Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Rceeberger  wrote:
>
>
> X is very good. My entire alliance agrees!
>
> >"I agree".
>
> I'm gratified
>
> > "Me too".
>
> Nice!
>
> > "Count me in".
>
> Okie Dokie
>
> >"+1".
>
> One at a time please.


I'm SOL (Snorting Out Loud, one click down from LOL).  Possibly out of luck,
too, now that I think about that acronym.

Nick
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>
> That suggests that you are not going to strategically default. I
> wonder if there are any other clues that the lender was able to glean
> that suggested you would not strategically default.


I'm curious "strategically defaulting" moral in your world-view?  How about
non-strategically defaulting?  What do these terms mean?

Nick
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[John Williams]

> So, you think that violations of TiLA and RESPA are properly described as
> "incompetence?"

I cannot answer that without a lot more details which are probably
impractical for you to provide to me.

> Meanwhile, today, I'm taking a break from running an orbital floor sander
> that I'm using to refinish the floor in one of the rooms of this house that
> some people say I should walk away from.  We continue to make improvements.

That suggests that you are not going to strategically default. I
wonder if there are any other clues that the lender was able to glean
that suggested you would not strategically default.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries

[Rceeberger]

On 10/20/2010 1:52:45 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nick Arnett 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality.
> 
> It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the vast
> majority of the members have self-selected so that they have many of
> the same opinions. You do not get many interesting discussions that go
> "X is good." 

X is very good. My entire alliance agrees!

>"I agree".

I'm gratified

> "Me too".

Nice!

> "Count me in". 

Okie Dokie

>"+1".

One at a time please.



Xponent
Insert GOATSE Here Maru
Rob

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[John Williams]

You did a poor job of quoting there, Dan. It would be helpful if you
could just quote the directly relevant parts.

> If I am paying for insurance for the lender in case I don't pay it back, why
> is it immoral to accept the penalty for not paying it back, knowing that I
> prepaid insurance for the lender.

I answered this in another post, but I'll explain a little bit
differently here. I see the mortgage insurance as insurance against
the borrower being UNABLE to pay back the money, not just choosing to
default. If your insurance agreement makes it clear that it is
factoring in the chance that you choose to default, then I see no
moral problem. I think that would be hard to pin down in a written
contract, though.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: SETI@home (history)

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Alberto Monteiro
 wrote:
> IIRC, there was a story somewhere that the s...@home software
> included a bug (like a crippleware) that would make it run
> _much slower_ than it could run, because there was not enough
> data for the millions of computers that would process this
> data.

I do not know if that is true, but if it is true, I would call it a
feature, not a bug. If there is no useful SETI data for my computer to
crunch, I'd rather have the CPU cycles available for something else.

Or did you mean that it consumed CPU cycles doing something useless,
like calculating digits of PI repeatedly?

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Dan Minette  wrote:
>
>>> Given that, do you consider it dishonorable for me to have taken out a
>>> mortgage?
>
>>Of course not. But I would expect an honorable person, if they were
>>not foreclosed upon, and if they recovered from the illness and had a
>>new income, to attempt to pay back the money.
>
> Given the fact that a portion of the interest I paid the bank was a premium
> to cover the banks loss in case of such a default; why is it dishonorable to
> consider that an insurance payment?

Because choosing not to pay back money that you agreed to pay back is
dishonest. The fact that the agreement specified penalties and
conditions in case of default does not change the fact that the
agreement was that you would try to pay back the money.

> No, I'm saying that, if you read what Nick wrote, that he had a deal with
> the bank, and that they tried to back out of it on a technicality.

I imagine the lender or its agents would dispute whether there was
actually a "deal" to change the mortgage. Until both sides agree to
the change, the old agreement is in force. It is certainly sounds like
the situation has been poorly handled, and if indeed the people Nick
was dealing with deliberately misled him, then they behaved
dishonorably. But if someone behaves dishonorably towards me, I will
be unlikely to trust them again, but I am not going to take that as
carte blanche to behave dishonorably myself.

> Plus, it is stupid for the bank.  He's willing to pay on a mortgage bigger
> which exceeds what the bank can get for the house.  Given the overpriced
> nature of housing in California, even a small reversal now can make a
> mortgage payment overwhelming.

Is it stupid? It may be, but I'm not sure we have enough information
to judge for certain. Maybe Nick will keep paying at the rate he
originally agreed to, rather than strategically defaulting.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[Dan Minette]

Nick wrote

>"Some of the causes of the depression that Posner cites are...the housing 
  ^^
bubble...

I hope my pointing to causes worked out.  I won't argue the point, I agree
with it.  But, he's saying the housing bubble is a cause of the problem, not
an effect.  Which I think, to first order, is the right place to put it.

And, I agree with what Brad said. But, what I did not see stated is that the
housing bubble is an effect of the crisis, rather its one of the causes.

One real difficulty with government regulations is that they can indeed be
straightjackets.  Those of us who favor regulated markets, to be fully
intellectually honest, need to admit that regulations have often tended to
be Byzantine, and have been used as a tool to do dangerous things (like help
create the housing bubble in California).

But, at the same time, the repeated failure of the free market to handle fat
tails, let alone financial black swans shows that some regulation is needed.
After the stock market crash of 1929, the margin buying of stocks was
limited.  Banks have long been required to keep a certain percentage of
capital in reserve.  The two big financial messes that cost the government
hundreds of billions (the S&L fiasco and the latest mess) have both involved
regulators who didn't want to believe in regulation and violations of this
reserve requirement.

One simple way to handle this would be to enforce real reserve requirements
on all of these banksand allow no fancy footwork to get out of them.  I
would argue that it's simple, easy to understand, and would have, at the
very least, tremendously reduced the damage from the sub-prime crisis.  

