Am I to assume that you don't know the difference between a lease and a loan? Not being financially sophisticated enough to understand that loans and leases are completely different things in all regards would explain all your confusion on this matter.
You've spent several posts telling me why you WILL NOT articulate an objective standard for breaking contracts and why I'm stupid for asking.
Why not just explain your standard? It's a simple question.
My standard is fairly simple - the golden rule. I expect the lender to maximize profits according to the amoral terms of the loan contract, and my obligation is the identical standard - to maximize my own financial situation. With a personal, unsecured loan, my 'security' is my integrity, and so I will go to great lengths to repay that loan even when it's contrary to my financial interests.
See, not so hard to do....
They're both promises to pay a certain amount per month over a defined term of years.
Depends on the overall character of the economy and its basic funding tenets. Where money is essentially identical with debt, or where living wages can only be secured through loans, there is no moral obligation to repay if it becomes impossible for the person who has taken the loan to do so.
If, on the other hand, money tracks resources and is distributed equitably, there is a moral obligation to repay a loan which, I would suggest, extends even to family members of the person who takes the loan.
:lamo :lamo
Please bother someone else. I don't get paid to educate people on here about basic fundamental best practices of money and life management. And I'm way too tired to explain my posts to someone who can't understand them.
People like you are the reason that the government should NEVER pressure banks to lower lending standards and downpayment requirements. The best defense against unethical borrowers is a large downpayment (or a minimum of 20% equity) in the property that is security for the loan.
By the way... next time I hear you bashing businesses for unscrupulous, immoral, unethical, self-serving behavior, I'll remind you that (if your accusations are correct) they're acting just like you do.
Leases and loans are completely different. I'm with Tres Borrachos. The degree of financial ignorance you are demonstrating makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. Educate yourself and maybe one day you'll be able to discuss finance without such embarrassing displays of ignorance.
Fundamentally, it seems to me that most liberals believe that helping the needy is the most fundamental aspect of morality. That's what "good" is to us- helping the less fortunate.
The the right, it seems like "morality" is more like "obedience" or "loyalty" or something similar. Conservatives are instinctively rule-followers, so they've created notions of morality that are centered around obedience.
Really, it isn't that one concept is right and the other wrong. It is just how we were raised I guess. But, I would suggest that you just play it through in your head. Is a world where people are more subservient to the powerful really a better world? Wouldn't a world where the needy suffered less be a better world? It just doesn't really compute for me how you could not see that. But, yeah, I guess mostly it is just how we were raised. Liberal parents praise their kids when they help out the kid that's getting picked on, conservative parents praise their kids when they sit quietly during church, and sooner or later, we think those things are the most important things I guess.
This isn't the first time I've talked with a conservative. You guys don't hide it. But, hey, let me just ask you if you think I'm incorrect- do you believe that you have a moral duty to help the poor and sick?
This wasn't addressed to me, but I would like to answer your question.
Yes, I have a moral duty to help the poor and sick when it is obvious that such need my help and I am in a position to do so.
But. . . .
I have no moral basis to require YOU to help the poor and sick, most especially when I then feel righteous because I forced you to do it.
And whether I help the poor and sick or you help the poor and sick, neither of us have a moral basis on which to steal or forcibly take the money from somebody else to do it. And neither of us have a moral basis on which to decide we don't have an obligation or moral duty to repay money we borrow on anybody's good faith just because we want to use the money for something else or think the money will do more good elsewhere.
If you think there is any correlation between a contract on your home and a cell phone contract, you aren't being serious in this discussion.
I had to leave the thread. The way people tried to rationalize and justify their reasons for not (necessarily) paying showed they used excuses in life to prop up their behavior. Ignoring the fact that cheating, fraud, and non-payments are not included in business models and spread out so that everyone else had to pay for their defaults. Rationalizing that 'big business didnt feel it' or 'it was too small for people to notice.'
And neither of us have a moral basis on which to decide we don't have an obligation or moral duty to repay money we borrow on anybody's good faith just because we want to use the money for something else or think the money will do more good elsewhere.
I agree, if we borrow money based on anyone's "good faith" then we have a moral obligation to repay the loan. But a loan in a commercial setting, such as a mortgage, isn't being made on good faith. It's a business contract, and that contract has collateral, mortgage insurance in some cases, remedies in the event of default, etc. I've just not heard any explanation why this contract is fundamentally different than any other.
