Get E-Mail Updates

The Parable of the Unmerciful Bankers

banner-Finding-Your-Way-in-the-New-Economy

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

This week, I joined a press conference with People Improving Communities through Organizing and the Center for Responsible Lending on the steps of the United States Treasury. The first three speakers were not the usual Washington talking heads. Instead, they were American homeowners who were losing their homes to foreclosure-a terrible thing that now happens to another American family every 13 seconds (6,600 per day). And a rapidly increasing number of them are now due, not to subprime mortgages, but to the loss of employment. That's what had happened to those who told their stories on Monday in Washington D.C. across from the White House and just down the street from the huge Bank of America and PNC Bank buildings.

Mercy Martinez began to cry as she spoke. She had saved for years and put $100,000 down to buy her first condo. Choking back tears, she recalled her meeting with the Countrywide Financial mortgage broker. "I had enough money for a traditional, 30-year fixed rate loan; but the loan servicer unethically tricked me into an adjustable rate loan that could put me in foreclosure at any moment." Now she waits for the "time bomb" of her loan to explode, and when it does she will join the millions of Americans facing foreclosure. Mercy is not alone: in 2006, 61 percent of subprime borrowers were forced into mortgages more expensive and riskier than what they qualified for.

Meanwhile, inside the White House, the heads of the nation's biggest banks and financial institutions were meeting with the president. They were told that since the American people had bailed them out, they now needed to do something for the American people by beginning to lend again and to agree to loan modification plans enabling homeowners not to lose everything. But so far, those admonitions are falling on deaf ears. Indeed, I learned this week that the bonuses and extra compensation paid to the executives at the big banks are on track to exceed the 2007 level of $162 billion (even after some banks, like Goldman Sachs, have switched compensation packages away from cash and into stock bonuses). At the same time, the Center for Responsible Lending estimates that the bonus pool of just one of these big banks would have been enough money to prevent or significantly delay foreclosure for all 2.3 million people who lost their homes last year. And what about loan modifications to help homeowners stay in their homes? To date, Bank of America has agreed to fewer than 100 permanent home loan modifications. Amazing.

At the press conference, I pointed out the fundamental moral contradiction of this situation: Those whose behavior is most responsible for causing this economic crisis are being saved from failure and suffering by the American taxpayers, while those least responsible for causing this recession are now losing both jobs and homes-with no bailouts for them on the horizon. My friend Rev. Derrick Harkins made a point about "grace." He suggested that in order to try to save the economy from a feared massive meltdown, some real grace was extended to the big banks; but they now seem unwilling to extend grace to anyone else. Does this sound like a gospel parable to you?

What it sounds like to me is a very bad morality play-one that I write about much more extensively in my new book Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street-A Moral Compass for the New Economy. The book says we need a new national conversation about all this, a return to some basic values, and a moral recovery to accompany an economic recovery. We cannot go back to normal this time; we need a new normal. It's time to change the script of this play. That is the only way all this suffering and pain can be redeemed.

+Click here for a free download of the first chapter of Jim's new book, "Sunday School with Jon Stewart."

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: kansasmennonite

12-19-2009 @ 9:54pm

quote:"Leaders and companies who steward poorly should be fired and let to bankrupt, while those who manage risk well and profitably should get paid. Government distortion of BOTH sides of that equation - propping up those who should be let suffer the consequences of their actions, and windfall taxes on the successful - is the great problem we face today, as it encourages reckless behavior by the incompetent, and discourages responsible behavior by the productive."

Does this profit motive apply to health insurance companies also?

by: kansasmennonite

12-19-2009 @ 10:01pm

Does someone who just lost their home have any money left over to hire a lawyer to fight fraud?

xfree9 says that no one was forced to sign a mortgage. I see the borrower as the victim when lied to and you make it sound like it's all business and the borrower is fully accountable for signing a mortgage that is full of fraud. Which side would Jesus be on? I would think a fellow Christian would be a little more sympathetic.

by: ???????????????

01-27-2010 @ 8:34pm

thanks for sharing with us.

by: PunishedforProducing

12-19-2009 @ 3:52pm

Did President Obama forget that lending to people unlikely to be able to repay their debts is what CAUSED this crisis? Putting home ownership up on an altar, and encouraging lending to people/businesses unlikely to be able to repay those debts was and remains the problem, not the solution.

Anyone who has credit card debt should not be surprised if profitable banks pay their people extraordinarily well compared to most other fields, or even their peers at other less profitable banks.

Given how few Americans are able to balance their income and expenditures to come up with a positive number at the end of the year - and thus run up credit card debt - it's no surprise that banks have to pay top dollar to find/retain people competent to do this basic math, much less risk manage more complex portfolios of assets.

Recall the parable of the talents (Matthew 25 & Luke 19) - he who stewarded his master's money well was given even more, while he who stewarded what little he had poorly...even that was taken from him.

While the Bible certainly directs followers of Christ care for their fellows with unmet needs, Christ's teachings about responsible stewardship flies in the face of those who think wide income disparity in society somehow _necessarily_ reflects injustice (rather than disparate lifestyle decisions, or different aptitude/stewardship, at least as much as structural explanations).

Leaders and companies who steward poorly should be fired and let to bankrupt, while those who manage risk well and profitably should get paid. Government distortion of BOTH sides of that equation - propping up those who should be let suffer the consequences of their actions, and windfall taxes on the successful - is the great problem we face today, as it encourages reckless behavior by the incompetent, and discourages responsible behavior by the productive.

by: PunishedforProducing

12-20-2009 @ 3:15pm

Absolutely. If good stewardship (ie profitability) is NOT held in high esteem, then an enterprise predicated on optimizing for any other value will eventually fall apart for lack of resources to sustain it. If you discard money as your primary measure, then far dodgier and opaque processes - namely politics - will determine who gets access to those limited resources when there isn't enough to go around. If it's not profit that drives investment and behavior...it will be the Politburo (or some equivalent)

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money...because as Britain is finding out in a hurry, the talented bankers who pay for so much of Britain's beloved socialized healthcare system are shipping out.

by: kansasmennonite

12-20-2009 @ 6:01pm

What about all of the other industrialized nations? Somehow they have found out a way that's better than ours. More people covered, cheaper, etc.

by: ???????????????

