This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, if you can't pay your mortgage, the bank takes the house and kicks you out. In fact, if your DTI is too big, they will not loan you the money. Perhaps you think the cutoff is too big, but ultimately it's the customer who is deciding to take out the loan.
Plenty of homeowners have paid off their houses.
Well that is the general theory of how it is supposed to work. They haven't corrected all of the mess that led up to the subprime crisis back in 2008-2009.. Sure people pay off their loans, but there are a bunch of people that use the raising equity prices to fund that they can on other liabilities.
Sure you can say that it is the customers responsibility and it is absolutely that. And they are plenty of people see that they don't have the economic means of buying property because they are being responsible. A couple of decades ago plenty of jobs it was possible to buy a house and pay it of outright, but now it is fewer and fewer people that get opportunity.
But make no mistake, if someone in the bank thinks that they can make a profit of a loan too you... they will do that, even if it is just the person approving it is just getting a bonus.
I cannot parse this sentence.
Obviously, the bank is not a charity. People enter into agreements for mutual benefit.
People take out more loans when the price of the property goes up, they leverage that as an asset to have as collateral on other loans.
Again looking on the mechanics of the subprime crisis back in 2008, the loans given were not to the benefit of the lender. The calculus for the banks where that the value of the property would be higher when the lender defaulted, thus being the only ones benefiting on collecting the interests and get the money back with the sale of the asset.
They'd take out loans even if the price of the property didn't go up. This is a fully general argument against homeownership.
Why would the borrower take a loan that didn't benefit them?
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” - George Carlin
I'm not sure that would be the case if they would be targeted with marketing for taking on more loans.
No it is not general argument of homeownership, it is an argument against predatory practices on giving out loans without the safeguards of looking at DTI etc... i.e. the first claim you made on how it is supposed to work.
It's good that you know better what's good for someone than they themselves! If only they had you to run their lives.
And indeed you cannot get a mortgage if your DTI is too big.
No that is not what I'm saying. Back in the day there where a bunch of rules put in place to rein in finance industry. Banks actually had a bunch of duties to fulfill when conducting business. One by one those duties has been removed, so instead of having someone with fiduciary duty now we have someone selling you financial services when invest in funds.
Yes you can if you have collateral that the bank can see as free money. They have no responsibility towards the borrower stopping them making a bad deal, which they used to have.
Edit: to amend. We are not in disagreement here on how it should work. We are in disagreement if it works like this today. The starting point of this whole discussion is that my theory is that the 'life script' isn't working is because there has been an effort over the last 50 years to make companies more responsible towards their shareholders than to the customers of the companies. You as a customer have little recourse against a bank that tricks you out of your house with a bad loan. This is what happened 16 years ago and I've heard nothing that has changed preventing that happening again. If you don't believe me.... I'm done trying to convince you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link