Law Professor Says Walk Away

[caffeinekid]

The Treasury will need to sell 11 times the debt in 2010 than they did in 2009. The options for making that happen are threefold and none are attractive: massive inflation, crash the stock market or let interest rates go to the moon.

 

Pick your poison.

Read Rob T's tagline.....and watch out for polydactyl Calicos.

[Rob T]

Actually, factoring technology in to our inflationary economy for the last 100 years or so makes for some very thought provoking arguments that I've rarely heard discussed or considered.

 

The purpose of technology in business is to make workers more productive. A guy digging a ditch with a shovel can do it better and faster than he can with his hands, and a guy digging it with a backhoe can do it better and faster than a guy with a shovel. There are obviously hundreds of examples like this. As better technology comes out, it replaces outdated technology, which improves productivity, frees up labor to go on and be even more productive. Production gets cheaper and typically quality goes up as well.

 

Now, let's look at a real world example where you factor technology in along with inflation. In 1909, you could buy a brand new Ford Model T - a basic transportation car - for $850. Due to advances in assembly line efficiency (i.e. better technology), by 1920 the cost had dropped to $290, and quality of the car had improved at the same time, gaining electric headlights, and several other improvements. This is a classic example of technology at work, which resulted in 65% reduction in consumer prices. In a further testament to Henry Ford business acumen, the period between 1910 and 1920 saw a fair amount of monetary inflation, so he was really swimming uphill to start with and still managed to sell his cars for less while still making a profit. He was also able to significantly undercut the entirety of his competition in the process, who were trying to sell cars for 4-10 times more.

 

Now, lets look at a similar situation today. The 2000 Honda Civic - a basic transportation car - had an MSRP of $10,000 for the base model. The 2010 Honda Civic has a $15,000 price for the base model. Did the technology involved in making cars get worse over the last 10 years? No. Did worker efficiency decrease over the last 10 years? Of course not - it improved. Any improvements made to that particular model should be attributable to better technology, right? So, why didn't the Honda Civic get cheaper, if technology got better and productivity improved? The answer is inflation. Materials costs were higher (despite technological advances) and labor costs were higher (despite further automation and less workers in Honda's plants). Those are both effects of inflation.

 

So, now lets really take this example to it's logical end. The Model T and Honda Civic are both popular basic transportation automobiles for their time. The Model T could be had for $290. A Honda Civic is $15,000 - more than 50 times the cost. Given the advances in technology involved in manufacturing cars, why is a Honda Civic 50 times more expensive than a Model T? Considering that car manufacturing technology has improved drastically since 1920, any improvements a Honda Civic has over a Model T should be explained by better technology, right?

 

Need further proof? Think about this. If you walked in to your local Ford dealership in 1909 and wanted to buy a Model T, your $850 could very probably have been paid out as 42.5 Oz in gold coins ($20 gold pieces were commonplace in circulation back then). At current prices, the same amount of gold won't just buy you a 2010 Honda Civic - it will buy you 3 of them.

 

So, when you factor technology in to inflation calculations, you learn that the raw numbers are only the beginning of how much inflation there has really been over the last 100 years.

[Rob T]

Hege -

 

von mises was too one-dimensional. I'll stick with hayek

 

I like Hayek as well. His ideas were really an expansion on what Mises started, since he was a direct student of Mises. I like Friedman and Rothbard as well.

 

Rob, I will take you up on the beer though LOL

 

Any time you want to talk economics, let me know. I'm out in Green Valley.

[spikedup]

Actually, factoring technology in to our inflationary economy for the last 100 years or so makes for some very thought provoking arguments that I've rarely heard discussed or considered.

 

The purpose of technology in business is to make workers more productive. A guy digging a ditch with a shovel can do it better and faster than he can with his hands, and a guy digging it with a backhoe can do it better and faster than a guy with a shovel. There are obviously hundreds of examples like this. As better technology comes out, it replaces outdated technology, which improves productivity, frees up labor to go on and be even more productive. Production gets cheaper and typically quality goes up as well.

