Irvine Housing Blog

That’s funny and quite accurate

Tremendous value, like nitrogen in excrement.

I am disappointed!  Here I am fighting for you and other victims today and this is the thanks I get!

Swiler,

If you are going through a bankruptcy process to purge your debts, there is nothing wrong with that. Bankruptcy is the process here in the United States for getting rid of debt. I am not taking a moral high ground on anything. I have failed to pay debts and accepted the consequences. I am not perfect, nor am I morally superior to anyone. You keep reading words into my posts that are not there.

What is annoying is watching people continually spending money they don’t have to preserve entitlements they cannot afford and expecting the rest of us to pick up the tab. When banks lose money, they are getting what they deserve for making dumb loans. When I have to pay for that, it makes me angry.

Swiller good for you.  I also take great pleasure in that I didn’t have to pay a dime in taxes selling off near the peak.  When I write my fat check to the IRS next year I will smile thinking of you, my tax free profits, and these blow hards who could never profit, though apparently they saw it coming LOL.  David the tech bubble joker and IR the housing bubble counterpart.

Nice try, PR.  I sold before the bubble popped as well.  You are not as smart as you think you are.

“and these blow hards who could never profit, though apparently they saw it coming”

I feel a wager coming on.  Name the terms PR.

How can I not read into your words? It seems for the last few months it’s hammer the homeowner time. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the people who used fraud and no money down to live large. HOWEVER, those who were LUCKY or simply timed it right, walked with thousands and sometimes millions, but THEY are heroes of capitalism, while the ones who stayed put, got de-FRAUDED out of their down payment.

The GOV screwed everyone with the bailout, and then the media, along with the type of people with very nonimal intelligence, blame the VICTIMS, and not the gov. Frankly, I’m tired of this country, and I’m tired of it’s people who seem to only know how to support policies that enslave them and take away rights. This policy was another step in that direction. America has fallen, truth, honor, and justice? LOL ROFLMFAO. Secrecy, assassinations, invading countries on lies, bowing to corporate interests over and over.

I am not proud of my country, nor am I happy with it, and I will work to change it. If part of that is living without a home, SO BE IT, but I will not support this corrupt crap anymore than I have too.

fighting the good fight.  give until it hurts

yeah i stopped reading talk irvine cause it seemed like a big irvine circle jerk.

and by cutting edge, do you also mean completely ignoring the effect of ~0% fed funds rate, suppression of interest rates via fed treasury purchases, and the laundry list of other subsidies both housing and economy?

I don’t read ocreader either, but sometimes I’ll go there to look at BK posts.

IR,

First, my initial question to you was what I observe to be a greater level of disgust reserved for ‘homebebtors’ relative to ‘criminals’. I understand that is just an observation of mine; I could be wrong about how you ‘feel’. Mostly its a ‘tone’, the way you write… i.e. I cannot prove/quantify it. It was a question (unanswered) to you, and I only brought up the wager after being challenged by Gepetoh. But I will still take the wager, from anyone.

No one denies that squatters are part of the story of the GHB. Characterizing strategic default as a ‘misdeed’ is another thing altogether; it is NOT.

Might I quickly point to the irony of calling it a ‘misdeed’ considering many of said loans where specifically engineered to reach default with the express PURPOSE of being fraudently represented to one group investors, so that others could secretly take the short positions on TOP of the initial scam? This level of ‘fraud’ (read: criminality) is of a nature and order of magnitude so many THOUSANDS of times greater in terms of damage inflicted to our society as a whole, that to place strategic defaulters, squatters (read: non-criminality), etc. in anything close to the same UNIVERSE is reprehensible.

This is why you are experiencing blowback, as you have unwittingly (apparently) become part of the process of divide and conquer… scapegoating people who have not even committed crimes, or actual ‘misdeeds’, as somehow “responsible for this mess”, if only “less” so.

What a shame.

Funny, I don’t remember challenging anyone… I merely stated that IR has played no favorites when laying the blame.

As for the misdeed thing, leaving a dog turd on someone else’s yard IS a misdeed.  The notion that it is difficult to enforce does not make it “okay”.  I don’t think anyone here (I know I don’t) have any illusions regarding the realities of what is occurring.  The opinions here pertaining to “we should do this” or “people shouldn’t do that” are what people WANT, not necessarily what is reality.  People here express what they think should be many of the times, and responses such as “well, that’s not how it is so deal with it” aren’t very relevant to that.  Your notion that defaulting and squatting happens and therefore it’s not a misdeed is misguided.  People drink and drive all the time but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to do that.  Same with defaulting and squatting.  Just because people do it doesn’t mean it’s not a misdeed.  Be clear on that, both of those things ARE misdeeds.