01-27-2010 @ 6:34pm

thanks for sharing with us.

by: Printable Address Labels

01-13-2010 @ 9:58am

Great stuff dude.. I was really impressed.

by: address labels envelops

01-13-2010 @ 9:56am

thanks for sharing with us.

by: 1500 Calorie Diabetic Diet

01-13-2010 @ 9:51am

This is a great job! Well done. Thank you sharing your ideas and knowledge.

by: Lemonade diet

01-12-2010 @ 5:54am

this is such great information. thanks for the insight.

by: Skinfood

01-12-2010 @ 5:54am

Nicely done, very impressive. Keep up the good work and of course, keep sharing your ideas.

by: Etude

01-12-2010 @ 5:53am

Thank you, it is very good! I like it very much

by: kansasmennonite

12-19-2009 @ 9:54pm

quote:"Leaders and companies who steward poorly should be fired and let to bankrupt, while those who manage risk well and profitably should get paid. Government distortion of BOTH sides of that equation - propping up those who should be let suffer the consequences of their actions, and windfall taxes on the successful - is the great problem we face today, as it encourages reckless behavior by the incompetent, and discourages responsible behavior by the productive."

Does this profit motive apply to health insurance companies also?

by: Cayenne Pepper Diet

01-12-2010 @ 1:29am

this is telly awesome article.Thanks for sharing with us..

by: kansasmennonite

12-19-2009 @ 10:01pm

Does someone who just lost their home have any money left over to hire a lawyer to fight fraud?

xfree9 says that no one was forced to sign a mortgage. I see the borrower as the victim when lied to and you make it sound like it's all business and the borrower is fully accountable for signing a mortgage that is full of fraud. Which side would Jesus be on? I would think a fellow Christian would be a little more sympathetic.

by: Cayenne Pepper Diet

01-11-2010 @ 3:13pm

Great stuff dude.. I was really impressed.

by: Apple Cider Vinegar Diet

01-11-2010 @ 3:12pm

This is a great job! Well done. Thank you sharing your ideas and knowledge.

by: Portable Air Conditioner

01-11-2010 @ 3:12pm

thanks for sharing with us.

by: Printable Address Labels

01-11-2010 @ 10:35am

Thank you, it is very good! I like it very much

by: Sears Craftsman Air Compressor

01-11-2010 @ 10:35am

this is such great information. thanks for the insight.

by: Diet

01-11-2010 @ 10:35am

Nicely done, very impressive. Keep up the good work and of course, keep sharing your ideas.

by: Cayenne Pepper Diet

01-10-2010 @ 4:55pm

thanks for sharing with us.

by: Cayenne Pepper Diet

01-10-2010 @ 4:54pm

this is telly awesome article.Thanks for sharing with us..

by: carlcopas

12-21-2009 @ 3:35pm

"If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

Matthew 12:7

by: Personalized Address Labels

01-10-2010 @ 4:54pm

This is a great job! Well done. Thank you sharing your ideas and knowledge.

by: Sport Club Portugu

01-10-2010 @ 11:58am

Nicely done, very impressive. Keep up the good work and of course, keep sharing your ideas.

by: Sears Parts

01-10-2010 @ 11:58am

Great stuff dude.. I was really impressed.

by: self-directed IRAs

01-10-2010 @ 11:58am

this is such great information. thanks for the insight.

by: uberVU - social comments

12-20-2009 @ 3:48pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by wreck1954: Big banks, lowest of the low The Parable of the Unmerciful Bankers - http://blog.sojo.net/2009/12/17/the-parable-of-the-unmerciful-bankers/...

by: PunishedforProducing

12-20-2009 @ 3:15pm

Absolutely. If good stewardship (ie profitability) is NOT held in high esteem, then an enterprise predicated on optimizing for any other value will eventually fall apart for lack of resources to sustain it. If you discard money as your primary measure, then far dodgier and opaque processes - namely politics - will determine who gets access to those limited resources when there isn't enough to go around. If it's not profit that drives investment and behavior...it will be the Politburo (or some equivalent)

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money...because as Britain is finding out in a hurry, the talented bankers who pay for so much of Britain's beloved socialized healthcare system are shipping out.

by: kansasmennonite

12-20-2009 @ 6:01pm

What about all of the other industrialized nations? Somehow they have found out a way that's better than ours. More people covered, cheaper, etc.

by: PunishedforProducing

12-21-2009 @ 10:18pm

Two stats you should be aware of, if you under the illusion that socialism will work for medicine where it fails everywhere else (links to sources below):

1/ FIRST STAT:
5-year survival rate for prostate cancer - one of the most common forms of cancer - is 99% in the US, but only ±70% in the UK. Breast cancer is 89.1% vs. 81%. Once diagnosed, men are 30x more likely to die of prostate cancer in the UK than in the US; women are nearly 2x more likely to die of breast cancer.***Perfect example of how socialism's politics of jealousy don't make the poor wealthy, it just makes everyone poorer together.***

The reason I bring up cancer stats is that I think that's a pretty good metric for health care quality because it encompasses preventative medicine, early detection, and the whole range of cutting-edge interventions. Prostate and breast cancer are also pretty equal opportunity cancers that hit people across socio-economic groups.

Looking at infant mortality, at 6.3/1000, the US is not great, but it's also only ±2 different from the EU. We certainly need to do better on that front, but I don't think this stat is so jaw-droppingly disparate as those cancer stats.

The comparisons with Scandinavia and Asian nations like Singapore and Japan - who are the real leaders in infant mortality and health outcomes - are a bit challenging from an implementation standpoint simply because these countries are either much smaller, or more ethnically homogenous, or both, which make more collectivist policies work better (as they do in a family, but increasingly less well in large organizations).

2/ SECOND STAT
a doctor in the UK cannot hope to earn more than £45k ($70k) if they work for the NHS, which is the world's fourth largest employer...no wonder only the handful who feel "called" to serve as doctors in the UK stay.

Some will say, "such caps of compensation are necessary to control costs," to which I would say, "What's wrong with health care costs going higher - money buys a lot more/better in healthcare now than it did 20 years ago??" Towards what else would one dedicate marginal discretionary spending if not health? A faster laptop? A bigger house? A fancier vacation? Of course we're spending more on healthcare, and I don't see why that's a problem as long as people are living longer and better as a result (which we unambiguously are).

I have a problem with the fact that the US - with a bit of help from Switzerland and Japan - provide the overwhelming majority of new medical innovation, effectively subsidizing the socialism of the rest of the developed world. That said, we also do get paid well for creating the life-saving and -improving medicines and procedures we do. I just hope the idealists don't forget that the world's medical innovation has to come from somewhere, and incentives AS WELL AS ideals are required to accomplish great things.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/ty...
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=861
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...

by: carlcopas

12-21-2009 @ 3:35pm

"If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

Matthew 12:7

by: PunishedforProducing

12-21-2009 @ 10:18pm

Two stats you should be aware of, if you under the illusion that socialism will work for medicine where it fails everywhere else (links to sources below):

1/ FIRST STAT:
5-year survival rate for prostate cancer - one of the most common forms of cancer - is 99% in the US, but only ±70% in the UK. Breast cancer is 89.1% vs. 81%. Once diagnosed, men are 30x more likely to die of prostate cancer in the UK than in the US; women are nearly 2x more likely to die of breast cancer.***Perfect example of how socialism's politics of jealousy don't make the poor wealthy, it just makes everyone poorer together.***

The reason I bring up cancer stats is that I think that's a pretty good metric for health care quality because it encompasses preventative medicine, early detection, and the whole range of cutting-edge interventions. Prostate and breast cancer are also pretty equal opportunity cancers that hit people across socio-economic groups.

