Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2009, 08:39 AM   #15
Rivet Monster
 
wahoonc's Avatar

 
1975 31' Sovereign
1980 31' Excella II
Sprung Leak , North Carolina
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,174
Images: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry in MO View Post
I differ in my assessment of the bank's position in this whole deal. They had their eyes wide open for the opportunity! They openly and willingly made money available for these loans. Why? Huge amounts of money to be made and nothing illegal about it. The banks are in the money loaning business. My mother used to say something like: "You can't legislate stupid".

No one pointed a gun at any of these people and forced them to buy something w/ 12 years of RV payments that they could not afford. It's the same w/ the housing debacle-people blaming the banks for the creative financing. No one, to date, has produced any documentation that proves that any bank withheld any closing info from these people or hid the small print. Do we want to put boat salesmen in jail next?

The people themselves, with very few exceptions, are absolutely to blame for their own financial problems-no one else!

~snipped for brevity


Banks have fiduciary responsibility to make sure the people they are loaning money to are capable of repaying those loans. They also have a responsibility to their stock holders and depositors, to maintain financial stability. Making outlandish and border line loans meets none of the above requirements. Some people are clueless about money, interest and how it even works, others could care less. Personally I think that the collapse of the financial industry was due to nothing but greed and the idea that they could make millions of dollars by playing with numbers.

FWIW I had a sales contract on a piece of property we were considering buying, we asked our attorney to review it. It should have been a straight forward cash transaction, however our attorney advised against purchasing the property because the contract was written in such a way that we were assuming all liabilities, and there was some question as to whether the person selling property was even entitled to be selling it. I paid for a title search and the results were inconclusive.

One of the reasons many markets in the US are collapsing is because we are a nation of consumers and most of what is produced in this country now is luxury items. When jobs disappear and times get tough, the first thing you do is only buy necessities. RV's, fancy motorcycles, over accessorized automobiles, and pleasure boats fall into that category. We have pretty much lost what manufacturing base we had in this country. We no longer produce things like textiles, hardware, and other items that are required for day to day living. It comes from lower waged plants over seas. We are supporting everyone's economy but our own by doing that.

My current peeve is that I live a fiscally responsible life, I am not a conspicuous consumer. I have taught my children to be the same. So now we have to pay for other people's lack of responsibility. Most things I have I paid cash for. If I can't afford it I don't buy it, pure and simple.

Aaron
__________________

__________________
....so many Airstreams....so little time...
WBCCI #XXXX AIR #2495
Why are we in this basket...and where are we going
wahoonc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 09:26 AM   #16
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,842
Hi Larry, Aaron said some of it for me. But, the statement about Legal Aid is completely wrong. Legal Aid is so underfunded that it can only help very few people. One of the first things conservatives reduce when in power is the Legal Aid budget. Someone who is buying an RV or even the cheapest entry level house has too much income to qualify for Legal Aid.

There are no free lawyers for people buying these things. If you think the fees lawyers charge are too much, I agree. But the costs of practicing law are very high and unfortunately that has made at least part of the middle class unable to afford lawyers. Plus, nobody budgets for lawyers or car mechanics.

Several years ago there was an effort in HUD to simplify real estate closing statements so people could actually understand them. That got shot down really fast. Unless you deal with real estate and closing documents or RV and motor vehicle contracts all the time they are difficult for even lawyers to completely understand. And if you challenge these standard form contracts, will they change them? I actually got a bank to change a line of credit 2nd mortgage contract once and I was amazed they did it. Some of my colleagues were amazed I talked the bank into it. You have no bargaining power in these situations.

A lot of people are too trusting. They buy a large item and they think, "these nice guys won't cheat me", or they think "it's against the law to offer me terms so bad I am in great danger of failing". They think the bankers are too smart to offer financing that is toxic to the bank and the customer. To a large degree we are on our own. Even experienced lawyers sometimes make bad deals for themselves because it's impossible to be vigilant 24 hours a day, every day.

I remember when people started wondering what was with Enron. A friend of mine had Enron stock and told me he couldn't understand how they made money. Shortly after the Wall St. Journal ran a couple of articles asking the same questions. In a few weeks the stock started its free fall. My friend got out just in time. The most sophisticated business journalists couldn't figure it out until just weeks before it crashed. The same thing has happened to a lot of people in the stock market in the past year. The eternal pessimists or a few lucky people got out a year ago; the rest of us didn't. Financial matters, legal documents, all of it is hard to understand and predicting the future still requires a lot of luck.