 

Now, let's look at a real world example where you factor technology in along with inflation. In 1909, you could buy a brand new Ford Model T - a basic transportation car - for $850. Due to advances in assembly line efficiency (i.e. better technology), by 1920 the cost had dropped to $290, and quality of the car had improved at the same time, gaining electric headlights, and several other improvements. This is a classic example of technology at work, which resulted in 65% reduction in consumer prices. In a further testament to Henry Ford business acumen, the period between 1910 and 1920 saw a fair amount of monetary inflation, so he was really swimming uphill to start with and still managed to sell his cars for less while still making a profit. He was also able to significantly undercut the entirety of his competition in the process, who were trying to sell cars for 4-10 times more.

 

Now, lets look at a similar situation today. The 2000 Honda Civic - a basic transportation car - had an MSRP of $10,000 for the base model. The 2010 Honda Civic has a $15,000 price for the base model. Did the technology involved in making cars get worse over the last 10 years? No. Did worker efficiency decrease over the last 10 years? Of course not - it improved. Any improvements made to that particular model should be attributable to better technology, right? So, why didn't the Honda Civic get cheaper, if technology got better and productivity improved? The answer is inflation. Materials costs were higher (despite technological advances) and labor costs were higher (despite further automation and less workers in Honda's plants). Those are both effects of inflation.

 

So, now lets really take this example to it's logical end. The Model T and Honda Civic are both popular basic transportation automobiles for their time. The Model T could be had for $290. A Honda Civic is $15,000 - more than 50 times the cost. Given the advances in technology involved in manufacturing cars, why is a Honda Civic 50 times more expensive than a Model T? Considering that car manufacturing technology has improved drastically since 1920, any improvements a Honda Civic has over a Model T should be explained by better technology, right?

 

Need further proof? Think about this. If you walked in to your local Ford dealership in 1909 and wanted to buy a Model T, your $850 could very probably have been paid out as 42.5 Oz in gold coins ($20 gold pieces were commonplace in circulation back then). At current prices, the same amount of gold won't just buy you a 2010 Honda Civic - it will buy you 3 of them.

 

So, when you factor technology in to inflation calculations, you learn that the raw numbers are only the beginning of how much inflation there has really been over the last 100 years.

 

Your comparison would make better sense if they were the exact same widget, but they're not. While both are popular basic automobiles for their times, the Honda Civic has a ton more technology in it. Do you know what the top speed of a Model T was? Compare that to the Honda Civic. ABS? Air bags? Light weight materials? Safety Equipment? A model T wouldn't be allowed on the road today. So it's not apples to apples in terms of comparison. Compare a bottle of milk or the price of food, where there are no changes to the widget, but allow for the changes in technology to benefit in making production cheaper.

Edited January 17, 2010 by spikedup

[Rob T]

the Honda Civic has a ton more technology in it

 

You are correct - the Civic is a much more technologically advanced car. It's faster, safer, and more comfortable than a Model T. Just the kind of improvements you'd expect TECHNOLOGY to be responsible for in a competitive industry. But in terms of raw materials, it would be much more expensive to build a Model T today than it is to build a Civic, since the Model T used a ton of materials like steel, iron, and wood, where the Civic gets to make use of more advanced and efficient materials like aluminum, plastic, carbon fiber, etc. If you don't like my particular examples, plug in the numbers for a Hyundai or some other car. I used the Honda because it's an extremely popular model intended for basic transportation, which was exactly what the Model T was.

 

Both vehicles serve the same purpose - basic transportation. Both seat 4 adults along with some room for cargo. Both use a 4 cyl. internal combustion engine. Neither is meant to be anything incredibly fancy, they are just meant to get you from A to B. I'd say that with an 80 year separation between our examples, the similarities, especially allowing for advancements in technology, far outweigh the differences.

 

Although comparisons of goods like loaves of bread and bottles of milk will show similar results, the effect of technology is much less dramatic on goods such as those. Regardless of how much steroids you pump into them or how many mechanical milking machines you employ, a single cow can only produce so much milk, and requires a certain amount of feed to do so, which is the limiting factor in examples like that - it's a result of the limited benefits of technology on a particular industry. But when you consider industries that are involved in manufacturing that benefit highly from technology, the differences are startling.

[caffeinekid]

Since cars are being used as an example, how about those airbags, third brake lights, etc.? Lets consider the $2500 Indian Tata that will cost somewhere around 3X as much here in the US when they start importing. Why? Because of technology? Yes. Specifically the extra safety equipment required by GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Why doesn't the consumer have the choice? If they want to pay for their increased safety, then they can. If not, they can opt for higher insurance premiums and determine themselves which is the most economically feasible risk for them.

