Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

starbucks4ever (97.39)

The "immoral" homedebtors and the "moral" bankers

Recs

29

October 11, 2010 – Comments (45)

You may often hear that walking away from a mortgage is "wrong". As for myself, I am amazed that this question is even being discussed seriously.

There are two possible cases: either it's legal, or it's not. If it's illegal, the lenders should just go to court and skip all the morality talk. If it is legal, there is nothing wrong with using the option that you are entitled to under the contract.

Imagine they applied the same kind of "logic" to the stock market. You purchase a risky stock. Because it's risky, you also buy a put. If you could not buy the put, you would be much less likely to purchase the stock in the first place. Your fears prove to be valid and the stock nosedives. But you have the option to limit your losses. At this moment your counterparty sends you an email asking you to behave "morally" and not exercise the option. True, he wrote the option, but he expected you would behave "morally" and never exercise it if the trade goes against him. Now, who is really immoral here?

My answer is, the option writer is clearly immoral. The stock trader is just facing the ordinary ethical issues common to all market participants. 

The same applies to mortgages. If the buyer did not have the option to default, he would not pay as much for the house, and the bank would not earn as much profit from underwriting the loan. So the bank has received its option premium. In return, the buyer received the downside protection. Is it possible that the bank made a foolish bet? It's certainly possible. But this is called market. Nobody forced the bank to enter the contract. If the bank did not exercise due diligence, it's the bank's problem. Even if the bank was a victim of unforeseen circumstances, it must still be the bank's problem. It took a justified risk and it lost. Happens to people all the time.

This is one answer to the question. I'd call it semi-moral and semi-legal.

The second answer, the one that should satisfy moral purists, is that mortgage lenders do not deserve ethical treatment because their business model is unethical to the extreme. The bank earns its profit by offering a mortgage loan to you while at the same time offering the same type of loan to your rivals. There is an exact analogy for this behavior. When two countries go to war, there is always a war profiteer who earns a living by selling weapons to both warring parties. Each country must overpay for the weapons in order to avoid military defeat, but neither country can gain an advantage. The profit machine continues to run until both countries exhaust themselves. This is the essence of the mortgage lending business and it costs buyers tens of thousands of dollars overpaid in unwinnable bidding wars. This business is causing harm to the homebuyers, and if our government were ethical, this business would be illegal in the first place.

To say that you should treat your mortgage lender ethically is like saying that you should alert a thief when he drops his wallet even he has stolen your jewelry the day before. This turning the other cheek is laudable in a quasi-Christian sense, but I don't think it's good ethics. On the contrary, I think it is failure to differentiate between good, neutral, and harmful businesses that may actually be morally questionable. 

So if you think of strategically defaulting, don't pity the lenders too much. They are the bad guys. Do what is necessary, but don't try to be nice.   

On a final note, from a practical point of view, I think defaulting on a mortgage is a horrible idea in most cases and I wouldn't suggest it to anyone. But if you've done your economic analysis and it says default if profitable, there is no moral dilemma at all. Owning shares of Coca Cola (its beverage is not exactly what you call healthy food) is a much better reason for soul-searching.   

 

 

45 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 11, 2010 at 9:03 PM, MegaEurope (21.47) wrote:

The second answer, the one that should satisfy moral purists, is that mortgage lenders do not deserve ethical treatment because their business model is unethical to the extreme.

 

If you think this approach will satisfy a moral purist, maybe you have never met one.

Report this comment
#2) On October 11, 2010 at 9:18 PM, TMFAleph1 (96.39) wrote:

The second answer, the one that should satisfy moral purists, is that mortgage lenders do not deserve ethical treatment because their business model is unethical to the extreme. The bank earns its profit by offering a mortgage loan to you while at the same time offering the same type of loan to your rivals.

Is this a serious argument or are you being sarcastic here?

Report this comment
#3) On October 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM, BillyTG (29.21) wrote:

Time magazine had a writeup on this very issue this morning.

Report this comment
#4) On October 11, 2010 at 9:41 PM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#1,

:):):)

#2,

This is a serious argument. No sarcasm here.

#3,

Thanks for the link. 