It's easy to criticize people who were overextended. Perhaps we can view them as drunk with the optimism of the times, a nationwide festival of joy. I think some empathy would be appropriate.

Gene
__________________

__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 09:55 AM   #17
3 Rivet Member
 
Larry in MO's Avatar
 
1957 22' Flying Cloud
Lone Jack , Missouri
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 180
Images: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
It's easy to criticize people who were overextended. Perhaps we can view them as drunk with the optimism of the times, a nationwide festival of joy. I think some empathy would be appropriate. Gene
I was not criticizing people who "were overextended". I simply said they made the mistakes and were not coerced. It was not my fault and that I should not have to pay for their mistakes. But, as it so often turns out, I will have to pay for their over-indulgence and I am not a fan of their nationwide festival of joy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
One of the first things conservatives reduce when in power is the Legal Aid budget. Someone who is buying an RV or even the cheapest entry level house has too much income to qualify for Legal Aid.
You gotta give me the obvious here, Gene: if they can afford an RV, then they can afford a lawyer. The converse is also true.

Now, the liberal way would dictate that since "Bob" wants to buy an RV the taxpayer should provide "Bob" with a pro bono lawyer to look out for his interests as well as a gov't subsidy for insurance, gas, and storage. See the pattern here?
__________________
Larry
"Turleen", the '57 Flying Cloud
Lone Jack, MO
Pop.528

"You better learn it fast; you better learn it young"-John Fogerty
Larry in MO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 10:10 AM   #18
Rivet Master
 
Denis4x4's Avatar
 
2006 25' Safari FB SE
Currently Looking...
Durango , Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,111
We own rental property in SoCal and require a credit check on prospective tenants. I'd rather have a vacancy than take a chance on some of the applicants after reading their credit reports. California income property owners in general get pressured from some liberal advocacy groups to lower their standards for renting to "victim groups".
__________________
Denis4x4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 10:16 AM   #19
3 Rivet Member
 
Larry in MO's Avatar
 
1957 22' Flying Cloud
Lone Jack , Missouri
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 180
Images: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis4x4 View Post
We own rental property in SoCal and require a credit check on prospective tenants. I'd rather have a vacancy than take a chance on some of the applicants after reading their credit reports. California income property owners in general get pressured from some liberal advocacy groups to lower their standards for renting to "victim groups".

I don't blame you a bit! Good for you and don't let them wear you down.
__________________
Larry
"Turleen", the '57 Flying Cloud
Lone Jack, MO
Pop.528

"You better learn it fast; you better learn it young"-John Fogerty
Larry in MO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 11:27 AM   #20
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry in MO View Post
I was not criticizing people who "were overextended". I simply said they made the mistakes and were not coerced. It was not my fault and that I should not have to pay for their mistakes. But, as it so often turns out, I will have to pay for their over-indulgence and I am not a fan of their nationwide festival of joy.

You gotta give me the obvious here, Gene: if they can afford an RV, then they can afford a lawyer. The converse is also true.

Now, the liberal way would dictate that since "Bob" wants to buy an RV the taxpayer should provide "Bob" with a pro bono lawyer to look out for his interests as well as a gov't subsidy for insurance, gas, and storage. See the pattern here?
I wasn't singling you out for criticizing people, Larry. I was saying you were wrong about Legal Aid. Then I went on and I can understand it looked like I was flaming you, but I wasn't. Sorry if it looked that way. There has been a lot of criticism of people who got caught up in the festival. I don't like paying for others' mistakes, especially the people who should have known better—bankers and fund managers, investment bankers who packaged bad loans. These are the guys with the MBA's and law degrees who have conscious culpability.

Sure, a bunch of people bought RV's who made bad judgments. They needed financial advisors more than they needed lawyers. Would they have listened to the professionals? Maybe not. Maybe you and I should become financial advisors to potential RV purchasers, although right now I don't think there would be a lot of call for our services. Since RV's, like houses, come in all sizes and prices, the campers and popups or the smaller tract homes and "fixer-uppers" are the entry level ones and many, not all, are purchased by people who can barely afford them, so they are least likely to afford any kind of advisor, or have the experience and skepticism to question the deal.

