The economy in my dads's eyes
by Kerry Toole
When I first started to talk about the economy I went to talk about it with my mom and dad. My dad started to explain what had happen. So this is what my understanding about what is going on. Banks give out loads and people must go to the banks to get the loads. The banks are then supposed to approve if the people coming to them for loans are ok applicants. The banks then started handing out loans to people who was not supposed to get a loan.
So after my dad gave me what was going on in the economy in a nut shell. I asked him what we could do. He said that if you give everyone 1million dollars. By giving everyone a million dollars people would start spending money. This would then help bring the economy up. If we have enough money to keep bailing out the banks and the auto companies we should be able to bail out the people.
I am mostly lost in why we are helping out the big business and not helping out the little ones who are struggling. As the economy shuts down something that makes me really said is how Broadway plays are shutting down due to the economy. We are no longer just losing money but we losing something that people come to American from all over the world to see. So many things we want our children to see and or do are being shut down due to the drop in the economy.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Blacklist of Bailout Bonuses
I'm not sure if it's amusing or angering when companies bailed out with tax payer money decide to pay six-plus figures in bonus salaries to their upper echelon employees. Aren't they receiving the funds in the first place due to irresponsible behavior and lack of judgment... They sure learned.
Everyone is up in arms (including Steven Colbert with a pitchfork) over the recent revelation that AIG, the financial institution that received one of the largest allocations of TARP money, paid out $165 million in bonuses. The company has refused to release the names of these employees due to fear of public reprisal of violence. This is some scary shit.
Edward Liddy, the company's CEO, said he is attempting to cooperate with federal lawmakers in order to have these funds returned. Right now Congress is trying to pass a law that would require all companies receiving bail out cash to pay a 90% tax of such payment if it is used in the same fashion as AIG. Such a law would only apply to 2009 allocations.
Unfortunately, what most people don't know, is that back in the end of 2008, Meryl Lynch gave close to $3.5 billion (no, that is not a typo) in bonuses, making AIG look like they're passing around chump change. According to a FoxNews blog, because the transaction occurred last year, the government will most likely not be able to claim any funds from the firm.
I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
By Justin Ellis
Everyone is up in arms (including Steven Colbert with a pitchfork) over the recent revelation that AIG, the financial institution that received one of the largest allocations of TARP money, paid out $165 million in bonuses. The company has refused to release the names of these employees due to fear of public reprisal of violence. This is some scary shit.
Edward Liddy, the company's CEO, said he is attempting to cooperate with federal lawmakers in order to have these funds returned. Right now Congress is trying to pass a law that would require all companies receiving bail out cash to pay a 90% tax of such payment if it is used in the same fashion as AIG. Such a law would only apply to 2009 allocations.
Unfortunately, what most people don't know, is that back in the end of 2008, Meryl Lynch gave close to $3.5 billion (no, that is not a typo) in bonuses, making AIG look like they're passing around chump change. According to a FoxNews blog, because the transaction occurred last year, the government will most likely not be able to claim any funds from the firm.
I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
By Justin Ellis
Who's under fire now...
By Michelle Koyanagi
Seeing that this is our last blog assignment and reading some of the blogs already posted, I just want apologize if this will be a rather boring blog to read.
For this week, I looked at blogs about one of the most current topics being discussed on Capitol Hill: the controversy over AIG’s bonuses. Like the rest of America, I too am perplexed, angry, and ashamed of AIG (and other financial groups because AIG can’t be the only one) and certain government officials (Senator Chris Dodd, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, etc.). I’m sure President Obama is extremely frustrated about this also.
Bloggers have commented on how controversies like this show us just how quick Congress can move when they are scared of their constituents turning on them. As an intern for my Congresswoman, I know just how angry some people can get when they call in to the office and voice their opinions about this messy situation.
However, there was one particular caller I got this week who not only voiced his complaints about AIG, but also voiced complaints about many other financial groups and people who he felt should also get put under fire, but at the moment, they were not.
This made me wonder… with all this talk of scandals, our government officials and big companies who were found to owe back taxes—how much more troubling would it be if the public found out that this sort of stuff was going on for decades, but we just never heard about it? I mean, surely there are many other politicians, companies who have hidden skeletons in their closet. How much more disturbing would it be to find out exactly how often crimes like these go on and how many people get away with it.
Seeing that this is our last blog assignment and reading some of the blogs already posted, I just want apologize if this will be a rather boring blog to read.
For this week, I looked at blogs about one of the most current topics being discussed on Capitol Hill: the controversy over AIG’s bonuses. Like the rest of America, I too am perplexed, angry, and ashamed of AIG (and other financial groups because AIG can’t be the only one) and certain government officials (Senator Chris Dodd, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, etc.). I’m sure President Obama is extremely frustrated about this also.
Bloggers have commented on how controversies like this show us just how quick Congress can move when they are scared of their constituents turning on them. As an intern for my Congresswoman, I know just how angry some people can get when they call in to the office and voice their opinions about this messy situation.
However, there was one particular caller I got this week who not only voiced his complaints about AIG, but also voiced complaints about many other financial groups and people who he felt should also get put under fire, but at the moment, they were not.
This made me wonder… with all this talk of scandals, our government officials and big companies who were found to owe back taxes—how much more troubling would it be if the public found out that this sort of stuff was going on for decades, but we just never heard about it? I mean, surely there are many other politicians, companies who have hidden skeletons in their closet. How much more disturbing would it be to find out exactly how often crimes like these go on and how many people get away with it.
People need to take a chill pill
Lately I’ve noticed that people don’t know how to relax. We live in such a rushed society that the slightest inconvenience makes people impatient and downright rude. We have a demanding society in which people are always on the go to their next destination and just don’t have time to slow down. People just need to let loose a bit.
My sister deals with impatient people everyday at her work. Everyday she comes home with a new story about the customers. They’ll complain to her if they’ve had to wait five minutes in line as if it was my sister’s fault. Or even worse, they’ll get snappy at her if there was a mistake on a previous transaction, although she was not even the one who processed it in the first place. In her words, “Everyone just needs to chill out!”
I’ll admit that I am a victim of our rushed society. One of my pet peeve’s is when I’m stuck behind someone walking ridiculously slow. I can’t stand it. However, as I was on my way home for spring break I had to stop to load my SmartTrip metro card. So I’m fiddling in my purse for money and a girl comes to get in line and she stands right… next…to…me. I turn around and there she is hovering over me with her arms crossed waiting to get a metro ticket. Really now. I wanted to tell her that standing on my tail isn’t going to get her a ticket any faster. Could I have some personal space? We’re all going to get on the metro. I’ll also mention that the same thing happened to me on my way back to D.C. A man stood right next to me as I was loading my card, impatiently waiting his turn.
People just need to learn how to take a breath and relax. You’ll get to your destination. There’s nothing you can do if the train isn’t coming until another ten minutes. Your transactions will be fixed. The world isn’t over. Everything will work out. Just CALM DOWN.
Layal Brown
My sister deals with impatient people everyday at her work. Everyday she comes home with a new story about the customers. They’ll complain to her if they’ve had to wait five minutes in line as if it was my sister’s fault. Or even worse, they’ll get snappy at her if there was a mistake on a previous transaction, although she was not even the one who processed it in the first place. In her words, “Everyone just needs to chill out!”
I’ll admit that I am a victim of our rushed society. One of my pet peeve’s is when I’m stuck behind someone walking ridiculously slow. I can’t stand it. However, as I was on my way home for spring break I had to stop to load my SmartTrip metro card. So I’m fiddling in my purse for money and a girl comes to get in line and she stands right… next…to…me. I turn around and there she is hovering over me with her arms crossed waiting to get a metro ticket. Really now. I wanted to tell her that standing on my tail isn’t going to get her a ticket any faster. Could I have some personal space? We’re all going to get on the metro. I’ll also mention that the same thing happened to me on my way back to D.C. A man stood right next to me as I was loading my card, impatiently waiting his turn.
People just need to learn how to take a breath and relax. You’ll get to your destination. There’s nothing you can do if the train isn’t coming until another ten minutes. Your transactions will be fixed. The world isn’t over. Everything will work out. Just CALM DOWN.
