OT: Deadbeat nation

tgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. =A0That's

True to a degree, If that were the case, why charge for the paper in the first place?

yourmortgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank.  That's

Making people pay for it means it goes to people who might actually read it. Lots of papers (including some dailies) are given away for free (often to subway commuters and the like) and, of course, most of the thousands of industrial mags are free ("controlled circulation"). There's also a "perceived value" thing. It's not a bad business model- variable costs are (roughly) covered by the subscriptions, AFAIUI.

mortgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. That's

So it's ok to be a thief in the Carolinas?

Hugely different. Technically, if renting, even if you've spent cent for cent exactly the same, you end up in front, because NOT losing a house tends to leave your credit check on good terms.

Not if you're renting, nor if you've lost the house (though technically while you're paying it off, it still belongs to the bank, no you). Or I'm missing something.

You're right that it is not to be expected, however, if an entire generation does it (as have the baby boomers here), it most certainly DOES change how the following generation(s) do things.

rtgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. =A0That's

Not at all. Most people in the Carolina's could care less about the NYT.

s very

rming,

ng -- =A0

th and

as-is

any

of

and

ge, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. =A0That's

It's not welching if they honor the agreement and walk away when they stop making the mortgage payments. It is stealing, if they stay there knowing that they aren't paying the mortgage.

to

ay

t's very

forming,

oing -- =A0

alth and

on

ion

t as-is

ch any

nd of

ce and

gage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. =A0That's

Sure it is. Suppose you want to buy a house, the bank helps you by lending you the money, and you promise to pay them back. Then you buy it, and the appraised value falls, so you decide not to pay. That's the bank's fault?

If we retroactively change mortgages to mean "If the value rises I'll take the gain, if the value falls then you take the loss," then no one will lend money. Socially, that's a great harm. We're kind of there now.

Twenty years ago my brother stretched very hard and bought a house. It turned out it was at a price peak and he promptly was underwater, for a decade. What did he do? The honorable thing: he paid his mortgage, every ... single ... month. No whining, no complaining.

Sometimes people default for reasons beyond their control. That's still a default, but at least it's partially understandable. You belly up, take your lumps and society eventually forgives you. Bailing because you're underwater, to skip out on money you borrowed and owe? That's welching.

True.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Hopefully you hold businesses to the same standard...

---Joel

Its not like corporations haven't filed for bankruptcy get out from under pension or retiree healthcare obligations. They unload their responsibility on the public (Medicaid or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation). They come out the other side of the process with a nod and a wink from Wall Street. And a clean credit rating.

yourmortgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. That's

If that is typical of the ethics there, I'm glad that I've never lived there. I have no use for the NYT, but I'm not going to steal from them.

yourmortgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. That's

When the terrorists lay waste to NYC they'll lay waste to NYT as well :-) ...Jim Thompson

Sure, and historically, we did. The difference today is that the lender sues businesses, but is letting consumers default scot-free.

James

le.

ng

n't

ty

California, even more so. But for the ultimate example, we have to look to the federal government: Social Security. Will they welch? You bet--they've got no choice.

That's not a "nod and a wink" in the sense of moral approval or endorsing the behavior, just a rational, cold appraisal--the entity without the obligation load is, obviously, a much better risk.

James Arthur

Interesting point, certainly. I would think lenders aren't suing consumers because they figure it's like trying to squeeze water out of a rock, but perhaps "big bad rich banks" being perceived as "beating up" on "little helpless consumers" plays into it as well.

I don't see the culture of our country moving radically back towards greater responsibility (in the "less welching" sense) any time soon. It'll be interesting to see what the November elections hold. I wouldn't be surprised if you're going to be voting for more Tea Party candidates than republicans? :-)

---Joel

ge

ad to

epay

it's very

erforming,

going -- =A0

health and

sion

ation

for

but as-is

much any

eir

(And of

lice and

rtgage, you should bail so you could stick it to the bank. =A0That's

age, every ... single ... month. =A0No whining, no complaining.

The contract specifies the conditions. It is an unsecured load, and if you don't pay, the bank takes the property. Simple.

Hope it happens soon. If however, that day does happen, Gov't best be willing to end retirement benefits for all of it's current and former employees. But they won't do that.

The Fed will hold this off as long as possible. But when this eventually happens, it's pretty much over.

mers

"Moral hazard" is a main reason--the banks have insurance, so they aren't the one ultimately taking the risk. We are. Hence Freddie, Fannie, and friends' on-going hemorrhage. That's us, paying peoples' mortgages.

Another more complicated reason is: banks can't afford to. To do so means they'd have to recognize losses which Mr. Obama has said they can otherwise hide. It's called "mark-to-model." To take the losses would overwhelm their reserves.

If you wonder that 2 million foreclosures brought down the system, yet it's "fixed" today with three times that number, you might want to reconsider the premise.

Third, even if they wanted to, the government's restraining them, and the government has usurped unto itself ample power to do so.

ter

prised

ns?

Yep, though remember: the Tea Party movement is a movement, not a party, so they could well endorse candidates of all stripes.

To me it's about spending responsibly, within our means, on things that make a difference. That makes government more affordable, creates jobs, and pulls millions up from the ditches. We all gain. Following the Constitution would be nice, since it assures most of that.

Presently we're spending irresponsibly, far beyond our means, on things that make problems worse(!). We have to stop. Or, like Greece, we'll be stopped. There's no need for that--let's fix it.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Simple solution. Allow a company to raise the price of it's product and demand that everyone pay for it. You can opt out, but you have to go to prison. Doesn't quite work in the private sector, does it?