[IP] Re: Let's play "Deconstruct the media!" -- America's new subprime shanty-towns

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: Brock N Meeks [bmeeks@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:19 PM
To: Roger Bohn
Cc: David Farber; ip
Subject: Re: [IP] Let's play "Deconstruct the media!" -- America's new subprime shanty-towns

On Mar 19, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Roger Bohn wrote:

> Brock N. Meeks writes:
>> Someone below wonders why he "found out about this [story] from the
>> BCC and not US media?"  Here's one possible answer:  it's a ginned
>> up report by a
>> clueless BBC reporter, trying to make news from nothing.
>
> I can't let this go by; statements like this have become a new
> method of right-wing denial.  Meeks has nothing but speculation
> here, but by starting from the assumption that BBC reporters and
> editors are incompetent, he can justify any speculation  he wants.

"Right wing denial"??  Surely, sir, you jest!  I've been called a lot
of things (some of them I even deserved) but "right wing"?  Good god,
man, you nearly gave me a stroke!  I'm not just flinging words into
the ether here.  My 20-plus years as a reporter gives me, I would
speculate, some standing to jab my BBC brethren with a verbal stick.
And I didn't JUST start with an assumption, I backed it up, with with
examples.
>
> The lack of grounding in Meek's speculation is exemplified by the
> following:
>>> The last interview is with a guy that says he sold his house "for
>>> a lot less
>>> than I paid for it."  But he didn't take a bath on it, or so it
>>> seems,
>>> because he tells the reporter that after the sale, "I settled all
>>> my bills
>>> and now I'm homeless."  You don't "settle all your bills" if don't
>>> have
>> equity in the house.
>
> This is ignorant of arithmetic and of real estate. One can be both
> underwater and still have positive equity when you sell; the
> difference is your original down payment.  And, given that selling
> fees are ~8 percent  (all costs, not just commissions), even selling
> a house for your original price means taking a significant bath.

OK, let's play with your math book.  Let's assume it played out as you
say; I'll stipulate to your (speculated) version of the story,
because, you know, neither of us knows because the original reporting
<cough> just doesn't give us any clue.  So, the sale plays out as you
say, that the guy does, indeed, "take a bath" on the sale and walks
away with equity.   What then?  He obviously has money left to settle
all his bills and after that, poof.. he's homeless?

Your speculation, er, version of the story does no more to lend
credence to the original report than my speculation, er, version of
the story.  Where in the interview is there ANY evidence that this guy
is victim of the sub-prime mess?  If he had a job and simply couldn't
make the payments because of predatory sub-prime loan practices, why
does he suddenly not have a job?  He suddenly has no visible means of
support?  Well, ANYONE without the ability to pay for their mortgage
is going to end up on the street.  Well, there I go, practicing sloppy
commentary.  I shouldn't use "anyone," in that previous sentence.
Some people, staring into the pending abyss of potential foreclosure,
might put their house on the market, even if they have to take a bath
on it, so they can strip out what equity they might have.  Then take
the money, regroup and give it another go.

But none of that last example is tied to the sub-prime mess.  I know
of two families in the high priced county of Fairfax, VA, where I
Iive, that had to do just that.  No sub-prime mess there; in both
cases the jobs evaporated and they couldn't make mortgage payments
they had easily handled in in previous years.  Rather than let the
house lapse into foreclosure, they rush the house to market, took a
beating on the price, but walked away with enough of a grubstake to
start over, in a rental, in another county.

> The signature case of this kind of attack was the recent "Swift-
> boating of Graeme Frost"  http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670210,00.html
> ,
> a 12 year old who publicly said that a subsidized health insurance
> program helped him recover from a major auto crash. He and his
> family were publicly attacked by Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin,
> Congressional Republicans, and other bloggers, who produced a lot of
> speculation, subsequently debunked, that his family was actually
> wealthy.

I despise both Rush and Malkin; trying to link my comments with their
ilk is laughable.

>
> In recessions, people suffer. Bad policies, eg the recent revision
> of the bankruptcy bills at the behest of credit card companies, lead
> to more suffering.  You may think there are good reasons for this
> state of affairs, but don't deny that it happens, and don't expect
> IP readers to be impressed by "Ivory Tower" speculation about the
> facts of a particular case.

Ke-rist, Robert.  You didn't read my comment very closely, you just
got worked up (sorry, that's me speculating) and fired away with your
keyboard.  I specifically said in my original comment (because I KNEW
someone out there in IP land would just see red and not pay close
attention) that I was making light of anyone's plight!  I am well
aware  that recession creates dire circumstances -- you get no debate
from me.  The sub-prime fiasco is just that, a fiasco and the
financial dominos now falling because of it are tragic.  I agree to
all of that.

And if you can show me where I "deny that it happens," and by "it" I
assume you're talking about people getting into tough spots, then I'll
pay you $100.  But I never did.  I don't even deny that there might be
tent cities, plural, springing up.  But to blithely tie all that to
the sub-prime mess is just not responsible journalism.

If the reporter had chronicled a few different tent cities, in a few
different metropolitan areas, it would have held more credence to me.

>

-------------------------------------------