Jump to content
IGNORED

Damned, this is depressing...


steve.foote

Recommended Posts

Sorry, Seth, but I just don't see it the way you do.

That's OK, I'm no oracle and you may well end up being right. As I said I'm not at all happy with the ongoing 'solution' but I see it as the better of a set of very poor options. I absolutely share your concern about the national debt (especially since this is the second debt-funded $trillion-plus commitment this country has made since 2001), and the figures scare me as well. But even if government debt is the only standard for the decision it's not clear which will ultimately cost more, the potential cost of the bailout/loan package or the potential cost of an economic collapse and depression. All the possible outcomes have their ultimate costs and we're just grasping in the dark right now.

 

I'm hearing you. I really long for the days of voting FOR something. It seems like the only choice we get anymore is the lesser of two evils. I know we're a better country than this.

Link to comment
Sorry, Seth, but I just don't see it the way you do.

That's OK, I'm no oracle and you may well end up being right. As I said I'm not at all happy with the ongoing 'solution' but I see it as the better of a set of very poor options. I absolutely share your concern about the national debt (especially since this is the second debt-funded $trillion-plus commitment this country has made since 2001), and the figures scare me as well. But even if government debt is the only standard for the decision it's not clear which will ultimately cost more, the potential cost of the bailout/loan package or the potential cost of an economic collapse and depression. All the possible outcomes have their ultimate costs and we're just grasping in the dark right now.

 

I'm hearing you. I really long for the days of voting FOR something. It seems like the only choice we get anymore is the lesser of two evils. I know we're a better country than this.

 

When was the last time you voted FOR something? I don't remember those days. Not even from history class.

 

 

Link to comment
Seems to be anti US bias doesn't it?

 

It does, and I have a feeling it's generated more from other global issues that have nothing to do with the economy.

Link to comment
The individual practices internal to other countries doesn't bring down the economies of the rest of the world. The rest of the world chose to partake in the financial instruments built out of the risky debt -- in EU countries, my understanding is that their banks chose to partake in more highly leveraged purchases than in the US. It's difficult to support then turning around and saying the fault has nothing to do with your own institutions but lies solely with the US.

While certainly other counties, financial institutions, etc. where players, and in many cases willing players, make no mistake about it this is a problem/situation that was created by the USA. An elaborate scheme was invented, if not intentionally then by result; to hide the true nature, and risk, of mortgage backed securities that were sold around the world.

 

One could fault them for not doing their due-diligence, but if there is no disclosure, or worse (as I believe) an intentional effort to deceive, how can any due-diligence be effective? The world took the US’s good word & standing that these were good investments. Turns out – they were lied to.

 

While the responsibility/fault doesn’t fall solely on the USA, it certianly squarely does. To think anything else, IMHO, is just blame shifting.

 

Link to comment
I know we're a better country than this.

..."are" or "where"?

 

I ask this in all seriousness, because it seem to me in many circles in the USA there is too much of a tendency to laurel on what the USA did/was in the past, in some cases distant past, (and admittedly; many great things) as a justification for what it does/is now. It’s almost put forth as a excuse for the bad/incorrect/ destructive things done now. The rest of the world should be so damn grateful for what it’s done for it in the past, so as to be willing to overlook its current transgressions. To which I say – baloney. Being proud, justifiably proud even, of your countries history is no license for its present. Or future. Or as the line in the song goes, “What have you done for me lately?”

Link to comment
While the responsibility/fault doesn’t fall solely on the USA, it certianly squarely does. To think anything else, IMHO, is just blame shifting.

 

But we already know who you want to blame for all of the world's problems, Ken.

Link to comment
Seems to be anti US bias doesn't it?

 

It does, and I have a feeling it's generated more from other global issues that have nothing to do with the economy.

While not, IMHO, "nothing to do with", certainly the current global financial meltdown is just the icing on the preverbal cake. 50-60 years of the US meddling uninvited in the affairs of others, "protecting US interest", blah, blah, blah, (i.e. - imperialism) has lead to a growing undercurrent of anti-US feelings worldwide.

Link to comment

While not, IMHO, "nothing to do with", certainly the current global financial meltdown is just the icing on the preverbal cake. 50-60 years of the US meddling uninvited in the affairs of others, "protecting US interest", blah, blah, blah, (i.e. - imperialism) has lead to a growing undercurrent of anti-US feelings worldwide.

