Castro finally breathed his last; Cubans are glad he is finally gone.

Cubans are also sad.

Did he execute 100,000 innocent political opponents or 3,000 of Batista's torturers?

Typical liberal left Cuban-holocaust denial or right-wing ex-pats unable to admit that Daddy was a blood soaked sadist.

Who knows?

 

On what evidence do you base that, Fixrman?  When I holidayed in Cuba I found a deep respect for Castro that was as strong off the record as it was in public.

I expect it'll be the largely republican Cuban exiles in Florida. Who presumably aren't in favour given the efforts they went to getting to the USA.

On the numbers of Cubans I have met in the U.S. who had their homes and possessions re-appropriated courtesy of the benevolent Castro regime.

Do you really think anyone who didn't like Castro would actually tell you, over there? Seriously?

Is it better to be dispossessed by the bank?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-many-people-have-lost-their-homes-us-home-foreclosures-are-comparable-to-the-great-depression/5335430

America has lots of problems. Cuba ain't one of them.

Do you really think anyone who liked Castro would move to the U.S.? Seriously?

No, I just figured they considered themselves lucky to get out, especially after the home confiscation and all of the other lovely bits that come in a regime such as it is.

Don't suppose you have plans to move there?

I ain't built for Caribbean climes. Drop it in the Channel and I'll certainly give it consideration.

Yeah, home confiscation sucks. It really does. So I'll put it to you again: does it feel any better if the bank does it, as opposed to the gummint?

Easy to criticize the 'other', than to face myriad and catastrophic failures on home turf, innit?

 

It makes a huge difference. People who don't pay their mortgages have their home foreclosed upon. There is a choice there. Pay the bill, the house is safe.

When the "gummint" takes a home, such as Castro's system did, it doesn't matter if the mortgage is paid or not - they just take it. 

From a purely semantic position, the end result is the same - except it really isn't.

Sometimes catastrophe is caused by people's own choices, such as overextending on purchasing.

Plus, it'd be much closer.  ;)

Yeah, not a fan of commuting.

Ah. Folks who lost their home to the bank deserved it. Folks who lost their home to communism are victims. Gotcha.

Well, you tell me: If someone can't or won't pay the mortgage they took on, what should the lender do about it? The house is collateral for the loan.
 

Uhhh, yeah. Surely you can see the difference, or perhaps are being deliberately obtuse.

 

Perhaps you should study up on the whole subprime mortgage business, then you'd at least have an informed opinion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Oh, OK. So it is all the fault of the big, bad lender. I know about it, bud - but apparently you don't ascribe any responsibility to the borrower.

From your link:

An increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume risky mortgages in the anticipation that they would be able to quickly refinance at easier terms.

Put another way, borrowers were greedy, went-all in for a the big house they should have had the good sense to know they couldn't afford (risky mortgage), then got burned. Smart people live within their means and listen to the warning bells.

"When something seems too good to be true, it usually is"

Words to live by, mate. One must be smart about one's own money.
 

"Smart people live within their means and listen to the warning bells."

Not when you're 'too big to fail'. You still just don't get it, do you?

One must be smart, but there's a level of trust given to the lenders to lend responsibly. We're always told to aspire for bigger and better, if that looks within reach because the banks are willing to lend the sorts of money required to get the bigger and better house then it becomes normal.

There will always be the assumption that if the banks are willing to lend such quantities then the banks can afford it, and they've done the relevant financial analysis of the applicant to make sure they can afford it too.

I do agree there should be a level of personal responsibility with all this, but the banks shouldn't have been lending in the way they were in the first place.