Famed Columnist gives rotten mortgage advice

[patientrenter]

briansd, it sounds like you are assuming that we are purely selfish unsocial creatures with no altruistic tendencies.

You and I and any student of human nature know that is not true. Whether you characterize it in flattering terms like altruism or ethics, or less flattering like “pack-like”, we are inherently and instinctually social creatures that strive to work cooperatively in groups. Yes, we do some antisocial cheating and all in between, but if the downsides of that were not outweighed by the upsides of the cooperation, we’d never congregate in social groups, and we always do.

Anyway, if we didn’t have inherent drives to cooperate (and adopt supporting common standards of behavior, aka ethics) then we’d have no one pushing the laws. All those laws would be there, unsupported by human nature. Do you think people would obey them after they began to notice that no one else supported the laws?

I don’t think it’s even close to chicken and egg. That’s like saying that people educate their kids because there are schools. People make sure there are schools so they can educate their kids.

[scaredyclassic]

in law school academic circles, the professional term sometimes bandied about is “efficient breach”. Some academics describe contractual breaches in terms of efficiency and argue that contract law should encourage efficient breaching.

In other words, i think, the argument goes, people shouldnt be held to contracts any longer where it doesn’t maximize the utility of both partiesbecause the ultimate goal of contract law isn’t the enforcemt of some sort of unwritten moral code in our dna, but instead, maximizing the utilitya nd happiness of all of us here in the actual world.

. Where it is more efficient to breach — when the sum total of happiness and utility increases with breach — the contract should be breached, and the gains if any divided among the parties.

I don’t remember enough to apply it to the issue at hand, but the overwhelming sense from a lawyering point of view is that contracts are not moral bonds, but agreements for mutual benefit that may not suit the parties at a later date, and that breach is a good thing, like divorce, an expected possible outcome, necessarily always built in as an escape hatch, not for just unforeseen bad things, but for good things as well.

For instance, if a doctor is making 100k serving middle class people whilst living in l.a. and is upside down on his mortgage, but could get out and go to another state and make 300k serving the underserved population, it would be more efficient for society if the contract is breached, people would get healthc are theyotherwise wouldnt get, doc is out from an oppressive mortgage in an underpaying state, and the gains divided up according to the previous agreement, contract terminated.

in that case there are gains to be divided; in most mtgs there are not. but that doesn’t mean the pricniple is any different. where the mortgage owner will be ahppier withoutt he mortgage, better able to look for work elsewhere, or just have more money available for going to dinner and for stuff, then the parties should act to maximize that utility and split the gains, if any according tot he contract they agreed on.

i never much liked this theory, but it pervades thinking about contracts. the problem i think, is that this is not really a contract beween a bank a nd a debtor. this is a contract we all have to pay out on. that’s different. there is of course a cost for efficient breaching, in that is business people may not trust you, but if you’ve truly breached efficiently, you work your way through it.

but in any event it’s pretty clear the law doesn’t try to codify some ethical impulse. it assume a bad dude, and tries to circumscribe his behavior and scare him into compliance with some bare minimum of decency. See, e.g., the 10 commandments.

[scaredyclassic]

in law school academic circles, the professional term sometimes bandied about is “efficient breach”. Some academics describe contractual breaches in terms of efficiency and argue that contract law should encourage efficient breaching.

In other words, i think, the argument goes, people shouldnt be held to contracts any longer where it doesn’t maximize the utility of both partiesbecause the ultimate goal of contract law isn’t the enforcemt of some sort of unwritten moral code in our dna, but instead, maximizing the utilitya nd happiness of all of us here in the actual world.

. Where it is more efficient to breach — when the sum total of happiness and utility increases with breach — the contract should be breached, and the gains if any divided among the parties.

I don’t remember enough to apply it to the issue at hand, but the overwhelming sense from a lawyering point of view is that contracts are not moral bonds, but agreements for mutual benefit that may not suit the parties at a later date, and that breach is a good thing, like divorce, an expected possible outcome, necessarily always built in as an escape hatch, not for just unforeseen bad things, but for good things as well.