I don't want to subsidize his or her lawyer or storage. I want regulation that protects everyone, documents and disclosures that people can understand so they don't have to hire a lawyer or go to a properly funded Legal Aid office.

The $1.3M Prevost on ebay for about half a million may not have anything to do with bad judgments. It may be old grandparents with medical issues who need money for cancer drugs. The ironic thing about Airstreamers criticizing the Prevost owners is that we are probably looked at the same way by the people in budget trailers, popups and campers. I confess to being as guilty as anyone in criticizing the Prevost crowd, but is it jealousy? Is is a false pride? I don't want one of those bus-RV's and I can't imagine driving as bus as recreation (yes, I've driven a bus and it's work). It is easy to attack them especially since they are not on this Forum to defend themselves.

And, Larry, how's your restoration project going?

Gene
__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 12:06 PM   #21
3 Rivet Member
 
Larry in MO's Avatar
 
1957 22' Flying Cloud
Lone Jack , Missouri
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 180
Images: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
I was saying you were wrong about Legal Aid. Then I went on and I can understand it looked like I was flaming you, but I wasn't. Sorry if it looked that way.
No, I wasn't offended. (Isn't that what we're supposed to be now? Offended?) Nope, don't worry about it--I didn't take it that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
I want regulation that protects everyone, documents and disclosures that people can understand so they don't have to hire a lawyer or go to a properly funded Legal Aid office.
Here's an idea for the wording on the contract" "Your xxx costs $yyy. Pay us $fff per month for ccc months or we come tow it off. No BS!"

Or better yet: Thanks for purchasing your new '09 Whizbanger Motor Coach (w/ live animals in the hot tub and a rear facing video camera for the guest bedroom) Since you paid cash, here's the keys and thanks! Enjoy your coach and don't run over the dog on the way out.

Those are my ideas but you get to figure out out to figure taxes, subsidies, low incomes, mothers in law, bad timing, came from a broken home, and I didn't have enough toys when I was little factors for financing option #1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
And, Larry, how's your restoration project going?
I finished building and installing a 327-300 in my '55 Chevy and the hobby funds are a little tight for the rest of the month. I am tempted to dig into the tequila fund, however. I guess I could go get a home equity line of credit to buy a Tremec transmission or I could wait until the pension check gets here. It seems so un-American to wait until I can afford it though. Actually, I'm just waiting for the stimulus/bailout to get here to solve all of my problems.
And you?
__________________
Larry
"Turleen", the '57 Flying Cloud
Lone Jack, MO
Pop.528

"You better learn it fast; you better learn it young"-John Fogerty
Larry in MO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 12:22 PM   #22
Rivet Master
 
hampstead38's Avatar
 
1967 26' Overlander
Upperco , Maryland
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,087
Blog Entries: 22
"I want regulation that protects everyone, documents and disclosures that people can understand so they don't have to hire a lawyer or go to a properly funded Legal Aid office."

And there we have it....

Before I discuss the folly of regulations protecting people from themselves, I have to chuckle a bit at the notion that the "first" thing conservatives do is cut the Legal Aid budget. I've been around local government and local politics for the past quarter century and in my experience, and honestly, Legal Aid is so far down the list of issues I'm not sure anyone remembers what it does.

And the reason we have disclosures no one can understand? Lawyers. Or perhaps more accurately, an advesarial legal system where a tremendous amount of time and energy is spent looking for contract loopholes, thus creating the need for additional clauses, thus creating more loopholes, and so on. You can throw in a healthy criticism of the tort system and an activist bench that doesn't mind trodding on the sanctity of the contract for the sake of imposing what the court feels is equitable.

You could write contract terms in crayon and people would still make foolish decisions. Now, I appreciate Gene's intelligence and his noblesse oblige. He thinks, in a charming yet Quixotic way, that we simply need better rules and better rule makers, a nanny state where the enlightened among us craft regulations so wise and insightful that we are prevented from acting against the better angels or our nature... or would that be the angelic nature of our betters?

