Tag Archives: New York Times

New York Times FINALLY Says NO to Housing Bailouts…

An article published on March 14th by Joe Nocera of the New York Times finally called it out clearly that homeowners who got  in over their head shouldn’t be helped by the government. Take this part from Mr. Nocera’s article:

I suppose you could argue that most … lacked the ability or the financial sophistication of someone like Mr. Hedges. But it shouldn’t have mattered…

“These were people with a fair amount of money, and most of them sought no professional advice,” said Bruce C. Greenwald, who teaches value investing at the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University. “It’s like trying to do your own dentistry.” Mr. Hedges said, “It is a real lesson that people cannot abdicate personal responsibility when it comes to their personal finances.”

And that’s the point. People did abdicate responsibility — and now, rather than face that fact, many of them are blaming the government for not, in effect, saving them from themselves…There is a powerful sense that because the agency was asleep at the switch, they have been doubly victimized. And they want the government to do something about it.

And how about this snippet:

“The government should come and say, ‘We bailed out so many others, we can bail you out, and when you will do better, you can give us back the money,’ ” he (Elie Wiesel) said at the Portfolio event.

But why? What happened … is terrible. But every day in this country, people lose money due to financial fraud or negligence. Innocent investors who bought stock in Enron lost millions when that company turned out to be a fraud; nobody made them whole…People lose it all because they start a company that turns out to be misguided, or because they do something that is risky, hoping to hit the jackpot. Taxpayers don’t bail them out, and they shouldn’t start now. Did the S.E.C. foul up? You bet. But that doesn’t mean the investors themselves are off the hook. Investors blaming the S.E.C. for their decision to give every last penny to Bernie Madoff is like a child blaming his mother for letting him start a fight while she wasn’t looking.

OK, now for a little truth-telling. As you may have been able to surmise this WASN’T and article about housing bailouts but about victims ot Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme but isnt’ the sentment the same? In fact its worse than that with respect to homeloaners.  Here Mr. Nocera is saying that vicitms of an outright fraud and theft don’t deserve government help.  The victims in the housing industry are, for the most part, NOT vicitms of fraud (yes there was some but seriously its a VERY small part of the market) and therefore should get even less help. I mean if you aren’t going to help vicitms of crime then why would you even help those that are victims of themselves and just plain bad circumstances.

Does it make any difference that the money lost was in investments as opposed to a house?  Technically it shouldn’t (you spend less either way) but housing has been given a special, irrational place in society as something different.  True you don’t live in your investments but you can always rent, you don’t have to actually own a house (and if you hold a mortgage you don’t “own” your house anyway, you have an option to own in 15-30 years).  But renters are the invisible detritus of society but that is a topic better covered here.

Thank you Mr. Nocera (you can also email him your thanks as well) for being a voice of reason! Please help the New York Times editorial department see that reason as well. Or is that not what you really meant?

(You can see the original text of Mr. Nocera’s article here.)

P.S. See how the Obama administration has now come out AGAINST  in-bankruptcy loan modifications in this article.

Obama HURTS 100 Million to Help 9 Million

Dear President Obama,

HI!,  yoo-hoo, over here, we are 100,000,000 men, women and children who rent and we seem to be invisible to you and the media (including NPR, New York Times and the Wall Street Journal) but clearly our numbers make us important.  We are wondering why you are helping 9 million people at the expense of me and my 99,999,999 friends, neighbors and fellow countrymen.   Not to mention the additional millions of former homeowners who will soon join us because they rationally decided to live within their means and rent.

But how is your plan hurting 100,000,000 renters?  It is hurting them in three major ways:

  1. By putting a floor (and debatable how stable or realistic that floor is) under housing prices above what they were before the bubble began you are continuing to price renters out of the market.
  2. By raising the deficit you are going to be putting some of the tax burden on renters (yes some will go to homeowners as well).
  3. Because many former owner-occupied properties have turned into rentals rental prices are actually falling.  By keeping people in houses they can’t afford you will, in effect, raise rents again.

The net result is that you are charging renters, through the eventual taxes needed to pay for this, for the privilege of NOT being able to afford a house while also raising their current rents.  This reminds me of the former Soviet practice of making soon-to-be-victims of execution pay for their own bullets and then charging their families for their burials.

Point #1: This plan is further eliminating renters ability to buy a home by reducing their income (through higher taxes and raising rents) and through maintaining artificially high prices (through so-called “stabilization”). 

To make matter worse renters comprise those who either can’t or have decided not to overextend themselves to have the “American Dream” (which was originally “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” until it got co-opted by marketing experts in the real-estate industry in the last century).  Renters are STILL disproportionately Hispanic and African-American and lower income.  Homeowners are disproportionately white and have higher incomes.

Home Ownership by Race  - (US Census Bureau)

Home Ownership by Race - (US Census Bureau)

Point #2: Helping homeowners at the expense of renters is yet another transfer of wealth from the lower class to the upper class.  How Bush-league.

Oh and why would the the vast majority of homeowners (who do, truthfully, outnumber renters) care to help us ? Very simply because the  survival of any market (or pyramid scheme which the housing market has proven to be) depends on a continous stream of first-time buyers to fuel growth from the bottom.  By attacking renters you are attacking the first-time buyer base and, while you may temporarily save the market, you are draining the pool in the medium to long term.

Point #3: Homeowners need to watch out for renters if they want to truly protect their home values.

How can you help?  Well if you can’t bring yourself to let the market work out the right price then at least provide renters with some rental income tax deductions so they don’t wind up paying (two to three times) for the mistakes of homeowners.  Additionally this will help incent those on the edge of home-ownership not to over-stretch to buy a house so they can get the equivalent mortgage income tax deduction.  Its the least you can do.