Looking at infant mortality, at 6.3/1000, the US is not great, but it's also only ±2 different from the EU. We certainly need to do better on that front, but I don't think this stat is so jaw-droppingly disparate as those cancer stats.

The comparisons with Scandinavia and Asian nations like Singapore and Japan - who are the real leaders in infant mortality and health outcomes - are a bit challenging from an implementation standpoint simply because these countries are either much smaller, or more ethnically homogenous, or both, which make more collectivist policies work better (as they do in a family, but increasingly less well in large organizations).

2/ SECOND STAT
a doctor in the UK cannot hope to earn more than £45k ($70k) if they work for the NHS, which is the world's fourth largest employer...no wonder only the handful who feel "called" to serve as doctors in the UK stay.

Some will say, "such caps of compensation are necessary to control costs," to which I would say, "What's wrong with health care costs going higher - money buys a lot more/better in healthcare now than it did 20 years ago??" Towards what else would one dedicate marginal discretionary spending if not health? A faster laptop? A bigger house? A fancier vacation? Of course we're spending more on healthcare, and I don't see why that's a problem as long as people are living longer and better as a result (which we unambiguously are).

I have a problem with the fact that the US - with a bit of help from Switzerland and Japan - provide the overwhelming majority of new medical innovation, effectively subsidizing the socialism of the rest of the developed world. That said, we also do get paid well for creating the life-saving and -improving medicines and procedures we do. I just hope the idealists don't forget that the world's medical innovation has to come from somewhere, and incentives AS WELL AS ideals are required to accomplish great things.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/ty...
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=861
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...

by: paradoxtor

12-17-2009 @ 3:38pm

"the loan servicer unethically tricked me" and "61 percent of subprime borrowers were forced into mortgages". How was she "tricked" and how were they "forced" into mortgages. I am open to evidence but am skeptical. Was a gun held to their head? I have two mortgages. One is on the house I live in and the other on a rental. Both mortgages are about $100,000 more than the equity. I made the decision on the loan. I was not tricked or forced. While I sympathize with those in this situation, I think it is unfair to accuse the loan officers and banks of trickery or coercion without evidence or even explanation. As a matter of my education, was there financial incentive for the loan servicer to "sell" an adjustable rather than fixed rate loan.

by: whiteteacher

12-17-2009 @ 4:07pm

I am also skeptical of this "trickery" (but maybe due to my education through Dave Ramsey on questioning any financial decision). Although, there is no doubt that there will be unethical practices in any business, I believe it has become the cliche explanation for bad loan decisions that it was the loan companies' fault. I am in the process of applying for a home loan, and I do not see how anyone could look over the paperwork stating specifically that a loan is adjustable. I realize that this may come across as elitist, but there must be some message in society that you do not sign a piece of paper based on the emotion of buying without reading the details. (How should we do this??)
A counter story I would love to hear is the growing market of people going into foreclosure on purpose after buying another house. I have several Christian friends who have done this, and it has been rationalized as "looking out for my family" and " an answer to prayer" when in reality they chose to take advantage of the "trend" in the downward economy to give up their undervalued house to buy another "better" home that, ironically, is being given up by someone else (for possibly the same reason). The prayers lifted up for these kinds of "deals" show that we, as Christians, may still believe prayer is a bartering system, rather than a surrender to God.

by: paradoxtor

12-17-2009 @ 4:31pm

I see some of the same attitude. There is nothing wrong with sticking to the "evil" big companies. I don't want to lose my home but I also want to repay the money that was loaned to me. I see little ethical struggle going on over the failure to repay what was borrowed.

by: JohnH54

12-17-2009 @ 5:54pm

Once again, the left shows that it is incapable of understanding even simple economics. It was the govt who encouraged the real estate bubble through the lending practices that it created and allowed to persist.

by: SouthTexasRed

12-17-2009 @ 6:48pm

The banks are behaving in a way fully incented by the Federal government. And unlike last year, where bonuses were awarded for atrocious performance, this year, the bonuses reflect the huge profits yielded from the taxpayer bailout. Bank profitability was the main objective of TARP and the overall Obama economic policy, which props up companies judged "too big to fail" (be it Goldman Sachs, AIG or GM) under a doctrine of "privatized profits, socialized losses." As for the lack of lending, a major problem has been the administration's pressure on the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates artificially low. That has allowed Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan et al. to arbitrage interest rates by borrowing money from the Fed and investing it in Treasury bonds that are both a safe risk and yield a high return. At the same time, Obama's regulatory regime is painstakingly scrutinizing loan trends for excessive risk (closing the barn door after the horse has bolted). I find it highly ironic that Obama, after setting up an environment that makes it bureaucratically difficult for banks to lend money to worthy borrowers, while at the same time making it easy for them to game the Fed for easy return, now blames banks for the problem.

by: ???????????????

01-27-2010 @ 8:34pm

thanks for sharing with us.

by: fundamentalist

12-17-2009 @ 7:04pm

It's clear that monetary pumping by the Feds caused the housing bubble that led to the crisis. And the state should not have bailed out the banks. That doesn't mean that the only people who suffer should be the home owners. Many have lost their jobs because of state intervention in the economy through monetary pumping. I don't see any reason why the state shouldn't help out some home owners, especially those who have lost jobs, since the state is responsible for their financial problems. However, keep in mind that the banks bailed out were investment banks, not commercial or mortgage banks. Even Bank of America, a commercial bank, was bailed out because it bought Merrill Lynch, an investment bank. Requiring commercial and mortgage banks to bear the burden of real estate losses is just as unfair as bailing out the investment banks. And it would paralyze lending to small businesses and other home owners.

As for why the leadership in Washington has a tin ear for the problems of the people, check out Dr. Kling's article on the Harvard-Goldman filter at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/12/the...

by: fundamentalist

12-17-2009 @ 7:08pm

PS, a "lack of values" did not cause the crisis. Sin is a constant with humans, like gravity. It's always there. Blaming the crisis on sin, or a lack of values, is like blaming airplane crashes on gravity. If bankers displayed greed in their actions (which I don't think they did) then we need to find out why it could get out of control at this time and not at others. The answer is loose monetary policy.

As for bankers acting badly, the unscrupulous were a tiny minority. Investment bankers bought derivatives based on mortgages that were AAA and AA rated and they followed all of the regulations. Mortgages went bad because housing prices fell, and housing prices fell because the Fed has caused a bubble.

by: ???????????????

