You know I've said in a post just prior to this that I'm no economist. And, I'm not a home owner. So there are somethings I don't understand, maybe you could explain them to me.
If the stock market is often volatile, up, down, up, down, up, down, then how come we put money that we depend on, ought not to gamble with, into it?
Dave Ramesy said the other day that "You only get hurt on a roller coaster if you jump off!" That's what I always thought, that while the stock market in the long haul may be profitable, it still is a gamble and painful when you loose. So what happens when it is time for you to get off but the roller coaster is careening to a plunge?
And I thought that the whole sub prime thing was so that folk who can't afford a home could get into a home. You know 'cuz us renters make crappy citizens and if we would just get into a mortgage then we too would be a good citizen like the rest of yooz.
'Cept last night I watched a show that had two people caught in the current problem.
One couple are now stuck with a house they really can't afford, interesting it wasn't about building into a neighborhood that they were going to become "citizens" in. They bought, to remodel and sell, a 5600 sq ft house for 1.2 million, remodels took another .5 million, but when it was time to sell they set their price and dropped it and dropped it, and finally when they couldn't sell at 1.99 million they took it off the market.
The other guy bought a house on speculation, is that a spec house? Any way, he got it, a 1.3 million dollar house, on 100% financing - man that sure doesn't rhyme with all those home economics and business classes I took in the seventies - but any who, he defaulted. Then the bank had to try and sell this house and they could only get 900,000.00 for it. Let's see, cuz two entities were stupid and too driven for their common sense, the bank lost 400,000 in just one sub prime home (did I say home?) deal.
You know if this "bail everybody out" just was bailing the duped first time home owner (isn't that why they say they were doing it) who got talked into getting in over their heads because some political activists have to prove something, then maybe just maybe I could understand, I wouldn't be happy, but maybe I could see it.
But all this other stuff is poo, dung, splatter. Isn't it?
I believe that it would be possible to recover from this. I am not convinced we couldn't recover if we just let the scoundrels drown.
I'm not convinced that the stock market would take a dive, not one that would last anyway. I'm not convinced that this society wouldn't be better in the long run if we had to take our belts up a bit.
We need to learn to live within our means, our means not our dreams. Dreams are fine to live toward but not in.
Learn to take care of the people who need help in a non-oppressing, non-abusive for political reasons, manner.
Hey and if we had to do that, then maybe the Brits won't need to tell Congress to make us live on meat and milk rations.
Yes, it is true, now the global warming people have decided that we can only eat 4 portions of meat a week.
This is just crazy talk. All of this is just crazy. I just want normal hard work, to drop into bed dead dog tired, but fulfilled, and I want it for everyone that is up for it. (I'm willing to take care of the too handicapped, too young or too old folks without families)
"Let's go cut some wood, stack some hay, weed a garden,"
"bake from scratch, make soup, walk to the neighbors, use up our scraps..."
"Recover without bail out"