This is regarding Housing Help, a recent Blog of mine.
First of all, as the website announces, I’m a comedian in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I say that in order to distinguish myself from, say, an economist in Indianapolis, Indiana or a financial advisor in Ames, Iowa, both of whom might be better informed on such a topic than I. So, take that into consideration when you read whatever I have to write.
Second, the slant of that article/Blog was that indeed some of the money that is being spent should find its way into the bank accounts of working people as opposed to only the accounts of rich, white guys.
Keeping caveat #1 in mind, the idea that certain banks and money minders artificially increased the value of securities that they knew to be worthless in order to make a buck or two or several million, got busted and then claimed that “they were too big to fail” is so absurd as to require a pair of roller skates with which to transport their fantastical cojones.
At the same time, providing a basis for some of these mortgage-backed securities, certain mortgage lenders were hard at work concocting Variable Rate Mortgages and Adjustable Rate Mortgages so they didn’t have to turn anybody away, and ensuring that they made a hefty commission every time the phone rang.
Their sales pitch went something like this: “With this Variable Rate Mortgage, all you have to pay us the monthly interest. Sure, in five years we’re going to adjust the rate to something that would make Scrooge McDuck blush, but all you have to do is sell the house, keep the increase in value and use it buy an even bigger house.”
This was all in the name of the “Free Market” exercising a little “freedom.”
But the politicians bought the argument that the billionaires needed to be saved, forcing us (the taxpaying regular people) to subsidize the institutions that were “too big to fail.”
In my Blog, “Housing Help,” I failed to mention this opinion prior to suggesting that, maybe, as long as we’re already bailing out institutions for (apparently) the sole purpose of maintaining the standard of living of their management, we could also throw a couple bucks at the people that run the risk of losing everything, you know, like possibly your neighbors. This may have led one to believe that I was some sort of Commie Pinko, Bleeding-Heart, Marxist, Neighbor-Loving Socialist.
The fact is, for anybody that cares, that I’m actually a big fan of Entropy, which is the breaking down of systems that grow too large for their own good. Just like everything born must eventually die and every tide that flows must eventually ebb, every system can grow only so large before it ceases to sustain itself and begins to collapse. An example of Entropy is the fact that forest fires are certainly destructive, but in many cases, it’s the only way that young saplings can receive the sunlight that they need to grow.
Greed and the artificial inflation of our economic systems are what resulted in a Dow of over 14,000, a “bursting bubble” and the subsequent catastrophe. While this qualifies as Entropy, a truly “Free Market” system would never have pushed the Dow to unrealistic levels, but, within reasonable parameters, would have experienced a simple correction; a temporary ebb. Any system that is truly “free” will establish an equilibrium that will sustain it.
For that reason, I think it’s a little too late to ask the “Free Market” to take care of the problem; we’ve already let it mutate (with Corporate Socialism to the benefit of a select few) and we shouldn’t let it metastasize.
Or, we let the true “Free Market” do its thing and devour all that hid behind it, smugly confident that they were “too big to fail.” But that means nobody gets a bailout, and I’m fine with that if you are.
Let the comments commence: