Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't bother. I've met people who believe outright fraud should be legal because consumers "know the risks".
🙁
I wonder why victim blame is so appealing cognitively... why would we be biased to say "that individual is an idiot" rather than "that individual was lied to"...
Originally posted by The Dark CloudI think you have a chip on your shoulder. You keep blaming one part, when everybody played their part. Saying the poor is not greedy because they have less is ridiculous. I've seen both ends.
You really have a chip on your shoulder. Why do you think we are a consumer driven society? There needs to be a correction, from all sides...but because those at the top have stolen the most they should now pay the most.
This "hate the rich" mindset in this thread has a bitter undertone.
Originally posted by inimalistSo they were entraped when they were lying on their loans and taking out more than they can afford? People who are dishonest in their companies should be punished accordingly.
let me try a different approachdo you think entrapment is a valid legal defense?
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosNo, fraud should not be legal and whatever company does that should pay the price. As I've said. But people who are ignorant, stupid, greedy, or dishonest should not be excused. Why do people want to blame others for their own problems?
Don't bother. I've met people who believe outright fraud should be legal because consumers "know the risks".
It's no different than fat people blaming restaurants for being fat. They chose to eat at the restaurant. This nation likes to play the blame game.
Originally posted by inimalist
🙁I wonder why victim blame is so appealing cognitively... why would we be biased to say "that individual is an idiot" rather than "that individual was lied to"...
I wonder why blaming others for one's own mistakes is so appealing? Because it's the easy way out. The people who do never learn. Like the people who re-defaulted on their loans six months later after they got a break.
The vast majority of people who get themselves in tons of debt do it to themselves. It doesn't "just happen" people who say that are making a copout and people like that never learn.
I said all people played a part, not just one. Stop treating people who have less money as innocent victims, it's really more of an insult than anything. It's like saying certain people are too stupid to know what's good for them.
Originally posted by inimalistI only noticed one or two people claiming that. Although I am inclined to believe that making college more accessible to the common people would dispel considerable naivety against an increasingly sophisticated criminal world. I should specify that I am in no way implying that I think criminals should get away with what they do.
🙁I wonder why victim blame is so appealing cognitively... why would we be biased to say "that individual is an idiot" rather than "that individual was lied to"...
Originally posted by Quark_666Well yes criminals should be in trouble for what they do, rich or poor. People shouldn't be bailed for what they do, rich or poor.
I only noticed one or two people claiming that. Although I am inclined to believe that making college more accessible to the common people would dispel considerable naivety against an increasingly sophisticated criminal world. I should specify that I am in no way implying that I think criminals should get away with what they do.
But people do need to educate themselves. Saying people are too stupid to protect themselves is insulting. Just like people who try to make it illegal to make fast food restaurants in poor areas. Like minorities are too stupid to know fast food is bad for them. They know what the food contains and they make choices based upon that. I don't believe in insulting people by pretending they are "too stupid" and need extra protection that the rest of us don't have.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think you have a chip on your shoulder. You keep blaming one part, when everybody played their part. Saying the poor is not greedy because they have less is ridiculous. I've seen both ends.This "hate the rich" mindset in this thread has a bitter undertone.
So they were entraped when they were lying on their loans and taking out more than they can afford? People who are dishonest in their companies should be punished accordingly. No, fraud should not be legal and whatever company does that should pay the price. As I've said. But people who are ignorant, stupid, greedy, or dishonest should not be excused. Why do people want to blame others for their own problems?
It's no different than fat people blaming restaurants for being fat. They chose to eat at the restaurant. This nation likes to play the blame game.
I wonder why blaming others for one's own mistakes is so appealing? Because it's the easy way out. The people who do never learn. Like the people who re-defaulted on their loans six months later after they got a break.
The vast majority of people who get themselves in tons of debt do it to themselves. It doesn't "just happen" people who say that are making a copout and people like that never learn.