 

Report this comment
#5) On October 11, 2010 at 10:55 PM, awallejr (83.80) wrote:

I won't disagree with you here Zloj.  When all those Wall Street thieves, who churned out ponzi scheme loans and then sold them off to suckers who would buy without doing any DD, that we basically let off the hook by a lack of any prosecution and by Gov't bailout, it becomes hypocritical to start pointing the "moral" finger at those that simply can no longer afford those mortgages.

If the banks linger at pushing the actual foreclosure procedure that is their fault.  You'd be surprised, however, at how many are still willing to pay those underwater mortgages because it is their HOME.

Report this comment
#6) On October 12, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Valyooo (99.43) wrote:

I strongly agree with your main point, however:

The second answer, the one that should satisfy moral purists, is that mortgage lenders do not deserve ethical treatment because their business model is unethical to the extreme

I don't understand at all why  you feel that way.

Report this comment
#7) On October 12, 2010 at 1:04 AM, sawchain (< 20) wrote:

Here's a truism that blows away your premise, zloj...

That which is legal is not necessarily moral.

 

* Is it legal to call your wife a bitch?  Is it moral?

* Is it legal to curse your parents?  Is it moral?

* (In some states) Is it legal to have sex with your neighbors wife? (yes)  Is it moral?

* Is it legal to walk away from a mortgage to which you agreed?  Is it moral?

 

Morality does not follow from legality, rather the other way around.  Without some sense of morality, irrespective of its origin (I'm not on a high religious horse here, so please don't assail me as such), laws cannot be created.  When someone writes something down and calls it a law, that is an expression of morality whether the person realizes it or not.

Report this comment
#8) On October 12, 2010 at 1:10 AM, sawchain (< 20) wrote:

Another point... just because a law doesn't exist prohibiting something doesn't mean it's moral.  It's very possible the legislators just haven't gotten to that topic.  This usually occurs in areas of new development that aren't well understood by the general public.  Net neutrality is a perfect example.  I'm sure you can find folks making moral arguments on both sides, which at some point might widely be considered the "moral" behavior.

Which brings me to my third point.  We're all free to have our own morals.  In fact we're free NOT to have our own morals.  However, we're not free to break the law.  If you do break the law, you may not be breaking your own moral code, but you're certainly breaking someone else's.

Report this comment
#9) On October 12, 2010 at 1:18 AM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#5,

They are just doing the right thing economically. Tell them mortgage lending will be banned next year, and they will stop paying because it will be easy to anticipate the new price levels...About 2 years' worth of mortgage payments.

#6, 

I can't explain it more clearly...

#7,

I agree. 

Report this comment
#10) On October 12, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

If one cannot afford to pay the mortgage, walking away is the only choice left.  If you can afford to pay it, but walk away, you are performing an unethical act.

If you don't view it that way, it's your choice.  But in my book, you are unethical.  Maybe ethics are not part of your internal guidelines.

Report this comment
#11) On October 12, 2010 at 1:38 AM, sawchain (< 20) wrote:

Topical: Debtors Prison

 

"In 1833 the United States abolished Federal imprisonment for unpaid debts,[5] and most states outlawed the practice around the same time.[6][7] Before then, the use of debtor's prisons was widespread; signatories to the Declaration of Independence, James Wilson & Robert Morris were both later incarcerated, as were 2,000 New Yorkers annually by 1816. Henry Lee III, better known as Light-Horse Harry Lee, a Revolutionary War general, former governor of Virginia, and father of Robert E. Lee, was imprisoned for debt between 1808 and 1809.[8] Sometimes, imprisonment would result from less than sixty-cents worth of debt.[9]

It is still possible to be incarcerated for debt, though this may be unconstitutional unless the court finds that the debtor actually possesses the means to pay.[10][11]"

 

Report this comment
#12) On October 12, 2010 at 1:44 AM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#10,

It's just different kind of ethics.

#11,

When the law says you must pay, you clearly have to pay. One must always study the legal aspects of it before deciding to default. 

Report this comment
#13) On October 12, 2010 at 4:23 AM, MGDG (35.18) wrote:

What I find odd is if a homeowner legally defaults on a loan, he is perceived to have committed an immoral act, yet a business legally defaults and nary a yawn is drawn from the crowd.

