[Rich Toscano]

SK – I used the term reckless in the context of homebuilders, which are huge beneficiaries of this policy. You are correct of course that some losses were not due to “recklessness” as such, but that doesn’t change the argument.

Let’s look at those other non-bubbly industries that have suffered. Within each of them, some were more careful than others. Some did the analysis and saw the damage that could potentially be done by a housing bubble burst. Some didn’t. In any given industry, there is a spectrum of good forecasting -> bad forecasting and caution -> less caution. This policy, by its nature, disproportionately rewards those who were less cautious in the good times, and whose forecasts were less accurate, than their rivals.

So yeah, reckless certainly doesn’t apply to everyone here, but it does reward risk taking at a time when people shouldn’t have taken risk, as well as rewarding lack of forecasting of and preparation for the downturn. That said, the reckless are the ones who are helped the most by it.

Whether you use the word reckless or not, this is most definitely not a “level playing field” situation (which was my argument to begin with).

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

SK – I used the term reckless in the context of homebuilders, which are huge beneficiaries of this policy. You are correct of course that some losses were not due to “recklessness” as such, but that doesn’t change the argument.

Let’s look at those other non-bubbly industries that have suffered. Within each of them, some were more careful than others. Some did the analysis and saw the damage that could potentially be done by a housing bubble burst. Some didn’t. In any given industry, there is a spectrum of good forecasting -> bad forecasting and caution -> less caution. This policy, by its nature, disproportionately rewards those who were less cautious in the good times, and whose forecasts were less accurate, than their rivals.

So yeah, reckless certainly doesn’t apply to everyone here, but it does reward risk taking at a time when people shouldn’t have taken risk, as well as rewarding lack of forecasting of and preparation for the downturn. That said, the reckless are the ones who are helped the most by it.

Whether you use the word reckless or not, this is most definitely not a “level playing field” situation (which was my argument to begin with).

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

SK – I used the term reckless in the context of homebuilders, which are huge beneficiaries of this policy. You are correct of course that some losses were not due to “recklessness” as such, but that doesn’t change the argument.

Let’s look at those other non-bubbly industries that have suffered. Within each of them, some were more careful than others. Some did the analysis and saw the damage that could potentially be done by a housing bubble burst. Some didn’t. In any given industry, there is a spectrum of good forecasting -> bad forecasting and caution -> less caution. This policy, by its nature, disproportionately rewards those who were less cautious in the good times, and whose forecasts were less accurate, than their rivals.

So yeah, reckless certainly doesn’t apply to everyone here, but it does reward risk taking at a time when people shouldn’t have taken risk, as well as rewarding lack of forecasting of and preparation for the downturn. That said, the reckless are the ones who are helped the most by it.

Whether you use the word reckless or not, this is most definitely not a “level playing field” situation (which was my argument to begin with).

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

SK – I used the term reckless in the context of homebuilders, which are huge beneficiaries of this policy. You are correct of course that some losses were not due to “recklessness” as such, but that doesn’t change the argument.

Let’s look at those other non-bubbly industries that have suffered. Within each of them, some were more careful than others. Some did the analysis and saw the damage that could potentially be done by a housing bubble burst. Some didn’t. In any given industry, there is a spectrum of good forecasting -> bad forecasting and caution -> less caution. This policy, by its nature, disproportionately rewards those who were less cautious in the good times, and whose forecasts were less accurate, than their rivals.

So yeah, reckless certainly doesn’t apply to everyone here, but it does reward risk taking at a time when people shouldn’t have taken risk, as well as rewarding lack of forecasting of and preparation for the downturn. That said, the reckless are the ones who are helped the most by it.

Whether you use the word reckless or not, this is most definitely not a “level playing field” situation (which was my argument to begin with).

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I don’t believe this is a level playing field situation even if it applies to all businesses.

Let’s just take Bob Toll as an example. He took huge risks, accordingly made huge money during the boom, and then lost a lot in the bust.

Now contrast that to a business run by someone who wasn’t reckless. This hypothetical owner was more careful so had more modest profits in the boom, but then didn’t lose money in the bust. So this policy doesn’t benefit this business owner at all.

The net of it is that it benefits the homebuilder by subsidizing the losses he took for being reckless, but it doesn’t have a direct impact on the non-reckless.

