Making my position known publicly is a dangerous thing to do these days what with all the angry targeting of supporters of these propositions.  Of late, people who voted in favor of these measures have found themselves the targets of vitriol and name-calling of the worst kind.

I’m not ashamed of my vote.  I know why I made it and it has nothing to do with discrimination.  It has everything to do with my belief that words mean things, that historical uses of language should not be tampered with without very good reason, and my long study of philosophy, law, and history has led me to an understanding of the unintended consequences that result when institutions are eliminated by fiat, or (which is the same) by eliminating the ways people can talk about them or refer to them.

I think everyone is totally missing the point about this Prop 102 and 8 stuff, and I hope to explain why.

Some of us don’t see this issue from the perspective of ONLY a gay and lesbian perspective. Some of us have studied the implications and unintended consequences of changing the definition of a vital, pre-political institution and its effects on law, society, religious rights, and gender relations.

I have gay and lesbian friends who I respect and love. I respect their decisions to live their lives as they see fit and I do not doubt their sincerity. I have worked with co-workers who experience same sex attraction and some of whom have same sex partners; they are people I admire and who contribute greatly to society and whose kindnesses have blessed my life.

I respect them and I respect their desires and actions though I do not always agree with them.

My support of marriage meaning the union of a man and a woman doesn’t have anything to do with wanting to deny my gay and lesbian friends happiness.

In my view, to redefine marriage as anything but the union of a man and a woman goes far beyond recognizing that some people of the same sex have strong feelings of attraction for one another, form committed relationships with each other, and want that relationship recognized.  In my opinion, changing the definition of marriages to accommodate this goes far more than this and goes well beyond the scope.

After carefully studying the issue, I identified two areas that particularly concerned me.

One has to do with retroactive application of changed definition to historical uses of the word in law and in civil society.

The other has to do with implications to other long-standing institutions, particularly religious and educational institution.

A major part of this “battle for marriage” – so called – has to do, really, with religious freedom and what Christian and other religions see as the coming encroachment on religious freedom and their freedom to practice their teachings and beliefs.  The issue at stake, right now, which threatens to radically alter that just happens to be gay marriage.

See this article for a really, really good exposition on what this is really about. To redefine marriage as anything but the union of a man and a woman has far reaching implications and unintended consequences for all kinds of traditional institutions, especially religious and educational ones, and it poses a distinct threat to religious and educational rights:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

The gay marriage issue has far-reaching implications for religious freedom.  One must remember that religious freedoms are freedoms worth recognizing as well, and groups should not be allowed to willy-nilly trample on religious rights and freedoms without very good reason – and the burden of that reason doesn’t merely rely on religious institution to defend, but on others who desire the change to affirm the changes.

So, please, please, please read the article above for a better understanding of the issues at stake.

The collision between religious organizations and marriage-definition-altering-to-allow-inclusion-of-gay-union advocates is at heart a tug-of-war between ever widening definitions of what a civil right might be and an ever narrower definition of what a religious right might be.

Where the two collide, you’re going to see sparks. And since the definitions of what are civil rights continues to expand, and allowances for religious rights continues to narrow, you can see that certain groups are “losing turf” and others are “grabbing turf”.  Religion has been playing defense, but recently it has said “enough is enough” and gone on offense.  And many non-religious people have found the arguments compelling. Bay-marriage-advocates would like religion-rights advocates to just shut up and stop voicing their opinions and so that’s why you see the vitriol.

For me, personally, I was surprised to see Prop 8 pass in California, though not surprised to see Prop. 102 pass in Arizona.  I think many religious people who supported Prop 8 were still surprised that it passed given the demonization of those who supported it (and the continued deomonization which continues today – see http://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/story/1391705.html )..

To lay this at any one church’s feet is dumb, though. Anyone is free to put forth a point of view on the issue.  The only people ultimately responsible for the outcome of a given ballot measure are the voters.

The people of California decided Prop 8. One of the most “liberal” populaces in the country decided this. If it issue should be taken with anyone, it should be taken it up with the people of California, not the people who took the time to express their opinion on the matter (and found that the majority of Californians agreed with them).

Losing parties always need scapegoats. Right now some Republicans are blaming other Republicans for the loss in the election (instead of, surprisingly, blaming the people who refused to vote for them, or blaming themselves for their inability to convince voters to vote for them).

It perhaps has not occurred to opponents f Prop 8 or Prop 102 that they failed to articulate their cause as they should have. The burden was on them to show why the traditional definition of marriage should not be codified constitutionally, and they failed.

I understand that right now it hurts and so they’re looking for the most convenient scapegoat (those who expressed a compelling case to voters on the matter). However, they really ought to be angry only with themselves for failing to be as persuasive as they ought or with those who didn’t actually pull the lever for them for failing to be persuaded by their arguments.

Opponents of Prop 8 and 102 will have other chances to articulate their beliefs in the future and I assume that at some point they’ll come to realize that they’ll have to do a better job of explaining and vitriolic protests targeting churches and members of a religion only make them look like anti-religious bigots and hurts their cause. (When making a charge of bigotry toward one group it’s very important to not act like a bigot oneself).

It’s very important that religious organizations remind gay-marriage advocates that the burden is on them to convince people that there is no fundamental, important difference between defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and instead defining it as the union of two (or more) people (or “living beings” or “human beings” or whatever the definition may be).

Some people argue that an easy way around this would be to give each different union a different name, but recognize it legally as a “union.”  I believe their argument goes something like this

Union of man and woman is marriage. Call the union of a man and a man, for example, garriage. Call the union of a woman and a woman larriage. Make law that apples for all three in general, or for marriage, garriage, and larriage in particular. All previous law that uses the word marriage applies only to marriage.  On a case by case basis it can be amended by votes of the people which laws also apply to garriage and larriage.

This approach recognizes that there needs be a legal, definitional way of distinguishing differing states of union because the unions are composed of differences!  Not all issues relevant to a man-woman union are the same as man-man and woman-woman issues. I know that there are peoples that want to see the complete dissolution of difference between men and women, but that is just a very difficult argument to make in light of nature and sexual difference being what it is; sexual and power asymmetries exist between men and women in a way that they do not exist between men and men and women and women and language and institutions distinguish this in ways appropriate to distinct types of unions.

Not only could a redefinition result in great legal confusions, but it also mixes stuff up in everyday life. Here’s one semi-trivial example of how things change not just in legal ways – but in social ways – if the definition of marriage is change.   Imagine being at a party and being introduced to someone, “This is Mike, he’s married to Pat.”  Do you then have to ask, is Pat a man or a woman?  Or is this poor form to ask? Should it not then matter whether ones spouse is man or woman?  If Pat is a woman and your wife is looking for a woman to join her book club is it offensive for you to ask if Pat is a woman on these grounds?  Is it wrong for your wife to want to invite a woman to her book club?

However, if Pat were man and we knew that the word marriage describes a state of union between man and a woman, but other unions are defined differently, you could be introduced, “This is Mike, he’s garried to Pat.”  No confusion, and you understand they’re united in a man-man union.

Man-man unions, woman-man unions, and man-woman unions are different and ought to at least have definitional differences and different words to describe them.

