When I think about the Republican field for President, on the one hand, I gotta hand it to them for finally providing a diversified field. On the other hand, I can't imagine that the "rank and file" party members like any of them and must be in quite a quandry over who to vote for. Given my own upbringing and background, plus what I see in today's public media, the 'generic' Republican voter tends to be white, middle aged, Christian (not necessarily evangelical, but certainly only believes in one way to God), above-average income, married (and monogamous), and to put it bluntly, rather old-fashioned in a belief that women and non-whites have to 'know their place.'
Now this is certainly not the case for every Republican, and likely not even most, but it does seem to be a plurality. I'm sure there are many who are fine with a woman nominee, but there's also probably enough that feel the exact opposite that it probably hurt her chances regardless of her politics. Yeah, Sarah Palin got the VP nominee last year, but she wasn't voted in via a primary election, she was chosen. And she (and McCain) didn't win, and I have no doubt that there are some people out there that didn't vote at all because they didn't want to vote for a woman on one side, or a non-white on the other. Yes, those people still exist.
So how do the nominees stack up?
Michelle Bachman - Female, so any that don't like women in power won't vote for her. Plus, she's show a distinct lack of brainpower.
Herman Cain - Black, so any that don't like non-whites in power won't vote for him. Ditto on the lack of brain power.
Newt Gingrich - Smart, but he cheated on two ex-wives and divorced one while in the hospital. Not exactly a poster boy for 'family values' that so many Republicans like to spout.
Mitt Romney - Mormon, so any Christians that are real hard-liners (evangelicals, for instance), won't vote for him.
Jon Huntsman - See Mitt Romney. Plus, who?
Rick Santorum - Google it
Rick Perry - One George W. Bush was enough (and this one seems even dumber)
Ron Paul - Too libertarian - so any that are against legalizing drugs won't vote for him.
Not a single one of the candidates have all the qualities necessary to win over the majority "generic" Republican voter. There's not one white, male, Christian (preferably evangelical, but they'll accept any protestant - non mormon), still married to one woman (and not cheated), smart, totally conservative candidate, who's name can't be googled with laughter. Frankly, I see most Republicans holding their noses at the voting booth come 2012.
I think this is why, for the most part, Mitt Romney is presumed to win the nomination. He'll get enough plurality votes, 30% or so probably, that he'll have most of the delegates he needs, but no doubt he'll have to be saddled with some Tea Party darling (maybe even Michelle) to make the even further right consider voting for him to counter for his forays into bipartisanship (gasp!), while they agonize over his religion.
No doubt, its not a sure thing for Obama, but I think there's still enough divide in the Republican party that they'll have people staying at home rather than voting for one of these nominees as President.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Bubble
I recently finished reading Michael Lewis, "The Big Short" which is about the housing bubble, how it started, how wall street traders who originally bought/sold government bonds created mortgage bonds, which then got bundled into credit default swaps and thereafter rebundled again into collaterialized debt obligations, and when people making $10,000 year could no longer afford to pay their mortgage on $500,000 homes, the market crashed. And if you know what any of those things are, you're ahead of 95% of America (not to mention 95% of investment bankers).
The book was quite eye opening. The most surprising thing about the book wasn't that wall street people were greedy, but that the vast majority of them didn't know what the hell they were doing, what any these CDS and CDOs were, they just continued to buy and sell them because everyone was doing so. Frankly, most of them couldn't have cared less whether what they bought or sold for their customers made money or lost money. Every sale or purchase made money for Goldman Sachs, or Lehman Brothers, or the rest of the crooks. Most of the "money managers" who were tasked by pension funds, mutual funds, IRA accounts, didn't care if they buying the crappiest of mortgage bonds disguised as A rated CDOs, because they made money simply by the buying of the bonds. If the bonds burst, the money managers didn't lose a dime.
It also demonstrated that the so-called "neutral" ratings agencies, Moody's, S&P, etc., were anything but. They rated these crappy mortgage bonds and CDOs triple A because if they didn't, Goldman Sachs would just ask (and pay) their competition to do so.
Essentially, the entire housing bubble was nothing but a Ponzi scheme. As long as new suckers were buying houses and taking out mortgages (which the originating bank, after collecting its fee, promptly sold to another bank, who then took its fee and packaged it into a mortgage bond with other crappy mortgages to sell to yet a third bank, who took its fee,then packaged it into a CDO with other crappy mortgage bonds to sell to a pension fund), the system continued. The banks didn't care that the buyer couldn't pay the mortgage, that was the next bank's problem, and the next. All the banks cared about was getting their fees from issuing the mortgage, or selling the mortgage, or mortgage bond.
Once suckers stopped buying houses, once new mortgages slowed down, like a ponzi scheme, the pyramid collapsed. Many people blame those that took out the mortgages, that they should have known that they could not afford such homes when they had such low incomes. Maybe they should have. But you have to realize that so many of these people had no college education. How can you expect someone with a high school diploma (if that even) to understand the complex and opaque financing scheme created by these bankers when most of them didn't even understand it or if they did, even a little, they ignored it because of their own greed. And these are the people the banks claimed that they had to pay six-figure bonuses too to "keep the talent." Yeah, talent for lying and hiding the truth.
