you, then I owe you $500,000. The fact that I choose to use that $500,000 to pay far too much for a shack, or throw it down a well, or plough it into my business, or whatever… is irrelevant in my eyes.
Any arguments designed to deflect blame from me for failing to repay that debt to you just ring hollow to me. “I don’t need to repay you because Johnny stole my ice cream”. My reaction? So what. get over it and repay. Think more carefully next time you use other people’s money.
July 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM #434100ParticipantWe will have to agree to disagree, analyst. If I borrow $500,000 from you, then I owe you $500,000. The fact that I choose to use that $500,000 to pay far too much for a shack, or throw it down a well, or plough it into my business, or whatever… is irrelevant in my eyes.
Any arguments designed to deflect blame from me for failing to repay that debt to you just ring hollow to me. “I don’t need to repay you because Johnny stole my ice cream”. My reaction? So what. get over it and repay. Think more carefully next time you use other people’s money.
July 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM #434266ParticipantWe will have to agree to disagree, analyst. If I borrow $500,000 from you, then I owe you $500,000. The fact that I choose to use that $500,000 to pay far too much for a shack, or throw it down a well, or plough it into my business, or whatever… is irrelevant in my eyes.
Any arguments designed to deflect blame from me for failing to repay that debt to you just ring hollow to me. “I don’t need to repay you because Johnny stole my ice cream”. My reaction? So what. get over it and repay. Think more carefully next time you use other people’s money.
July 18, 2009 at 2:48 PM #433542NotCranky
ParticipantThe mistake or digression of the average FB is not that great. But this is an internet blog and we are all anonymous heros. Pass the feathers around, I still have room in my cap for one or two more. Cheers, we are great they are not!
July 18, 2009 at 2:48 PM #433749ParticipantThe mistake or digression of the average FB is not that great. But this is an internet blog and we are all anonymous heros. Pass the feathers around, I still have room in my cap for one or two more. Cheers, we are great they are not!
July 18, 2009 at 2:48 PM #434056ParticipantThe mistake or digression of the average FB is not that great. But this is an internet blog and we are all anonymous heros. Pass the feathers around, I still have room in my cap for one or two more. Cheers, we are great they are not!
July 18, 2009 at 2:48 PM #434128ParticipantThe mistake or digression of the average FB is not that great. But this is an internet blog and we are all anonymous heros. Pass the feathers around, I still have room in my cap for one or two more. Cheers, we are great they are not!
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.