Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#1
Something for everybody here, not just BW.
With Bail-outs and Negative Equity in mind, I discover questions from the middle of the 18th century that are yet to be adequately responded to by a whole host of Law Makers since. Below is an extract of an article written by Dr. Samuel Johnson in 1758: "Debtors' Prisons", and a link to where you can read the whole thing...
"Those who made the laws have apparently supposed, that every deficiency of payment is the crime of the debtor. But the truth is, that the creditor always shares the act, and often more than shares the guilt, of improper trust. It seldom happens that any man imprisons another but for debts which he suffered to be contracted in hope of advantage to himself, and for bargains in which he proportioned his profit to his own opinion of the hazard; and there is no reason why one should punish the other for a contract in which both concurred. "
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/29955/Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
not really political tom but nevertheless a good debating point.
i agree that the lender is as much at fault as the borrower in many cases as evidenced by the american banks with their lending that played a big part in triggering the banking crisis.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#3
Howard, do please rise above Party from time to time. This is everything to do with People so is in every way 'Political', just not party-political.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#4
Interesting too, Tom, in his questioning of the value of imprisonment:
"It is vain to continue an institution, which experience shows to be ineffectual. We have now imprisoned one generation of debtors after another, but we do not find that their numbers lessen".
This could be applied to many crimes.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#5
The big flaw in that Tom, is that while both parties consented in good faith, one has delivered but the other has not.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#6
Surely, people these days are not imprisoned for debt, but for contempt of court in failing to keep to a court order?
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#7
Peter, I know not where you get this "in good faith" from. However...
As you (each & all) are, no doubt, aware... The getting of a mortgage does not equate with the buying of a property. It is but an agreement to pay a hefty sum over the asking price over many years while living in and maintaining the 'asset', an asset which belongs to the bank until such times as the mortgage debt is cleared. [in a rising market there will come a point when at default the bank sells the joint asset and shares any profit with you (If memory serves. Someone will put me right I'm sure, if I am wide of the mark)
IF.
The bank because, now as in the 18th century, it is indemnified against all losses, seeks out and accepts to do business with persons who could not reasonably be expected to fulfil their part of the agreement can it be equitable for all the losses to borne by the mortgagee?
Truly we cannot glibly accept that simply because a contract is entered into that each party does so in full possession of the facts and are equal before the law. The fact that this is how usurers and loan-sharks operate should be warning enough of the intrinsic wrong in so thinking.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
that finishd in victorian times, the point tom is making is about the division of responsibilty.
the borrower who defaults gets all the blame and the lender who expected a good return on his investment is seen as the innocent party.