 

As for the benefits of technology, my underlying point is somewhat counter-intuitive and has to do with its effects on human behavior including population growth and reckless consumption (yes, there is such a thing). As the level of currency floating at any given point is much higher than its anchor, whether it be gold or grain, there is more going on economically at a much more rapid rate than there otherwise would or should be. Despite its benefits in the very short term, paper is extremely damaging in the long term. And this brings us back to what the Professor is suggesting. If people were purchasing homes based on an inflated value of labor and that value adjusted downward or was completely eliminated via unemployment, then why should they be expected to honor the obligations entered into under the higher value? Often this is not even a choice, but even when it is, the curtain has been pulled aside to expose the true nature of the situation.

 

The real crime in this whole situation lies in money manipulation and monopolization. The free market is NEVER the problem. In a free market, there would be alternatives to the centralized and controlled fiat currency.

[snax]

Please don't blame deregulation. Currency manipulation, which is at the core of this calamity is regulation's Frankenstein.

 

I agree with the analogy though. Only I would add that the bailout was a nice long paper rope thrown into the water for the Wall Street rats to climb on. Once they are on dry land in their fortified compounds and private islands, the rope will dissolve in the water leaving....

But is it not correct that the deregulation that allowed banks to manipulate and gamble in derivatives led to the situation. AIG insured banks, that as of the loosening of regulations on banks to keep proper cash reserves, was insuring against bad gambling debts. Debts that AIG could not cover. Debts that the federal government has taken on with the bailouts. And debts that the rest of us are ultimately paying for with the virtual printing of money. Money with no added value behind it. Inflation that is not supported by a commensurate increase in median wages.

 

So, deregulation is a huge factor behind the mess, followed by bailouts and a failure of our government to provide a means to compensate the lowest wage earners for the increased costs that they are being forced to endure.

[HappyInTexas]

Since cars are being used as an example, how about those airbags, third brake lights, etc.? Lets consider the $2500 Indian Tata that will cost somewhere around 3X as much here in the US when they start importing. Why? Because of technology? Yes. Specifically the extra safety equipment required by GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Why doesn't the consumer have the choice? If they want to pay for their increased safety, then they can. If not, they can opt for higher insurance premiums and determine themselves which is the most economically feasible risk for them.

 

Because at the end of the day, we do not want unsafe products sold here. It is why you don't have the "choice" to buy lead paint, because it isn't good for anyone.

[caffeinekid]

Since cars are being used as an example, how about those airbags, third brake lights, etc.? Lets consider the $2500 Indian Tata that will cost somewhere around 3X as much here in the US when they start importing. Why? Because of technology? Yes. Specifically the extra safety equipment required by GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Why doesn't the consumer have the choice? If they want to pay for their increased safety, then they can. If not, they can opt for higher insurance premiums and determine themselves which is the most economically feasible risk for them.

 

Because at the end of the day, we do not want unsafe products sold here. It is why you don't have the "choice" to buy lead paint, because it isn't good for anyone.

Toxic substances that poison animals and the environment are a different talking point completely than relatively costly safety features such as airbags, daylight running lamps, etc. that are applied with a broad and costly brush.

[HappyInTexas]

Toxic substances that poison animals and the environment are a different talking point completely than relatively costly safety features such as airbags, daylight running lamps, etc. that are applied with a broad and costly brush.

 

I don't think that daytime running lamps are required, unless I missed something.

 

I do think airbags being required was a good idea and I'd put them right up there with seat belts and anti-lock brakes. But that's just me.

[radi8]

Why doesn't the consumer have the choice? If they want to pay for their increased safety, then they can. If not, they can opt for higher insurance premiums and determine themselves which is the most economically feasible risk for them.

 

The entire decision won't really be in your hands either way, will it? Assuming we allowed cars to be sold with tinfoil bumpers, no airbags and stick-and-old shoe braking systems, insurers will make that a more costly choice than just ordering the "optional" safety equipment in the first place.

Your only "choice" will be whether you want to pay more upfront, or pay more in perpetuity to the insurers.

