

Foreclosure helps homeowners and the economy - quoderat
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123336541474235541.html

======
indiejade
From the article: _Mr. Su is a real-estate consultant and a former REO
broker._

Maybe whomever submitted this article should have titled it: "Foreclosure
helps real-estate consultants and brokers"

Basically what it boils down to is that there needs to be a smaller gap
between cost of ownership and rents in an area. Diminishing this gap will
reduce the "power" that 99.9999999999999 percent of real-estate people have
leveraged during the last eight years.

The only way to reduce this gap is by paying people in the real estate
profession less: get them to divulge their pay in dollars, not percents.
Unfortunately, with the current "mortgage meltdown," people in real estate are
the first ones getting paid! Whether a home is getting foreclosed upon or
simply just "sold," Realtors always get paid. I studied their games. I know
how they play it.

~~~
zzzmarcus
You start off with an implied ad-hominem attack; just because he's a broker
doesn't mean he's only looking out for himself or that doesn't know the
industry works in every day.

Then you summarize the article by basically stating the exact opposite of the
premise of the article which is actually closer to: "foreclosure helps home
owners who are in trouble while at the same time helping the finance industry
recover."

Then you state that there should be a smaller gap between the cost of
ownership and renting. Fine, this is probably easy enough for everyone to
agree with. But you, unlike the author of the article who talks about supply
and demand equalizing the market through the foreclosure process, say that the
solution is somehow for real estate professionals to "divulge their pay in
dollars, not percents."

First of all realtors, by divulging the percentage they are paid of a
transaction, are already divulging their pay in dollars since everyone who is
a party to the transaction knows the amount of the transaction. It's simple
math.

Second, someone is paying real estate professionals for a service that
apparently worth what realtors and brokers charge. The market is sustaining
their fees, if the service they provided wasn't valuable, someone would step
in and do it cheaper.

Third, even if real estate professionals didn't make a cent off transactions,
even if there were no realtors or brokers, it doesn't change the core problem
or anything suggested the article's solution. They aren't the ones who control
market values or financing.

~~~
michaelneale
>You start off with an implied ad-hominem attack

As a side point - if in a discussion someone brings up someone elses
professional background/employer/affiliation (the implication being that it
undermines their authority) is that really an ad-hominem attack?

~~~
3pt14159
Technically, yes, but ad hominem circumstantial, as it is called, is generally
acceptable in public discourse if the primary party making the argument will
see direct gain AND the logic behind his argument is also reduced, independent
of the speaker.

Say Joe (a libertarian) is arguing for legalization of smut films in public
theaters. Frank (a smut rental store owner) is arguing the opposite case.

Joe may say, "you shouldn't tell adults what they can or cannot watch in a
theater because that encroaches on their rights."

Frank will then reply, "Don't listen to him, he's just the quack libertarian
'round here, this is about protecting our public places for our kids."

Joe's reply of, "18+ theaters are out of the accessible areas of children and
therefore his argument is flawed, and furthermore Frank is most likely
primarily concerned about reduced profits of smut rentals due to market
substitution towards theater movies."

Frank's original reply - That Joe is a "quack libertarian" is invalid because
it exposes no hidden motive on Joe's part.

Joe's reply is valid because the public should understand all reasons why
Frank does not want a public smut theater or they may fall for a "lie of
omission" and because Joe attacked Frank's primary argument.

~~~
zzzmarcus
Great explanation. I learned something.

So maybe my critique of her comment being an implied ad hominem is unfair

"Mr. Su is a real-estate consultant and a former REO broker."

Still, it's not obvious that he stands to profit off more foreclosures based
on his status as a consultant, and the fact that he was formerly a broker
seems to lend credibility to his expertise rather than detracting from it.

------
Cunard2
When I see the words "clean" and "capable" to describe markets and new buyers
of forclosed properties, and the word "evil" used to describe loan
modification, I think that: 1) clean is the opposite of dirty. The unfettered
market is clean, he says. 2) capable. Who doesn't want to be in that category?
Capable! Yes. I am capable. And THAT is the reason (sigh of relief) that I am
not being forclosed upon. This article says: "loan modification is not only
ineffective, it is evil." So. If you're incapable...don't come crying to me.
because it would be evil to offer help..... "Get a job.", then. Thanks Rupert.