01-27-2010 @ 6:34pm

thanks for sharing with us.

by: Printable Address Labels

01-13-2010 @ 9:58am

Great stuff dude.. I was really impressed.

by: address labels envelops

01-13-2010 @ 9:56am

thanks for sharing with us.

by: 1500 Calorie Diabetic Diet

01-13-2010 @ 9:51am

This is a great job! Well done. Thank you sharing your ideas and knowledge.

by: Lemonade diet

01-12-2010 @ 5:54am

this is such great information. thanks for the insight.

by: Skinfood

01-12-2010 @ 5:54am

Nicely done, very impressive. Keep up the good work and of course, keep sharing your ideas.

by: Etude

01-12-2010 @ 5:53am

Thank you, it is very good! I like it very much

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: paradoxtor

12-17-2009 @ 3:38pm

"the loan servicer unethically tricked me" and "61 percent of subprime borrowers were forced into mortgages". How was she "tricked" and how were they "forced" into mortgages. I am open to evidence but am skeptical. Was a gun held to their head? I have two mortgages. One is on the house I live in and the other on a rental. Both mortgages are about $100,000 more than the equity. I made the decision on the loan. I was not tricked or forced. While I sympathize with those in this situation, I think it is unfair to accuse the loan officers and banks of trickery or coercion without evidence or even explanation. As a matter of my education, was there financial incentive for the loan servicer to "sell" an adjustable rather than fixed rate loan.

by: paradoxtor

12-17-2009 @ 3:38pm

"the loan servicer unethically tricked me" and "61 percent of subprime borrowers were forced into mortgages". How was she "tricked" and how were they "forced" into mortgages. I am open to evidence but am skeptical. Was a gun held to their head? I have two mortgages. One is on the house I live in and the other on a rental. Both mortgages are about $100,000 more than the equity. I made the decision on the loan. I was not tricked or forced. While I sympathize with those in this situation, I think it is unfair to accuse the loan officers and banks of trickery or coercion without evidence or even explanation. As a matter of my education, was there financial incentive for the loan servicer to "sell" an adjustable rather than fixed rate loan.

by: whiteteacher

12-17-2009 @ 4:07pm

I am also skeptical of this "trickery" (but maybe due to my education through Dave Ramsey on questioning any financial decision). Although, there is no doubt that there will be unethical practices in any business, I believe it has become the cliche explanation for bad loan decisions that it was the loan companies' fault. I am in the process of applying for a home loan, and I do not see how anyone could look over the paperwork stating specifically that a loan is adjustable. I realize that this may come across as elitist, but there must be some message in society that you do not sign a piece of paper based on the emotion of buying without reading the details. (How should we do this??)
A counter story I would love to hear is the growing market of people going into foreclosure on purpose after buying another house. I have several Christian friends who have done this, and it has been rationalized as "looking out for my family" and " an answer to prayer" when in reality they chose to take advantage of the "trend" in the downward economy to give up their undervalued house to buy another "better" home that, ironically, is being given up by someone else (for possibly the same reason). The prayers lifted up for these kinds of "deals" show that we, as Christians, may still believe prayer is a bartering system, rather than a surrender to God.

by: whiteteacher

12-17-2009 @ 4:07pm

I am also skeptical of this "trickery" (but maybe due to my education through Dave Ramsey on questioning any financial decision). Although, there is no doubt that there will be unethical practices in any business, I believe it has become the cliche explanation for bad loan decisions that it was the loan companies' fault. I am in the process of applying for a home loan, and I do not see how anyone could look over the paperwork stating specifically that a loan is adjustable. I realize that this may come across as elitist, but there must be some message in society that you do not sign a piece of paper based on the emotion of buying without reading the details. (How should we do this??)
A counter story I would love to hear is the growing market of people going into foreclosure on purpose after buying another house. I have several Christian friends who have done this, and it has been rationalized as "looking out for my family" and " an answer to prayer" when in reality they chose to take advantage of the "trend" in the downward economy to give up their undervalued house to buy another "better" home that, ironically, is being given up by someone else (for possibly the same reason). The prayers lifted up for these kinds of "deals" show that we, as Christians, may still believe prayer is a bartering system, rather than a surrender to God.

by: paradoxtor

12-17-2009 @ 4:31pm

I see some of the same attitude. There is nothing wrong with sticking to the "evil" big companies. I don't want to lose my home but I also want to repay the money that was loaned to me. I see little ethical struggle going on over the failure to repay what was borrowed.

by: paradoxtor

12-17-2009 @ 4:31pm

I see some of the same attitude. There is nothing wrong with sticking to the "evil" big companies. I don't want to lose my home but I also want to repay the money that was loaned to me. I see little ethical struggle going on over the failure to repay what was borrowed.

by: JohnH54

12-17-2009 @ 5:54pm

Once again, the left shows that it is incapable of understanding even simple economics. It was the govt who encouraged the real estate bubble through the lending practices that it created and allowed to persist.

by: JohnH54

12-17-2009 @ 5:54pm

Once again, the left shows that it is incapable of understanding even simple economics. It was the govt who encouraged the real estate bubble through the lending practices that it created and allowed to persist.

by: SouthTexasRed

12-17-2009 @ 6:48pm

The banks are behaving in a way fully incented by the Federal government. And unlike last year, where bonuses were awarded for atrocious performance, this year, the bonuses reflect the huge profits yielded from the taxpayer bailout. Bank profitability was the main objective of TARP and the overall Obama economic policy, which props up companies judged "too big to fail" (be it Goldman Sachs, AIG or GM) under a doctrine of "privatized profits, socialized losses." As for the lack of lending, a major problem has been the administration's pressure on the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates artificially low. That has allowed Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan et al. to arbitrage interest rates by borrowing money from the Fed and investing it in Treasury bonds that are both a safe risk and yield a high return. At the same time, Obama's regulatory regime is painstakingly scrutinizing loan trends for excessive risk (closing the barn door after the horse has bolted). I find it highly ironic that Obama, after setting up an environment that makes it bureaucratically difficult for banks to lend money to worthy borrowers, while at the same time making it easy for them to game the Fed for easy return, now blames banks for the problem.

by: SouthTexasRed

12-17-2009 @ 6:48pm

The banks are behaving in a way fully incented by the Federal government. And unlike last year, where bonuses were awarded for atrocious performance, this year, the bonuses reflect the huge profits yielded from the taxpayer bailout. Bank profitability was the main objective of TARP and the overall Obama economic policy, which props up companies judged "too big to fail" (be it Goldman Sachs, AIG or GM) under a doctrine of "privatized profits, socialized losses." As for the lack of lending, a major problem has been the administration's pressure on the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates artificially low. That has allowed Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan et al. to arbitrage interest rates by borrowing money from the Fed and investing it in Treasury bonds that are both a safe risk and yield a high return. At the same time, Obama's regulatory regime is painstakingly scrutinizing loan trends for excessive risk (closing the barn door after the horse has bolted). I find it highly ironic that Obama, after setting up an environment that makes it bureaucratically difficult for banks to lend money to worthy borrowers, while at the same time making it easy for them to game the Fed for easy return, now blames banks for the problem.