Buck,

I didn’t answer your earlier question because I was letting you make your point without rebuttal. Based on your comment above, I see that your placement of blame is much heavier on the banks than on the borrowers. So be it. IMO, it takes two to Tango, and although the banks are clearly more responsible, I don’t see it quite as imbalanced as you do. Our views of the facts are in agreement, it is the magnitude of the blame where we are not.

In thinking about the tone of the writing, you are probably right. It’s easier to get emotional about specific people who steal my money than it is to get worked up about a faceless institution that does so. My writing is largely an unfiltered look into my mind and emotions. Also, I go over the top for effect sometimes too. It’s part of my sense of humor.

IR,

As long as you continue to falsely claim that strategic default is a criminal activity, then yes, we are at an impasse with regard to assignment of blame, and assesment of reality.

Buck

“I merely stated that IR has played no favorites when laying the blame.”

That is a challenge to my claim, which was that he does the opposite.

In a civil society, the rule of law is used to arbitrate the conflicting ‘wants’ of a people. Let me explain how some of this works:

Drinking and drivinig: a crime.
Defaulting on a mortgage: NOT a crime.
Intentionally defaulting: NOT a crime.
Breaking and entering a residence: a crime.
Ignoring a notice of tresspass: a crime.
Remaining in your defaulted home: NOT a crime.

With the dogshit metaphor I was speaking to the economics of our situation (not the legality). I was trying to point out the absurdity of worrying about what amounts to LESS than pennies in the scheme of things, i.e. 50 billion of economic flows divided into 23 trillion in bailouts and backstops equals POINT TWO OF ONE PERCENT.

IR is right though: it is the banks are ‘enabling’ these people. It is not tresspass if the people are not evicted. So again, we have a problem, a mess, created (or refused to be cleaned up) by banks. Again IR’s disgust is completely misplaced.

Nonsense.

“I merely stated that IR has played no favorites when laying the blame.”

That is a challenge to my claim, which was that he does the opposite.

In a civil society, the rule of law is used to arbitrate the conflicting ‘wants’ of a people. Let me explain how some of this works:

Drinking and drivinig: a crime.
Defaulting on a mortgage: NOT a crime.
Intentionally defaulting: NOT a crime.
Breaking and entering a residence: a crime.
Ignoring a notice of tresspass: a crime.
Remaining in your defaulted home: NOT a crime.

With the dogshit metaphor I was speaking to the economics of our situation (not the legality). I was trying to point out the absurdity of worrying about what amounts to LESS than pennies in the scheme of things, i.e. 50 billion of economic flows divided into 23 trillion in bailouts and backstops equals POINT TWO OF ONE PERCENT.

IR is right though: it is the banks are ‘enabling’ these people. It is not tresspass if the people are not evicted. So again, we have a problem, a mess, created (or refused to be cleaned up) by banks. Again IR’s disgust is completely misplaced.

Nonsense.

Buck, don’t confuse misdeed with a crime.  Misdeed is something closer to a moral conscience rather than a criminal act.  But even WITHIN law, there is civil contract law (yes, law) that states you MUST pay back your debts and you CANNOT possess a property that is not yours.  But these are CIVIL laws, not criminal.  But they are still MISDEEDS from the point of ethical behavior.  Which is to say that just because one’s not breaking a criminal law does not make it OKAY.  Contract law is still LAW.  And when you go against a moral or ethical behavior, then it’s still a MISDEED. 

And since when does monetary insignificance at a macro level relate to moral behavior?  Don’t compare macro-economic monetary measures to micro-economic impacts on individual households.  That $50B insignificance to the nation is a whole lot of difference to tens of thousands of people.  But I digress.  Just please get it through your thick head that Misdeeds and Crime are two different things.  I don’t ever remember mentioning anything about default being a crime.  Sheesh!

“you CANNOT possess a property that is not yours”

That’s great except for the fact that the property is in fact theirs.

“you MUST pay back your debts”

Actually no, you don’t have to pay back your debts.  You
must simply allow a lender to take back any collateral.  If the bank doesn’t take back the collateral you still own it.  Which brings us back to the fact that they own the house until the bank decides to take ownership.

Why do people even waste time debating this?

People have an ethical responsibility to follow either option of the contract, not only one, and not the one you have decided is ethical.

“IR,

As long as you continue to falsely claim that strategic default is a criminal activity, then yes, we are at an impasse with regard to assignment of blame, and assesment of reality.

Buck”

What are you talking about? I never claimed strategic default was a criminal activity. I have openly encouraged it on this blog in numerous posts.

Please cut and paste the post or comment where I made this claim.

I’ve read the posts where you outline default as an economically rational descision. Perhaps thats why I’m confused. At first I was only perplexed and annoyed that you were characterizing default (in this post) as a ‘misdeed’ that would need to be ‘cloaked’ by rationalizing. I took extreme exception with ‘misdeed’, because, by any interpretation of the word (ALL of which have negative connotations), default is not. It’s an option, as PR details, etc.

However, as we talk later, where I am making a comparison with defaulters and criminals, you say:

“In thinking about the tone of the writing, you are probably right. It’s easier to get emotional about specific people who steal my money than it is to get worked up about a faceless institution that does so.”

So who are you talking about here? I can only assume, given the context (i.e. ‘tone’) that you are talking about who we were just discussing: defaulters, Peggy Tanous, etc., from whom you “want a refund”.

I do not confuse misdeed with crime. Far from it. In fact I constrast the two in an attempt to illustrate where your ire should be placed.

As to the rest, see PR’s comments.

“Why do people even waste time debating this?”

Good question. By the tone of some of IR’s posts (this one), I can see why some are still so confused.

Thats the problem.

It appears you have read far too much into a single word.

First, I was referring to the psychology of the individual who believes they shouldn’t walk away from their mortgage. In their mind, it isn’t simply a contractual option. 

I think it is a viable option, and I have stated so on many occasions.

In my statement, I was merely looking into the mind of a typical debtor, not expressing some deeply held belief I have on the subject. I am surprised any long-term reader like you would interpret it otherwise.

When I refer to the people stealing my money, I am referring to everyone who is gaming the system to get a taxpayer bailout because they are stealing my money. Yours too. Now that is an area where the banks are orders of magnitude ahead of mortgage squatters, but that doesn’t make the mortgage squatter any less blameworthy.

Perhaps this will make it more clear: I have no animosity toward someone who strategically defaults, moves out, and moves on with their life. They have exercised a contractual right, and they are not gaming the system to get free housing or taxpayer relief.

“Actually no, you don’t have to pay back your debts.  You
must simply allow a lender to take back any collateral.”

Only true in the case of purchase mortgages in non-judicial foreclosure states.  Considering how many California mortgages in foreclosure are refis or are mortgages made in judicial foreclosure states , PR’s statement is about as relevant as his perception of how much wages have increased, or how much of a putz you are if your wages have not increased as much as his, or how many Bentleys he saw in the Spectrum parking lot, or ...

Even in those cases your only ethical obligation is to comply with that option of the contract.  That may be paying taxes if the government requires it or it may be going to jail if you are in a country that requires imprisonment for unpaid debt. 

Stick to your federal reserve comedy routine.  That nonsensical soap box never gets old.

IR,

Thank you for your clarification, sincerely. I would just like to point out and/or ask one thing.

How on earth do you think that people lucky enough to be able to squat for any extended period of time are “stealing” or oththerwise getting a tax subsidised “bailout”? They are not.

All of these people have already decided to default, which is where the damage is inflicted to the bank (cashflows). Their payments to the banks have already stopped. The fact that they are not “moving on” does not cost the bank one extra penny. Its not like the bank is waiting to rent out the home until it can be sold; that would make too much sense. Whether there are people in the homes or not, those properties are just going to rot on the balance sheet for 2 years either way. Arguably the squaters keep the home better maintained than if it was abandoned, which is exactly why the banks allow them to squat, until/unless the property is already targeted for liquidation.

Once again, your problem? The banks.

...and speaking of moral transgressions…is it wrong to be weeping with laughter while reading these astute observations today? Who knew HELOC abuse could be so much fun!? Thanks especially to AZDave for his fine contributions (it really IS all about the children, as he so sagaciously continues to note)