[athensgaguy]

Since cars are being used as an example, how about those airbags, third brake lights, etc.? Lets consider the $2500 Indian Tata that will cost somewhere around 3X as much here in the US when they start importing. Why? Because of technology? Yes. Specifically the extra safety equipment required by GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Why doesn't the consumer have the choice? If they want to pay for their increased safety, then they can. If not, they can opt for higher insurance premiums and determine themselves which is the most economically feasible risk for them.

 

Because at the end of the day, we do not want unsafe products sold here. It is why you don't have the "choice" to buy lead paint, because it isn't good for anyone.

Toxic substances that poison animals and the environment are a different talking point completely than relatively costly safety features such as airbags, daylight running lamps, etc. that are applied with a broad and costly brush.

You can make a car however you want. You just might not be allowed to take it off of your property.

[snax]

Wow, you guys really jumped the rails on this discussion!

 

I think Rob T said it best with this however:

 

When banks lend money, they do so by evaluating basically 2 primary factors - risk and profit. Morality has nothing to do with it. Now, for some convoluted reason, there is this expectation that a borrower should repay this debt due to some some moral obligation. This is where I call BS. Why should the borrower be bound by morality, when the bank is not? If the borrower doesn't pay, is the bank's decision to repo the collateral based on morals? When the bank signs an order to have a former owner evicted from what was once their own property, is that decision based on morals? ABSOLUTELY NOT! They are simply following the terms of the contract. But, that street runs both ways! If a borrower determines that it's in his/her best interest to not fulfill the terms of a contract, that's a business decision. The consequences of that decision are clearly outlined in the contract, which should enable the borrower to do their own risk/reward assessment and make a decision. It's the same with a mortgage, credit card, car loan, or anything else. Banks breach contracts all the time when it makes financial sense for them to do so. Consumers need to approach these contracts with the same mindset.

 

In more simple terminology for anybody who has taken a basic college psychology course, it's a classic 'prisoners dilema'. Not to conflate this with crime, but to draw a parallel between divergent loyalties and motives. In other words, so long as anybody puts motive ahead of loyalty, the impetus for others to be putting motive ahead of loyalty grows even further. The banks in this regard have demonstrated a complete lack of loyalty, leaving borrowers with only their own motives for self preservation to guide them.

 

The facts are: The money supply has increased - and been primarily handed out to sources that are not putting it back into the economy in a significant way, and property values stand to remain stagnant at best in the face of a floundering economy for everybody who is not making a living off of investments.

 

So it's a fish or cut bait proposition for most people. The only real question is how long they can continue to fish against what kind of fish they stand to catch. In our case, it appears to be a $30k negative equity that likely won't be recovered for a decade or more in a house that we intend to move out of well before then. In other words, from a strictly financial perspective there is NO INCENTIVE TO STAY, and the 'moral imperative' that we have an obligation to our fellow homeowners has already been hugely displaced by those who bailed out before us, and stands to be even further undermined in the coming months if not years.

[Mayor]

Wow, you guys really jumped the rails on this discussion!

 

I think Rob T said it best with this however:

 

When banks lend money, they do so by evaluating basically 2 primary factors - risk and profit. Morality has nothing to do with it. Now, for some convoluted reason, there is this expectation that a borrower should repay this debt due to some some moral obligation. This is where I call BS. Why should the borrower be bound by morality, when the bank is not? If the borrower doesn't pay, is the bank's decision to repo the collateral based on morals? When the bank signs an order to have a former owner evicted from what was once their own property, is that decision based on morals? ABSOLUTELY NOT! They are simply following the terms of the contract. But, that street runs both ways! If a borrower determines that it's in his/her best interest to not fulfill the terms of a contract, that's a business decision. The consequences of that decision are clearly outlined in the contract, which should enable the borrower to do their own risk/reward assessment and make a decision. It's the same with a mortgage, credit card, car loan, or anything else. Banks breach contracts all the time when it makes financial sense for them to do so. Consumers need to approach these contracts with the same mindset.

 

In more simple terminology for anybody who has taken a basic college psychology course, it's a classic 'prisoners dilema'. Not to conflate this with crime, but to draw a parallel between divergent loyalties and motives. In other words, so long as anybody puts motive ahead of loyalty, the impetus for others to be putting motive ahead of loyalty grows even further. The banks in this regard have demonstrated a complete lack of loyalty, leaving borrowers with only their own motives for self preservation to guide them.

