NY Times economics reporter talks about his mortgage...

Post #308,706 by Another Scott 5/14/09 7:54:06 PM Reply	NY Times economics reporter talks about his mortgage... http://www.nytimes.c...&pagewanted=print Astounding... Cheers, Scott.
Post #308,729 by Ashton 5/15/09 6:39:54 AM Reply	'Economics' reporter, eh? Yep, a stunner. Guess we know a bit more about the NYT's standards for eptness, and maybe something about the attraction to 'econ' ... as a topic almost anyone can fake well-enough for a modrin audience. Can't manage either sympathy or empathy for these perpetual children and their terminal affluenza infection. What I can't guess, is why he's writing about his/her utter failure to recognize a standard Murican dream-state, that in which these naifs dwell. Bet he's not on staff much longer. Unless of course -- all their employees are cut from the same cloth.. Sackcloth? (Ashes are free.) 'Credit crisis'? Hardly; seems more like a tale of tawdry-grade dumbth. At the velocity-of-money: a 9 on that famous Laughter Curve? Delayed Gratification -- it's what's for breakfast. Now.
Post #308,734 by boxley 5/15/09 8:10:48 AM Reply	whats even worse, 460k for a shytehouse why I never owned in the tampa clearwater area. Couldnt make myself pay that much for crap
Post #308,737 by malraux 5/15/09 8:27:53 AM Reply	No sympathy here. Lots of people tried to pressure us into huge mortgages when we were looking for a house 4 years out of college, and I was the only one with an income. But there was a simple piece of advice out there at that time, freely and widely available: "Don't spend more than you earn." Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #308,743 by jay 5/15/09 9:15:17 AM Reply	I have a bit of sympathy Not much mind you, but I have a bit of sympathy. People in love do foolish things, and the bank should have stopped them from getting the first loan. But running up their credit card bills and taking advantage of credit overdraft loans are stupidity. You don't have to be an economist to keep away from that, anybody with the least sense of math should realize that is a bad idea. And when they did get in trouble, going to Bob for help was the wrong solution. A more sensible financial adviser would have suggested selling the house and moving into a cheaper one. Use the difference to pay off their debt and set some aside. They probably could have gotten all of their problems in order in one step if they had done that. Jay
Post #308,765 by malraux 5/15/09 5:20:53 PM Reply	No sympathy for them, or the bank. They got the debt they asked for, the bank got another bad loan. Both parties were responsible for their own problems, and not for each other's. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #308,751 by dmcarls 5/15/09 11:55:51 AM Reply	Related comment on this article On another blog (CalculatedRisk) one of the replies in the comment section made an astute observation in response to the NYT article: " Gavshire Hathaway wrote on Thu, 5/14/2009 - 5:08 pm The forces our reckless leaders are playing with should not be taken lightly. And I'm not just talking about tinkering with our economy, our money supply, asset prices, and other financial constructs. What we need to be concerned about is the blurring of the distinction between right and wrong, and more importantly the incentives for being a hard-working, productive member of society. What is galling to me is that there are no consequences for people who have lived above their means, were overly greedy, or gambled and lost. In a capitalistic society there must be rewards for the prudent and punishment for the imprudent. Safety nets are fine, and necessary to encourage productive investment, but they must not blur the distinction between success and failure. And that is what is happening today. Those that have failed due to recklessness are being made whole, and are quite possibly still in a better position than those who made smart, prudent financial decisions. See banker salaries, homeowners that live rent free for 9-12 months, bailouts for failed companies, government funded pension plans for union employees, I could go on and on and on. A government that oversteps its bounds in determining winners and losers, particularly to the extent that it defies the moral compass of those governed, is destined to fail spectacularly." Bad behavior should not be rewarded, and yet it is, over and over.
Post #308,753 by Another Scott 5/15/09 12:17:02 PM Reply	Agree, up to a point. I don't think most people like Ed are being rewarded; rather they haven't yet suffered what might be expected as a reasonable "punishment". I'm sure he and his family will eventually pay a substantial price for their foolishness (like losing their home and having their credit be a genuine mess for years). The bankers and brokers who helped create this mess are probably suffering to some extent as well (except for the CEOs and partners at the TARP-funded firms). But I keep waiting for Cuomo and Holder to start bringing fraud and racketeering charges against the big players.... http://www.mortgagefraud.org/ Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!