Here’s another example. Every child born into a post-traditional-marriage-age who reads, say, Dickens, is left to wonder, pray tell, whether a certain character described as married is married to a man or woman.  No, you say, you know it refers to heterosexual marriage because it was written in the 1800s.  Or do you?  Is the new question every child must ask, “Was this work written before or after 2008 so that I can understand what this word means?”

But, some say, marriage is a civil right and to deny that to gay people is to oppress them.

To me, it seems to be quite a leap to claim that:

1. the codification of the definition and meaning of an institution that has existed for several millennia

is somehow

2. a denial of basic civil rights to someone

I believe that because that claim - to prove that leap - was not successfully made by those who claim that #1 results in #2 that Prop 8 failed to pass.

One might try and draw and equivalence between marriage and another institution and thereby go about proving this.

They may say, well, slavery’s an institution and that existed for millennia, and it was codified (at least implicitly), and it denied rights (same with property-owning-male voting rights).  And in one sense, you’d be right.  BUT, in another sense you wouldn’t.  The word “slavery” itself means to deny a person the right to his own life or property.  Embedded in the definition of slavery WAS the denial of a civil right.

To show equivalence with marriage you’d have to show that marriage, by its definition, strips those found in the institution of their rights, or those found outside it of their rights.

Those opposed to the definition of marriage as man and woman claim that by not being able to apply the definition to themselves they are denied civil rights.

To say that a state of non-marriage is a state equivalent to other oppressed states is a real stretch. If so, every unmarried person (whether they want to be or not) is an oppressed person.

So the question now becomes, what rights are those rights denied and on what grounds are they denied and is there any legitimacy to these grounds?  If there is some remedy to this outside of redefining marriage, is that acceptable to you?  If not, why not?

As you’re seeing, words do mean things. Words correspond to states of affairs in the real world. And the word “marriage” has corresponded to a particular state of affairs for a long time. It’s a pre-political and pre-legal institution described by a pre-political and pre-legal word that defined a pre-political and pre-legal state-of-affairs. To formally codify it (if only by legal necessity) and say, “Yes, when we say ‘marriage’ this is what we mean. When the word ‘marriage’ was written into any law over the last 1200 years the state-of-affairs the writers intended was X” is perfectly legitimate and does not discriminate in any way.

To me, if a word is going to be “hijacked” for a new use, especially a word that has been used to define a state of affairs for millenia (and yes, that’s what the courts have done, hijack these very important words so that they not longer mean what they were intended to mean for millennia), then you have to have a pretty good reason and argument for doing so, since you’re not only changing the meaning going forward but also retroactively changing the meaning of all statements made using that word previously.

It does perplexes me why a vote should even be had, but if the choice is between a vote and a group of elitist judges making decisions they have no business making, then it’s certainly fair to put that to a vote so that the group of people who use the word can at least agree on the meaning of it.  The words in laws and constitutions mean things.  If there’s confusion over what they mean, let’s define them as a society (not judges).  Do we wish to change the meaning of a word or do we intend it to mean what it always has?

This issue is so much deeper than most admit.

I understand the word marriage has been used several hundreds of thousands of times in acts of legislation and in court decisions.  When the word was used in these instances, it was always used with the “state of affairs” in mind as being man and woman.

The argument that the courts were right to retroactively change of the intent of the use of the word “marriage” wasn’t compelling enough to garner support through a vote. Voters decided to let it have the meaning it has always had up until a few months ago in CA, when a group of 4 judges decided to turn language on its head.

I think it was the right decision.

Now, the debate should be over whether or not there are any fundamental differences in the unions between woman-man, man-man, and woman-women and, if so, what those are and what they mean legally.

I do think there are fundamental differences. I think the union of a man and a woman in marriage is THE most important institution in human civil and social society – it’s the only union wherein a person can be created. Additionally, I believe it is a great social good to have children raised and nurtured by a mother and a father, learning intimately the different natures between men and women and learning mutual respect for both sexes. Children raised in a stable home with a mother and father present have great advantages to achieve life success. We ought to encourage more, not less, committed and loving marriages between men and women because these unions do a vital work that no other union can do in the same way.

And that’s my take.  And I understand that with some people it’s not popular, but it is the way I have reasoned through the issues.

One last note. Recently, I’ve seen claims that “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was, by far, the biggest financer of California’s heinous and hateful Proposition 8.”

Actually, that’s a false statement. As far as I’m aware the church didn’t give money to the effort other than pay some travel expenses on the order of $2000 or so for some leaders to travel to California to speak with leaders of other churches who supported Prop 8.

Citizens of the state of California and the US exercised their constitutional privileges to express their opinions.

It’s fair to say the LDS church called attention to the issue and asked members to support it. It’s fair to say that members of the LDS church donated money to organizations helping bring awareness to the issue. To say the LDS church bankrolled it is patently false, disingenuous, and intended to mislead.

You may as well say, “The United States bankrolled it” since the LDS people who donated time or money are citizens of the US too.

The targeting of the LDS churches by vandals, of LDS church members who have had their lives and safety threatened, is simply unacceptable and does not advance the cause of those who would seek to redefine marriage as anything but a man and a woman.  There can and should be civil discourse on these matters.

Technorati Tags: gay marriage, marraige, traditional marriage, proposition 102, proposition 8

I supported the Republican Nominee, John McCain, through his candidacy; he’s an American Hero and good man, but once it became apparent to me that he’d win my state of Arizona, I decided to vote the person closest to my ideas about government.

If the race were close, I’d have pulled the lever for McCain as I think he’d have done a much better job than Obama and I’m a pragmatist - essentially a “block Obama” vote.  I think that I have a duty to vote my conscience, but I’m of two minds - one is that it’s important to block those that least represent your views.  That might entail voting for a candidate you don’t prefer, but which may help block the candidate you least prefer.  The other is that you just vote your most desired option, even if it leaves you with your least desired option.

But the most recent polls eliminated this dilemma for me, and instead presented me with a new one.

I was initially torn about whether or not I’d vote Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party or Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party.  I don’t like Baldwin’s protectionist/isolationist economic views, but Ron Paul - who I really wanted to vote for - endorsed Baldwin.  In any case, I arrived at the polls this morning leaning Barr, but still undecided, only to realize that Baldwin didn’t even get on the ballot for AZ.  So there went that dilemma . . .

Still, it was kind of a sad moment.  Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were my two guys in the primaries.

I like Dr. Paul’s consistency and stance on most issues and my views align very closely with his.  But he lacks executive experience and I never thought him a real shot.

I differ with Romney - sometimes significantly - on several of his positions, but he was not only the best executive in the race, but an incredibly good man, and he’d have been wonderful for the country.

My perfect candidate would be a man or woman with Ron Paul’s positions and Mitt Romney’s abilities and temperament (and most of Romney’s positions).

Unfortunately, both Barack Obama and John McCain are not there for me, though McCain isn’t nearly as far away as Obama is.

Obama is an interventionist domestically and partly one internationally.  He’s also an incredible knot of contradictions - both personally and politically.  If he wins, I’ll support him as our president, I’ll pray for him, and I’ll praise him when he undertakes action I deem to be good.  However, I have very low expectations and have great concern that he’ll be an unmitigated disaster policy-wise.

John McCain is conservative on many domestic issues, but not on other critical ones, and he’s an interventionist internationally.  He’s a known quantity, though (though that “quantity” at time is that he’s known to be “unpredictable”).

