Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Famed Columnist gives rotten mortgage advice
- This topic has 165 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
patb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 30, 2009 at 9:01 AM #423067June 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM #422468
briansd1
Guestscaredycat, yes the concept of efficient breach is part of why the Constitution requires that we have uniform national laws on bankruptcy.
The fact that bankruptcy is in the Constitution shows that, by design, our founders felt that its collectively beneficial to let debtors off the hook.
It’s much more efficient to recycle the assets in the economy than to keep them “locked up” in debt forever.
June 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM #422698Guestscaredycat, yes the concept of efficient breach is part of why the Constitution requires that we have uniform national laws on bankruptcy.
The fact that bankruptcy is in the Constitution shows that, by design, our founders felt that its collectively beneficial to let debtors off the hook.
It’s much more efficient to recycle the assets in the economy than to keep them “locked up” in debt forever.
June 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM #422973Guestscaredycat, yes the concept of efficient breach is part of why the Constitution requires that we have uniform national laws on bankruptcy.
The fact that bankruptcy is in the Constitution shows that, by design, our founders felt that its collectively beneficial to let debtors off the hook.
It’s much more efficient to recycle the assets in the economy than to keep them “locked up” in debt forever.
June 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM #423040Guestscaredycat, yes the concept of efficient breach is part of why the Constitution requires that we have uniform national laws on bankruptcy.
The fact that bankruptcy is in the Constitution shows that, by design, our founders felt that its collectively beneficial to let debtors off the hook.
It’s much more efficient to recycle the assets in the economy than to keep them “locked up” in debt forever.
June 30, 2009 at 11:06 AM #423202Guestscaredycat, yes the concept of efficient breach is part of why the Constitution requires that we have uniform national laws on bankruptcy.
The fact that bankruptcy is in the Constitution shows that, by design, our founders felt that its collectively beneficial to let debtors off the hook.
It’s much more efficient to recycle the assets in the economy than to keep them “locked up” in debt forever.
June 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM #422770patientrenter
Participantscaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.
If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.
If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically.
June 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM #423002Participantscaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.
If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.
If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically.
June 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM #423278Participantscaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.
If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.
If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically.
June 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM #423346Participantscaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.
If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.
If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically.
June 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM #423508Participantscaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.
If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.
If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically.
June 30, 2009 at 8:07 PM #422775patb
Participant[quote=patientrenter]scaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.
If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.
If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically. [/quote]
Actually, You presume Social value to Income.
Sure, some person could move to Wall Street and make millions while
adding no social value and perhaps that person is working where they
are running a charity medical clinic.The greatest flaw of the Libertarian Right is presuming income correlates to value.
June 30, 2009 at 8:07 PM #423007Participant[quote=patientrenter]scaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.
If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.
If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically. [/quote]
Actually, You presume Social value to Income.
Sure, some person could move to Wall Street and make millions while
adding no social value and perhaps that person is working where they
are running a charity medical clinic.The greatest flaw of the Libertarian Right is presuming income correlates to value.
June 30, 2009 at 8:07 PM #423283Participant[quote=patientrenter]scaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.
If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.
If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically. [/quote]
Actually, You presume Social value to Income.
Sure, some person could move to Wall Street and make millions while
adding no social value and perhaps that person is working where they
are running a charity medical clinic.The greatest flaw of the Libertarian Right is presuming income correlates to value.
June 30, 2009 at 8:07 PM #423351Participant[quote=patientrenter]scaredycat, your example of the doctor in la earning $100K who could make $300K if he moved elsewhere is actually a good counterargument to the notion that walking away from debt should be easy.
If the person can earn more elsewhere, then they can pay their debts if they move. So they should move, and use the increase in their income to pay off the debt. Everything is working efficiently.
If the person were allowed to repudiate their debt without moving, they may not make the move, and they’d be earning $100K instead of $300K, and society as a whole would be worse off economically. [/quote]
Actually, You presume Social value to Income.
Sure, some person could move to Wall Street and make millions while
adding no social value and perhaps that person is working where they
are running a charity medical clinic.The greatest flaw of the Libertarian Right is presuming income correlates to value.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.