The only way (at least as far as I knowBrad can jump in with better
ideas) the Federal government had to reduce the housing bubble (short of
dictating housing prices by fiat) would have been to raise interest rates to
discourage the buying of houses.  In California, it would have been much
simpler, the citizens could have stopped the concerted effort to
artificially raise housing prices by putting multiple roadblocks in front of
development of affordable housing. 

Dan M. 


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: SETI@home (history)

[David Hobby]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:
IIRC, there was a story somewhere that the s...@home software 
included a bug (like a crippleware) that would make it run

_much slower_ than it could run, because there was not enough
data for the millions of computers that would process this
data.

I am confusing things? I couldn't find any reference for this.


Alberto--

Got me, but there was a problem at the start.  The
server kept send out the same data set over and over
by mistake for a while.  So a few day's worth of
computing was wasted, until that was fixed.

---David

It's hard to see why they would cripple the program,
though.  It's not like there aren't enough other
distributed computing projects around.  (My office
computer analyzes data looking for gravity waves,
when I'm not using it.)

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Dan Minette  wrote:

> Nick wrote:
>
>
> >I see that as a market failure that should have been prevented via
> >regulation (or, more correctly, enabled via deregulation).
>
> First, I'm sorry you are stuck in a bad situation.  That's sucks.
>

Thanks for saying so.  I do keep the perspective that it is only material
stuff and not as important as many other things.


> But, I'm curious as to how the deregulation caused the real estate bubble.
> Now one could argue that it made it worse, since banks packaged sub-prime
> mortgages, did smoke and mirrors, and sold it as solid investments.  But,
> the problem with the Risk Assessment model was not a regulation problem,
> the
> banks just wouldn't believe that national housing prices could fall more
> than 10% because the odds were, historically, <2%...which the Risk
> Assessment Model rounded to zero.


Richard Posner's "A Failure of Capitalism" explains it far better than I
ever could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Failure_of_Capitalism
"Some of the causes of the depression that Posner cites are the lack of
enforceable usury  laws, which would
discourage risky
loans,[10]
 the FDIC  and central banks taking
risks,[11]securitization
of mortgages 
,[12]
illiquidity
and insolvency of the banking
system,[13]
the
housing 
bubble,[14]
blindness
to warning signs of a
crisis,[15]
and
the preconceptions of
ideology.[
16
]
"

And I must quote this section, which includes comments from Brad:

The *New York Review of
Books
* said that "it is at best a partial success; it gets some things right and
some things wrong, and the items on both sides of the ledger are important."
[8]  In
the *Review*, Nobel-prize-winning economist Robert
Solow praises
the author quite faintly:

I have to say that the prose in this book often reads as if it were written,
or maybe dictated, in a great hurry. There is some unnecessary repetition,
and many paragraphs spend more time than they should on digressions that
seem to have occurred to the author in mid-thought. If not exactly chiseled,
the prose is nevertheless lively, readable, and plainspoken. The haste may
have been justified by the pace of the events he aims to describe and
explain. Posner has an extraordinarily sharp mind, and what I take to be a
lawyerly skill in argument. But I also have to say that, in some respects,
his grasp of economic ideas is precarious.
—Robert M. 
Solow[8]

Solow's review itself was notable to some degree, according to Brad
DeLong,
who critiqued Posner's logic along the way:

Yet while Posner insists on saving the appearance of individual rationality,
he is willing to jettison the Chicago
School's
conclusion that markets are everywhere and always perfect. As Robert Solow
observed: "If I had written that, it would not be news. From Richard Posner,
it is." Abandoning the conclusion of market perfection opens the door to the
idea that government needs to properly check, balance, and regulate markets
in order to help them function as well as possible. But clinging to the
assumption of individual rationality forces Posner’s view of what regulation
is appropriate into a very awkward
straightjacket.[
52
] 

Sounds dead on to me.

Summary from the publisher:
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674035140

And from a review on Amazon.com: "Posner recognizes that competition carries
the seeds of capitalism's destruction - bankers, etc. realize that if they
don't participate in whatever current fad is popular, they risk becoming
unemployed and their f

RE: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[Dan Minette]

Nick wrote:


>I see that as a market failure that should have been prevented via
>regulation (or, more correctly, enabled via deregulation). 

First, I'm sorry you are stuck in a bad situation.  That's sucks.  

But, I'm curious as to how the deregulation caused the real estate bubble.
Now one could argue that it made it worse, since banks packaged sub-prime
mortgages, did smoke and mirrors, and sold it as solid investments.  But,
the problem with the Risk Assessment model was not a regulation problem, the
banks just wouldn't believe that national housing prices could fall more
than 10% because the odds were, historically, <2%...which the Risk
Assessment Model rounded to zero.

But, given the fact that California deliberately kept housing prices up by
making it near impossible to build affordable houses, and given the tax laws
that works like NYC rent control, there were stronger reasons for the
housing market to be artificially built up.

Add to that low interest rates, a recent Wall Street bubble burst, and money
looking for a place to go, property was an obvious candidate for a bubble.
It's _always_ a good investment, everybody knows it.  The last time average
values of property went down appreciably in the US was 90 years ago.

So, let's assume that the government was doing its job right, requiring
proper reserves for investment banks, and requiring banks to disclose what
was in their bundled offerings.  That would only take care of the sub-prime
part of the mess.  But, the overwhelming majority of people presently under
water are not sub-prime borrowers.  

Even with regulations, I went through two local housing slumps, the second
of which put me well under water.  I escaped, but lots of folks saw their
house values go down 25%-50% in the oil bust, when Houston went into a near
depressionand the small recession of '91-'92 was enough to drop Conn.
prices 25% in a year.  So, it happened with regulation, and was bound to
happen with California.  But, unless you go to a planned economy, I'm not
sure how you eliminate the inherent risk of bubbles in a market. 


Dan M. 


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[Dan Minette]

>> Given that, do you consider it dishonorable for me to have taken out a
>> mortgage?

>Of course not. But I would expect an honorable person, if they were
>not foreclosed upon, and if they recovered from the illness and had a
>new income, to attempt to pay back the money. 

