Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM in reply to: Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan. #433700July 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM in reply to: Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan. #434011
patientrenter
Participant“There are no innocent[s] here.”
That I can agree with.
July 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM in reply to: Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan. #434080Participant“There are no innocent[s] here.”
That I can agree with.
July 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM in reply to: Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan. #434246Participant“There are no innocent[s] here.”
That I can agree with.
ParticipantCA renter, TG put it very well in another post. People who “do the right thing” are the ones you’d be happy to share a beer with, and that’s about all we can decide to do.
Until now, I have felt quite content to live out my upbringing, which emphasized morals/ethics over minimal legality. I felt that I might lose out a lot in the short run, but only a little in the long run, and the satisfaction of doing the “right thing” made that long term loss OK. But when a very large % of all that I contribute to society (as represented by my earnings and savings) gets transferred to people who acted totally irresponsibly and to my direct detriment, and who lived it up big while I was carefully denying myself lots of goodies, it forces me to re-think.
Can I overcome that moral imperative I was raised with? If I do, the lesson I take from what’s happened is that I can have a great deal more materially. It’s a lousy incentive scheme. I do realize that, as people like me start to make the decision to turn to the dark side, our leaders will be yukking it up about ethics and morals and all that. But when it counted, when decisions had to be made about whether vast amounts of money would be transferred to people who acted irresponsibly, those same politicians said Yes, and screw the Moral Hazard issue. I won’t forget.
ParticipantCA renter, TG put it very well in another post. People who “do the right thing” are the ones you’d be happy to share a beer with, and that’s about all we can decide to do.
Until now, I have felt quite content to live out my upbringing, which emphasized morals/ethics over minimal legality. I felt that I might lose out a lot in the short run, but only a little in the long run, and the satisfaction of doing the “right thing” made that long term loss OK. But when a very large % of all that I contribute to society (as represented by my earnings and savings) gets transferred to people who acted totally irresponsibly and to my direct detriment, and who lived it up big while I was carefully denying myself lots of goodies, it forces me to re-think.
Can I overcome that moral imperative I was raised with? If I do, the lesson I take from what’s happened is that I can have a great deal more materially. It’s a lousy incentive scheme. I do realize that, as people like me start to make the decision to turn to the dark side, our leaders will be yukking it up about ethics and morals and all that. But when it counted, when decisions had to be made about whether vast amounts of money would be transferred to people who acted irresponsibly, those same politicians said Yes, and screw the Moral Hazard issue. I won’t forget.
ParticipantCA renter, TG put it very well in another post. People who “do the right thing” are the ones you’d be happy to share a beer with, and that’s about all we can decide to do.
Until now, I have felt quite content to live out my upbringing, which emphasized morals/ethics over minimal legality. I felt that I might lose out a lot in the short run, but only a little in the long run, and the satisfaction of doing the “right thing” made that long term loss OK. But when a very large % of all that I contribute to society (as represented by my earnings and savings) gets transferred to people who acted totally irresponsibly and to my direct detriment, and who lived it up big while I was carefully denying myself lots of goodies, it forces me to re-think.
Can I overcome that moral imperative I was raised with? If I do, the lesson I take from what’s happened is that I can have a great deal more materially. It’s a lousy incentive scheme. I do realize that, as people like me start to make the decision to turn to the dark side, our leaders will be yukking it up about ethics and morals and all that. But when it counted, when decisions had to be made about whether vast amounts of money would be transferred to people who acted irresponsibly, those same politicians said Yes, and screw the Moral Hazard issue. I won’t forget.
ParticipantCA renter, TG put it very well in another post. People who “do the right thing” are the ones you’d be happy to share a beer with, and that’s about all we can decide to do.
Until now, I have felt quite content to live out my upbringing, which emphasized morals/ethics over minimal legality. I felt that I might lose out a lot in the short run, but only a little in the long run, and the satisfaction of doing the “right thing” made that long term loss OK. But when a very large % of all that I contribute to society (as represented by my earnings and savings) gets transferred to people who acted totally irresponsibly and to my direct detriment, and who lived it up big while I was carefully denying myself lots of goodies, it forces me to re-think.
Can I overcome that moral imperative I was raised with? If I do, the lesson I take from what’s happened is that I can have a great deal more materially. It’s a lousy incentive scheme. I do realize that, as people like me start to make the decision to turn to the dark side, our leaders will be yukking it up about ethics and morals and all that. But when it counted, when decisions had to be made about whether vast amounts of money would be transferred to people who acted irresponsibly, those same politicians said Yes, and screw the Moral Hazard issue. I won’t forget.
ParticipantCA renter, TG put it very well in another post. People who “do the right thing” are the ones you’d be happy to share a beer with, and that’s about all we can decide to do.
Until now, I have felt quite content to live out my upbringing, which emphasized morals/ethics over minimal legality. I felt that I might lose out a lot in the short run, but only a little in the long run, and the satisfaction of doing the “right thing” made that long term loss OK. But when a very large % of all that I contribute to society (as represented by my earnings and savings) gets transferred to people who acted totally irresponsibly and to my direct detriment, and who lived it up big while I was carefully denying myself lots of goodies, it forces me to re-think.
Can I overcome that moral imperative I was raised with? If I do, the lesson I take from what’s happened is that I can have a great deal more materially. It’s a lousy incentive scheme. I do realize that, as people like me start to make the decision to turn to the dark side, our leaders will be yukking it up about ethics and morals and all that. But when it counted, when decisions had to be made about whether vast amounts of money would be transferred to people who acted irresponsibly, those same politicians said Yes, and screw the Moral Hazard issue. I won’t forget.
July 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM in reply to: Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan. #433463Participantanalyst, 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.
July 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM in reply to: Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan. #433666Participantanalyst, 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.
July 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM in reply to: Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan. #433976Participantanalyst, 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.
July 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM in reply to: Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan. #434048Participantanalyst, 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.
July 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM in reply to: Ethical considerations (none) for defaulting on non-recourse loan. #434211Participantanalyst, 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.
ParticipantI don’t think that people who have spent a lifetime believing that doing the right thing pays off – or at least, pays off enough – will all change their behaviors overnight. But as they plan and make their moves over the next 10-20 years, they will remember who got massive breaks, and who paid for those breaks.
It will take quite a bit of time, though, for all that to play out, and for people to change habits of a lifetime in response. People who borrowed vast amounts of money and didn’t repay their loans got massive breaks, but the investment losses from the failure to repay haven’t been felt by the ultimate beneficiaries of those investments. Current and future pensioners relying on pension funds that invested in mortgages have yet to feel the losses. Owners of life insurance policies and annuities from companies that invested in mortgages have yet to feel the pain. To the extent that mortgage loan forgiveness will be engineered by inflation, then all those who saved more in dollars than they borrowed will be hurt. To the extent that bailouts are granted, future individual taxpayers will pay.
Few of these effects have been felt yet by individuals, much less reflected on. So far, only some intermediary institutions that invest our money have felt much impact. But the real impact will be on individuals, and it will be felt for many years. When that impact has been fully absorbed, I think you will see significant changes in behavior. So far, all we’ve seen are the giveaways. When we feel the takeaways, people will change.
-
AuthorPosts
