An Ethical Crisis of Confidence

27 07 2010

 

Almighty God, we confess that we are often swept up in the tide of our

generation. We have failed in our calling to be your holy people, a

people set apart for your divine purpose. We live more in apathy than

in passion born of hope. We are moved more by private ambition

than by social justice. We dream more of privilege and benefits than

service and sacrifice. Help us to make room in our hearts and lives for

you. Forgive us, revive us, and reshape us in your image. Amen 

Nouriel Roubini

  The other day I was watching my stock market guru Jim Cramer on CNBC.  It was a down day in the market and he was railing against the Bears for their pessimism on the stock market.  Currently the stock market is in a very narrow range and actually seems to be slowly drifting down in spite of increased earnings by corporate America.  He was lamenting the fact that the retail investor like me seemed to be leaving the market in droves or at least was not investing as they had done in the past.  He only alluded to the fact that there was a crisis of confidence in the government, international affairs, and lack of confidence in Wall Street itself.  On other programs that I’ve watched recently that talked about the new Fin Regs just passed, there was less than enthusiastic endorsement of the new regulations.  Most of this was aimed at the fact that there was little confidence that these new regulations would make any difference and in fact would give the money merchants new loop holes to exploit.  The growing sentiment among many investors is that the Foxes are in the hen house and are making the new regulations and that everything is about the same as before.  Many people on both the left and the right believe that this is just the first step in our economic troubles.  Nouriel Roubini, author of Crisis Economics and one of those who first predicted the effects of the housing bubble contends that the next world economic crisis will occur in the next two years.  He predicts that there will be a long, painful, protracted economic downturn, evidenced first by deflation and then by hyper inflation. 

 So, what happens to all of us that are poor or middle class that have been living on borrowed money.  Roubini suggests two scenarios.  The first is Keynesian theory and the other is from the Austrian economic school.  With Keynes, the solution to economic crisis is infusion of capital into the economy by government in the form of stimulus dollars and direct payments for unemployment etc.  With the Austrian school approach the answer is “creative destruction” which is allowing the economy to go through the painful destruction of corporations, persons, or institutions that are weak or that have over committed.  The theory is that even though painful, the purging of inefficient and corrupt entities will be shorter and make for a stronger successor.  Roubini uses the term “moral hazard” to explain the behavior of some companies and individuals that take undue risks knowing that someone will bail them out if they get into financial trouble.  He uses Citi Bank as an example of the result of “moral hazard” going back to the great depression when the government bailed them out.  Since then, Citi Bank has been bailed several times because of credit problems due to being leveraged too much.  And who has had to pay for this?  The American tax payer.  “Moral hazard” also comes home to roost with individuals.  Many Americans have leveraged themselves into bankruptcy because they either want it now and easy credit is at hand or we live in a state of perpetual entitlement where our priorities are fixated on the material rather than the spiritual.  And who will suffer the most?  The poor and the young.  Neither Keynes or the Austrians have the whole answer to our situation, but most of us know that change is necessary.  Individual responsibility and self reliance are important but being concerned and committed to the whole is also important. 

 I contend that a solution lies in three areas—the long process of unwinding our debt, the preservation of person’s dignity and worth, and turning to the One that truly gives us meaning.  And the longer we wait to make these painful decisions and changes the more painful it will be.  So where do we place our faith?  Jeremiah and other prophets believed that the answer to our predicament lay in our turning away from the lesser gods of our culture and placing our faith in the God of new life and creation. “Nearly 90 percent of Americans, according to the CIA World Factbook, identify themselves with a religion. But only 12 percent of American adults say faith is a top priority in their life, according to a new study released Monday by the Barna Group.”   It may be charged that suggesting that we turn towards God in these times (as well as in good times) is naïve and impractical.   We’re not ready to give up our little gods and until we do, we will suffer the pain of attachment. 

