Saturday, March 7, 2009

Fixers & Morality Plays

Let me fix that for you:

Henry BlodgetThe sane people who read The Atlantic thinks it is time for Timothy GeithnerMegan McArdle to go. So far, GeithnerMcArdle's performance has been shockingly unimpressive.
Better now? Good. Because this will have you doubled up. Whether from laughter or rage is up to you.

When a detail like "But I've since realized that our landlords have an old, broken grill that we might have been able to repair with enough duct tape, saving me almost $200," appears in an item comparing her (alleged) buyer's remorse over a credit card purchase of a BBQ grill to the "irresponsible" people whose mortgages were approved by the banks/lenders/other parasites, one can only think, "Too much detail to be true." 

So she has set herself (or her imaginary grill purchase) up as the strawperson, & proceeds to burn it to the ground. 
Hell, the dirty bastards may well have known that I was going to end up underwater on my grill loan. I don't see why I have any obligation to repay them.

This seems to me to be approximately the logic behind the people saying that folks who took out stupid loans don't have any sort of moral obligation whatsoever to make good their debts.
Yes, she made a grand comparison between buyer's remorse over a non-essential whatnot purchased on revolving credit, & home co-ownership by mortgage. (Even to the detail about there being a "fixer-upper" grill available, apparently w/o cost beyond duct tape.) I've never taken an econ or anything similar class, but even I know that there is a vast difference between the two "purchases," the moral equivalence Megan thinks she is demonstrating notwithstanding.

I assumed her link above would be some sort of left-wing rant, or maybe a right-wing ninny, on about "Obama's ACORN thugs" taking possession of foreclosed houses. Silly me. It's a perfectly reasonable analysis of one "home-owner's" troubles. At Condé Nast 

I only note her apparent pride in her bourgeois morality, her free market devotion, & her re-cycling an ancient bromide:  
[T]here is no way to tax a corporation, there is no way to default on a corporation.  Whenever you default, you are taking money from some person:  a shareholder, a creditor, an employee who loses their job when the corporation is liquidated.
& its corollary. (As if people don't know & hope that some at least one bastard responsible is getting screwed whenever they get away w/ retaliating against an oppressive corporate entity.)

I didn't dare look at the comments, but suppose that I should, just to see if teabagging astroturfery has infected the somewhat more informed (than whom I'm not really certain) commentariat of A. I.

Maybe more later, if they're idiotic & raging.

1 comment:

bulbul said...

Second comment (by Monty):
I take a very Old Testament view of people who default on debt
How very 'Christian' of him. I assume he also takes the Old Testament view of debts and business transactions in general (Leviticus 25):

"A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you...
In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession...
The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.
And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.
Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee."

Monty, you're an asshole.