I said all people played a part, not just one. Stop treating people who have less money as innocent victims, it's really more of an insult than anything. It's like saying certain people are too stupid to know what's good for them.
you convinced me
Originally posted by Quark_666
I only noticed one or two people claiming that. Although I am inclined to believe that making college more accessible to the common people would dispel considerable naivety against an increasingly sophisticated criminal world. I should specify that I am in no way implying that I think criminals should get away with what they do.
the mortgages that people were signing were so deliberately written that even regulators, people whose job it is to understand these documents, couldn't understand what they said
simply having a more educated population wouldn't have helped at all, unless part of that education is a degree in financial legalese, and even then, the contracts would be written in such a way that you still wouldn't understand them
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well yes criminals should be in trouble for what they do, rich or poor. People shouldn't be bailed for what they do, rich or poor.But people do need to educate themselves. Saying people are too stupid to protect themselves is insulting. Just like people who try to make it illegal to make fast food restaurants in poor areas. Like minorities are too stupid to know fast food is bad for them. They know what the food contains and they make choices based upon that. I don't believe in insulting people by pretending they are "too stupid" and need extra protection that the rest of us don't have.
now that is a strawman
Originally posted by inimalistBud, there have been people trying to push laws that prohibit restaurants in poor areas, and liquor stores. I say poor people can make all the decisions the rest of us can make, and they should be able to deal with the good and bad of it. No need to "shelter people from themselves".
now [b]that is a strawman [/B]
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I don't believe in insulting people by pretending they are "too stupid" and need extra protection that the rest of us don't have.
Huh? Your whole argument is that people are too stupid and have destroyed the economy (but that for some reason nothing should be done to stop them from destroying the economy because, uh, a healthy economy would be bad I guess).
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Bud, there have been people trying to push laws that prohibit restaurants in poor areas, and liquor stores. I say poor people can make all the decisions the rest of us can make, and they should be able to deal with the good and bad of it. No need to "shelter people from themselves".
nobody has suggested protecting people from themselves... hence the strawman
Originally posted by inimalistUm.... then who has a fighting chance of understanding their contract anyway?
the mortgages that people were signing were so deliberately written that even regulators, people whose job it is to understand these documents, couldn't understand what they saidsimply having a more educated population wouldn't have helped at all, unless part of that education is a degree in financial legalese, and even then, the contracts would be written in such a way that you still wouldn't understand them
Originally posted by inimalist
but like, it isn't reasonable for an average person to understand a mortgage that even the regulators themselves said were impossible to understand.
I disagree. The regulators were using hyperble, at best.
Originally posted by inimalist
Sure, maybe you say, "well, if you don't understand, don't sign", but what if you need a home for a child, etc.
This is why you rent.
If you don't know how to read, there is assistance for that. Even a damn stranger might offer help, if asked.
Originally posted by inimalist
Or even worse, what about when the bank is saying, "oh ya, its ok, you will be able to afford it".
That's the person's fault for believing it. At some point, you have to make people responsible for their actions. We are not these idiot creatures that fall for every trick or story to be told.
Is it really that hard to do elementry math? Keep in mind, the vast majority were working, normal people. They weren't idiots.
Is it REALLY that hard to say, "okay, I have income x, my monthly payment will be y. x-y = what's left over." Or how about the variable rate loans: "I have income x. My payment for the first year is y. x-y= what's left over. I can manage that. But what about in 2 years. x-z = what's left over. NOPE! I can't do that. F*** this loan. Bye, Mr. Lender man."
So why did they get them, still, knowing full well that they could not afford it?
"Oh, I will make more money, in 2 years."
or
"Who cares, I'll live for now."
or
"I can default on this debt, if I need to. So I'm not too worried."
That's the type of mentality many people had because they just didn't give a damn. We are/were a society of debtors. Americans love their debt and living financially irresponsible. It's practically a cultural norm...or rather, was.
Originally posted by inimalist
Its really not unreasonable for a person to take the word of someone who should be knowledgeable. Like, in what other type of business are you allowed to outright lie to your customers?
Every single salesman ever. 😐
You weren't born yesterday.
Nor were those tens of thousands of people.
Originally posted by inimalist
As I said above, if police officers acted in the way these bankers did, it would be called entrapment.
No it wouldn't because that's an apples to oranges comparison.
