MovieChat Forums > Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) Discussion > Wasn't convinced of the Haker's peril

Wasn't convinced of the Haker's peril

posted 15 years ago by kkhsiivonen
5 replies | jump to latest

I really found it hard to think the bank (or what ever "evil capitalist") did anything wrong to the Hacker family. If this was the ase, it should have been more evident in the movie. What did see was a family with alot of stufff they could have parted with, and get soem money to pay off at least part of their loan. In the beginning of the movie, the guy is showing off his guns - not just few, but alot of guns. Wouldn't they be off some value? Would it be difficult to sell them... in U.S.A... a country known for love of guns? They seemed to have pretty decent furnitures. It' propably not a good idea to sell some of them in order to keep the house... no it's better to hold on to that junk and burn them when the time is right. What ever happened to the money they loaned? My guess is that guy got some more guns.

I do think a bank should try and make deals with people who are about to lose their home, that would benefit both parties. But aside from that, it just looks like they (the family) just never thought they need to pay of the loan.

[–] GinoFelino 15 years ago

Bravo! This was one of my biggest problems with the film; sure, Michael Moore frequently prefers showing sobbing people to actual discourse, and he has been known to only show one side of the coin, but the Hacker family example took the cake. All I saw was a fat, crying woman and a very (almost murderously) angry fat man burning property that might have sold at an estate sale. Yes, there was the line about how their mortgage kept jumping up, but why? What was the bank's reasoning behind it? There may have been some banking shenanigans going on in the background, but we never saw it, never heard of it.

[–] yahya_eid 15 years ago

@GinoFelino

The bank kept increasing their mortgage repayments because this was the type of loan that they were apart of, now known as a sub-prime mortgage. Rates would increase after a certain period of time and would keep increasing from there. Because they weren't financially stable, the bank deems them risky and so has to charge them extra to account for the extra risk that they have of not making a repayment. So many loans were made of this type and once rates for these borrowers jumped up all over the country, so did the foreclosures all over the country.

[–] GinoFelino 14 years ago

Good point, guess that obvious fact slipped right by me, LOL.

[–] whatever94401 14 years ago

Why did they take out a sub prime mortgage? She said the house was in her family for decades, it was her father's house. It wasn't paid off or near paid off? Was it paid off and then the Hackers thought, I can take money out of the equity and buy stuff that I can't afford on my income. That was a common case with sub prime borrowers. People with good credit and 40% down did not take out sub prime mortgages. When you sign mortgage papers, it shows how much you actually pay for your home, with all the interest, after 15 years. ITS A LOT!!! Best to go for the most down, and the lowest rate in the shortest time. And for goodness sake, if you inherit a house that is paid for or near paid for, consider yourself blessed, don't borrow against it! I hope this fiasco has at least made people learn from others mistakes. I can understand taking money out of the house if there was a dire emergency, but as other posters stated, nothing like that was explained.

[–] filmbuff-36 14 years ago

That part of the movie in particular stood out to be for how vaguely it was presented. It seemed as though Moore was deliberately leaving out any part of the story that would reflect poorly on the family, lest we disagree with Moore's thesis that banks are evil and end up holding the family accountable for their own actions.