Three years ago, I remember wondering the following out loud -- to my wife, friends, a few co-workers --> How could mortgage brokers/lenders actually believe that Americans who took out a home loan/mortgage at, say 3-6% interest for the first 3 to 5 years, would, in year 6, be able to pay 10, 12, 15 percent interest, or that they would be able to afford monthly house payments that doubled over night?!
It doesn't take an economist -- and I'm surely not one -- to see that this was a disaster waiting to happen. I also couldn't figure out, at first, how the lenders thought they were going to make money, when they knew that many people that they lent the money to, wouldn't be able to make the payments in year 6. Then, I was told that the mortgages/loans are packaged and re-sold -- at a profit to the original "owners" of the loans -- to other companies/financial speculators etc.
In other words, it was all about short term -- very, very short term -- profit.
Anyone with half a brain must have known that when the loans came due, that many, many homeowners would default, and that this, of course, would spell economic disaster for the housing industry, and the U.S. economy. But, apparently, many of those in power don't have half a brain. Either that, or they've been blinded completely and totally by free-market economics, which holds, essentially, at its core, that we ought to let the folks with the money do whatever they want, even, if it's shortsighted, greedy, and -- as anyone with a half a brain can see in the case of the morgage crisis -- just plain dumb and stupid.
I only hope that we learn from our mistakes, change our ways, and do not let short-sighted profiteers hijack our economy, and the world's economy, again
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Green jobs economy -- and the future of America
Improving the economy, bettering the environment, reducing American dependency on foreign oil, and making sure America remains as one of the world leaders are all connected.
They are all connected by the strands of renewable energy and conservation. If the U.S. doesn't invest significantly in renewable energy and really commit to energy conservation -- we will continue to be a major world polluter, a huge contributor to greenhouse gases, and repeatedly find ourselves in wars over oil around the world. We will also fall behind the true innovators and leaders -- Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, etc. --who are already deeply committed to building a renewable energy economy, and thereby disproving the myth that environmentalism is "bad" for the economy.
McCain's record on environmental issues is highly questionable -- for example, he has consistently voted against higher fuel economy standards for trucks and cars. McCain gives lip service to wind and solar energy, and supports an in-direct, free-market, tax rebate approach, but he has not outlined specifically what he would do with respect to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
Worse, in my view, he wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants in the U.S. in the next 20 years. You can say what you will about the safety of nuclear power plants -- McCain, of course, claims they're 100% safe -- but the problem of radiocative waste won't ever go away.
The life of radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants is literally 100,000s of thousands of years. Why we should leave the next 1,500 generations of Americans a legacy of radioactive waste, when we can tap the most powerful "nuclear power" source -- the sun itself -- without producing dangerous waste is beyond me. (Actually, it's not beyond me -- it's about money and power, and there are powerful people who will make lots of money if 45 nuclear power plants go up in the U.S. in the next 20 years).
Also, as you increase the number of nuclear power plants, and the waste they produce, you introduce additional targets for terrorists, and more raw materials for them as well. But, of course, these issues are not on McCain's radar screen at all.
Obama has put forward many, many specific plans for the economy, for health care, for American foreign policy, and for renewable energy. You can find the specifics on his plans on barackobama.com. In relation to renewable energy, in contrast to McCain -- who's offered a smattering of what I consider to be weak tax rebates, Obama has committed specifically to investing $150 billion dollars in renewable energy over the next 10 years. This is a lot, but a drop in the bucket compare to what we spend on our military annually (more than $500 billion), or what we've spent on the war in Iraq (approach $1 trillion! -- imagine if some of this money had gone to developing solar and wind, geothermal, energy etc.!)
If Obama succeeds in putting forward his specific renewable energy plan -- and I sincerely hope he does (of course, first he needs to get elected) -- rather than being a follower with old ideas, many of which are harmful to the environment and global humanity, America will be a leader on what, to me, is the most important issue in this election: energy and the environment. These are, again, fundamentally tied to the global economy and America's economic future.
I wish more Americans were more in tune with the rest of the world -- which clearly views energy and environment issues as crucial to the future of global humanity. The Pew Global Attitudes Projects surveys show that, for example, while 90 percent of Brazilians and 70 percent of Germans view global warming as an important issue, only 42 percent of Americans do. Depressing...
They are all connected by the strands of renewable energy and conservation. If the U.S. doesn't invest significantly in renewable energy and really commit to energy conservation -- we will continue to be a major world polluter, a huge contributor to greenhouse gases, and repeatedly find ourselves in wars over oil around the world. We will also fall behind the true innovators and leaders -- Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, etc. --who are already deeply committed to building a renewable energy economy, and thereby disproving the myth that environmentalism is "bad" for the economy.
McCain's record on environmental issues is highly questionable -- for example, he has consistently voted against higher fuel economy standards for trucks and cars. McCain gives lip service to wind and solar energy, and supports an in-direct, free-market, tax rebate approach, but he has not outlined specifically what he would do with respect to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
Worse, in my view, he wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants in the U.S. in the next 20 years. You can say what you will about the safety of nuclear power plants -- McCain, of course, claims they're 100% safe -- but the problem of radiocative waste won't ever go away.