 

Isn't it funny that after hundreds of years of much harsher imperialism by most of the rest of the world -- who's the head of state in your new country, Ken? -- more nuanced "imperialism" has somehow become evil. It strikes me as sour grapes.

Link to comment
Francois_Dumas
Greg, do you know you have an emoticon next to your name????

 

If I could do something about it, I would.

 

 

Exactly. And so would I about the economic crisis being bestowed upon us, totally beyond my doing. Like Rightspin's, like Ken's and like many others here.

 

 

Link to comment

 

But we already know who you want to blame for all of the world's problems, Ken.

See Greg, there you go again! Inserting adjectives into my statements! “all”

 

I never, ever said the USA was responsible for all of the world’s problems. To so would be just plan silly. To say nothing of being a ridiculous oversimplification of an incredibly complex world of humans interacting.

 

I did say the USA is primarily responsible for this particular problem however.

Link to comment
See Greg, there you go again! Inserting adjectives into my statements! “all”

 

I never, ever said the USA was responsible for all of the world’s problems. To so would be just plan silly. To say nothing of being a ridiculous oversimplification of an incredibly complex world of humans interacting.

 

And I said "want," as it's very clear to me from what you write that you clearly want to blame the United States for all that you can. It comes through loud and clear.

 

I did say the USA is primarily responsible for this particular problem however.

 

And the only way to support that argument is to suggest that the rest of the world's economical and financial world is comprised of morons. Now, I'm happy to believe that Americans are smarter than the rest of the world, but I somehow doubt that that is actually the case.

Link to comment
Francois_Dumas

Talking of 'The' USA, and of 'The' Americans is also greatly simplifying things and like any generalization not very helpful in the discussions. I don't think I did that, but if I did, I apologize.

 

So I rather refer to a 'culture', which I feel is more to the point. And even there one must recognize that there are various cultures within a society and within a country, and even within smaller countries like here in Europe.

 

So we need to talk about the business culture, the financial culture, the consumer culture..... it is specifically the consumer culture that is very different in Europe, maybe not so much the business culture and most certainly our banks and insurance companies are just as bad as the ones over the Pond by now.

 

Doesn't make it all more acceptable I'm afraid, does it?

Link to comment
So we need to talk about the business culture, the financial culture, the consumer culture..... it is specifically the consumer culture that is very different in Europe, maybe not so much the business culture and most certainly our banks and insurance companies are just as bad as the ones over the Pond by now.

 

Doesn't make it all more acceptable I'm afraid, does it?

 

It doesn't. That's what makes attempts to blame the US misguided, in my opinion. If one takes the "corporations are evil" line, then the world's financial institutions all participated in duping unsuspecting consumers in the US thanks to lax regulation. If one takes the "personal responsibility" line, the certainly consumers in the US share in the blame, but surely the financial institutions worldwide that created and traded in credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, and lent money around the world are just as culpable. Economies that counted on the US for their exports in many cases helped finance the excesses of others.

 

Hell, we might as well blame the oil exporting states, because they held back production, permitting rapid inflation that likely expedited the bust. Therefore, I want to blame Hugo Chavez for threatening to cut the US off. It must be his fault somehow.

 

The reality is, folks worldwide played in this game. I refuse to believe that money managers the world over couldn't see what we discussed for years in this very forum about the risky securities that were artificially pumping up prices. Sure, we may be pretty smart people around here, but I don't think we've got that market cornered. Lots of people recognized a problem, but too many were caught up in the quick buck, from around the world, to do anything different.

Link to comment
Francois_Dumas

I can't disagree with most of that Greg. Heck, I even admit I am easily misguided..... but in good company at it.

 

I guess I am more annoyed than depressed, really. When they first started talking about a 'recession' I didn't think much of it. Until someone explained what is meant with a recession. It is 'just' an X number of months with less economic GROWTH compared to the previous months.

 

Yes? So what!? Maybe THERE lies the main problem.... everybody always wants MORE instead of being happy with what they/we have. Guilty as charged.... I too was thinking that making a brilliant career, move in ever larger houses, get ever more expensive cars as what it was all about.

The REASON for that is probably embedded in human nature... but also fueled by the constant and aggressive marketing telling us that such is the way to go!

 

In the end we're pretty much acting like the poor lemmings in Norway....

 

Link to comment
While the responsibility/fault doesn’t fall solely on the USA, it certianly squarely does. To think anything else, IMHO, is just blame shifting.

 

But we already know who you want to blame for all of the world's problems, Ken.

