Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Let me chime in here and say I don't feel a bit of pity for the borrowers...
In 2007 I was making 15 dollars an hour working as a chemist's intern, working 40 hours a week. I was offered so many credit cards, loans, mortgages (including for a 300K house) it was ridiculous. I was told repeatedly I could easily afford the intro payments on the 300K house and it "wouldn't go up that much" after the intro period. I knew better. I have a darn good credit score at 24 and I have it because I know how much I can afford and how much I can't. The banks and such are businesses, their job is to sell you loans so they can make a profit off of the interest. It's your job to be the discerning consumer and say "No, I know I can't afford it so I won't get into it." Blaming them is like going having the money to buy a 600 and getting talked into buying a Desmosedici RR. That's your own dang fault IMO.

LOL I have a darn good credit score too, but it has nothing to do with good judgement, just a history of credit.

Glad you didn't get tied up in the scam, though. I know a couple of people here who have lost their homes - just lost their jobs unexpectedly and the finance companies swooped in and foreclosed like the predators they are. It ain't nice.

sv-wolf wrote:Hi HYPERR

Legally, yes, the rich can have their homes foreclosed on just like the poor, but are you being serious? It is inevitably those with less fallback capital - the less wealthy - who are much more frequently foreclosed on and when it happens they generally suffer far more than the rich as a result.

The only thing I asserted was that the responsible consumer pays for the irresponsible consumer's error. Your assertion here that the poor is foreclosed more often than the rich and that they suffer more of the consequences may or may not be true I don't know, but that was never part of my argument. Your are arguing about two different groups here, the rich and the poor. I am arguing about two groups also, the responsible consumer and the irresponsible consumer. Either of your group, the rich or the poor can be a subset of either of my two groups. My original statement criticized the irresponsible consumer. I don't care if they are rich or poor, it does not matter. Being poor is not an excuse for being foreclosed. Weather you are a $500,000/yr executive having his Ferrari repossessed and your $2,000,000 mansion foreclosed or a $30,000/yr security guard having his Camry repossed and his $150,000 condominium foreclosed, the bottomline is either way you are a irresponsible consumer who bit off more than he could chew and you are a burden on society.

Wrider wrote:Let me chime in here and say I don't feel a bit of pity for the borrowers...
In 2007 I was making 15 dollars an hour working as a chemist's intern, working 40 hours a week. I was offered so many credit cards, loans, mortgages (including for a 300K house) it was ridiculous. I was told repeatedly I could easily afford the intro payments on the 300K house and it "wouldn't go up that much" after the intro period. I knew better. I have a darn good credit score at 24 and I have it because I know how much I can afford and how much I can't. The banks and such are businesses, their job is to sell you loans so they can make a profit off of the interest. It's your job to be the discerning consumer and say "No, I know I can't afford it so I won't get into it." Blaming them is like going having the money to buy a 600 and getting talked into buying a Desmosedici RR. That's your own dang fault IMO.

Absolutely correct. I don't see how anyone can have sympathy for a grown man or woman who gets talked into taking out a $500,000 mortgage on a $70,000 year salary. We are talking about an adult here not a 12 year old child. One has to take responsiblities for his/her actions.

HYPERR wrote:

sv-wolf wrote:Hi HYPERR

Legally, yes, the rich can have their homes foreclosed on just like the poor, but are you being serious? It is inevitably those with less fallback capital - the less wealthy - who are much more frequently foreclosed on and when it happens they generally suffer far more than the rich as a result.

The only thing I asserted was that the responsible consumer pays for the irresponsible consumer's error. Your assertion here that the poor is foreclosed more often than the rich and that they suffer more of the consequences may or may not be true I don't know, but that was never part of my argument. Your are arguing about two different groups here, the rich and the poor. I am arguing about two groups also, the responsible consumer and the irresponsible consumer. Either of your group, the rich or the poor can be a subset of either of my two groups. My original statement criticized the irresponsible consumer. I don't care if they are rich or poor, it does not matter. Being poor is not an excuse for being foreclosed. Weather you are a $500,000/yr executive having his Ferrari repossessed and your $2,000,000 mansion foreclosed or a $30,000/yr security guard having his Camry repossed and his $150,000 condominium foreclosed, the bottomline is either way you are a irresponsible consumer who bit off more than he could chew and you are a burden on society.

Hi HYPERR

I'm not interested in casting blame on this person or that person for making a foolish investment. That strikes me as being pointless and just a little bit self-indulgent. It is a terrible habit of humanity to crow at the misfortune of others or to take the moral high ground and complain about their "irresponsibility". The lower we can make others appear in our own mind, the taller we ourselves feel. It seems to be a need of ours. There is plenty enough misery to come out of this without casting blame on people we have never met and whose motives we know nothing about.

Actually, if there had not been a sudden imbalance in the commodity markets just at the wrong moment and a signficant fall in the level of house prices, the social commentators and moralists might all have been saying now what an astute deal those bankers and mortgagees had cut. There was a fall, so we'll never know.

So, it seems like we're still not communicating. Maybe that's my fault. I tend to come at things too obliquely sometimes.

I think you said what you really meant right at the end of your last post. "Either way you are a irresponsible consumer who bit off more than he could chew and you are a burden on society". That really is the moralist talking. It also assumes a view of society and how it operates that, as I said earlier, is delusional and highly suspect.

Frankly, the unproductive wealthy, those who own and use capital for their own purposes, are far more of a burden on society than your failed mortgagees ever were. And they are not only a direct economic burden; their personal interests place catastrophic distortions on all rational processes of wealth production for securing the interests of society as a whole. But that is not their issue. As long as we accept the institutions that support them in their role, then we have no-one to blame but ourselves.

Blaming others might make us feel better, but it won't fix the problem.



Cheers

Richard

sv-wolf wrote:As long as we accept the institutions that support them in their role, then we have no-one to blame but ourselves.

Blaming others might make us feel better, but it won't fix the problem.

Umm that is exactly what I have been saying as well... That these people have noone to blame but themselves.

LOL. Game well played!