I often wonder what my financial situation would be like had I bought a house in 2002 or 2003. Even by that time, mortgages were being made to people with no money down and average income, even on houses $250,000 or more. I probably could have bought something with an interest only rate for the same price I paid in rent, then likely two years later, refi'd into another mortgage on similar terms. Eventually, that quit being an option, one either had to accept the increased interest rate or default. Would I have taken the higher home value and just spent it, still running up my credit cards? Or would I have been smart and saved it or paid down the mortgage? I'd like to think I would have still insisted on a fixed rate, but if that was too expensive, would I have accepted one of those ARM subprime loans? I guess not, since I didn't, but I didn't really check it all out either.
What I do know is that I thought my financial situation wasn't stable enough to qualify for a mortgage at a rate I could afford in a location I wanted to live. So I didn't buy until I actually had some money saved up. Unfortunately, that meant I bought near the top of the price and its probably likely I'm underwater. Not by much, certainly not enough to walk away, but enough that I probably don't have any equity in my house anymore and I doubt I'll be able to get a construction loan for some remodeling in a few years, which was my plan.
What I also know is that wall street is nothing but Las Vegas with my retirement money. All that claim that people should pay lower taxes on capital gains because they "invest" in business and give them money to expand their business is nothing but bullshit. People don't "invest", they gamble. I am fairly certain that less than 10% of people who own stocks (and aren't employees) do so because they really believe in the company. And I guarantee that less than 5% who buy bonds are the same. In fact, many many people make money on wall street because they gamble that companies will default on their loans and go out of business. How is that "investing"? Its not, its gambling pure and simple. That's why these earnings should be taxed at least as much as real income, if not more, in my opinion. Especially those that bet against companies.
The Great Depression was caused due to lack of banking regulation and high speculation on wall street. Our great recession was caused by the exact same thing. How can people say with a straight face that these regulations should not be implemented again?
The book was quite eye opening. The most surprising thing about the book wasn't that wall street people were greedy, but that the vast majority of them didn't know what the hell they were doing, what any these CDS and CDOs were, they just continued to buy and sell them because everyone was doing so. Frankly, most of them couldn't have cared less whether what they bought or sold for their customers made money or lost money. Every sale or purchase made money for Goldman Sachs, or Lehman Brothers, or the rest of the crooks. Most of the "money managers" who were tasked by pension funds, mutual funds, IRA accounts, didn't care if they buying the crappiest of mortgage bonds disguised as A rated CDOs, because they made money simply by the buying of the bonds. If the bonds burst, the money managers didn't lose a dime.
It also demonstrated that the so-called "neutral" ratings agencies, Moody's, S&P, etc., were anything but. They rated these crappy mortgage bonds and CDOs triple A because if they didn't, Goldman Sachs would just ask (and pay) their competition to do so.
Essentially, the entire housing bubble was nothing but a Ponzi scheme. As long as new suckers were buying houses and taking out mortgages (which the originating bank, after collecting its fee, promptly sold to another bank, who then took its fee and packaged it into a mortgage bond with other crappy mortgages to sell to yet a third bank, who took its fee,then packaged it into a CDO with other crappy mortgage bonds to sell to a pension fund), the system continued. The banks didn't care that the buyer couldn't pay the mortgage, that was the next bank's problem, and the next. All the banks cared about was getting their fees from issuing the mortgage, or selling the mortgage, or mortgage bond.
Once suckers stopped buying houses, once new mortgages slowed down, like a ponzi scheme, the pyramid collapsed. Many people blame those that took out the mortgages, that they should have known that they could not afford such homes when they had such low incomes. Maybe they should have. But you have to realize that so many of these people had no college education. How can you expect someone with a high school diploma (if that even) to understand the complex and opaque financing scheme created by these bankers when most of them didn't even understand it or if they did, even a little, they ignored it because of their own greed. And these are the people the banks claimed that they had to pay six-figure bonuses too to "keep the talent." Yeah, talent for lying and hiding the truth.
I often wonder what my financial situation would be like had I bought a house in 2002 or 2003. Even by that time, mortgages were being made to people with no money down and average income, even on houses $250,000 or more. I probably could have bought something with an interest only rate for the same price I paid in rent, then likely two years later, refi'd into another mortgage on similar terms. Eventually, that quit being an option, one either had to accept the increased interest rate or default. Would I have taken the higher home value and just spent it, still running up my credit cards? Or would I have been smart and saved it or paid down the mortgage? I'd like to think I would have still insisted on a fixed rate, but if that was too expensive, would I have accepted one of those ARM subprime loans? I guess not, since I didn't, but I didn't really check it all out either.
What I do know is that I thought my financial situation wasn't stable enough to qualify for a mortgage at a rate I could afford in a location I wanted to live. So I didn't buy until I actually had some money saved up. Unfortunately, that meant I bought near the top of the price and its probably likely I'm underwater. Not by much, certainly not enough to walk away, but enough that I probably don't have any equity in my house anymore and I doubt I'll be able to get a construction loan for some remodeling in a few years, which was my plan.
What I also know is that wall street is nothing but Las Vegas with my retirement money. All that claim that people should pay lower taxes on capital gains because they "invest" in business and give them money to expand their business is nothing but bullshit. People don't "invest", they gamble. I am fairly certain that less than 10% of people who own stocks (and aren't employees) do so because they really believe in the company. And I guarantee that less than 5% who buy bonds are the same. In fact, many many people make money on wall street because they gamble that companies will default on their loans and go out of business. How is that "investing"? Its not, its gambling pure and simple. That's why these earnings should be taxed at least as much as real income, if not more, in my opinion. Especially those that bet against companies.
The Great Depression was caused due to lack of banking regulation and high speculation on wall street. Our great recession was caused by the exact same thing. How can people say with a straight face that these regulations should not be implemented again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)