It’s the interventionism of both that I dislike.  The biggest threat to our citizens isn’t our lack of “security.”  It’s that there’s *too much* of it at the expense of liberty.  In the name of “security” liberties are being taken left and right.

So, to sum up, since I was free to not have to cast a vote against Obama, I voted my position and pulled the lever for the Libertarian Party.  And it felt great.

Now, if it turns out that the polls are wrong and Obama takes AZ by one vote, and that decides the electoral vote process, I’m pragmatic enough to say I’d voted wrong.  Though if AZ is in play, there’s no hope for McCain anywhere, anyway.

Presidential election aside, the House and Senate races are what I’m watching.  There’s an ill wind a-blowing and only a strong Libertarian and Federalist movement can pull us back to the liberty principles this wonderful nation was founded upon.

An Obama presidency opens the door to unite the various small-government and liberty factions against the big-government interventionists.  I believe in the principles America was founded upon, and I believe that, ultimately, the American people love, cherish, and want freedom.  This could be a defining moment to get the liberty movement going once again.

Technorati Tags: john mccain, barack obama, mitt romney, ron paul, voting

Really.  No one warned you about this.  Nobody?  Nobody at all?

Maestro, do I have to point out that Ron Paul warned you about this every time he had a hearing with you over the last decade? Every Austrian economist on earth warned you?  Warned you that your cheap money lending policy would lead to an economic collapse?

But then Maestro almost redeems himself and gets the fix right.  Do nothing.  The market will self-correct.

He says

Because of their hard-won experience, markets “will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime,” he said.

“Investors, chastened, will be exceptionally cautious,” he added.

He’s finally right for once.

But Rep. Henry Waxman says the current economic crisis could have been prevented “if regulators had paid more attention and intervened with responsible legislation.“

No, friend, that’s what LED to the collapse.

But, let’s assume you’re right.  OK, then, well, who is responsible for legislation Waxman?  Well, wow, it’s YOU, Waxman.  And who are the regulators who failed to pay attention.  Well, well, well, it’s the GOVERNMENT WORKERS.

Look, it’s right in front of your nose, Waxman.  The problem isn’t the “free market.” The problem is the distortions created in the free market by government meddling.  Government is INCAPABLE of regulating anything without weakening and corrupting it.  Period.

The government was unable to regulate away the risk, and Waxman wants the government to do more “regulating”?  My gosh.  All the government did was increase moral hazard by giving the impression that they were “regulating.”

“Oh no, there’s a fire.  Quick, send in the arsonists!”

I’m still contesting the “parking ticket” they say I recieved (the day I moved from NJ), and they’re still stonewalling after 6 years on it.

For those who aren’t familiar with it, I’ll recap everything in a future post.  This is a good story in Government ineptitude and how government bullies innocent people.

Needless to say, while in NJ I received two “fictitious” parking tickets.  One was given to me when I was actually parked in a parking area (which I fought and won).  The other parking ticket just showed up in my mailbox, supposedly given to me on the day I MOVED from NJ.  No ticket was ever even given me and I never even _parked_ the car downtown where the ticket supposedly was given.

Since I had moved I disputed it remotely in the way they told me I could, but then they never ruled on it, just suspended my drivers license out of the blue.  It’s insane.  And I’m still fighting it.  They still haven’t even “ruled” on the dispute!

The first false parking ticket they tried to give me, that I fought and won, and the crazy things they did to try and cheat me (the actually painted a “no parking” stripe on the curbe 2 days after the ticket was served)!  Good thing I had “before” and “after” time stamped photos of my car.  When I got the ticket, I took a picture of the car and where it was parked - with the ticket on the windshield - showing it right in a free-park area.”  I had decided to fight the ticket (I wasn’t parked illegally), so had the photo.  Then, two days later they paint a no park stripe where I was parked.  I got a photo of that too!  When I went to court and produced the photo, the look on the judge’s face was priceless.   She had started to scold me after I explained what happened - she didn’t believe me.  Then I produced the photos and she had to apologize.

So anyway, an update post on how ridiculous New Jersey is is coming soon.  I hope they serve as encouragement to others who have been victims of abuse from so-called “law enforcement”.  You can fight.  And you can win.  You are not there to serve the “government.”  The “government” is supposed to be there to protect you, not extort money from you.  Sometimes you have to protect yourself from it.

Gotta love New Jersey - where robbing your constituents is how you say hello.

I have a friend who tells me that if I ever want to get into politics I have to pay the fines right now because my future political enemies will try and crucify me with this.  To which I say, “So What?”

If the state keeps trying to levy more and more fines against me without RULING ON THE DISPUTE, they’re in the wrong.  I’ve told them in all my letters that if they rule against me I’ll pay the original ticket, but they refuse to even weigh in on that and instead keep compounding the fees.

This is a matter of principle, and to pay a fine that was wrongly assesed but not even ruled on when disputed would do exactly the wrong thing.  If I choose to run for office, it will be to help protect people from this sort of thing.  If I don’t take a stand, if I don’t live the principles I’ll fight for, what’s the point????

Please read this post and consider forwarding it to your friends and family.

It appears that some political thugs are targeting Mormon donors to Proposition 8, making a database of them and publishing their information, noting them as Mormons and asking for other thugs to dig up material on the listed individuals to specifically try and smear them.

After I saw the list, well, I wanted on it, so I’ve made a donation to Prop 8 just to “spit in their eye”.

Please consider getting on the list by making a Prop 8 donation. Consider it an honor if you make the blacklist!

You can donate today - here: https://www.icontribute.us/protectmarriage/initiative/main

Proponents of Prop 8 are leading slightly in the polls, but are losing the money battle.  They can use all the help they can get right now.

–

To see what they’re up against, just see the post and the specific excerpt below.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/20/01429/971

Here’s the excerpts from the post.

“There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here’s a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here’s what I’m asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign . . . It also indicates if they’re Mormon or not.

If you’re interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality (sic), here’s how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal.  Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to…shall we say…less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious.  If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity.

Don’t let these thugs bully good people.  Let’s help make them sorry they ever tried.

This weekend the NY Times runs a story on Cindy McCain where they talk about her already-documented (and long-ago and now over) addiction to painkillers.

Yet …

they’ve never run a single story about Barack Obama’s admitted Cocaine use in high school and college.  (and no word of his other drug use … you don’t start with Cocaine … and did he ever go into rehab?  Did he ever deal drugs? Lots of questions here.)

Abusing painkillers is not a felony.  But even just possessing - much less using - Cocaine is a felony.

Cindy McCain is a potential first lady.   Barack Obama is the actual candidate and his felonious drug use could be explored by the NY Times if they’re really all that concerned about historical drug use.

Should this even be an issue?  Does the NY Times really want to go there?

Unbelievable.

The media is so completely in the tank this election season.

Why does Obama get a free pass for his felony drug use (Bush didn’t get one for his DUI and Clinton didn’t get one for smoking pot, but Obama gets one?)?

So it’s Panty Hose, and not Coke Nose, that the NY Times decides is the story.

Obama is planning an enormous election night victory party.