Report this comment
#14) On October 12, 2010 at 7:07 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

It's not really a question of morals if you ask me.  There's nothing immoral about being a lender; nothing immoral about walking away from a mortgage.

It is a question of trust and reliability.  If you walk away from a mortgage, you are suggesting that you might be untrustworthy or unreliable.  Of course, you could simply be unlucky and lost your job; that's also a possibility.  But if you are able to make good on your contract and don't, you aren't trustworthy. 

Once again, nothing immoral about it.  It's just that given your lack of trustworthiness, lenders will be less likely to lend to you in the future and/or you will have to pay higher interest rates.   

In other words, the market works.  People are held accountable for their actions.  

 

I do think your argument that mortgage lenders are immoral is weak.  Why are they immoral?  Would you prefer they not provide consumers with loans?  Why is lending money out for homes immoral, but lending money to the government (treasury bonds) not?  Why is mortgage lending immoral, but lending to businesses (corporate bonds) not?  Once you determine that interest is, in and of itself, immoral, you run into a very slippery slope. 

This is not to say that all mortgage lenders are moral.  There will always be market participants that are moral and immoral in any given profession. 

Report this comment
#15) On October 12, 2010 at 7:43 AM, outoffocus (22.81) wrote:

The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower becomes the lender's slave. ~ Proverbs 22:7

Report this comment
#16) On October 12, 2010 at 10:04 AM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#13,

Exactly.

#14,

I would prefer they did not provide consumers with loans, except payday loans and small credit card balances. But certainly not with mortgage loans or education loans. These loans are there to drive up prices. We would be better off without them. Loans to producers is a different thing. It's OK to loan money to IBM. Everybody benefits from such a loan. But these loans too should have an upper cap because when the money is too cheap, the cat stops catching mice.

Report this comment
#17) On October 12, 2010 at 11:19 AM, TMFAleph1 (96.39) wrote:

I do think your argument that mortgage lenders are immoral is weak.

I think 'nonexistent' might more accurate here. Furthermore, the idea that "these loans are there to drive up prices" is completely baseless.

Report this comment
#18) On October 12, 2010 at 11:31 AM, eldemonio (98.88) wrote:

This argument is ridiculous. 

We had tenants in our rental who were the devil.  Rent was typically late, often accompanied with a lame-ass excuse. They smoked inside the house and lived in filthy conditions.  After a couple of months, they eventually decided to default on our lease, explaining that they planned on staying through the end of the month without paying rent.  As the month was winding down, he threatened to stay longer - "I won't have my kids on the street." In his mind, he was justified living in the house for free when he couldn't pay rent because he was looking out for his family. By the time they left the house, they owed us thousands of dollars in rent and late fees.  We were as accomodating as we could be, but evidently they felt screwed and decided to take it out on our refrigerator door.  We learned a valuable lesson, I doubt they did.

Granted, we should have been more diligent during the screening process, but we honestly felt we were cutting this couple a break.  This couple lives a hard life because of their crappy decisions, and they float through life expecting other people to pay for their mistakes.  How is this not immoral? 

If you can afford to pay your mortgage but decide to default, you're an immoral suck-ass.  Your "choice" not only affects you, but the neighbors around you who see their home values plunge.  How is this an acceptable choice?  It seems pretty clear to me, what am I missing?

Report this comment
#19) On October 12, 2010 at 12:10 PM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#17,

I will leave this comment unanswered, OK?

:):):) 

#18,

" It seems pretty clear to me, what am I missing?" 

Only sense of ethics :) 

Report this comment
#20) On October 12, 2010 at 12:33 PM, russiangambit (29.24) wrote:

#18 - charity with no strings atatched doesn't work for this very reason. The people playing vicitims instead of taking control of their life. This is especially true in the US where poor people live better than middle class eslewhere. The difference is their attitude, their view of life and the lack of life skills. The kind of people that you describe will never get out of poverty because the first step towards success is taking responsibility for your actions.

However, this example doesn't dispute zloj's point. What should've happened -  when that family decide to default they should've moved out immidiately and , of course, without any damages to the house. That would've been an honest financial decision and I see nothing wrong with it.

