Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do understand that people learn basic economics in school dont you?
ROTFL
IMO They used to! Now, if anyone 'learns' it, they lose the knowledge as soon as the carrot dangling on the end of the stick is in front of them.
Some people will never get it, and continue the cycle of stupidity indefinitely...
Um, my point is that it is "just business". The people walking away are not doing it to PERSONALLY hurt your friends, or anyone else. If in fact you get hurt (your property loses value, your next interest rate is higher because all rates are rising to cover losses) that is UNINTENTIONAL.
That's business.
Personal would be someone saying "I can barely afford this place - so I'm going to go buy a cheaper place while my credit is still good, then I'm going to let this place go into foreclosure just to jerk Bob around, because Bob's always been a crappy neighbor".
It always amazes me - its like the people who get so pissed off when they're cut off on the highway that they yell about it later that night -- when they guy who cut you off ceased to think about you the minute you faded from his mirror. It wasn't personal - the guy was a jerk.
Now, you may think these people who are walking away from homes, especially buying others to go to before they give up on the one they're currently in, are jerks. (a polite term). Or, you may think they are even worse than that.. but they are not doing it (90+%) to YOU. They are doing it to look out what is best for them.
If you would like the government to step in to do what is best for all (or what they decide is best for all) - then that will change the game completely, and make it less free market. But right now, its all legal..
When all I could afford was a trailer, I lived in one. My next door neighbor decided to buy a house - before they sold their trailer. they're credit was still good - they got approved. They tried to sell their trailer for 3 months before they decided to give up on it. So.. they were living comfortably in their newly purchased hosue (1970's cape cod) and the trailer next to mine became a repossessed unmowed piece of crap. Eventually some lovely people bought it, for about 1/10 the original purchase price and maintained in wonderfully. This went on throughout the neighborhood... and eventually when the time came, the trailer I bought new and extensively updated (for my own pleasure, not as an investment) was sold for a $40+ thousand dollar loss.
Or about 60% of the homes value.
Do I think what my neighbors did - walking out on their trailer obligation, while getting a "home" for themselves and hurting me and others who decided to stay - was right?
No, I think it was crap. But, I don't think it was personal. They did it because it was best for them. I got hurt as "collateral damage". That's business. Sucks, but that's how it is.
Do what you can to protect yourself, but stop wasting so much emotional energy being mad at these people. They don't even know you exist!
Last edited by Briolat21; 06-15-2008 at 03:49 PM..
Reason: incorrect wording
Um, my point is that it is "just business". The people walking away are not doing it to PERSONALLY hurt your friends, or anyone else. If in fact you get hurt (your property loses value, your next interest rate is higher because all rates are rising to cover losses) that is UNINTENTIONAL.
That's business.
Personal would be someone saying "I can barely afford this place - so I'm going to go buy a cheaper place while my credit is still good, then I'm going to let this place go into foreclosure just to jerk Bob around, because Bob's always been a crappy neighbor".
It always amazes me - its like the people who get so pissed off when they're cut off on the highway that they yell about it later that night -- when they guy who cut you off ceased to think about you the minute you faded from his mirror. It wasn't personal - the guy was a jerk.
Now, you may think these people who are walking away from homes, especially buying others to go to before they give up on the one they're currently in, are jerks. (a polite term). Or, you may think they are even worse than that.. but they are not doing it (90+%) to YOU. They are doing it to look out what is best for them.
If you would like the government to step in to do what is best for all (or what they decide is best for all) - then that will change the game completely, and make it less free market. But right now, its all legal..
When all I could afford was a trailer, I lived in one. My next door neighbor decided to buy a house - before they sold their trailer. they're credit was still good - they got approved. They tried to sell their trailer for 3 months before they decided to give up on it. So.. they were living comfortably in their newly purchased hosue (1970's cape cod) and the trailer next to mine became a repossessed unmowed piece of crap. Eventually some lovely people bought it, for about 1/10 the original purchase price and maintained in wonderfully. This went on throughout the neighborhood... and eventually when the time came, the trailer I bought new and extensively updated (for my own pleasure, not as an investment) was sold for a $40+ thousand dollar loss.
Or about 60% of the homes value.
Do I think what my neighbors did - walking out on their trailer obligation, while getting a "home" for themselves and hurting me and others who decided to stay - was right?
No, I think it was crap. But, I don't think it was personal. They did it because it was best for them. I got hurt as "collateral damage". That's business. Sucks, but that's how it is.
Do what you can to protect yourself, but stop wasting so much emotional energy being mad at these people. They don't even know you exist!
What amazes me is that people seem to be missing the key point: economics and free markets have nothing to do with right or wrong. Ethical outcomes can only come from manipulation.
Exactly. Right and Wrong are Moral Questions. Ethical Questions. Possibly even religious questions. Not Free Market questions. Can you interject ethics into business? Of course - and a lot of business schools are now in a rush to ad a slew of business ethics classes. But ultimately unless engaged in outright fraud or deceit (which so far the situation the OP suggests is totally legal, however irritating it might be) - business is just business. Ethically neutral.
America doesn't have a free market economy. In the real world, there isn't a single nation that has one. In fact, America has even less of one today than in the past.
