“The difference between playing the stock market and the horses is that one of the horses must win.” This was the lament of a BlueWaters lunch last week. Some of the most humorous things I’ve ever heard were about money. Perhaps it is because, as Voltaire said, “when it comes to money, everybody is of the same religion.” Perhaps it is because sometimes all a man can do is laugh. The stock market, as “the experts” tell us, is still trying to find a bottom. Meanwhile, the government announced last week that it would sell $55 billion in bonds next week as part of the massive borrowing plan to pay for its financial rescue packages. Some say that figure might have to expand to over $300 billion by the first quarter of 2009. And that does not include any possible life preserver thrown to the US auto industry. Clearly the bottom has not yet been reached.
I’ve given my opinion several times over the past year about the possible dangers of other countries buying our bonds as part of their Sovereign Wealth Funds, and using the influence that investment provides as political leverage in the future. I’d feel a little bit better about the proposed sale of stocks if the US government released some sort of statement that might indicate that they are at least aware of the possibility of such a conflict of interests in the future. I haven’t heard a word about it. And maybe that is to be expected. A drowning man doesn’t much care who is throwing him a rope. I (still) would like to think that someone at the upper levels of government has their eye on this sort of thing, and a contingency plan for the future exists should the United States suddenly find itself leveraged into decisions it would not otherwise make.
I admit to being snowed under by all the negative economic news on the heels of the exhaustive (and exhausting) presidential campaign. I look back nostalgically to the pre-crisis and pre-election days when Janet Jackson’s exposed breast might be the most compelling story of the day. Today she could run naked through the stock market and all anyone would want to know was what she was buying or selling.
By Myron Gushlak
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Blame Game
The Blame Game has started in earnest trying to pin the blame to a specific face (or faces) for the world wide financial crisis. This past week, the New York Times nominated Henry Cisneros, Bill Clinton’s top housing official as a partial culprit. All Cisneros did (as well as the former President) was to try to bring the American dream of home ownership to a wider portion of the population. Borrowing eligibility standards were lowered. In fact, they were practically dispensed with altogether.
A couple of months ago I wrote about well intentioned people trying to help others. I referred to the Dooling novel, White Man’s Grave, while discussing the Myanmar refusal to allow charitable aid into their country after a devastating earthquake. I was merely pointing out that help isn’t always received in the way it was intended. Things sometimes go inexplicably wrong in the charitable transaction, no matter how well intentioned. Many thought my words were misanthropic, at best, and “disgustingly anti-social” at worst. I was accused of using logic to rationalize being un-charitable. In my defense, the Myron Gushlak Foundation says otherwise (), but I did not choose to argue (if I could have). Andrew Carnegie, one of the twentieth century’s most prolific philanthropists said “One of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity.” One assumes he was serious.
I’m not saying that people should not try to help their neighbor. That would be anti-Christian and politically insensitive. And even though I’m not running for anything, I still would never suggest such a thing. I’m just saying that whenever someone offers to help me, I instinctively put my hand to my pocket to make sure my wallet is safe. “Home ownership for everyone!” much like “a chicken in every pot!” never seems to work out as nicely as it sounds. Somewhere, somehow, there is always some poor cattle rancher going out of business because no one’s buying beef anymore as the pots get filled with chickens. All I’m saying is that the housing market was moving along quite nicely with an almost incessant steady though non-spectacular growth year after year, decade after decade. It wasn’t broke. For sixty years or more, people bought houses, made money slowly and incrementally. Why did anyone feel the need to fix what wasn’t broke?
By Myron Gushlak
A couple of months ago I wrote about well intentioned people trying to help others. I referred to the Dooling novel, White Man’s Grave, while discussing the Myanmar refusal to allow charitable aid into their country after a devastating earthquake. I was merely pointing out that help isn’t always received in the way it was intended. Things sometimes go inexplicably wrong in the charitable transaction, no matter how well intentioned. Many thought my words were misanthropic, at best, and “disgustingly anti-social” at worst. I was accused of using logic to rationalize being un-charitable. In my defense, the Myron Gushlak Foundation says otherwise (), but I did not choose to argue (if I could have). Andrew Carnegie, one of the twentieth century’s most prolific philanthropists said “One of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity.” One assumes he was serious.
I’m not saying that people should not try to help their neighbor. That would be anti-Christian and politically insensitive. And even though I’m not running for anything, I still would never suggest such a thing. I’m just saying that whenever someone offers to help me, I instinctively put my hand to my pocket to make sure my wallet is safe. “Home ownership for everyone!” much like “a chicken in every pot!” never seems to work out as nicely as it sounds. Somewhere, somehow, there is always some poor cattle rancher going out of business because no one’s buying beef anymore as the pots get filled with chickens. All I’m saying is that the housing market was moving along quite nicely with an almost incessant steady though non-spectacular growth year after year, decade after decade. It wasn’t broke. For sixty years or more, people bought houses, made money slowly and incrementally. Why did anyone feel the need to fix what wasn’t broke?
By Myron Gushlak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)