You are here: Home / 2011 / September / We Are The 99%: On Short Sales & Foreclosures
@RobtheIdealist

We Are The 99%: On Short Sales & Foreclosures

By @RobtheIdealist on September 29, 2011 | 1 Response
MarisaArrest 300x200 We Are The 99%: On Short Sales & Foreclosures

Marissa, Camerawoman who took the video of my arrest

In the two days since I got back from New York, I realized that I needed to take a step back and really explain my experience and state of mind at the time of my civil disobedience during Occupy Wall Street.

Banks bought & sold each individual mortgage in the United States an average of 7 times before the sub-prime mortgage crisis.  These financial institutions made so many bets on the mortgages that they did not have enough assets to cover their potential losses.  They would not be able to pay the people that they owed money, which destabilized the entire economy and led to many people losing their jobs and their homes.

These mortgage bets became known as “toxic assets”.  Instead of allowing the collapse of these institutions that bought and sold mortgages like Pokémon cards in 1998, the government relieved these corporations of their toxic assets and prevented them from losing their money.

When many people in this country could no longer pay their mortgages in this climate of economic downturn, their mortgages became “toxic assets”.  Unlike the corporations and financial institutions that caused the crisis, there was no relief for my parents or any of the other Americans who could no longer pay for their homes.

What is more, not only do these financial institutions get to walk away with public money to cover their private losses, but they continue to put people out of their homes.  This leaves many families scrambling for things like short sales to get the banks off of their backs; they do this while having no plan of where they would live six months down the road.

I believe that it is wrong for the financial institutions that caused this economic crisis to get bailouts, while millions of Americans get homelessness.  I told my story because I believe people should not be ashamed to say how this crisis is personally affecting them.  I told my story because families don’t have to have a long history of poverty to be abused by the financial system.  As long as the top 1% of the population controls most of the wealth in society, we, the 99%, must stand up for ourselves and demand justice.

This call is for more than a redistribution of wealth.  We need justice in housing; we need justice for people with disabilities; we need justice in educational opportunities; we need justice in the cost of food; we need justice in the production of energy; we need justice for the full range of genders and sexes; we need justice for all ethnicities; we need justice, and we have to create it.

As long as the top 1% controls most of the resources, we don’t stand a chance.  WE ARE THE 99%.

Similar Posts

Zemanta
Posted in , Tagged , , , , , ,
  • Jason

    “We need justice….”

    And what is justice?? Does it mean forcibly taking wealth from everyone who has happened to earn it to give to people who don’t have it, as you seem to think it does? Yes, there are people with wealth who have acquired it through maliciously taking advantage of others, corrupting the system or through some other illicit means, but for every one of those people there are several other people who have acquired it through hard work, ingenuity, a bit of luck and creative thinking. These people deserve every bit of wealth they have managed to make. There are philanthropists with enough idealistic passion just to donate their talent, but a great number of people simply do not have that degree of moral character; not all human beings can be angels. Nevertheless, an effective, economic system needs to encourage these people to keep putting forth that effort so that society can grow. Incentives matter.

    Do I think people who are wealthy should pay more in taxes, more than they do now?? YES I do. However, even if a completely equal distribution of wealth among everyone was possible in theory, I would advise against it. Human beings are animals, and like all animals, they are driven by a need to survive which, to a certain extent, requires a certain amount of aggression. If that aggression is not channeled through an effective economic system that provides a method of relieving that aggression other than through force or violence, violence will result. Almost all socialist governments have wound up using violence against their own people to maintain order when their people become tired of the complacency and monotony such a system creates.

    This means that, in order to have peace, yes, we will have people who “win” in a capitalist system and people who will “lose.” Should we try to make sure that everyone can meet the minimum standard of living? YES, and I believe that our government has sorely needed reforms in that area for a long time now. However, does this mean making sure that everyone has cable tv, everyone is able to travel outside the country, that everyone can eat out at restaurants regularly, that everyone has a dvd player, in short, that everyone has access to the same level of luxury?? No. The people who are able to put forth the effort to get a higher level of wealth, and who do so through their own hard work, their own ingenuity and their own skill, deserve to have it, and I see no problem with them having more than those who may not have that degree of talent or skill, or who cannot put forth that amount of effort.

    You also criticize banks and mortgage markets and claim that it is wrong for them to foreclose on houses. Given the economic crisis that occurred, a great deal of that criticism is warranted. The government, for very poor reasons, removed a great number of regulations that kept that system in check, and gave banks too much free reign, and in that set of facts and circumstances, there was a system failure. This does not mean that the system, as a whole, is bad. There are greedy banks out there, such as the one that screwed over your parents, and I think the financial crisis demonstrated that the government unwisely allowed the worst offenders to survive. But the system as a whole can create opportunities that people otherwise might not have. The whole point of having institutions that lend money is to create more wealth by allowing them to invest in opportunities, including homes, that they may not be able to have without such loans. In order to keep this system going and to have enough money to lend money to other people, and to grow, this means that banks do have to go through the foreclosure process when someone cannot pay their debts.

    Society pays a price for peace, and a price for security. But I will gladly pay that price if it means I do not have to constantly watch over my shoulder for that one aggressive person who decides to kill me to take what I have because a society that can channel that natural aggression productively does not exist. Even if it means I might be one of the people who winds up with less in the capitalist system.

    The ironic thing about this whole debate is that the many different ways in which people think, and the many different opinions that people generate, are in fact what set people apart. The only way to truly have an equal society is to have a single “consciousness,” where when someone feels joy, everyone else does, where someone feels pain or sadness, everyone else does, or where someone sees change that is necessary, everyone else does. In that case, every action someone takes will benefit society as a whole. Unfortunately, human beings were not created with a universal consciousness, and technology has not provided it. Human beings were blessed with free will about which there are many wonderful things. But that blessing comes with a curse.