Given the fact that a portion of the interest I paid the bank was a premium
to cover the banks loss in case of such a default; why is it dishonorable to
consider that an insurance payment?  As Brad pointed out, mortgages interest
rates are calculated to include the probability of default.  

I see your idealism, but that's not how the market works.  Defaulting on a
loan has a penalty associated with it; it will be hard to get another loan
in the future, and if one does, it will be at a higher rate.  25 years ago,
that wasn't true, and people did dishonorable things in foreclosures.  But,
I think losing one's job and house and having a default on one's record is
enough of a penalty.  



>Are you saying that Nick has an extreme hardship that is keeping him
>from paying his mortgage?

No, I'm saying that, if you read what Nick wrote, that he had a deal with
the bank, and that they tried to back out of it on a technicality.  If it
required a payment of about $2000 and he read it as $2023 and it was really
$2063, the reasonable action was to ask for the $40 within a reasonable time
frame.  If all he wants is that deal to go through, that's very
reasonableespecially if the bank made bigger mistakes and are breaking
the law in trying to enforce the mortgage.  

Plus, it is stupid for the bank.  He's willing to pay on a mortgage bigger
which exceeds what the bank can get for the house.  Given the overpriced
nature of housing in California, even a small reversal now can make a
mortgage payment overwhelming.  Given that, asking them to honor an
agreement they made is not dishonorable.  

One problem with dealing with big institutions is it's not who is legally in
the right that matters, but who has the best lawyers.  I know about that
from dealing with IP.  No solo inventor dares sue a multinational for
infringement of a patentthe multinational can make them go
bankrupt.unless they have a spare million to defend spurious lawsuits.  

So, given that, I see nothing dishonorable in Nick playing hardball to get
the bank to honor their agreement, instead of weaseling out on a dubious
technicality.

Dan M. 


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>
> To me, it sounds like they are incompetent (although in their defense,
> all of the loan securitizations have made the situation complicated).
> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
> less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous.


So, you think that violations of TiLA and RESPA are properly described as
"incompetence?"  How about civil liability for negligence instead?

I can see describing their failure to know the value of the CDSs, etc.,
gross incompetence - I see that as a market failure that should have been
prevented via regulation (or, more correctly, enabled via deregulation).
 But not following the cornerstone regulations for real estate transactions?
 That's not just incompetence.

Meanwhile, today, I'm taking a break from running an orbital floor sander
that I'm using to refinish the floor in one of the rooms of this house that
some people say I should walk away from.  We continue to make improvements.

And yes, by the way, we're having a tough time financially right now.  I was
laid off from LiveWorld a couple of years ago and I've been building up
consulting and developing some new analytics tools, but it's hard.  And we
have a daughter who moved back in full-time and four grandkids with us half
time.

Nick
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

SETI@home (history)

[Alberto Monteiro]

IIRC, there was a story somewhere that the s...@home software 
included a bug (like a crippleware) that would make it run
_much slower_ than it could run, because there was not enough
data for the millions of computers that would process this
data.

I am confusing things? I couldn't find any reference for this.

Alberto Monteiro


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[Dan Minette]

-Original Message-
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
Behalf Of John Williams
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:34 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Chris Frandsen  wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
>> less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous.
>
> John, do you believe in negotiation/ old fashion bargaining?

Yes. I wrote "if you want to modfiy the agreement". I do not consider
stopping payments and leaving the house as modifying the agreement.

> Part of the initial contract, I am sure, was a very clear discussion
> of the grounds for foreclosure which go into effect when you decide
> not "to jump through their hoops". As it is part of the contract, I do
> not think it is dishonorable for one party or the other to cause the
> clause to be implemented.

Note that in many states, it is the law that mortgages are
nonrecourse, meaning that the lender cannot pursue the borrow to
recover the debt.

>If I understand you, then you are saying that since the mortgage
>specified what happens when the borrower defaults on repayment
>(foreclosure), and since it is a nonrecourse loan, then it is okay for
>the borrower to make a strategic default. Legally, of course, that is
>true.

>But morally, choosing to not repay the money is not okay. If I borrow
>money, then I am giving my word that I will do everything within my
>power to pay it back. It is that simple. 

If I am paying for insurance for the lender in case I don't pay it back, why
is it immoral to accept the penalty for not paying it back, knowing that I
prepaid insurance for the lender.

>I may know that the penalty for stealing a car is X years in jail, 
>then if I steal a car and serve my time, I have still done 
>something dishonorable.

Com on Johnyou say I stretch things? How many car owners get the thief
to pay for theft insurance?  That's what a premium over T-bills is; default
insurance. I agree that walking away just because it's profitable is
dishonorable.  One should make every reasonable attempt to pay one's bills.
But, if both parties sign a legal agreement, then the bank did it with it's
eyes open, and if the house is under water and the payments will bankrupt
someone, mailing in the keys is a reasonable option.  _Both parties_ agreed
to it, so it's a free agreement the bank entered into to accept the house if
the owner feels that it's in there best interest to mail in the keys.

Again, I understand how strategic retreats in a debate can be difficult.
But, none of us have perfect understanding.  You really do have an
interesting take on things.  I appreciate the fact that your viewpoint
doesn't fit into one of the stereotype dittohead viewpoints that I hear too
often.  You have much to offer in a discussion between reasonable people.  

But, in this case, you have not made a strong argumentjust a black and
white one.  I agree with you that one has a moral obligation to make every
reasonable effort to pay a mortgagethat's the spirit of the law.  The
objectivist I mentioned who made money at the taxpayer's expense by allowing
a foreclosure when he could easily pay the loan and when the house would
probably bounce back to more than his buying price (it actually did...but at
the time one could only give a high probability to it happening) acted
dishonorably IMHO, even though he followed the letter of the law.  He broke
the spirit of the agreement.