Finally, of those 9 million you are helping, at the expense of 100,000,000, how many got themselves into their situations by cashing out their equity cushion for home-improvements, new cars or family vacations?  I guess its comforting to know that the money we saved by renting will go to buy some nice stuff…even if it isn’t ours.

DO YOU HAVE A STORY OF HOMEOWNERSHIP GONE BAD?  If so share it on reallyfuckedhomeowner.com.

ADDENDUM: In honor of Rick Santelli’s Tea Party I have posted his poll here so you can voice your opinion to the Obama adminstration.

Rick Santelli  of CNBC (as do I)  want to know the following:

To see what the Rick Santelli Housing Bailout Tea Party is all about see this video

Introducing a New Feature

Dear Reader,

I am proud to announce a new feature of “Watching the Marcitz” called “Letters to the Editor”.   I myself have often written letters to the editors or commented on articles on their websites.  The problem is the chance of publication in the printed edition is slim-to-none and often the website postings are moderated.  In the desire to allow the free-form change of ideas I will be posting articles relevant to the topics covered here and allowing anyone to publish their comment against those articles.

Also I will be accepting nominations for articles to place on this sight so you, your friends or anyone else can comment on them.

To see the articles availale for comment please check out the Letters to the Editor category.   If you seen an article you would like to comment on then click on that post and submit a comment at the bottom.

I hope you enjoy the increased freedom of speech this new feature provides.

If you would like to submit an article then email me at watchingmarcitz@yahoo.com.

BLOG ON!!!

Congress Takes a Page from GM Playbook -WHY???

On Saturday there was an article in the New York Times entitled “At GM, Innovation Sacrificed to Profits“.  The headline of this article should have been “At Congress, Innovation Sacrificed to Profits” and it should have been about the House’s current proposed solution to GM’s “problem” because the parallels are prophetic, ironic and downright scary.  According to this article, GM, when faced with a chance to innovate, would eventually take the money for innovation and redirect it to fund the base business.


If the current proposal goes through to reassign the $25 billion fund, which is slated for innovation, because, and I quote the article, “the money was needed elsewhere” then Congress will be following in GM’s footsteps (a set of footsteps it has been criticizing strongly for the past two weeks) and, one can rightfully assume, will be doomed to the same fate – That’s the PROPHETIC.


Are Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Frank aware that they are behaving just like GM in their current actions? That’s the IRONIC


While GM can go to Congress when it fails who can Congress go to when it makes the same bad decisions?  We the taxpayers – That’s the SCARY.


Is anyone else concerned that Congress has shown no ability to learn EITHER from its own mistakes (how’s their last financial bailout plan going?) let alone the mistakes of others? That’s just SAD

I Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself

I recently stumbled upon this excellent response to a misguided New York Times editorial that argued that GM needed to be protected from bankruptcy.  The response, posted by Mr. Lancelot Fletcher, argued that, in fact, bankruptcy was exactly the remedy that is needed, is not all that bad and is the best course for GM and the economy.  While these were the exact points I wanted to make Mr. Fletcher beat me to it and I like to give credit where credit is due.  To that end I have reproduced Mr. Fletcher’s comments below:

Isn’t this — the current plight of the big auto makers — exactly what Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code was designed for? Chapter 11 is not the “drop dead” option. (That would be Chapter 7.) A Chapter 11 debtor normally proposes a plan of reorganization to keep the business alive, pay creditors over time, and ultimately return to profitability. Many large companies have entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy without ceasing operations and some (e.g. Delta Airlines) have subsequently emerged as profitable enterprises.

I don’t think the opponents of a Washington bailout for the auto industry are proposing that the Big Three should be simply liquidated under Chapter 7. Hence talk about the millions of jobs that would be lost if bailout legislation is not enacted is misleading and exaggerated.

If the opposing sides on this issue would listen to each other, they might discover that they are not that far apart. The advocates of the bailout are not proposing to have the government simply lend money to the auto companies with no strings attached. They are proposing to require, as a condition of the loan, that the industry agree to a far-reaching reorganization of the industry. On the other hand, reorganization is precisely what is required in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It’s true that in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy the US Congress does not normally get to dictate the terms of the reorganization. But most Americans would probably agree that having the government specify the terms of business organization is not a good idea. So the argument of the opponents of the bailout might be that we should not enact new laws to do what the existing laws are already capable of accomplishing.

Thank you Mr. Fletcher!

How to vote NO on the GM, Ford and Chrysler Bailout

GM is mounting a campaign to save itself after years of self-neglect.  Even Thomas Friedman of the New York Times thinks protecting the current company and management is a bad idea.

GM has set up a number to have your voice heard.  Granted they want you to call and profess support but you can also call this number to say “NO!” to bailing out inefficent companies that have had ample time to fix it themselves (35 years since this problem happened once before). 

Simply call 1-866-927-2233, enter your zip code and you will be able to connect with your representatives (Senate and House).  When you are connected say:

“I DO NOT support any bailout of General Motors (or Ford or Chrysler) and feel that, in the long run, the country will be better positioned if the current companies are left to make the hard-choices that will make them competitive in the future.”

In addition you can also send a personalized email to the President, Vice President and your members of congress though FreedomWorks.org.

If you need more reasons just ask the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal.

I Want to Have Thomas Friedman’s Baby

But how…well its true that how matters.  Another clear, introspective and fair piece by Thomas Friedman.  It really is that simple.  Don’t blame others, don’t blame complexity, go back to the basics.  Oh and don’t tell my wife.