by mikebresee on January 12, 2010
The term “silent majority” according to Wikipedia is:
“ an unspecified large majority of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly”
I believe we currently have a very large segment of the population who feel apathetic in regards to what they think they can do and achieve overall. I believe that “silent majority” is also an oxymoron like “jumbo-shrimp.” Why? Because the majority should not be silent. If anything, the majority should have their concerns addressed by the sheer fact that they are the majority and the majority should rule the times. Isn’t that what a democracy is? But, do you feel like anyone is listening to you?
Some have even called us the “chattering classes” referring to liberal grousing. Total crap. I find it interesting that when it suits their needs, the powers that be listen to what suits them and ignore what’s not in their self-interest. Some would say this is the exact reason such massive apathy exists. Even so, that is no reason not to try to make change for the better.
Maybe I’ve got it all wrong, but aren’t we supposed to leave this planet and mankind better off than when we got here? This “I gotta get mine” attitude is one of the biggest reasons we are in this mortgage/banking crisis to begin with. Everybody, and I mean everybody, was trying to get way more than they ever had before. And like our monetarism based society in general, only a few get a ton and the rest of us are fighting over the scraps.
So since the majority of us are in the same boat (lower-middle class), why can’t we be heard? Because as we are all on the treadmill of consumption, we have no time left for ensuring we are all treated in a morally and ethically fair way. We are too busy buying stuff. Besides, individually we have no power. But together with a similar ideal, we can make change happen for the better for all of mankind no matter what country you live in.
All I am suggesting is respect. Respect for yourself and any other being. With respect comes care. With care comes change. It CAN be that simple. Don’t be silent, we are the majority remember…
Be your own lobbyist. Fight for and speak about what is right and what is wrong. And continue to bring it up until change happens. We have way more power and authority than we think.
Mike
by mikebresee on January 10, 2010
In a January 7th article of the New York Times, Roger Lowenstein advocated walking away from your mortgage. At first glance this particular article seemed to be irresponsible. It seemed that given the current housing crisis that attitudes like this were only going to further and deepen the crisis. I mean, we have banks failing left and right – albeit only the small banks, the economy itself is still tanking, and there seems to be no end to the banking shenanigans in sight (bonus anyone?).
I questioned the responsibility of writing such an article. I had wondered over the fact that two wrongs don’t make a right. I mean, okay so the banks screwed us so we should screw the banks? Some would even point to the Bible and say it’s just an eye for an eye. It’s just that I don’t really believe in this lowest common denominator thinking.
As I had alluded to in my last post on debt, when you sign a contract you have an obligation to fulfill it. But, with doing a little more research it seems our friends in the business community have been divesting themselves of these “toxic assets” as a normal matter of business. We have all seen and heard about countless examples of companies closing down or relocating on account of the fact that it was cheaper for them to do so.
So in using these business examples, why should we not, as ordinary citizens walk away from our very own toxic assets? I mean, a mortgage is essentially a contract between the bank and the person. That contract states that if you do not make your payments the bank has the right seize your assets, in this case the house. If this was a business and not an ordinary person with a mortgage, they would undoubtedly say that it was just math and it made no sense to continue making payments on something that was costing them too much to own or was not worth anywhere near what the payments reflected.
So, there are people out there making payments on a home that is only worth 1/3 to 1/2 the amount of the mortgage. Again, if this was a business the business would’ve walked away from that situation. Why is it not okay for a person to make the same decision? If it is going to take you as much as 60 years to pay off your mortgage why wouldn’t you walk away and take a seven year hit on your credit rating? It’s just math, not personal or moral or ethical. You are only abiding by the systems rules.
I have long advocated running a household similarly to running a business. However, I had always hoped that people would do these things within the framework of morals and ethics. And for the most part I think that’s correct. Individuals are inherently more moral and ethical than businesses. Speaking of that, have you ever noticed that when a business does something really stupid or selfish that we have a tendency to say “oh well, that’s just business”? Why? Why do we let them do this? Why is it that individuals are held to higher standards than businesses?
Food for thought… and another post.
Mike