For instance, if a doctor is making 100k serving middle class people whilst living in l.a. and is upside down on his mortgage, but could get out and go to another state and make 300k serving the underserved population, it would be more efficient for society if the contract is breached, people would get healthc are theyotherwise wouldnt get, doc is out from an oppressive mortgage in an underpaying state, and the gains divided up according to the previous agreement, contract terminated.

in that case there are gains to be divided; in most mtgs there are not. but that doesn’t mean the pricniple is any different. where the mortgage owner will be ahppier withoutt he mortgage, better able to look for work elsewhere, or just have more money available for going to dinner and for stuff, then the parties should act to maximize that utility and split the gains, if any according tot he contract they agreed on.

i never much liked this theory, but it pervades thinking about contracts. the problem i think, is that this is not really a contract beween a bank a nd a debtor. this is a contract we all have to pay out on. that’s different. there is of course a cost for efficient breaching, in that is business people may not trust you, but if you’ve truly breached efficiently, you work your way through it.

but in any event it’s pretty clear the law doesn’t try to codify some ethical impulse. it assume a bad dude, and tries to circumscribe his behavior and scare him into compliance with some bare minimum of decency. See, e.g., the 10 commandments.

[scaredyclassic]

in law school academic circles, the professional term sometimes bandied about is “efficient breach”. Some academics describe contractual breaches in terms of efficiency and argue that contract law should encourage efficient breaching.

In other words, i think, the argument goes, people shouldnt be held to contracts any longer where it doesn’t maximize the utility of both partiesbecause the ultimate goal of contract law isn’t the enforcemt of some sort of unwritten moral code in our dna, but instead, maximizing the utilitya nd happiness of all of us here in the actual world.

. Where it is more efficient to breach — when the sum total of happiness and utility increases with breach — the contract should be breached, and the gains if any divided among the parties.

I don’t remember enough to apply it to the issue at hand, but the overwhelming sense from a lawyering point of view is that contracts are not moral bonds, but agreements for mutual benefit that may not suit the parties at a later date, and that breach is a good thing, like divorce, an expected possible outcome, necessarily always built in as an escape hatch, not for just unforeseen bad things, but for good things as well.

For instance, if a doctor is making 100k serving middle class people whilst living in l.a. and is upside down on his mortgage, but could get out and go to another state and make 300k serving the underserved population, it would be more efficient for society if the contract is breached, people would get healthc are theyotherwise wouldnt get, doc is out from an oppressive mortgage in an underpaying state, and the gains divided up according to the previous agreement, contract terminated.

in that case there are gains to be divided; in most mtgs there are not. but that doesn’t mean the pricniple is any different. where the mortgage owner will be ahppier withoutt he mortgage, better able to look for work elsewhere, or just have more money available for going to dinner and for stuff, then the parties should act to maximize that utility and split the gains, if any according tot he contract they agreed on.

i never much liked this theory, but it pervades thinking about contracts. the problem i think, is that this is not really a contract beween a bank a nd a debtor. this is a contract we all have to pay out on. that’s different. there is of course a cost for efficient breaching, in that is business people may not trust you, but if you’ve truly breached efficiently, you work your way through it.

but in any event it’s pretty clear the law doesn’t try to codify some ethical impulse. it assume a bad dude, and tries to circumscribe his behavior and scare him into compliance with some bare minimum of decency. See, e.g., the 10 commandments.

[scaredyclassic]

in law school academic circles, the professional term sometimes bandied about is “efficient breach”. Some academics describe contractual breaches in terms of efficiency and argue that contract law should encourage efficient breaching.

In other words, i think, the argument goes, people shouldnt be held to contracts any longer where it doesn’t maximize the utility of both partiesbecause the ultimate goal of contract law isn’t the enforcemt of some sort of unwritten moral code in our dna, but instead, maximizing the utilitya nd happiness of all of us here in the actual world.

. Where it is more efficient to breach — when the sum total of happiness and utility increases with breach — the contract should be breached, and the gains if any divided among the parties.

I don’t remember enough to apply it to the issue at hand, but the overwhelming sense from a lawyering point of view is that contracts are not moral bonds, but agreements for mutual benefit that may not suit the parties at a later date, and that breach is a good thing, like divorce, an expected possible outcome, necessarily always built in as an escape hatch, not for just unforeseen bad things, but for good things as well.

For instance, if a doctor is making 100k serving middle class people whilst living in l.a. and is upside down on his mortgage, but could get out and go to another state and make 300k serving the underserved population, it would be more efficient for society if the contract is breached, people would get healthc are theyotherwise wouldnt get, doc is out from an oppressive mortgage in an underpaying state, and the gains divided up according to the previous agreement, contract terminated.

in that case there are gains to be divided; in most mtgs there are not. but that doesn’t mean the pricniple is any different. where the mortgage owner will be ahppier withoutt he mortgage, better able to look for work elsewhere, or just have more money available for going to dinner and for stuff, then the parties should act to maximize that utility and split the gains, if any according tot he contract they agreed on.

i never much liked this theory, but it pervades thinking about contracts. the problem i think, is that this is not really a contract beween a bank a nd a debtor. this is a contract we all have to pay out on. that’s different. there is of course a cost for efficient breaching, in that is business people may not trust you, but if you’ve truly breached efficiently, you work your way through it.

but in any event it’s pretty clear the law doesn’t try to codify some ethical impulse. it assume a bad dude, and tries to circumscribe his behavior and scare him into compliance with some bare minimum of decency. See, e.g., the 10 commandments.