The issue is  that people defaulting on the mortgages then continue to live in houses rent free unless foreclosure proceedings begin, which is often 2 years and then they damage the house on top of it. This is definitely wrong, and is not a part of the contract.

Report this comment
#21) On October 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#20,

Damaging the house is a foolish thing to do. It feels like a personal vendetta against a greedy landlord, but all it will achieve is that he will make his next tenant jump through hoops before signing the lease. A great nuisance for the future tenants and not even particularly damaging to the landlord.

Report this comment
#22) On October 12, 2010 at 1:58 PM, eldemonio (98.88) wrote:

zloj,

You must be kidding.  If not, just lie to me and say you are.  I don't want to live in a world where this kind of douche-baggery exists.

Although cute smiley faces are a very effective rebuttal, an actual argument would be better.

Your original post is about morality, not ethics.  My post was also about morality.  Ethics and morals are very different from one another.  Don't confuse the issue, stick to one point.

Your last comment hurt, it hurt real bad.  If being a greedy landlord means that you actually want people to pay rent to live in your house, then I am super greedy.  Also, you are absolutely correct about the damage not affecting us much.  Sure, we had to pay for the repairs that cost thousands of dollars, but no big deal.  We made that money up in no time by tricking another tenant into signing a crazy lease that mandated they prostitute their kids and grow weed in the basement.

Get real. 

Report this comment
#23) On October 12, 2010 at 1:58 PM, tjensen3618 (92.33) wrote:

I encourage people I know to walk away from their mortgage if they're underwater, It's the smart thing to do.

Simply put, banks made bad bets on the necessary amount of collateral (house worth) to secure the loan.

 As a younger guy, I'm happy to see this happening, as it was 3 years ago there was no reasonable way I would have been able to afford buying a condo with loan terms that actually made sense.  Now I can see a clear path affordable homeownership.

Yay for the bubble popping, and for the fact that a guy with a medium sized income can now buy a middle of the road house again!

Report this comment
#24) On October 12, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Rehydrogenated (32.61) wrote:

Usury was considered illegal and immoral in numerous societies throughout the early days of civilization. People needed loans, and there were banks willing to lend to them without interest, however default was illegal. The problem was, if default was illegal, a huge number of good people kept ending up in jail (stuff happens).

Deciding to switch to banks charging interest on loans and reducing the penalty for default was great for economic growth. It enabled people to take risks and continue to be productive citizens even if they failed. This is our social contract with the banks. It's also our legal contract and the reason we pay interest premiums. People choose to pay more for bank loans specifically because there is no morality involved. If they wanted a trust-based system they would take an interest-free loan from friends and family (like people did for thousands of years). The current system allows banks to be profitable while increasing economic and social mobility. 

Report this comment
#25) On October 12, 2010 at 3:58 PM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#22,

It's not about your being a greedy landlord. I would be charging market rents as well.

#23,

It's unfortunate this is taking place because of foreclosures. I would prefer it happened as a result of bankruptcy of mortgage lenders and 20% interest rates.

#24, 

Yes, a loan from a relative is precisely the situation when you should pay it back no matter what the law says. 

Report this comment
#26) On October 12, 2010 at 6:11 PM, mtf00l (45.26) wrote:

So, I've seen all the "personal" walk away arguments however, I still haven't seen the business walk away argument yet.

Businesses walk away from debts all the time. Real estate is only one form of debt walked away from.  I'm not finding a good link to post so look for John Stewart show regarding the "Mortgage Bankers Association's" mortgage.

Report this comment
#27) On October 12, 2010 at 6:13 PM, mtf00l (45.26) wrote:

After that, remember that without your tax dollars, Goldman, Citi, AIG, J. P. Morgan, Bank of America and many others would be out of business today.

Keep those payments coming!

Report this comment
#28) On October 12, 2010 at 6:20 PM, mtf00l (45.26) wrote:

@zloj

I appreciate your comments and your original article. I just wanted you to know that.

@sawchain

You my Foolish friend are spot on.  The problem is it is not a level playing field.  Additionally, I have no doubt that if a banker doing Gods work desired my wife, not even hell itself would stand in his way.

