tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post390070443781492679..comments2024-03-14T11:09:32.759-05:00Comments on Falkenblog: Robo-Signer PretextsEric Falkensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-56179151578884730292010-10-25T07:26:38.304-05:002010-10-25T07:26:38.304-05:00At the center of your being you have the answer; y...At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want ....<br /><br />Very disappointing text, missing just e v e r y point brought up by the ones caring about - try zerohedge 4 the industry side and angrybear 4 the civic one. or google william black 4 here - <br /><br />if nothing else, if basic laws are systematically broken experience could lead you 2 the idea there is systematic interest in (and benefits from) breaking law ... and indeed there seem to be quite lot of arguments in this direction.<br /><br />Last not least Paul Krugman ... ego aside it´s not him who is leading the charge. He isn´t even commenting as far as I can see/google. What does this tell about your center of being?<br /><br />looking forward to a more nuanced view on this mess - which is so much more messy than you seem 2 care about ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-26664567911061132522010-10-23T16:55:35.915-05:002010-10-23T16:55:35.915-05:00If people paid their mortgage bills, robo-signers ...<em>If people paid their mortgage bills, robo-signers would not be problems, and if they don't pay their mortgage bills, there will be a problem.</em><br /><br />Indeed, the world would be a wonderful place if there were no credit risk. Of course, we wouldn't need bankers, or much of a financial system at all. We could simply have a system where each could provide in accordance with their abilities, and each could receive according to their need. In fact, someone may have suggested something like that once. <br /><br /><em>You must be a really tough guy to blow off that kind of pressure.</em><br /><br />Isn't that why the bankers get the multi-million dollar bonuses?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-6119760657597685502010-10-22T15:14:17.568-05:002010-10-22T15:14:17.568-05:00Banging your head against the wall might help you ...Banging your head against the wall might help you see that the bankers WERE being 'held responsible for their actions' (i.e. not making loans to people with poor prospects of repaying those loans). <br /><br />Virtually every govt. agency with any plausible interest in home ownership joined in the attack. Even the Attorney General of the US threatened bankers who wouldn't comply with criminal prosecution. You must be a really tough guy to blow off that kind of pressure.Patrick R. Sullivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-86624879672043015482010-10-21T18:32:33.073-05:002010-10-21T18:32:33.073-05:00the same govt. making the bailout... was responsib...<i>the same govt. making the bailout... was responsible for coercing the bankers into making the loans in the first place.</i><br /><br />The cult of personal responsibility strikes again! Everyone must be held responsible for their actions... except for people "responsible" for making loans... those people are innocents, mere puppets of an unfair and unjust society. If only they were educated, or had any money or resources at their disposal, they could survive... but really they never had a chance.<br /><br />Double standards much? But then again, we're well into Dunning-Kruger territory here. I may as well be banging my head against the wall.Anonymous #5noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-73219897085772333772010-10-21T18:24:39.144-05:002010-10-21T18:24:39.144-05:00'Similarly, if bankers stay solvent and don...'Similarly, if bankers stay solvent and don't need taxpayer bailouts....'<br /><br />Which would be the case if the borrowers repay the loans. Particular piquant irony being that the same govt. making the bailout--temporary, as it turned out--was responsible for coercing the bankers into making the loans in the first place.<br /><br />You remember the initial gripe about home lenders, don't you; they weren't lending to enough deadbeats.Patrick R. Sullivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-7716148824498811252010-10-21T15:56:14.256-05:002010-10-21T15:56:14.256-05:00The problem is it is difficult to know whether the...The problem is it is difficult to know whether the servicers have their facts straight (e.g. maybe they refused to accept a payment?), when they are committing fraud on the courts.<br /><br />I would have thought you were a believer in Rule of Law, Eric, so why are you defending fraud?The Recovering Bankerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08876928207487553561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-63079125158688125462010-10-21T14:47:16.091-05:002010-10-21T14:47:16.091-05:00If people paid their mortgage bills, robo-signers ...<i>If people paid their mortgage bills, robo-signers would not be problems, and if they don't pay their mortgage bills, there will be a problem.</i><br /><br />Similarly, if bankers stay solvent and don't need taxpayer bailouts there will be giant bonuses, and if they blow up the financial system with reckless behavior then there will be a problem.<br /><br />Oh wait. Morality plays are only for poor people. Rich people can't help themselves, they follow profit and self-interest and inevitably create a better world as a result. Everyone knows how useless it is to moralize about gravity; the same goes for the actions of the rich. If a banker gets rich buying crap from one place and selling it somewhere else, that is just the Tao.<br /><br />But if a lawyer gets rich because he successfully sues a financial institution that couldn't be bothered to manage its paperwork, or if a politician gets elected because he successfully appeals to voters, oh man, fuck that Buddha shit, that just gets my blood boiling. It is an abomination, horribly unnatural, destructive, ruinous. What an outrage!<br /><br />Sure this stuff gets eaten up by silly moralists who think that something positive is accomplished when banks that break the law are punished. But we are rational folk who should just leave morality out of it: the simple fact is that people who don't make their mortgage payments automatically deserve the bad things that happen as a result.<br /><br />See the clarity that is gained when we put aside our subjective feelings and focus on the objective facts? Namely:<br /><br />1. People who make loans are just pursuing their enlightened self-interest and can't be held responsible for anything.<br /><br />2. People who take out loans are dodgy characters willing to violate universal norms of decency and fairness in their misguided attempt to get ahead.<br /><br />Glad that is clear.Anonymous #5noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-9759928261244368252010-10-21T13:14:05.840-05:002010-10-21T13:14:05.840-05:00OK - but I would not cry for the dealers. And I w...OK - but I would not cry for the dealers. And I would not cry for EULA's for that matter if some court declared them too complicated or deceiving to be enforced.zbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636763782334128869noreply@blogger.com