 

The facts are: The money supply has increased - and been primarily handed out to sources that are not putting it back into the economy in a significant way, and property values stand to remain stagnant at best in the face of a floundering economy for everybody who is not making a living off of investments.

 

So it's a fish or cut bait proposition for most people. The only real question is how long they can continue to fish against what kind of fish they stand to catch. In our case, it appears to be a $30k negative equity that likely won't be recovered for a decade or more in a house that we intend to move out of well before then. In other words, from a strictly financial perspective there is NO INCENTIVE TO STAY, and the 'moral imperative' that we have an obligation to our fellow homeowners has already been hugely displaced by those who bailed out before us, and stands to be even further undermined in the coming months if not years.

Except when does the lender do what the borrower does? Skip out on the contract they sign and leave? I would agree with it if the lender does -- but the lender does pickup one day and say I don't think you should live there anymore...

[snax]

But the point is that their decision to continue the contract is not one of morality or loyalty. If it became profitable to dump people out quickly, they could have evicted millions already for a single late payment. But fortunately the process is rarely that efficient or cost effective compared to keeping people in there and making their regular payment.

 

These are the same scumbags that charge people late fees when payments are not actually late. Then they charge a late fee on the late fee that one correctly refuses to pay. Then they give you a run around about fixing the whole mess until you threaten to involve the FTC and your congressmember. (Yes, things I have had to deal with, though not with my current servicer.)

 

IF they could get away with abusing people more, they would. That is the simple truth, and it all depends on how much money they stand to make from it. It boils down to acceptable losses, meaning if they abuse 'x' customers and make an extra million off of it but only have to pay off a small sliver who rightly complain for a lesser amount, they will. There is no morality there. It is all lost as soon as stocks become publicly traded, as the corporations are obligated to maximize profits for the shareholders and top executives. That is all they care about.

 

I've worked for two Fortune 100 companies now, outside the finance industry, and can tell you that without question, they are all the same on this point eventually. High ideals always degrade into paying a bigger bonus, upping the stock price, and increasing the dividend - often for the short term, with those in charge of creating the mess often long gone by the time the real costs are realized in the long run. THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS!

 

I'm not suggesting people hate their mortgage company or the people who work there, but rather to recognize it for what it truly is in psychological terms - sociopathic. They don't cry for you. Don't cry for them. And don't feel quilty for cutting your losses by bailing out of a bad deal. They'd do it to you in a heartbeat if the tables were turned.

[caffeinekid]

I'm not suggesting people hate their mortgage company or the people who work there, but rather to recognize it for what it truly is in psychological terms - sociopathic. They don't cry for you. Don't cry for them. And don't feel quilty for cutting your losses by bailing out of a bad deal. They'd do it to you in a heartbeat if the tables were turned.

This is especially off-putting when you consider that they can tarnish your otherwise good name for 7 years. It would be nice if there were a universal blacklist for companies that would affect their potential for obtaining credit, being insured or operating outright.

[flacorps]

I'm not suggesting people hate their mortgage company or the people who work there, but rather to recognize it for what it truly is in psychological terms - sociopathic. They don't cry for you. Don't cry for them. And don't feel quilty for cutting your losses by bailing out of a bad deal. They'd do it to you in a heartbeat if the tables were turned.

This is especially off-putting when you consider that they can tarnish your otherwise good name for 7 years. It would be nice if there were a universal blacklist for companies that would affect their potential for obtaining credit, being insured or operating outright.

 

There absolutely is one of those. It's called the stock market. And all it cares about is the next quarter. And if you're wrong about the next quarter, the shareholders' suit lawyers will clean you out and the SEC will put you in jail (Sarbanes/Oxley). Everything else that can happen is just a parking ticket.

 

Part of Japan's problem was they put in something like Sarbanes/Oxley well before the USA did. All it meant to their corporate folks was that they had to follow the old Benjamin Franklin motto "We must all hang together or we will all hang separately!" ... and the same exact thing happened here. A culture of cronyism where everybody covered for everybody else grew up.

 

More lenient policies would have looked bad, but would have had a better result.

[Mayor]

I'm not suggesting people hate their mortgage company or the people who work there, but rather to recognize it for what it truly is in psychological terms - sociopathic. They don't cry for you. Don't cry for them. And don't feel quilty for cutting your losses by bailing out of a bad deal. They'd do it to you in a heartbeat if the tables were turned.