 

Bolivia?

Link to comment

Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch

brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law,

tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are

trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits

who couldn't make money running a whore house and

selling booze?

 

Bruce

 

 

Link to comment
I know we're a better country than this.

..."are" or "where"?

 

I ask this in all seriousness, because it seem to me in many circles in the USA there is too much of a tendency to laurel on what the USA did/was in the past, in some cases distant past, (and admittedly; many great things) as a justification for what it does/is now. It’s almost put forth as a excuse for the bad/incorrect/ destructive things done now. The rest of the world should be so damn grateful for what it’s done for it in the past, so as to be willing to overlook its current transgressions. To which I say – baloney. Being proud, justifiably proud even, of your countries history is no license for its present. Or future. Or as the line in the song goes, “What have you done for me lately?”

 

Are.

Link to comment
When was the last time you voted FOR something?

 

I've voted for a lot of things and people over the years. In fact, it really wasn't until this primary election that I have felt like I didn't have a positive choice. Generally speaking, I'm a pretty optimistic guy.

Link to comment
Generally speaking, I'm a pretty optimistic guy.

Oh yeah, it shows... :grin:

 

Hey, I'm POSITIVE we're screwing up by the numbers. :Wink:

 

:grin:

Link to comment
I know we're a better country than this.

..."are" or "where"?

 

As one of my favorite speakers once said "There's nothing wrong with America, that cannot be fixed by what is right with America."

 

... present. Or future. Or as the line in the song goes, “What have you done for me lately?”

Damn Ken... That's even too cliche for you...

 

 

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
What we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

Maybe this will help.

 

Before we put the drunk in rehab, we have to give him several shots of vodka.

Paradoxically, people are starting to do what they should have done all along, i.e. cutting spending, saving money, etc.; and, it's got everybody in a sweat!

 

As for me, I'm taking the advice of many here, "don't worry, be happy; and pretend it's all a dream".

 

Wealth is illusory. Unless it's turned into cash, it's just smoke. My neighbor thought he was rich because he had a million dollar dog. When asked how he arrived at that value, he said he was sure of it because someone had offered two half-million dollar cats for it.

 

He should have had it appraised, gotten a dog equity loan and skipped town.

Link to comment
I know we're a better country than this.

..."are" or "where"?

 

As one of my favorite speakers once said "There's nothing wrong with America, that cannot be fixed by what is right with America."

 

... present. Or future. Or as the line in the song goes, “What have you done for me lately?”

Damn Ken... That's even too cliche for you...

 

 

Because I'm too tired to look it up I'll try to recall :dopeslap:

"what have we done for them lately?"

How about $500 billion in foreign aid in 2007 and over $300 billion to the World Food Bank.

That is a lot of billions.

 

If the USA stopped sending money overseas, in any form of "aid", closed up shop in Iraq, basically curtailed our military presence abroad, and invested that money in renewable energy, health care, urban renewal, infrastructure repair and development, (and all the jobs that would be generated by these, and other huge projects) I think we would see some light at the end of the tunnel before too very long.

In the meantime I'm investing in Smith & Wesson, Remington, Browning, and KelTec. :lurk:

 

I refuse to get depressed by this stuff.

That doesn't change anything and I prefer to be positive.

Every day above ground is a good one. :thumbsup:

 

 

 

Link to comment
the financial institutions worldwide that created and traded in credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, and lent money around the world are just as culpable.
But Greg, you're blame shifting right there. Mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps where not "created by financial institutions worldwide", they were created by Wall Street investment bankers right there in the good old USA.
Link to comment
... present. Or future. Or as the line in the song goes, “What have you done for me lately?”

Damn Ken... That's even too cliche for you...

 

Yeah, that was pretty bad, I'll admit. :P

Link to comment
the financial institutions worldwide that created and traded in credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, and lent money around the world are just as culpable.
But Greg, you're blame shifting right there. Mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps where not "created by financial institutions worldwide", they were created by Wall Street investment bankers right there in the good old USA.

 

Again, I know it's your intention to blame whatever you can on the US, but you'll need to untwist the logic to make it clear how the creation of a financial instrument, rather than its global abuse, is what caused current conditions. A financial instrument on its own causes no harm.

 

Or are you simply suggesting yet again that those running financial institutions outside the US were simply too lacking in sophistication to understand what they were buying?

