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.





Relational Ethics, Politics and Conflict

12 12 2009

  In our article entitled “The Difference Between the Moral and the Ethical” we considered some of the ethical challenges for an individual working in an organization.  Even though there is not always a clear cut distinction between the ethical and the unethical, it tends to be less challenging since the issues that a person faces are more concrete, definable individually definable. 

However, the larger the organization, the more opportunities there are for missteps and unintended consequences.  The decision matrix becomes larger and complex.  And in some organizations the tendencies exist to see the organization itself and its continued survival as the primary goal.   Setting that concern aside for a later discussion, we know that within organizations there are constituent stakeholder groups that must be considered when making decisions.  Some of these include:

  1. Shareholders
  2. Management
  3. Workers
  4. Customers
  5. Suppliers
  6. The public
  7. Governmental entities

Each of these constituent groups has a stake in the future of the organization.  Depending on the power of a constituency, decisions concerning one group will affect the others stake and subsequent outcomes.  And due to the inevitable imbalance in power of each group, decisions will impact possible ethical, moral, legal and responsible behaviors. 

Not only are these of concern when considering ethical behaviors, but organizations (particularly large entities) have to grapple with issues of disclosure whether in annual and quarterly reports or with the media. 

We don’t have to go far to see the consequences of these perplexing situations.  Examples abound:

  1. Making sub-prime loans to unqualified people with the idea of fulfilling home ownership as the American dream for everyone.
  2. The bundling of these loans into packages that were rated AAA even though they were not.
  3. Giving brokers and investment persons huge bonuses for putting together complicated derivative concepts that very few people understood. 
  4. Bailing out banks and institutions that were “too big to fail”

And as we know there has been much second guessing and finger pointing at all concerned.  To name just a few:

  1. Congress for making it possible for unqualified parties to buy a home.
  2. Congress for allowing banks and other financial institutions to get so large and complex that bailouts became inevitable.
  3. The institutions for not having the discipline to monitor their programs and insure that they were sound.
  4. Individuals who took the deals that later made them lose everything they had.

 

We could go right down the line with the blame game as each constituent group bought into the shell game.  Whether we consider the events leading up to the fall to be unethical, irresponsible or just stupid, much of our economy bought into it.  And now as we try to work our way out of the situation, it seems that we are going back to the same old behaviors and prescriptions.  We’re told that the consumer is the one that will get us out of the mess by buying more instead of trying to bolster our infrastructure and focus on education, paying off debt and saving for retirement.  We continue to witness the increased economic power of countries like China and the oil producing nations and talk a lot about energy independence, our national debt and the unabated orgy of spending for goods that most people don’t need, but feel they have to have.  We’re like an addict who knows the outcome of his addiction but can’t seem to have the discipline to change. 

So, are we doomed to this never ending cycle of “exuberant optimism”, catastrophe, renewal, and back to social amnesia?  Whether it’s the prophets of the Bible or modern day prophet’s, history would indicate that this is our human condition.  Rational philosophy and liberal theology tend to imply that humanity is evolving and that humanity’s dark side will be conquered by reason.  Sociologist Kimball Young states,

 “the only way in which collective conflicts, as well as individual conflicts, can be successfully and hygienically solved is by securing a redirection of behavior toward a more feasible environmental objective.  This can be accomplished most successfully by the rational reconditioning of attitudes on a higher neuro-psychic or intellectual symbolic plane to the facts of science, preferably through a free discussion with a minimum of propaganda.”

 On the other hand, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr sees the issue quite differently. 

  “What is lacking among all these moralists, whether religious or rational, is an understanding of the brutal character of the behavior of all human collectives, and power of self-interest and collective egoism in all inter-group relations.”  He goes on to say, “The relations between groups must therefore always be predominantly political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proposition of power which each group possesses…”.   “Whatever increase in social intelligence and moral goodwill may be achieved in human history, may serve to mitigate the brutalities of social conflicts, but they cannot abolish the conflict itself.”  

 With this in mind we will now move to how power and conflict have been and can be used to bring about change.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.