I can’t believe this is even a question

Megan McArdle takes on the idea that borrowers bear no responsibility if they can’t repay a loan on a house that’s declined in value:

It seems to me that this sort of acts like borrowers shouldn’t have any obligation to repay money on an asset that has fallen in value–as if there were some sort of moral right to take highly leveraged bets on housing and pass off any losses to someone else. The borrowers ought to have known that they couldn’t be repaid, because of course the natural and right thing to do, in the event that an item you have purchased on credit falls in value, is to default on your loan.

Just in case my excerpt makes it less obvious, I’m pretty sure that last sentence is irony.

The whole post is worth a read, but honestly, I think the fact that she has to take on this “idea” is really kind of ludicrous. Someone who buys a home that declines in value is still responsible for the full value of the loan they took out, just as I would be responsible for the full value of my credit card debt if I took a cash advance and used it to buy stock that then declined in value.

Though, I have to say, maybe I should push this idea, since it would get me out of my car loans a LOT faster.