it has become difficult to distinguish between "governing" and "pandering." At what point does a leader, or a government body pass from legislating for the good of its citizens, and pandering to their prejudices to get votes. This is cynical of course, but it is not new.
Throughout history, from the time of the Circus Maximus to the pose of being "tough on crime" politicians have looked for way, not to improve the life of its citizens,. but to pacify them and persuade them that they had their best interest (the citizens) in mind.
How else could you explain the current state of affairs in as mighty a place as Washington or as miniscule a place as Toronto City Hall? Obama knows the campaigning for his second term will begin soon and he is rallying public opinion. But he still seems to be his own man, having flown in the face of public opinion (or misread it) and the support of Congress by doing a troop withdrawal that falls far short of what Americans expected. We will see if the governing turns to pandering. Will he bow to public opinion and increase the size of the troop withdrawals? Without that he will be perceived to be a tool in the hands of the militsry. He can only dine out on the killing of Bin Laden for so long.
A quantum shift to Toronto, where the mayor has once again proved that he "hears what the taxpayers are saying." Council, the mayor's willing prisoners, voted to abandon the "bike riding socialists" and kill the Miller heritage Jarvis bike lanes. The mayor stayed on sideline. The bike lanes, which reduced the car traffic lanes from five to four, are to be abandoned. even though studies show that the lane reductions did not impede traffic flow. He claims that he knows what his beloved taxpayers want. (If they had their way we'd remove bike lanes and sidewalks so everything could be paved for cars.)
That move is nothing but politics. But a much more sinister move is that he will not march in the Gay Pride Parade. With hordes of taxpayers in the former suburbs, like his beloved Etobicoke, he is displaying his own homophobia. "It would not be appropriate" for him to join the gay-lesbian-trans-gendered hordes as they parade their depravity for all to see.
Is there politics here? Does it really matter? Is Ford simply using his bully pulpit to gang up ion people he does not like, homosexuals and cyclists, left-wingers and
other misguided citizens. What he needs now is to have Don Cherry pronounce him clean and caring and not one of those fellow-travellers.
The tragedy is that his level of pandering displays the narrow bias in the mayor, but even worse, a presumption that most people in Toronto are on his side.
He is nothing if not a skilful manipulator.
I cry for the future of my caring city.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
TIPPING POINTS?
I was fascinated by the book. It became a best-seller – all because the author did a clever examination of why some things become enormously popular. They all have that:” tipping point,” described as an event or a group of people, which rockets something either unknown or forgotten on to public consciousness. My favourite example from the book was “Hush Puppies” an almost forgotten soft shoe. He examines why it suddenly took off, and who it might have been who made this literally “old” shoe all the rage.
The idea should also be brought in to explain social fads. The practice of young “macho” (or wannabes) a [appearing with a several day's growth of beard has become ultra chic. In fact, Hugh Jackman appeared on the Tony Awards show with an uber-chic stubble.
The unshaven look used to be considered unkempt. I am sure it has played havoc with the razor business. Where did it all start? The first time I ever saw it was on the original “Miami Vice” where Don Johnson added to his manliness by appearing with several days of stubble. The idea took root. Young men who want to look “with it” use a razor that shaves but leaves enough stubble to be he-manly. I can’t
understand why women seem to like it. The stubble must play havoc with their complexions, not to mention unwanted abrasiveness in more private; places.
I jump from the unshaven look to tattooing. The principal difference being that you can always shave your face back to smoothness. Removing a tattoo is painful and expensive, and doesn’t always do a perfect job.
The time will come when the tattoo will be passé. The time will come when the unshaven look will be just as passé. It will take someone like a celebrity, or some “in-group” to lead the way.
I have long since resigned myself to the idea of self-decoration. But a few days ago, confronted with a very manly man who seemed covered from fingertip to armpit, I saw what it really was: the arm looked like a lizard. There are many who say that females are the ones who put the tattoo where it can only be seen during intimate moments.
But today, I watched a very well turned out blonde get our of a very new car. As she got out her sweater lifted enough to display skin between her top and he slacks. There was a very large, round tattoo announcing itself. It was a momentary glance, because she adjusted her clothing and headed for Pusateris. (Which is also chic)
The question: will there be a tipping point to end the fad? Was there a tipping; point that gave it worldwide revival? Was there someone, some fashion maven, some star, some rock singer – who was the first to show the new mark of “in?”