But, I’m frankly, shocked that this race is 4-5 points (and Gallup has it at three points 45-42 among likely voters) .  The fact that it is just points to just how incredibly weak Barack Obama is as a candidate.  If this was any other Democrat, this would be a 15 point lead, easy.  But this is not any other Democrat.  This is the least experienced candidate they have, and the most liberal candidate they could have run.

After three debates and a mountain of hatred against the Republican Brand, the American people aren’t ready to “throw the bums out.”  There are a lot of undecideds out there who just won’t break for Obama because they are nervous and he doesn’t reassure them.  He doesn’t have a record, doesn’t have any real experience, and he hasn’t been honest about his past associations.  Those three things are hurting him right now.

He has three weeks to reassure voters, because if he doesn’t soon the independents may not (probably won’t) break his way.

Also, he’d better watch the narrative forming here around him planning his victory party.  This could kill him for two reasons.

1 - This isn’t a time when most Americans are celebrating.  So you think you’re going to win, you’re having a party, but this isn’t the time to party.

2 - American’s don’t like premature celebrations. “Hey buddy, we haven’t actually pulled the lever for you yet and you think you have our vote, that this is in the bag.”

I understand that this race is closer than his campaign is comfortable with, so they’re trying to project the aura of inevitability . . . but that *could* backfire.

Of course, it could work.  But I’d say the odds are against that in this environment.

Obama is not closing the deal and he should be very nervous about that.

Obama had two jobs in the debates.  The first was to not make a goof of himself.  He managed to do that.  The second was to project power and confidence and imbue people with a sense that he could navigate the country through troubled waters.  He’s not doing that in the way he needed to . . . He’s close, but he hasn’t closed the deal.  McCain has room to run on that issue.  When will Obama get another chance?

He’s vulnerable.

McCain’s stump speech should repeat 1000x the phrase:

“He’s a tax raiser, I’m a tax cutter.  High taxes make the economy worse.  He wants the government to spend more money, I want the government to spend less money.  Government caused this problem and can’t fix it.  They’ll just waste your money.  I’ll fix government.  He’ll grow it.”

The undecided voters are soundbite voters, and they vote on the message that most resonates with them.

Tax raising, even if it’s just “soaking the rich”, is a bad vibe in this environment.   People are ticked off that this stuff if happening and they want a reformer who is going to fight the powers that caused this.

Here’s your trivia for the day.

Did you know that 40% of Americans don’t pay any tax at all?

So how is it that Barack Obama claims that 95% will see their taxes go down?

(Hint: he’s going to give that 40% money, straight up, as a “tax credit check” even though they pay no taxes at all . . . it’s a straight up welfare payment by way of the IRS.  Only in “liberal land” is handing you money when you pay no taxes a “tax cut”.  It’s also a lie.  Who says so?  The Wall Street Journal - the Obama campaign has not responded to the unearthing of this lie.)

Last week you probably watched what was going on on Wall Street and Washington - all these congressmen running around, the hand wringing, the panicking, the gyrating markets, the claims that we’re heading into a depression, screaming for a bailout bill - and you thought:

What the devil is going on?

What is this crisis exactly, and why could it cause another Depression?

Depressions are marked by mass unemployment and a sputtering economy. As Frank Chodorov put it, “A depression is a halting of production. Production stops when people cut down on their consumption.” People want to work, but can’t find it. People want to borrow money, but no one lends. People can’t pay their debts. They lose their homes, their cars, their businesses, their jobs.

Do you know why depressions happen?

Depressions happen because resources get put to bad uses - really bad uses.

People have gone to work in industries that provide “goods and services” that other people no longer want. For example, a few years ago everyone and their dog, it seemed, was becoming a real estate agent. Today? No demand for that. These people have had to find something else to do. In a Depression a lot of people are looking for something else to do all at the same time.

There are causes for these resources being misallocated (a bigger, better word to describe “put to bad use”), but that discussion goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

The issue now is that there’s a real fear that resources have been so terribly misallocated that the resulting adjustment is going to plunge us into another Depression.

Apparently - the politicians told us - this Depression is inevitable. That is, unless the government is to intervene. Or so says the government.

But what specifically is happening now, during the adjustment process, that’s causing this fear of economic crash and resulting depression? What might happen to cause mass unemployment, mass poverty, and why would it happen now?

I’ve been asked this question by people who don’t follow markets or the economy much, and so I resolved to write something that would help explain “how we got here” the best I can.

So, here it is. My attempt to explain in “common folks language” what’s happening right now and why it’s freaking everyone out.

I’ll leave out the numbers and instead stick to broad outlines and discussions of economic cause and effect. Buckle your seat-belt.

Here is the core thing you have to understand about where we are right now.

We’re experiencing a credit crunch of monumental proportions in the credit markets. The credit markets are the places where borrowers and lenders meet up to exchange money for promises. A borrower takes money from a lender, and in exchange for that money gives a promise - to pay back the money with interest.

What’s a credit crunch?

Simply, it’s a state-of-affairs where and when people and companies - especially companies - that need to borrow money (and in a normal market would be able to borrow money) can’t borrow money.

Lenders just aren’t lending, and instead are holding onto their money.

How do you know when a crunch is on? Do you have to ask the lenders? The borrowers?

No. Just watch interest rates. You see the signs of a credit crunch anytime interest rates suddenly go way up (and I mean, way up, like a rocket taking off to the moon).

Why do they go up in a crunch?

Because there’s not enough of the money to go around for everyone who wants it, so the people who are “selling money” have a lot of potential customers bidding for it.

Here’s a somewhat lame but illustrative example. Let’s say you have a ticket to see Britney Spears in concert at a show that seats 100,000 people. It cost you very little - 10 bucks - because no one wants to see her and there were a ton of seats.

There’s a lot of supply of seats/tickets, and very little demand.

But then you hear that the venue’s been changed to a 50 seater. Well, all of the sudden the supply of seats is down, in fact, they’ve all sold out, so now each ticket is worth a little more.

You’re thinking about selling your ticket.

But then Britney gets laryngitis, and a couple of hours before the show they announce a replacement - a surprise performance by Miley Cyrus. Well, everyone wants to see Miley, so suddenly those 50 seats are in very high demand.

Now there’s a lot of demand, and very little supply.

Everyone wants your ticket, and you sell it for $100 bucks.

That happens with money, too. When demand is low and supply is high, interest rates are low. When demand is high and supply is low, interest rates are high.

In the last couple of weeks, short term interest rates - specifically, the rates at which banks lend each other money overnight - shot up around 200%.

See, lots of people want to borrow money from lenders. And the more time that goes by that they want to borrow, but can’t, the more they’ll need to borrow, and the more desperate they become.

The crunch borrowers are experiencing right now is primarily in short-term money that companies need to borrow.

This kind of debt is called “commercial paper” but the name is really not important to our discussion, but you will understand it when you read about it.

What is important to our discussion is that you understand what happens to a company when it can’t borrow short term money when it needs it.

Notice I said need to borrow, not want to borrow. If they don’t borrow, bad things happen.

Many companies borrow money for short periods of time to cover expense or pay for things they need immediately, like inventory or payroll, because don’t have the cash right now.

They can get a short-term loan because they’ll have the cash later. Because they will have the cash later, someone will lend them the money they need right now and get paid back, with interest, a little later.