Layal Brown
strange death
It strange how quickly something as innocent as falling on a bunny hill ski slope can change into a tragic death for a talented individual. We all take things as simple as skiing as granted, and no one thinks that a small bump on the head will turn into a brain injury that kills them. Most people are shocked by the news, and there are plenty of blogs out there discussing the most recent The Parent Trap actress, Natasha Richardson, death. James Meikle writing for Gaurdian, a blog from the U.K. suggests that perhaps it should be a requirement for people participating in sports such as skiing to wear a helmet to prevent freak accidents such as the one Richardson experienced. Many other bloggers mention that she didn’t receive medical attention immediately after the fall either. ..and I doubt she thought she needed to. It’s just an unfortunate thing that makes us all wonder when where we should take precautions, and what we should consider something serious enough to be looked at.
~Amanda Yerby
~Amanda Yerby
Tent Cities
By Alissa Scheller
A few weeks ago, Oprah decided my hometown’s tent-city was a newsworthy story. I don’t really know why, though.
Of course, there’s the recession, which has unarguably caused people to lose their homes, and I’m not denying that Sacramento is home to many people who do not, in fact, have homes.
But the tent city near the Sacramento Loaves and Fishes has been there for years. In my memory, at least, there have always been homeless people living down by the river. This is not news.
This article from the Huffington Post discusses the great American tradition of tent cities. Sure, it’s not glamorous, but I can’t quite bring myself to believe it’s news either.
The thing about news is that it’s generally new, and tent cities are not. We had Hoovervilles in the 30s, and John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath years ago.
Sacramento’s Mayor Kevin Johnson recently said that the tent city would be coming down. While I think it’s commendable that the city, along with homeless advocates and others, are doing something to help the people who live there, I have to wonder what the motivation for doing it now is. The tents have been there for years. Did it really need a huge economic recession and Oprah’s mention to become an issue worthy of this much discussion?
A few weeks ago, Oprah decided my hometown’s tent-city was a newsworthy story. I don’t really know why, though.
Of course, there’s the recession, which has unarguably caused people to lose their homes, and I’m not denying that Sacramento is home to many people who do not, in fact, have homes.
But the tent city near the Sacramento Loaves and Fishes has been there for years. In my memory, at least, there have always been homeless people living down by the river. This is not news.
This article from the Huffington Post discusses the great American tradition of tent cities. Sure, it’s not glamorous, but I can’t quite bring myself to believe it’s news either.
The thing about news is that it’s generally new, and tent cities are not. We had Hoovervilles in the 30s, and John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath years ago.
Sacramento’s Mayor Kevin Johnson recently said that the tent city would be coming down. While I think it’s commendable that the city, along with homeless advocates and others, are doing something to help the people who live there, I have to wonder what the motivation for doing it now is. The tents have been there for years. Did it really need a huge economic recession and Oprah’s mention to become an issue worthy of this much discussion?
What Were We Supposed to Write on Again?
By Jordan Coughenour
Epic.
I thought we were supposed to write on Congress, so I was going to do something about DC Voting rights, because it was the most interesting thing I could possibly think of to write about Congress. It always amazes me when TV anchors and bloggers can find something quirky and weird to write about what's happening on 'The Hill." Usually you can tell it's the result of some deep digging. Like when Fox found catfish in the stimulus package. Well- money going to a catfish farm.
My personal take on DC Voting Rights is neither shockingly exciting nor particularly valid. Even if DC did receive actual voting rights, I would most likely not be taking use of them- for two reasons. The first being, that I am registered in Colorado, and plan to keep it that way, thus avoiding my civic duty of forced jury servitude. (I don't really know if it works that way, but 30 Rock says it does, so I'll believe it) The second being that, though I am over 18 years old, a legal US resident and not currently incarcerated, I have not ever voted in an election.
30 Rock demonstrates another brilliant another brilliant way of avoiding jury duty
Voting has been built up to such a mighty expression of liberty and freedom, that do carry out the action of it without the strongest convictions in your preferences seems almost blasphemous nowadays. I mean- did Susan B and the other feminist leaders march and fight just so people like me could bubble in who they might sort of kinda think was the best candidate? I just don't really have that strong of a sway to any party or particular person in politics. When I confer my failure to vote to those around me, their reaction is frequently somewhat akin to that crazy German kid who wanted to play "Unreal Tournament."
Only, you know, with my face as the keyboard
Sometimes I just walk away from the confrontation, but other times I counter back with a witty and intellectual philosophic retort, such as, "Well, did you vote in ComicVine's poll yesterday about which race was the most superior in World of Warcraft?" or "Who did you invest your sacred democratic trust in for today's imdb poll on which Alan Moore adaption was the best?" There's more than one way to express your civic duty! Life's too short to go through it whining about the latest stimulus bill in a droning manner on your politic blog no one who doesn't go home and cry themselves to sleep every night actually reads. Put your trust in something a little more reliable than a politician- the ability of a humor to lighten a dreary time.
Which would you prefer- this video or a HuffPost article about CEO's and back taxes?
The Forgotten Art of Ice-Fishing
Alex Haines
My father comes from Detroit, Michigan, a state home to Swedish ice-fishers of every variety, temperament, and disposition. It is simply a lost art that we, as a society, have forsaken due to our great neglect and tragic forgetfulness. Without the great ice-fishers in our time, generations of northern Americans, including my father, would have had nothing to survive on or satiate themselves.
Longer fishing expeditions can be mounted with simple structures. Larger, heated structures can make multi-day fishing trips possible, but these are eschewed by many seasoned fishers, who fish with no protective structure, attired only in heavy winter wear.[citation needed].
A structure with various local names, but often called an ice shanty, ice shack, fish house, shack, bobhouse, or ice hut, is sometimes used. These are dragged or trailered onto the lake using a vehicle such as a snowmobile, ATV or truck. The two most commonly used types are portable and permanent. The portable houses are often made of a heavy material that is usually water tight. The two most common types of portable houses are when your shelter flips behind the user when not needed, or a pop up shelter so the only means out is through a door. The permanent shelters are made of wood or metal and usually have wheels for easy transport. They can be as basic as a bunk heater and holes or having satellite TV, bathrooms, stoves, full size beds and may appear to be more like a mobile home than a fishing house.
In North America, ice fishing is often a social activity. Sometimes, the consumption of alcohol is involved. Some resorts have fish houses that are rented out by the day, often, shuttle service via Snow Track or other vehicles modified to drive on ice is provided.
In Finland, solitary and contemplative isolation is often the object of the pastime. In Finland, fishhouses are a rare occurrence, but wearing a sealed and insulated drysuit designed of space-age fabric is not.
In North America, Houses appear to create a city at locations where fishing is best.
Many fishermen will go out with 2.5 inches of good ice for walking, but the recommended is 4", 5-6 inches for Sleds (Snow Machines, Snowmobiles) 7-12 for light cars and 14-16 inches for full sized trucks. Care must be taken, because sometimes ice will not form in areas with swift currents, leaving open areas which freeze with much thinner ice. On the Great Lakes, off-shore winds can break off miles-wide pans of ice stranding large numbers of fishermen. Just such a circumstance occurred in Lake Erie in Feb. '09, with 100 fisherman having to be rescued by helicopters, local authorities and the Coast Guard, and one man who'd fallen into the water dying on the rescue flight.
Late-winter warm spells can destroy the texture of the ice, which, while still of the required thickness, will not adequately support weight. It is called "rotten ice" or soft ice and is exceedingly dangerous. Some ice-fishermen will continue to fish, since even with the bad ice normally 8 inches is more than enough. Fisherman may carry a self-rescue device made of two spiked handles connected by a string to pull themselves out of the water and onto the ice.
Many cars, trucks, SUVs, snowmobiles, and fish houses fall through the ice each year. Current environmental regulations require the speedy recovery of the vehicle or structure in this situation. Divers must be hired, and when the trouble occurs far from shore, helicopters may be employed for hoisting.
Other risks associated with ice fishing include carbon monoxide poisoning from fish house heaters and frostbite due to prolonged exposure to wind and low temperatures, although most new houses are fitted with air exchange systems that allow air flow preventing poisoning.
My father comes from Detroit, Michigan, a state home to Swedish ice-fishers of every variety, temperament, and disposition. It is simply a lost art that we, as a society, have forsaken due to our great neglect and tragic forgetfulness. Without the great ice-fishers in our time, generations of northern Americans, including my father, would have had nothing to survive on or satiate themselves.
Longer fishing expeditions can be mounted with simple structures. Larger, heated structures can make multi-day fishing trips possible, but these are eschewed by many seasoned fishers, who fish with no protective structure, attired only in heavy winter wear.[citation needed].
A structure with various local names, but often called an ice shanty, ice shack, fish house, shack, bobhouse, or ice hut, is sometimes used. These are dragged or trailered onto the lake using a vehicle such as a snowmobile, ATV or truck. The two most commonly used types are portable and permanent. The portable houses are often made of a heavy material that is usually water tight. The two most common types of portable houses are when your shelter flips behind the user when not needed, or a pop up shelter so the only means out is through a door. The permanent shelters are made of wood or metal and usually have wheels for easy transport. They can be as basic as a bunk heater and holes or having satellite TV, bathrooms, stoves, full size beds and may appear to be more like a mobile home than a fishing house.
In North America, ice fishing is often a social activity. Sometimes, the consumption of alcohol is involved. Some resorts have fish houses that are rented out by the day, often, shuttle service via Snow Track or other vehicles modified to drive on ice is provided.
In Finland, solitary and contemplative isolation is often the object of the pastime. In Finland, fishhouses are a rare occurrence, but wearing a sealed and insulated drysuit designed of space-age fabric is not.
In North America, Houses appear to create a city at locations where fishing is best.
Many fishermen will go out with 2.5 inches of good ice for walking, but the recommended is 4", 5-6 inches for Sleds (Snow Machines, Snowmobiles) 7-12 for light cars and 14-16 inches for full sized trucks. Care must be taken, because sometimes ice will not form in areas with swift currents, leaving open areas which freeze with much thinner ice. On the Great Lakes, off-shore winds can break off miles-wide pans of ice stranding large numbers of fishermen. Just such a circumstance occurred in Lake Erie in Feb. '09, with 100 fisherman having to be rescued by helicopters, local authorities and the Coast Guard, and one man who'd fallen into the water dying on the rescue flight.
Late-winter warm spells can destroy the texture of the ice, which, while still of the required thickness, will not adequately support weight. It is called "rotten ice" or soft ice and is exceedingly dangerous. Some ice-fishermen will continue to fish, since even with the bad ice normally 8 inches is more than enough. Fisherman may carry a self-rescue device made of two spiked handles connected by a string to pull themselves out of the water and onto the ice.
Many cars, trucks, SUVs, snowmobiles, and fish houses fall through the ice each year. Current environmental regulations require the speedy recovery of the vehicle or structure in this situation. Divers must be hired, and when the trouble occurs far from shore, helicopters may be employed for hoisting.
Other risks associated with ice fishing include carbon monoxide poisoning from fish house heaters and frostbite due to prolonged exposure to wind and low temperatures, although most new houses are fitted with air exchange systems that allow air flow preventing poisoning.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
What's going on in Congress Right Now?
-dara duratinsky
I believe the topic for this week was issues in Congress right now. According to huffingtonpost.com, on Thursday (tomorrow) Congress will be voting on taxing AIG bonuses. I will be the first to admit that not matter how many articles I read on the economy, AIG, bailouts, whatever, all the information is just way over my head. But, I do understand that there is anger over the AIG bailout. But I did a little research and according to an abc news blog, AIG were supposed to receive under $200 million in bonuses. Bonuses? Really? AIG was supposed to get $30 billion from the government. Bonuses are unnecessary, gaudy, and if I were in government with THIS economy, I would definitely tax the bonuses.
Okay, I wanted to put an intellectual piece in my blog about Congress right now. But I also think that this whole twitter business is hilarious! I'm a little late on the topic but, in a way twitter can be a medium, possibly a type of blog. So, here's a blog on twitter. During Obama's speech to Congress journalists were shocked to see so many politicians on their phones, twittering. Every news outlet tried to describe to their middle-age audience what twitter was. Here's a note to everyday people twittering: I really do not need to know what you're doing, the exact time you're doing it. I could care less if you just scored high points on tetris, or are painting your nails. However, I see how twitter can come in handy when it comes to politicians. tweetcongress.com is a great website to follow twitter updates from those in Congress. I find it interesting to read Chris Dodd's update about his Executive Compensation Amendment and Nancy Pelosi's update that the Chairman and CEO of AIG testified in Congress. But to Claire McCaskill: I do not care that you are making Chicken Parm tonight, or what non-fat ingredients you are using.
I believe the topic for this week was issues in Congress right now. According to huffingtonpost.com, on Thursday (tomorrow) Congress will be voting on taxing AIG bonuses. I will be the first to admit that not matter how many articles I read on the economy, AIG, bailouts, whatever, all the information is just way over my head. But, I do understand that there is anger over the AIG bailout. But I did a little research and according to an abc news blog, AIG were supposed to receive under $200 million in bonuses. Bonuses? Really? AIG was supposed to get $30 billion from the government. Bonuses are unnecessary, gaudy, and if I were in government with THIS economy, I would definitely tax the bonuses.
Okay, I wanted to put an intellectual piece in my blog about Congress right now. But I also think that this whole twitter business is hilarious! I'm a little late on the topic but, in a way twitter can be a medium, possibly a type of blog. So, here's a blog on twitter. During Obama's speech to Congress journalists were shocked to see so many politicians on their phones, twittering. Every news outlet tried to describe to their middle-age audience what twitter was. Here's a note to everyday people twittering: I really do not need to know what you're doing, the exact time you're doing it. I could care less if you just scored high points on tetris, or are painting your nails. However, I see how twitter can come in handy when it comes to politicians. tweetcongress.com is a great website to follow twitter updates from those in Congress. I find it interesting to read Chris Dodd's update about his Executive Compensation Amendment and Nancy Pelosi's update that the Chairman and CEO of AIG testified in Congress. But to Claire McCaskill: I do not care that you are making Chicken Parm tonight, or what non-fat ingredients you are using.
Jim Cramer gets Crossfired
By Chris Collins
Wow.
A girl just walked past my door panting, "Oh my god....Brittany....guess what....I was watching Wheel of Fortune and this girl....SHE HAD THE SAME DRESS I HAVE!"
Oh, college. You promised sanctuary from such people. How you dissapoint.
Anyways, Jim Cramer.
He went on the "Daily Show" last Thursday and, in a replay of the Stewart-Crossfire incident 5 years ago, was exposed as a media hack who not only shunned his journalistic duties but had a role in the economic collapse. So his television career is screwed.
And I'm not sure how I feel about that.
On one hand, he's a reckless prick. His show encouraged short selling, where you buy stocks and quickly sell them for a higher price soon after. I THINK that's what it is. Anyway, he helped convince viewers to buy into these lucrative yet high risk stocks that brought on the recession.
If you've never seen Kramer's show "Mad Money," watch it. Or watch a clip via youtube; it might not be airing on CNBC much longer. It's so frickin bizarre. The set might have been designed by Nickelodean, or maybe it was borrowed from the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 people. There's big red buttons; they make noises. There's flashing lights, loud red bits of plastic. And yet Kramer manages to act gautier than his surroundings. He hobbles about the stage, sleeves rolled up, eyes pulsating, forehead sweating, face reddening.
It's a winning format: an accesible, entertaining stock market show that makes investing short and easy. Don't research where your money's going, just listen to Cramer.
He's ace at what he does.
He really is. Want proof? Jane Sherman. She's Brian's mom (a friend from home.) WASPY, blond, lock jawed, conservative, always clad in golf wear or inconspicous formal attire, she would sit in the sunroom of the family's white-washed lakehouse (complete with gym and wine cellar) in a white wicker sofa surrounded by stacks of Wall Street Journals and a TV- on which Mad Money would play.
It was funny. Partly due to her reserved disposition, but mainly because we all knew SHE knew her shit, having managed a Los Angeles investment firm in the 80's. Why spend time with Cramer? "Because he REALLY know his stuff. He's it," she'd respond.