All I can say is: we’ll see.
The idea should also be brought in to explain social fads. The practice of young “macho” (or wannabes) a [appearing with a several day's growth of beard has become ultra chic. In fact, Hugh Jackman appeared on the Tony Awards show with an uber-chic stubble.
The unshaven look used to be considered unkempt. I am sure it has played havoc with the razor business. Where did it all start? The first time I ever saw it was on the original “Miami Vice” where Don Johnson added to his manliness by appearing with several days of stubble. The idea took root. Young men who want to look “with it” use a razor that shaves but leaves enough stubble to be he-manly. I can’t
understand why women seem to like it. The stubble must play havoc with their complexions, not to mention unwanted abrasiveness in more private; places.
I jump from the unshaven look to tattooing. The principal difference being that you can always shave your face back to smoothness. Removing a tattoo is painful and expensive, and doesn’t always do a perfect job.
The time will come when the tattoo will be passé. The time will come when the unshaven look will be just as passé. It will take someone like a celebrity, or some “in-group” to lead the way.
I have long since resigned myself to the idea of self-decoration. But a few days ago, confronted with a very manly man who seemed covered from fingertip to armpit, I saw what it really was: the arm looked like a lizard. There are many who say that females are the ones who put the tattoo where it can only be seen during intimate moments.
But today, I watched a very well turned out blonde get our of a very new car. As she got out her sweater lifted enough to display skin between her top and he slacks. There was a very large, round tattoo announcing itself. It was a momentary glance, because she adjusted her clothing and headed for Pusateris. (Which is also chic)
The question: will there be a tipping point to end the fad? Was there a tipping; point that gave it worldwide revival? Was there someone, some fashion maven, some star, some rock singer – who was the first to show the new mark of “in?”
All I can say is: we’ll see.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
TORONTO - MIRROR OF A BIGGER PROBLEM
My city may have the biggest traffic jams in North Americas and may, according to numbers, rival London. No one seems to care enough to make a change. We almost had it, but Toronto squandered a chance to have a truly new transit system. But that’s politics, and “fairness to taxpayerS” trumps common sense or even fiscal prudence.
If you know Toronto, you know that the new St.Clair West “dedicated” streetcar line has shaved many minutes of traveling time. The even more dominating statistic is that people ride it. I got on that streetcar at the Yonge subway stop and along with more than 50 other passengers went west, This was not rush hour. It was 1:30 in the afternoon! Our mayor, who was photographed this week smiling as he leaned on the grille of his Lincoln Navigator, has no time for streetcars, The roads, he insists, are made for cars. I have no objection to subways, but they are very costly and take forever to build. Never mind that one of our mayor’s pipe dreams is a subway financed by private money. Gimme a break.
The madness is that the man who declared: that “the war on cars is over” still has an overwhelmingly favorable voter support, according to polls. I mused, as I sat there on that St. Clair streetcar: “If there are at least 50 people riding, that means that 50 cars on not on the road." The space taken up by one streetcar can’t be compared to the space taken up by 50 cars. But he doesn’t get it. Worse still, most people don’t get it either. He told them he would have respect for their taxpaying burden. He speaks perhaps to people who live in the former suburbs and are attached to their cars. The though of anything like toll roads or gas taxes to pay for transit that they won’t deign to use, is unacceptable.
One can only imagine what traffic would be like if we didn't have our transit system.
I still wonder at the choked rush hour highways, packed with people (one car-one driver) who could be joining the thousands who ride the GO system.
I wrote recently about the conference of the world’s 40 biggest cities. Michael Bloomberg is a lot smarter than Mayor Ford – and he is also a lot richer. His city is famous for traffic, but even in that seething metropolis, the centre of the Times Square area at Broadway and 42nd street, is car-free.
And just one more reminder: Paris, which has the world’s finest subway system. is now building dedicated surface routes for trolleys. Maybe our mayor should drive his Lincoln Navigator to Paris and see for himself.
As I said in the beginning, this is a cautionary tale for every big city – go transit or go broke.