So it is a question of bailing out the reckless (again). It’s not a level playing field because it largely rewards those who took huge, stupid risks, while not providing any help to those who did not.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I don’t believe this is a level playing field situation even if it applies to all businesses.

Let’s just take Bob Toll as an example. He took huge risks, accordingly made huge money during the boom, and then lost a lot in the bust.

Now contrast that to a business run by someone who wasn’t reckless. This hypothetical owner was more careful so had more modest profits in the boom, but then didn’t lose money in the bust. So this policy doesn’t benefit this business owner at all.

The net of it is that it benefits the homebuilder by subsidizing the losses he took for being reckless, but it doesn’t have a direct impact on the non-reckless.

So it is a question of bailing out the reckless (again). It’s not a level playing field because it largely rewards those who took huge, stupid risks, while not providing any help to those who did not.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I don’t believe this is a level playing field situation even if it applies to all businesses.

Let’s just take Bob Toll as an example. He took huge risks, accordingly made huge money during the boom, and then lost a lot in the bust.

Now contrast that to a business run by someone who wasn’t reckless. This hypothetical owner was more careful so had more modest profits in the boom, but then didn’t lose money in the bust. So this policy doesn’t benefit this business owner at all.

The net of it is that it benefits the homebuilder by subsidizing the losses he took for being reckless, but it doesn’t have a direct impact on the non-reckless.

So it is a question of bailing out the reckless (again). It’s not a level playing field because it largely rewards those who took huge, stupid risks, while not providing any help to those who did not.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I don’t believe this is a level playing field situation even if it applies to all businesses.

Let’s just take Bob Toll as an example. He took huge risks, accordingly made huge money during the boom, and then lost a lot in the bust.

Now contrast that to a business run by someone who wasn’t reckless. This hypothetical owner was more careful so had more modest profits in the boom, but then didn’t lose money in the bust. So this policy doesn’t benefit this business owner at all.

The net of it is that it benefits the homebuilder by subsidizing the losses he took for being reckless, but it doesn’t have a direct impact on the non-reckless.

So it is a question of bailing out the reckless (again). It’s not a level playing field because it largely rewards those who took huge, stupid risks, while not providing any help to those who did not.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I don’t believe this is a level playing field situation even if it applies to all businesses.

Let’s just take Bob Toll as an example. He took huge risks, accordingly made huge money during the boom, and then lost a lot in the bust.

Now contrast that to a business run by someone who wasn’t reckless. This hypothetical owner was more careful so had more modest profits in the boom, but then didn’t lose money in the bust. So this policy doesn’t benefit this business owner at all.

The net of it is that it benefits the homebuilder by subsidizing the losses he took for being reckless, but it doesn’t have a direct impact on the non-reckless.

So it is a question of bailing out the reckless (again). It’s not a level playing field because it largely rewards those who took huge, stupid risks, while not providing any help to those who did not.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Sorry JP, this is the only nearby date that works for me. However, there will be another one soon. I’ve wanted for a while to start doing these more often, but I was too buried with work for a while there to make it happen. From here on out I am hoping to do them pretty frequently as I think they are a lot of fun.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Sorry JP, this is the only nearby date that works for me. However, there will be another one soon. I’ve wanted for a while to start doing these more often, but I was too buried with work for a while there to make it happen. From here on out I am hoping to do them pretty frequently as I think they are a lot of fun.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Sorry JP, this is the only nearby date that works for me. However, there will be another one soon. I’ve wanted for a while to start doing these more often, but I was too buried with work for a while there to make it happen. From here on out I am hoping to do them pretty frequently as I think they are a lot of fun.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Sorry JP, this is the only nearby date that works for me. However, there will be another one soon. I’ve wanted for a while to start doing these more often, but I was too buried with work for a while there to make it happen. From here on out I am hoping to do them pretty frequently as I think they are a lot of fun.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Sorry JP, this is the only nearby date that works for me. However, there will be another one soon. I’ve wanted for a while to start doing these more often, but I was too buried with work for a while there to make it happen. From here on out I am hoping to do them pretty frequently as I think they are a lot of fun.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I will be there.
In the nude.[/quote]

We’d expect nothing less.

Rich

[Author]

Posts