![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bookofmirrorsOK... much as I've tried to be more informed about things lately, stuff that relates to the economy just goes RIGHT over my head. I read, and I tilt my head to one side, and make "mmmrrr?" noises, and hope I look so cute doing so that no one notices how completely clueless I am.
ThinkMonkey, however, like most of the people on my friendslist, ain't stoopid, and he came up with this.
I'm guessing others on my list also have an opinion, and likely a different one, so I'm hoping people will comment, and debate, and maybe out of all that, I can make enough sense of the issue to come up with an (educated) opinion of my own.
*shrug* It could happen.
EDIT: OK, I admit that I posted this, in an effort to clean up the tabs I had up, before reading all the hyperlinks in his post. I have now done so (and am glad I linked to his post, rather than simply copied it over, because the hyperlinks MAKE the post), and, true or not, I think I have a decent comprehension of it. Still happy to have comments, though. But, here's my take... assuming that these articles are correct, and that the derivatives market was, in fact, the Big Bad in the economic crisis... then it just goes back to what I said earlier about socialism and objectivism (you have to slough through a bunch of stuff to get to that part) - namely, that they're both good on paper, and, as I came to the conclusion later, objectivism is probably the better option, if for no other reason than it's almost impossible to actually practice socialism even in the best case scenario (think absolutely second-to-second revisions to make sure that "fair share" was still fair, given all the changes that can occur to make what was "fair" 2 seconds ago suddenly become inequitable... bureaucratic nightmare, and literally impossible with today's technology)... but it all boils down to the lack of integrity of individuals. And, in this case, if I read it right, the derivative market basically started because someone played on someone else's fear. Create legislation that gives a fair shake to low-income families (apparently mostly minorities), lenders get scared (and remember what![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tacit said about fear), and others play on that fear... "Psst... hey, you're worried that that [insert derogatory term for low-income/minority here] who has the same credit rating as the [insert glowing term for high-income/non-minority here] that you've been loaning to won't be able to pay it off? Hear, let me offer you something to assuage your fears." I may have that part wrong, especially since the derivative market didn't seem to come about until they actually started making the loans to people who really DID have questionable means of paying them off. But still... fear. Fear on the part of the people who thought that, if they didn't get the loan to get them in the house, they'd be out of the American Dream, and never "make it". Fear on the part of the people who made the questionable loans that, if they didn't, they'd be considered racist or somesuch. And greed, of course, is ultimately fear of not/never having enough. *sigh* The whole world needs therapy.
ThinkMonkey, however, like most of the people on my friendslist, ain't stoopid, and he came up with this.I'm guessing others on my list also have an opinion, and likely a different one, so I'm hoping people will comment, and debate, and maybe out of all that, I can make enough sense of the issue to come up with an (educated) opinion of my own.
*shrug* It could happen.
EDIT: OK, I admit that I posted this, in an effort to clean up the tabs I had up, before reading all the hyperlinks in his post. I have now done so (and am glad I linked to his post, rather than simply copied it over, because the hyperlinks MAKE the post), and, true or not, I think I have a decent comprehension of it. Still happy to have comments, though. But, here's my take... assuming that these articles are correct, and that the derivatives market was, in fact, the Big Bad in the economic crisis... then it just goes back to what I said earlier about socialism and objectivism (you have to slough through a bunch of stuff to get to that part) - namely, that they're both good on paper, and, as I came to the conclusion later, objectivism is probably the better option, if for no other reason than it's almost impossible to actually practice socialism even in the best case scenario (think absolutely second-to-second revisions to make sure that "fair share" was still fair, given all the changes that can occur to make what was "fair" 2 seconds ago suddenly become inequitable... bureaucratic nightmare, and literally impossible with today's technology)... but it all boils down to the lack of integrity of individuals. And, in this case, if I read it right, the derivative market basically started because someone played on someone else's fear. Create legislation that gives a fair shake to low-income families (apparently mostly minorities), lenders get scared (and remember what
tacit said about fear), and others play on that fear... "Psst... hey, you're worried that that [insert derogatory term for low-income/minority here] who has the same credit rating as the [insert glowing term for high-income/non-minority here] that you've been loaning to won't be able to pay it off? Hear, let me offer you something to assuage your fears." I may have that part wrong, especially since the derivative market didn't seem to come about until they actually started making the loans to people who really DID have questionable means of paying them off. But still... fear. Fear on the part of the people who thought that, if they didn't get the loan to get them in the house, they'd be out of the American Dream, and never "make it". Fear on the part of the people who made the questionable loans that, if they didn't, they'd be considered racist or somesuch. And greed, of course, is ultimately fear of not/never having enough. *sigh* The whole world needs therapy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-21 10:51 pm (UTC)Of course, then there's stupidity, which may be somehow connected to the Blind Faith you mention. :)
You could very well be right about the race/class thing being exaggerated. I wasn't honestly sure about that one, myself. I suppose there are numbers out there that may or may not support a connection.
I agree with you on the greed thing. I just think greed, in general, stems from fear, though. One isn't greedy if they feel they have Enough (be it money, material goods, security, love, etc.). When you fear you don't have adequate amounts of those things (and other stuff I may have neglected to include), then you seek them (or some substitute...) out in various ways, in order to alleviate your fear. Fear makes people blind to consequences... either to themselves, the person(s) being exploited, or the bigger picture. It's completely irrational, of course, completely distorted. No doubt those who were part of the predatory lending really thought they NEEDED that extra cash, extra whatever... Straw houses. Some may have even fooled themselves that they were doing it so that their employees would prosper, as well. But yeah... people who are secure simply don't have any use for greed.