If you know Toronto, you know that the new St.Clair West “dedicated” streetcar line has shaved many minutes of traveling time. The even more dominating statistic is that people ride it. I got on that streetcar at the Yonge subway stop and along with more than 50 other passengers went west, This was not rush hour. It was 1:30 in the afternoon! Our mayor, who was photographed this week smiling as he leaned on the grille of his Lincoln Navigator, has no time for streetcars, The roads, he insists, are made for cars. I have no objection to subways, but they are very costly and take forever to build. Never mind that one of our mayor’s pipe dreams is a subway financed by private money. Gimme a break.
The madness is that the man who declared: that “the war on cars is over” still has an overwhelmingly favorable voter support, according to polls. I mused, as I sat there on that St. Clair streetcar: “If there are at least 50 people riding, that means that 50 cars on not on the road." The space taken up by one streetcar can’t be compared to the space taken up by 50 cars. But he doesn’t get it. Worse still, most people don’t get it either. He told them he would have respect for their taxpaying burden. He speaks perhaps to people who live in the former suburbs and are attached to their cars. The though of anything like toll roads or gas taxes to pay for transit that they won’t deign to use, is unacceptable.
One can only imagine what traffic would be like if we didn't have our transit system.
I still wonder at the choked rush hour highways, packed with people (one car-one driver) who could be joining the thousands who ride the GO system.
I wrote recently about the conference of the world’s 40 biggest cities. Michael Bloomberg is a lot smarter than Mayor Ford – and he is also a lot richer. His city is famous for traffic, but even in that seething metropolis, the centre of the Times Square area at Broadway and 42nd street, is car-free.
And just one more reminder: Paris, which has the world’s finest subway system. is now building dedicated surface routes for trolleys. Maybe our mayor should drive his Lincoln Navigator to Paris and see for himself.
As I said in the beginning, this is a cautionary tale for every big city – go transit or go broke.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
AUTHORS OF OUR OWN MISFORTUNES (2)
In my blog last week about the folly of “reverse mortgages” I added that house buying is, for many, a mortgage-poor path to insolvency. I received one response from a friend in England who set me thinking. She agreed about “house-poor” people. And she said the rush to buy a home helped put Britain into financial trouble. (They didn’t have sub-prime mortgages, but the housing market was grossly overextended.) We know that millions of people are in so far over their heads, that the economic problems evident today, especially in the U.S., are directly related to the home-ownership mystique.
Remember the “ownership society” that George Bush wanted America to be. Owning your own home was the sold, American-way-of-life thing to do. The principle part of “The American Dream.” But the imperative of home ownership is not new. Veterans returning from WWE2 wanted to own a home. In America we got Levittown’s, enormous cookie cutter development aimed directly at the home-ownership hungry veterans. To a great extent that happened here too. Does anyone remember how E.P. Taylor enriched himself by turning his farm into Canada’s first “satellite city?” He was responsible for Don Mills, which became the magnet for hungry home buyers, How deeply embedded the idea was - one of the conditions he exacted from government was that if he was to build on a farm miles away from the city, he would have to be guaranteed that a multi-lane access road would be built to get to Don Mills. Bingo! The Don Valley Parking Lot.
Governments everywhere, especially in the U.S. and the European Union, are staggering under a load of debt. The biggest part has come from the stampede of helpless and naïve people rushing to buy homes. There us a fatal myth about renters. They are unstable people who care little for the property they rent. There is no “pride of ownership.” We bought the myth lock stock and mortgage.
Governments, fighting the almost fruitless war against the deficit, want that ugly figure to be a reasonable ratio of the Gross National Product. If we applied the same to home buyers and looked at their gross household product, we would soon discover that the ratio of debt to equity was over the top.
What’s even worse is that in America, which like it or not, sets the tone for the world’s economy, greed replaced sanity. Millions of imaginary assets were purchased by people who were gulled into signing documents beyond their understanding and far beyond their budget. All’s fair though – when a country is trying to put people into home ownership...
My wife is, dare I say it, addicted to TV shows like “House Hunters.” I watch it with her, but for different reasons. She watches to see what the prospective home buyer seems to want. I watch it to marvel at the gullibility of the young couple who have permission to overload themselves with a debt that they may never pay. (And we know that many homes among the millions being repossessed are “under water.” The value of the home is less than the size of the mortgage.
I have wondered why banks and other institutions which have become the de facto owners of abandoned or foreclosed property have not, perhaps with government assistance. Offered these homes for rent. (In fact, it does happen where, instead of allowing the house to be empty the foreclosers have rented it to the former owners.
