3 ms·

Suppose some ostensibly "unforeseen" but avoidable* disaster befell your neighbors, and they got together to rob you and your friends in the chaos. But you don'

Suppose some ostensibly "unforeseen" but avoidable* disaster befell your neighbors, and they got together to rob you and your friends in the chaos. But you don't want to part with your property. Should you (would you) be willing to "split the difference" or "compromise" with them? We can live without these incompetent fly-by-night money men. Bailing them out sustains and rewards their incompetence. * There were honest banks like BB&T that /chose/ not to get involved in these shady deals

swombat 18y ago
If I have a choice between compromising with them or seeing my neighbourhood turn into a ghetto, I think I'll choose compromise. Won't you? Remember in this case we're not looking at one isolated element - this is just one big global neighbourhood. If it turns into a ghetto, we're all still living there.
- anamax 18y ago
  Foreclosed houses are houses that can be sold to folks who can afford them. You know these folks. They've been saving for a house and watching the market run away from them. Now that prices have dropped, they can afford to buy IF we don't insist on taking their money and giving it to the folks who couldn't handle their existing mortgage keep the house.
  - BrandonM 18y ago
    I wish I had more upvotes for this post. We are so busy debating the effects on banks loaning to each other that we sometimes ignore the responsible people here. The responsible way to buy a house is to save for it. The realistic way is to save a substantial portion and get a fixed-rate loan that you can definitely afford. It will never be impossible to get such a loan from a standard "Home Loan & Savings" bank, because savings accounts can support such loans (provided, of course, that people are saving, but I believe I established this with the "save a substantial portion" part). Making low-rate-variable-interest credit less attainable is not a problem, it's a solution to our current problem that has everyone living beyond their means, with an unfathomable percentage of their earnings going to creditors.

swombat 18y ago

If I have a choice between compromising with them or seeing my neighbourhood turn into a ghetto, I think I'll choose compromise. Won't you? Remember in this case we're not looking at one isolated element - this is just one big global neighbourhood. If it turns into a ghetto, we're all still living there.

anamax 18y ago
Foreclosed houses are houses that can be sold to folks who can afford them. You know these folks. They've been saving for a house and watching the market run away from them. Now that prices have dropped, they can afford to buy IF we don't insist on taking their money and giving it to the folks who couldn't handle their existing mortgage keep the house.
- BrandonM 18y ago
  I wish I had more upvotes for this post. We are so busy debating the effects on banks loaning to each other that we sometimes ignore the responsible people here. The responsible way to buy a house is to save for it. The realistic way is to save a substantial portion and get a fixed-rate loan that you can definitely afford. It will never be impossible to get such a loan from a standard "Home Loan & Savings" bank, because savings accounts can support such loans (provided, of course, that people are saving, but I believe I established this with the "save a substantial portion" part). Making low-rate-variable-interest credit less attainable is not a problem, it's a solution to our current problem that has everyone living beyond their means, with an unfathomable percentage of their earnings going to creditors.