by: fundamentalist

12-17-2009 @ 7:04pm

It's clear that monetary pumping by the Feds caused the housing bubble that led to the crisis. And the state should not have bailed out the banks. That doesn't mean that the only people who suffer should be the home owners. Many have lost their jobs because of state intervention in the economy through monetary pumping. I don't see any reason why the state shouldn't help out some home owners, especially those who have lost jobs, since the state is responsible for their financial problems. However, keep in mind that the banks bailed out were investment banks, not commercial or mortgage banks. Even Bank of America, a commercial bank, was bailed out because it bought Merrill Lynch, an investment bank. Requiring commercial and mortgage banks to bear the burden of real estate losses is just as unfair as bailing out the investment banks. And it would paralyze lending to small businesses and other home owners.

As for why the leadership in Washington has a tin ear for the problems of the people, check out Dr. Kling's article on the Harvard-Goldman filter at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/12/the...

by: fundamentalist

12-17-2009 @ 7:04pm

It's clear that monetary pumping by the Feds caused the housing bubble that led to the crisis. And the state should not have bailed out the banks. That doesn't mean that the only people who suffer should be the home owners. Many have lost their jobs because of state intervention in the economy through monetary pumping. I don't see any reason why the state shouldn't help out some home owners, especially those who have lost jobs, since the state is responsible for their financial problems. However, keep in mind that the banks bailed out were investment banks, not commercial or mortgage banks. Even Bank of America, a commercial bank, was bailed out because it bought Merrill Lynch, an investment bank. Requiring commercial and mortgage banks to bear the burden of real estate losses is just as unfair as bailing out the investment banks. And it would paralyze lending to small businesses and other home owners.

As for why the leadership in Washington has a tin ear for the problems of the people, check out Dr. Kling's article on the Harvard-Goldman filter at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/12/the...

by: fundamentalist

12-17-2009 @ 7:08pm

PS, a "lack of values" did not cause the crisis. Sin is a constant with humans, like gravity. It's always there. Blaming the crisis on sin, or a lack of values, is like blaming airplane crashes on gravity. If bankers displayed greed in their actions (which I don't think they did) then we need to find out why it could get out of control at this time and not at others. The answer is loose monetary policy.

As for bankers acting badly, the unscrupulous were a tiny minority. Investment bankers bought derivatives based on mortgages that were AAA and AA rated and they followed all of the regulations. Mortgages went bad because housing prices fell, and housing prices fell because the Fed has caused a bubble.

by: fundamentalist

12-17-2009 @ 7:08pm

PS, a "lack of values" did not cause the crisis. Sin is a constant with humans, like gravity. It's always there. Blaming the crisis on sin, or a lack of values, is like blaming airplane crashes on gravity. If bankers displayed greed in their actions (which I don't think they did) then we need to find out why it could get out of control at this time and not at others. The answer is loose monetary policy.

As for bankers acting badly, the unscrupulous were a tiny minority. Investment bankers bought derivatives based on mortgages that were AAA and AA rated and they followed all of the regulations. Mortgages went bad because housing prices fell, and housing prices fell because the Fed has caused a bubble.

by: nuclearferret

12-17-2009 @ 8:48pm

If "grace" is the equivalent to loads of taxpayer money, I guess the big banks were extended grace. But banks are not people, and dollars are not grace. That Congress and President Bush, by using the American taxpayers, saved this institutions from collapse falls not on the banks...it falls on Congress and the Administration for allowing these entities continue. We live in a time when most people appear to believe that someone, typically the government, exists to prevent suffering and failure.

by: nuclearferret

12-17-2009 @ 8:48pm

If "grace" is the equivalent to loads of taxpayer money, I guess the big banks were extended grace. But banks are not people, and dollars are not grace. That Congress and President Bush, by using the American taxpayers, saved this institutions from collapse falls not on the banks...it falls on Congress and the Administration for allowing these entities continue. We live in a time when most people appear to believe that someone, typically the government, exists to prevent suffering and failure.

by: SamHamilton

12-17-2009 @ 10:21pm

Henry Blodget wrote a good article on the financial crisis in the Atlantic a while back. In it, he wrote:

Who's to blame for the current crisis? As usually happens after a crash, the search for scapegoats has been intense, and many contenders have emerged: Wall Street swindled us; predatory lenders sold us loans we couldn't afford; the Securities and Exchange Commission fell asleep at the switch; Alan Greenspan kept interest rates low for too long; short-sellers spread negative rumors; "experts" gave us bad advice. More-introspective folks will add other explanations: we got greedy; we went nuts; we heard what we wanted to hear.

All of these explanations have some truth to them. Predatory lenders did bamboozle some people into loans and houses they couldn't afford. The SEC and other regulators did miss opportunities to curb some of the more egregious behavior. Alan Greenspan did keep interest rates too low for too long (and if you're looking for the single biggest cause of the housing bubble, this is it). Some short-sellers did spread negative rumors. And, Lord knows, many of us got greedy, checked our brains at the door, and heard what we wanted to hear.

Now which category does Mercy Martinez fit into? Was she bamboozled or tricked? Did she check her brain at the door? Did she hear what she wanted to hear? Were there not enough regulations in place to prevent her from being bamboozled? Who's to blame here? As Blodget writes, there's probably a lot of blame to go around. But to Jim it appears that all the blame lies at the feet of the bankers. Why? I'll admit they're the easiest people to blame. "Bankers" are nameless and unsympathetic and conventional wisdom says they're greedy money lenders.

But I have a different story. My wife and I bought our home a couple years ago (good timing huh?) and our lender was great. They didn't try to talk us into any crazy schemes. We said we wanted a 30-year fixed rate mortgage and they told us how much they could lend us and that was it. No attempts to "force" us into an ARM. This is how the vast majority of lenders have behaved. And we've paid our mortgage on time. As have the vast majority of borrowers. Our lender and borrowers like us are part of the silent majority of people who will pay the price for the few like Mercy and her lender who bamboozled borrowers and checked their brain at the door.

