Study: Productivity up.. Workers pay, hirings down.

[Kanastrous]

I think some aspects are a lot closer to the Long Depression of 1873 and the depression of 1893, particularly the Ponzi finance, concentration of capital, asset stripping of the middle & lower classes, and failed government attempts to inflate our way out of a depression.

Isn't the 'asset stripping' of those classes to a great degree a direct result of their own credit and purchasing decisions over the last ten years or so? The term suggests that someone else is doing something to them, as distinct from their own voluntarily-assumed debts coming due.

[Knife]

I think some aspects are a lot closer to the Long Depression of 1873 and the depression of 1893, particularly the Ponzi finance, concentration of capital, asset stripping of the middle & lower classes, and failed government attempts to inflate our way out of a depression.

Isn't the 'asset stripping' of those classes to a great degree a direct result of their own credit and purchasing decisions over the last ten years or so? The term suggests that someone else is doing something to them, as distinct from their own voluntarily-assumed debts coming due.

People need to take responsibility for their actions, yes. But I refuse to put most the blame on the small folk when the whole system was designed to get them to do it. The whole system was designed to say "real Americans pay their debt, so don't go bankrupt and pay your credit card debt' while companies will write off bad debt themselves as good business. You can blame the small guy for taking a bad loan, but not as much as you should blame the companies and the system that spend millions on lobbying and advertising to convince the small folk to come get a bad loan.

Blaming the regular folk for bad debt is like blaming the regular folk for bad aToyota. Sure, perhaps they shouldn't have bought it, they really can't afford it, but it's not their fault the damn thing couldn't brake.

[Kanastrous]

Having just completed - well, almost completed - another loan process, I have to say that all of the information you need to make an intelligent (or at least informed) decision is...right...there...in...the...paperwork - if you just trouble yourself to read it, and to learn what the unfamiliar words mean.

Look, fraud is one thing, and if someone is suffering because they were defrauded into a bad loan, or if anything unlawful was done by the lender or agent, that ought to be prosecuted and to some degree the borrower ought to be made whole. But we allow people full adult rights at 18, which mean full adult responsibilities. If someone voluntarily enters into a bad loan without fraud being involved, it's their responsibility. It's their total responsibility. Because they had total power to decline, to walk away, to learn what the fuck they were doing so as to properly handle the responsibilities they were voluntarily - as adults with rights - assuming.

I don't buy the Toyota analogy because the Toyota dealership wasn't handing customers paperwork detailing exactly how the cars might have been defective and precisely what the consequences of said defect could be. People with bad loans by-and-large voluntarily assumed those loans, having had every right to do their due diligence and act responsibly (and if they were defrauded into or by the loans, that's something else and that minority is not who I'm talking about).

How about 'real Americans take responsibility for the consequences of their own poor decisions, and -'

...never mind, I can't even finish typing the phrase without breaking down laughing. And it's not happy laughter, either.

If the 'regular folk' can't be bothered to responsibly handle their affairs, then they can't be permitted to enter into large-money adult-type responsibilities. Or they just have to take the consequences of screwing up those responsibilities. But either way, painting them as victims of anything but their own carelessness is distasteful. It cheapens the word, where people who have *really* been victimized are concerned.

[J]

Isn't the 'asset stripping' of those classes to a great degree a direct result of their own credit and purchasing decisions over the last ten years or so? The term suggests that someone else is doing something to them, as distinct from their own voluntarily-assumed debts coming due.

It's a little more involved than that and goes back a bit further. We have a system where banks & financials are more like drug pushers than traditional stodgy bankers. C'mon, have a loan, first one's free...heh, heh, heh...and before you know it the people are hooked and dependent on loans & credit for their everyday lives. While that was going on they did a whole bunch of behind the scenes changes to various laws such as bankruptcy "reform" to make it harder to get out of debt.

When people can't discharge their debts in bankruptcy the banks get to make them into debt slaves and take their assets and income. The system is setup such that a corporation or someone like Donald Trump can go bankrupt 5 times with no ill effect, in fact they may sometimes profit by going broke. But if the average person goes broke, the bank ends up owning most of his assets and income and he's majorly screwed.

[Cosmic Average]

I'm facing homelessness due to very low wages and high-rent. I've worked for the same company for two years and haven't gotten a pay raise, despite the ever increasing cost of living. My financial problems are not due to loans or credit card debt.

[Kanastrous]

Isn't the 'asset stripping' of those classes to a great degree a direct result of their own credit and purchasing decisions over the last ten years or so? The term suggests that someone else is doing something to them, as distinct from their own voluntarily-assumed debts coming due.

