It's hard to tell who's being quoted in this Doug French article, but regardless...
Why is it so difficult to see that this irresponsible and immature perspective (that has infiltrated our society) is what got us into this financial disaster in the first place.
The removal of consequences from our society (so that everything is "fair" and garners votes) is what is allowing people at all ranks of society to continually make poor discions without concern for risks.
To promote breaking contract law and describing personal responsibility as "Stupid" just shows how clueless and desperate the herd is.
This is just like in the healthcare industry, let's come up with a "disease" to blame for our reluctance to accept responsibility for our lazy and stupid decisions.
I wouldn't be surprised if big Pharma comes out with a pill to help remedy the herd's irresponsible financial conditions (like "BHS").
Everyone thinks they're a genius when they "win" using big credit or margin, but boy do the babys come out when "losses" occur and it's time to pay the creditors.
This nonsense is enough to make your head explode. I hope I'm talking to the choir here; does anyone else share these frustrations?
The removal of consequences from our society (so that everything is "fair" and garners votes) is what is allowing people at all ranks of society to continually make poor discions without concern for risks. To promote breaking contract law and describing personal responsibility as "Stupid" just shows how clueless and desperate the herd is.
I didn't read this article too closely (I found the analogy strange and off-putting) but I think your missing the point that French has held for a while regarding strategic defaults. Its not a matter of removing consequences, breaking laws, or denying personal responsibility. The mortgage contract has a clause for what happens in case of default--so its not a breach of contract* to stop paying your mortgage so long as you give the house back to the bank.
For example, lets say a family bought a house in 2007 for $500,000 and mortgaged $450,000. Today, the house appraises for $200,000 and the remaining mortgage is $350,000. If they were to sell today, they would still owe $150,000 to the bank. However, a strategic default in this situation would mean that they owe nothing to the bank after surrendering the house. Besides the repercussions of what that would do to their credit, this family could pull themselves out of a $150,000 debt by just walking away, without breaking contract law.
EDIT: I guess it is technically a breach of contract, but its not like contracts are to be upheld for their own sake. Whats legally important is that in case a contract is breached (which happens all the time when one party dies) that the rules are followed regarding the breach. A stretegic default does just that.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Your story makes absolutely no sense.
I'm not sure if that means I should try to explain myself again more clearly, or if you just don't care to understand.
I've always found French's articles and lectures to be excessively furtive. While he espouses ideas and positions which are not politically popular with any party, he still manages to come off as partisan, dogmatic and smugly condescending.
I think any collateralized debt is implicity a limited liability contract. I see nothing wrong morally or legally with defaulting and turning over assets worth less than the mortgage against them.