Cramer isn't just some cheap layman's sage. He's revered amongst the elite, regarded as one of the best analysts and financial reporters out there. And yet he dedicates his time to a program that promotes lazy entrepreneuralism. It asks the viewer to buy without asking why, because it's easier that way, because Cramer says so.
Here's where Stewart was pissed. Cramer, Stewart said, failed his responsibilities as a financial journalist. He steered his viewers away from the bigger picture and focused on specifics that might make them rich. Worse yet, those "specifics" were risky buys, the ones that led to the collapse. Stewart went as far as accusing Cramer of erroding the work ethic of Americans, by fostering an environment in which a game of economic roullette outweighed the value of real work.
It was intense. And while Stewart did a fantastic (and neccesary) job of reprimanding Cramer, using the Daily Show's arsenal of archival footage to expose the man as a coniving twit, I can't help but ask, was it fair?
Cramer did, after all, have the guts to come on the show, to participate in a real dialogue between Wall Street elitist and outsider, and to publicly accept his share of the blame for the meltdown. His decision was a far cry from the behavior exhibited by bank CEO's and investment guru's since October, who've isolated themselves from the public in an effort to avoid blame or worse, continue to operate under the delusion that their methods need not be altered.
The interview's ramifications won't be good for Cramer. His credibility lies in ashes. His show will be off the air soon as a result. Sure, he has blood on his hands. But it's unnerving that he's the only one who seems to be paying for his actions. Or ever will. Thing is, after Stewart's interview, the likelihood of other wrongdoers sitting down with serious, probing journalists seems grim.
Wow.
A girl just walked past my door panting, "Oh my god....Brittany....guess what....I was watching Wheel of Fortune and this girl....SHE HAD THE SAME DRESS I HAVE!"
Oh, college. You promised sanctuary from such people. How you dissapoint.
Anyways, Jim Cramer.
He went on the "Daily Show" last Thursday and, in a replay of the Stewart-Crossfire incident 5 years ago, was exposed as a media hack who not only shunned his journalistic duties but had a role in the economic collapse. So his television career is screwed.
And I'm not sure how I feel about that.
On one hand, he's a reckless prick. His show encouraged short selling, where you buy stocks and quickly sell them for a higher price soon after. I THINK that's what it is. Anyway, he helped convince viewers to buy into these lucrative yet high risk stocks that brought on the recession.
If you've never seen Kramer's show "Mad Money," watch it. Or watch a clip via youtube; it might not be airing on CNBC much longer. It's so frickin bizarre. The set might have been designed by Nickelodean, or maybe it was borrowed from the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 people. There's big red buttons; they make noises. There's flashing lights, loud red bits of plastic. And yet Kramer manages to act gautier than his surroundings. He hobbles about the stage, sleeves rolled up, eyes pulsating, forehead sweating, face reddening.
It's a winning format: an accesible, entertaining stock market show that makes investing short and easy. Don't research where your money's going, just listen to Cramer.
He's ace at what he does.
He really is. Want proof? Jane Sherman. She's Brian's mom (a friend from home.) WASPY, blond, lock jawed, conservative, always clad in golf wear or inconspicous formal attire, she would sit in the sunroom of the family's white-washed lakehouse (complete with gym and wine cellar) in a white wicker sofa surrounded by stacks of Wall Street Journals and a TV- on which Mad Money would play.
It was funny. Partly due to her reserved disposition, but mainly because we all knew SHE knew her shit, having managed a Los Angeles investment firm in the 80's. Why spend time with Cramer? "Because he REALLY know his stuff. He's it," she'd respond.
Cramer isn't just some cheap layman's sage. He's revered amongst the elite, regarded as one of the best analysts and financial reporters out there. And yet he dedicates his time to a program that promotes lazy entrepreneuralism. It asks the viewer to buy without asking why, because it's easier that way, because Cramer says so.
Here's where Stewart was pissed. Cramer, Stewart said, failed his responsibilities as a financial journalist. He steered his viewers away from the bigger picture and focused on specifics that might make them rich. Worse yet, those "specifics" were risky buys, the ones that led to the collapse. Stewart went as far as accusing Cramer of erroding the work ethic of Americans, by fostering an environment in which a game of economic roullette outweighed the value of real work.
It was intense. And while Stewart did a fantastic (and neccesary) job of reprimanding Cramer, using the Daily Show's arsenal of archival footage to expose the man as a coniving twit, I can't help but ask, was it fair?
Cramer did, after all, have the guts to come on the show, to participate in a real dialogue between Wall Street elitist and outsider, and to publicly accept his share of the blame for the meltdown. His decision was a far cry from the behavior exhibited by bank CEO's and investment guru's since October, who've isolated themselves from the public in an effort to avoid blame or worse, continue to operate under the delusion that their methods need not be altered.
The interview's ramifications won't be good for Cramer. His credibility lies in ashes. His show will be off the air soon as a result. Sure, he has blood on his hands. But it's unnerving that he's the only one who seems to be paying for his actions. Or ever will. Thing is, after Stewart's interview, the likelihood of other wrongdoers sitting down with serious, probing journalists seems grim.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Earth Hour
Kate Pinkerton
What will you be doing on March 26, 2009 at 8:30 pm?
I will be turning off my lights. I will be part of one of the biggest environmental movements. I am going to push for change.
So, what are you doing?
Hopefully you will also participate in Earth Hour, one hour when the entire world will turn off their lights. Major landmarks such as the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge and Rome's Colessium will go dark as we take a stance on our environmental future. This started 2 years ago in Australia where 2.2 million people turned off their lights, and it grew last year with 50 million people across the world turning off their lights for an hour. This year, Earth Hour states that their goal is 1 Billion people, and so far a large amount of people have committed.
This Earth Hour is especially important because turning off your lights is like a vote for the Earth, according to Earth Hour.org. This vote matters in the upcoming decision at the conference in Copenhagen that will decide the future international policies on Environmental standards and regulations. We need to show the world we care, and that we want strong Environmental Policies.
Last year had some dramatic results. Obviously many more people participated-2.2 to 50 million people is a huge jump.
The White House obviously did not participate in 2008 and it will be interesting to see if Obama convinces the White House to participate. Google even participated last year. According to the 2008 video, Sydney's original goal was to reduce energy use by 5% during the hour, and they reduced it by more than 10%! If Earth Hour reaches its goal, the environmental effects within that hour will be amazing!
Sources such as the Rebel Yell suggest many different ways of experiencing the hour. One suggestion is having a candlelight party with card games. Candlelight is something that people do not experience enough. While it is a slight fire hazard, especially if the card games involve alcohol, the atmosphere that candlelight creates is magical. Many other fun things happen in the dark- flashlight tag, hide and seek, sleeping...etc.
Colleges such as Ohio University are pledging to turn off their lights for the hour. This is in their favor since OU's price per hour of keeping the lights on is $686. American University would benefit a great deal in this economic crisis simply by encouraging environmental practices like conserving energy. Eco-Sense, AU's Environmental Club, has made an effort to convince students to participate in Earth Hour, but we could definitely make a stronger one.
Earth Hour obviously doesn't mean that we should keep our lights off all the time. It just is something to show that a lot of people care about the environment. There are clean energy alternatives to keeping the world lit, but it's also important to remember to turn off lights when they are not needed. Wasting energy is a huge source of pollution.
It's weird that something so simple can have such a large effect. It has grown so much that it is obvious that environment is important to a lot of people, cities, organizations, and businesses. This is the kind of push we need to show representatives going to Copenhagen this fall that we want environmental progress in the world.
If you are interested, there is a facebook group you can join!
What will you be doing on March 26, 2009 at 8:30 pm?
I will be turning off my lights. I will be part of one of the biggest environmental movements. I am going to push for change.
So, what are you doing?
Hopefully you will also participate in Earth Hour, one hour when the entire world will turn off their lights. Major landmarks such as the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge and Rome's Colessium will go dark as we take a stance on our environmental future. This started 2 years ago in Australia where 2.2 million people turned off their lights, and it grew last year with 50 million people across the world turning off their lights for an hour. This year, Earth Hour states that their goal is 1 Billion people, and so far a large amount of people have committed.
