Remember when even the whiff of adultery could ruin a man's chances of becoming president or could get him impeached? Ha ha ha. That's so 1990s. (Though I'm guessing if a Democrat was caught screwing around, Republicans would be up in arms.)
So what does it take in 2017 to get impeached, or even censured by Congress? Apparently not racism, inciting violence, ethics violations, profiteering, shady (or illegal) business dealings, conflicts of interest, collusion with a foreign power, bullying, lying, or fraud.
In fact, I would wager that if Donald J. Trump stood in front of Trump Tower -- or anywhere on Fifth Avenue -- and shot someone, I doubt it would make a dent in his popularity, at least among his die-hard supporters. It might even raise it if the person he shot was black or Muslim. He would no doubt claim it was self-defense, and his supporters -- and Fox News -- would believe him and trumpet his innocence, even if it was proved that the attack was unprovoked.
And while Republican Senators and Representatives might initially condemn Trump for shooting someone, as some of them have in the past for his pussy grabbing, support of white supremacy, and other things, I doubt even that would move them to censure or impeach him.
No, the only thing that might possibly cause Republicans in Congress to impeach or remove Trump? If the economy went into a tailspin, meaning the stock market crashed, unemployment crept up, and we faced another recession.
Right now Trump is still enjoying the economic draft or slipstream left from President Obama's time at the wheel, similar to the economic situation George W. Bush inherited when he took office. And we all know how well that turned out.
And that quote at the beginning of this blog post, "The economy, stupid" (typically quoted as "It's the economy, stupid")? That was the rallying cry of the (Bill) Clinton campaign back in 1992, which helped get him elected.
Indeed, more than anything else (except maybe -- maybe) terrorism or the threat of terrorism, the economy is what determines who gets into or stays in office*. And if Donald Trump, the supposedly great businessman, turns out to be bad for business? Then, maybe, just maybe, he will be removed or voted out of office. But I wouldn't bet on it.
*I hear the spouse and many of my non-Republican friends yelling at their computer screens, saying "I disagree! The Russian thing is going to be his undoing!" To which my reply is, only if there is some major bombshell -- that there is indisputable proof that Trump personally colluded with Russians to influence the election -- will that possibly lead to impeachment. That's how crazy and depressing our political situation is now. Which, to quote Donald Trump, is sad.
Back when I graduated from college, in the late 1980s, most of us college graduates felt lucky to get a job, any job, especially us liberal arts college graduates who wanted to go into advertising, or marketing, or public relations, or publishing.
We were THRILLED to get a job as an editorial assistant, or assistant media relations buyer, or marketing assistant -- heck even a receptionist or mail room clerk, if it meant we could get our foot in the door at some swanky advertising agency or magazine.
And the pay? Puh-lease. My first job, as an assistant editor (fact checker) at a New York magazine, didn't even come close to the cost of tuition at my private liberal arts school -- or allow me to rent a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan. But man was I happy to have gotten it, especially after not being able to even get an interview at any of the other places I had applied.
Indeed, all of my friends who were lucky enough to find jobs in NYC and Boston right after school, working for slave wages, living with their parents or several roommates, were thrilled to have a job. Sure, we would have liked to have made more money right out of school, but everyone knew you had to work your way up the corporate ladder -- pay your dues, and in five or seven or 10 years you would be a senior whatever, making a living wage. That's what people did back then.
How times have changed.
Today, actually I would argue since the mid-1990s, youth and chutzpah are rewarded and age and experience are seen as negatives -- with mothers who took a few years off to raise a family and fifty- and sixty-something men and women with years of experience making a fraction of what many (most?) of today's twenty-somethings are making, or commanding, and often being the first to be "downsized" (laid off, fired) when times get tough. Though this may have changed somewhat after the recession of 2008.
I blame it on the rise of the Internet -- the "dot com" phenomenon of the mid/late 1990s -- and social media, the "dot coms" of the mid/late 2000s.
Suddenly, we went from a society or culture that valued age and experience to one where technology was king, and any peasant who could create a dot.com, or website, or code, no matter how stupid or unprofitable the idea, was practically handed a bag of money -- and a big title.
