Sometimes the media is so obnoxious (especially the television media) that I just have to rant for a little while.
I am so sick of this phrase: "What's happening on Wall St. is affecting Main St." What does this even mean? I know what the media wants it to mean. They want it to mean that stock speculation and the stock market in New York affects ordinary Americans. Reckless Wall St. spending is affecting people's Roth IRA's and 401k's. It affects their housing prices and their jobs.
But the phrase is still ridiculous. First of all, I've heard it at least 2 dozen times in the past week and the person who uses it still thinks they're clever. Second, I don't live on Main St. and don't know anybody who does. Main St. is 2 blocks in downtown Littleton- no more, no less. Third, I don't know anybody that considers themselves an "ordinary American." Maybe some people pride themselves on this label. The media would like us to think those people live in the industrial sector, have blue collar jobs, and work in small to mid-sized towns. This is just another case of the media telling us what we think instead of reporting what is. In fact, I don't know anybody that describes themselves as "average" or "ordinary." In our culture, it's usually an insult. While many of us are average, it's not a self-inflicted label.
I'd also like to comment briefly on a redemptive spin. Wall St. doesn't affect me. If I have a retirement account, I'm investing for over 40 years. Nothing Wall St. does in the short term affects the long term growth of the market. Some people might disagree with this, but those people are generally doomsayers and not level-headed or wise. Another redemptive spin: housing investments should also be long term, and people should have fixed-rate mortgages. In the long term, anyone who has a 15 year or 30 year fixed mortgage shouldn't panic. Their housing value may temporarily decrease, but people shouldn't fret if they are wise and invest long-term. But the market still does affect the loss of people's jobs, and I don't want to minimize that.
In all, almost nothing we hear from media gauges long-term wisdom with personal or macroeconomic finance. I would like to add that I'm happy government socialism was rejected in the bailout today. I would like to see a temporary suspension of the mark-to-market rule within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as I believe this would substantially free up markets for trading.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
3 comments:
"Some people might disagree with this, but those people are generally doomsayers and not level-headed or wise."
I agreed with everything you said up to this point. I don't think that just because a person thinks that this financial issue is a big deal makes them "unwise". Listening to NPR this morning they were interviewing several top (bi-partisans, independent of companies, and academics) economists who said that this issue is a very big deal that will effect the economy here on out. It was described as a "tipping point in history."
I think especially as Christians we need to realize that what we do in the temporal will have eternal consequences. Similarly, the decisions we make today will effect tomorrow, ten years from now and so on. That is why we study history; we see how the decisions that were made in the past (some of which were small at the time)affect how the world is today.
So I really don't think that people who think the financial crisis is a big deal are unwise, doomsayers, or not level-headed. Would you now agree?
The financial issue is a big deal, but it is not a "crisis" (give it a couple of years before its a crisis- it's only been 3 weeks). Our economy is in a difficult patch, but I have heard almost no historical perspective by any of these so-called economists and politicians (what about the struggling housing market with it's 17% rates during the Carter administration or the savings and loan business in the late 80s or 9/11-- the country weathered all these storms and we recovered fully 48 days after 9/11 but that doesn't get reported in the news). We might even have several months of declining growth, but we will be fine. And while I do think congress should act, I am completely opposed to the avenue the Senate has now chosen.
It is precisely the language of "crisis" and "tipping point in history" that is doomsaying language. We simply don't have the historical perspective to make such claims; you are still getting coffee at McDonalds, and people are still driving cars. Some are getting laid off, but where's the mass panic that the television would have us believe?
People are paralyzed by fear because of our politicans and media. People are cashing out mutual funds with no thought to the ramifictaions. If your mutual fund fails and doesn't grow over the next 2 years, that means McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Microsoft, and many others cease to exist. That just won't happen.
Furthermore, the buildup in a lack of homebuyers will burst forth in at least 2 years and probably less. There are simply too many people who want to buy a home that eventually will. We have an open market, regulated economy (with many more safeguards still in effect as opposed to the 1920's). The economy is so much more layered than it was 80 years ago both on a domestic and international scale. We will be fine in the long run.
So, yes Daniel, anybody who doesn't recognize these simple truths and the important historical perspective are doomsayers.
Agree to disagree about whether this is a legitimate crises or not. History will be the ultimate judge for that. Whether it is a crises or not, this point in American history is incredibly significant.
Either way, the bill is passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's pray that whatever they hope to work actually does or your denial of a crises will become actualized. Then that would definitely call for the appropriate term of "doomsaying". Just because America has shown resilience in the past does not mean it is immune to catastrophe. We are far too depraved and idolatrous of a nation to have God's favor in permanenence.
Post a Comment