4 ms·

Why wouldn't irresponsible home buyers be considered complicit?

by ankhmoop 18y ago

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
endtime 18y ago
I don't think comatose_kid ever said they shouldn't be. I think he just implied that not all home buyers are complicit.
- ankhmoop 18y ago
  If the e-mail author earned an income remotely commensurate with individual value produced rather than taking gross advantage of market inefficiencies while attempting to sidle all culpability when the market (somewhat) corrected, the implication's point would be valid.
  - jibiki 18y ago
    To commiserate is to share misery, the word you are looking for is commensurate. Your comment seems somewhat tangential to the argument. Are you saying that the financial crisis was in no way caused by consumer attitudes towards real estate?
  - comatose_kid 18y ago
    I have a hard time understanding why on a board that purports to attract entrepreneurs, we have so many people on this thread who are bashing the guy because he made more money than you might judge reasonable. (ps - I think you mean commensurate?)
    - plinkplonk 18y ago
      "we have so many people on this thread who are bashing the guy because he made more money than you might judge reasonable." attributing (bad) motives to others does not help make a strong argument, and you are probably wrong anyway. No one here has said they were "bashing" anyone because he made a tonne of money. When taxpayer dollars are put into a company that crashed and burned , there is a valid argument that they have some say on how their money is(or is not) spent. You think if a professional investor (say Warren Buffet) put his money into AIG, he would have no strings attached? (There are valid counter arguments to all these points but implying objectors are jealous/envious/evil is counterproductive). "On a board that purports to attract entrepreneurs" Entrepreneurs are fine with the idea that if their company crashes and burns they get nothing, so your juxtaposition is invalid.
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
      - comatose_kid 18y ago
        Plenty of people on this thread have commented on how much the guy makes and used it to undermine his argument. Given this, I'm not sure why you think the 'juxtaposition was invalid'. I didn't say that tax payers shouldn't have a say on how the money is spent. But that doesn't excuse Libby from breaking his promise to his senior staff.
        noonespecial 18y ago
        I think the whole point is that Libby now can't keep his promises because he ruined his company, in part, by making such promises. I could promise you a gold plated Mercedes for making me a sandwich. The difference is that I haven't got one, and once I've eaten the sandwich, I can't just show up and ask Congress to spot me one to give you.
comatose_kid 18y ago
So should we promise irresponsible homeowners a lump sum for a years' worth of their work and then at the end of the year not pay them?
- ankhmoop 18y ago
  Completing your analogy, I assume the entity responsible for hiring the homeowners has failed due to their own market failure, and government intervention has occurred solely (supposedly) for the purpose of preventing collapse of the world's financial markets?
  - comatose_kid 18y ago
    My exact point is - why would it matter? A contract is a contract. AIG isn't in bankruptcy, so shouldn't they honor commitments to their employees? Of course they can change compensation agreements going forward, but changing the rules for work that has been done is not right.

Why wouldn't irresponsible home buyers be considered complicit?

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

endtime 18y ago

I don't think comatose_kid ever said they shouldn't be. I think he just implied that not all home buyers are complicit.

ankhmoop 18y ago
If the e-mail author earned an income remotely commensurate with individual value produced rather than taking gross advantage of market inefficiencies while attempting to sidle all culpability when the market (somewhat) corrected, the implication's point would be valid.
- jibiki 18y ago
  To commiserate is to share misery, the word you are looking for is commensurate. Your comment seems somewhat tangential to the argument. Are you saying that the financial crisis was in no way caused by consumer attitudes towards real estate?
- comatose_kid 18y ago
  I have a hard time understanding why on a board that purports to attract entrepreneurs, we have so many people on this thread who are bashing the guy because he made more money than you might judge reasonable. (ps - I think you mean commensurate?)
  - plinkplonk 18y ago
    "we have so many people on this thread who are bashing the guy because he made more money than you might judge reasonable." attributing (bad) motives to others does not help make a strong argument, and you are probably wrong anyway. No one here has said they were "bashing" anyone because he made a tonne of money. When taxpayer dollars are put into a company that crashed and burned , there is a valid argument that they have some say on how their money is(or is not) spent. You think if a professional investor (say Warren Buffet) put his money into AIG, he would have no strings attached? (There are valid counter arguments to all these points but implying objectors are jealous/envious/evil is counterproductive). "On a board that purports to attract entrepreneurs" Entrepreneurs are fine with the idea that if their company crashes and burns they get nothing, so your juxtaposition is invalid.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - comatose_kid 18y ago
      Plenty of people on this thread have commented on how much the guy makes and used it to undermine his argument. Given this, I'm not sure why you think the 'juxtaposition was invalid'. I didn't say that tax payers shouldn't have a say on how the money is spent. But that doesn't excuse Libby from breaking his promise to his senior staff.
      - noonespecial 18y ago
        I think the whole point is that Libby now can't keep his promises because he ruined his company, in part, by making such promises. I could promise you a gold plated Mercedes for making me a sandwich. The difference is that I haven't got one, and once I've eaten the sandwich, I can't just show up and ask Congress to spot me one to give you.

comatose_kid 18y ago

So should we promise irresponsible homeowners a lump sum for a years' worth of their work and then at the end of the year not pay them?

ankhmoop 18y ago
Completing your analogy, I assume the entity responsible for hiring the homeowners has failed due to their own market failure, and government intervention has occurred solely (supposedly) for the purpose of preventing collapse of the world's financial markets?
- comatose_kid 18y ago
  My exact point is - why would it matter? A contract is a contract. AIG isn't in bankruptcy, so shouldn't they honor commitments to their employees? Of course they can change compensation agreements going forward, but changing the rules for work that has been done is not right.