Sam's Politics and Religion

Home - Profile - Archives - Writings

Welcome
I assume you find history--and the politicians who take us on such a scary ride through it-- interesting or you wouldn't be here. I also presume we share an interest in the religious figures who sometimes try to restrain our worst impulses and, too often, encourage them. History is rarely straight forward and sometimes baffling. I recall that as an eight-year-old I was never completely sure how something hidden in a pumpkin could send a man named Alger Hiss to prison or why someone who lived in far-away Russia wanted to blow me up. You cannot escape history; we live it whether it's a Wall Street Crash or a shooting war in Afghanistan. Since it is going to impact us, whether we want it to or not, we may as well try to figure it out. After all, the rabbit that has some notion of which way to run has the best chance of outliving the fox.
 
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
   
Inflation--The Unmentioned Housing solution
 
I Am Sam

President Obama explained his plans for preventing foreclosures in housing this afternoon, speaking from Phoenix, where there are lots and lots of them. He spoke, as one commentator noted, in “vague and complicated” terms, warning that he could not prevent all foreclosures.
He drew loud cheers when he said that “speculators”, people who took on mortgages they knew they could not repay, and people who fuzzed the small print while pushing the mortgage on buyers would not be protected.
This is Goldwater country and no undeserving need apply. Well, I could not help thinking, that just about eliminates everyone who bought or sold a house during the past three years or so. Businessweek cites a couple in California—he was a federal cop; she worked for a university; these are not rich folk—who are about to lose their newly purchased home.
It seems their mortgage will soon leap from $3000 a month to $4000. They recently bought a nice subdivision house for almost $600,000. Excuse me? Only a few years ago that was the kind of money a highly paid medical specialist acquaintance of mine paid for his enviable mansion! Or that you paid for a house right on the beach at Lake Michigan.
Obama did not deal with the fact that a whole lot of American “middleclass” housing is way, way overpriced to begin with. He did not deal with what is going to happen to the American economy if and when housing drops to a sane level of cost and mortgage payments.
Talk about trillions and trillions of value going bye-bye! Or there’s an equally hideous alternative—so much inflation that a $4000 mortgage becomes as easily handled on a normal middle class income as the $105 a month my dad paid in 1954 or the $450 a month I contracted for in 1980 (for less house than my dad bought. Housing inflation isn’t new).
But when there is that kind of inflation, a lot of people get left behind. Pensions usually don’t keep up; bond interest may not; salaries and wages almost never do. But that’s what you’re going to have to have if all the banks are going to come out of this solvent, let alone the government that’s guaranteeing all this rescue.
Banks are caught in a truly nasty kind of loop. It doesn’t help anybody to say, “They made it.” Even if it’s true. They were chief among speculators, gambling that the $600,000 houses would keep right on appreciating, so they could be repossessed and resold if needed. Gambling that law enforcement officers and university non-teaching staff incomes would keep climbing. Gambling that credit for refinancing would always be available. (That should eliminate nearly all banks from Obama’s plan.) To stay out of receivership—to survive—banks must have more money in assets than they have in debts. So should we all, but the government does not take us over the instant our worth drops below our obligations. It does with banks.
A truly terrifying reality today is that one whale of a lot of the assets that banks count on to keep them solvent and running consist of mortgage paper. Beginning in July 2007 the Bush administration began jawboning banks to get them to lower rates and even cut principal to ward off a coming housing collapse. “Banks,” said one official, “were in denial.”
No they weren’t. They understood full well that the moment they cut principal and interest on 101 Love Nest Lane, auditors would start devaluing the paper on 102, 103, 104—in effect, all of Love Nest Lane. This would do savage and potentially fatal things to the bank’s books.
They chose to trust that somehow, someway housing prices would retain their $600,000 valuations and even climb beyond that. It was like a wife’s trust in a philandering husband, but it was all they had to go on. The alternative was too frightening. Call it denial if you will, but if she has no other way of making a living, that is what many wives do. That is what the banks did.
Hang tough and hope, this became the mantra of American bankers. People did not get interest rates cut; there was no way principal was going to be cut! Under that Bush plan, in nearly two years, exactly 25 mortgages have been modified. In the whole United States. Obama obviously hopes for more—but how is he going to prevent receivership for banks that cooperate?
Guess how? Print lots and lots of money—787 billion here, a trillion there, 75 more billion over there—and inflation will take care of all the overpriced assets out there.
China will rescue us by buying our debt? Chinese export trade is suddenly in deep, deep trouble. They are muscling out foreign competitors in their domestic market by moving their own products (that they can no longer export) into domestic outlets. General Motors which had up until recently been making much of its money in China is a significant casualty here.
Do not wait for the cavalry, kiddies. It has been downsized. Natural forces like massive inflation are about all we have left.

