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.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,789,978 times
Reputation: 6435
Advertisements
"It's just a business decision," says Linda Caoili, a Sacramento real-estate agent who is working with Ms. Augustine and others who are considering walking away from their mortgages. "If you're upside-down $250,000, why would you keep it? It just doesn't make sense."
"It's just a business decision," says Linda Caoili, a Sacramento real-estate agent who is working with Ms. Augustine and others who are considering walking away from their mortgages. "If you're upside-down $250,000, why would you keep it? It just doesn't make sense."
Now, when a loss mitigator and former vice president of a 650 agent operation says that.......that is interesting, is it not?
But they are right to some extent, aren't they? Pure free market economics can't be expected to generate ethical outcomes. If the oppurtunity cost (the ruined credit) is lower than the cost of sticking to the deal, why not bail? Big business does it all the time, except when there are regulations strong enough to prevent it.
But we're not in pure free market. We're not even in an impure free market. The puppetmasters are pulling strings right and left, manipulating interest rates and the money supply, issuing preferential bailouts, implementing selective loss mitigation.
That loophole needs to be closed. Walking away is bad enough; walking to a new house with clear intent to stick someone else with the old is another. This is exactly how we get over-regulated. When people can no longer regulate themselves, Big Brother steps in and monitors everything we do.
But we're not in pure free market. We're not even in an impure free market. The puppetmasters are pulling strings right and left, manipulating interest rates and the money supply, issuing preferential bailouts, implementing selective loss mitigation.
That loophole needs to be closed. Walking away is bad enough; walking to a new house with clear intent to stick someone else with the old is another. This is exactly how we get over-regulated. When people can no longer regulate themselves, Big Brother steps in and monitors everything we do.
That is exactly my point though. Their decision was based on economics, pure and simple. That is what economics supposes, that people act in their own self-interest. When that self-interest is detrimental to society we need more regulation. What I meant by pure free market was the decisions businesses and individuals make everday without regard to ethical standards, if we were in a pure free market such decisions would be even more common. You think drug dealers (much closer to a pure free market) stick to their word? Only if it's good for business.
To me, it is really sad when people don't honor their obligations, however great or small. What on earth are we teaching our children.........
as hubby says, it's easy to do what is easy, but harder to do what is right.
But we're not in pure free market. We're not even in an impure free market. The puppetmasters are pulling strings right and left, manipulating interest rates and the money supply, issuing preferential bailouts, implementing selective loss mitigation.
That loophole needs to be closed. Walking away is bad enough; walking to a new house with clear intent to stick someone else with the old is another. This is exactly how we get over-regulated. When people can no longer regulate themselves, Big Brother steps in and monitors everything we do.
Would closing that loophole be an example of over-regulation? I say no, but then again I think lending is under-regulated.
Well, yes, you're right, closing the loophole is just more regulation. But when lenders and borrowers are so clearly incapable of self-policing, and their actions can have such widespread negative repercussions, it seems almost inevitable. This continuing mortgage debacle has the capacity to bring the financial system to its knees. We need checks and balances to protect the financial infrastructure, so yes, we're probably moving toward regulation, whether we like it or not.
At some point, people's right to make their own business decisions-- ethical or otherwise--have to be checked, and that point is when their actions are causing harm to others. Mass foreclosures ripple throughout a wide pool, adversely impacting financial institutions, shareholders, the stock market and neighbors whose own home values plummet in response, placing them in financial jeopardy. One person's desire to game the system in the name of economic self-interest should be balanced with the negative effects everybody doing that would have on a globally intertwined financial structure. Shouldn't it?
Location: Halfway between Number 4 Privet Drive and Forks, WA
1,516 posts, read 4,582,527 times
Reputation: 677
Those people should NOT be able to own a home EVER again, no matter how long they live! They are too stupid to be homeowners.... This really pees me off!
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.