4 ms·

The banks voluntarily lent money way beyond the means of the ability of Greece to pay. That was foolish. They shouldn't take a loss on their foolishness? Onl

The banks voluntarily lent money way beyond the means of the ability of Greece to pay. That was foolish. They shouldn't take a loss on their foolishness? Only one party of the transaction should suffer for the foolish loans? Predatory lending is not what happened in the case of Greece. the validity of that concept is not relevant in this case. I know what consent of the governed means. I don't know what it has to do with any of my comments. All I've said is that there are two parties in borrowing money. Both have responsibilities and both should suffer consequences for bad decisions.

woodman 11y ago
Again, if this was an investment - where payoff is proportional to risk then this would be a different matter. But we are talking about more than that, as legally binding obligations and contingency plans where established long before any money traded hands. So what, everything leading up to that point should be ignored? There is a reason why bankruptcy is viewed as the option of last resort, it is because the consequences to the bankrupt party are long lasting - nobody trusts them anymore. What do you think would happen if you defaulted on a loan from your bank? Collateral would be collected, wages would be garnished, you wouldn't be able to secure credit, etc. Why is this any different? Consent of the governed is relevant because you were waving about the suffering of the Greeks, who according to the popular political idea, are actually responsible for their own suffering. Also, if you think the EU isn't suffering over this - I'd like to direct your attention to the EUR/USD exchange rate.
- yequalsx 11y ago
  A loan is an investment. Like almost all formal investments there are rules, laws, and contracts involved. When an investment goes bad both parties tend to suffer. When I defaulted on my mortgage the bank got the house and I bought another one for a much cheaper price. The bank lost money. It happens with investments. That's part of the risk. I still secure credit and have a 750 credit rating even with a default on my record. My credit card company still trusts me. I've suffered no long term consequences other than that I can't get another mortgage for 5 years. The point of me writing the above is try to show that defaulting on loans is not a black/white issue. It's not either or. There are shades of gray sometimes. And most certainly, when a bad loan is made both parties should suffer consequences.
  - woodman 11y ago
    It is strange that you recognize the bank's right to remedial action in taking your house, but don't appear to apply the same logic to the Greek situation. You even recognize the fact that the bank suffered due to their mistake of giving you money, but you don't see the rest of the EU eating the shit sandwich that is the Greek financial crisis? Your personal story, while interesting, is certainly outside the norm. We don't have debtors' prison, but this sort of thing can have multigenerational consequences.
    - yequalsx 11y ago
      Nowhere have I indicated that Greece shouldn't suffer for their profligate borrowing. I mentioned that the banks should suffer as well. Nothing more, nothing less. Implicit in my posts is the belief that the banks haven't suffered proportionate to their recklessness.

woodman 11y ago

Again, if this was an investment - where payoff is proportional to risk then this would be a different matter. But we are talking about more than that, as legally binding obligations and contingency plans where established long before any money traded hands. So what, everything leading up to that point should be ignored? There is a reason why bankruptcy is viewed as the option of last resort, it is because the consequences to the bankrupt party are long lasting - nobody trusts them anymore. What do you think would happen if you defaulted on a loan from your bank? Collateral would be collected, wages would be garnished, you wouldn't be able to secure credit, etc. Why is this any different? Consent of the governed is relevant because you were waving about the suffering of the Greeks, who according to the popular political idea, are actually responsible for their own suffering. Also, if you think the EU isn't suffering over this - I'd like to direct your attention to the EUR/USD exchange rate.

yequalsx 11y ago
A loan is an investment. Like almost all formal investments there are rules, laws, and contracts involved. When an investment goes bad both parties tend to suffer. When I defaulted on my mortgage the bank got the house and I bought another one for a much cheaper price. The bank lost money. It happens with investments. That's part of the risk. I still secure credit and have a 750 credit rating even with a default on my record. My credit card company still trusts me. I've suffered no long term consequences other than that I can't get another mortgage for 5 years. The point of me writing the above is try to show that defaulting on loans is not a black/white issue. It's not either or. There are shades of gray sometimes. And most certainly, when a bad loan is made both parties should suffer consequences.
- woodman 11y ago
  It is strange that you recognize the bank's right to remedial action in taking your house, but don't appear to apply the same logic to the Greek situation. You even recognize the fact that the bank suffered due to their mistake of giving you money, but you don't see the rest of the EU eating the shit sandwich that is the Greek financial crisis? Your personal story, while interesting, is certainly outside the norm. We don't have debtors' prison, but this sort of thing can have multigenerational consequences.
  - yequalsx 11y ago
    Nowhere have I indicated that Greece shouldn't suffer for their profligate borrowing. I mentioned that the banks should suffer as well. Nothing more, nothing less. Implicit in my posts is the belief that the banks haven't suffered proportionate to their recklessness.