Famed Columnist gives rotten mortgage advice

[briansd1]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I completely agree with Eugene.

[anxvariety]

These companies do not loan you money because they like you. If you do not pay, they will try and make your life hell. Now, once in a every 20 years YOU ARE IN CONTROL of this debt. They do not want you to walk.

They did not have your character in mind when they loaned it, they didn’t measure your character and give you a discount.. they measured you unmercifully by your credit. Karma? It’s the banks time for karma, not paying back a loan which was made for profit has nor karmic consequences in my mind. That will help prevent them from preying on people. If you need money, borrow it from friends or family – then yes you should pay it back.

[anxvariety]

These companies do not loan you money because they like you. If you do not pay, they will try and make your life hell. Now, once in a every 20 years YOU ARE IN CONTROL of this debt. They do not want you to walk.

They did not have your character in mind when they loaned it, they didn’t measure your character and give you a discount.. they measured you unmercifully by your credit. Karma? It’s the banks time for karma, not paying back a loan which was made for profit has nor karmic consequences in my mind. That will help prevent them from preying on people. If you need money, borrow it from friends or family – then yes you should pay it back.

[anxvariety]

These companies do not loan you money because they like you. If you do not pay, they will try and make your life hell. Now, once in a every 20 years YOU ARE IN CONTROL of this debt. They do not want you to walk.

They did not have your character in mind when they loaned it, they didn’t measure your character and give you a discount.. they measured you unmercifully by your credit. Karma? It’s the banks time for karma, not paying back a loan which was made for profit has nor karmic consequences in my mind. That will help prevent them from preying on people. If you need money, borrow it from friends or family – then yes you should pay it back.

[anxvariety]

These companies do not loan you money because they like you. If you do not pay, they will try and make your life hell. Now, once in a every 20 years YOU ARE IN CONTROL of this debt. They do not want you to walk.

They did not have your character in mind when they loaned it, they didn’t measure your character and give you a discount.. they measured you unmercifully by your credit. Karma? It’s the banks time for karma, not paying back a loan which was made for profit has nor karmic consequences in my mind. That will help prevent them from preying on people. If you need money, borrow it from friends or family – then yes you should pay it back.

[anxvariety]

These companies do not loan you money because they like you. If you do not pay, they will try and make your life hell. Now, once in a every 20 years YOU ARE IN CONTROL of this debt. They do not want you to walk.

They did not have your character in mind when they loaned it, they didn’t measure your character and give you a discount.. they measured you unmercifully by your credit. Karma? It’s the banks time for karma, not paying back a loan which was made for profit has nor karmic consequences in my mind. That will help prevent them from preying on people. If you need money, borrow it from friends or family – then yes you should pay it back.

[JustLurking]

Yes, a contract can be renegotiated between 2 parties. But these contracts are no longer between 2 parties. The tax payer is the involuntary 3rd party (bag holder). That is where ethics comes into play. In my opinion, your rights (to refuse to honor your agreements) should not trump my rights (to not have to pay for your mistakes through my higher taxes).

[JustLurking]

Yes, a contract can be renegotiated between 2 parties. But these contracts are no longer between 2 parties. The tax payer is the involuntary 3rd party (bag holder). That is where ethics comes into play. In my opinion, your rights (to refuse to honor your agreements) should not trump my rights (to not have to pay for your mistakes through my higher taxes).

[JustLurking]

Yes, a contract can be renegotiated between 2 parties. But these contracts are no longer between 2 parties. The tax payer is the involuntary 3rd party (bag holder). That is where ethics comes into play. In my opinion, your rights (to refuse to honor your agreements) should not trump my rights (to not have to pay for your mistakes through my higher taxes).

[JustLurking]

Yes, a contract can be renegotiated between 2 parties. But these contracts are no longer between 2 parties. The tax payer is the involuntary 3rd party (bag holder). That is where ethics comes into play. In my opinion, your rights (to refuse to honor your agreements) should not trump my rights (to not have to pay for your mistakes through my higher taxes).

[JustLurking]

Yes, a contract can be renegotiated between 2 parties. But these contracts are no longer between 2 parties. The tax payer is the involuntary 3rd party (bag holder). That is where ethics comes into play. In my opinion, your rights (to refuse to honor your agreements) should not trump my rights (to not have to pay for your mistakes through my higher taxes).

[kicksavedave]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I’m not sure I agree here. The contract states what the banks recourse is if you fail to honor your promise. But when you enter into the contract you are promising to pay. The bank is making its financial decisions based your ability to pay. Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS. A paper contract does NOT remove ethics from the equation. You sign your name, you give your word. Your word is your bond, so some people claim. Not to mention, as someone mentioned above by JL, the fact that you are now sticking innocent 3rd parties (tax payers) with the bill. Its much easier to dismiss ethics, than to apply them even when its inconvenient.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I’m not sure I agree here. The contract states what the banks recourse is if you fail to honor your promise. But when you enter into the contract you are promising to pay. The bank is making its financial decisions based your ability to pay. Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS. A paper contract does NOT remove ethics from the equation. You sign your name, you give your word. Your word is your bond, so some people claim. Not to mention, as someone mentioned above by JL, the fact that you are now sticking innocent 3rd parties (tax payers) with the bill. Its much easier to dismiss ethics, than to apply them even when its inconvenient.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I’m not sure I agree here. The contract states what the banks recourse is if you fail to honor your promise. But when you enter into the contract you are promising to pay. The bank is making its financial decisions based your ability to pay. Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS. A paper contract does NOT remove ethics from the equation. You sign your name, you give your word. Your word is your bond, so some people claim. Not to mention, as someone mentioned above by JL, the fact that you are now sticking innocent 3rd parties (tax payers) with the bill. Its much easier to dismiss ethics, than to apply them even when its inconvenient.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=Eugene]Ethics, honor, promise … being a man of your word … all that applies only to non-collateralized, verbal interactions between human beings.

There’s no ethics and there’s no honor in legal contracts. It’s all based on cold logic. Especially true when the other party is not a human being but a soulless machine. The contract states that the bank will do A, and you will do B monthly for thirty years, and, should you fail to do so at some point before those thirty years are over, the bank is permitted to do C. In the event of a mutual agreement, both parties may discard the contract and sign a new one under different terms. Ethics does not enter.[/quote]

I’m not sure I agree here. The contract states what the banks recourse is if you fail to honor your promise. But when you enter into the contract you are promising to pay. The bank is making its financial decisions based your ability to pay. Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS. A paper contract does NOT remove ethics from the equation. You sign your name, you give your word. Your word is your bond, so some people claim. Not to mention, as someone mentioned above by JL, the fact that you are now sticking innocent 3rd parties (tax payers) with the bill. Its much easier to dismiss ethics, than to apply them even when its inconvenient.

[Author]

Posts