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
the financial institutions worldwide that created and traded in credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, and lent money around the world are just as culpable.
But Greg, you're blame shifting right there. Mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps where not "created by financial institutions worldwide", they were created by Wall Street investment bankers right there in the good old USA.

Because there was a global market for them. Had they come into existence and no one wanted to buy them, very few investment houses would have funneled funds into them. To take your tact is to excuse the buyer any blame. Both sides were opportunistic. If there's a villian in this skit, it's the bond raters who labeled bologna "prime rib". Now, I could see throwing those guys in jail in a heartbeat.

 

Trying to blame the issuers of swaps and CDOs is like trying to blame the tulip growers who profited from the tulip bubble. Didn't they know what their tulips were really worth? Human nature is quite fallible and dependably so:

 

People were purchasing bulbs at higher and higher prices, intending to re-sell them for a profit. However, such a scheme could not last unless someone was ultimately willing to pay such high prices and take possession of the bulbs. In February 1637, tulip traders could no longer find new buyers willing to pay increasingly inflated prices for their bulbs. As this realization set in, the demand for tulips collapsed, and prices plummeted—the speculative bubble burst. Some were left holding contracts to purchase tulips at prices now ten times greater than those on the open market, while others found themselves in possession of bulbs now worth a fraction of the price they had paid.

 

 

 

Link to comment
you'll need to untwist the logic to make it clear how the creation of a financial instrument, rather than its global abuse, is what caused current conditions. A financial instrument on its own causes no harm.

Simply put, because they were fraudulent financial instruments. Designed specifically to hid their true risk. Created to bury the fact that they were backed by risky sub-prime mortgages.

 

Or are you simply suggesting yet again that those running financial institutions outside the US were simply too lacking in sophistication to understand what they were buying?

No, never suggested that in the first place. Not necessarily lacking in sophistication, and maybe a bit to willing to overlook (or not look deep enough) at them in their pursuance of their own greed.

 

But remember, I never said the USA deserves all the blame. I said the USA is to be blamed for creating in the first place what has led to this mess. The current global meltdown was invented in the USA.

Link to comment
Simply put, because they were fraudulent financial instruments. Designed specifically to hid their true risk. Created to bury the fact that they were backed by risky sub-prime mortgages.

 

The previous topic that let to my quote was credit default swaps, which weren't designed to hide the true risk of anything, but rather to get around insurance regulations. And they were used specifically because the risk of the mortgage instruments was known, and the best way to sell them was to sell them with an "insurance" policy that protected against default.

 

The people trading in the mortgage-backed instruments most assuredly knew that they were trading in risky instruments. They just chose to ignore it for short-term gain.

 

But remember, I never said the USA deserves all the blame. I said the USA is to be blamed for creating in the first place what has led to this mess. The current global meltdown was invented in the USA.

 

*sigh*

 

Yes. I note you keep trying to blame an entire nation for your trumped-up accusations of fraudulent activity, asserting that other countries just naively came in and bought, that the "USA" lied to them, etc. So, you put the blame "squarely" on the "USA," because, as we know, these transactions were assuredly between nations, not businesses.

 

It's just not that hard to tell the difference, unless you simply are looking to blame the US. But we know that you are.

Link to comment
Francois_Dumas

Yikes, I think I just discovered my 'span of attention' is too short to follow these kinds of discussions.....

Link to comment
The current global meltdown was invented in the USA.

 

So was the electric light. We could take both back and call it even.

Link to comment
you'll need to untwist the logic to make it clear how the creation of a financial instrument, rather than its global abuse, is what caused current conditions. A financial instrument on its own causes no harm.

Simply put, because they were fraudulent financial instruments. Designed specifically to hid their true risk. Created to bury the fact that they were backed by risky sub-prime mortgages.

 

Or are you simply suggesting yet again that those running financial institutions outside the US were simply too lacking in sophistication to understand what they were buying?

No, never suggested that in the first place. Not necessarily lacking in sophistication, and maybe a bit to willing to overlook (or not look deep enough) at them in their pursuance of their own greed.

 

Let's see, Ken, I can't remember if you addressed this or not, but even so, I'll bet I know your answer. The subprime mortgage crash was brought about, not by foolish people buying over their heads, but by evil lenders who made them do it, right?

 

Here's an eternal rule; you should commit it to memory: Greed trumps good judgment every time. Corollary: You can't cheat an honest man. Another corollary: A fool and his money are soon parted. That last goes for nations, too.