On a slightly different subject, I share Jim's consternation about how banks got bailouts but borrowers like Mercy don't get help. I read somewhere that we could have, instead of spending billions on bailouts and stimuli, given around $20,000 to every homeowner facing foreclosure and still had money to spare. Instead, our government gave billions to banks. Yet Jim's answer to this seems to be to increase the authority and ability of the government to do this type of thing and hope the next time we're in a similar situation it'll bailout the homeowners instead. I'd prefer that the government not have the authority to bail anyone out, whether it's an irresponsible lender or a home buyer who checked his brain at the door.

by: SamHamilton

12-17-2009 @ 10:21pm

Henry Blodget wrote a good article on the financial crisis in the Atlantic a while back. In it, he wrote:

Who's to blame for the current crisis? As usually happens after a crash, the search for scapegoats has been intense, and many contenders have emerged: Wall Street swindled us; predatory lenders sold us loans we couldn't afford; the Securities and Exchange Commission fell asleep at the switch; Alan Greenspan kept interest rates low for too long; short-sellers spread negative rumors; "experts" gave us bad advice. More-introspective folks will add other explanations: we got greedy; we went nuts; we heard what we wanted to hear.

All of these explanations have some truth to them. Predatory lenders did bamboozle some people into loans and houses they couldn't afford. The SEC and other regulators did miss opportunities to curb some of the more egregious behavior. Alan Greenspan did keep interest rates too low for too long (and if you're looking for the single biggest cause of the housing bubble, this is it). Some short-sellers did spread negative rumors. And, Lord knows, many of us got greedy, checked our brains at the door, and heard what we wanted to hear.

Now which category does Mercy Martinez fit into? Was she bamboozled or tricked? Did she check her brain at the door? Did she hear what she wanted to hear? Were there not enough regulations in place to prevent her from being bamboozled? Who's to blame here? As Blodget writes, there's probably a lot of blame to go around. But to Jim it appears that all the blame lies at the feet of the bankers. Why? I'll admit they're the easiest people to blame. "Bankers" are nameless and unsympathetic and conventional wisdom says they're greedy money lenders.

But I have a different story. My wife and I bought our home a couple years ago (good timing huh?) and our lender was great. They didn't try to talk us into any crazy schemes. We said we wanted a 30-year fixed rate mortgage and they told us how much they could lend us and that was it. No attempts to "force" us into an ARM. This is how the vast majority of lenders have behaved. And we've paid our mortgage on time. As have the vast majority of borrowers. Our lender and borrowers like us are part of the silent majority of people who will pay the price for the few like Mercy and her lender who bamboozled borrowers and checked their brain at the door.

On a slightly different subject, I share Jim's consternation about how banks got bailouts but borrowers like Mercy don't get help. I read somewhere that we could have, instead of spending billions on bailouts and stimuli, given around $20,000 to every homeowner facing foreclosure and still had money to spare. Instead, our government gave billions to banks. Yet Jim's answer to this seems to be to increase the authority and ability of the government to do this type of thing and hope the next time we're in a similar situation it'll bailout the homeowners instead. I'd prefer that the government not have the authority to bail anyone out, whether it's an irresponsible lender or a home buyer who checked his brain at the door.

by: NC77

12-17-2009 @ 10:44pm

Mercy Martinez began to cry as she spoke. She had saved for years and put $100,000 down to buy her first condo. Choking back tears, she recalled her meeting with the Countrywide Financial mortgage broker. "I had enough money for a traditional, 30-year fixed rate loan; but the loan servicer unethically tricked me into an adjustable rate loan that could put me in foreclosure at any moment." Now she waits for the "time bomb" of her loan to explode, and when it does she will join the millions of Americans facing foreclosure.

If 100k down qualified for a conventional 30 year loan, she is a prime candidate for refinancing at lower interest rates.

Knowing a time bomb is ready to explode, why would someone just wait for it to happen?

by: NC77

12-17-2009 @ 10:44pm

Mercy Martinez began to cry as she spoke. She had saved for years and put $100,000 down to buy her first condo. Choking back tears, she recalled her meeting with the Countrywide Financial mortgage broker. "I had enough money for a traditional, 30-year fixed rate loan; but the loan servicer unethically tricked me into an adjustable rate loan that could put me in foreclosure at any moment." Now she waits for the "time bomb" of her loan to explode, and when it does she will join the millions of Americans facing foreclosure.

If 100k down qualified for a conventional 30 year loan, she is a prime candidate for refinancing at lower interest rates.

Knowing a time bomb is ready to explode, why would someone just wait for it to happen?

by: kansasmennonite

12-17-2009 @ 10:47pm

You don't believe there was lying going on? Do you think all of the loan officers were truthful? I feel sorry for the people who were decieved. What part of this sin don't you get?

by: kansasmennonite

12-17-2009 @ 10:47pm

You don't believe there was lying going on? Do you think all of the loan officers were truthful? I feel sorry for the people who were decieved. What part of this sin don't you get?

by: NC77

12-17-2009 @ 10:56pm

So I guess it is a matter of he said, she said when it comes to the blame for this crisis. Meanwhile Barney and friends in Congress and Franklin Raines who made millions taking down Fannie and Freddie get a free pass.

Remember what Barney said about the health of Fannie and Freddie when Bush wanted to go in and fix them in the middle of the bubble?

by: NC77

12-17-2009 @ 10:56pm

So I guess it is a matter of he said, she said when it comes to the blame for this crisis. Meanwhile Barney and friends in Congress and Franklin Raines who made millions taking down Fannie and Freddie get a free pass.

Remember what Barney said about the health of Fannie and Freddie when Bush wanted to go in and fix them in the middle of the bubble?

by: xfree9

12-18-2009 @ 12:01am

Yes, lying goes on. But that's already protected under law-it's called fraud. If it's in the "fine print," paying a lawyer $1,000 might be a good idea to get a "second opinion."

Nobody was forced to sign a mortgage. Furthermore, borrowers have to walk into the bank first anyway!

by: xfree9

12-18-2009 @ 12:01am

Yes, lying goes on. But that's already protected under law-it's called fraud. If it's in the "fine print," paying a lawyer $1,000 might be a good idea to get a "second opinion."

Nobody was forced to sign a mortgage. Furthermore, borrowers have to walk into the bank first anyway!

by: WaveTossed

12-18-2009 @ 12:19pm

"[Mercy Martinez]I had enough money for a traditional, 30-year fixed rate loan; but the loan servicer unethically tricked me into an adjustable rate loan that could put me in foreclosure at any moment."

Question: did the bank offer her a 30-year fixed-rate loan? Or was she told that the only loan she could get would be the adjustable-rate loan (even though she independently knew that she would qualify for the fixed-rate loan)? If she was only offered the adjustable-rate loan, then the bank was guilty of withholding information and deceptive selling tactics (and possibly discrimination).

Another question would be: if the bank offered her a choice, but told her that the adjustable-rate loan was "better." That the adjustable-rate loan would cause no problems. If the bank officers didn't clearly spell out how an adjustable-rate loan would end up charging higher and higher interest rates until foreclosure would be forced, then the bank is guilty of deceptive sales tactics.

