Another Perspective on Dan Gilbert

[townonenorth]

Not only is that ad hominem, even if it weren't it wouldn't be relevant to the discussion. What? Am I supposed to choke on those words and feel the creeping fear of being "outed" on a message board? Am I supposed to cry, "Nooooo!" and spin around in my office chair until I vanish in a poof of pixie dust? My career has never been distinguished enough to throw on the betting pile, and it still isn't. You must rate me some eminence that I do not grant myself. That's generous, Gnome, but not at all called for.

Also, since you have to veer so far off course that you're in MY grill now and not discussing the wisdom of tax abatement as civic development policy, I'll presume my points are so rock-solid you had to resort to some new tack. Thanks for the implied compliment, buddy.

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is thelogical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you [[or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

[Detroitnerd]

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is thelogical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you [[or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Look at me! I can cut and paste! Wheeee! Maybe people will think I'm smart!

[rjlj]

Please provide detail on the subsidies from local and state tax dollars.

Gilbert seems like a net plus for Detroit city proper, but he's a businessman, not a savior.

The "new jobs" are BS; they're relocated jobs from Livonia, and the move was subsidized with local and state tax dollars. There's no net gain here; it's just warring local factions.

[townonenorth]

Look at me! I can cut and paste! Wheeee! Maybe people will think I'm smart!

So THAT'S why you always copy and paste? Classic.

All the world's "wisdumb" will die with you.

[Dan Wesson]

Fawning over billionaires....

Is so a sign of our times, Lives of the Rich and Famous. UGH!

Culture of Personality.

[detlump]

A spirited discussion! Well, here's my thoughts:

I like that Gilbert has decided to invest in downtown and bring jobs there. He could have easily stayed in the suburbs. He has done more than pretty much everyone else combined to revitalize downtown.

That being said, the mortgage business is just moving paper around, it doesn't really produce anything. You can say that about banking in general of course. I get the sense that Quicken has to keep expanding or it will wither and die. How long can that go on?

Manufacturing, on the other hand, produces something tangible. Henry Ford made cars. Raw materials were enriched and something of greater value was produced. Also, Ford had assets. Valuable property, machinery, etc. Quicken doesn't have any assets besides the properties that Gilbert has bought and maybe the Aeron chairs [[like dotcoms).

I believe that Ford also worked his employees 6 days a week and 10 or 12 hours a day, so maybe there is a comparison there too.

I'm trying to stay positive with Gilbert and hope that he's not building a house of cards downtown.

[nain rouge]

Quicken is in a very precarious industry. It very nearly collapsed about 5 years ago, and has only stayed alive thanks to endless money pumping from the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has been buying tens of billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities a month, to a total tune in the trillions. It allows people and banks to make crap investments and profit nonetheless. But at the same time, it's completely unsustainable, because the Fed is essentially printing unlimited amounts of money to afford the securities, devaluing our currency at an epic rate.

When we hit the wall again like in 2008, it's going to hit companies like Quicken hard. It could be 2015, or it could be 2020. But either way, it's going to happen, and everyone will be "shocked", just like last time. Then what happens to downtown?

[Eber Brock Ward]

If we invest anywhere to the exclusion of other sectors, it has to be tech. I agree that the mortgage industry is quite cyclical and carries with it inherent risks. That said, supporting Gilbert and his mortgage and tech businesses is more beneficial to the city than doing the same for manufacturing. Gilbert has 10,000+ workers downtown and his abatements and other subsidies pale in comparison to the tens of millions of dollars of subsidies that have gone to Jefferson North, which only employs now, at it's peak[[!), about 4,500 people.

For this reason, I about crapped myself when Napoleon said we have to focus on manufacturing during the election, like it was 1950 all over again.

[Eber Brock Ward]

I will also add, though, that if you look at the cost/benefit analysis prepared by the budget director, it shows that the subsidies for Jefferson North are probably a GOOD idea.

So it's not a matter of "support this business but not that one", but instead "support all businesses and types of businesses where you expect to see a net gain in tax revenues."

[stasu1213]

I will also add, though, that if you look at the cost/benefit analysis prepared by the budget director, it shows that the subsidies for Jefferson North are probably a GOOD idea.

So it's not a matter of "support this business but not that one", but instead "support all businesses and types of businesses where you expect to see a net gain in tax revenues."

Also give subsidies to businesses that will hire qualified Detroiters as well.

[Detroitnerd]

So THAT'S why you always copy and paste? Classic.

All the world's "wisdumb" will die with you.

Well, there's copying and pasting, and then there's quoting something, offering context, insight and a link to the original article. As to which is more scholarly ...

[rb336]

Quicken is in a very precarious industry. It very nearly collapsed about 5 years ago, and has only stayed alive thanks to endless money pumping from the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has been buying tens of billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities a month, to a total tune in the trillions. It allows people and banks to make crap investments and profit nonetheless. But at the same time, it's completely unsustainable, because the Fed is essentially printing unlimited amounts of money to afford the securities, devaluing our currency at an epic rate.

When we hit the wall again like in 2008, it's going to hit companies like Quicken hard. It could be 2015, or it could be 2020. But either way, it's going to happen, and everyone will be "shocked", just like last time. Then what happens to downtown?

the mortgage industry is not inherently precarious. it becomes precarious when the players start diving into things like mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps and other instruments that even the fools who created them don't understand. The lenders start focusing on selling those instruments as a means to fatten their bottom line instead of actually focusing on doing their primary job correctly, resulting in them handing out money in copious sums to people who can't really afford loans of that size. QL got NO federal bailout money because Gilbert was smart enough to see the foolishness of the practices. It's not the industry that is precarious, it is the folly of greed.

[motz]

the mortgage industry is not inherently precarious. it becomes precarious when the players start diving into things like mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps and other instruments that even the fools who created them don't understand. The lenders start focusing on selling those instruments as a means to fatten their bottom line instead of actually focusing on doing their primary job correctly, resulting in them handing out money in copious sums to people who can't really afford loans of that size. QL got NO federal bailout money because Gilbert was smart enough to see the foolishness of the practices. It's not the industry that is precarious, it is the folly of greed.

Basically this. If a mortgage company does not delve into shady, albeit insanely profitable in the short-term, practices, they will be around for a long time. It might not be 24/7 growth like some "industry analysts" expect, but they will be here and they will continue employing large amounts of people.

Seriously, everyone being so weary of any mortgage-related company just needs to realize, the Countrywide's of the industry weren't the entire industry, but just a portion of it. Gilbert is bringing people to the city, who pay city taxes and eat food from local restaurants and buying/renovating buildings for those workers. It might not be the best deal ever in the whole wide world, but its better than skyrocketing office vacancies and failing residential buildings.

[DetroitPlanner]

Mortgage companies are still by nature a predatory beast. They know they will make a lot more off of ARMS with fewer risks and be able to continuously sell mortgages when the ARM comes due.

They also work off the assumption that mortgage buyers are stupid and try to get them to buy as large of a mortgage as possible instead of one that fits their need. I don't blame this exclusively on the Mortgage seller themselves, but purchasers need to know when they are getting over thier heads in terms of commitments. Too many people are lured by a small payment when that in and of itself could lead to never paying off the mortgage. For some reason many buyers have a huge disconnect with this. There should be a moral or legal imperative that these folks are educated before getting into such a contract. Mortgage agents fail at this and thus are predatory.

[Scottathew]

There should be a moral or legal imperative that these folks are educated before getting into such a contract. Mortgage agents fail at this and thus are predatory.

So my ignorance can make someone else predatory? That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm in charge of my destiny, it's my responsibility to understand one of the most important financial decisions in my life, not someone else's responsiblity.

[DetroitPlanner]

So my ignorance can make someone else predatory? That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm in charge of my destiny, it's my responsibility to understand one of the most important financial decisions in my life, not someone else's responsiblity.

When someone takes advantage of the ignorant, is that not predatory? If they were taking advantage of children who did not know better, or of seniors who may get confused easily, would you consider it predatory? Ignorance is ignorance; yes these folks should know better, but they don't. My second paragraph even eludes to these folks being stupid. However there comes a moral obligation to society to not take advantage of others regardless of how stupid they are. We are all our brother's keeper particularly if we want to enter into a contract with our brother.

[motz]

Mortgage companies are still by nature a predatory beast. They know they will make a lot more off of ARMS with fewer risks and be able to continuously sell mortgages when the ARM comes due.