This Earth Hour is especially important because turning off your lights is like a vote for the Earth, according to Earth Hour.org. This vote matters in the upcoming decision at the conference in Copenhagen that will decide the future international policies on Environmental standards and regulations. We need to show the world we care, and that we want strong Environmental Policies.
Last year had some dramatic results. Obviously many more people participated-2.2 to 50 million people is a huge jump.
The White House obviously did not participate in 2008 and it will be interesting to see if Obama convinces the White House to participate. Google even participated last year. According to the 2008 video, Sydney's original goal was to reduce energy use by 5% during the hour, and they reduced it by more than 10%! If Earth Hour reaches its goal, the environmental effects within that hour will be amazing!
Sources such as the Rebel Yell suggest many different ways of experiencing the hour. One suggestion is having a candlelight party with card games. Candlelight is something that people do not experience enough. While it is a slight fire hazard, especially if the card games involve alcohol, the atmosphere that candlelight creates is magical. Many other fun things happen in the dark- flashlight tag, hide and seek, sleeping...etc.
Colleges such as Ohio University are pledging to turn off their lights for the hour. This is in their favor since OU's price per hour of keeping the lights on is $686. American University would benefit a great deal in this economic crisis simply by encouraging environmental practices like conserving energy. Eco-Sense, AU's Environmental Club, has made an effort to convince students to participate in Earth Hour, but we could definitely make a stronger one.
Earth Hour obviously doesn't mean that we should keep our lights off all the time. It just is something to show that a lot of people care about the environment. There are clean energy alternatives to keeping the world lit, but it's also important to remember to turn off lights when they are not needed. Wasting energy is a huge source of pollution.
It's weird that something so simple can have such a large effect. It has grown so much that it is obvious that environment is important to a lot of people, cities, organizations, and businesses. This is the kind of push we need to show representatives going to Copenhagen this fall that we want environmental progress in the world.
If you are interested, there is a facebook group you can join!
Monday, March 16, 2009
America's Beef With Nudity
When one of my housemates came back from spring break in Miami she commented about how she was disturbed by a topless beach she "accidentally" stumbled upon. Knowing her it probably was an accident, but that's aside the point.
So I asked her, "What was so bad about it, do those women have something you're not accustomed to?" She snapped back at me and said that people should not be naked in front of complete strangers. But boy do I love playing the devil's advocate. So I pressed her for some better reasoning, "But nudity itself isn't harmful. If I'm just walking around the beach with nothing on, how does that affect you?"
She stumbled for an answer. Ultimately she simply said that she doesn't want to see other people
naked. Fair enough. I still didn't think that was good reasoning to force people to wear clothes, but she was getting a bit annoyed and I didn't feel like having to eat dinner by myself so I dropped the issue.
But it did keep me thinking about our perception of nudity for some time. In the United States nudity is seen as a taboo, something that must be avoided for us to remain pure and innocent. That's why kids giggle when their parents accidentally take them to that PG-13 movie that shows a nipple.
But why are we like that? Why is there such a pervasiveness to nudity? There seems to be a double standard.The image to the right is ostensibly crude: we see David's penis. But no... it's ART! But if that wasn't a statue and was just some man standing there being photographed (like this) it would be considered soft pornography by some.
But when it comes to advertising we're back to no holds barred. Calvin Klein does a great job selling their underwear by selling sex. Just take a look at the image below. And that ad is perfectly acceptable for us to admire in any magazine that we would let our 12 year old kids read. Some of those ads can be found in the magazines in your doctor's office.
And when it comes to movies... 3 second penis or boob shots are all the rage. But what is interesting is that while boobs appear on the TV for sexuality purposes, a penis only comes on the screen to make people laugh. Remember that scene from Borat, I'm sure you do. Some people would just say thats because a hanging testicle isn't as "beautiful" as a women's bosom. And that is what really bothers me. That is only true because our society has constructed a man's genitalia to be "ugly" while a women's bare chest is seen as "artistic" and "sexual." There is absolutely no good reason for that. It is an entirely artifical creation that we have developed.
Now how does this all relate to nude beaches? I contend that the only reason nude beaches are not the norm in the U.S. is because our society has constructed an image of nude beaches as being places where really dirty things happen and where everyone is just flaunting their sexuality. And the movie industry has done a great job on entrenching this notion by the way. Just as we've been primed to view David's penis (above) as artistic, we've been trained to think of nude beaches as "disturbing" and X-rated.
So I asked her, "What was so bad about it, do those women have something you're not accustomed to?" She snapped back at me and said that people should not be naked in front of complete strangers. But boy do I love playing the devil's advocate. So I pressed her for some better reasoning, "But nudity itself isn't harmful. If I'm just walking around the beach with nothing on, how does that affect you?"
She stumbled for an answer. Ultimately she simply said that she doesn't want to see other people
naked. Fair enough. I still didn't think that was good reasoning to force people to wear clothes, but she was getting a bit annoyed and I didn't feel like having to eat dinner by myself so I dropped the issue.But it did keep me thinking about our perception of nudity for some time. In the United States nudity is seen as a taboo, something that must be avoided for us to remain pure and innocent. That's why kids giggle when their parents accidentally take them to that PG-13 movie that shows a nipple.
But why are we like that? Why is there such a pervasiveness to nudity? There seems to be a double standard.The image to the right is ostensibly crude: we see David's penis. But no... it's ART! But if that wasn't a statue and was just some man standing there being photographed (like this) it would be considered soft pornography by some.
But when it comes to advertising we're back to no holds barred. Calvin Klein does a great job selling their underwear by selling sex. Just take a look at the image below. And that ad is perfectly acceptable for us to admire in any magazine that we would let our 12 year old kids read. Some of those ads can be found in the magazines in your doctor's office.
And when it comes to movies... 3 second penis or boob shots are all the rage. But what is interesting is that while boobs appear on the TV for sexuality purposes, a penis only comes on the screen to make people laugh. Remember that scene from Borat, I'm sure you do. Some people would just say thats because a hanging testicle isn't as "beautiful" as a women's bosom. And that is what really bothers me. That is only true because our society has constructed a man's genitalia to be "ugly" while a women's bare chest is seen as "artistic" and "sexual." There is absolutely no good reason for that. It is an entirely artifical creation that we have developed.Now how does this all relate to nude beaches? I contend that the only reason nude beaches are not the norm in the U.S. is because our society has constructed an image of nude beaches as being places where really dirty things happen and where everyone is just flaunting their sexuality. And the movie industry has done a great job on entrenching this notion by the way. Just as we've been primed to view David's penis (above) as artistic, we've been trained to think of nude beaches as "disturbing" and X-rated.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Mooching
What bothers me more than anything is someone who does not contribute and who takes a free ride from those who do shell out. There are unwritten rules within our society of college students that some people do not understand.
During college there are certain things that a group should pay for, such as a party. The problem, with a party is, someone always has to pay and someone ALWAYS stiffs another. There are always those people who say, “they will pay” or “later” but that’s a bunch of BS.
It is not that big of deal in retrospect, it is just annoying when some people do not contribute their fair share and expect to gain the same privileges as someone who does pay.
What people do not understand when in a social group or organization is how to not only share the cost fiscally, but also the cost of time and effort. For example, cleaning up. If you use the dish, you clean the dish, it is that SIMPLE, but some people think they are above cleaning up after themselves.
Another annoying thing that someone who mooches does is minimal work in a group. Someone will pick a smart group so they have to put less effort in and get a good grade. Again, it goes back to doing their equal share and contributing to the whole team.
Teams rely on people to work together, businesses rely on people to stay afloat by everyone doing their own part. When one person does not do their job to 100%, then everyone has to pick up their slack and it can get annoying.
PEOPLE NEED TO STOP MOOCHING.
-Brian Galm
During college there are certain things that a group should pay for, such as a party. The problem, with a party is, someone always has to pay and someone ALWAYS stiffs another. There are always those people who say, “they will pay” or “later” but that’s a bunch of BS.
It is not that big of deal in retrospect, it is just annoying when some people do not contribute their fair share and expect to gain the same privileges as someone who does pay.