 

Pilgrim

Link to comment
Let's see, Ken, I can't remember if you addressed this or not, but even so, I'll bet I know your answer. The subprime mortgage crash was brought about, not by foolish people buying over their heads, but by evil lenders who made them do it, right?

Nope. Nobody (that I have heard of) held a gun to any home buyer’s head and said, "Sign these mortgage papers here."

 

Greed has played an important part of this situation on a lot of fronts. Greed of home buyers that wanted more than they could afford; greed by mortgage originators who just wanted to process as many successful mortgage applications each week as possible to collect the fees; greed by the bankers who were willing to turn a blind eye to the risk of the loans knowing they would soon be passed on up to others; greed by the investment banks that invented new ways to hid/mask the risk in new types of securities; greed by the rating companies anxious to please and keep happy the marketers that they support; greed by the brokers who marketed and traded the securities as much as possible each week just to collect the commissions/fees ignoring the nature of what they were trading, and pressuring downstream to produce more and more of them; greed by the regulators who relaxed the rules in the name of free enterprise to advance a system that enriched themselves regardless of the long-term cost to society; and greed by the purchasers around the world looking for fast high rates of return, while not knowing and/or ignoring the risk, and ignoring the old adage - if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

 

But back to your original point, I ask, how many of us have actually read, and more importantly understood, every line of everything we signed at a mortgage closing? In the hour or so given no less. Or spent the money to bring our own independent mortgage attorney to it? Sure some percentage (small I bet) of people can answer yes. But more common is we trust those that are advising us. We trust the people putting the paper in front of us to accurately represent what they are/say. After all, if they don’t do so it’s fraud, right? We expect to be able to trust the system to keep the people we deal with honest. If that trust vaporizes (on a mass scale), the whole system of civility breaks down.

 

Is that a bit naive (and maybe also stupid) to believe what you are told by ‘the experts’ and sign what you don’t fully understand? Sure. But I certainly do think a lot of miss-representation of the true nature of these loans went on. People were told, “Here’s how I can get you a house” and they believed what they were told. I think it’s beyond reasonable expectations to expect every potential homeowner in America to have the law degree level of knowledge necessary for of understanding of the complexities of a mortgage.

 

Greed trumps good judgment every time.

And greed is the root of capitalism. So where does that leave capitalism, that antithesis of good judgment?

 

Link to comment
And greed is the root of capitalism. So where does that leave capitalism, that antithesis of good judgment?

 

Greed is not the root of capitalism. Some of the heads of our banks, businesses and government may be greedy but in contrast to the true core values of capitalism. It is the social responsibility of business is to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits…(through) open and free competition without deception or fraud. This is what a capitalist believes. If one stays true to this core value, then capitalism benefits all. As a capitalist one believes that economic self interest (via profit) in turn benefits the whole of society. If one has more to spend, then the next shop owner will profit and it will continue down the line. As is being pointed out now, if GM goes down then all of the suppliers go with it and down the line. If economic activity is bound by customs and controls which, along with the rule of a government that expropriate wealth through arbitrary fines, taxes and enforced loans, will mean that profits are difficult to accumulate and thus there will be less contribution to the society as a whole. This then causes greed. One feels they must horde their monies and be resistant to "share the wealth." Marxism, Communism, Socialism or whatever you want to call it was tried, and failed miserably. The social and physical evidence of this failure can still be found on an island 12 hours sailing time from my back door.

 

Sorry if I got a little to deep, but one has to truly understand the concepts and ideals before making a statement that is, in my opinion, poor judgement.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
And greed is the root of capitalism

The activities of countless people over the course of many months had to be intricately choreographed and precisely timed, so that when you showed up to buy a fresh Thanksgiving turkey, there would be one -- or more likely, a few dozen -- waiting. The level of coordination that was required to pull it off is mind-boggling. But what is even more mind-boggling is this: No one coordinated it.

 

No turkey czar sat in a command post somewhere, consulting a master plan and issuing orders. No one forced people to cooperate for your benefit. And yet they did cooperate. When you arrived at the supermarket, your turkey was there. You didn't have to do anything but show up to buy it. If that isn't a miracle, what should we call it?

Capitalism, of course.

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
I think its beyond reasonable expectations to expect every potential homeowner in America to have the law degree level of knowledge necessary for of understanding of the complexities of a mortgage.