Pity those poor slobs over 30 (like me, and pretty much everyone I knew) who had spent the last eight, or six, or however many years toiling away at this job or that, paying their dues, as they had been told they had to do to get ahead, who suddenly found themselves outranked or outpaid by hordes of twenty-somethings with no experience, no social skills, and in many cases no college degree but who could code or design a website.
Indeed, although I had a job at the time, as an editor, making a decent (for an editor) wage, I remember my husband saying to me that I should learn web design or coding -- and feeling too old at 30.
Though not that long after he made the suggestion, I left my job at the publishing company and started writing about technology.
Fast forward approximately 15 later.
I still write about technology. Only today, now in my 40s, I make 50 percent LESS (and that's being optimistic) than I did when I started out. Even though I have way more experience. But just try finding a decent-paying job when you are a forty-something. (Especially if it involves writing. Apparently a skill no longer deemed important by society.) And it's worse if you are older.
Btw, I'm not the only one who feels this way. Just talk to any forty- or fifty- or sixty-something who has had to look for a job the last 10 years or so, and he or she could probably tell you how hard it is -- and that they lost out to someone much younger. Or if they did find a job, how it paid much less than their last one -- and their boss is young enough to be their kid, or grandkid.
And don't get me going off about social media -- Twitter, YouTube, etc. -- and all of these so-called social media experts and consultants and YouTube stars. (Hey, you kids, get off my computer!)
Granted, age, or experience, or years on the job/at a company shouldn't be the only qualification for a job or a promotion, as it was when I first entered the work world. But surely age and experience should count for something, at least as much as having a cat with a popular YouTube channel or Twitter feed, right?
BREAKING NEWS!Congress just approved suspending the debt limit until May 18. But before you get too excited, and start thinking that the 113th Congress is actually going to get anything substantive done, remember who we are dealing with -- and that this is just a delaying tactic. Though on the plus side, the stock market should have another up day.
You want to know why Americans today feel poorer than their parents? It's because there is so much more crap we feel compelled to buy, which is putting us in debt and/or making us feel poor.
Just think about the number of gadgets the average family (two adults, two kids) feels it is "necessary" to have these days -- vs. our parents' generation (for those of us over 35):
Now
Then
Satellite radio
Transistor radio (AM, FM)
A television in every room
A television in every home
Cable (or satellite or "phone company" TV)
Rabbit ears
Premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.)
ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS
DVR
Sh*t out of luck
Computers (typically two or more)
The library, an encyclopedia, a calculator (or pencil and paper)
Smart phones -- and texting and data plans
Party lines -- and yelling out the window
Wii/Xbox 360 + games
Stickball, riding your bike up and down the street
iPads
Drawing pads, board games
You add up all those things and that's thousands of dollars we are spending, each year. (The spouse and I did the math.) And all so we can, what? Watch the Super Bowl on a 60-inch plasma HDTV? Buy sh*t on eBay we don't really need? Play games at work? Drunk text semi-nude pictures of ourselves? Brag about where we are having dinner or are staying on vacation on Facebook?
And does your 3-year-old really need her own special kid-friendly $479 tablet?! (Apparently the people at VINCI think so.)
At some point, you gotta stop the madness -- or stop whining about how broke you are.
Btw, lest my Republican friends start reading me the riot act about free-market capitalism, I'm not advocating Communism, just a little (or a lot) less Consumerism.
That said, if one of you does have a 60-inch plasma HDTV and is planning on watching the Super Bowl on it, can we come over and watch with you?
Big news day, folks! And frankly, I am not sure which of these stories is making the mainstream media (MSM) and blogosphere giddier. Is it:
a) Ponzi scheme millionaire Bernard Madoff pleading guilty and being immediately sent to jail (after telling the judge how sorry and ashamed he was -- no doubt for getting caught)?
b) Bristol Palin (the teenage daughter of Alaska Governor and erstwhile GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin) and fiance Levi Johnstoncalling it quits?