They also work off the assumption that mortgage buyers are stupid and try to get them to buy as large of a mortgage as possible instead of one that fits their need. I don't blame this exclusively on the Mortgage seller themselves, but purchasers need to know when they are getting over thier heads in terms of commitments. Too many people are lured by a small payment when that in and of itself could lead to never paying off the mortgage. For some reason many buyers have a huge disconnect with this. There should be a moral or legal imperative that these folks are educated before getting into such a contract. Mortgage agents fail at this and thus are predatory.

I think that you seem to assume that every single mortgage lender out there wants the borrower to take out the absolute largest thing they can and doesn't have any guidelines and doesn't try to work with the borrower to educate them on the process or the implications of them taking out that loan.

Seriously, before I worked in the industry [[Not Quicken!), I thought the entire industry was a terrible piece of our economy that did nothing but drain society. But the fact is, only an extremely tiny fraction of people can afford to purchase a home without taking out a loan of some sort. I agree that there should be more protections in certain aspects, ESPECIALLY relating to ARMs. However, not every lender/wholesaler deals with ARMs.

So if we take Quicken/Dan from Detroit, what do you suggest we replace it with?

[townonenorth]

Well, there's copying and pasting, and then there's quoting something, offering context, insight and a link to the original article. As to which is more scholarly ...

Actually, what I pasted WAS a quote. The rest of the original article was left to you to discover from the link I included, which was a link to the original article.Of course, my commentary and insight was not needed in this case, since the author of the article made the exact point I was trying to make. At least MY copy and paste met the quality standard set by you, unlike the usual crying baby.

[mikefmich]

Dear Lord, again? I've said this before.....what's up with some of you folks and your logic/thinking?

Detroit is destitute, bankrupt, & largely in ruins. I came into the world at its zenith, population wise. It's painful to see, and at times literally reduces me to real tears.

Yet y'all are gonna gripe about someone who comes in and pumps a few hundred million dollars, into the downtown district no less, buys & rehabs buildings, brings workers downtown [[does it really matter where they come from) which creates other $$ spent in the city.

Crissakes, at this point & time, I couldn't care less if Atilla the Hun was pumping $$ into the city. But y'all are gonna sit there an nitpik, and live on with dreams that might have been flights of fantasy far back as 35 years ago, let alone now.

I dunno.....I got nuthin'.

[prokopowicz]

Gnome, let's talk about what I say. Forget about what I do.

[Scottathew]

Some folks aren't happy that many people who work downtown aren't from Detroit, but the problem is that if you have on of these downtown jobs you probably make enough money to be able to live in a safer area with good schools.

The good thing here is that once Detroit fixes it's crime and school issues, there will be a huge source of jobs. Detroit would be a source a very affordable housing near a huge job center.

We just need to figure out the crime and school issues, it may take decades, but if it can be fixed we'll see a residential comeback.

[DetroitPlanner]

I am not being a crybaby. I am just trying to make it clear that no one should be surprised that this guy [[Gilbert) is here to make money. If he lifts a lot of boats with his fortunes, thats great. However don't be hoodwinked into thinking he is Jesus.

[warsaw7]

If you look at job reviews at Quicken Loans, they aren't that great. Long hours, lots of pressure to work 6 days a week 12 hours a day. The turnover rate is pretty high too. Just because he has a slurpee machine and offers pizza doesn't mean its a "best company" to work for. Lot of young people get fooled by petty perks.

Get your act together. Not everyone is a mortgage banker at QL. Been there for over a year, in an area of the business other than mortgage banking and I think it is a great place to work with a great sense of pride. Never have I worked more than 10 hours a day or 6 days a week.

[Dan Wesson]

Dan Gilbert seems to be following a tried and true investment strategy.

1) He's a value investor.

2) Buy when there's blood in the streets. [[an old Rothschild axiom)

[Detroitnerd]

Actually, what I pasted WAS a quote. The rest of the original article was left to you to discover from the link I included, which was a link to the original article.Of course, my commentary and insight was not needed in this case, since the author of the article made the exact point I was trying to make. At least MY copy and paste met the quality standard set by you, unlike the usual crying baby.

“Like a good for nothing cock, without having won the victory, he walks away and crows." -Socrates