 

Outright fraud (including, for the sake of argument, "surprises" in the fine print) on the part of the lender is a problem, but I think that's only rarely the cause of mortgage defaults these days. The indivual sob stories I keep hearing about in the news lately seem to be entirely due to sheer stupidity (i.e. good judgment trumped by greed) on the part of the borrower. I don't think it's asking too much to require that borrower:

 

-understand that an ARM will reset in 3/5 years;

 

-know what rate it will (likely) reset to;

 

-analyze his own budget to see whether he can truly handle the monthly payment after the reset (since you should account for the possibility of not being able to refinance/sell exactly when you want to).

 

No law degree required; this is pretty basic stuff. And yet, it's a story that gets repeated over and over: "we couldn't handle the post-reset payment, and we couldn't refinance, so we defaulted..."

Link to comment
No law degree required; this is pretty basic stuff. And yet, it's a story that gets repeated over and over: "we couldn't handle the post-reset payment, and we couldn't refinance, so we defaulted..."

 

Not to mention that a "law degree level of knowledge" doesn't lend much to any practical situation. The first thing I learned about mortgages was how to approach answering questions like the following under severe time constraints at the end of July after graduation. I will have to say that this is a pretty sane question of the form; based on some of them, it's clear that people do some wild things when mortgaging their property, and there must be some incredibly incompetent mortgagees out there.

 

Jane, an architectural historian, bought a house in 1979 from William. She paid him $50,000 in cash, and the balance of the $150,000 sale price came from the proceeds of a mortgage she took out with State National Bank. The mortgage was recorded.

 

In 1987, Jane borrowed $5,000 from the Home Finance Company, using her house as security. Home Finance recorded its mortgage on the property.

 

In 1996, Jane had an architect friend design an addition to her house. She borrowed $40,000 from Property Equity Lenders, Inc. to pay for this construction. Property Equity did not record the mortgage Jane gave it to secure this debt. In 2003, Jane lost her job and was unable to make payments on some of her obligations. She made the payments on the State National mortgage, but was unable to make any payments on either the Home Finance or Property Equity Lenders mortgages. Home Finance filed foreclosure of its mortgage.

 

At the foreclosure sale, Susan bought the property. After acquiring the property at the sale, what is Susan's obligation toward the holders of the other two mortgages, State National Bank and Property Equity Lenders, Inc.?

 

(A) She takes the property subject to both mortgages.

(B) She takes the property subject to neither mortgage.

© She takes the property subject to Property Equity Lenders's mortgage, but not subject to State National Bank's mortgage.

(D) She takes the property subject to State National Bank's mortgage, but not subject to Property Equity Lenders's mortgage.

Link to comment

Well I'm going to guess the correct answer is "C". Because the first was recorded, the second was not.

 

But you make a good illustration of how very complex of an area this is. I wonder what % of the general population would be able to get that question right?

 

Or is even a valid expectation to expect them to? I mean, at what level of education would the average potential mortgagees be reasonably expected to have learned the answer to this question? Jr. High? High School? Undergraduate degreed? Graduate degreed?

 

Yes there are some incredibly incompetent mortgagees out there. Depending upon ones definition and perspective of “incredibly incompetent” of course.

 

Link to comment

In CA: When the 2nd DT (mortgage) foreclosed, it wiped everything Junior out. The unrecorded DT has recourse on a personal level against the person who took the loan out, but since it was not recorded, they normally cannot come against the property. My answer is "D". This is the normal proceedure. If there was any attempt by Jane;Susan or anyone else to defraud the unrecorded mortgage lender, then all bets are off.

Link to comment

There is something intrinsically wrong with a system that exists in a finite world but requires infinite growth.

 

Ultimately the system must come to a place where the infinite desire for growth reaches the finite ability of the system to absorb the growth.

 

I fail to see how the view of the earth from the moon has not caused humanity to recognize the futility of many of our policies, economic, political, agrarian, social, religious.

 

Only ONE resource comes to the earth from the outside, solar power.

The earth for millions of years stored that power in forms that we now exploit at such a rapid rate that we WILL, it is just a matter of time, deplete that storehouse.

Unfortunately it appears that we are not only going to run out of energy reserves, We are using those reserves in ways that poison us and the only other viable source of energy absorbtion, the flora and fauna.

What really is sad is not the economic collapse we are seeing, but some of that economic collapse is the result of spending our finite resources on absolute garbage, those items that do nothing to preserve and enhance life in any meaningful way.

 

Spending trillions of dollars to prop up companies and policies that continue to degrade our world, is the really sad part of the whole thing. IMHO

 

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...