On Jan 3, 2:08*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/2/2010 7:02 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
SNIP

And with it ... went the context of my post. Sigh.

You have such a thoroughly cultivated and deeply entrenched narrow
view of this world. *It's not amazing, actually, because it's not
rare, but ... still ....

So it is now a "narrow view of the world" that people signing
contracts ought to understand the content of their agreements? I'd say
this is more just simple common sense. Where does this end? If I enter
into a contract with my plumber (who has superior knowledge of
plumbing) can I then refuse to pay him in full because he "charged me
too much because I didn't understand the nature of plumbing*? It's
absurd, but that's effectively what you're arguing.

Ah, the slipper slope argument.

My "view of the world" incidentally is far less invasive of others
than yours appears to be. I don't want to engage in fraud, refuse to
abide by my commitments, blame others when things don't go my way, or
make others pay for what I want. This is hardly narrow, judgmental,
unkind, or mean. It's called being an adult.

With certain capacities and abilities that others may not have.

I understand that there are situations where agreements entered into
with good faith intentions cannot be met.

But seem NOT to understand how often good faith isn't a part of these
transactions.

But that's what bankruptcy
and asset recovery are for. It's hardly ethical to just wipe the slate
clean in favor of the borrower as if they are the injured party and
the lender is some monstrous beast.

Your labels, not mine.

BTW, I'd just love to see what these maxed out credit card accounts
were used for. Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but among the
folks I've observed abusing their credit it's simply not for a heart
valve replacement for Junior. It's for flat screen TVs, expensive
vacations, and luxury goods. It's hard for me to work up a lot of
sympathy for people that need to get their consumer fix to buy the
latest trinket who then go on to howl about the unfair and evil
lending practices of their banks.

What's the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in America?

In a transaction such as lending (former mortgage bank employee,
here ... way back when), you have two parties -- the borrower and the
lender.

While you can judge (I specifically chose that word. *It fits you
beautifully) that the borrower SHOULD "know better" or have a certain
level of basic financial sophistication ... the lender ABSOLUTELY DOES
know better AND have a much higher level of financial acumen.

So what? *There's a gun to the head of the borrower? *They have no
other choice?

Luckily, our system of laws looks at situations like these QUITE
differently than you do.

Most of the de-regulation of the lending industry was as a result of
huge, expensive, compelling lobbying efforts on behalf of the LENDERS,
who -- as a group -- felt like they were being short-changed by not
being able to make higher profit, higher risk loans to people to whom
they should never have MADE said loans.

Again, so what? *Absent government intervention that distorts the
market, these lenders would be being punished at this very moment
for their stupidity.

Free markets: It's like letting your children raise themselves.

And ... again ... while you may say that the borrowers SHOULD have
been somewhat sophisticated ... it's a certainty that the lenders
WERE.

I'm not all that sophisticated, but I do know one thing: I cannot
consistently spend more than I earn. *This is not complicated, it
is not sophisticated, it is not arcane, it is 6th grade math.

And marginally relevant -- if it's relevant at all.

They were simply greedy sons of bitches, is all.

That is correct. *They were, and I harbor no sympathy for
most of them. *If you have to borrow to keep a family member
alive, that's one thing. *But if you're borrowing so you can
have the latest Nintendo or a Rolex, you're an idiot
and deserve to be treated like one.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Fits your preconceived
notions of the world, I'll grant you, but ... please provide the data,
and ... ALL the data. I don't deny that some luxury purchases may
exist on the credit accounts of some who defaulted, but ... let's
review ALL the charges, shall we?

And now we're all paying for their avarice.

Remove those regulations (as was done, by both parties), and ... more
Social Darwinism.

OK, so one party was more informed than the other. I stipulate you are
entirely right. I still struggle to understand how this makes it OK
for the borrower to so so irresponsibly. *It isn't like they *couldn't*
have known better. *They just didn't bother to. Unlike the right wingers,

I don't see where I call it okay. What I see is Darwin in action. If
you don't stop the wolves from eating the rabbits, then they'll eat
the rabbits. It would be nice if parents, schools, families,
churches, and our society TAUGHT the rabbits to stay away from the
mouths of wolves, but ... not only don't they, but ... they teach the
rabbits how COOL it is to stare at the incisors of the wolf.

I
am NOT justifying absolutely anything the banks did. Where they
behaved badly, they ought to be held accountable. The problem here is
that *no one* is going to be held accountable. This administration has
already moved the downside from the banker to the taxpayer. Now it
proposes to pass laws like "credit card relief" that further relieves
bad behavior from individuals.

As opposed to the last administration, for example? It seems that
EVERY statement you make, and every statement you FAIL to make ...
points to ideology over objectvity. Again ... with all respect ...
you seem very bright, but you start with a premise, and then select
your points.

Understand that I'm not choosing sides here. Both borrower and lender
behaved like chimps. But that doesn't mean that they should be
insulated from the consequences of their actions. If anything, they
should face the music. This, sir, is not a defense of "Social
Darwinism". It is merely the expectation that people should be held to
their promises.

Half this country won't educate people. Half this country blames
poverty on addiction, stupidity, and sloth. Half this country won't
allow birth control to be taught in the schools. Half this country
won't allow abortions for unplanned pregnancies. Half this country
benefits from taking away all the jobs that the OTHER half USED to do,
and moving them overseas. Half this country wants to criminalize
frowning and extend prison terms. Half this country wants more than
300,000,000 guns in this country, etc., etc., etc.,

Half this country would MUCH rather abandon the other half to the
wolves. MUCH (not all) of what you say is a patent endorsement for
this philosophy.

In other nations, HALF this country would revolt -- armed, if
necessary.