It's a little more involved than that and goes back a bit further. We have a system where banks & financials are more like drug pushers than traditional stodgy bankers. C'mon, have a loan, first one's free...heh, heh, heh...and before you know it the people are hooked and dependent on loans & credit for their everyday lives. While that was going on they did a whole bunch of behind the scenes changes to various laws such as bankruptcy "reform" to make it harder to get out of debt.

When people can't discharge their debts in bankruptcy the banks get to make them into debt slaves and take their assets and income. The system is setup such that a corporation or someone like Donald Trump can go bankrupt 5 times with no ill effect, in fact they may sometimes profit by going broke. But if the average person goes broke, the bank ends up owning most of his assets and income and he's majorly screwed.

This is still a set of circumstances that the borrowers entered into voluntarily and with access to all of the information they needed to make a good choice rather than a poor one. People have to bear responsibility for the consequences of their own free decisions. I don't care how enticing a lender made the loan out to be, the borrower still bears full responsibility for their decision to take that loan. Unless there was fraud, but I don't think that in the main we are talking about anything where fraud was involved.

The narcotics analogy doesn't really put a different spin on it to me, since taking that first dose of whatever is likewise a voluntary act for which the adult making the choice bears full responsibility. It doesn't lessen the horrors of the consequences but the nature of the consequences does not release a person from owning them, when the decision was theirs and made freely.

[Broomstick]

I lived debt-free for decades, lived within my means, saved money.... when I was laid off I walked out the door debt-free and with the equivalent of a six months salary in the bank. I immediately cut my expenses anyway, resulting in that "six months" worth of money stretching over two years.

My current problems have nothing to do with my being irresponsible. It has to do with a lack of available work. That is not my fault. For over two months this spring I worked seven days a week, 10-12 hours a day. I am willing and able to work - WHEN I can find work.

I realize there are irresponsible jerks out there, but it is far to easy to blame everyone who's not a CEO for the problem. The upper echelons REALLY DO have culpability here in some measure.

[Kanastrous]

I guess I need to point out that when I'm talking about people who recklessly assumed obligations they couldn't handle, I'm actually talking about...

...people who recklessly assumed obligations they couldn't handle.

If that's not you, I'm quite obviously not talking about you.

If that's not a particular someone else, then I should think it obvious that I'm not talking about that particular someone else, either.

Just to clarify.

[Cosmic Average]

I guess I need to point out that when I'm talking about people who recklessly assumed obligations they couldn't handle, I'm actually talking about...

What about people who assumed obligation under the (mistaken) belief that they would be able to keep their job? Like a home loan borrowed before the current economic recession.

[Knife]

This is still a set of circumstances that the borrowers entered into voluntarily and with access to all of the information they needed to make a good choice rather than a poor one. People have to bear responsibility for the consequences of their own free decisions. I don't care how enticing a lender made the loan out to be, the borrower still bears full responsibility for their decision to take that loan. Unless there was fraud, but I don't think that in the main we are talking about anything where fraud was involved.

The narcotics analogy doesn't really put a different spin on it to me, since taking that first dose of whatever is likewise a voluntary act for which the adult making the choice bears full responsibility. It doesn't lessen the horrors of the consequences but the nature of the consequences does not release a person from owning them, when the decision was theirs and made freely.

Indeed, people need to take responsibility. People like the banks and credit card companies, I hear they are legally people now, who peddle this shit. So do the people who accept these loan, that is true, but just because Joe Schmo takes the loan doesn't mean he is the only person responsible. Schmo, Joe, & Doh Inc. also have responsibility, and IMO more responsibility.

I don't just blame the guy left holding the bag, I blame the douchebags who made the fucking game called 'guy left holding the bag' and find it amazing that some people still are willing to let the system off the hook and play the whole 'Real American's pay their debts or are losers and lazy' while companies dump debt left and right and are praised for it as sound business decisions.

[J]

This is still a set of circumstances that the borrowers entered into voluntarily and with access to all of the information they needed to make a good choice rather than a poor one. People have to bear responsibility for the consequences of their own free decisions. I don't care how enticing a lender made the loan out to be, the borrower still bears full responsibility for their decision to take that loan. Unless there was fraud, but I don't think that in the main we are talking about anything where fraud was involved.

I agree that a lot of people didn't do their homework before signing on the dotted line, and yes they do need to take some responsibility. But full responsibility? No. Because in many cases there was fraud in the system, there've been many, many cases of banks and mortgage brokers falsifying loan documents, such as this case in NY where the bank didn't even know how much the couple owed and pulled numbers out of thin air. The entire system is rotten, and as I've said many times before everyone is responsible to some degree, the people, the bankers, the government, everyone.

[Kanastrous]

I guess I need to point out that when I'm talking about people who recklessly assumed obligations they couldn't handle, I'm actually talking about...

