3 ms·

It's a terrible idea mainly in that it is unfair to everyone who didn't drink the kool-aid and buy a house because the value was supposed to always go up. Not j

It's a terrible idea mainly in that it is unfair to everyone who didn't drink the kool-aid and buy a house because the value was supposed to always go up. Not just because wealthy people might profit. If there's ever another bailout, they should heavily regulate the people who gain something from it. Not as a punitive measure, but more like a statement of good faith. "If you bought these homes, surely that meant you intended to live in them. So as a condition of the bailout you can't sell them for more than X or rent them for more than Y." It seems drastic, but I can't see many other ways to approach fairness in that situation. But I don't think we've learned because people are still arguing over whether we should have just thrown the bankers in prison, like the system wouldn't just replace them with more bankers.

bradleyjg 9y ago
> It's a terrible idea mainly in that it is unfair to everyone who didn't drink the kool-aid and buy a house because the value was supposed to always go up. Not just because wealthy people might profit. It's a terrible idea for a lot of different reasons. Above all because it isn't a good idea. It doesn't come out of any kind of problem solving or optimization logic, just "wouldn't be awesome if I didn't have a mortgage anymore". > But I don't think we've learned because people are still arguing over whether we should have just thrown the bankers in prison, like the system wouldn't just replace them with more bankers. People are influenced by fear as well as greed. Of course the system would just come up with more bank executives. We'd want it to. But those bank executives would have something more to fear than just an earlier retirement than they had hoped for. Their greed would push them in one direction and their fear in the other. Hopefully the two would balance out to something closer to the social optimum. At the very least we should expect it to be closer than when there's nothing to fear at all.
- richardknop 9y ago
  Yes it’s a terrible and immoral idea. It basically means giving people with mortgages free houses. What about people who are renting? I wonder how they would feel if other people except them were given free houses from the government. It also means rewarding fiscal irresponsibility as people who took 90-100% mortgages on big houses and could barely afford repayments are going to be rewarded while fiscally responsible people who were renting and maybe saving for a deposit down the line get nothing.
  - disgruntledphd2 9y ago
    They get more house supply, at a much cheaper price. What tended to happen (at least in places without non-recourse loans) is that all of the people in houses pay way too much towards their mortgage, have to make sacrifices in other areas of their spending, and loads of retail/service employees get fired.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      Then rent like the rest of us. Don't take a mortgage if you can't afford it. Rent and save a bigger deposit so you can take mortgage with lower repayments. The idea that people should be rewarded for making poor choices / taking loans they cannot afford is really worrisome.
jessaustin 9y ago
But I don't think we've learned because people are still arguing over whether we should have just thrown the bankers in prison, like the system wouldn't just replace them with more bankers. Yes it is far better to let the banks fail. Then the system replaces the bankers, with no cost to taxpayers!

bradleyjg 9y ago

> It's a terrible idea mainly in that it is unfair to everyone who didn't drink the kool-aid and buy a house because the value was supposed to always go up. Not just because wealthy people might profit. It's a terrible idea for a lot of different reasons. Above all because it isn't a good idea. It doesn't come out of any kind of problem solving or optimization logic, just "wouldn't be awesome if I didn't have a mortgage anymore". > But I don't think we've learned because people are still arguing over whether we should have just thrown the bankers in prison, like the system wouldn't just replace them with more bankers. People are influenced by fear as well as greed. Of course the system would just come up with more bank executives. We'd want it to. But those bank executives would have something more to fear than just an earlier retirement than they had hoped for. Their greed would push them in one direction and their fear in the other. Hopefully the two would balance out to something closer to the social optimum. At the very least we should expect it to be closer than when there's nothing to fear at all.

richardknop 9y ago
Yes it’s a terrible and immoral idea. It basically means giving people with mortgages free houses. What about people who are renting? I wonder how they would feel if other people except them were given free houses from the government. It also means rewarding fiscal irresponsibility as people who took 90-100% mortgages on big houses and could barely afford repayments are going to be rewarded while fiscally responsible people who were renting and maybe saving for a deposit down the line get nothing.
- disgruntledphd2 9y ago
  They get more house supply, at a much cheaper price. What tended to happen (at least in places without non-recourse loans) is that all of the people in houses pay way too much towards their mortgage, have to make sacrifices in other areas of their spending, and loads of retail/service employees get fired.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    Then rent like the rest of us. Don't take a mortgage if you can't afford it. Rent and save a bigger deposit so you can take mortgage with lower repayments. The idea that people should be rewarded for making poor choices / taking loans they cannot afford is really worrisome.

jessaustin 9y ago

But I don't think we've learned because people are still arguing over whether we should have just thrown the bankers in prison, like the system wouldn't just replace them with more bankers. Yes it is far better to let the banks fail. Then the system replaces the bankers, with no cost to taxpayers!