Laissez-faire economics dictates the complete absence of government intervention-- no regulation, no subsidies and no price manipulation, so all this propping up of banks, loan modification for borrowers and bailouts for anybody takes us further and further away from any sort of idealized market economy. If we actually had a market economy, several big banks would be out of business, many homeowners would be out of houses and prices would self-correct as free market forces would work to bring supply and demand into balance. Ethics wouldn't be an issue, because those who made poor choices would be shaken out, just like they are in the stock market. Because the government is tinkering and manipulating, ethics are coming into play, since the intervention is selective and preferential to some parties. Trying to have it both ways-- pretending we're in a market economy and regulating like a mixed economy-- is spurring the cries of "foul."
And FYI, business schools have been teaching required Business Ethics courses since the '70s. It would be virtually impossible to get an MBA without passing at least one. Of course, most homeowners don't have MBAs...
America doesn't have a free market economy. In the real world, there isn't a single nation that has one. In fact, America has even less of one today than in the past.
Laissez-faire economics dictates the complete absence of government intervention-- no regulation, no subsidies and no price manipulation, so all this propping up of banks, loan modification for borrowers and bailouts for anybody takes us further and further away from any sort of idealized market economy. If we actually had a market economy, several big banks would be out of business, many homeowners would be out of houses and prices would self-correct as free market forces would work to bring supply and demand into balance. Ethics wouldn't be an issue, because those who made poor choices would be shaken out, just like they are in the stock market. Because the government is tinkering and manipulating, ethics are coming into play, since the intervention is selective and preferential to some parties. Trying to have it both ways-- pretending we're in a market economy and regulating like a mixed economy-- is spurring the cries of "foul."
And FYI, business schools have been teaching required Business Ethics courses since the '70s. It would be virtually impossible to get an MBA without passing at least one. Of course, most homeowners don't have MBAs...
Nonsense - Unregulated capitalism leads to exactly what just occured. The capitalist optimizes profits beyond all good sense.
Appropriately regulated capitalism appears to work reasonably well. But without a regulatory environment you get these neat disasters. Capitalist do exactly what they are supposed to do...and you now see the result.
My point was this and only this: We do not live in a free market economy. Nobody schooled in economics thinks that we do. A market economy is predicated on an absolute lack of government intervention, and the interest rate roulette and big bank bailouts alone preclude that.
If you think textbook economics is wrong, you're certainly entitled to debate that, but can you not present your viewpoint without dismissing somebody else's opinions as "nonsense"? Why are you always so rude? Whenever you enter a thread, I generally move on, so it's about that time.
My point was this and only this: We do not live in a free market economy. Nobody schooled in economics thinks that we do. A market economy is predicated on an absolute lack of government intervention, and the interest rate roulette and big bank bailouts alone preclude that.
If you think textbook economics is wrong, you're certainly entitled to debate that, but can you not present your viewpoint without dismissing somebody else's opinions as "nonsense"? Why are you always so rude? Whenever you enter a thread, I generally move on, so it's about that time.
In the context of this thread a discussion of theoretical economics would be out of place. If you were advocating a more laissez faire approach to mortgages and the RE market I stand by my remark. Which is it?
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,838,455 times
Reputation: 6438
One could argue that the jerk is out to nail you...you + everyone else who doesn't agree with his world view.
Rape doesn't hurt YOU either....if you're not the one raped.
Or does it? After all, the guy just wanted some sex. It's not like he grabbed you in a dark alley and tore your pants off. He tore some one else's pants off. "Thank god that wasn't me. That would've sucked.", you think to yourself.
I see the point, though. Legality and ethics are two very different subjects. In some countries, rape is part of the folklore of the local populace. (See Zimbabwe and Albinism) We (at least, I hope, we) are horrified that someone would take another by force. It's all relative to the context of the situation. Right is not always right. Wrong is not always wrong. But...fair is always...fair. It's all relative to the morals (and sometimes the religious standards) of the beholder. It might even be relative to time.
I have a friend who is black. I am white. 100 years ago we might've been working together, but in a very different way. Did morals change? Did time change morals or standards? If not time, then if slavery was not wrong then, why isn't it wrong now? It wasn't considered to be wrong in the Bible...it was actively encouraged!
Another example; homosexuals in Iran. There are none; per their leader. NONE. Because it's illegal for them to be homosexual. So....they simply aren't. Case closed. Next question, please. Depending on one's moral standard, you might think "Good for Iran." or "Yeah...right."
It is all relative to YOUR moral standard.
Personally, I think no one made them buy a home...and if they did sign a contract, then they are bound by that contract. That contract was offered to them in good faith. And they **** on it, wiped their *** with it and gave it to me, for me...my wife...and my two kids to bear...all because of their OWN PERSONAL DECISION. Where is it written that I must take care of the results of their decisions? Where do we draw the line? That is the question that I'd like to see answered.
Read the thread again. The contract provides for a default. So they do follow the contract.
Your moral code does not apply to another. The contract applies to those who enter into it. And default is a contract termination provided for in the contract and controlled by State law.
If you don't like it talk to you State Legislators.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
bless their hearts
