21 Jan 08
If you contract to buy anything, including homes, with payments you can't afford. If a lending house is foolish or underhanded enough to give you a loan you can't repay. Both of you deserve to suffer the consequences and all financial losses.
Let the reckless gamblers loose their investment. Let lending institutions who practice unsound lending go out of business. If the general economy take a hit in the short term, removing these illigitimate participants from business will make the economy stronger in the long term.
Do not reward bad behaviour. No government should become involved, it will only embolden the miscreants and this faulty business practice will continue. It's not the governments responsiblility to be a nanny!
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI do have a solution though. To drive up property values dupply must be decreased. Simply identify those in danger of losing there houses to foreclosure and burn their houses down. The bank can recover the loss by selling the kids of the destitute as forced labor. I imagine you could get $15K for even the smallest children, but, I expect most banks would rent them out for road works, ditch digging, etc... The irresponsible paretns are on there own... or you could put them in a ring to fight it out with other riff raff for fully paid mortgages. Deathmatches for housing would be apopular game show I'm sure.
They are equivalent. Discuss.
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by MacSwainHEY! You said this already...
If you contract to buy anything, including homes, with payments you can't afford. If a lending house is foolish or underhanded enough to give you a loan you can't repay. Both of you deserve to suffer the consequences and all financial losses.
Let the reckless gamblers loose their investment. Let lending institutions who practice unsound lending go out o ...[text shortened]... ulty business practice will continue. It's not the governments responsiblility to be a nanny!
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by MacSwainYou smacked that right on the nose!! Well, stated. They made that cake, I invite them to eat a big ole slice it.
If you contract to buy anything, including homes, with payments you can't afford. If a lending house is foolish or underhanded enough to give you a loan you can't repay. Both of you deserve to suffer the consequences and all financial losses.
Let the reckless gamblers loose their investment. Let lending institutions who practice unsound lending go out o ...[text shortened]... ulty business practice will continue. It's not the governments responsiblility to be a nanny!
PS, it is "John Galt", not Gault. I' currently reading "Atlas Shrugged", which fits in nicely with this topic.
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by MacSwainSpeaking of repetition -- who remembers the Savings and Loan crisis (1986-1995)? Lincoln Savings. Silverado Savings and Loan.
Yes..I did. And, if third thread is started with this subject...I shall repeat it once more!
Among the reasons for that crisis is listed "imprudent real estate lending." And only ten years ago, too.
Did the S&L bailout lead investors to down-weight the risks associated with real estate investment and help set up the latest crisis?
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm all for welfare housing.
They are equivalent. Discuss.
Obviously you don't want situations like in the council estates in Edinburgh or something, so social housing has to split up amongst bought housing. Mixed areas create better social conditions for all.
Also lots of green, parks and things to do for teenagers.
21 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirshav...you mellowing out these days? What happened to the outlyer shav that was 3 standard deviations from the mean?
I'm all for welfare housing.
Obviously you don't want situations like in the council estates in Edinburgh or something, so social housing has to split up amongst bought housing. Mixed areas create better social conditions for all.
Also lots of green, parks and things to do for teenagers.
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat if there were a proven correlation between "social housing" and crime? Don't you think people should be able to choose to avoid crime if that should be the case?
I'm all for welfare housing.
Obviously you don't want situations like in the council estates in Edinburgh or something, so social housing has to split up amongst bought housing. Mixed areas create better social conditions for all.
Also lots of green, parks and things to do for teenagers.