But, someone who is floundering under water and mails in the keys because
they see no other way outor uses the leverage of that to get the bank to
keep an agreement it madeis not honor bound to do everything conceivable
to pay the mortgage.  They already paid an agreed upon fee to insure the
banks risk.  If it wasn't sufficient, it's the banks mistake.  They signed
the agreement and are bound by it...both legally and morally. 

Dan M.


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Chris Frandsen  wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:02 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
>> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
>> less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous.
>
> John, do you believe in negotiation/ old fashion bargaining?

Yes. I wrote "if you want to modfiy the agreement". I do not consider
stopping payments and leaving the house as modifying the agreement.

> Part of the initial contract, I am sure, was a very clear discussion
> of the grounds for foreclosure which go into effect when you decide
> not "to jump through their hoops". As it is part of the contract, I do
> not think it is dishonorable for one party or the other to cause the
> clause to be implemented.

Note that in many states, it is the law that mortgages are
nonrecourse, meaning that the lender cannot pursue the borrow to
recover the debt.

If I understand you, then you are saying that since the mortgage
specified what happens when the borrower defaults on repayment
(foreclosure), and since it is a nonrecourse loan, then it is okay for
the borrower to make a strategic default. Legally, of course, that is
true.

But morally, choosing to not repay the money is not okay. If I borrow
money, then I am giving my word that I will do everything within my
power to pay it back. It is that simple. It makes no difference
whether the agreement specifies what happens if I fail to keep my
word, I am still honor bound to try to keep my word. I may know that
the penalty for stealing a car is X years in jail, then if I steal a
car and serve my time, I have still done something dishonorable.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[Chris Frandsen]

On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:02 PM, John Williams wrote:

> But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
> less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous.

John, do you believe in negotiation/ old fashion bargaining?
There is always the option to walk away from the deal/house if you do not care 
"to jump through their hoops".  Part of the initial contract, I am sure, was a 
very clear discussion of the grounds for foreclosure which go into effect when 
you decide not "to jump through their hoops". As it is part of the contract, I 
do not think it is dishonorable for one party or the other to cause the clause 
to be implemented.  Tough on lenders in a depressed real estate market, tough 
on the borrower's credit rating in this world of impersonal automated credit 
ratings, not to mention the borrower's net worth, but not dishonorable.  

Chris Frandsen



___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Can Honorable People Have Mortgages?

[Dan Minette]

John wrote:

>Heh, very funny. Sure, you can assume I do not disagree with everyone
>in the world. And you can likely draw some typically erroneous
>conclusions from your assumptions.

It would help it if you didn't dodge facts and direct questions that poke
holes in your arguments.  We all have holes in our arguments.  I've learned
a lot arguing with Gautam, for example, because when he found holes, I
acknowledged and fixed them. You hav

So, is it possible for you to answer the direct question?  If Tom pays 5%
interest and Dick has to pay 10%, and they both find about the same
difference in interest rates from different banks, is the difference a
measure of something (specifically the risk of default) or just a
coincidence?

Dan M.


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Nick Arnett  wrote:
> They lied to by saying they had no choice because the loan
> owner would not allow them to make the modification, admitted that another
> division of their own company owns it, then tried to tell us that they could
> not disclose who owns it.'

So who does own the loan, and what are their policies on modification?
You say "they lied" rather than they made a mistake. So I guess you
must know more about the details than you wrote above, since most of
what you described (some I snipped) sounds like incompetence to me,
not malice.

> I don't feel great about seeking a lower interest rate, but indeed I have
> threatened to walk away from the house if they continue to screw us around.
>  They stand to lose a couple of hundred thousand dollars... which I could
> save us right now by walking away.  Believe me, that is tempting.  But I do
> think it would be unethical to do that unless they really treat us extremely
> unfairly.

If what you have described does not qualify as treating you "extremely
unfairly", then what does?

To me, it sounds like they are incompetent (although in their defense,
all of the loan securitizations have made the situation complicated).
But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or
less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Can Honorable People Have Mortgages?

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Dan Minette  wrote:

> I'm curious John, if you agree with this
> general understanding that Brad stated, and that virtually every businessman
> and economist I know agree with, or if you think that there is no way of
> telling why, say, the interest rate for Greek sovereign bonds is higher than
> the interest rate for German sovereign bonds, because economics is so
> complex, one cannot make that inference.

Heh, very funny. Sure, you can assume I do not disagree with everyone
in the world. And you can likely draw some typically erroneous
conclusions from your assumptions.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Brad DeLong  wrote:
>
> Dan--
> John Williams's:
> cannot be seen as written in good faith.

Cannot be seen by you, perhaps. You write as if your opinion is the
only one that is possible. I wonder if you really believe that, or if
it is just your rhetorical technique.

> Williams does not know Nick's story. He simply assumes Nick is a scumbag,
> and posts accordingly.

Actually, I have a pretty good idea, and I posted that Nick can
correct me if I am wrong. And I do not assume Nick is a scumbag.

Although it sounds like you do not know much about me, but you assume
I am a troll, and possibly a scumbag.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Brad DeLong  wrote:
> Indeed. By John Williams's definition every borrower everywhere at any time
> is a dishonorable scumbag.

No, that is not my definition. I suggest you try to think logically if
you want to understand my viewpoint. You seem to be getting emotional.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Dan Minette  wrote:

> But, there was always a possibility that I'd be
> hit by a devastating illness after the mortgage went under water, so that it
> would be impossible to sell the house for enough to pay the mortgage and it
> would be impossible to keep up payments.

...

> Given that, do you consider it dishonorable for me to have taken out a
> mortgage?

Of course not. But I would expect an honorable person, if they were
not foreclosed upon, and if they recovered from the illness and had a
new income, to attempt to pay back the money. That would probably not
be an issue if I understand the situation you described, since there
probably would have been a foreclosure.

Are you saying that Nick has an extreme hardship that is keeping him
from paying his mortgage?