Report this comment
#29) On October 12, 2010 at 6:57 PM, BearishKW (< 20) wrote:

@mtf00l...i wish the world was just in 2D and you could use the same formulas for both business and personal problems, but it's not.  Businesses declaring bankruptcy from their debts are different than families (the ones who are ABLE to pay) walking away from their homes. 

How do you explain the morality of it to your family, friends, coworkers without lying to yourself?  Bottom line, if you're able to pay the money you agreed to, and walk...you're just part of the problem.  Nobody was holding a gun to your head when you signed the papers.

@mtf00l...give me one reason to believe that if we hadn't bailed these institutions out we'd be better off.  Sure they were irresponsible and some of the people running them deserve jail time.  But sarcastically saying "Keep those payments coming!" is the kind of disregard and short-sightedness that you are blaming the banks of.

 

Report this comment
#30) On October 12, 2010 at 8:10 PM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#28,

Thanks :)

#29,

I would explain it to my family, friends, coworkers, etc. that I used the option I had under the terms of the contract to recover a small part of the losses that I suffered because of the existence of the banks.

Also, there is no doubt that we'd be better off if we allowed the banking system to die. Although I must admit it would have been devastating for my portfolio. But the statement is still true. 

Report this comment
#31) On October 12, 2010 at 8:37 PM, BearishKW (< 20) wrote:

You can talk like a lawyer all you want, but the bottom line is you're not willing to accept the terms that you signed your name to.  And that's what your family, friends, coworkers, etc will think when you use that excuse.

And look at the collateral damage you cause...adjacent property values go down, the lender takes a bath, economy gets worse.

Maybe that's the real problem with people, banks, etc. caught up in this whole mess.  No responsibility. Nobody can think past what is best for them at any cost.

All I hear when I listen to people make the case for strategic defaulting is a bunch of babies...mad about how some have all the money and others are forced to go to them for loans.  And who gets hurt the most?  Of course the people who don't jump on the "get rich quick" scam and live within their means.

 

 

Report this comment
#32) On October 12, 2010 at 8:45 PM, dwot (72.07) wrote:

It is a contract and I don't fault people for choosing to walk away.  But this business of living in the home without paying mortgage really is milking the system.  You default, you give up the keys and get out and pay rent.

Report this comment
#33) On October 12, 2010 at 8:55 PM, dwot (72.07) wrote:

eldemonio,

My first try at renting and I got a dud as well.  I just got her out a couple weeks ago.  By the sounds of it I am luckier then you are, but I am bruised by the whole process and now she is trying to sue me as I have a claim against her for what she didn't pay.  It is all my fault she didn't pay the terms she agreed to.

But, I am truly glad to have her out of my home.

Report this comment
#34) On October 12, 2010 at 9:43 PM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#31,

How is that "not accepting the terms" when there is no violation of the written contract and your lawyer assures you it's legally OK? It is the bank that's not accepting the terms.

As for what you call collateral damage, you have turned the argument upside down. When you bought the house, did your neighbors cry because you overpaid? Did they try to help you get a better price? No, they did everything they could do to make sure you never get a bargain in that community and the more you stretched your budget the happier they felt. OK, it was legal for them to do so and you didn't complain. Now you are defaulting because it's legal for you do so, and they are whining and talking about ethics? Too late. The time to discuss ethics was when they were enjoying the upside.

This whole collateral damage talk is childish. You believe in American individualism? Feel entitled to pursue profit when you see an opportunity? Then don't be surprised if others feel the same way about opportunities they see.

Report this comment
#35) On October 12, 2010 at 10:46 PM, BearishKW (< 20) wrote:

#34...So go and hire an attorney who can assure you that it's okay.  Congrats, I hope you sleep better at night while you're living in the place that you refuse to pay for.

And if you want to talk about childish...try demonizing the neighbors who are stick with their investments and make the payments..."When you bought the house, did your neighbors cry because you overpaid? Did they try to help you get a better price? No, they did everything they could do to make sure you never get a bargain in that community and the more you stretched your budget the happier they felt. OK, it was legal for them to do so and you didn't complain."

Why would they fight to get prices lowered for someone they didn't even know?  The only thing you owe your neighbors is being respectful enough to not lower their quality of life.  Even if they did work against you when you were buying in...maybe they were a bit worried about the quality of person moving in.  Maybe they were worried about someone who, in the case of home prices going down for instance, would hire a lawyer bail them out.