Or
c) Tiger Woods playing in his first major after nearly a year's absence (thanks to knee surgery)? (Apparently, golf fans everywhere are thrilled Tiger is back, as, no doubt, are the PGA and the networks covering golf, all of which have suffered because of Tiger's absence.)
What's that you say? What about the continuing economic crisis? Or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or the healthcare crisis? Pshaw! No one wants to hear about those Debbie Downer stories. The public craves vengeance (Madoff), gossip (the Palins -- and how about that Meghan McCainmouthing off about Ann Coulter?! You go girl! Though what's with the motorcycle cap?), and the return of a legend (Tiger!)!
So getting back to the real news of the day, here are my thoughts:
a) Where are Bernie's billions? Apparently the money isn't in his personal bank accounts. So where is it? The guy could not have just blown through $50 billion. Would also still like to see him tarred and feathered.
b) So why did Bristol and Levi split? They say it was mutual, but you don't really believe that, do you? And who's taking care of the kid(s)? And when did "nanny" become a bad word?
c) I don't really have a lot to say about Tiger's return to golf, except YEA! I've always been a big Tiger fan and will probably watch the final rounds of the Doral, but I have no idea how he'll do. Still early days.
On Wednesday, December 17, over three-and-a-half inches of snow fell on Las Vegas (with up to six inches reported in nearby Henderson), covering the Strip and forcing schools to close and airlines to ground flights. It was the most snow Sin City had seen in nearly 30 years. But it was far from the only major snow job that made front-page news this week.
I am referring, of course, to Bernard Madoff (pronounced "MADE off" -- as in "made off with your money") -- you know, the guy who bilked his friends, charitable institutions, and supposedly sophisticated investors (aka "the smart money") out of some $50 billion in what the media is calling the biggest Ponzi scheme ever.
I think the media (including the blogosphere) has written plenty on Bernie Madoff (though do check out Paul Krugman's Op-Ed in today's New York Times titled "The Madoff Economy" to get the bigger picture, or snow job that is the investment industry) and all the folks he duped out of millions, many of whom (I am alluding here mainly to so-called financial advisors and hedge fund managers) should have known better or at least suspected something was up.
But what I haven't heard a whole lot about (with apologies to "The Sound of Music") is how do you solve a problem like Bernie Madoff?
How do you solve a problem like Bernie Madoff? Why didn't you catch this clown and pin him down? How do you find a word that means Bernie Madoff? A sociopath! A con artist! A clown!
Many a thing you know you'd like to tell him Many a thing he ought to understand But how do you make him pay? Restore all the funds you gave? How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Bernie Madoff? How do you force the SEC to make a stand?
So what can we do to discourage such behavior in the future?
Clearly, regulations and/or regulators didn't and don't work (in part because people tend to look the other way when they too are being enriched). So what is left?
Jail time? Eh. That costs the taxpayers and these white-collar jails sound pretty painless. Community service? Better, especially if it involves helping the people and charities and institutions these people hurt.
The even better solution? Call me old-fashioned (or Draconian) but what about before sentencing the worst offenders to a life of community service we tar and feather them on primetime TV then throw them in the stockades for a few hours, with extended coverage on C-SPAN? If that seems too harsh (though really, what is appropriate punishment for someone who knowingly bilked his friends and charities for $50 billion?), then something equally revealing and embarrassing. The thing is to set an example -- and strip these people of the one thing they seem to care about (besides money/power), their pride, or egos.
How would YOU prevent more Bernie Madoffs (and similar Ponzi schemes) and better regulate Wall Street? Leave me a comment and let me know.
UPDATED AT 2:40 P.M.: Well, apparently one guy was onto Madoff, as far back as 1999, but no one would listen to him. Probably because it's tough to take seriously a guy whose last name sounds just like a child's pool game. Still, that's only one guy -- and a competitor to Madoff's, not a regulator or a fund manager doing due diligence.
If a recent stroll through the designer shoe department at Saks Fifth Avenue is any indication, New Yorkers -- and many others -- have yet to grasp or fully realize that there is a financial crisis/recession afoot. Or maybe this whole "financial crisis" and market and real estate meltdown is just a figment of my overactive imagination.
Allow me to explain.
As many (if not most of you) recall, the market has (supposedly -- again, it could just be my imagination) lost, oh, well over 1,000 points the last month, investment and retail banks have been going under, and, if your neck of the woods is anything like mine, there have been far more "for sale" signs dotting the landscape than usual this time of year, which, according to the "experts" I've been watching, listening to, and/or reading translates into bad news for the economy -- and for us shareholders, taxpayers, and working stiffs (even for Joe the Plumber, who it turns out is not a plumber).
But you sure couldn't tell there was anything wrong with the economy a couple of Saturdays ago lunching on the Upper West Side of New York or strolling through Saks Fifth Avenue -- or even judging by the crowd at a local watering hole near me this weekend.
There I was, earlier this month, enjoying a wonderful lunch at a chic Upper West Side restaurant in New York, as a guest. The restaurant, just across the street from Lincoln Center, was packed, and the wine was flowing. In fact, despite the not-inexpensive prices (the average bill for a party of two, including alcohol, tax, and tip, had to be $150, if not more) there was not a table to be had. But no one in the place, whether families with small children, elegantly dressed couples, or the "Sex in the City" crowd, seemed to notice or care about or notice the cost, except perhaps for me (and I, for once, wasn't even paying). It was just business as usual, despite the fact the market had just lost around 1,000 points and a number of big name name banks, the lifeblood of the New York economy, were about to or had gone under.
After lunch, my lunch companion and I strolled down Fifth Avenue over to Rockefeller Center and Saks Fifth Avenue. Inside Saks, there was barely a foot of free space, the main floor was so crowded -- though not so much that I missed seeing the Rev. Al Sharpton and his "date" making the rounds. (Btw, the Reverend Al looks much better and nicer in the flesh, so to speak, than on TV.) And everywhere the cash registers were ringing.
Next we went up to the designer shoe department, where the average price of a pair of shoes was around $500 (and that's probably a conservative estimate). Stepping off the escalator, you would think they were giving pairs away. And I swear those two women were this close to fighting over a pair of $700 Christian Laboutins.
Making the rounds of the different designers, I was unimpressed by the offerings and a bit shocked by the number of people willing to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on these confections, whose sole purpose seemed to be keeping chiropractors and/or massage therapists in business, and I left the store a bit depressed.
On the train back home, after admiring and taking pictures of the two Maseratis on display at Grand Central Terminal, I thought about what I had seen -- and discounted it as just an anomaly, until yesterday.
As a special treat, yesterday (another Saturday)I took my daughter out for lunch to a little French cafe we like. We haven't gone out to dinner in a while (though we do occasionally do take out), and she had been itching to go out, and I thought lunch would be reasonable. Ha!
When we got to the restaurant, the place was mostly empty. However, within 15 minutes, there was not a table to be had. There were two parties of eight, a very nattily dressed woman with two three- or four-year-olds, who she noted had already eaten, and other families with small children as well as many couples probably out for some leaf peeping.
While going out for lunch on a Saturday is not that unusual, this was not exactly McDonald's or even Chili's -- with the average bill for two, without wine or beer, coming to at least $50. (I had forgotten the restaurant did not have a separate lunch menu.) Yet that clearly did not stop anyone from ordering multi-course meals or expensive bottles of wine.
So, am I imagining this whole financial crisis? Are those "for sale" signs and bank failures just figments of my imagination?
Coming up next on J-TWO-O: Will the real Eli Manning please stand up -- and throw a touchdown (instead of a pick). And, which uniforms will the Jets wear today?
The following chart is an attempt (albeit a tongue-in-cheek one) to illustrate what happened when a lot of people got mortgages they couldn't afford, which some "clever" bankers and brokers bundled up in pretty packages and passed along to eager investment banks and hedge funds, who then passed them along to so-called "sophisticated investors" (like state pension funds) -- and what happened when the housing/real estate bubble finally burst.