 
This is a picture of Sam
  I arrived in Washington just before the Kennedy assassination... MORE
  Demonstration of my new umbrella anchor can be seen below.
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 

 

   
 

 

   
 

 

   
   
   
 

 

 

   
   
   
 

 

   
   
   
   
   
To comment click here.


 
Sunday, February 15, 2009
   
The Unthinkable Improbable
   
     
Scientists, liberal theologians, generals, detectives, liberal politicians, mainstream university professors and many judges all tend to share a similar proclivity. They are usually completely willing to engage in unproven and unprovable speculation. They will, for the sake of argument or as a preliminary thesis, think the unthinkable (and the unknown) just to cover all the “worst case scenarios”, all the possibilities, and even the improbable but remotely possible solutions.
Scientifically and in several other areas of the real world, as the term is understood in politically correct circles, this is probably a useful technique. It allows, hopefully, for thinking “outside the box”, and it may open the mind to unusual possibilities and solutions to a problem.
As A. Conan Doyle wrote in the words of Sherlock Holmes, “When you have eliminated all other possibilities the remaining one—however improbable—must be the answer.”
But there is one improbability that remains universally out of bounds to most of the above practitioners of the fine art of speculation. There is one subject in which one is either not allowed to speculate at all or is deemed unprofessional or, at best, only moderately sane if one does.
It is the subject of conservative Christianity (or of any other religion, for that matter). I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, “God is too big to fit in any one religion”. It sounds nice, even rather profound until you think about it. If God is in all religions, then the beliefs about the characteristics and nature of God of any one faith are rendered invalid. They tend to contradict.
God becomes simply an unknowable entity. Taking into account the beliefs of all religions, we can’t know if He (or She) is even aware of us. So there’s nothing to pray for, nothing to expect, and there are no consequences for offending or ignoring Him (or Her).
But just in the interest of the kind of free ranging speculation allowed in nearly all other disciplines, let’s indulge in a bit of speculation ourselves—about God.
Speculation one: Suppose such a being exists. Two) Suppose he takes a proprietary interest in the universe and creatures he created? Suppose—in the interest of fomenting sanity and good hygiene among the creatures he made—he has set up some behavioral standards for those creatures? Suppose that if those standards are ignored, he doesn’t punish but merely allows the natural consequences of injurious behavior to run their course?
These are no more irrational suppositions than those made by natural and behavioral scientists every working day of their lives. They’re merely in a taboo area.
But having established these suppositions about a deity, one is then face to face with other questions. (I suspect that a significant reason God is not permitted in the speculative arena is the nature of the following necessary questions that must follow if he were.)
Suppose we then have a nation of people wracked with their own greed doing utterly foolish things to satisfy their covetous cravings. Huge, unsupportable homes with ridiculous mortgages, bundled securities with no proven value, rampant sexuality (that does damage participants by diseases, by regret—have you ever watched someone weep AFTER an abortion; I have more than once—or by a hardening of once innocent and natural affections), a thirst for an ever greater variety of truly appalling perversions inflicted upon children, women and each other.
Then let us suppose that the deity who established certain behavioral rules feels that it is time to call a halt to the hurtful and foolish behavior. Suppose then that he leaves the fools that indulged in the behavior to cry unto the only God they acknowledge, “Save us! Bail us out!”
A thought that will be regarded as insane in any academic or intellectual circle: Do you suppose there could be an offended God element in our present difficulties?
And, if so, is there anything we should do about that? Like that old word we never hear in The Wall Street Journal or The Washington Post or any other part of the media—repent.
All that really means is to say you are sorry for being so stupid—and promise to do better next time.
Even an atheist might agree that a degree of repentance and a few heartfelt promises to do better might not be a bad idea.
I don’t expect to see this any time soon. It’s much, much too unthinkable.
   
To comment click here.


 
Sam's Politics and Religion
   
N. Sheridan Rd.
Muskegon, MI. 49445
231.744.1945
E-Mail Sam
   
     
   
     

Copyright 2008 - 2009
Last updated April 20, 2009

Sam's Politics and Religion


Sam's:

HOME |PROFILE | ARCHIVES | WRITINGS