What about people who assumed obligation under the (mistaken) belief that they would be able to keep their job? Like a home loan borrowed before the current economic recession.

They could just as easily be me. Assuming they made an intelligent decision at the time they entered into the loan agreement, they have my sympathy. Which unfortunately isn't of much actual value, to anybody.

[Kanastrous]

This is still a set of circumstances that the borrowers entered into voluntarily and with access to all of the information they needed to make a good choice rather than a poor one. People have to bear responsibility for the consequences of their own free decisions. I don't care how enticing a lender made the loan out to be, the borrower still bears full responsibility for their decision to take that loan. Unless there was fraud, but I don't think that in the main we are talking about anything where fraud was involved.

I agree that a lot of people didn't do their homework before signing on the dotted line, and yes they do need to take some responsibility. But full responsibility? No. Because in many cases there was fraud in the system, there've been many, many cases of banks and mortgage brokers falsifying loan documents, such as this case in NY where the bank didn't even know how much the couple owed and pulled numbers out of thin air. The entire system is rotten, and as I've said many times before everyone is responsible to some degree, the people, the bankers, the government, everyone.

Am I wasting my time by repeatedly pointing out that I am not talking about people who were defrauded?

Yes, I am obviously wasting my time repeatedly pointing out that I am not talking about people who were defrauded.

[Knife]

Am I wasting my time by repeatedly pointing out that I am not talking about people who were defrauded?

Yes, I am obviously wasting my time repeatedly pointing out that I am not talking about people who were defrauded.

What you don't seem to get is that the system was stacked and most people with bad loans would fall into that category.

[Kanastrous]

We may have different definitions of fraud, then. To me 'fraud' means outright falsehoods perpetrated against the borrower. Not falsehoods - like mis-reporting income - in which the borrowers were themselves complicit. To you 'fraud' appears to mean 'any deal in which the borrower got the bad end, whether they honored their own responsibilities to understand the loan, whether they actually had the resources to service the loan (their responsibility to know), whether they in any way behaved like competent consumers, or not.'

A system in which a borrower assuming responsibility for a loan is obliged to do their damned diligence and know what they are agreeing to is not stacked against them. It's a system in which they have responsibilities. There's a difference. Because any borrower who sees terms they can't or don't want to handle has the right - if not the responsibility - to walk away and not take the loan. How difficult is that?

[Simon_Jester]

By the time we remove the chunk of the "average people" who were victims of fraud, the people who made good-at-the-time decisions that were made bad by a recession caused by the collapse of the financial industry, the people who didn't make any wrong decisions and are still suffering financially because they can't get a raise or can't find enough work to keep them going from day to day...

...how many people are left, and how productive is it to talk about them taking responsibility? Almost by definition, these people have very little money and very little power. They cannot fix the economy. Nor could any individual or small group among them have stopped the crash from happening; it's doubtful that they could even have stopped the crash had they all made good financial decisions, because so many of the forces that led to the crash were decisions made by large companies or the government.

Individuals who knowingly took out bad debt that they 'ought to have known' they couldn't pay may be fools, they may be scoundrels, fine. But what purpose is served by objecting to use of the term "asset stripping" for the fact that these people used to have positive net worth and now they do not?

The only one I can think of wouldn't make sense coming from Kanastrous.

[Kanastrous]

To me 'asset stripping' sounds pejorative - hey, I was just minding my own business, running everything perfectly, gettin' on great, being a responsible consumer - then those bastards just came outta nowhere and stripped me of my assets!

Maybe it's a neutral technical term and I shouldn't let its meaning assume that kind of color. But it seems to me that 'asset wastage,' 'asset disposal,' or maybe 'asset squandering' would make more sense. 'Asset stripping' sounds like some kind of crime in which there's a victim getting stripped, and I object to the broad brush with which everyone who made a bad, irresponsible call is lumped into a victim class with people who were responsible actors who got screwed anyway.

[Knife]

We may have different definitions of fraud, then. To me 'fraud' means outright falsehoods perpetrated against the borrower. Not falsehoods - like mis-reporting income - in which the borrowers were themselves complicit. To you 'fraud' appears to mean 'any deal in which the borrower got the bad end, whether they honored their own responsibilities to understand the loan, whether they actually had the resources to service the loan (their responsibility to know), whether they in any way behaved like competent consumers, or not.'

A system in which a borrower assuming responsibility for a loan is obliged to do their damned diligence and know what they are agreeing to is not stacked against them. It's a system in which they have responsibilities. There's a difference. Because any borrower who sees terms they can't or don't want to handle has the right - if not the responsibility - to walk away and not take the loan. How difficult is that?