What people do not understand when in a social group or organization is how to not only share the cost fiscally, but also the cost of time and effort. For example, cleaning up. If you use the dish, you clean the dish, it is that SIMPLE, but some people think they are above cleaning up after themselves.
Another annoying thing that someone who mooches does is minimal work in a group. Someone will pick a smart group so they have to put less effort in and get a good grade. Again, it goes back to doing their equal share and contributing to the whole team.
Teams rely on people to work together, businesses rely on people to stay afloat by everyone doing their own part. When one person does not do their job to 100%, then everyone has to pick up their slack and it can get annoying.
PEOPLE NEED TO STOP MOOCHING.
-Brian Galm
Housing Crisis
Brian Galm
Living in the city and in the dorms, I do not see much of the problems with the housing crisis that affect many people across the country. Going home for spring break has shown me that there is a real problem and that America is being hit hard. In the city, we see it thriving; nothing is closing as much as it is in the suburbs. After looking into it more, I see that the housing crisis is really affecting a lot more than many think.
It not only affects the thousands of home owners, but it affects lenders, builders, as well as students who cannot qualify for student loans due to the mortgages. My neighbor is a builder and he has lost much business because no one is buying houses. Not only is the housing industry affected, but it seems that now its time for the auto industry to be affected by the real estate foreclosure crisis. With banks and auto lenders tightening their loans and worried of getting caught in the recession, hundreds of American consumers are not being able to get any loans.
So now, people are not buying cars, which then leads to less jobs in factories with these large companies such as GM, and less money in the system. It seems like this is a never-ending process.
With real estate the number one industry and the auto industry the second, if these two fail, then there does not seem to be a back up.
The housing crisis is the first that needs to be solved and if that works itself out, then people will be more confident in society.
Living in the city and in the dorms, I do not see much of the problems with the housing crisis that affect many people across the country. Going home for spring break has shown me that there is a real problem and that America is being hit hard. In the city, we see it thriving; nothing is closing as much as it is in the suburbs. After looking into it more, I see that the housing crisis is really affecting a lot more than many think.
It not only affects the thousands of home owners, but it affects lenders, builders, as well as students who cannot qualify for student loans due to the mortgages. My neighbor is a builder and he has lost much business because no one is buying houses. Not only is the housing industry affected, but it seems that now its time for the auto industry to be affected by the real estate foreclosure crisis. With banks and auto lenders tightening their loans and worried of getting caught in the recession, hundreds of American consumers are not being able to get any loans.
So now, people are not buying cars, which then leads to less jobs in factories with these large companies such as GM, and less money in the system. It seems like this is a never-ending process.
With real estate the number one industry and the auto industry the second, if these two fail, then there does not seem to be a back up.
The housing crisis is the first that needs to be solved and if that works itself out, then people will be more confident in society.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Housing Crisis in Simple Terms Please
After reading some blogs on the housing crisis, I still did not understand the situation completely. Many blogs either complained or praised the actions of the government but I wish they would have explained the situation in simple, elementary terms. I am not an economics major and neither is most of the country, I didn’t understand some of the technical terms the blogs threw at me.
Surprisingly I found a housing crisis blog in the Comics/Humor section of the New York Times of all places. It discussed the idea of nationalizing banks and how the government was thinking about basing its banks off the Swedish model. I just wish it explained what exactly the Swedish model was and explained plain and sweet the logistics of the crisis. Rather than simply mocking the government’s decisions, a mixture of opinion and fact would have been nice.
Another problem I noticed with these housing crisis blogs was that they were ridiculously long. Thehousingbubblebog.com gave a good analysis of the crisis filled with quotes of various people’s opinions. But the blog went on for at least five pages worth of information. I quickly lost interest when I glanced at the shrinking scroll bar.
To keep to the point: economic bloggers should make their explanations short and in simple terms so that the average population knows what the heck is going on.
Layal Brown
Surprisingly I found a housing crisis blog in the Comics/Humor section of the New York Times of all places. It discussed the idea of nationalizing banks and how the government was thinking about basing its banks off the Swedish model. I just wish it explained what exactly the Swedish model was and explained plain and sweet the logistics of the crisis. Rather than simply mocking the government’s decisions, a mixture of opinion and fact would have been nice.
Another problem I noticed with these housing crisis blogs was that they were ridiculously long. Thehousingbubblebog.com gave a good analysis of the crisis filled with quotes of various people’s opinions. But the blog went on for at least five pages worth of information. I quickly lost interest when I glanced at the shrinking scroll bar.
To keep to the point: economic bloggers should make their explanations short and in simple terms so that the average population knows what the heck is going on.
Layal Brown
Thursday, March 5, 2009
How the Housing Crisis Affects Immigrants
By Michelle Koyanagi
The housing crisis is a huge issue in America right now, not just because of the foreclosures, but because it includes so much more than just “housing.” The blogs I’ve seen reflect this. We cannot talk about the housing crisis without also talking about the economy, immigration, the government, the banks…etc. There are so many angles one could take with this issue. The one that comes to my mind is immigration.
It is no surprise that the housing crisis affects many immigrants in America. One of the blogs entitled, “Housing Crisis Hurts Immigrants More” (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/housing-crisis-hurts-immigrants-more/?partner=rss&emc=rss) talked about the housing situation for immigrants in New York. The blog talked about a report entitled, “Confronting the Housing Squeeze: Challenges Facing Immigrant Tenants, and What New York Can Do.” The report even accused some private equity investors of using questionable tactics to raise rents because of purchases they made in places with high immigrant populations.
I understand that business exists solely to make profits, but hearing about reports such as this one only makes me feel more shameful of American capitalism. I realize there are many more corrupt deeds that go on every day with businesses, but instead of hearing more and more about these kinds of wrongdoings, I wish there were more stories out there that talk about the good things and the good practices businesses are doing. Hearing about investors that follow the law and practice good business tactics would not generate as much “buzz” as hearing reports that have uncovered the “wrongdoings” of businesses, but it would make some Americans feel a little more hopeful about the future state of things—at least I think so.
Going back to the report, the author also talked about some tactics New York immigrants are using such as creating two family homes to deal with the housing shortage problem. Some of those tactics are illegal under the current building and zoning regulations, but the blogger did mention a proposal in the report that suggested legalizing those units that are currently illegal but safe. I completely agree with that proposal and I hope it happens. This definitely is not a solution to the housing shortage, but it just goes to show that people are doing what they can to deal with the situation and they should not be punished for that.
The housing crisis is a huge issue in America right now, not just because of the foreclosures, but because it includes so much more than just “housing.” The blogs I’ve seen reflect this. We cannot talk about the housing crisis without also talking about the economy, immigration, the government, the banks…etc. There are so many angles one could take with this issue. The one that comes to my mind is immigration.
It is no surprise that the housing crisis affects many immigrants in America. One of the blogs entitled, “Housing Crisis Hurts Immigrants More” (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/housing-crisis-hurts-immigrants-more/?partner=rss&emc=rss) talked about the housing situation for immigrants in New York. The blog talked about a report entitled, “Confronting the Housing Squeeze: Challenges Facing Immigrant Tenants, and What New York Can Do.” The report even accused some private equity investors of using questionable tactics to raise rents because of purchases they made in places with high immigrant populations.
I understand that business exists solely to make profits, but hearing about reports such as this one only makes me feel more shameful of American capitalism. I realize there are many more corrupt deeds that go on every day with businesses, but instead of hearing more and more about these kinds of wrongdoings, I wish there were more stories out there that talk about the good things and the good practices businesses are doing. Hearing about investors that follow the law and practice good business tactics would not generate as much “buzz” as hearing reports that have uncovered the “wrongdoings” of businesses, but it would make some Americans feel a little more hopeful about the future state of things—at least I think so.
Going back to the report, the author also talked about some tactics New York immigrants are using such as creating two family homes to deal with the housing shortage problem. Some of those tactics are illegal under the current building and zoning regulations, but the blogger did mention a proposal in the report that suggested legalizing those units that are currently illegal but safe. I completely agree with that proposal and I hope it happens. This definitely is not a solution to the housing shortage, but it just goes to show that people are doing what they can to deal with the situation and they should not be punished for that.