These are questions that must be asked and answered before any judgments about either the bank of the homeowner can be made.

by: WaveTossed

12-18-2009 @ 12:19pm

"[Mercy Martinez]I had enough money for a traditional, 30-year fixed rate loan; but the loan servicer unethically tricked me into an adjustable rate loan that could put me in foreclosure at any moment."

Question: did the bank offer her a 30-year fixed-rate loan? Or was she told that the only loan she could get would be the adjustable-rate loan (even though she independently knew that she would qualify for the fixed-rate loan)? If she was only offered the adjustable-rate loan, then the bank was guilty of withholding information and deceptive selling tactics (and possibly discrimination).

Another question would be: if the bank offered her a choice, but told her that the adjustable-rate loan was "better." That the adjustable-rate loan would cause no problems. If the bank officers didn't clearly spell out how an adjustable-rate loan would end up charging higher and higher interest rates until foreclosure would be forced, then the bank is guilty of deceptive sales tactics.

These are questions that must be asked and answered before any judgments about either the bank of the homeowner can be made.

by: PunishedforProducing

12-19-2009 @ 3:52pm

Did President Obama forget that lending to people unlikely to be able to repay their debts is what CAUSED this crisis? Putting home ownership up on an altar, and encouraging lending to people/businesses unlikely to be able to repay those debts was and remains the problem, not the solution.

Anyone who has credit card debt should not be surprised if profitable banks pay their people extraordinarily well compared to most other fields, or even their peers at other less profitable banks.

Given how few Americans are able to balance their income and expenditures to come up with a positive number at the end of the year - and thus run up credit card debt - it's no surprise that banks have to pay top dollar to find/retain people competent to do this basic math, much less risk manage more complex portfolios of assets.

Recall the parable of the talents (Matthew 25 & Luke 19) - he who stewarded his master's money well was given even more, while he who stewarded what little he had poorly...even that was taken from him.

While the Bible certainly directs followers of Christ care for their fellows with unmet needs, Christ's teachings about responsible stewardship flies in the face of those who think wide income disparity in society somehow _necessarily_ reflects injustice (rather than disparate lifestyle decisions, or different aptitude/stewardship, at least as much as structural explanations).

Leaders and companies who steward poorly should be fired and let to bankrupt, while those who manage risk well and profitably should get paid. Government distortion of BOTH sides of that equation - propping up those who should be let suffer the consequences of their actions, and windfall taxes on the successful - is the great problem we face today, as it encourages reckless behavior by the incompetent, and discourages responsible behavior by the productive.

by: PunishedforProducing

12-19-2009 @ 3:52pm

Did President Obama forget that lending to people unlikely to be able to repay their debts is what CAUSED this crisis? Putting home ownership up on an altar, and encouraging lending to people/businesses unlikely to be able to repay those debts was and remains the problem, not the solution.

Anyone who has credit card debt should not be surprised if profitable banks pay their people extraordinarily well compared to most other fields, or even their peers at other less profitable banks.

Given how few Americans are able to balance their income and expenditures to come up with a positive number at the end of the year - and thus run up credit card debt - it's no surprise that banks have to pay top dollar to find/retain people competent to do this basic math, much less risk manage more complex portfolios of assets.

Recall the parable of the talents (Matthew 25 & Luke 19) - he who stewarded his master's money well was given even more, while he who stewarded what little he had poorly...even that was taken from him.

While the Bible certainly directs followers of Christ care for their fellows with unmet needs, Christ's teachings about responsible stewardship flies in the face of those who think wide income disparity in society somehow _necessarily_ reflects injustice (rather than disparate lifestyle decisions, or different aptitude/stewardship, at least as much as structural explanations).

Leaders and companies who steward poorly should be fired and let to bankrupt, while those who manage risk well and profitably should get paid. Government distortion of BOTH sides of that equation - propping up those who should be let suffer the consequences of their actions, and windfall taxes on the successful - is the great problem we face today, as it encourages reckless behavior by the incompetent, and discourages responsible behavior by the productive.

by: kansasmennonite

12-19-2009 @ 9:54pm

quote:"Leaders and companies who steward poorly should be fired and let to bankrupt, while those who manage risk well and profitably should get paid. Government distortion of BOTH sides of that equation - propping up those who should be let suffer the consequences of their actions, and windfall taxes on the successful - is the great problem we face today, as it encourages reckless behavior by the incompetent, and discourages responsible behavior by the productive."

Does this profit motive apply to health insurance companies also?

by: kansasmennonite

12-19-2009 @ 9:54pm

quote:"Leaders and companies who steward poorly should be fired and let to bankrupt, while those who manage risk well and profitably should get paid. Government distortion of BOTH sides of that equation - propping up those who should be let suffer the consequences of their actions, and windfall taxes on the successful - is the great problem we face today, as it encourages reckless behavior by the incompetent, and discourages responsible behavior by the productive."

Does this profit motive apply to health insurance companies also?

by: kansasmennonite

12-19-2009 @ 10:01pm

Does someone who just lost their home have any money left over to hire a lawyer to fight fraud?

xfree9 says that no one was forced to sign a mortgage. I see the borrower as the victim when lied to and you make it sound like it's all business and the borrower is fully accountable for signing a mortgage that is full of fraud. Which side would Jesus be on? I would think a fellow Christian would be a little more sympathetic.

by: kansasmennonite

12-19-2009 @ 10:01pm

Does someone who just lost their home have any money left over to hire a lawyer to fight fraud?

xfree9 says that no one was forced to sign a mortgage. I see the borrower as the victim when lied to and you make it sound like it's all business and the borrower is fully accountable for signing a mortgage that is full of fraud. Which side would Jesus be on? I would think a fellow Christian would be a little more sympathetic.

by: PunishedforProducing

12-20-2009 @ 3:15pm

Absolutely. If good stewardship (ie profitability) is NOT held in high esteem, then an enterprise predicated on optimizing for any other value will eventually fall apart for lack of resources to sustain it. If you discard money as your primary measure, then far dodgier and opaque processes - namely politics - will determine who gets access to those limited resources when there isn't enough to go around. If it's not profit that drives investment and behavior...it will be the Politburo (or some equivalent)

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money...because as Britain is finding out in a hurry, the talented bankers who pay for so much of Britain's beloved socialized healthcare system are shipping out.

by: PunishedforProducing

12-20-2009 @ 3:15pm

Absolutely. If good stewardship (ie profitability) is NOT held in high esteem, then an enterprise predicated on optimizing for any other value will eventually fall apart for lack of resources to sustain it. If you discard money as your primary measure, then far dodgier and opaque processes - namely politics - will determine who gets access to those limited resources when there isn't enough to go around. If it's not profit that drives investment and behavior...it will be the Politburo (or some equivalent)