[scaredyclassic]

in law school academic circles, the professional term sometimes bandied about is “efficient breach”. Some academics describe contractual breaches in terms of efficiency and argue that contract law should encourage efficient breaching.

In other words, i think, the argument goes, people shouldnt be held to contracts any longer where it doesn’t maximize the utility of both partiesbecause the ultimate goal of contract law isn’t the enforcemt of some sort of unwritten moral code in our dna, but instead, maximizing the utilitya nd happiness of all of us here in the actual world.

. Where it is more efficient to breach — when the sum total of happiness and utility increases with breach — the contract should be breached, and the gains if any divided among the parties.

I don’t remember enough to apply it to the issue at hand, but the overwhelming sense from a lawyering point of view is that contracts are not moral bonds, but agreements for mutual benefit that may not suit the parties at a later date, and that breach is a good thing, like divorce, an expected possible outcome, necessarily always built in as an escape hatch, not for just unforeseen bad things, but for good things as well.

For instance, if a doctor is making 100k serving middle class people whilst living in l.a. and is upside down on his mortgage, but could get out and go to another state and make 300k serving the underserved population, it would be more efficient for society if the contract is breached, people would get healthc are theyotherwise wouldnt get, doc is out from an oppressive mortgage in an underpaying state, and the gains divided up according to the previous agreement, contract terminated.

in that case there are gains to be divided; in most mtgs there are not. but that doesn’t mean the pricniple is any different. where the mortgage owner will be ahppier withoutt he mortgage, better able to look for work elsewhere, or just have more money available for going to dinner and for stuff, then the parties should act to maximize that utility and split the gains, if any according tot he contract they agreed on.

i never much liked this theory, but it pervades thinking about contracts. the problem i think, is that this is not really a contract beween a bank a nd a debtor. this is a contract we all have to pay out on. that’s different. there is of course a cost for efficient breaching, in that is business people may not trust you, but if you’ve truly breached efficiently, you work your way through it.

but in any event it’s pretty clear the law doesn’t try to codify some ethical impulse. it assume a bad dude, and tries to circumscribe his behavior and scare him into compliance with some bare minimum of decency. See, e.g., the 10 commandments.

[scaredyclassic]

lookit, if you applied TG’s advice to marriage, no one would ever get divorced, since you “gave your word”. pretty clearly, that is a dumb idea in absolute terms. there are lots of times where efficiency ismaximized by breaching the marriage contract. he beats the hell out of her every night, med bills mount up, it’s cheaper and happier to break the contract, divide the gains if any, and move on. same as any contract. there is no ‘word” one gives ina contract. The ultimate underlying premise is that when the agreement doesn’t work anymore, and one or mroe party is better off out of te deal, then the deal should be able to be broken in such a way that everyoneis better off, at least under the terms of the contract.

I understand TG talk about a promise of ‘monogamy” which doesn’t seem like much of a promise at all. i promise not to have sex with anyone else whiel i’m with you until i no longer want to.”) in fact, the promise of monogamy seems liek the pperfect example of efficient breach;

[scaredyclassic]

lookit, if you applied TG’s advice to marriage, no one would ever get divorced, since you “gave your word”. pretty clearly, that is a dumb idea in absolute terms. there are lots of times where efficiency ismaximized by breaching the marriage contract. he beats the hell out of her every night, med bills mount up, it’s cheaper and happier to break the contract, divide the gains if any, and move on. same as any contract. there is no ‘word” one gives ina contract. The ultimate underlying premise is that when the agreement doesn’t work anymore, and one or mroe party is better off out of te deal, then the deal should be able to be broken in such a way that everyoneis better off, at least under the terms of the contract.

I understand TG talk about a promise of ‘monogamy” which doesn’t seem like much of a promise at all. i promise not to have sex with anyone else whiel i’m with you until i no longer want to.”) in fact, the promise of monogamy seems liek the pperfect example of efficient breach;

[scaredyclassic]

lookit, if you applied TG’s advice to marriage, no one would ever get divorced, since you “gave your word”. pretty clearly, that is a dumb idea in absolute terms. there are lots of times where efficiency ismaximized by breaching the marriage contract. he beats the hell out of her every night, med bills mount up, it’s cheaper and happier to break the contract, divide the gains if any, and move on. same as any contract. there is no ‘word” one gives ina contract. The ultimate underlying premise is that when the agreement doesn’t work anymore, and one or mroe party is better off out of te deal, then the deal should be able to be broken in such a way that everyoneis better off, at least under the terms of the contract.

