Financial Collapse

Europe's leaders are meeting to further discuss the Euro-zone debt crisis.  In USAmerica, we still have not worked our way out of our own economic woes.  Sure, they tell us the market is rebounding, but that seems to be only in the market ~ regular people are still struggling to find work, while the purchasing power of their paycheck continues to diminish.  Governmental leaders aren't actually doing anything other than yelling at each other about the best way forward, while bankers' and CEOs' paychecks are through the roof and corporations rake in record profits. 

A couple years ago, the government (read: taxpayers) bailed out the banks that were on the verge of implosion, because (the way I understand it in my feeble mind) if they were to fail, the whole financial system would collapse.

So, it seems to me that this is where we stand:  banks took big risks with money that belonged to regular people; the risks didn't pay off; the banks, who took the risk, are punished by being given loans so they can stay afloat; the bailed-out-risk-takers, as a result of their punishment, are now making more money than they were before the crisis.  At the same time, those of us who didn't take huge risks (those of us who actually funded the bail-out) are rewarded with stagnated wages, a poor job market, and huge concerns about an economic future that doesn't seem to be improving for anyone besides the tremendously wealthy. 

More than a couple times in recent weeks, I've heard the maxim 'greater risk results in greater rewards'.  What I haven't heard is anyone reminding us of the flip side, which is that with the potential for greater reward comes the danger of greater loss.  Maybe it's because if we believe that financial institutions are too big to fail, they don't actually take on any risk of loss.  If we continue to be willing to cover their losses, they will continue to manufacture bigger and bigger risk.  But it's our risk for their reward.  They're not a danger of loss ~ it's the taxpayers and regular people on whom they put that risk. 

The thing is, if I've made an investment, I don't mind taking a loss (it doesn't make me happy, but I understood the risk when I made the investment).  What I don't like is when I have to take a loss because someone else made a bad investment. 

What I continue to wonder is what would actually happen if those banks had been allowed to fail?  I hear that our financial system would collapse.  OK, this would probably result in a period of panic and chaos. 

But it wouldn't last forever ~ so, then what?  We'd start over, with something new.  And maybe, at least for a while, it wouldn't be so disproportionately unjust. 

Meanwhile, in the wake of banks' collapse and financial distress in Iceland, the people have kicked the government to the curb ~ real democracy seems to have momentarily reared its head.  

$0.02

Health Care Rant

I have to say, I'm baffled by the health care conversation in our country (USAmerica) these days.  It looks like the Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue of whether the government can mandate that everyone have health insurance. 

I think we're asking the wrong question.  The essential question, the essential divide in this country that I don't hear many people talking about (and I recognize that I might not be listening in the right places) is the question of whether each person deserves to receive health care as a basic right. 

If we say 'no' ~ if we say that health care is a privilege, and not a basic right ~ then the government has no business being in the health care management business.  The extension of this position is that hospitals should not be required to provide emergency room care to individuals who are not able to pay.  The extension of this argument is that we should require everyone to pay for their care, either out of pocket or through insurance. 

In this case, everyone who is not able to afford (or chooses not to obtain) health insurance, and gets sick, will either lose all their money and be forced to the street, or will chose not to get treated and possibly die of a treatable disease. 

On the other hand, if we say 'yes' ~ if we agree that health care is a right, and that everyone deserves access to medical treatment ~ then it is incumbent on us as a society to provide medical care for everyone in a manner which does not force a choice between food and medicine, or between treatment and housing.

In this case, some will be treated unfairly.  Those of us who are healthy will end up paying more in order that those who are more unhealthy do not become worse-off because of an overwhelming financial burden.  

I, as a Christian, am forced to take the latter position.  It is immoral, and more importantly it is sinful, that we are more concerned about paying less in taxes in order to pad our own bank accounts than we are about our neighbor. 

But even from a purely capitalistic and conservative perspective, corporations providing health insurance (and care) makes no sense.  Right now, I pay for health insurance.  I also pay taxes that eventually go to care for sick and injured and homeless persons who do not have health insurance.  My taxes pay for police officers and fire departments, for social workers and hospitals who care for those without insurance. 

Right now, I'm paying for my own health care and for the health care of those who can't afford it.  But I'm making payments in two different directions ~ one, to the government for taxes; and the other, to insurance and drug companies which seem to report record profits each year. 


So, if we say that health care is not a basic right, then we as a society are saying that the wealthier are more important than the poorer ... we are saying that all people are not created equal.  

If on the other hand, we say that everyone deserves equal access to health care as a right, then the government should be in the business of providing everyone health care.  Sure, it may cost each of us a little more in taxes.  At the same time, we'll no longer need to pay for private insurance.  Plus, when society has access to health care, we end up with a healthier society ~ and that's good for everyone. 

$0.02

rambling post about a non-functional microwave

A church kitchen that I'm familiar with has, among other things, a microwave oven.  Obviously this, in itself, is unremarkable.  However, the reason I'm remarking is because, apparently, this particular microwave oven isn't working.  I make this assumption because it has a sign on the door which says something like, "Do Not Use: Microwave Smokes when in Use"

Now, church buildings have, by and large, been non-smoking for many years, so that's not the unusual part.  What grabs my attention is the fact that the microwave oven has been sitting there, on the kitchen counter, with the same sign on its door, for probably a couple weeks. 

The closest I really ever got to working in the corporate was as a temporary factory worker a long time ago; so I can only imagine that, in the corporate world, a broken microwave oven would probably be gone pretty quickly. 

I do, however, work in the church; and in the church, it seems to me that it's extremely difficult to ever get rid of anything.  Every congregation I've ever been a part of has this same issue.  If I were to take a walk around most church buildings, I imagine I'd find storage rooms and closets and file cabinets and bookshelves filled with items that haven't been used for years and that really aren't worth anything to anyone. 

Why is it that we, the church, are so reluctant to get rid of anything? 

Is it because we find value in what's old?  Maybe ~ we certainly do turn regularly to the old writings of scripture, and we often participate in rites that have been in use for many decades, if not centuries. 

Is it because we shy away from conflict?  Perhaps we're concerned that if one person gets rid of something, they'll discover later that the thing they got rid of was highly valued by someone else in the congregation. 

I think, though, that there's more going on.  It may not have always been true (and I don't know if, 150 years ago, most church buildings were as cluttered as they are now), but I think members of congregations are reluctant to throw stuff out because we don't like to take responsibility ~ which again, like most things, boils down to money.  

Here's the thing.  Our society has become so very consumer-oriented, that I think we don't even know how to talk about anything other than a contractual exchange.  What I mean is that, when I go to the movie, a semi-contractual exchange takes place. I pay my money, and the theater provides me with entertainment.  When I go to a restaurant, I exchange money for food. 

In church, though, we enter into a covenental relationship with one another.  We agree to participate in a faith life together, within a community.  There may be money involved, but money given should be as a response to the action of the divine ~ G-d's grace ~ rather than as a payment for whatever a person feels they've received. 

The trouble is that there are so few covenental relationships extant in our society.  We don't know how to talk, or think, about these other than as contractual ~ I pay money to the church, and the church provides me a religious service. 

I believe that we are so steeped in contractual capitalism that we don't know how to think differently about the covenental relationship necessary in a faith community.  And this, at least to some degree, is why there's still a non-functional microwave in the kitchen ~ because many people, deep within the depths of their being (and without realizing it) think that since they've paid, someone else should do the work of deciding and throwing away. 

I'm probably wrong, but that's what I think today.

$0.02