Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

[SillyWilly]

In that case, they wouldn't lose their home and there's no problem. But plenty of people who follow the advice of their banks or financial advisers and were told they were doing the right thing may stand to lose their home through something that is essentially no fault of their own.

No one forced them to sign on the dotted line. They chose to. If your financial adviser gave you bad advice, fire his ass, and then sue him. But the responsibility for buying in the end is nobody's but yours. After all, you're the one paying the mortgage every month, not your financial adviser or real estate broker.

[cfimages]

We don't blame the patient when the doctor is wrong or gives bad advice.
We don't blame the home owner when the electrician screws up or gives bad advice.
We don't blame the passengers when the pilot makes a mistake.

Yet you want to blame the everyday person when their financial adviser gives bad advice.

Makes no sense.

[GuyInTaiwan]

We do if the doctor says, "this is risky" and the patient still tries it, doesn't follow the prescription instructions, or doesn't disclose an allergy or use of another prescription drug.

We do if someone tinkers with the wiring themselves, lies about the state of the house, etc.

We do if someone flies Zimbabwe Airways, doesn't mention that he has an existing medical condition that can be exaccerbated by flying, or uses electronic equipment during take-off or landing (or engages in anything else that is prohibited) such that it interferes with the operation of the aircraft.

Best of nine, perhaps?

[cfimages]

I said a doctor being wrong or giving bad advice. You reply with an example of a doctor giving good advice and the patient not following it. Completely different situations - in fact they are completely opposite.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest, you've dug yourself a big enough hole.

[SillyWilly]

We don't blame the patient when the doctor is wrong or gives bad advice.
We don't blame the home owner when the electrician screws up or gives bad advice.
We don't blame the passengers when the pilot makes a mistake.

Yet you want to blame the everyday person when their financial adviser gives bad advice.

Makes no sense.

Who's comparing apples and bananas now?

Buying a house is nothing like going to the doctor, fixing electrical problems or taking a flight. In none of these will you be held accountable by law to make payments for 20 years+.

Also, the patient should have consulted a more competent doctor. So yes, the patient is partly responsible for his bad choice of doctor. After all, not all doctors are equally competent. Not all airlines are equally safe, and not all electricians are equally trustworthy. Ignorance is no excuse. Take some responsibility for your own decisions, for god's sake. Again, you should have known the risks involved. We don't live in a fairy tale world.

In all the above cases restitution is possible through legal action. Same with financial advisers.

[GuyInTaiwan]

Dodging the question again? Once again, a person living in a house and a person being a speculator with that house are not mutually exclusive.

Best of eleven?

SillyWilly has also addressed your latest attempt at diversion.

[cfimages]

Dodging the question again? Once again, a person living in a house and a person being a speculator with that house are not mutually exclusive.

Best of eleven?

SillyWilly has also addressed your latest attempt at diversion.

Once again, go and read what I said and you'll find your answer. My actual words not the words you imagined.

[GuyInTaiwan]

If it's an investor or speculator trying to make a quick profit, then yes. They gambled and lost. Take them away.

But if it's the family home and it's all they've got then a solution must be found. Stretch the 20 year loan out over 30 if need be (with interest calculated based on 20). Tax the profits of the greedy who cheated the system and won. Whatever is necessary.

You not only wrote that, but quoted it a second time. In the first paragraph, you mention speculation. In the second paragraph, you either absolve single home owners of speculation or class such people as not being speculators.

So no, you haven't answered the question.

I'd say we're up to best of thirteen, but this is beginning to remind me of a joke:

A man goes into the forest to shoot a bear with a rifle. Just as he is about to shoot the bear, it disappears. The man gets a tap on the shoulder. It's the bear. The bear offers him a choice: get mauled or perform fellatio.

The following day, the man comes back with a shotgun, convinced he'll get the bear this time. Once again, he gets the tap on the shoulder.

So, he comes back with a machine gun this time. Once again, the tap on the shoulder.

The next day, he comes back with a bazooka. He gets a tap on his shoulder. The bear stops and says, "You don't come here for the hunting, do you?"

[cfimages]

As I clearly state, if it's the family home and it's all they've got another solution must be found.


I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. It doesn't say they get off scot-free, it doesn't say they've been absolved of responsibility. It simply says another solution must be found so that they are not thrown onto the streets.

It might be the bank taking the house and providing alternative housing for them - the bank takes a million dollar house and provides them a 250000 house for example.

It might be a restructuring of the mortgage to add an extra ten years to it in order to minimize the monthly repayment.

It could be something else entirely.

What it is not is making a family homeless. That should never be an option and anyone who believes it should be deserves nothing but contempt.

[headhonchoII]

In practice that is socialist, there is nothing wrong with supporting some socialist programs, all governments do in reality. Even Taiwan , one of the worlds most capitalist countries has some very strong socialist programs like the National health system . Housing is a basic human right , it should not be left only to banks and speculators big and small, otherwise you can get market capture where people are forced to pay above the odds to maintain a minimum living standard. Property booms which go on for a long time act in this manner, unfortunately many government officials profit from this so try to keep things frothy and bring in more fools, whether people who genuinely want to buy a house for themselves or people who want to make quick money.
The US does have families that are homeless living in motels, it's pretty messed up when it gets to that stage.

So it's balance in all things and I would rather live in a state where a few people work the system than a state where there is no support at all for families.
Balance is required in all things.