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Can Honorable People Have Mortgages?

[Dan Minette]

John and Brad wrote:


>>If by loan modification, you mean getting someone else to pay back
>>some of the money that you borrowed, you might want to consider that
>>it is likely that it will ultimately be average taxpayers footing the
>>bill, and whether it is fair that taxpayers who did not agree to your
>>mortgage should have to pay some of it off. 

>cannot be seen as written in good faith. 

>Williams does not know Nick's story. He simply assumes Nick is a scumbag,
and posts accordingly. 

Well, I have to admit, that the words "loan modification" threw me off too.
Usually, I've seen those words associated with folks who wanted a good
fraction of the principal written off, vs. refinance the loan being
associated with getting a new interest rate for the same amount of money.
We refinanced our house 10 years ago when interest rates dropped.  Our bank
offered it, before another bank could take the contract.  

And, in John's defense, he did use an if-then clause.  Given Nicks
circumstances, where he didn't mean that, the rest of the statement didn't
apply.  

But, this whole thing brings up a question I have for Johnthat actually
dates back two years.  Let's assume Tom and Bill both want a lone from a
bank.  Let's also assume neither Tom or Bill have some personal pull with
the bank; it's purely a business decision.  If Tom is offered a loan at 10%
and Bill is offered a loan at 5%, the difference is a result of the bank's
assessment of the probability of Tom and Bill paying the loan off as agreed.

This is fundamental to several statements about indicators of the start of a
credit panic I made years ago.  I'm curious John, if you agree with this
general understanding that Brad stated, and that virtually every businessman
and economist I know agree with, or if you think that there is no way of
telling why, say, the interest rate for Greek sovereign bonds is higher than
the interest rate for German sovereign bonds, because economics is so
complex, one cannot make that inference.  


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[Brad DeLong]

I have never managed to catch Greenspan in private in a place where I can
hammer him on it.

I did talk to the late Ned Gramlich, Federal Reserve Governor pressing for
more active Federal Reserve intervention to cool down the housing market in
2003-2004. Ned said that Alan's position was:

(a) Stupid rich lenders make zero-down loans at teaser rates--and the people
they lend to get to live in houses at low effective rents for three years,
and then collect some cash if prices keep going up. It's not my job to
protect stupid rich lenders from themselves.

(b) The true losers are people who think that they have to buy in what they
regard as overvalued markets, and buy and as a result are likely to lose
their down payment equity when prices come down and everyone is forced to
modify the principal down to fundamental market value. They simply should
not buy if they think the market is overvalued: they should rent instead.

(c) The lenders want to lend, the borrowers want to borrow. If the Federal
Reserve gets in the middle we will be crushed by angry congressmen who want
to know why those of their constituents who want to lend can't lend to those
of their constituents who want to borrow.

(d) The Federal Reserve has the tools such that, if it crashes hard, we can
still keep the unemployment rate from rising by much in the aftermath.

That's what Gramlich said Greenspan's view was in 2005.

Greenspan did, I think, suffer from the economist's vice of believing in the
market: that once housing prices crashed the market would quickly sort
itself out: homeowners who were underwater would threaten to mail in the
keys and go rent someplace else, banks anxious to avoid foreclosure costs
would quickly write down mortgage principal values to levels that gave
homeowners an incentive to stay in the house and take care of it, a bunch of
bank shareholders would lose their money and a bunch of bank managers would
lose their fortunes, the government would have to take over a few banks, but
all in all the market would quickly move to a new post-bubble equilibrium
without a big rise in unemployment.

That proved to be totally wrong. The free market wasn't able to get the
writedowns done by itself, and the Geithner Treasury was unable to figure
out a way to use TARP money to grease the adjustment in the housing sector,
and now we are in a big mess...


Yours,

Brad DeLong



On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Dan Minette  wrote:

> This is reposted, since the original response went to just Brad, since he
> was first on the reply list, which included Brin-L
>
> >I really wouldn't feed the troll any more, if I were you...
>
> I think I have a narrower definition of troll than you do.  I accept that
> folks can have understandings of the world that I see has having internal
> inconsistencies.  I think that John is not putting forth a false front; I
> think he posts in good faith.  So, I'll debate points until I find that I
> stop seeing the debate going anywhere.
>
> Since you are in the discussion now, I'm curious about a couple things.
>  How
> could people not see that housing went into a bubble.  I knew they were
> overvalued in many places before the bubble burst.  I only saw the
> conclusive evidence, the inflation adjusted house prices shot up 40% after
> not varying by more than 10% over a century.  I'm not an economist, but I
> crunch numbers for a living, and that certainly looks like an anomaly.  How
> did Greenspan, who saw the stock market bubble, miss that one?  And how did
> folks miss the fact that the Risk Assessment Model was inherently flawed,
> by
> ignoring events with low historical probability (<2%) instead of using
> Monte
> Carlo techniques to include them properly.
>
> Dan M.
>
>
> ___
> http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
>
>
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[Dan Minette]

>I really wouldn't feed the troll any more, if I were you...

I think I have a narrower definition of troll than you do.  I accept that
folks can have understandings of the world that I see has having internal
inconsistencies.  I think that John is not putting forth a false front; I
think he posts in good faith.  So, I'll debate points until I find that I
stop seeing the debate going anywhere.

Since you are in the discussion now, I'm curious about a couple things.  How
could people not see that housing went into a bubble.  I knew they were
overvalued in many places before the bubble burst.  I only saw the
conclusive evidence, the inflation adjusted house prices shot up 40% after
not varying by more than 10% over a century.  I'm not an economist, but I
crunch numbers for a living, and that certainly looks like an anomaly.  How
did Greenspan, who saw the stock market bubble, miss that one?  And how did
folks miss the fact that the Risk Assessment Model was inherently flawed, by
ignoring events with low historical probability (<2%) instead of using Monte
Carlo techniques to include them properly.

Dan M.