 “I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger to this place and let them live in safety.  They will be my people, and I will be their God.  I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them.  I will make an everlasting covenant with them; I will never stop doing good to them.”  Jeremiah 32: 37-39  

 Jeremiah states that God will gather all who have been banished and will be the God of all people.  I believe that even if there are those who do not accept the presence and influence of God, we are all still under God’s reign.  It is for those of us who believe in that reign to live into God’s purpose.  The outcome may not be what we want, but it will be God’s outcome.





Whom Shall We Blame?

1 05 2010

 

 

Romans 3:  Peterson Version

“‘There’s nobody living right, not even one, nobody who knows the score, nobody alert for God.  They’ve all taken the wrong turn; they’ve all wandered down blind alleys.  No one’s living right; I can’t find a single one.  Their throats are gaping graves, their tongues slick as mud slides.  Every word they speak is tinged with poison.  They open their mouths and pollute the air.  They race for the honor of sinner of the year, litter the land with heartbreak and ruin, don’t know the first thing about living with others.  They never give God the time of day.’

This makes it clear, doesn’t it, that whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about others but to us whom these Scriptures were addressed in the first place!  And it’s clear enough, isn’t it, that we’re sinners, every one of us, in the same sinking boat with everybody else?  Our involvement with God’s revelation doesn’t put us right with God.  What it does is force us to face our complicity in everyone else’s sin.”

 The current economic problems have resulted in both consternation and real economic hardships to most Americans.  As some of you might have done, I watched a good bit of the Senate hearings on the role that Goldman Sachs might have played in the debacle.  But after all the dust settled, it seemed to me that even though GS acted unethically, they were not guilty of anything criminal (at least for now).  GS was a major player in the financial world when the house of cards fell, but they were only one player in the tragic game that ensued.  The final judgment is not in, but my guess is that not much will come of those hearings other than to further cloudy the water and create more consternation among Americans.  I decided to try and give a time line and the factors leading up to the meltdown and in particular to the sub-prime issue.  The history of the evolution of this situation goes back to 1938 when   Fannie Mae and later when Freddie Mac the quasi governmental agencies that bought loans from approved mortgage sellers were created to help low and moderate income families purchase homes.  So, here goes:

In 1938, as a result of the depression, Congress passed a bill to help people achieve the American dream of home ownership using the pass through vehicle Fannie Mae.  Fannie Mae buys loans from approved mortgage sellers, for a fee, and that carries Fannie Mae’s guarantee of timely payment of interest and principal. Fannie Mae may also securitize mortgages from its own loan portfolio and sells the resultant mortgage-backed security to investors in the   secondary mortgage market with a guarantee that the stated principal and interest payments will be timely passed through to the investor. By purchasing the mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide banks and other financial institutions with fresh money to make new loans. This gives the United States housing and credit markets flexibility and liquidity.

  1. Starting in 1993 the Clinton administration pressured Fannie Mae to make more loans to minorities and neighborhoods that were underserved in the loan market due to banks engaging in what was termed “red lining”. 
  2. In 2002 Bush signed the Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit Act to further expand home ownership.  During this period credit requirements and eligibility requirements were relaxed resulting in lower standards in credit worthiness.
  3. As a result of periodic recessions and the perception that the economy could be helped most by expanding home ownership, housing began to dramatically expand resulting in overheating of the housing market.
  4. In 2003 Bush signed the American Dream Down Payment Act, further expanding available housing to low income and moderate income persons which continued the practice of stretching credit with short term financing, etc.
  5. In 2004 Bush and Congress at the behest of the SEC deregulated the sub prime mortgage business opening it up to other entities such as Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns whereby these companies as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bundled high risk mortgages with supposedly low risk mortgages into packages, that were sold in the secondary market. Typically, the high risk loans were at either nothing down and interest only and substandard debt to income ratios.   These companies were able to convince the rating agencies of the overall security of the loan bundles resulting in them being given triple “A” ratings by rating agencies like Moody’s.  They were then sold to institutions and the public.  The deregulation resulted in banks and lending institutions being allowed to leverage up to 30 times their capital, making those companies even more vulnerable.
  6. In order to further insure that the loan packages, insurance was bought from companies like AIG to give investors more security even though unlike most insurance companies there were less funds to back up the packages.  But it can be argued that the AIG was relying on the rating agencies, who were relying on the information they were given by package brokers like Goldman Sacks, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, who were relying on the underwriting and implied guarantees of Fannie Mae and Freddie who were relying on those who originated the loans who were relying on valuations of the homes by appraisers and the market place for these homes.  And buyers were relying on loan brokers who told them that they qualified for the loans.
  7. In addition to the home loan market, equity loans were being made that were being made on homes with questionable value.  The premise was that the homes would continue to increase in value and as long as there were people to buy the loans, there was little risk on the part of the loan originators.
  8. As a result, home builders had little trouble borrowing money to build the homes since it seemed that there was a continuous stream of ready buyers, regardless of their credit worthiness. Overbuilding resulted in oversupply and prices began to fall.
  9. As a result of overbuilding and poor credit risks a crack in the financial dam resulted which grew to staggering proportions that eventually required the federal government to intervene.
  10. Before the dam could be saved companies like Bear Sterns, Wacovia Bank, and Lehman Brothers to name just three took bankruptcy.  AIG and a number of large banks deemed “too big to fail” were bailed out due to the fear that if they failed it would bring down the whole world banking industry.

