Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
ParticipantXBoxBoy, well said.
Those who think that the damage to society from people engaging in these money-for-nothing schemes is concentrated on rich fat bankers who deserve it should think again – most of the damage will be paid for, through govt intervention, by other taxpayers and savers (using future inflation as a silent but very effective tax on savers). Banks are already almost all insolvent. Any additional losses caused by this kind of unethical (but legal) behavior will have to be made up for by the government, who will take it from some of us.
As for the “threat” about trashing the kitchen: I am sure the FA was smart enough to phrase it more subtly while still communicating very effectively how much power the homeowner had to reduce the value of the collateral in a way that would make it impractical for the bank to prosecute.
ParticipantXBoxBoy, well said.
Those who think that the damage to society from people engaging in these money-for-nothing schemes is concentrated on rich fat bankers who deserve it should think again – most of the damage will be paid for, through govt intervention, by other taxpayers and savers (using future inflation as a silent but very effective tax on savers). Banks are already almost all insolvent. Any additional losses caused by this kind of unethical (but legal) behavior will have to be made up for by the government, who will take it from some of us.
As for the “threat” about trashing the kitchen: I am sure the FA was smart enough to phrase it more subtly while still communicating very effectively how much power the homeowner had to reduce the value of the collateral in a way that would make it impractical for the bank to prosecute.
ParticipantXBoxBoy, well said.
Those who think that the damage to society from people engaging in these money-for-nothing schemes is concentrated on rich fat bankers who deserve it should think again – most of the damage will be paid for, through govt intervention, by other taxpayers and savers (using future inflation as a silent but very effective tax on savers). Banks are already almost all insolvent. Any additional losses caused by this kind of unethical (but legal) behavior will have to be made up for by the government, who will take it from some of us.
As for the “threat” about trashing the kitchen: I am sure the FA was smart enough to phrase it more subtly while still communicating very effectively how much power the homeowner had to reduce the value of the collateral in a way that would make it impractical for the bank to prosecute.
June 30, 2009 at 8:10 PM in reply to: Nouriel Roubini: Help for homeowners – Cut their Principal #422785Participant[quote=svelte]Wait…Roubini, the very person that many on this board worshipped just a few short months ago, is touting a position (reducing principal) that many on this board think is the work of the devil?
Blasphemy![/quote]
Correct. I respect Roubini for his correct forecasting of the advent and depth of a recession. I don’t respect him for tossing moral hazard and fairness over the wall.
June 30, 2009 at 8:10 PM in reply to: Nouriel Roubini: Help for homeowners – Cut their Principal #423017Participant[quote=svelte]Wait…Roubini, the very person that many on this board worshipped just a few short months ago, is touting a position (reducing principal) that many on this board think is the work of the devil?
Blasphemy![/quote]
Correct. I respect Roubini for his correct forecasting of the advent and depth of a recession. I don’t respect him for tossing moral hazard and fairness over the wall.
June 30, 2009 at 8:10 PM in reply to: Nouriel Roubini: Help for homeowners – Cut their Principal #423293Participant[quote=svelte]Wait…Roubini, the very person that many on this board worshipped just a few short months ago, is touting a position (reducing principal) that many on this board think is the work of the devil?
Blasphemy![/quote]
Correct. I respect Roubini for his correct forecasting of the advent and depth of a recession. I don’t respect him for tossing moral hazard and fairness over the wall.
June 30, 2009 at 8:10 PM in reply to: Nouriel Roubini: Help for homeowners – Cut their Principal #423361Participant[quote=svelte]Wait…Roubini, the very person that many on this board worshipped just a few short months ago, is touting a position (reducing principal) that many on this board think is the work of the devil?
Blasphemy![/quote]
Correct. I respect Roubini for his correct forecasting of the advent and depth of a recession. I don’t respect him for tossing moral hazard and fairness over the wall.
June 30, 2009 at 8:10 PM in reply to: Nouriel Roubini: Help for homeowners – Cut their Principal #423523Participant[quote=svelte]Wait…Roubini, the very person that many on this board worshipped just a few short months ago, is touting a position (reducing principal) that many on this board think is the work of the devil?
Blasphemy![/quote]
Correct. I respect Roubini for his correct forecasting of the advent and depth of a recession. I don’t respect him for tossing moral hazard and fairness over the wall.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Participantbriansd, 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.
-
AuthorPosts