I think people have an inalienable right to make foolish decisions. An RV may be silly. So might a double cheeseburger and fries. I want to have the right to decide for myself, and I don't want to interfere with the right of my fellow human beings to make their own decisions.
hampstead38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 01:32 PM   #23
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by hampstead38 View Post

And the reason we have disclosures no one can understand? Lawyers. Or perhaps more accurately, an advesarial legal system where a tremendous amount of time and energy is spent looking for contract loopholes, thus creating the need for additional clauses, thus creating more loopholes, and so on. You can throw in a healthy criticism of the tort system and an activist bench that doesn't mind trodding on the sanctity of the contract for the sake of imposing what the court feels is equitable.

You could write contract terms in crayon and people would still make foolish decisions. Now, I appreciate Gene's intelligence and his noblesse oblige. He thinks, in a charming yet Quixotic way, that we simply need better rules and better rule makers, a nanny state where the enlightened among us craft regulations so wise and insightful that we are prevented from acting against the better angels or our nature... or would that be the angelic nature of our betters?
First of all, the legal system. There are two types of systems in the industrialized west—Anglo-American and Napoleonic Code. Ours is also called advesarial and the idea is that if well crafted arguments are made on all sides, the truth will always win out. Of course, few people can afford that kind of law. So, what is the solution? The Napoleanic Code countries rely on government investigators, hopefully objective, to uncover the truth and then present it to a judge who usually rules for the side presented by the investigator. There's less of a trial system and no juries (these are generalizations, of course). Those who study these things say the outcomes in both systems are about the same.

How to make the system work better? I believe wise and insightful regulators can protect us by creating situations where we don't have to resort to the system as often; it won't solve all problems, but can help. Americans are known for being litigious. In fact we have been litigious for more than 2 centuries and about at the same proportions. Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts was about court fees being too high and denying the citizens access to them. I think a litigious society is in some degree a reflection on our desire to protect our rights, redress grievances, compensate for damages. So I think a healthy democracy will always be litigious.

Loopholes—the pursuit of loopholes probably makes for better contract drafting. Every lawyer knows another lawyer is looking over his/her shoulder. I regret there's a lot of sloppy contract drafting out there, some of it done by non-lawyers. An activist judge is one who doesn't agree with you. The laws and constitutions cannot clearly cover every possible situation. The language is subject to many interpretations. Judges, like the rest of us, disagree what they mean. Unfortunately, subjectivity is rampant. Some judges get to reform contracts because of sloppy drafting, questions of the intent of the parties, clauses left out, statutes that render clauses illegal. Contract law sometimes seems bizarre and I have spent many hours explaining it to people; some of it looks like it contradicts itself. And some judges do a bad job—some are picked solely for their political bias and having practiced in NY and Colorado, I can say Colorado's system, which is far less political, provides better judges. NY may have reformed it's system since I left 30 years ago, but it used to be intensely political. The tort system is to allow those who have been damaged to get some sort of recovery, usually monetary. Some who want "tort reform" try to make sure there are no or little recovery for people damaged by their clients. Of course, there are some cases that have bad decisions. Maybe there would be fewer of those if we got rid of juries (I'm not advocating that). Proponents of "tort reform" like to cite a few cases, like the woman who was burned by very hot coffee. The damages were reduced a lot by an appellate court, but that is not mentioned. And would you like superheated coffee? That wasn't the only case against MacDonalds for superheated coffee.

Connecting my desire for enlightened rulemaking with a nanny state is reductionism. We need not have Big Brother to have a better system. I may be acting like Don Quijote in hoping that we can have a better system, but I'd rather be hopeful and not feel so negative about the prospects for a better world. I could connect a desire for fewer rules with anarchy, but will refrain from parellel reductionism.

Larry, getting onward with projects around the house. I built an arts and craft access panel for plumbing (about 3' x 4') and it came out really well. This is my high point for my carpentry skills and I'm thinking of eventually doing the same with kitchen cabinet doors and saving lots of money on a kitchen remodel. I installed French doors to our bedroom so I can keep the room cool and not lose all that heat we have lost for years. For some reason the previous owners never put in doors to the bedroom in what could be called a master suite (strange floor plan, whole 2nd floor is the "suite"). Next to box in some exposed plumbing that was done when the previous owners had a new roof put on the house—they did some things very well, and then did a Tobacco Road thing like that. That's why we got the house for a good price. Looking forward to Spring and trailer time. I will be doing more work on that too. I hope we can take the trips we have planned, but dividends are being cut and that's income disappearing.