Note 1: If you would like more information about Collateralized Debt Obligations or CDOs, click here; for more on Collateralized Mortgage Obligations or CMOs, click here. Just don't expect to be enlightened. (Btw, If you have some brilliant idea where to insert AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal government and the SEC, not that there is much room, leave me a Comment.)
Note 2: The spouse and I have many acquaintances, friends and family members who are lawyers and accountants and/or work in the financial and insurance industries. In fact, some of the nicest people we know work in those industries or are lawyers or accountants.
Note 3: If you cannot read this chart, simply click on it to get a larger view.
As many of you already know, over the weekend the White House was retooling the "Rescue" Plan -- and today the Treasury and Federal Reserve were meeting with “leading financial market participants” to finalize details on a market stabilization initiative, according to a Treasury spokeswoman. What this means for you and me, dear reader, is anyone's guess. However, I predict the market will either end up or down this week.
UPDATED 10/14/08: Well, the market closed up by over 900 points yesterday and looks to have another up day today. So I'm guessing there will be a collective case of economic amnesia -- and no one will give a s**t about my beautiful chart. Btw, for another take on where all the money that was "lost" in the market went, check out this article on MSNBC called "Where did all that 'lost' money go?"
It's times like these when we can learn a lot from "Gilligan's Island," not only about resourcefulness but also about how to stay out of financial trouble.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be, Do not forget: Stay out of debt. Think twice, and take this good advice from me, Guard that old solvency. There’s just one other thing you ought to do, To thine own self be true.
Following are some additional tips to share with your children, to help keep them out of debt. (Grownups could also profit from them.)
* Do not spend more than you make or have.
* Do not count your money -- or spend it -- until it is actually in your bank (or brokerage or money market) account.
* Do not borrow money unless you are sure you can pay it back, with interest.
* Do not borrow more than you absolutely need, if you have to borrow it at all.
* If or when you get a credit card, pay off your balance in full each month.
* If you buy a house, make sure you can put down at least 10 percent of the purchase price and earn or have three times the monthly mortgage payment. If you can't do/afford that, rent.
* Make sure you have enough money saved so if or when something bad happens (you lose your job or can't work), you will be okay for at least six months financially -- or longer, like eight to 12 months, if you are supporting a spouse and/or children.
* Remember those less fortunate and give to charity. It doesn't have to be much, especially when your children are young, but it's a great habit to start early.
I am sure there are many other good tips. And if you would like to share your common sense financial tips for staying out of trouble, feel free to do so in a comment. These are just the ones I recently shared with my daughter after explaining the current market meltdown (though the market rebounded today), what a mortgage is and why so many people are in trouble because of some bad ones, and the tight credit market we are experiencing. Quite a lot for a 10-year-old to absorb -- even for us reasonably financially savvy fortysomethings.
As some of you may already know, the Large Hadron Collider, over near (or rather under) Geneva, Switzerland, has been shut down for at least two months due to a) a broken 30-ton transformer that cools the system and b) a large helium leak that has caused scientists and technicians to speak in falsetto voices for the last few days.
As a result, the Large Hadron Collider has not been able to collide anything, meaning (and it pains me to type this) there is no way it can be held responsible for the black hole that is currently sucking up (or down) the world's financial markets. That black hole, which has been rapidly expanding, despite government efforts to contain it all costs (or at least $700 USD), I am afraid, was caused by the collision of other forces, mostly economic in nature.
I know, I know: You are as disappointed as I am, though perhaps not more so than the intrepid editors over at Scientific American who "made an estimate based on the rate and energy of particle collisions when the machine's two beams meet head on" as to how fast the LHC could defrost a pizza.
Based on certain suppositions (which you can read about in the article, which I link to above), it would take 30 nanoseconds to defrost a frozen DiGiorno's Microwave Rising Crust Four-Cheese Pizza, though, theoretically speaking, the collisions required to heat the pizza could unintentionally create a black hole and suck the pizza into another dimension or just vaporize it.