Of course, home ownership makes sense to the developers. They build and get all their money out when they find a buyer. If they rented, they’d still have the cash tied up. Eureka! That’s the real underlying truth. The builder doesn’t want to tie his money up. Neither should the prospective buyer. Accountants have done all the figures and in most cases it is far more practical to keep your capital intact and pay rent.
The argument pro buying is usually: “I’m tired of; paying out money and having nothing to show for it.” People are rent-averse but the irony is that when you buy you are simply renting the money from the bank. The only consolation is that over the long term the value of property increases – unless you get in at the wrong time, the way, when there is a housing boom, everyone wants to buy a house.
My bank manager once said to me, when we insisted on staying in our home, "If you really want the home, that’s what counts." It is not a matter of money.”
We rent. Our capital is tied up in income producing instruments. Our landlord is responsible for all the problems. When we travel, we lock the door behind us and head for the airport. Worry free!
Remember the “ownership society” that George Bush wanted America to be. Owning your own home was the sold, American-way-of-life thing to do. The principle part of “The American Dream.” But the imperative of home ownership is not new. Veterans returning from WWE2 wanted to own a home. In America we got Levittown’s, enormous cookie cutter development aimed directly at the home-ownership hungry veterans. To a great extent that happened here too. Does anyone remember how E.P. Taylor enriched himself by turning his farm into Canada’s first “satellite city?” He was responsible for Don Mills, which became the magnet for hungry home buyers, How deeply embedded the idea was - one of the conditions he exacted from government was that if he was to build on a farm miles away from the city, he would have to be guaranteed that a multi-lane access road would be built to get to Don Mills. Bingo! The Don Valley Parking Lot.
Governments everywhere, especially in the U.S. and the European Union, are staggering under a load of debt. The biggest part has come from the stampede of helpless and naïve people rushing to buy homes. There us a fatal myth about renters. They are unstable people who care little for the property they rent. There is no “pride of ownership.” We bought the myth lock stock and mortgage.
Governments, fighting the almost fruitless war against the deficit, want that ugly figure to be a reasonable ratio of the Gross National Product. If we applied the same to home buyers and looked at their gross household product, we would soon discover that the ratio of debt to equity was over the top.
What’s even worse is that in America, which like it or not, sets the tone for the world’s economy, greed replaced sanity. Millions of imaginary assets were purchased by people who were gulled into signing documents beyond their understanding and far beyond their budget. All’s fair though – when a country is trying to put people into home ownership...
My wife is, dare I say it, addicted to TV shows like “House Hunters.” I watch it with her, but for different reasons. She watches to see what the prospective home buyer seems to want. I watch it to marvel at the gullibility of the young couple who have permission to overload themselves with a debt that they may never pay. (And we know that many homes among the millions being repossessed are “under water.” The value of the home is less than the size of the mortgage.
I have wondered why banks and other institutions which have become the de facto owners of abandoned or foreclosed property have not, perhaps with government assistance. Offered these homes for rent. (In fact, it does happen where, instead of allowing the house to be empty the foreclosers have rented it to the former owners.
Of course, home ownership makes sense to the developers. They build and get all their money out when they find a buyer. If they rented, they’d still have the cash tied up. Eureka! That’s the real underlying truth. The builder doesn’t want to tie his money up. Neither should the prospective buyer. Accountants have done all the figures and in most cases it is far more practical to keep your capital intact and pay rent.
The argument pro buying is usually: “I’m tired of; paying out money and having nothing to show for it.” People are rent-averse but the irony is that when you buy you are simply renting the money from the bank. The only consolation is that over the long term the value of property increases – unless you get in at the wrong time, the way, when there is a housing boom, everyone wants to buy a house.
My bank manager once said to me, when we insisted on staying in our home, "If you really want the home, that’s what counts." It is not a matter of money.”
We rent. Our capital is tied up in income producing instruments. Our landlord is responsible for all the problems. When we travel, we lock the door behind us and head for the airport. Worry free!