Simplify, Please
By Alissa Scheller
I really just don’t understand anything financial, and my microeconomics professor will probably back me up on that.
This whole housing crisis is also confusing, but I think I get the basics: people took out loans they couldn’t afford to pay back. Americans seem to like living beyond their means and faking prosperity – which is all fun until you have to pay off your debts.
This article from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-paul/federal-efforts-to-suppor_b_170954.html) explained it all to me pretty well. The writer argues that proposals to “bail out” indebted homeowners (in the same vein as TARP, which bailed out financial institutions) is not a solution. He losses are real, and shifting them around won’t do any good.
Most of the articles and blog posts I found about the lending crisis were complicated. They had all this financial jargon and things that I just didn’t understand. I realize that the economy has a lot to do with economics, and therefore economic language is needed to describe it.
However, I strongly suspect that the average American would not understand most of the articles I read about the lending crisis. It was really hard to find anything that simply explained what was going on – most offered intricate plans to “save” the economy – as if we weren’t already past that.
So, this is what I would say to blog writers if I could: write simply, so that others may simply read. Stop it with the jargon. Some of us are just trying to pass econ so we can graduate.
I really just don’t understand anything financial, and my microeconomics professor will probably back me up on that.
This whole housing crisis is also confusing, but I think I get the basics: people took out loans they couldn’t afford to pay back. Americans seem to like living beyond their means and faking prosperity – which is all fun until you have to pay off your debts.
This article from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-paul/federal-efforts-to-suppor_b_170954.html) explained it all to me pretty well. The writer argues that proposals to “bail out” indebted homeowners (in the same vein as TARP, which bailed out financial institutions) is not a solution. He losses are real, and shifting them around won’t do any good.
Most of the articles and blog posts I found about the lending crisis were complicated. They had all this financial jargon and things that I just didn’t understand. I realize that the economy has a lot to do with economics, and therefore economic language is needed to describe it.
However, I strongly suspect that the average American would not understand most of the articles I read about the lending crisis. It was really hard to find anything that simply explained what was going on – most offered intricate plans to “save” the economy – as if we weren’t already past that.
So, this is what I would say to blog writers if I could: write simply, so that others may simply read. Stop it with the jargon. Some of us are just trying to pass econ so we can graduate.
Foreclosure Confusion
-Dara Duratinsky
I will be the first to admit that anything about finances confuses me. When it comes to the economy and housing foreclosures, I need a book from the ".....for dummies" collection. This is why I am so disappointed by the many blogs I read about the housing foreclosure crisis. I can't possibly be the only person in this country who does not fully grasp what's going on, and all that the media is telling me is that there's a HUGE problem, and I should probably be worried. More legitimate news blogs like huffingtonpost.com seem to be the biggest offenders. Either that, or I am a terrible researcher.
In an article dated Feb. 15, 2009 from huffingtonpost.com, the writer, Hurst, goes on and on about how there is a financial crisis and a housing foreclosure crisis. The most he goes into detail about this subject is that the U.S. is in deep and the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. Oh, and did you know that the Republicans and Democrats are not agreeing on the stimulus bill? Seriously Hurst? I don't know how many times i've read and heard about how much worse our economy can get or how much Democrats and Republicans can not agree. Can't you give me anything new?
Though I am not a frequent visitor of blogs, I can't recall reading anything that tells me about the housing crisis in average American speak. I want to know what exactly got us into this mess and how exactly this stimulus bill is going to effect ordinary Americans. And please, don't just tell me that the bill "aims to save or create as many as 3.5 million jobs through massive government investment while boosting consumer spending through modest tax cuts" or that the bill will help homeowner on the brink of foreclosure. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Give me details!
Is Mad Money the Nostradamus of Real Estate?
The housing crisis facing this country due to the sub-prime mortgage failures should be on the mind of every American. This is not a Democratic issue (the GOP didn't provide enough regulation). This is not a Republican issue (don't the Dems know that Fannie and Freddie were spawned by the government?). This issue is American, born and bred.
In the wake of such a fiasco, people do what they do best when they're pissed off and want answers- they find someone to blame. The truth is there are so many entities and individuals to hold at fault that focusing efforts on one of them is pointless and counterproductive. The problem is that all of them fed off each other, refusing to take personal responsibility and use the appropriate judgment.
The government was stupid to pile every single deed in two gigantic companies. The bank was stupid to lend money out to a (potential) homeowner that they knew couldn't afford to pay it back. That same (potential) homeowner was stupid to attempt to take out a loan they knew was outside of their means. Wall Street was stupid to give companies positive credit ratings when they were really in the toilet. The list goes on. They all thought the housing bubble would continue to expand and there was nothing to stop it. Everyone involved deserves an equal slice of the blame.
But instead of being such a pescimist (which essentially equals a realist right now), let's stop taking names and take a look at how/when this catastrophe will end.
Remember, don't tell me the problem, give me the solution.
An LA Times blog quoted Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's "Mad Money" and a former Wall Street insider, as saying that the trough ("bottom" for those who aren't familiar with economic jargon) may arrive as soon as the third quarter of this year... Yay!!! He mentioned how "an increase in sales spurred by falling prices; a slowdown in home building; federal efforts to help troubled borrowers; and population growth that will spur household creation and demand for housing."
And for those who have been hit the hardest, I'm talking to you Arizona, California and Florida, he also went on to say, "The first to fall is usually the first to return."
Booyah Jim...
By Justin Ellis
In the wake of such a fiasco, people do what they do best when they're pissed off and want answers- they find someone to blame. The truth is there are so many entities and individuals to hold at fault that focusing efforts on one of them is pointless and counterproductive. The problem is that all of them fed off each other, refusing to take personal responsibility and use the appropriate judgment.
The government was stupid to pile every single deed in two gigantic companies. The bank was stupid to lend money out to a (potential) homeowner that they knew couldn't afford to pay it back. That same (potential) homeowner was stupid to attempt to take out a loan they knew was outside of their means. Wall Street was stupid to give companies positive credit ratings when they were really in the toilet. The list goes on. They all thought the housing bubble would continue to expand and there was nothing to stop it. Everyone involved deserves an equal slice of the blame.
But instead of being such a pescimist (which essentially equals a realist right now), let's stop taking names and take a look at how/when this catastrophe will end.
Remember, don't tell me the problem, give me the solution.
An LA Times blog quoted Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's "Mad Money" and a former Wall Street insider, as saying that the trough ("bottom" for those who aren't familiar with economic jargon) may arrive as soon as the third quarter of this year... Yay!!! He mentioned how "an increase in sales spurred by falling prices; a slowdown in home building; federal efforts to help troubled borrowers; and population growth that will spur household creation and demand for housing."
And for those who have been hit the hardest, I'm talking to you Arizona, California and Florida, he also went on to say, "The first to fall is usually the first to return."
Booyah Jim...
By Justin Ellis
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Could Immigration Be a Solution?
Reading these blogs about the housing crisis is really giving me a headache. Most of them are blaming one party or another, while others are discussing possible solutions to it. A lot of people are suggesting loosening up the immigration laws. James Stalling on his personal blog says the solution can be immigrants. He proposes to “temporary widen legal immigration quotas to three million with conditions.” He says if we ask them to come, and force them to purchase a home, and live in that home, and put at least 20 % down on that home, and reward them by accelerating a path to new citizenship, then not only is that a great lure to immigrants, but a good solution to our own housing problem. Tori Gattis says,”offer an immediate green card to any foreigner …and it is only good as long as they continue home ownership.” There are others out there that argue that immigration is definitely NOT the answer. Bruce Cain mentions that if we let more immigrants in, then there is a chance they will taking more of our jobs. The job market is already down in most of the US, and by having a policy that makes the legal immigration policy easier, then we are threatening ourselves even more. Diana Olick from CNBC makes a point when she says, “immigrants will ease some of the pain, but let’s not start making our immigration policy arguments based upon mistakes made right here at home.” In a way easing up on immigration due to the housing crisis has its ups, and it has its downs. The housing market would probably go up—if they buy, but that doesn’t mean more jobs would be created as Bruce Cain mentioned. No matter how you look at the housing crisis, coming up with the solutions are sticky situations all over.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
A Bug's Life and a Dog eat Dog World: The Housing Crisis from the Animal Perspective
By: Kate Pinkerton
It is all over the news, the web, and word of mouth: The Housing Crisis. Many people are angry because the government is helping people who accepted loans they couldn’t afford. They are mad because their tax dollars are helping people who shouldn’t have taken those loans in the first place to have houses that were beyond their means. They are also mad at the banks who gave those loans out in the first place. It is hard to point the finger of blame to when there were multiple parties involved making bad decisions. It’s one of those times where you just feeling like throwing your hands up in the air and saying, “Whatever! I’m done!” and groan and moan.