In other news... I won $100 (actually a bit more) in just a couple of hours yesterday at Mohegan Sun. And my buddy, G., won almost $400! Talk about a good return on your investment! And let me tell you, I had waaaay more fun playing blackjack (with a CPA and a college computer science professor and my buddy) than I've had watching my money managers gamble with my savings the past few months. My outing at Mohegan Sun was also more profitable.
Finally, as many of you have probably now heard, earlier today Republican presidential candidate John McCain called for postponing Friday's presidential debate (the first of three scheduled debates) until the resolution of the financial mess on Wall Street, and also vowed to suspend his campaign to concentrate on finding a solution.
While I honestly believe McCain is dedicated/committed to finding a quick and even bipartisan resolution to the current Wall Street crisis, I agree with the Boston Globe that this is (in some part) a stunt to delay the upcoming presidential debate this Friday.
Barack Obama, who had phoned McCain this morning to discuss issuing a joint statement regarding the current financial crisis, had no idea until this afternoon that McCain wanted to delay the first debate -- and rejected McCain's call to do so, stating: "It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," adding, "I think that it is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."
I agree, as has, apparently, the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, as of this afternoon, had not heard from anyone in the McCain campaign and said it was going forward with the debate as scheduled.
Will the debate go forward as scheduled? Will the Large Hadron Collider go back online before the year is out? Will I quit my day job and become a professional gambler? Stay tuned...
As many (if not most) of you know, the market was down 372.75 points today as Congress and the Bush administration worked on/out that $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout plan. Personally, I am spitting mad at the thought of having taxpayers bail out a bunch of greedy investment bankers, mortgage wheeler-dealers, absent actuaries, and foolhardy financiers who should have and most likely did know better but hoped and prayed this day would never come -- or would come after they had socked away more than enough to weather the eventual s**t storm.
However, since the government seems to be willing to bail out just about anyone with big enough losses, I have decided to liquidate what's left of my portfolio and get me to Mohegan Sun tomorrow, as soon as the kid heads off on the school bus. If I lose, I will just write a letter to Congressman Chris Shays respectfully requesting the government and/or taxpayers reimburse me for stupidly gambling away my life savings -- and allowing the good croupiers at Mohegan Sun to take unfair advantage of me. (In the meantime, I plan on having a jolly good time playing the slots and blackjack and having a martini -- maybe two! -- at Leffingwells, which opens at 11 a.m.)
And speaking of bailing... Where the heck were journalists as this crisis loomed and why have they not been talking up more about the increasingly erratic and angry McCain campaign and it's shocking disregard for the truth and facts?
Yes, yes, I know there are many pundits and politicos, including the folks over at the George Stephanopoulos Show (aka This Week), who are starting to show some real outrage re what's been going down economically and politically. But where is Tim Russert when you need him?! (And yes, I know he's dead. I am speaking metaphorically.)
MSNBC has been flailing around since Russert's untimely departure -- and boy could they, and we, have used him. Now more than ever.
Tim, if you're out there, can you, please, go contact Whoopi Goldberg, like Patrick Swayze did in Ghost, and hold McCain's feet to the proverbial flame? (Actually, maybe he already has.)
And speaking of flames, or flaming out, how 'bout them Mets, huh? As I type this, the New York Mets are having their collective feet held to another fire -- or perhaps more accurately, getting their asses kicked and/or balls busted -- by the Chicago Cubs 7 - 2 in the top of the fifth. (Weeping.) As a Mets fan since way back (after their '69 miracle year but long before their next World Series win in '86), I am used to the Mets blowing it, but there is only so much I can take. And I ain't getting any younger. Are there no relief pitchers out there to make the hurt go away?
Well, at least the Giants won yesterday. (Take THAT Ocho Cinkhole.)
While I did work on Wall Street for several summers (in the days of liquid lunches, when you could still smuggle a stripper into a training session), and had a father and friends in the business, I am no financial genius. But I can tell you the three leading causes of the current financial crisis or meltdown: greed, envy, and ignorance.
Let us start with greed, and Mr. Gordon Gecko of the 1987 movie "Wall Street":
Brings a tear to the eye, doesn't it?