Debating with Ken (Hampstead) and Larry is a joy because you guys, no matter how misinformed you are, debate like gentlemen (gentlepersons perhaps) and do not take things personally. The Forum is a better place for both of you. I now have to fix a vacuum and change the spark plugs in the 4Runner—this is retirement?

Gene
__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 01:47 PM   #24
Moderator
 
Stefrobrts's Avatar

 
1968 17' Caravel
Battle Ground , Washington
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 11,911
Images: 50
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by hampstead38 View Post
I think people have an inalienable right to make foolish decisions. An RV may be silly. So might a double cheeseburger and fries. I want to have the right to decide for myself, and I don't want to interfere with the right of my fellow human beings to make their own decisions.
People have a right to make foolish decisions because what's foolish to me might be brilliant to someone else. But ultimately it's the bank's responsibility to use some caution in where they invest their money (and giving someone a loan is an investment - they're expecting to make money off the use of their money). Like any other investment, it can pay off, or it can disappear. Too many banks were willing to make high risk investments because they were selling them off to someone else who foolishly trusted that the people who wrote the loan had already made a good investment. Some of these home loans have been passed around so much that no one seems to know who actually holds the note on the house anymore. It's been a system gone crazy!

People can make foolish financial decisions, but it's up to the people with the money to say 'you're 72 years old with no income except your pension and you want to buy a million dollar motorhome? i don't think I want to invest in you.'
__________________
Stephanie




Stefrobrts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 02:40 PM   #25
Rivet Master
 
VIKING's Avatar
 
1955 22' Flying Cloud
Boulder Creek , California
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,177
We all have the right to make foolish decisions, no question. And there are a lot of people who do just that everyday. Should those people have unfettered access to money weather they have the ability to repay or not. Who is in charge of our access to loan funds?
Fifteen years ago I tried to buy my first house. I had enough money for a five percent downpayment and closing costs. I had a very steady income with a good employment history. I had a seller willing to carry part of the loan. I had everything except a bank that would loan me the balance. I was turned down numerous times by my own bank, saving and loans and credit unions. Even private financing was not available for me. I didn't buy that house even though I could afford it. I was not able to borrow money to buy a house.
Read that last sentence again.
In the last ten years all of this changed. I could have gotten a 120% loan without proving I had an income. I could have borrowed twice as much money as I could afford to repay and there would be no one there but me to stop myself from making a decision that would have absolutely, definitly bankrupted me. My bad decision would have eventually lead to forclosure. If it was only me doing this, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to any of you. The bank would resell the property for a fair value, and I would spend 7 to 10 years trying to rebuild my credit.
When this becomes the normal way of doing business though, it causes the whole economy to hiccup. Tens of thousands of people all losing their homes and credit and causing a complete lack of trust of our banking and financial systems is the result. Being that our entire monetary system is now based on credit rather than equity, when there is a lack of trust, there is a huge problem that will affect all parts of our financial lives.
The money lending institutions are the gatekeepers of our credit security, as they always have been, so to blame the current crisis on borrowers is to give the banks free reign to continue what got us to this place. There is cupability on both sides, but to say that the borrowers got us into this mess is far from accurate. If those people who obviously could not afford to buy those houses were told "NO" by the lenders, as I once was, we all would not be talking about this now.
The Banks that did engage in this bad lending were making money on this from both ends. They would sell you a loan larger than you could afford, knowing that you would eventually lose everything. The loan agent and the lender would make their money immediately, then sell the loan to another institution, who would package many of them together into a "security". These would be sold on the stock market for as much as thirty times the value of the properties they contained. These securities were never worth anymore than the value of the properties in them, but the banks portrayed them as rock-solid investments, so people bought them. This is, to my way of thinking, a ponzi scheme, made legal by our elected officials.
So, my "bad" list goes like this;
1) Elected officials: for recently making all of this possible!

2) Lenders who participated in the practice of seperating us from our money,using a business model designed to cause complete failure, eventually. I hope they spent our money on lots of really fun, cool things!

3) The borrowers, who mistakenly believed that the banks would not be soooo stupid as to lend them more than they could afford to repay. Life without credit, or homeownership for 7 to 10 is their reward.

4) All the rest of us, who don't over-extend ourselves or make bad choices with our money. We all have allowed this to happen by not holding anyone accountable in government, and by electing those who would look the other way while we were being fleeced.

Now would someone please take away this soapbox, before I cause any real trouble!

my2cents, Rich
__________________
VIKING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 02:43 PM   #26
Rivet Master
 
hampstead38's Avatar
 
1967 26' Overlander
Upperco , Maryland
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,087
Blog Entries: 22
I have no desire to regulate your behavior, Gene. I lack the necessary hubris to claim a level of "enlightenment" that would allow me to assert my rules for your behavior are superior to your own. I further suggest that to make such rules, even if I had the wisdom of Solomon, would deny you a fundamental human right... the right to err.

He who asserts bears the burden of proof. I cannot prove that rulemaking and regulation, no matter how well intention or cleverly wrought, is inherently superior to a system where people make their own decisions and bear full responsibility for doing so. Perhaps someone else can. I can make a few observations. Many bureaucracies, organized with the most noble of intent, inevitably produce unintended consequences. I also observe is that failure is how many of us learn. When the collective power of the state is used to separate us from our the responsibility of our mistakes, we don't learn. This is the lesson of welfare as income maintenance and a culture of dependence. If every time your brother-in-law loses his paycheck at the track, you bail him out, what exactly do you think is going to prompt him to change his behavior?

My grandmother is 86 years old. She has the right to buy an RV, even if it doesn't make sense to anyone else on the planet. The bank has an obligation to treat her fairly and legally. They do not have an obligation to act as her parent. Is this reductionism? From my perspective, every rule, regulation or law can and must be reduced to its impact on individual persons. That is the reductionism I'd like to see a bit more of.
hampstead38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 07:03 PM   #27
1972 Travelux Princess 25
 
Cobourg , Ontario
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,042
Speaking of contract law... somewhere around here I have a book by a prominent sports agent. Over the years he has represented some very well known athletes and his team of lawyers is second to none.

One day he interviewed an athlete who wanted him to be his agent. He asked the athlete if he had representation. The athlete said "yes" and handed him a contract.

The contract was one sheet of paper with a short paragraph in the middle. It said something like " (athlete) hereby appoints as his agent (agent) for a period of ten years, to represent him in all business matters for a commission of 25% of his income."

(signed)

(dated)

The agent said "No problem, our legal department will take care of this" but when he asked the lawyers how to get out of it they said "you can't. It's legal, it's binding and it's air tight".

So he asked the lawyers, "if this haiku is a contract how come yours are 40 pages long?" but he never did get an answer.
__________________
Living in the trailer park of sense, looking out the window at a tornado of stupidity.
Ganaraska is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 07:31 PM   #28
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by hampstead38 View Post
I have no desire to regulate your behavior, Gene. I lack the necessary hubris to claim a level of "enlightenment" that would allow me to assert my rules for your behavior are superior to your own. I further suggest that to make such rules, even if I had the wisdom of Solomon, would deny you a fundamental human right... the right to err.
I think you sum up an essential part of the problem of governing. How do you find a balance between regulating scummy behavior and letting people make their own mistakes so they can learn? Would you repeal laws prohibiting fraud, for example?

One of the differences between liberals and conservatives is what to regulate. Conservatives often want to regulate personal behavior in the name of morality (their morality) while liberals want to regulate economic behavior to provide equality of opportunity (another sort of morality). This simplifies it, but there isn't enough space to go further. And libertarians want to regulate nothing. I guess for another extreme, fascists want to regulate everything. Socialists want to protect everyone and have the state own some of the means of production. Communists are fascists pretending to be socialists. To further confuse things, the meanings of the words change over the years.

I think a lot of people want to regulate something despite their stated beliefs because they like some sort of order. And some people don't think things out and regulate something before they realize what the unintended consequences are.

(And, I think there are some ways to get that athlete out of that contract.)

Gene
__________________

__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you're thinking about doing it... flyfisher Towing, Tow Vehicles & Hitches 17 12-30-2007 09:20 PM
Thinking Rt 66 63air On The Road... 23 08-04-2007 12:07 AM
What was I Thinking ? knunut Off Topic Forum 6 12-03-2006 08:40 PM
Thinking About baysidegal Member Introductions 2 11-24-2006 07:48 PM
Just thinking about AS dolmsteadjr Member Introductions 6 10-03-2006 10:13 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.