I think you are assuming that 'cant' pay debt' = shouldn't have made debt in the first place; which is iffy in that the past few years the recession has wiped out a lot of people who would other wise pay their debt. In any case, I ask, why should they? You hold no ill will to the companies who make these loans even though they dump debt any chance they get and as I've mentioned a lot in my posts this morning, it is considered a good business practice. Why should it not be a good business practice for regular folk to stiff the banks too?

You can't have it both ways man, if the guy left holding the bag is solely responsible, and the lender isn't, then he should get to do the same thing lenders do and leave the lender with the bag and the lender is then fully responsible.

[Knife]

To me 'asset stripping' sounds pejorative - hey, I was just minding my own business, running everything perfectly, gettin' on great, being a responsible consumer - then those bastards just came outta nowhere and stripped me of my assets!

Maybe it's a neutral technical term and I shouldn't let its meaning assume that kind of color. But it seems to me that 'asset wastage,' 'asset disposal,' or maybe 'asset squandering' would make more sense. 'Asset stripping' sounds like some kind of crime in which there's a victim getting stripped, and I object to the broad brush with which everyone who made a bad, irresponsible call is lumped into a victim class with people who were responsible actors who got screwed anyway.

Ah, gotcha. You made it out OK, so you're a good guy. Those that didn't make it out OK are the losers and lazy who want to be victims and that makes you mad. Recession isn't over yet, but I made it OK, I'm a bit stretched and all my personal safety nets are a bit hollow at the moment, but I'm OK with my assets and debt. Guess what? I still think the system is rigged and the companies are fucking responsible.

[Kanastrous]

My understanding is that quite a few people are doing just that: walking away from debts that they can no longer service, leaving the lender holding the keys. Well, if that's what they find they have to do, then that's what I guess they have to do. So some people *are* stiffing the banks, which from my perspective is simply part of the cost of doing business, if you happen to run a bank.

[Kanastrous]

Ah, gotcha. You made it out OK, so you're a good guy.

Whether or not I'm going to make out okay is still an open question. Frankly I think that my particular way of handling my finances contributes to the odds that I will, but I don't have any more certainty than the next guy. As for 'good guy' I don't really know what you mean. I haven't defrauded or robbed anyone, so I sure don't view myself as a 'bad guy.' But I'd need something more to wear the 'good guy' title than simply handling the basics like paying my bills. Is 'Neutral Guy' available?

Those that didn't make it out OK are the losers and lazy who want to be victims and that makes you mad.

No, because people who are not financially okay right now got into that position in a whole variety of different ways. Sometimes there's no 'fault' to identify; some people are in the shit through no action or lack of action on their own part. Some people are in total disaster, and they 100% did it to themselves. The people in that latter category don't make me mad, but a failure to acknowledge their responsibilities does.

Recession isn't over yet, but I made it OK,

Well, if the recession isn't over, how do we know who will or will not make it out okay? I guess multi-millionaires probably will, but alas I'm not a multi-millionaire. I'm not the non-multi kind, either.

I'm a bit stretched and all my personal safety nets are a bit hollow at the moment, but I'm OK with my assets and debt. Guess what? I still think the system is rigged and the companies are fucking responsible.

I don't see what the first part of the sentence has to do with the second. Why should your personal financial state affect your perception of the system? And, given an entire system rigged against you - all those thousands and thousands of highly-trained bankers, loan agents, economists, investors, whatever plus all those thousands if not millions of pages of regs designed expressly to screw you - how have you managed to pull off *not* falling victim, to it?

[J]

To me 'asset stripping' sounds pejorative - hey, I was just minding my own business, running everything perfectly, gettin' on great, being a responsible consumer - then those bastards just came outta nowhere and stripped me of my assets!

Ok then, shall we call it a "systemised asset transfer operation" then? In the end it's the same thing, the middle & lower class are separated from their assets one way or another and it all ends up in the hands of corporations and the rich.

[Alphawolf55]

I will say this, I personally think people are responsible for the loans they sign out, but I still think that the required legal and fiancial knowledge needed for these loans is ridiculous, it's one of the reasons why I think highschools need to start offering finance classes where they teach how to apply and read loans.

[Kanastrous]

This is something you can pretty easily learn yourself, and you probably ought to anyway, as part of the process. Aren't high schools burdened enough as it is?

[General Zod]

This is something you can pretty easily learn yourself, and you probably ought to anyway, as part of the process. Aren't high schools burdened enough as it is?

You're obviously unfamiliar with the concept of predatory lending. Just because someone might know better doesn't mean the sales people aren't going to be putting as much pressure on them as possible to take subprime loans even though they might qualify for prime loans. (Thanks to the lenders putting out big bonuses for closing a subprime loan.)