That was 21 years ago, but it seems like just yesterday (or a few months ago).
Btw, when I talk about greed, meaning "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as in money) than is needed," I'm not just referring to the Gordon Geckos of the world. We are all, at least most of us, greedy about something, like wanting a nice or nicer house, a nice or nicer car -- or clothes, lawn, whatever.
And many (if not most) of us, if offered a seemingly quicker, easier path to getting whatever it was we wanted, would run not walk down that path, ignoring or trying to ignore any moral and/or financial hazards along the way, particularly the inconvenient truth of not actually being able to afford or pay for whatever it was.
I've already mentioned (in a different post) my friend who despite having a decent-paying job ran up large credit card bills then declared bankruptcy -- and blamed her woes not on spending more than she made but on the evil credit card companies. She is/was far from being alone.
And now we are dealing with the repercussions of a similar problem, people who bought more house (or any house) than they could afford -- and it is or will be us the taxpayers, not just these homeowners, who will be paying the price or are. (Btw, I don't blame all of these individuals. Where were the naysayers, the people to tell them "No, I'm sorry, but you can't afford that," or, "You need to put at least 10 percent down and make three times your monthly mortgage payment if you want that house [or condo or co-op]"?)
The other day, I was having a conversation with the man who built our deck. Turns out he was in the mortgage business a while ago. And we got to discussing the sub-prime lending/mortgage fiasco.
I don't know about all of you, but every time the spouse and I have gone looking for a mortgage or to refinance one, we've had to produce a mountain of paperwork, been grilled by strangers wanting to know everything about us, and had to put down at least 10 percent. (Oh, and my dad had to co-sign/guarantee our first mortgage, even though the spouse and I, who were newlyweds at the time, both had jobs and savings and were able to put down 20 percent, this on a house that was by no means big or fancy.)
So anyway, the deckman, who works very hard and has built up a nice business building decks and selling spas and hot tubs, tells me that he used to meet with folks all the time who wanted a mortgage but had no or little means of paying it off -- and he would flag their application. Only to have his boss tell him to just put it through. The deckman found this very discouraging and moved on. And we know what happened to those people who got those interest only and/or subprime adjustable rate loans they couldn't really afford, don't we?
Which leads me to ask the question: When did renting become a dirty word? While owning is nice, there is no sin in renting (at least as I recall from the Bible). Yet someone clearly sold the American public a bill of goods (or bill of something) that made them/us think that we were somewhat "lesser" if we didn't own a house.
Which brings me to envy, that "painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage," and another deadly sin (one which I have been guilty of more times than I'd care to admit). Envy gets more people into more trouble than just about anything else (except for maybe greed and ignorance).
We see our neighbor has a shiny new BMW, and we want one, and make ourselves miserable for the wanting. We see a girlfriend got a big honking diamond ring from her boyfriend or spouse and we want one (or feel inadequate because we don't have one or ours is smaller) and make ourselves miserable. We hear the new guy just got a raise and promotion and we wonder how come we didn't get a raise and promotion. The list goes on and on.
How much happier the world would be if, to paraphrase Sheryl Crow, instead of having what we wanted, we just wanted what we've got?
I often wonder, maybe I would be more blissful if I stopped reading all the time (especially this week). Yet ignorance, or lack of knowledge, can be very dangerous, as I think we have learned -- or are learning (and I'm not even discussing the Iraq war or the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a!).
I grew up on Wall Street (metaphorically), and like to stay on top of things and keep tabs on my financial portfolio, but a lot of the stuff I've been hearing about the past 5 - 10 years has stumped me, and caused me to dig and ask questions.
While I would love to type with confidence "Never invest in anything you don't understand," I doubt that most of us have the time or energy to truly master the intricacies of investing, though if the last 20 years have taught us anything, we should certainly devote more time to understanding what our tolerance for risk is and how much risk (read LOSS) is acceptable.
