I’m really not sure that “if you eliminate all of the context that makes this ethically squallorous, how is it such a bad thing?” is a terribly good argument. In the mathematical abstract, no, it probably isn’t bad for someone to buy a property that has lost a lot of value, flip it, and then sell it for a profit. But the cows in question here are not spherical.
Exactly. Neither is playing golf a bad thing, but if you constantly criticize a guy for playing golf, then when you get his job, play golf a LOT MORE, that’s being a hypocrite.
Wasn’t being critical of your post, just don’t believe this guy and his network should be given any sort of agency or legitimacy.
peace
on trickier subjects like whether you should buy distressed assets or not
That’s the point, these were not “distressed assets”, they were real property, with real value purchased by people who were sold a bill of goods for subprime mortgages by banks that knew they couldn’t afford them. The whole housing bubble and subsequent collapse was created by these same bankers and “investors”.
Hannity could give that cigarette cancer.
Honestly, I don’t think there’s anything more here than people feeling more emotional about housing than other forms of wealth. Had Hannity railed against Bush for crashing the stock market while buying up depressed equities would anyone really care? It’s just good business to buy low and sell high. Actively manipulating the value of the assets on the other hand, like a stock pump and dump or actually causing foreclosures via mortgage fraud IS criminal, not just immoral.
Full disclosure: I’ve bought property both high and low. I don’t think buying high is any more moral than buying low, I had nothing to do with the pricing of these properties.
And if you guys think that $100k is cheap, you have no idea what was going on out there in flyover country in the last decade. There were many houses selling for under $20k in TX and elsewhere. Many investors with cash were snapping them up by the dozens.
Full disclosure: I’ve bought property both high and low. I don’t think buying high is any more moral than buying low, I had nothing to do with the pricing of these properties.
Are you sure Hannity had as little to do with that as you did?
I don’t think there’s anything more here than people feeling more emotional about housing than other forms of wealth.
There is more but that feeling is justifiable. For those Americans fortunate enough to have invested assets, the bulk of those assets usually takes the form of equity in a primary residence.
Had Hannity railed against Bush for crashing the stock market while buying up depressed equities would anyone really care?
That example makes no sense, because Hannity never railed against Prince Bush about anything. On the other hand, it’s arguable that Hannity as a high-profile Fox News “deregulate and securitise all the things!” pundit contributed to the creation of the 2007-2008 real estate wasteland he then proceeded to scavenge (using loans from the big government he did regularly rail against).
What he did was legal. Morality, as you note, is beside the point in most real estate transactions. This is about Hannity’s ethics (generously assuming he has any, which I don’t).
Are you sure Hannity had as little to do with that as you did?
No, I am not an expert on all of Hannity’s activities, is there something you know that you should share? Otherwise you’re just assuming that because someone’s an asshole they’re also a criminal.
it’s arguable that Hannity as a high-profile Fox News “deregulate and securitise all the things!” pundit contributed to the creation of the 2007-2008 real estate wasteland he then proceeded to scavenge (using loans from the big government he did regularly rail against).
He did not get loans as far as I could tell from the article, he merely got loan guarantees. This is not the same as getting an FHA mortgage. As for his pulpit, I don’t see any difference from a CNBC stockjabberer who also plays the market. Do we know that Hannity didn’t also lose in the stock market and real estate crash of 08?
he merely got loan guarantees.
Fair enough, but real bootstrapping tycoons don’t need loan guarantees from the bad ol’ government (I’ll put money on Hannity having said something to that effect on several occasions).
As for his pulpit, I don’t see any difference from a CNBC stockjabberer who also plays the market.
One of those CNBC stockjabberers is credited with setting off the Tea Party phenomenon that sucked in the Know-Nothings before Il Douche captured their attention. Hannity bought right into that garbage, too (not a bad word from either of them about the blank-cheque bank bailouts, though). Their influence isn’t limited to what’s going on in the market, it’s about spreading the kind of toxic “free” market rhetoric that leads us into these crises again and again.
Do we know that Hannity didn’t also lose in the stock market and real estate crash of 08?
No, but we do know that he profited off of it, all the while blaming the President who had to clean up the mess without saying one bad word about his predecessor whose administration helped set the stage for it.
Again, no-one* is saying that everyone who buys low after a disaster is an immoral or unethical slug. This article is about Hannity in particular.
[* at least, no-one who sees some merit in capitalism]
Perhaps he got into some of that sweet Trump money laundering action.
IMHO that’s not only plausible, but a virtual certainty. Too many stories about people with $$$$$$$$$ who just can’t have enough.
Yeah, I was only being vaguely sarcastic but deep down I figure that is what is going on.
Yeah, I was only being vaguely sarcastic but deep down I figure that is what is going on.
It’s the “deep down” things that makes us pop our heads off our pillows at 2:00AM.
There is an “I” in “friend” and a “fist” in “pacifist”.
That only works as a calculus if you ignore the immense harm done in the foreclosure process to former residents and their communities. This is especially true in communities where the foreclosure process hit really hard. It is entirely possible for an action to be both socially destructive, evil, legal, and a fiscally sound choice for an individual. We rightfully attack IBM for their WW2 era actions even though they made a lot of money. Just because something is legal and profitable doesn’t make it right. Come to Cleveland and drive through Slavic Village with me some time to get an idea of the damage foreclosure vultures have done.
It’s really the hypocrisy of a) blaming the wrong person and b) secretly profiting from the situation. Lots of people took advantage of the housing crisis to make a lot of money. Most of them didn’t do so while publicly and incorrectly blaming a political opponent.
Did Hannity somehow cause the housing crisis? Clearly not, as he’s never held office. Did he buy properties? Sure, investing your money to take care of you and yours is a family value. Do people that make poor decisions pay for them? You bet.
http://capitolweekly.net/records-show-congresswomans-home-sold-in-foreclosure/
Don’t cry about Hannity making good decisions…
Price gouging in response to supply shortages is what we are supposed to think is normal. Helping other people in a crisis is normal.
Rebecca Solnit’s “A Paradise Built in Hell” is a pretty heartwarming look at how people by and large don’t act like selfish dickwads during disasters.
https://www.amazon.com/Paradise-Built-Hell-Extraordinary-Communities/dp/0143118072