Originally posted by inimalist
and like I was saying before, how big of an impact do you think this, compared to the culture of corruption within large financial institutions and no oversight whatsoever, had in the financial collapse. Like, cool, you have a good point, people shouldn't spend above their means, but thats not why your banks collapsed.
I already said why the banks collapsed. Like..a dozen times since this problem?
If the people themselves had a different culture, this wouldn't have happened to begin with. No one party can be seen as innocent tha was involved. You can't pretend that the person getting the loan is completely innocent. It's that type of attitude that is making tort law stupid.
You hit the nail on the head. If you can't afford to buy, then rent. Not only that but most lose money living in a house anyways. They believe the myth that "a house always goes up in value". Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Get an accountant or lawyer to look it up. Most people just don't care. They believe they'll just default or go bankrupt and "who the hell cares" their credit was already shitty anyways. Very selfish and it irritates me. If you're going to get into a loan that big, you should know your stuff. For your own sake.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Huh? Your whole argument is that people are too stupid and have destroyed the economy (but that for some reason nothing should be done to stop them from destroying the economy because, uh, a healthy economy would be bad I guess).
No it isn't. My argument is that everybody played a part, and not just one side. People who took out the loans took their share of the blame too. That was my argument.
Originally posted by inimalistSure we were. "The poor and middle class are simply too stupid to look after themselves."
nobody has suggested protecting people from themselves... hence the strawman
We need to take out restaurants and also any kinds of loans. It's no secret that Americans owe more than they make/have. Americans take out all kinds of debt (even some of the upper middle class ones) because they are greedy. A person making 30,000 a year knows they can't afford a $500,000 house. But they tried to get one anyways.
People need to be responsible for their own actions. Of course the US is too PC to say that the "working man" did anything wrong.
Americans have confused what is a luxury and what is a necessity. Having your own house is a luxury, having a car is a luxury, going to college is a luxury. Having a nice house, car, or going to a good school is *definitely* a luxury. If you can't afford it, you need to rent, share a car or get a used car, and go to a cheaper school. Americans have a strong sense of entitlement. Not only that but the losers who do this make it more expensive for the responsible ones to buy a house (not anymore, now they are really cheap, thanks losers).
Not paying your bills is immoral. If you borrow money you must pay it back. It's that simple. Borrowing more money than you can afford to take out and not paying it back shows a lack of character.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Every single salesman ever. 😐You weren't born yesterday.
Nor were those tens of thousands of people.
salesmen are not allowed to lie to you
they might, but it is fraud. Like, if a salesman says, "this is $10", but it is really $70, they have actually committed fraud (as long as it wasn't an accident).
Originally posted by dadudemon
No it wouldn't because that's an apples to oranges comparison.
well, yes, it actually would:
Police officer: its ok if you smoke this joint, you will be fine, its not illegal, I wont arrest you
Me: I'm not so sure about that, but you are the police officer, you would know
vs
Bank: its ok, you will be able to afford it, just sign
Me: I'm not so sure about that, but you are the bank, you would know
it is exactly the same thing, and it is problematic for the same reason. It would be like if your doctor was lying to you. Sure, you could go get your MD so that you could "know better", but like.... /sigh, **** it, you are right, your economy collapsed because of dumb consumers.
The "those gotdamn poor people are just so entitled" deal is beyond boilerplate at this point. It's essentially a tangent of Ray-Gun's "welfare queens in pink Cadillacs" line.
Most of the poor people I knew (from growing up), and currently know, don't have fancy cars or live in nice houses. Most, if not all of them, rent their homes. They don't have cars and have to rely on Detroit's crappy public transit. They have low-paying jobs because they never went to college. They don't feel "entitled" to a Benz or a McMansion. They also usually lack the money to better themselves and their lives (whether that be by way of higher education or other means).
If people were truly interested in talking about why our economy's off in the ditch, they'd be talking about the entire spectrum or poor people, not just the part that suits their argument. Plenty of people got out, gamed the system, and contributed to collapsing the economy. There's also a lot of people that went out and got gamed by mortgage companies. But for all of the talk about the "hate the rich" undertone of this thread, the "hate and blame the poor" undertone is equally as strong.