I understand TG talk about a promise of ‘monogamy” which doesn’t seem like much of a promise at all. i promise not to have sex with anyone else whiel i’m with you until i no longer want to.”) in fact, the promise of monogamy seems liek the pperfect example of efficient breach;

[scaredyclassic]

lookit, if you applied TG’s advice to marriage, no one would ever get divorced, since you “gave your word”. pretty clearly, that is a dumb idea in absolute terms. there are lots of times where efficiency ismaximized by breaching the marriage contract. he beats the hell out of her every night, med bills mount up, it’s cheaper and happier to break the contract, divide the gains if any, and move on. same as any contract. there is no ‘word” one gives ina contract. The ultimate underlying premise is that when the agreement doesn’t work anymore, and one or mroe party is better off out of te deal, then the deal should be able to be broken in such a way that everyoneis better off, at least under the terms of the contract.

I understand TG talk about a promise of ‘monogamy” which doesn’t seem like much of a promise at all. i promise not to have sex with anyone else whiel i’m with you until i no longer want to.”) in fact, the promise of monogamy seems liek the pperfect example of efficient breach;

[scaredyclassic]

lookit, if you applied TG’s advice to marriage, no one would ever get divorced, since you “gave your word”. pretty clearly, that is a dumb idea in absolute terms. there are lots of times where efficiency ismaximized by breaching the marriage contract. he beats the hell out of her every night, med bills mount up, it’s cheaper and happier to break the contract, divide the gains if any, and move on. same as any contract. there is no ‘word” one gives ina contract. The ultimate underlying premise is that when the agreement doesn’t work anymore, and one or mroe party is better off out of te deal, then the deal should be able to be broken in such a way that everyoneis better off, at least under the terms of the contract.

I understand TG talk about a promise of ‘monogamy” which doesn’t seem like much of a promise at all. i promise not to have sex with anyone else whiel i’m with you until i no longer want to.”) in fact, the promise of monogamy seems liek the pperfect example of efficient breach;

[moneymaker]

Many men marry for sex and women for security. If a man loses his job (no security for wife) and the wife refuses to have sex (with said husband),should they get a divorce? I say no, because no matter how bleak things seem they can always be worse. Man gets divorced,he’s still not getting any and may have to pay (even though he has no job)child support/alimony.
I think it is interesting that women typically file for divorce first and it’s usually men that stop paying bills first.Men that cheat on their wives are probably also the same ones that will cheat their fellow man out of money.Here;s the real question-Do women that shirk their debts often end up cheating on their husbands? Probably no relation, just food for thought.

[moneymaker]

Many men marry for sex and women for security. If a man loses his job (no security for wife) and the wife refuses to have sex (with said husband),should they get a divorce? I say no, because no matter how bleak things seem they can always be worse. Man gets divorced,he’s still not getting any and may have to pay (even though he has no job)child support/alimony.
I think it is interesting that women typically file for divorce first and it’s usually men that stop paying bills first.Men that cheat on their wives are probably also the same ones that will cheat their fellow man out of money.Here;s the real question-Do women that shirk their debts often end up cheating on their husbands? Probably no relation, just food for thought.

[moneymaker]

Many men marry for sex and women for security. If a man loses his job (no security for wife) and the wife refuses to have sex (with said husband),should they get a divorce? I say no, because no matter how bleak things seem they can always be worse. Man gets divorced,he’s still not getting any and may have to pay (even though he has no job)child support/alimony.
I think it is interesting that women typically file for divorce first and it’s usually men that stop paying bills first.Men that cheat on their wives are probably also the same ones that will cheat their fellow man out of money.Here;s the real question-Do women that shirk their debts often end up cheating on their husbands? Probably no relation, just food for thought.

[moneymaker]

Many men marry for sex and women for security. If a man loses his job (no security for wife) and the wife refuses to have sex (with said husband),should they get a divorce? I say no, because no matter how bleak things seem they can always be worse. Man gets divorced,he’s still not getting any and may have to pay (even though he has no job)child support/alimony.
I think it is interesting that women typically file for divorce first and it’s usually men that stop paying bills first.Men that cheat on their wives are probably also the same ones that will cheat their fellow man out of money.Here;s the real question-Do women that shirk their debts often end up cheating on their husbands? Probably no relation, just food for thought.

[Author]

Posts