Maybe now that the chickens have come home to roost, or to the slaughter, and all traces of lipstick have been wiped off the pigs, we should take a little time to educate ourselves, or re-educate ourselves, about financial matters, and to admit that greed and envy and ignorance extract a high price. I also believe it is high time the government reinstituted measures like the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, to better protect investors (especially the smaller ones), so we don't find ourselves in a similar mess another five or 10 years from now.
I just checked the Bill of Rights, and there isn't an article that gives Americans the freedom to whine (though some of you may put "whining" under freedom of speech, so I'll spot you on that one). Similarly, while the Declaration of Independence encourages us to pursue happiness, I don't think the Founding Fathers would consider owning a 5,000-square-foot McMansion (particularly one beyond our means) or a gas-guzzling SUV (ditto) an inalienable right.
But to hear some people (i.e., seemingly intelligent, upper middle class people) whining about the high price of gas, and how now they cannot afford to drive their Hummers and Land Rovers any more, you would think it was.
Yes, I am talking about you, Judith Warner, New York Times bestselling author, journalist, radio commentator and New York Times blogger, though you are far from alone.
Against my better judgement, I decided to read Ms. Warner's latest blog post, "Futility Vehicle," about how she can (supposedly) no longer afford to drive the gas-guzzling Land Rover she and her husband bought a few years ago, which the author describes in the first sentence as "a story of selfishness and greed, of self-centeredness, envy and the ignorant folly of a person too short-sighted to realize she should count herself lucky because her college education didn’t have to be paid for with the milk of a goat."
Oh yes, mea culpa, mea culpa. Poor bestselling author and happily married mother of two. Boo hoo hoo. Could someone please slap this bitch?
Similarly, years ago, I knew another seemingly intelligent woman (single at the time) who, although she made good money, spent more than she earned, and knew she was, but didn't care. Until she was forced to declare bankruptcy. Instead of taking responsibility -- i.e., not spending more than she earned or admitting she had only herself to blame -- she declared that it was the credit card companies' fault, and they didn't deserve her money. Of course, later she complained about all the problems she had because she had had to declare bankruptcy.
Hello?! Whatever happened to personal responsibility people?
Don't get me wrong. I think whining can be good for the soul (and do plenty of it -- when I don't get a job I've gone after, or don't get paid, or am ill-treated by someone I thought was a friend). There are even studies that show complaining is good for you -- or better than bottling up your angst and anxiety, which can lead to ulcers or worse.
And my heart goes out to, for example, the overweight woman who exercises regularly, watches what she eats (and doesn't cheat), and still can't lose weight. Or the guy who has spent years slaving away at some job only to get laid off, just after his wife has given birth to their second or third kid or their first child is heading off to college. Or the woman who put her husband through business school, sacrificed her career for his, raised a family with him, then gets dumped for a younger, newer model. Or the family of four who makes due with one car, doesn't live in a McMansion, doesn't go on fancy vacations and who truly can't afford $4/gallon gasoline and a 10 or 20% increase in their food bill. (You get my drift.)
But please, the rest of you, you people who knew you were being selfish and greedy and self-centered, and thought that was cute or that it wouldn't catch up with you and/or blame all your problems on everyone else, please shut up.
7/14/08 UPDATE: Contrary to what President Bush just said in his White House press conference, the reason we are in the current oil crisis is NOT because Democrats in Congress, who only recently gained a majority, refuse to allow drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) or in the Arctic, the results of which, btw, should they be successful, would not be felt for MANY years -- and could create environmental problems, which could take a greater toll on our economy. (Note: I am saying could, not will.)
Our current oil crisis is not due to a handful of Congresspeople but due to years of consumption and now increased world consumption (the old supply-and-demand problem), who controls most of the oil fields, and our government's foolish squandering of the opportunity after 9/11 to get citizens to conserve energy while encouraging companies to invest in alternative fuels instead of fossil ones. Had we spent the last 6.5 years in those endeavors, and not selfishly guzzling gas, we might not be in this mess.
I started this blog to amuse myself, my friends, and my family. If you are not amused, just click on some other blog. You got millions to choose from. If you are amused, spread the word -- and the link! To contact me, send an email to moodyqt33 [at symbol] hotmail.com.
Posts