So right now the big, big worry is that there’s a shortage of this short term money for borrowing, and it’s putting companies under so much pressure that they might have to shut doors, stop delivering services, and lay off people.

How is that exactly?

I mentioned that people use this short term money to stock up on inventory for sales they expect to make in the future, or to meet payroll.

If you don’t have product to sell because you can’t finance it, then you can’t make a sale, can’t turn a profit, can’t pay your people, your rent, your long-term debt, your light bill, etc.

What happens if you can’t pay your people?

They can either work for free, or they can try to get another job. Either way, it’s a hardship. Their mortgages have to be paid. Their kids have to eat. It’s incredibly disruptive. Mass layoffs means mass defaults on consumer debt (they have credit cards and cars that they bought on credit), which means consumer lenders tighten credit, too. And it spirals downward.

So there’s this problem with this short term debt being unavailable.

There’s a second reason people need new short term debt. They need it to pay off the old short term debt they have now.

See, in the business world, people often don’t “pay off” debt with cash in their bank account - there isn’t any cash there. They pay off one loan by going and getting another. This is called “rolling over” debt.

In a normal credit market people “roll over” short-term debt all the time.

For example, a company will borrow some money for a month or so and then a month later, instead of paying it off, they roll it over by borrowing more money to pay off for the old money.

But what happens if it comes time to roll the debt over, but you can’t get a new loan to pay off the old one?

Well, you have to pay off the old one with the money you have in the bank account, If you have any at all.

And what if there’s none there?

Well, you’re screwed.

And that’s what’s happening right now.

People can’t roll over their debt, and they can’t get cash for their short term needs (which needs are connected, as I pointed out).

So they’re being threatened with having to close their doors and lay people off, all because they can’t roll over this debt.

These are often great companies, profitable companies, companies with customers and demand for products, but they aren’t able to get “grease in their gears” to keep their production engines turning.

So we know what’s happening. But why the devil is it happening? Why can’t good companies get short term debt?

Well, like we said before, because lenders aren’t lending.

But why aren’t they lending? Do they have the money? If so, why are they hoarding it? And if they don’t have money to lend, why not? Where did it go all of a sudden? Why do lenders get afraid to lend?

There are two reasons lenders get afraid to lend.

1 - They’re worried they won’t get paid back on the loan.

2 - They’ve also borrowed money, and they’re worried they’ll have to pay it back.

When you borrow money, it doesn’t come without strings attached. There are certain ways you agree to run your business and certain standards you agree to keep. There are also collateral values you agree to maintain so that in case you don’t pay the loan back they can take over something of value, sell it, and recover all or part of the loan loss.

Well, as to #1, a lot of defaults are happening right now on loans, so banks know they can get burned (and probably are getting burned right now from previous loans).

But something else is going on. Even on loans that are getting paid back, the assets (the stuff they’ll take from you and sell if you don’t pay for your loan) backing the loan are dropping in value as a collateral.

That’s happening.

Now as to #2, the people they’ve borrowed money from don’t want to give them more money (and in many cases are asking for money back) because they see these loans going bad, and this collateral losing value.

So both of these things are going on right now.

Borrowers and lenders both are becoming INSOLVENT.

Insolvent is an opaque word for a pretty sinister state-of-affairs. Being insolvent means you are unable to meet your debt obligations. You owe more than you’re worth and you can’t pay your loans back. Insolvent means “negative net worth”. It’s de facto bankruptcy.

Who wants to loan money when the person receiving it (the counterparty) might not be able to pay it back and whose collateral is so cruddy, losing value, that you might not be able to recover any of it?

You’re scared witless that you’re going to lose your money if you lend it out. So you’re hoarding it.

Right now the threat and fear of insolvency (fear of permanent and/or significant loss) among counter-parties is causing hoarding by lenders.

But, you ask, why are companies suddenly becoming insolvent?

The problem is two fold - DEFLATION and ASSET VALUE WRITEDOWNS (which is really just a form of DEFLATION).

Don’t get overwhelmed by those words. They’re easy to understand.

Deflation:
Deflation is an ugly word that means what it sounds like. Deflated tires are tires that have lost air. An economy experiencing deflation is an economy that is experiences a price drop on the stuff in the economy.

Rapid and sudden deflation is also known as a “bust”.

The housing market just busted. Housing prices have plummeted. Banks that lent against homes, using those homes as collateral, are seeing the value of that collateral plummet. Who wants to make a loan in an environment like that?

Writedowns:
Let’s talk a little bit more about collateral and its importance, and what happens when it turns out to be worth much less than you think.

See, when a bank lends money, it usually lends against collateral. Let’s say you are from the Maxine Waters school of mortgage lending (see minute 5:06-5:38) and you borrowed 100% of the cost of a home, didn’t even put any of your own money into it.

The bank lends you $200K to buy a house, and you buy a $200K house. So you owe 100% of what the house is “worth”. Lets say you have an interest-only mortgage (that means you only are paying back the “cost” of the money you borrowed - and not actually paying down the money itself) and pay $1000 a month in interest.

But then a recession hits, homes are overbuilt, etc., and the price of your house in the market drops to $160K. Then let’s say you lose your job and can’t pay your interest payment. You want to sell the house, but you’re $40K “underwater” (your house is worth $40K less than you paid for it). And you can’t even make the monthly payments.

See, the value of that home has to be “written down” by $40K. But it wasn’t your money that was put in the home. It was someone else’s money that they lent you. Someone else was out $200K and thought they’d get it back from you some day.

Since you can’t pay the debt, you’re insolvent. The bank takes the house back, but now that $200 “asset” on their has to be written down to $160K. That’s a $40K loss for them. That’s real money the lender lost because the loan wasn’t paid back and the home couldn’t be sold for the value of the loan.

See, that’s what’s going on right now.

Prices are dropping on homes, people can’t afford them, so banks are having to take them back for fractions of what they’re worth. As they write down the value of the home, they are finding that they themselves - the banks - are becoming insolvent. See, they borrow money, too, then lend it to you . . . and when you don’t pay them back, they can’t pay back the people they borrowed from, and they go bankrupt, too. It’s like dominoes.

When banks are writing down the value of the loans they’ve made, they hoard cash because they need it to make sure they’re still solvent. When they’re hoarding, they can’t lend. And if homebuyers can’t borrow in order to buy homes, what happens to home prices? Yep, they go down even more.

A really smart guy named John Hussman explains how write-downs and deflation lead to insolvency better than anyone else I’ve ever read. He’s specifically talking about banks, and he’s showing how deflation leads to write-downs, which leads to customers making withdrawals from banks, which leads to more stress on a bank. There are some words in there you might not understand, but read it anyway, just in case.

1) As the assets of a financial company lose value, the losses reduce the asset side of the balance sheet, but also reduce shareholder equity on the liability side;

2) as the cushion of shareholder equity becomes thinner, customers begin to make withdrawals;

3) in order to satisfy customer withdrawals, the financial company is forced to liquidate assets at distressed prices, prompting a further reduction in shareholder equity;

4) go back to 1) and continue the vicious cycle until shareholder equity goes negative and the company becomes insolvent.

(From his article “You Can’t Rescue the Financial System If You Can’t Read a Balance Sheet ” http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm You should read it after you finish reading this.)