This is especially off-putting when you consider that they can tarnish your otherwise good name for 7 years. It would be nice if there were a universal blacklist for companies that would affect their potential for obtaining credit, being insured or operating outright.

Even I will admit, if I cried for every borrower I would be crying every minute. EVERYONE has, essential an "Excuse" on why there not paying if there not paying. After awahile, of constantly hearing it you eventually get numb... With me personally, I feel for borrowers who had spouses pass away or a illness that caused them to get behind -- unemployment not so much. But, regardless of my personal feelings I do feel a lot of people need help and that's part of the reason I try to get my advise to the best of knowledge I have.

[chatterweb]

Bumping this up to the top because it is

 

becoming more evident that even conservative employed people are walking away.

 

I am one of them.

 

So, that said, what immediate steps can I take now to clean up my credit? Right now my score at Truecredit is

 

785/771/768. Can freezing my Credit help any?

 

I also have no other debt except for the 2 mortgages.

I am walking away from 1 for now.

 

My Primary is still debatable, but I have 1 more year paying $1100.00 a month here to decide what to do.

 

Both are original purchases and non recourse, so my credit will be the only thing taking a hit.

 

 

I know those are faco and isn't fico higher?

 

I do currently have a high DTI ratio, so, who knows, my score may improve after this foreclosure is over within 9-12 months.

 

TIA for any advice!

Edited May 29, 2010 by chatterweb

[caffeinekid]

Bumping this up to the top because it is

 

becoming more evident that even conservative employed people are walking away.

 

I am one of them.

Chatterweb, "conservative employed" people have been walking away for a couple of years now since this is not about ethics or doing what is right. Anyone with any sense of context is walking away....and more everyday are seeing the light.

 

As for your questions, there is little to nothing that you can do for your credit. It is going to get tanked, even if you were able to work out a deed in lieu or some other such situation, you are going to lose at least 100 points. If you simply walk, it will be even worse. Since you have no non-mortgage debt, I wouldn't worry about it. They killed the Golden Goose, not you. And what a lot of people don't understand is that we are reaching a point where even a high credit score isn't going to get you what you need. FICO is over-rated, it is a structure built on THEIR terms to suit THEM.

[flacorps]

775 FICO just isn't enouggh in the new decade: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-h-gr...o_b_414974.html

[chatterweb]

Bumping this up to the top because it is

 

becoming more evident that even conservative employed people are walking away.

 

I am one of them.

Chatterweb, "conservative employed" people have been walking away for a couple of years now since this is not about ethics or doing what is right. Anyone with any sense of context is walking away....and more everyday are seeing the light.

 

As for your questions, there is little to nothing that you can do for your credit. It is going to get tanked, even if you were able to work out a deed in lieu or some other such situation, you are going to lose at least 100 points. If you simply walk, it will be even worse. Since you have no non-mortgage debt, I wouldn't worry about it. They killed the Golden Goose, not you. And what a lot of people don't understand is that we are reaching a point where even a high credit score isn't going to get you what you need. FICO is over-rated, it is a structure built on THEIR terms to suit THEM.

 

Thank you for taking the time to post this and explain this to me!

[flacorps]

Toward the end of June, Fannie Mae announced that the former 5-year lockout from conventional mortgages (mortgages that could be bought by Fannie and Freddie, which is the only kind there are anymore for the moment) would be modified to a presumptive 7-year lockout in order to deter "strategic defaulters". What's interesting is that they also included a 3-year lockout (shaving 4 years off the borrowers' time in the penalty box) for individuals who could show that their foreclosure was caused by "hardship".

 

Hardship is a hard thing to prove. Just ask anyone who's tried to get a student loan partially or completely forgiven under the Brunner test.

[Polaroy2]

Hardship is a hard thing to prove. Just ask anyone who's tried to get a student loan partially or completely forgiven under the Brunner test.

 

To prove your point, it's literally impossible to do this. Even people disabled for life barely have a chance to get them forgiven.

[flacorps]

Hardship is a hard thing to prove. Just ask anyone who's tried to get a student loan partially or completely forgiven under the Brunner test.

 

To prove your point, it's literally impossible to do this. Even people disabled for life barely have a chance to get them forgiven.

 

One thing it means is that subprime will be back. Where there is a pool of otherwise creditworthy individuals who aren't being served, someone will have the cojones to step into the breach.