4 ms·

The article I linked to is not fiction. Do you have reason to believe that the attorney who wrote it was lying? And yes, I think the homeowners there pretty aw

The article I linked to is not fiction. Do you have reason to believe that the attorney who wrote it was lying? And yes, I think the homeowners there pretty awful. But the banks didn't determine that they were awful before they acted in bad faith; they acted in bad faith from the get-go, for everyone, whether or not their actions merited such treatment. And from where I sit, it seems like the banks and servicers are the ones who completely failed to do any due diligence and then blamed the economy when their unsustainable loans proved, well, unsustainable. The average person is functionally innumerate. They are going to make poor decisions regarding quantitative matters, especially quantitative matters couched in ways that are deliberately obfuscated. This is not true of the average bank. I expect better from them.

tptacek 16y ago
It's not fiction. But it's McSweeney's. It wasn't edited for accuracy or logic or fact-checking or bias; it was edited to make it read well. I like McSweeney's probably almost as much as you do, but would hesitate to cite it in an argument about economics! Your other two grafs don't actually rebut anything I said. Yes. Banks bad. Very bad! Also: require Thomas to sit on hold to wait to talk to someone in Bangalore about mortgage. Ridiculous fees, too! Bad! Unfortunately: still not OK to defraud them. Contracts with bad evil banks? Still valid.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  It wasn't edited for accuracy or logic or fact-checking or bias In general, I do not expect main stream publications to be able to edit articles regarding economics. Journalists and editors are astonishingly ignorant of basic economics, to say nothing of statistics or law. There's a reason that economics professor Dean Baker keeps an entire blog devoted to correcting the idiocies and distortions found in traditional reporting (see http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/ http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/ ); it is the same reason that economics professor Brad Delong regularly lambastes major newspapers on his blog by chanting "why, oh why can't we have a better press corps?" (see http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/better_press_corps/ http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/better_press_corps/ ). So the fact that this article didn't appear in the Washington Post (where I've read "fact-checked" articles which presumed that inflation does not exist) doesn't really trouble me. It is written by an attorney and officers of the court are generally subject to sanction if they misrepresent cases. I like McSweeney's probably almost as much as you do Um, I don't read McSweeny's; I read this article because it was linked from an economics/policy blog I respect. Unfortunately: still not OK to defraud them. I don't believe the behavior in question falls under fraud statutes. This is surprising: generally we expect corporations to act in their best interest taking full advantage of their rights under the law, even if doing so violates the spirit of the law. How odd that we apply such different standards to individuals.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Your argument here seems to boil down to, "the Washington Post has inadequate editorial standards for business reporting, so we should be happy to cite outlets that have literally no editorial standards for business reporting." Sorry, I disagree. But you should read McSweeney's. It often pretty excellent.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      It is not just the WAPO. I've seen the same appalling ignorance in many publications. I've also talked to journalists and I feel very confident in saying that people in journalism generally don't have the skills needed to fact checking in this area. Beyond that, "fact checking" as traditionally done is a very narrow activity that allows all manner of deceptions to be published. Your childlike faith in the utility of traditional news organizations to ensure accuracy by fact-checking is charming, but also ridiculous. And McSweeny's certainly does have editorial standards. Libel is still a crime, which both McSweeny's and the attorney who wrote the article are very much aware of.

tptacek 16y ago

It's not fiction. But it's McSweeney's. It wasn't edited for accuracy or logic or fact-checking or bias; it was edited to make it read well. I like McSweeney's probably almost as much as you do, but would hesitate to cite it in an argument about economics! Your other two grafs don't actually rebut anything I said. Yes. Banks bad. Very bad! Also: require Thomas to sit on hold to wait to talk to someone in Bangalore about mortgage. Ridiculous fees, too! Bad! Unfortunately: still not OK to defraud them. Contracts with bad evil banks? Still valid.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
It wasn't edited for accuracy or logic or fact-checking or bias In general, I do not expect main stream publications to be able to edit articles regarding economics. Journalists and editors are astonishingly ignorant of basic economics, to say nothing of statistics or law. There's a reason that economics professor Dean Baker keeps an entire blog devoted to correcting the idiocies and distortions found in traditional reporting (see http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/ http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/ ); it is the same reason that economics professor Brad Delong regularly lambastes major newspapers on his blog by chanting "why, oh why can't we have a better press corps?" (see http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/better_press_corps/ http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/better_press_corps/ ). So the fact that this article didn't appear in the Washington Post (where I've read "fact-checked" articles which presumed that inflation does not exist) doesn't really trouble me. It is written by an attorney and officers of the court are generally subject to sanction if they misrepresent cases. I like McSweeney's probably almost as much as you do Um, I don't read McSweeny's; I read this article because it was linked from an economics/policy blog I respect. Unfortunately: still not OK to defraud them. I don't believe the behavior in question falls under fraud statutes. This is surprising: generally we expect corporations to act in their best interest taking full advantage of their rights under the law, even if doing so violates the spirit of the law. How odd that we apply such different standards to individuals.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 16y ago
  Your argument here seems to boil down to, "the Washington Post has inadequate editorial standards for business reporting, so we should be happy to cite outlets that have literally no editorial standards for business reporting." Sorry, I disagree. But you should read McSweeney's. It often pretty excellent.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    It is not just the WAPO. I've seen the same appalling ignorance in many publications. I've also talked to journalists and I feel very confident in saying that people in journalism generally don't have the skills needed to fact checking in this area. Beyond that, "fact checking" as traditionally done is a very narrow activity that allows all manner of deceptions to be published. Your childlike faith in the utility of traditional news organizations to ensure accuracy by fact-checking is charming, but also ridiculous. And McSweeny's certainly does have editorial standards. Libel is still a crime, which both McSweeny's and the attorney who wrote the article are very much aware of.