So deflation and write-downs can be very bad, because they often wipe out the equity value of assets and leave just the debt, and they can go so far so as to actually give the company a negative worth (i.e. they have more in debt than the company is even worth).

So what causes deflation?

Busts.

But what causes the bust that causes deflation?

Well, are you ready for this? (don’t get confused)

INFLATION.

What is inflation?

Sounds like when tires get full. The opposite of deflation. So it’s good right?

Look. Having your tires stay stable, full of air, at the right pressure, is good. Over- or under-inflating your tires is bad.

Fill a tire too full of air (inflation) and . . . pop (deflation). Same with an economy.

To be precise, inflation is an increase in the money supply, which then raises the prices of goods and services people are selling.

One of the evil things about inflation is that can make you feel richer - for a while - without actually making you richer. And when you figure that out, you feel poorer.

If I get a raise at work and my salary is doubled, I now make twice as much money as before. But if, at the same time, the price of everything in the economy doubled, well, I’m just where I was before. If I make a buck today and a coke costs me a buck today, but tomorrow I make two bucks and a coke costs two bucks, am I really richer?

By the way, the cost of a home in my city did double from 2003-2006, but my income didn’t, so I actually felt poorer. But now that home prices are back down, the people who bought at the peak feel poorer.

So everyone feels poorer. Way to go inflation.

There are different kinds of inflation, but the one we’ve just seen in our economy is one that has been very, very, very bad. It’s called “asset inflation” and it manifest itself particularly in the inflation of home prices.

When there’s too much money in the market chasing goods (supply of money increasing), it drives up the price of things.

Think about houses. When lots of people wanted to buy homes in 2005 and 2006, there were more and more buyers bidding up the prices of homes.

So, to reiterate, inflation and deflation are caused by a change in the amount of money in the economy, relative to the goods that are in the economy.

You get inflation by printing money or lending people money on credit - both of which increase the amount of money in the economy.

When you realize that borrowing on credit increases the money supply, and that reducing the amount of money lent in the economy decreases the money supply, you understand that the prices of goods follows - simple supply and demand.

More money chasing a fixed amount of goods? Inflation (rising prices).

Less money chasing a fixed amount of goods? Deflation (falling prices).

So what caused inflation and why did it [inflation] have to stop?

A boom in lending caused inflation.

Yes, you say, but people have been lending money forever without asset inflation this nasty.

What was different this time?

Here’s your answer:

This kind of lending was “Cheap Money” lending.

Cheap Money Lending.

What do I mean by cheap money? Isn’t a dollar worth a dollar?

Well, yes, in a sense.

But money costs something if you borrow it.

No one will lend you money unless you give it back with a little extra for their having rented it out to you.

That little extra is called interest.

Interest is the cost of money.

Interest rates fluctuate. When interest rates are low, it’s very “cheap” to borrow money. When interest rates are high, it’s more expensive.

When it’s cheap to borrow, lots more people want to do it than when it’s expensive.

Do you remember the attacks on 9/11?

Of course you do.

Financial markets tanked in the aftermath. The economy was already in recession, having just suffered a massive misallocation of capital in the Internet and technology boom and resulting bust. The 9/11 attacks on American soil caused the economy to slow further.

So to stimulate the economy the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates.

Why would that help the economy?

Well, because people would borrow money, then spend it on stuff, or invest it in stuff, and the economy would be fine.

(But wouldn’t everyone just have more debt and have to pay it back someday, making it harder on them? you ask. Hey, don’t ask smart questions like that. Live in the now, baby.)

So they dropped rates, big deal. So money is cheaper to borrow.

But how do they do that? Do they just say “money now officially costs less” and suddenly interest rates everywhere drop.

No.

Then how do they control the interest rate?

They don’t just tell everyone to lend money at a cheaper rate, they actually do something.

Let’s just review a couple of concepts we hit on before:

When money is cheaper, more people want to borrow it, right? Right.

So there’s a need for more of it to be available, right? Right.

So what comes first, the interest rate or the money supply? The money supply!

The government puts money into the economy until the supply and demand for money meet at the interest rate they’ve targeted.

It’s sort of a “cart and horse” thing. If there’s a lot of money in the system, rates will be cheaper. If people think rates will be cheaper, there HAS to be an increase of money in the system to have them actually be cheaper (you can’t “think” them cheaper).

So the government “prints” money until the interest rate they’ve chosen gets hit.

Wow, money out of thin air?!

Yep.

So money got cheap to borrow after 9/11. Dirt cheap. The government lowered the interest rate to 1% (they call it the “Fed Funds” rate). And banks got that cheap money from the government and lent it out cheap.

Do you know what people like to buy when they can get a low interest rate?

They like to buy homes.

A mortgage is just a loan you get and pay interest on. Mortgage loans are normally for 30 years, so a low interest rate makes a huge difference over a high interest rate over the life of the loan (often hundreds of thousands of dollars difference in payments over the life of the loan).

So when people realized that they could buy a house for cheaper at these post-9/11 rates, they started to do it. And as they bought more homes, there were more jobs in construction, realty, mortgage brokering, etc. And as there was more money in that, the economy appeared to be picking up. People started “refinancing” their homes at cheaper rates (replacing their old mortgages with new, cheaper ones), saving more dollars each month, buying stuff with it.

This went on and on.

Until pretty soon everyone wants a home. They’re getting into “bidding wars” and the prices of homes are going higher and higher.

People are getting rich! The difference between the cost of their home and its current “market value” is pretty big, so they take out a “home equity line of credit” which is a just a big phrase for “putting the ownership in my home at risk so that I can have a chunk of cash right now to spend on a boat.”

People took out new mortgages on their now-more-valuable homes, paid off the old mortgages, and used the difference between what they were able to borrow and what they paid off to buy boats, and do remodeling, and travel to far-away places.

Or, buy a second or third home. Yikes.

And other people start seeing home prices go up, equity in homes being captured buy homeowners, second and third homes being bought, boats being bought, and they think - hey I’d better get in now, too. If I don’t, I might miss the run up and then I won’t be rich!

So more people pile in the market looking to buy a home and, hey, there are all kinds of loans out there that give them a low monthly payment (even if they are just paying for the interest and not paying for any actual ownership in the home - but don’t worry, the value of the home is going to go up forever and to infinity!)

But pretty soon home prices are really skyrocketing and something really, really weird is happening.

People with really low incomes are buying really expensive homes.

People who have no business buying homes (people who months earlier were struggling to make rent on their apartments) are now getting the money to buy a McMansion.

It’s clear there’s a problem, or there’s going to be a problem at some point, because there’s no way many of these buyers should be able to afford these homes. At some point, when they have to actually pay something other than interest on their homes, there’s going to be big trouble.

But then banks keep letting people buy these homes with these crazy mortgages.

Soon, the economy is totally “overheating”. Home prices have gone far, far too high to justify any sense of value.

And the government is worried about this “asset bubble” (that’s what they called it).

They decide that they’ve got to raise the interest rate to slow things down.

Well, how do they do that?

You know the answer. The only way to raise the interest rate is to reduce the amount of money available.

How does that work?