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[Brad DeLong]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Dan Minette  wrote:

> >I really wouldn't feed the troll any more, if I were you...
>
> I think I have a narrower definition of troll than you do.  I accept that
> folks can have understandings of the world that I see has having internal
> inconsistencies.  I think that John is not putting forth a false front; I
> think he posts in good faith.  So, I'll debate points until I find that I
> stop seeing the debate going anywhere.
>

Dan--

John Williams's:

>On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Nick Arnett  wrote:

>> I could tell the horror story of our efforts at loan modification, but
I'll
>> just say that it is one of the stories submitted to the Justice
Department
>> by the House California Caucus.

>If by loan modification, you mean getting someone else to pay back
>some of the money that you borrowed, you might want to consider that
>it is likely that it will ultimately be average taxpayers footing the
>bill, and whether it is fair that taxpayers who did not agree to your
>mortgage should have to pay some of it off.

cannot be seen as written in good faith.

Williams does not know Nick's story. He simply assumes Nick is a scumbag,
and posts accordingly. He then digs in to his position--and winds up
claiming that anybody who borrows anything from anyone at any time is a
dishonorable scumbag.

If I were you, I wouldn't feed this troll any more...

Brad DeLong
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[Dan Minette]

This is reposted, since the original response went to just Brad, since he
was first on the reply list, which included Brin-L

>I really wouldn't feed the troll any more, if I were you...

I think I have a narrower definition of troll than you do.  I accept that
folks can have understandings of the world that I see has having internal
inconsistencies.  I think that John is not putting forth a false front; I
think he posts in good faith.  So, I'll debate points until I find that I
stop seeing the debate going anywhere.

Since you are in the discussion now, I'm curious about a couple things.  How
could people not see that housing went into a bubble.  I knew they were
overvalued in many places before the bubble burst.  I only saw the
conclusive evidence, the inflation adjusted house prices shot up 40% after
not varying by more than 10% over a century.  I'm not an economist, but I
crunch numbers for a living, and that certainly looks like an anomaly.  How
did Greenspan, who saw the stock market bubble, miss that one?  And how did
folks miss the fact that the Risk Assessment Model was inherently flawed, by
ignoring events with low historical probability (<2%) instead of using Monte
Carlo techniques to include them properly.

Dan M.


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[Brad DeLong]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Dan Minette  wrote:

>
> John Williams wrote:
> > Only if you consider honesty and keeping your word to be ridiculous.
> > An honorable person would not agree to borrow money from anyone,
> > even a loan shark, if they thought that there was any possibility
> > that they would not be able to honor their agreement and pay back
> > the money that they borrowed.
>
> John, I think I differ with that perspective.  I've taken out mortgages,
> and
> I always thought there was a high probability that I would be able to honor
> them when I took them out.  But, there was always a possibility that I'd be
> hit by a devastating illness after the mortgage went under water, so that
> it
> would be impossible to sell the house for enough to pay the mortgage and it
> would be impossible to keep up payments.
>

Indeed. By John Williams's definition every borrower everywhere at any time
is a dishonorable scumbag. There is always some chance of default--and that
chance of default is factored into the lender's calculations when they set
the interest rate: the chance that you might default is the reason you have
to pay more to borrow than the U.S. Treasury does.

I really wouldn't feed the troll any more, if I were you...
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?

[Dan Minette]

John Williams wrote:
> Only if you consider honesty and keeping your word to be ridiculous.
> An honorable person would not agree to borrow money from anyone,
> even a loan shark, if they thought that there was any possibility
> that they would not be able to honor their agreement and pay back
> the money that they borrowed.

John, I think I differ with that perspective.  I've taken out mortgages, and
I always thought there was a high probability that I would be able to honor
them when I took them out.  But, there was always a possibility that I'd be
hit by a devastating illness after the mortgage went under water, so that it
would be impossible to sell the house for enough to pay the mortgage and it
would be impossible to keep up payments.

The first two houses I owned I had < 20% down (10%), so I had PMI.  The last
house I bought with 20% down.  I figured the interest rate I was charged was
figured to include covering people in that situation.

Given that, do you consider it dishonorable for me to have taken out a
mortgage? If so, then what fraction of loans are ethical?  It seems to me
that it is nearly impossible, even if you had the money in the bank to cover
the loan if, to take out a loan where there wasn't an improbable set of
circumstances that would cause you to default on the loan.

Dan M. 


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[Dan Minette]

Nick,

Your clarification makes things sound quite different to me.  I'll agree
that being off by 2% on a payment due to a misunderstanding is not
reasonable grounds for breaking a deal especially if they fouled up
substantially.  If all you are asking is for an interest rate that matches
the present low interest rate, they are not acting in the best interest of
the bank not to take you up on it.

Dan M. 



___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)

[Nick Arnett]

Some clarifications. The problems I had with our lender regarding the loan
modification had nothing to do with whether or not they were willing to make
one.  It was the way they behaved as we qualified for it and then the way
that they screwed it up so that we have to re-qualify all over again.  The
short version is that we did everything to qualify, received a letter
stating so, but due to a very confusing letter, sent them $40 less than they
wanted (out of a $2,000+ payment) and they tossed out the whole thing
without even telling us and demanded that we start the entire process over
again, insisting, among other things, that they interpreted the check that
was $40 short as a statement from us that we did not want the modification
(ridiculous).  They lied to by saying they had no choice because the loan
owner would not allow them to make the modification, admitted that another
division of their own company owns it, then tried to tell us that they could
not disclose who owns it.  And on and on.

There are good, solid reasons for the existence of the Truth in Lending Act
and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  Like many, many other people
who have renegotiated their loans, I believe that our lender violated some
parts of one or both of those laws.  And I think they violated them in the
process of the loan modification.

There is no question that lenders have violated the law in many ways -- look
at the foreclosure mess right now.  The reason they have panicked and
stopped foreclosures is because they realized that they took illegal
shortcuts.