 So, who do we blame?  As the noted scripture states, everyone is guilty.  Even those of us who weren’t directly involved but succumbed to the sirens song of easy credit and instant gratification have a part in what has happened.  When we don’t stay informed, or make rash judgments about the issues, or opt out because we don’t think we make a difference we are complicit.  But most of all, when we don’t trust God and God’s covenant and place other priorities above God, we are most complicit.  The outcome may not be what we want it to be, but God’s purpose will prevail and we are all a part of that purpose in the way we live and act towards God and to one another.





Cultural Isolation (part 7)–Making a Place at the Table

4 12 2009

 

            As a Methodist Christian I have had a stormy relationship with Holy Communion.  For years our church had communion only infrequently and I purposely avoided it at those times.  It just seemed a waste of time and what’s more it was boring.  It was only after one of our pastors asked me to serve the elements one Sunday did it finally begin to sink in.  As I passed down the kneeling rail with the tray of grape juice saying, “this is the blood of Christ shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.  Take and drink this in remembrance of him” I looked into the faces of  my friends and neighbors.   Some were passive as if just going through the motions, but some had tears in their eyes and I could tell they had heavy hearts.  Some would stay in prayer and then hurry back to their seats.   Others seemed joyful.  In this brief encounter with them, I wondered what they were thinking and feeling. And as more and more came to the alter, the words I was speaking began to sink in.  I was sharing something very intimate with these people.  We were the body of Christ and as Methodist’s we have an open table which means that anyone can partake. 

            In the years since serving, I have come to feel that this sharing of community and the confession of our common brokenness and alienation  is the most important part of the service.  In those moments at the alter I know I’m not alone; not in my relationship with God, or my friends and neighbors or my loving wife.  We are one and yet separate.  We admit our individual shortcomings but also our communal brokenness and separation.  When we leave the table we have experienced the words that send us forth with a new spirit knowing that we worship a God of new beginnings through an unconditional love that is always present, even when we don’t acknowledge that presence. 

            I know that all persons do not celebrate communion as we do.  In fact, they may not celebrate it at all.  But possibly if we can see that communion is a metaphor for our life together as the human race, with all our frailties as well as our courage and loving acts of kindness; that we can see that our call by God is to make a place at the table for everyone.  In so doing, ethics is no longer a set of rules to be followed and interpreted like a Pharisee. Ethics becomes an intentional act of community, recognizing our differences but also our eternal connection with each other and with God.  We develop a covenant with one another and with God to live into a life of Loving God and Loving Neighbor.  If we do that, we will still make mistakes as that is also part of the human condition.  Doing this, we may come to see that our institutions are not merely entities to promote their own existence and that they are called to act with mercy and justice to those who they serve—I and You.   As Jesus said in Matt. 5:17, “I have not come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”.  








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.