Pursueing profits through investments means taking on risk.  There is a HUGE difference between selling investments at a loss or running away from them under cover of nightfall.

 

Report this comment
#36) On October 12, 2010 at 11:13 PM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#35,

I see no difference. Selling means running away, and running away means selling. When you sell a losing stock, other shareholders also suffer. 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#37) On October 12, 2010 at 11:58 PM, TMFAleph1 (96.39) wrote:

This thread is epic in its creativity and surrealism. This is trolling at its finest!

Report this comment
#38) On October 13, 2010 at 9:17 AM, mtf00l (45.26) wrote:

@BerishKW

#29 Part 1a; I didn't say anything about the businesses declaring bankruptcy.  These are businesses that simply give the keys back to the bank that financed their building and walked away because it made financial sense to do so.

#29 Part 1b; You desire a personal response, ok.  I have always been the responsible party in all my dealings, period.  I read the fine print on offers and contracts before I sign them.  I make my payments ahead of time. I find and negotiate the best deals I can or I walk away before getting involved in a bad business deal.Yes, it is not a 2D world as you point out however, why is it always the citizen, tax payer, individual, little person, society that has to always be the responsible party to every transaction.

Why, in your opinion, is it ok for businesses because they're businesses to walk away without consequence? Why, in your opinion,  is it ok for businesses to get tax payer dollars that are suppose to be used for the common good of the people and then get additional moneys at zero percent interest only to invest in the market and buy US Treasury notes? Why, in your opinion, are the same "moral" requirements not required of businesses that you require of society?

#29 Part 2; We'll never know how things would have been had the TBTF banks and insurers not been bailed out.  That debate will never be resolved unless the same set of circumstances happen in the future and we respond opposite to what we did the first time. That said, can you give me one reason to think we wouldn't be better off? Lastly, and I'm assuming here, you are paying you obligations so in reality you are "keeping those payments coming" and good for you.  I am too!

Report this comment
#39) On October 13, 2010 at 9:22 AM, mtf00l (45.26) wrote:

@TMFMarathonMan

Ok, I'll bite...

I see you question and your statement.

What's your opinion?

Report this comment
#40) On October 13, 2010 at 11:46 AM, TMFAleph1 (96.39) wrote:

My opinion is that the idea that mortgage lending is unethical because mortgage lenders are willing to lend to more than one person or that mortgages are there to drive up real estate prices are so bizarre that they cannot be anything but a trolling attempt. I can't see that these notions merit page after page of quasi-serious discussion... but it appears that other people feel differently. I think zloj must be laughing gleefully every time he gets an additional comment on this thread. Carry on.

Report this comment
#41) On October 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#40,

OK, i take it back, there is no correlation between mortgage rates and real estate prices.  

Looks like I touched a bare nerve.

Report this comment
#42) On October 13, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Valyooo (99.43) wrote:

Zloj, sorry if I am just plain stupid, but how is it immoral to lend to multiple people? I must be missing something...doesn't the banking system work by taking in savings, loaning those savings to others, and keeping the spread between interest paid out and interest received?  It would be a horrendous business if they only had one customer.

Report this comment
#43) On October 13, 2010 at 7:09 PM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

#42,

Bankers have the legal right under the current system to give a loan to A to outbid B and also to B to outbid A. Nobody is denying that. And we have the right to judge for ourselves whether this business model is useful to us, or whether it just causes us to overpay for life necessities. And in the latter case we have the right not to go the extra mile to please them unless the law obliges us to do so. 

Report this comment
#44) On October 13, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Valyooo (99.43) wrote:

So are you saying everything should be paid for in cash?

Report this comment
#45) On October 14, 2010 at 12:10 AM, starbucks4ever (97.39) wrote:

Why everything? Banks have their legitimate role providing credit to industrialists. A modern 26 nm microchip production line is too expensive to purchase for cash. Not because its price was pumped up, but just because the technology is so complex. But we've given the banks too much money, way more than needed to make legitimate, socially useful loans. The remainder overflows into the segments where the loans actually do harm.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement