Main > Everything Else

Black monday coming up?

<< < (13/17) > >>

ChadTower:

--- Quote from: shmokes on October 08, 2008, 03:34:02 am ---You know who else shouldn't have been entering those contracts?  The people who do understand them.  Knowledge is not irrelevant.  It is the difference between manslaughter and murder.  Between negligence and battery.  Which brings me nicely to . . .

--- End quote ---


I have never excused the people who did understand them.  In fact I specifically included them in my scope if you go back and read my posts.  Note I did mention the people who bought McMansions they couldn't afford.  In general those people did understand and they thought it was acceptable risk.  The people who didn't get it, usually, were the lower income folks stretching to buy a house at all.  That is the story around here, anyway.  Every low income foreclosure story you read here begins with "They didn't tell me it was risky" and ends with "another example of a victim of predatory lending."

What I'm saying is that the borrowers are just as accountable as the lenders.  I'm tired of people blaming only the lender end of this dual sided equation.  Your example, BTW, is about liability, not accountability.  We're not talking about who the law says is liable.  We're talking about who is literally accountable and we both know they don't overlap in this situation.

shmokes:
I disagree.  I see no reason why a person who is no more accountable should be more liable.  In my mind accountability means explain yourself and accept punishment.  The accept punishment part doesn't differ from liability.  If you want to strain at gnats I suppose you might argue that there's less of an explain yourself component in liability, but that doesn't change anything here.  The person who does something evil has more explaining to do than the person who does something stupid.  The person who does something calculated to hurt others has more explaining to do than the person who does something that only hurts himself.

The borrowers are not just as accountable as the lenders.  They both are accountable.  They both are to blame.  But the lenders are a damned sight more of each.

ChadTower:

--- Quote from: shmokes on October 08, 2008, 09:18:22 am ---I disagree.  I see no reason why a person who is no more accountable should be more liable.  In my mind accountability means explain yourself and accept punishment.  The accept punishment part doesn't differ from liability.  If you want to strain at gnats I suppose you might argue that there's less of an explain yourself component in liability, but that doesn't change anything here.  The person who does something evil has more explaining to do than the person who does something stupid.  The person who does something calculated to hurt others has more explaining to do than the person who does something that only hurts himself.

The borrowers are not just as accountable as the lenders.  They both are accountable.  They both are to blame.  But the lenders are a damned sight more of each.

--- End quote ---

Liability is individual - accountability is not.  Stop thinking like an attorney.  Am I really liable for Joe Smith's bad mortgage?  Why, then, should I share the punishment?  Joe Smith, his mortgage holder, and all of the investment bankers who traded it are accountable for the garbage economy we now have to operate in.  I didn't take out an irresponsible mortgage and yet here I am smack in the middle of their punishment.

patrickl:

--- Quote from: ChadTower on October 08, 2008, 09:35:31 am ---Liability is individual - accountability is not.  Stop thinking like an attorney.  Am I really liable for Joe Smith's bad mortgage?  Why, then, should I share the punishment?  Joe Smith, his mortgage holder, and all of the investment bankers who traded it are accountable for the garbage economy we now have to operate in.  I didn't take out an irresponsible mortgage and yet here I am smack in the middle of their punishment.

--- End quote ---
Because if you don't share the "punishment" then the damage might be even greater.

Suppose your neigbour builds a house and it's not up to code. Even so bad that it might tip over and fall on yours. He can't afford to fix the house or tear it down in a safe way. You can either help him break it down or wait for it to tumble on your house.

ChadTower:

--- Quote from: patrickl on October 08, 2008, 10:00:50 am ---Suppose your neigbour builds a house and it's not up to code. Even so bad that it might tip over and fall on yours. He can't afford to fix the house or tear it down in a safe way. You can either help him break it down or wait for it to tumble on your house.

--- End quote ---


That isn't any different.  Dude did a stupid thing and everyone pays for it.  I don't understand your point.  Is it that the innocent should share the punishment of those guilty of massive negligence? 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version