The life of radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants is literally 100,000s of thousands of years. Why we should leave the next 1,500 generations of Americans a legacy of radioactive waste, when we can tap the most powerful "nuclear power" source -- the sun itself -- without producing dangerous waste is beyond me. (Actually, it's not beyond me -- it's about money and power, and there are powerful people who will make lots of money if 45 nuclear power plants go up in the U.S. in the next 20 years).
Also, as you increase the number of nuclear power plants, and the waste they produce, you introduce additional targets for terrorists, and more raw materials for them as well. But, of course, these issues are not on McCain's radar screen at all.
Obama has put forward many, many specific plans for the economy, for health care, for American foreign policy, and for renewable energy. You can find the specifics on his plans on barackobama.com. In relation to renewable energy, in contrast to McCain -- who's offered a smattering of what I consider to be weak tax rebates, Obama has committed specifically to investing $150 billion dollars in renewable energy over the next 10 years. This is a lot, but a drop in the bucket compare to what we spend on our military annually (more than $500 billion), or what we've spent on the war in Iraq (approach $1 trillion! -- imagine if some of this money had gone to developing solar and wind, geothermal, energy etc.!)
If Obama succeeds in putting forward his specific renewable energy plan -- and I sincerely hope he does (of course, first he needs to get elected) -- rather than being a follower with old ideas, many of which are harmful to the environment and global humanity, America will be a leader on what, to me, is the most important issue in this election: energy and the environment. These are, again, fundamentally tied to the global economy and America's economic future.
I wish more Americans were more in tune with the rest of the world -- which clearly views energy and environment issues as crucial to the future of global humanity. The Pew Global Attitudes Projects surveys show that, for example, while 90 percent of Brazilians and 70 percent of Germans view global warming as an important issue, only 42 percent of Americans do. Depressing...
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Spreading the wealth
Wish that Barack Obama had said the following when John -- Seven home -- McCain railed against "spreading the wealth" in last night's presidential debate:
"John, the vast majority of Americans work extremely hard to earn their money. However, some people earn way more money than others, even though those earning far less than they are, sometimes 100s of times less, are working just as hard, if not harder. In fact, a big reason those at the top make so much money, is because they are paying those at the bottom -- who, once again, work every bit as hard as those at the top, if not harder -- so little. This system -- which sees the little guy bust his ass so the rich guy can make more -- is also "spreading the wealth," only it spreads the wealth extremely unevenly, to the point where only a very small percentage of Americans hold most of the wealth. Now, what I'm proposing is simply this: That those at the top, who are making their millions in large part on the backs of the hard-working lower and middle classes, pay their fare share so that more hard-working Americans can make it in today's increasingly helter-skelter economy."
"John, the vast majority of Americans work extremely hard to earn their money. However, some people earn way more money than others, even though those earning far less than they are, sometimes 100s of times less, are working just as hard, if not harder. In fact, a big reason those at the top make so much money, is because they are paying those at the bottom -- who, once again, work every bit as hard as those at the top, if not harder -- so little. This system -- which sees the little guy bust his ass so the rich guy can make more -- is also "spreading the wealth," only it spreads the wealth extremely unevenly, to the point where only a very small percentage of Americans hold most of the wealth. Now, what I'm proposing is simply this: That those at the top, who are making their millions in large part on the backs of the hard-working lower and middle classes, pay their fare share so that more hard-working Americans can make it in today's increasingly helter-skelter economy."
Friday, October 10, 2008
Republican hypocrisy, and the "true" elitists
Isn't it classic that conservatives label liberals as elitists, when, of course, they believe they're more American, more Patriotic, more Godly than those "elistist" liberals. Exactly who are the "true" eltists anyway?
Answer: Both conservatives and liberals have their elitist tendencies. However, unfortunately conservatives have suceeded in blinding people to their elitism while claiming -- falsely -- that liberals are the only elitists.
Please!
Answer: Both conservatives and liberals have their elitist tendencies. However, unfortunately conservatives have suceeded in blinding people to their elitism while claiming -- falsely -- that liberals are the only elitists.
Please!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
GOP sinks bailout -- but McCain blames Dems
Let me see if I have this right: Two-thirds of Republicans in the House vote against a Wall Street bailout plan architected by President Bush, and John McCain blames Barack Obama and the Democrats – 60% of whom voted for the bailout -- for the plan’s defeat.
Apparently Sen. McCain will do anything to get elected, including twisting his own party’s opposition to the bailout to make it seem as though the other guys torpedoed it.
That’s not putting country first. That’s putting, me, John McCain, first, so that I can get elected.
Sure hope the independent and undecided voters see through McCain's outrageous attempt to pin the blame on the other guys, when in fact it was his own party that sank the bailout in the House Monday (9/29/08).
Apparently Sen. McCain will do anything to get elected, including twisting his own party’s opposition to the bailout to make it seem as though the other guys torpedoed it.
That’s not putting country first. That’s putting, me, John McCain, first, so that I can get elected.
Sure hope the independent and undecided voters see through McCain's outrageous attempt to pin the blame on the other guys, when in fact it was his own party that sank the bailout in the House Monday (9/29/08).
