Revolutionary response to home forclosure

[David Guyatt]

"When I see that I owe $160,000 on almost a $350,000 home..."

Hell...doesn't that mean he has about $190,000 in equity?
That's a hell of a lot more than I have in mine...and I am still making the payments. He signed the loan documents. And if he is smart enough to read the bulldozer instructions, he is smart enough to read what he signed when he took on the loan.

Sorry, but I saw nothing in this story to tug at my heart strings. He has IRS liens on his business property and a home worth between a quarter and a half million dollars. The bank took a risk that he signed on to.

I wouldn't be in the house I am in if it weren't for a bank that took the same kind of risk on me. They make a profit on that risk and I am benefiting from the transaction.

If I lose my job tomorrow and can't fulfill my part of the bargain that I signed off on, is it OK to destroy what the bank gets in exchange?

Just askin'...

I think that view would be a fair argument if it worked the other way around. But as we have seen, the banks knowingly lent mortgages to homebuyers they absolutely knew couldn't possibly repay them - and from the profits derived paid themselves vast bonuses.

When those loans went bad, the banks came whimpering to the public to bail them out and save their homes and jobs. And having been saved, they now carry on repossessing the homes of others, and paying even higher bonuses to themselves etc.

Factor into this argument that the banks never had any money to begin with, they only ever and always circulate other peoples money - ours - and then leverage it in the arcade and casino; not caring one jot that if the casino doesn't pay out, it's our money that gets flushed down the toilet And all to satisfy their greed and irresponsibility.

So the question to be asked is this: what's the difference between irresponsible lending and irresponsible borrowing? Why weight one higher than the other? It doesn't make sense does it. But then again, it's not supposed to.

The banks absolutely destroyed their assets the same way this guy destroyed his. They used leveraging and other exotic self-interest techniques. He used a bulldozer. And at least he owned more than 50% of his asset. They, however, never actually own a fraction of their assets. And in the bulldozed house case, the bank was the minority owner- the house owner was the majority owner; in boardrooms and corporations around the world that gives you the legal right to asset strip or destroy the asset as you see fit.

Strange how the rules always favour business and never the individual citizen, who remains the vital central core of all businesses and without whom no business could possibly prosper or survive.