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money...because as Britain is finding out in a hurry, the talented bankers who pay for so much of Britain's beloved socialized healthcare system are shipping out.

by: uberVU - social comments

12-20-2009 @ 3:48pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by wreck1954: Big banks, lowest of the low The Parable of the Unmerciful Bankers - http://blog.sojo.net/2009/12/17/the-parable-of-the-unmerciful-bankers/...

by: kansasmennonite

12-20-2009 @ 6:01pm

What about all of the other industrialized nations? Somehow they have found out a way that's better than ours. More people covered, cheaper, etc.

by: kansasmennonite

12-20-2009 @ 6:01pm

What about all of the other industrialized nations? Somehow they have found out a way that's better than ours. More people covered, cheaper, etc.

by: carlcopas

12-21-2009 @ 3:35pm

"If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

Matthew 12:7

by: carlcopas

12-21-2009 @ 3:35pm

"If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

Matthew 12:7

by: PunishedforProducing

12-21-2009 @ 10:18pm

Two stats you should be aware of, if you under the illusion that socialism will work for medicine where it fails everywhere else (links to sources below):

1/ FIRST STAT:
5-year survival rate for prostate cancer - one of the most common forms of cancer - is 99% in the US, but only ±70% in the UK. Breast cancer is 89.1% vs. 81%. Once diagnosed, men are 30x more likely to die of prostate cancer in the UK than in the US; women are nearly 2x more likely to die of breast cancer.***Perfect example of how socialism's politics of jealousy don't make the poor wealthy, it just makes everyone poorer together.***

The reason I bring up cancer stats is that I think that's a pretty good metric for health care quality because it encompasses preventative medicine, early detection, and the whole range of cutting-edge interventions. Prostate and breast cancer are also pretty equal opportunity cancers that hit people across socio-economic groups.

Looking at infant mortality, at 6.3/1000, the US is not great, but it's also only ±2 different from the EU. We certainly need to do better on that front, but I don't think this stat is so jaw-droppingly disparate as those cancer stats.

The comparisons with Scandinavia and Asian nations like Singapore and Japan - who are the real leaders in infant mortality and health outcomes - are a bit challenging from an implementation standpoint simply because these countries are either much smaller, or more ethnically homogenous, or both, which make more collectivist policies work better (as they do in a family, but increasingly less well in large organizations).

2/ SECOND STAT
a doctor in the UK cannot hope to earn more than £45k ($70k) if they work for the NHS, which is the world's fourth largest employer...no wonder only the handful who feel "called" to serve as doctors in the UK stay.

Some will say, "such caps of compensation are necessary to control costs," to which I would say, "What's wrong with health care costs going higher - money buys a lot more/better in healthcare now than it did 20 years ago??" Towards what else would one dedicate marginal discretionary spending if not health? A faster laptop? A bigger house? A fancier vacation? Of course we're spending more on healthcare, and I don't see why that's a problem as long as people are living longer and better as a result (which we unambiguously are).

I have a problem with the fact that the US - with a bit of help from Switzerland and Japan - provide the overwhelming majority of new medical innovation, effectively subsidizing the socialism of the rest of the developed world. That said, we also do get paid well for creating the life-saving and -improving medicines and procedures we do. I just hope the idealists don't forget that the world's medical innovation has to come from somewhere, and incentives AS WELL AS ideals are required to accomplish great things.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/ty...
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=861
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...

by: PunishedforProducing

12-21-2009 @ 10:18pm

Two stats you should be aware of, if you under the illusion that socialism will work for medicine where it fails everywhere else (links to sources below):

1/ FIRST STAT:
5-year survival rate for prostate cancer - one of the most common forms of cancer - is 99% in the US, but only ±70% in the UK. Breast cancer is 89.1% vs. 81%. Once diagnosed, men are 30x more likely to die of prostate cancer in the UK than in the US; women are nearly 2x more likely to die of breast cancer.***Perfect example of how socialism's politics of jealousy don't make the poor wealthy, it just makes everyone poorer together.***

The reason I bring up cancer stats is that I think that's a pretty good metric for health care quality because it encompasses preventative medicine, early detection, and the whole range of cutting-edge interventions. Prostate and breast cancer are also pretty equal opportunity cancers that hit people across socio-economic groups.

Looking at infant mortality, at 6.3/1000, the US is not great, but it's also only ±2 different from the EU. We certainly need to do better on that front, but I don't think this stat is so jaw-droppingly disparate as those cancer stats.

The comparisons with Scandinavia and Asian nations like Singapore and Japan - who are the real leaders in infant mortality and health outcomes - are a bit challenging from an implementation standpoint simply because these countries are either much smaller, or more ethnically homogenous, or both, which make more collectivist policies work better (as they do in a family, but increasingly less well in large organizations).

2/ SECOND STAT
a doctor in the UK cannot hope to earn more than £45k ($70k) if they work for the NHS, which is the world's fourth largest employer...no wonder only the handful who feel "called" to serve as doctors in the UK stay.

Some will say, "such caps of compensation are necessary to control costs," to which I would say, "What's wrong with health care costs going higher - money buys a lot more/better in healthcare now than it did 20 years ago??" Towards what else would one dedicate marginal discretionary spending if not health? A faster laptop? A bigger house? A fancier vacation? Of course we're spending more on healthcare, and I don't see why that's a problem as long as people are living longer and better as a result (which we unambiguously are).

I have a problem with the fact that the US - with a bit of help from Switzerland and Japan - provide the overwhelming majority of new medical innovation, effectively subsidizing the socialism of the rest of the developed world. That said, we also do get paid well for creating the life-saving and -improving medicines and procedures we do. I just hope the idealists don't forget that the world's medical innovation has to come from somewhere, and incentives AS WELL AS ideals are required to accomplish great things.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/ty...
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=861
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...

by: xfree9

12-23-2009 @ 1:22am

The lawyer could have been hired if the details of the contract were not understandable. And as for fraud, the laws already protect against that.

by: xfree9

12-23-2009 @ 1:22am

The lawyer could have been hired if the details of the contract were not understandable. And as for fraud, the laws already protect against that.

by: self-directed IRAs

01-10-2010 @ 11:58am

this is such great information. thanks for the insight.

by: self-directed IRAs

01-10-2010 @ 11:58am

this is such great information. thanks for the insight.

by: Sport Club Portugu

01-10-2010 @ 11:58am

Nicely done, very impressive. Keep up the good work and of course, keep sharing your ideas.

by: Sport Club Portugu

01-10-2010 @ 11:58am

Nicely done, very impressive. Keep up the good work and of course, keep sharing your ideas.

by: Sears Parts

01-10-2010 @ 11:58am

Great stuff dude.. I was really impressed.