I don't feel great about seeking a lower interest rate, but indeed I have
threatened to walk away from the house if they continue to screw us around.
 They stand to lose a couple of hundred thousand dollars... which I could
save us right now by walking away.  Believe me, that is tempting.  But I do
think it would be unethical to do that unless they really treat us extremely
unfairly.

Nick
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Down with the government

[David Hobby]

John Williams wrote:
...

By the way, the Chris' post fits the definition of a troll much better
than anything I have posted recently, since it was not addressing any
points that had been made in the thread so far, did not appear to make
any effort to explain the change of subject or make a serious point,
but rather seemed designed to be inflammatory.

...

Wait a minute.  He wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Chris Frandsen  wrote:
> >> Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either 
think that roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much 
for them.  We can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-)

> >>

It's not that far off topic, definitely does make a
serious point, and is less inflammatory than many of
your recent comments.

---David

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries

[David Hobby]

John Williams wrote:

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Hobby  wrote:


Hi.  I'm with Keith on this.  A mortgage is not an
absolute promise to pay back the loan.  Rather, the
deal is that if the borrower does not keep up payments,
the lender can take back the property.


I'm not sure why you imply that I disagree with that, assuming we are
talking about a nonrecourse loan, which is what I assume Nick has.


John--

Oh?  How about this quote:

John Williams wrote:
> >
> > Only if you consider honesty and keeping your word to be ridiculous.
> > An honorable person would not agree to borrow money from anyone,
> > even a loan shark, if they thought that there was any possibility
> > that they would not be able to honor their agreement and pay back
> > the money that they borrowed.

It sounds like disagreement to me.


But the issue is that Nick, for whatever reason, is not walking away.
Instead, it seems he tried to get the lender to accept payback of less
than he borrowed, but the lender did not agree to it. 


Not speaking for Nick, but it certainly seems reasonable to
point out to the lender that you could just default on the
loan, leaving them in an even worse position than simply
reducing the payments.  You can't make them bargain, but
it could well be in the mortgage holder's best interest.

...

Another complication is that many of the mortgages are now owned,
directly or indirectly, by the Federal government. That is what I
meant when I wrote earlier that not paying back the full loan amount
can ultimately result in the average taxpayer footing the bill.


That is unfortunate.

---David


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Starting Engineer's Salaries

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
>
> But having said that, it is true that the occasional flair up of 
> posts here and on Culture have usually coincided with someone 
> bringing in a non-norm opinion, and numerous people on the list 
> arguing with that one personor that argument spurring side 
> discussions.  I also know that this list has made its more 
> conservative, vocal members feel less than welcome after years of 
> feeling welcome.
> 
It also trimmed the other extreme, the anti-american, 
anti-capitalist and green members also were banned.

Alberto Monteiro


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Mailing lists are evil, why they must be eradicated [was: Starting Engineer's Salaries]

[Alberto Monteiro]

John Williams wrote:
> 
>> Hard to know if the quiet was due to trolling or some externality.
> 
> It looks to me like this email list is usually quiet because the vast
> majority of the members have self-selected so that they have many of
> the same opinions. You do not get many interesting discussions that 
> go "X is good." "I agree". "Me too". "Count me in". "+1".
>
I agree.

But, seriously, mailing lists are dying. It seems that
as time goes by, _less_ people knows how to reply
in an adequate format, quoting relevant parts and trimming
the message to the necessary minimum. Top-posting is a plague
much worse than trolling; if I were world dictator
list administrator I would not ban anyone for an occasional
trolling, but I would ban for top-posting.

Also, it seems that everybody loves blogs, even He seldom
comes here but is active in His blog - what's the point
of a Brin-l list that does not discuss anything Brin-related?

And young people don't use e-mail; they prefer those awful MSNs,
Orkuts, Facebooks, etc.

Alberto Monteiro


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries

[Alberto Monteiro]

John Williams wrote:
> 
> Only if you consider honesty and keeping your word to be ridiculous. 
> An honorable person would not agree to borrow money from anyone, 
> even a loan shark, if they thought that there was any possibility 
> that they would not be able to honor their agreement and pay back 
> the money that they borrowed.
> 
I think here you crossed the line between being argumentative
and being a troll. There's no way anyone can predict
all futures. _Every_ borrowing implies a risk of not being
able to honor it - even if I tell my workmate to lend
me R$ 1.50 because I don't have exchange and I want to
buy a candy, there's a risk that I will die in the next
10 minutes and not honor it.

Alberto Monteiro




___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Starting Engineer's Salaries

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> In hindsight, the housing bubble is obvious.
>
It was obvious to _me_, back in the 1990s, when I read
that the average american had debts that were of the
magnitude of 3x their actual possessions. I think I
saw that in this list (I certainly said that in
the brazilian lists).

Here in Brazil, where interest rates used to be 15%
_a month_ + inflation correction (the banks now are not
so much greedy; they offer money at 5% a month, and
don't even bother to correct inflation), nobody believed
in my doomsdays scenarios.

> Heck, at the time, I knew
> there was a housing bubble, and if you look at Brin-l archives, you 
> will see that I wrote it.
>
Ah, the files. How hard to find anything there :-(
 
Alberto Monteiro

PS: and I am glad that my _other_ prophetic doomsday
scenario is still in the Future.

PPS: OTOH, my local doomsday scenario was an epic fail


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Down with the government

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Charlie Bell  wrote:

> Small government and low taxation libertarians don't explain how these
> infrastructure services are to be maintained if the mechanisms for
> maintaining them are disbanded

Actually, quite a few libertarians do explain how that can be done. I
assume that either you disagree with the explanations you have
encountered, or that you have not read any significant libertarian
essays on the subject.

By the way, the Chris' post fits the definition of a troll much better
than anything I have posted recently, since it was not addressing any
points that had been made in the thread so far, did not appear to make
any effort to explain the change of subject or make a serious point,
but rather seemed designed to be inflammatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an
online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent
of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of
otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

But I do not mean to complain about anyone trolling. I just wanted
Chris to clarify his point if he had one, or to find out if he did not
have a point.