The unfair part is that these bad decisions are affecting people who were making the right decisions and living within their means. The people who managed their money well are giving their tax dollars to support the stupid people, but they have to let that happen. This is where it got fuzzy for me. I kept thinking, “Why does it matter whether or not the government helps these people?” Besides it being a moral matter of so many people losing their homes, I couldn’t
understand why these mistakes affected everyone who owns a home. NBC News finally clarified that when people foreclose on their house, the value of that house goes down, as well as the value of the houses around it. On Meet The Press (32 Minutes Into that Video Clip) David Gregory states that the problem is that “doing nothing is not a good option.” Even if people are mad because they made their payments by adding a second job or something, they can’t complain about federal funding because it’s the only way that the housing market will stabilize and their homes will maintain their value. Someone on Meet the Press said that people feel like they are the Ants taking Care of Grasshoppers (A Bug’s Life anyone?) The only difference there is that grasshoppers, at least in the movie A Bug’s Life, pressure ants to do all the work, whereas, this was a case of misjudgement, greed, and ignorance.
Humans aren't the only ones being affected by the housing crisis: pets are too. When homes are foreclosed and people are losing jobs, petowners often have to move to renting situations, where pets aren't always allowed. For example, the Berkshire, where many AU students reside, does not allow dogs, and only allows cats for a certain amount of money. Even if a family who recently foreclosed on their home could keep their pets in their renting situation, they most likely are struggling financially and are forced to give up their pets. According to Shankblog, people are doing this left and right, and not just the typical drop them off in the shelter method- they are simply leaving pets behind in the houses they can't afford. What happens to them, then? So not only do the people who have been handling their money well pay the taxes to support others, but not they have to pay up to $150 for adoption of pets
who are now homeless.
As negative about this situation as I sound, I honestly think the giving of people who have been able to maintain their lives to those who have had some trouble and made bad decisions show how well this country can support each other. We all make mistakes, and this happened to be a widespread, financial crisis-size mistake, but it is something our country can make it through.
It is all over the news, the web, and word of mouth: The Housing Crisis. Many people are angry because the government is helping people who accepted loans they couldn’t afford. They are mad because their tax dollars are helping people who shouldn’t have taken those loans in the first place to have houses that were beyond their means. They are also mad at the banks who gave those loans out in the first place. It is hard to point the finger of blame to when there were multiple parties involved making bad decisions. It’s one of those times where you just feeling like throwing your hands up in the air and saying, “Whatever! I’m done!” and groan and moan.
The unfair part is that these bad decisions are affecting people who were making the right decisions and living within their means. The people who managed their money well are giving their tax dollars to support the stupid people, but they have to let that happen. This is where it got fuzzy for me. I kept thinking, “Why does it matter whether or not the government helps these people?” Besides it being a moral matter of so many people losing their homes, I couldn’t
understand why these mistakes affected everyone who owns a home. NBC News finally clarified that when people foreclose on their house, the value of that house goes down, as well as the value of the houses around it. On Meet The Press (32 Minutes Into that Video Clip) David Gregory states that the problem is that “doing nothing is not a good option.” Even if people are mad because they made their payments by adding a second job or something, they can’t complain about federal funding because it’s the only way that the housing market will stabilize and their homes will maintain their value. Someone on Meet the Press said that people feel like they are the Ants taking Care of Grasshoppers (A Bug’s Life anyone?) The only difference there is that grasshoppers, at least in the movie A Bug’s Life, pressure ants to do all the work, whereas, this was a case of misjudgement, greed, and ignorance.Humans aren't the only ones being affected by the housing crisis: pets are too. When homes are foreclosed and people are losing jobs, petowners often have to move to renting situations, where pets aren't always allowed. For example, the Berkshire, where many AU students reside, does not allow dogs, and only allows cats for a certain amount of money. Even if a family who recently foreclosed on their home could keep their pets in their renting situation, they most likely are struggling financially and are forced to give up their pets. According to Shankblog, people are doing this left and right, and not just the typical drop them off in the shelter method- they are simply leaving pets behind in the houses they can't afford. What happens to them, then? So not only do the people who have been handling their money well pay the taxes to support others, but not they have to pay up to $150 for adoption of pets
who are now homeless.As negative about this situation as I sound, I honestly think the giving of people who have been able to maintain their lives to those who have had some trouble and made bad decisions show how well this country can support each other. We all make mistakes, and this happened to be a widespread, financial crisis-size mistake, but it is something our country can make it through.
Does Anybody Care?
By Jordan Coughenour
Not more than four or five months ago, the housing crisis was the center of the recession-related news. Every blogger was giving their input as to how it could be resolved, drawing connections between it to anything and everything, most notably the influx of "It's a Wonderful Life" related articles around Christmas time.
In the period that has passed since then however, the financial depression (can we call it that already?!) has gotten infinitely more complicated and large in scope. Realtors at one point were the only group who had a bulls eye painted on their forehead for their careless lending and mortgages. Now we can take aim at everyone from insurance agents to Congressmen to Wall Street traders and executives. The blame game has grown so much that the origins of these financially strained times are muddled, and near lost in the trillions of dollars being thrown around by the government. Huffington Post blogger William K. Black recently took it upon himself to refresh our memories on these issues with his article, "The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Understand the Housing Crisis." Though the piece was well written and the documents well chosen, the majority of commentors seemed to reject his claims and instead went to what they believed to be the crux of the issue- the bankers and the bailouts. I can't remember the last time that one of those looming "foreclosure" signs haunted the front page of prominent blogs such as The Huff Post or, even on the opposing end of the spectrum, the Drudge Report.
Who cares about a few billion dollars worth of houses sitting vacant, or their past owners' debt troubles when Wall Street executives are losing twelve zeros worth of bucks every day? If housing is covered, it's thrown in with another topic, such as Detroit automakers' woes. The bredth of the situation has simply grown too large, with stakes that go beyond a fancy living room and a golf course view, that housing crisis seems to be only one of many larger issues covered by bloggers in this wide-reaching time of ruin.
Not more than four or five months ago, the housing crisis was the center of the recession-related news. Every blogger was giving their input as to how it could be resolved, drawing connections between it to anything and everything, most notably the influx of "It's a Wonderful Life" related articles around Christmas time.
Maybe Pottersville wasn't such a bad idea after all...
In the period that has passed since then however, the financial depression (can we call it that already?!) has gotten infinitely more complicated and large in scope. Realtors at one point were the only group who had a bulls eye painted on their forehead for their careless lending and mortgages. Now we can take aim at everyone from insurance agents to Congressmen to Wall Street traders and executives. The blame game has grown so much that the origins of these financially strained times are muddled, and near lost in the trillions of dollars being thrown around by the government. Huffington Post blogger William K. Black recently took it upon himself to refresh our memories on these issues with his article, "The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Understand the Housing Crisis." Though the piece was well written and the documents well chosen, the majority of commentors seemed to reject his claims and instead went to what they believed to be the crux of the issue- the bankers and the bailouts. I can't remember the last time that one of those looming "foreclosure" signs haunted the front page of prominent blogs such as The Huff Post or, even on the opposing end of the spectrum, the Drudge Report.
What about me?!
Who cares about a few billion dollars worth of houses sitting vacant, or their past owners' debt troubles when Wall Street executives are losing twelve zeros worth of bucks every day? If housing is covered, it's thrown in with another topic, such as Detroit automakers' woes. The bredth of the situation has simply grown too large, with stakes that go beyond a fancy living room and a golf course view, that housing crisis seems to be only one of many larger issues covered by bloggers in this wide-reaching time of ruin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)