Anyway, as long as I am willing to suffer the consequences, why should anyone care if I supplement my income by shoplifting? After all, they knew it was a possibility. They charged other people for the possibility. And they are a corporation that ruthlessly looks out for its own interest. Why should I--or my neighbors--act as if shoplifting from Macy's somehow violates the same moral principles as stealing the furniture from my friend's patio? Do they think that corporations are the same as people? Because they're not. When corporations stop lobbying for all sorts of tax breaks and changes in the law to benefit them, and start treating people better, then I'll stop stealing. But until then, I don't see why anyone should judge me.
Maybe you think the difference is that stealing is illegal. But driving 70 mph is illegal, and my neighbors do not think less of me for doing it. Is stealing somehow extra-super-illegal? What if I only steal a little bit in each session, so that my theft is only a misdemeanor, just like a speeding ticket?
Yes, I find these arguments fairly ridiculous too. So why do they suddenly sound intelligent when they're applied to loan default?
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Some bad arguments with a point
From Megan McArdle. [Link]
2 comments:
There's another aspect of the current financial conditions that makes moral obligation to pay seem specious. It appears that banks will not even speak to you about loan assistance until you are already in default. Same with government assistance. Forget it, unless you have already not paid several months of your obligation. It makes those who walk away from their mortgages seem like the smart ones. Those of us who struggle to stay current are on our own. Home values aren't the only things that are upside-down.
The banks don't want to modify loans and have no incentive to do so.
Also, I think they are so far behind in dealing with existing defaults that they can't keep up.
Post a Comment