Just imagine that there are two dollars in the world and they are owned by one person, and two other people in the world each want to borrow a dollar. The guy who has the dollars gives them each a buck and they agree to give it back to him in a month along with 10 cents (to pay for the “rent” of the money). So it’s a 10% monthly interest rate.

They pay the guy back, with interest at the end of the month.

Now, a year later, the two borrowers go back to the guy, but this time he’s only got one buck, and it’s the only dollar in the world. He says, “sorry, I’ve only got one, so I’ll rent it to the highest bidder.” The two borrowers start bidding, one after the other. Money is in tighter supply, harder to get, so this one, scarce dollar is now more valuable to each of the borrowers. Finally, one of them bids 20 cents to rent it for the month (20% monthly rate) and the other guy says, “Fine, you have it. I’m not paying that.”

Did you see what happened? The fact that money was more scarce drove up the interest rate. Once it got high enough, one of the borrowers dropped out.

The rate got high precisely because there was less money.

(Same as in a credit crunch, when there’s less money to borrow.)

Demand for (or desire for) money was there until the rate got high enough that one guy said “Not worth it to me, I’d rather lay in the sand”.

So all of that to underscore that money supply - along with money demand - determines the interest rate.

In our example, when there was only one dollar to borrow the economy was then only half as “hot” (only one dollar borrowed and put to work, instead of two).

Well, that’s what happens in real life, except with millions and millions of people, and billions and billions of dollars.

So back to the government.

The economy is hot, so they’ve got to get this interest rate up, cool things down, and stop the home price increases before they get any crazier.

So they start pulling money out of the system, and the interest rate climbs until it hits their “target”.

But then the economy stays hot, so they pull more out, and more, and more, and more, until . . .

it’s overdone. It’s too high.

Now these homebuilders who had seen all these people with all these money are building tons of homes . . . that nobody wants anymore.

Whoops. Misallocation of resources. (Hey, isn’t that what causes depressions? Uh oh.)

Lots of houses. Not a lot of buyers. Builders start to slash home prices to get out of this inventory of homes they’ve overbuilt.

The bubble bursts … deflation takes hold. All that equity created when the home prices ran up gets wiped out.

But, oops, a lot of people borrowed against that equity and replaced it with debt, and now their houses are worth far less than what they owe on them.

You know the rest of the story - we talked about it above. This bust, this asset deflation, leads to insolvency, and that leads to a credit crunch, which could lead to a depression.

So let’s summarize where we’re at.  And let’s let the eloquent Frank Chodorov say it:

“A depression is a halting of production. Production stops when people cut down on their consumption. They are compelled to curtail because they burdened themselves with obligations during the boom and now they are unable to meet the interest payments. Values did not rise as fast as they had expected; mortgages and other debts hang heavy on their necks, and in an effort to save their original investment they cut down on their consumption. Cutting down on consumption means putting people out of jobs, and so the whole house of cards collapses. Only when the false values are liquidated, the mortgages wiped out, can there be a resumption of production. The depression is a period of deflation following a period of inflation.” (http://mises.org/etexts/rootofevilb.asp)

But aha, you say, something doesn’t add up.

No bank HAD to make these loans. Smart people work there. They have rules and regulations they have to follow. Even with cheap money, and even though it made it seem more likely people would pay the loans back (after all, they had low interest rates), the banks would still make money, right?

Banks don’t have to make loans to people who they’re worried won’t pay them back, right?

Oh, but they did.

Really?!!! But why would they?

Well, for one, They knew they ultimately wouldn’t have to pay the full cost if the loans went bad.

Huh? Someone else would pay the cost if the loan went bad?

Yep.

AND, for two, they were forced to make the loans.

Well, forced is a strong word. They actually had a choice: make the bad loans, or go out of business.

But, you ask, if the banks weren’t bearing the full cost of the loans, who was?

First of all, lot of disappointed investors that the banks sold loans to bore the cost. But you know what? That’s not too terribly bad because investors take on risk, that’s part of the deal.

But there were people other than investors taking on this risk, and that’s the part that is somewhat scandalous.

If it were just investors that got wiped out, that would be one thing. We’d still have the problems of inflation and deflation, and as individual homeowners people would have problems, but the American taxpayer would largely be protected.

But unfortunately, it wasn’t just investors that took these loans and lost money. There were other companies, sponsored by the government, that bought these loans and also sold “insurance on the loans”. We’ll talk about them in a minute.

And about that “forces banks to make bad loans” part …

No one can do that! Can they?

Oh, someone can. If you’re a federal legislator and you vote into law programs that permit certain organizations to engage in EXTORTION and BLACKMAIL you can.

And that’s exactly what happened.

I’ll spell it out for you and afterward you can write your congressman a thank-you letter for doing nothing to stop this when it could’ve been stopped.

So here we are.

We’re getting to what is perhaps the saddest part of this whole thing.

We’re about to uncover the fuel that allowed the forest fire to burn.

There are some names you need to know. Learn these names and what they mean and you’ll be on your way to untangling the debacle. They are the names of two organizations and one government bill.

The names of the organizations are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (aka Freddie and Fannie).

The bill is the Community Reinvestment Act (hereafter CRA).

We’ll get to the details, but here’s what you need to know.

1 - The CRA allowed for the extortion and blackmail of banks so that they’d be put out of business if they didn’t make horribly risky loans to unqualified borrowers.

2 - The banks went ahead and made the risky loans because the government, through the organizations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, agreed to back the risky loans, implicitly guaranteeing that if they went bad, the government (i.e. the US Taxpayer) would pick up the tab, not the original lender.

I’m not going to point fingers, right way. But the Democrats had a big hand in this. The Republicans fought them, but not hard enough to win the fight. And this was a fight that had to be won.

I’m not judging intentions.  I think Democrats wanted more people to own homes.  That’s not a bad desire.  This was just a horrible way to go about it.

Some Republicans tried to take credit for perceived “good results” the policies caused (before the blowup), and at least some of them did during election years (remember the “ownership society”).

So there’s blame on both sides, though any honest person who reviews the data sees that there was a lot of enthusiasm for this stuff from the Democrats and a lot of concern and attempts to stop it from the Republicans.

But anyway, let’s talk about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

These organizations are authorized and implicitly backed by the government to make mortgage loans, buy mortgage loans from people who hold them, and also to insure them.

If Fannie or Freddie lose money and need a bailout, the government will bail them out. (They insist that they’re only “implicitly” not “explicitly” backed by the US government, but look what’s happening now.  Their government takeover already happened a couple of weeks ago and there are lots of ways US taxpayers are footing the bill for the intervention.)

So what is being insured by Fannie and Freddie?

They are insuring mortgage loans against default. Default is a word for non-payment.

If a loan defaults - the borrower stops paying it - and Freddie or Fannie has sold insurance on that loan, then when the loan doesn’t get paid back to the person who made the loan Fannie or Freddie has to pay the outstanding loan amount to the guy that got stiffed.

Sounds expensive, huh? You get a little bit of insurance money but if a loan goes bad you have to pay for the whole thing!

Well, it’s not expensive when everyone is making their house payment. When there aren’t any defaults you just collect that payment and pay managers millions of dollars a year to pretend they’re running the company safely.

Freddie and Fannie didn’t just sell insurance, they also bought and owned a lot of cruddy loans.

From Wikipedia.