And I only brought up trolling now because Charlie's behavior seems to
indicate a tendency to call a post a troll if he disagrees with the
opinion expressed, and to call a post worthwhile if he agrees with the
opinion expressed.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries

[John Williams]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Charlie Bell  wrote:

> Other than implying that Brad censors his blog of disagreement and
> Nick is dishonest, you mean?

Brad called me a troll and tried to incite people to censor me, which
is not polite. I replied to that insult rather politely, in that I
asked him why he thinks he has the power to censor people on this
email list, as he does on his blog. As for censorship on his blog, do
you mean to imply that you think he does not delete comments he
disagrees with? Because I know for a fact that he does, and he has
done it to the comments of many people who have tried to post polite
opinions that did not agree with Brad's agenda.

As for Nick, we were having a discussion about how honest people deal
with borrowing and paying back money. Given that the discussion had
started by Nick mentioning his attempts at loan modification, it would
be virtually impossible to discuss the situation without it being
possible for people to see some implications. But that does not
constitute an ad hominem argument, since the discussion was actually
about the ethics of the situation.

> And for the record, _ad hominem_ is not personal attack.

I am well aware of the meaning. You used it ambiguously. Literally,
the Latin translates as "to man" or "to the man", which could of
course refer to about anything about a man or humanity in general. It
is generally used as a modifier, such as "ad hominem attack" or "ad
hominem argument". Since you did not specify, I made a guess at what
you meant.

> It is failing to respond to an argument, or using a person's
> attributes as a reason why their argument is wrong. Right up with the
> other logical fallacies.

So you meant ad hominem argument.

> And pointing out that you're trolling is likewise not a personal attack,
> it's a description of your behaviour,

An incorrect description of my behavior, to which I replied with a
question about Brad's censorship behavior.

> All I can do is respond to the writing you post, and that writing is
> weak and your reasoning poorly explained. That's not a personal attack
> either.

How do you categorize responding to a post you disagree with by
writing "FUCK YOU" and saying that you are going to kill file the
poster?

> I would LOVE to see someone post well-reasoned arguments for the
> conservative right position in the States, but I'm not seeing them
> here (or anywhere else, for that matter).

If you think that I can be categorized as the "conservative right",
then you do not understand my views at all. Not surprising, since your
past behavior has been to get extremely angry about my "weak writing
and poor explaining", and then to stop reading my posts. Which is of
course your prerogative, but it seems odd that you become so upset
just from reading such worthless arguments. I would think the more
natural response would be boredom and skipping to the next thing to
read.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries

[John Williams]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Hobby  wrote:

> Hi.  I'm with Keith on this.  A mortgage is not an
> absolute promise to pay back the loan.  Rather, the
> deal is that if the borrower does not keep up payments,
> the lender can take back the property.

I'm not sure why you imply that I disagree with that, assuming we are
talking about a nonrecourse loan, which is what I assume Nick has.

But the issue is that Nick, for whatever reason, is not walking away.
Instead, it seems he tried to get the lender to accept payback of less
than he borrowed, but the lender did not agree to it. Then there was
some story filed with the Justice department, which I do not know the
details of, but it sounds like it must be complaints about the lender
refusing to accept being paid back less than the amount that was
borrowed.

Nick, feel free to jump in here if I have something wrong.

Another complication is that many of the mortgages are now owned,
directly or indirectly, by the Federal government. That is what I
meant when I wrote earlier that not paying back the full loan amount
can ultimately result in the average taxpayer footing the bill.

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Down with the government

[Charlie Bell]

Actually, it was a very good point. Small government and low taxation 
libertarians don't explain how these infrastructure services are to be 
maintained if the mechanisms for maintaining them are disbanded. And we've seen 
in the UK and Australia what privatising the infrastructure does - it leads to 
increased costs, poorer service and poorer standards.

Nice to see you delurk, Chris.

C.

On 21/10/2010, at 9:43 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote:

> John;
> My bad. You were right, just  a random misplaced thought. Back to lurking.
> 
> learner
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:43 AM, John Williams wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Chris Frandsen  wrote:
>>> Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that 
>>> roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them.  We 
>>> can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-)
>>> 
>> 
>> Was this supposed to have the slightest relevance to the conversation?
>> Or are you just inserting totally random comments?
>> 
>> ___
>> http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
> 


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries

[Charlie Bell]

On 21/10/2010, at 8:08 AM, John Williams wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Charlie Bell  wrote:
> 
>> You can leave the troll. It's taken only a few posts for me to realise that 
>> John has zero interest in engaging with any point, just repeating his own 
>> point over and over, and then using _ad hominem_  like he's doing in 
>> response to Brad. Thought I'd see if the previous 3 years demonstration that 
>> deregulation completely failed had mellowed him or changed his mind, but it 
>> apparently hasn't.
> 
> I did not ad hominem anyone. The only person I have seen to
> consistently engage is personal attacks is you.

Other than implying that Brad censors his blog of disagreement and Nick is 
dishonest, you mean? 

And for the record, _ad hominem_ is not personal attack. It is failing to 
respond to an argument, or using a person's attributes as a reason why their 
argument is wrong. Right up with the other logical fallacies. And pointing out 
that you're trolling is likewise not a personal attack, it's a description of 
your behaviour, just as describing someone as angry or strident or fallacial is 
not a personal attack. All I can do is respond to the writing you post, and 
that writing is weak and your reasoning poorly explained. That's not a personal 
attack either. I would LOVE to see someone post well-reasoned arguments for the 
conservative right position in the States, but I'm not seeing them here (or 
anywhere else, for that matter).

Thought you might have learnt to explain your reasoning and stopped resorting 
to assumptions by now, but as you can't be bothered, neither can I.

Cheers,

Charlie.
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com