How much responsibility do overzealous homeowners bear for the 08 crash?
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
Brown_Pride
All Star
they were sold. The sales pitch....
"we get you in right now with this ARM loan and in a year you can refinance into a 30 year fixed"
If you sell an idiot a gun and he shoots someone on accident because he doesn't know he has a gun capable of killing someone who's fault is it?
legally the idiots, but that begs the question should there be some type of lending practice that ensures people understand what the 30 page document they're signing actually says and even moreso what it means and all of it's potential iterations and clauses when faced with various scenarios. Do that and no one would own a home....
Don't do that and as we saw EVERYONE can own a home...if only for a little while.
FYI i don't have an answer just pointing out the obvious catch 22.
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
I oppose limit liability, and believe had shareholders and corporate execs been fully liable, we wouldnt have seen a quarter of the fukkery we did.
Still proposing nonsense because it fits in with your world-view huh? I take it you never read that book on the financial crisis that I recommended. As mentioned in the second post here, this entire problem could have been largely avoided had the rules that were set in place and worked for many decades been kept in place. We've already had a system that worked. How about instead of doing what you want, we just use that again?
Still proposing nonsense because it fits in with your world-view huh? I take it you never read that book on the financial crisis that I recommended. As mentioned in the second post here, this entire problem could have been largely avoided had the rules that were set in place and worked for many decades been kept in place. We've already had a system that worked. How about instead of doing what you want, we just use that again?
What about limited liability do you find desirable?
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
For what party?
Both.
I want to weigh the benefits against the cost, and see what we got.
Cause IMHO, removing/reducing the repercussions for bad business is a recipe for... bad business.
GetInTheTruck
Member
Some people were scammed some people knew what they were getting into and took the risk anyway. In any event the wicker took advantage of the ignorant, it is what it is.
ahomeplateslugger
Superstar
Still proposing nonsense because it fits in with your world-view huh? I take it you never read that book on the financial crisis that I recommended. As mentioned in the second post here, this entire problem could have been largely avoided had the rules that were set in place and worked for many decades been kept in place. We've already had a system that worked. How about instead of doing what you want, we just use that again?
mind dropping the name of the book?
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
Not taking part in this circular argument again. We had a blueprint that worked in the past and it can be supplemented quite well with increased capital requirements and better risk management standards for banks through Basel. The benefits being greater than the costs is self-evident when you look at the global economy and which areas have thrived utilizing these management structures.A bit technical but its very readable if you put the time in.
Except SOME (clearly not all) of what the banks did WAS legal.Another thing lost on all this is Napoleon defends the rich and powerful once again
It's like it doesn't even matter what it's about, his logical process is "well these people have all the power and money, they've got to be right"
"immoral" yes...
but DEFINITELY legal.
who is talking about that though?Deregulation + limited liability = a "capitalist's" dream
Push shyt onto people,
Be it an ARM, a CDO or any other 3 letter financial acronym
"The market will never go down".... for people who prey on other people's dreams and ignorance
Yep, def an ideology worth buffing cocks for, eh @DEAD7?
In what mind is someone who makes 50K a year taking out a loan on a 350K+ house?
We've all seen The Smartest Guys in the Book and Margin Call
Still proposing nonsense because it fits in with your world-view huh? I take it you never read that book on the financial crisis that I recommended. As mentioned in the second post here, this entire problem could have been largely avoided had the rules that were set in place and worked for many decades been kept in place. We've already had a system that worked. How about instead of doing what you want, we just use that again?
I'm talking about the consumers.
Ya'll can't help but steering this convo into CLEARLY shyt we all agree on that the banks were at fault for.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
It's legal to build a pipeline with cheap ass materials and be like
when it bursts but we're not lawyers arguing legality are we? We're arguing history and culpability and clearly the homeowners in relation to the banks are ants to bears.
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
Im just responding to his irrelevant commentary. Of course, if you took a loan out that you couldnt afford, you have personal responsibility. The root problems were much more structural and, in my ways, inevitable, though. A healthy financial system is in our best interests, so steering the conversation away from meaningful reform and focusing on the average citizen overextending himself in buying a house is a waste of our time.We've all seen The Smartest Guys in the Book and Margin Call
I'm talking about the consumers.
Ya'll can't help but steering this convo into CLEARLY shyt we all agree on that the banks were at fault for.
Its easy to say all this shyt in hindsight just like its easy to be an internet revolutionarywho is talking about that though?
In what mind is someone who makes 50K a year taking out a loan on a 350K+ house?
