This is truly disturbing-Updated
Lance on Jan 30 2008 at 11:57 am | Filed under: Economics, Society
youwalkaway.com
I really have little to add to my declaration of extreme discomfort.
Much more on this here.
Sphere: Related Content
Your Ad Here
3 Responses to “This is truly disturbing-Updated”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
The View From the Bluff: Lance’s Economic and Finance Blog
Lance, all this seems like just one more extension of the “me, me, me” society that has developed with the baby boom generation.
Commitments? Paying back debts? One’s word?
Too often, they seem to have vanished. Now people focus on “what’s in it for me?” and “what can I get away with?”
We reap what we sow.
From the link you posted:
“If banks can make “business decisions” to ignore risks, to lend money with no down payment, and fire people at at the first sign of trouble without any remorse, why shouldn’t consumers be able to do the same?”
Yes, like in Southern California, people really had no choice to commit… so, in that regard they are acting the same way the bank did acted to them. I live in Southern Ca, we bought a home there and we committed to the most we could. I know that I personally wasn’t never ever gonna get into a flexible interest rate. But, you know, I come from the land of high interest rates, South America, so it was very clear to me, but not that so to my husband, and I imagine not so for a lot of people who never had lived a surge of interest rates that can totally ruin you.
The comments at the link were varied. On the one hand it is rather alarming to see a whole lot of people simply chose foreclosure as if it isn’t the least bit shameful. The idea that those people are responsible for making good business decisions, even when they don’t, makes a lot of sense. The idea that the banks should be responsible for business decisions makes sense *too*. A couple people pointed out that a foreclosure would impact a person’s reputation. Will it impact the bank’s reputation?
Where are the consequences to the banks of making loans guaranteed on property that isn’t worth the loan? Why are people *more* responsible than the lenders or those who purchased the loans?
The loans are secured with the property.
The banks agreed to this.
If the property isn’t worth the value of the loan then the bank really screwed up.
Because according to the contract, if payments aren’t made the bank owns the property. The bank made a purchase decision and ought to have to follow through on that.