I had to leave the thread. The way people tried to rationalize and justify their reasons for not (necessarily) paying showed they used excuses in life to prop up their behavior. Ignoring the fact that cheating, fraud, and non-payments are included in business models and spread out so that everyone else had to pay for their defaults. Rationalizing that 'big business didnt feel it' or 'it was too small for other people to notice.'
I criticize coaches and players all the time for wanting to either break a contract and/or renegotiate. If anything, this is a scenario where the team/business has more moral integrity than the coach or player that everybody loves. (That's the rub, isn't it? We like the player/coach, just like we like ourselves, so we're willing to rationalize for them.) If the player or coach bombs, the team is still expected to pay, and they do. Why don't we expect the same level of integrity from the player or coach?I agree, if we borrow money based on anyone's "good faith" then we have a moral obligation to repay the loan. But a loan in a commercial setting, such as a mortgage, isn't being made on good faith. It's a business contract, and that contract has collateral, mortgage insurance in some cases, remedies in the event of default, etc. I've just not heard any explanation why this contract is fundamentally different than any other.
I'm watching basketball - our coach is under a five year contract. He promises recruits he'll be their coach next year, and the next. etc. But if he gets a better offer, he'll leave, the next school will pay a large penalty for breaking that contract, and not one person will assert he has a moral obligation to harm his family's financial future and stay at the local university. Where is the principled difference between that and defaulting on a mortgage? Would any Fortune 500 company citing morality or ethical principle remain in a contract, repay a loan, if it's in the interests of shareholders to terminate the contract or default on a loan? Of course not.
non-payments are not included in business models and spread out so that everyone else had to pay for their defaults. Rationalizing that 'big business didnt feel it' or 'it was too small for people to notice.'
It is a bit more complicated than that because of credit ratings. How much extra a person needs to pay to cover the cost of defaults depends on their credit rating which in turn depends on their record of making payments on time. If you default, you don't actually change what anybody else pays, you just change which payment tier you are in going forward. Regardless of if there are 10 million low credit borrowers and 1 million high credit borrowers, or vice versa, low and high credit borrowers still pay the same. If one person- or 10 million people- move from the high credit pool to the low credit pool due to a default, that doesn't change how much people in either pool pay. In fact, the person who defaulted will nearly always pay far more to the lenders in the end than they gained off the default.
Bull****. I agree that alot of business is handled like politics but the fact is...fraud, default, etc is spread out among others.
And if the person defaults or is successful in their fraud...how are they paying?
Now granted, of course businesses have penalties written into those loan contracts. However legal costs, are also passed on. And if the person defaulting declares bankruptcy for example...there is not more to squeeze from the stone.
But the businesses have...as you even pointed out...created business models so that they do not pay or lose profit share.
Papa Bull said:And where is it that "living wages can only be secured through loans"?
Papa Bull said:And what is the rest of that about "if money tracks resources and is distributed equitable" supposed to mean? What you said, as stated, isn't making sense.
None of this has anything to do with fraud, we're talking about default. If you default on a loan, you end up paying many times over. From that point on, for years, you're going to pay a much, much, higher interest rate on everything. .
Fine. Loans. Byt we're not talking about how your crappy credit rating affects you for yrs to come.
We are talking about the business having a business model that spreads that default and loss of interest, etc across all other people that do business with that institution.
No, not quite. As I explained before, they only spread the cost to other people with similar credit scores. So, defaulters pay for the other defaulters and non-defaulters don't have to pay for defaults.
I agree, if we borrow money based on anyone's "good faith" then we have a moral obligation to repay the loan. But a loan in a commercial setting, such as a mortgage, isn't being made on good faith. It's a business contract, and that contract has collateral, mortgage insurance in some cases, remedies in the event of default, etc. I've just not heard any explanation why this contract is fundamentally different than any other.
I'm watching basketball - our coach is under a five year contract. He promises recruits he'll be their coach next year, and the next. etc. But if he gets a better offer, he'll leave, the next school will pay a large penalty for breaking that contract, and not one person will assert he has a moral obligation to harm his family's financial future and stay at the local university. Where is the principled difference between that and defaulting on a mortgage? Would any Fortune 500 company citing morality or ethical principle remain in a contract, repay a loan, if it's in the interests of shareholders to terminate the contract or default on a loan? Of course not.
for purposes of discussing the topic of this thread, the morality of financial repayment, the link should be obvious
If you think there is any correlation between a contract on your home and a cell phone contract, you aren't being serious in this discussion.
No, not quite. As I explained before, they only spread the cost to other people with similar credit scores. So, defaulters pay for the other defaulters and non-defaulters don't have to pay for defaults.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?