Margaret Thatcher has died

No, the problem is the people who are supposed to be helping you with this also happen to make more money if they can upsell the house, upsell the mortgage and make you think this balloon mortgage is is good idea because housing values will rise forever and of course you can afford it, I just worked the numbers with you.
 
Caveat Emptor is not a fair policy in an industry that is suppose to inform you in the first place.
 
No, the problem is both. I do agree that the person selling you the loan is not motivated to act in your best interests.

But maybe you shouldn't think of them as people trying to help you, you should think of them as people trying to screw you. The people trying to help you are the informational resources that come from a different source than the lender.


And, even when it is not if you don't take control of this knowledge then you wouldn't know when a person was genuinely trying to help you yet was inept, or just made an error. Either of which wouldn't help you one jot once your are in the Red on the loan.
 
Why is it supposed to inform you? I thought it was an industry that was supposed to lend to you.

I mean, it would be lovely if it was, but the industry I know is out there to make money from you, not educate you.
 
Well this is part of the problem, we have a financial industry that is effectively a shark tank. The free-market types keep on saying that de-regulated industry provides great service but that's not what we're seeing. We're watching an industry of full-time formally-educated professionals prey on people who have had to learn about the stock-market and banking system on their coffee break.

This kind of predatory relationship combined with such a strong power-inequality is, as we have seen, a recipe for disaster.
 
But the game is afoot Watson.

You can learn it, or be manipulated by it, and complaining without learning will not help you one bit, other than making you feel better for a fleeting moment.
 
Actually I was referring to the Realtors whose job it is to represent you and help you with the process. Shame their commission is based on upselling you as well.
 
The realtors make commission

The mortgage brokers make commission

Neither is encouraged to help you, though those that do have the morals to do so might have more repeat business in the long run. However, they are probably not encouraged to this by their team leaders in addition to their commission structure.

Everybody is out to screw you in a free market economy.
 
Change the game or Matt really would be rather stupid not claiming what he can. Tax breaks are benefits right?
 
Mattt, your position is logical, but I feel ignores a few important factors.

Firstly, I don't see any meaningful desire to educate the poor. Wealth is relative, it is not in the interest of those at the top (and those riding their coattails) for the lower echelons to become financially saavy. Yes, anyone can learn these things, but if it's not a part of your inherited cultural knowledge you are unlikely to realise how severe that gap in your knowledge is, let alone know how to go about fixing it. That does not make a person stupid.

Secondly, the markets one has access to are not equal, and the punishments for manipulating them, or breaking the law, are not proportionate to the social harm done. Consider the difference between selling weed and selling a mortgage to a family that you know is likely to end in foreclosure. Financial services available to different income brackets are hardly proportionate either.

Thirdly, some people have no desire to become financially successful, they don't want to play the game. Whether that's because of apathy and alienation, or political opposition. As there is no opting-out of society, they turn up in the stats as "failures".

Lastly, the social role of payed advocate has been twisted beyond recognition. It is now seemingly acceptable for a service provider to do all it can to decieve customers, as long as it is within the law. Whilst this may make some kind of economic sense, I feel it is a sad state of affairs. There will always be an element of this in a trade-based economy, but the fact that dishonesty is not only accepted but expected now... well it's both sad and bizarre.

Yes, you have to learn to play the game to stay afloat in this dog-eat-dog world. But how many people enjoy, or benefit from, this game?
 
In a way. I think that the tax rate is artificially high due to the offsets of these deductions. So not using them isn't smart.

However is gladly get rid of them and simplify the code so everyone is equal. But I won't not use the breaks now when the underlying rates have them built in already.
 
David,

There may well be a case for there being more deceit in the financial services industry, but you can see that this isn't really the norm across the wide range of goods and services provided by private business. A lot of business is run ethically. I don't think it's really a fair argument against privatisation in general to be based on this one industry out of such a broad range. The simple answer is it needs/ needed better regulation and an agency that kept a check on it. Especially the retail market, which should have really been fenced off beyond a certain level of risk well before now.

Just look what the Cypriots are going through now because of all this - many people that I know are being effected by what's happening over there in the economy and with the banks. It's not like we privatised this industry, we loosened the regulations, but completely let it get out of control. There's not really such thing as an unregulated industry but that's what it has felt like with the banking and financial sector to many people.

When I posted earlier about "special cases" in regards to industry. Money is right up there at the top of my list. I think what aikiwolfie posted about the government getting involved in lending to the public and small to medium sized business would be a good idea, for example.
 
In fairness the Aston Martin might be all he has left. He could be going home to a B&B constantly wondering when that Aston is going to be repossessed.

I'm watching the BBC's excuse for news. The only guy they could find in London who thought we should be paying for Thatchers funeral seemed to be American. Definitely not British.
 
It wasn't supposed to be an argument against privatisation, I don't trust government or business

It was a few considerations that usually get ignored when advocates of laissez-fare, trickle-down economics start trying to convince us that everyone has the same opportunity, and people only end up on the socioeconomic rung that their efforts deserve. This myth, which I admit can be compelling - especially if you like to think of yourself as self-made and independent, falls flat upon deeper scrutiny.

At the same time, I do admire mattt's anti-victim-mentality stance, but cannot draw the same conclusions from it.
 
Something else that was on the news tonight. The benefits cap is not about saving money. It's purely ideological. Forgive me for being stupid. But if you ramble on for 3 years about how this is required because we're in times of austerity and the country is bankrupt. Doesn't that suggest it's about saving money?

Did the Tories just lie through their teeth again to get a hugely divisive policy that will hurt the poor to be accepted?
 
Oh you don't know what it's like around here. I'd just guess that's how he got the car in the first place, never actually paying list price for anything.
We don't have B&B's anyway, they'd lower the tone
 
That is true. I would never pay list price for anything, I would also never buy a new car. Most purchases I try to get about 30% reduced either in terms of discount or rebate.
 
Back
Top