“[Freddie and Fannie make money] by charging a guarantee fee on loans that it has purchased and securitized into mortgage-backed security bonds. Investors, or purchasers of Freddie Mac [loans], are willing to let Freddie Mac keep this fee in exchange for assuming the credit risk, that is, Freddie Mac’s guarantee that the principal and interest on the underlying loan will be paid back regardless of whether the borrower actually repays.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac#Business )

OK, you say, I get it, so there’s these organizations that guarantee that if loans aren’t paid, they’ll pick up the tab, and in exchange for the guarantee they get some dough.

But why would they ever write insurance or take ownership of crappy loans? Wouldn’t they just refuse to insure or own those?

Of course, because politicians would never allow taxpayers to be put in a position where they’d have to pony up to pay for all the mistakes that Freddie and Fannie made.

Right?

Well, not exactly. See,

“Fan and Fred’s patrons on Capitol Hill didn’t care about the risks inherent in their combined trillion-dollar-plus mortgage portfolios, so long as they helped meet political goals on housing. ”
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122204078161261183.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop)

Political goals on housing? What’s that all about???

Enter the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA. The name of that bill you learned about above. One of the big, bad culprits.

“The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area. The act prohibits financial institutions from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as ‘redlining.’ The purpose of the CRA is to ensure that under-served populations can obtain credit, including home ownership opportunities and commercial loans to small businesses.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act )

Well that sounds innocent enough, you say. You don’t see any problems.

But if you look more closely it says that lenders shouldn’t be able to lend to whomever they deem to be creditworthy. They have to take considerations other than credit-worthiness (ability to pay back the loan) into account when they make loans.

Well, something happened in 1995 that made this piece of legislation really toxic.

“In early 1993 President Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Clinton_Administration_Changes_of_1995 )

So banks had to lend to people who were not credit worthy because if they didn’t companies could complain against them.

But who cares? It’s not like these complaints could actually be used to blackmail the banks, right?

Wrong.

These groups, if they filed a complaint - whether real or imaginary - could completely freeze a lender out of a neighborhood, county, city, or region.

They’d threaten complaints against a lender and then tell the lenders that they’d only remove the complaint if the lenders paid them money and agreed to make loans to people who had no business doing it.

Since the lender couldn’t do business until the complaint was removed, the banks caved. If they didn’t agree to make the bad loans, they’d be out of business altogether.

So these groups extorted money and blackmailed banks into making bad loans.

Who were these groups?

Every heard of ACORN? ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN made a lot of money abusing this law and shaking down banks .

You’re hearing a lot about ACORN in the news right now because of Barack Obama’s affiliation with them and also because of alleged fraud that ACORN has committed in registering voters for the upcoming presidential election.

The Wall Street Journal reported that:

“[Clinton's CRA changes] compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often cannot repay them. Banks that failed to make enough of these loans were often held hostage by activists when they next sought some regulatory approval.

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122204078161261183.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop)

Robert Litan, an economist at the Brookings Institution, told the Washington Post that banks:

“had to show they were making a conscious effort to make loans to subprime borrowers” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122204078161261183.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop )

Do you know what “sub-prime” means?

It means, “loans to people with really bad credit scores due to the fact that at some point in the past they borrowed money from people and then didn’t pay it back the way they’d promised to.”

So extortioners and blackmailers in groups like ACORN - with the support of the Clinton administration - held the banks hostage and ensured that loans were being made to subprime borrowers?

And this continued on into the Bush Administration.

The reason ACORN is such a big deal is because Barack Obama at one time trained ACORN activists and funded their operations . It could spell trouble for the Democratic presidential nominee.

Do you know who else was involved with ACORN ? Yep. That terrorist you’re seeing in the news a lot, who sat on a board with Obama as they paid money to groups like ACORN.

So that’s why it’s newsworthy.

But back to our story.

So you see there were a lot of bad loans out there that needed to be made.

And you see, Freddie and Fannie helped them get made by both making loans and insuring the loans that the banks were extorted to make.

Why would politicians let them get away with it?

Because they were helping politicians buy votes, by putting people into bigger and better houses than their incomes justified.

Who was the person at Fannie Mae running the organization, overseeing and encouraging the buying all this crap up and then criminally cooking the books to make it look like everything was fine?

Franklin Raines, who has been in the news not only because of the accounting fraud but also because he has advised Barack Obama on housing policy according to the Washington Post.

Another was Jim Johnson, who has also been in the news because he oversaw the committee to select Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate.

Lots of politicians have received money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae employees. John McCain has even accepted some, though he historically fought against Freddie and Fannie and fought to oversee them. Barack Obama received more money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae employees in the last two years than any other politican has (except for one) in the entire history of campaign donations. So that could be a problem for him in the election if this becomes an issue voters care about.

Those are just the two highest profile politicians but there are a lot of them who should have overseen Freddie and Fannie but had conflicts of interest.

So there you have it. The corruption was allowed because the organizations not only bought off politicians but the politicians also used these organizations to buy votes.

When you get bad policy with cheap money, it’s like flame and gunpowder.

So, to recap the above.

Depression is caused by economic failure which is caused by markets seizing up which is caused by deflation which is caused by a bubble bursting which is caused by the misallocation of resources and inflated prices which is caused by inflation which is caused no government discipline plus government cheap money plus government intervention plus horrible government laws that were abused that is caused by pandering to voters and extorting taxpayers while simultaneously trying to stimulate an economy artificially to provide the illusion of wealth and progress.

Got it?

And another thing.Government permitted an environment where corruption could flourish.

Our government is in debt. That debt has to be paid back.

Who’s paying it back? We’re paying it back. One way or another, we’re going to pay. We’ll pay now, we’ll pay later, we’ll pay for a long time, and we’ll get very little in return because the money has already been spent.

The government can make money in two ways.

It can create monopolies for itself and charge high rates while operating inefficiently, like they do with the post office.

Or it can take your money, with or without your consent, as it does through taxes.

So, pick your poison.

Maybe the government will take over the health care system. That’s one monopoly they’d love - but if you think the lines at the post office and DMV are bad, try waiting in one while you’re dripping blood from a head wound.

When considering who to elect to ANY office, the question that matters isn’t “are you a Republican or are you a Democrat…or will you give me X or Y and make me A or B promise.”

The only question that matters is

“do you believe there is such a a thing as a free lunch?”

(hint: there’s not!)

Technorati Tags: financial crisis, finance, minarchism, bailout, depression, politics, mccain, obama

(Comments disabled for this blog.  Sorry.)

However, I hear a meme going around the Internet right now about the market drop today, Altgate expressed it thus:

What just happened?
Did we just lose $1.2 trillion in order to save $700 billion?

I responded in the comments:

No, “we” did not lose anything, unless “we” were invested in common stocks. Investors - who chose to take equity risk - just lost $1.2 trillion.

Taxpayers, who didn’t choose what was about to be foisted on them - which, i might add, was in part foisted on them in order to save investors, who voluntarily took on risk - were just spared having $700 million of toxic assets thrust upon them.

What is it with this “we” talk?????

People who chose to purchase equity risk just found out what those risks are.

Taxpayers who haven’t had a say in what risk they want to take, almost had those risks involuntarily foisted upon them.

“We” the taxpayers are not “we” the stock investors.

There’s a r