Sunday, June 5, 2011
LOOKING AHEAD - IN A REAR VIEW MIRROR
I keep watching those political shows that are the staple on Sunday morning TV. The current dither is all about Mitt Romney and about how Sarah Palin upstaged him by going to New Hampshire right at the time Romney was (surprise surprise) announcing his candidacy. Even the New York Times weighed in with a piece about Sarah and her mindless tour of America: Gettysburg etc. The story was headlined by a picture of her on the buddy seat of a motorcycle. She has this traveling bus but she “avoids” media coverage. She even parked her bus at the door of her hotel to distract journalists who didn’t notice her slipping out the back door. That’s just one example of how crazy the run-up to 2012 is already. There’s more to come!
On ABC’s look at the coming presidential primaries there was the usual jabber about the “most important” element in the next campaign: employment. Obama is already fretting over the meager new job figures for May, passing it off as a “blip.” Some blip.
They, especially the Republicans, along with a roomful of “maverick” Democrats, keep hoping that Corporate America will step up and create jobs. After all, the market economy is everything. Just look at China,. They have a bad economic year when growth is only 8%. Ask yourself: “how much is China depending on private corporations to create jobs?”
In the pursuit of the orthodoxy that only the private sector can get the job done, government looks at heaping even more tax cuts on corporations. They believe, in spite of all the evidence, that corporations need more money to spend on jobs and on capital expenditures. Truth is it all gets stashed away in the company treasury. Meanwhile, American home prices have fallen to 1992 levels with no recovery in sight. Until the American consumer starts spending money the corporations are not going to be hiring more people to make more goods to sell to a nation that has sopped buying stuff. But they cling doggedly to their orthodoxy. They support the claims that government should spend less by citing the wastefulness of countries like Greece and Portugal, and the Celtic Tiger – Ireland. In fact, Ireland is suffering from a real estate boom that burst while collecting some of the lowest corporate taxes in the world. Greece’s credit rating is in the toilet. The G7 thinks they should be spending less. But at the same time perhaps they should be more diligent in collecting taxes. Speaking of which, what ever happened to the Obama promise to rein in the flight of capital to tax-free offshore havens?
They still look in the rear-view mirror, expecting wisdom to spring from what used to be.
In fact, what used to be maybe never was. Maybe it was all part of a grand illusion.
At the heart of America’s problems is not the unwillingness of cash-rich corporations to bail the economy out, it is in the enormous disparity between the rich and the dispossessed. One percent of the wealthiest Americans have more assets than the bottom ninety percent! The only instrument that can right this obvious wrong is a government with the will to make changes. In America, and I have to guess, in Canada too, no one wants to rock the leaky boat. Let’s try another tax cut. Thankfully Harper seems to want to delay any such government largesse, at least for the near future. Which I guess is the fundamental difference between us and our neighbours: they are the wealth-based orthodoxy and ours is, no matter what government is in power, still a “liberal” democracy which pays attention to social responsibilities. Most of the time.
On ABC’s look at the coming presidential primaries there was the usual jabber about the “most important” element in the next campaign: employment. Obama is already fretting over the meager new job figures for May, passing it off as a “blip.” Some blip.
They, especially the Republicans, along with a roomful of “maverick” Democrats, keep hoping that Corporate America will step up and create jobs. After all, the market economy is everything. Just look at China,. They have a bad economic year when growth is only 8%. Ask yourself: “how much is China depending on private corporations to create jobs?”
In the pursuit of the orthodoxy that only the private sector can get the job done, government looks at heaping even more tax cuts on corporations. They believe, in spite of all the evidence, that corporations need more money to spend on jobs and on capital expenditures. Truth is it all gets stashed away in the company treasury. Meanwhile, American home prices have fallen to 1992 levels with no recovery in sight. Until the American consumer starts spending money the corporations are not going to be hiring more people to make more goods to sell to a nation that has sopped buying stuff. But they cling doggedly to their orthodoxy. They support the claims that government should spend less by citing the wastefulness of countries like Greece and Portugal, and the Celtic Tiger – Ireland. In fact, Ireland is suffering from a real estate boom that burst while collecting some of the lowest corporate taxes in the world. Greece’s credit rating is in the toilet. The G7 thinks they should be spending less. But at the same time perhaps they should be more diligent in collecting taxes. Speaking of which, what ever happened to the Obama promise to rein in the flight of capital to tax-free offshore havens?
They still look in the rear-view mirror, expecting wisdom to spring from what used to be.
In fact, what used to be maybe never was. Maybe it was all part of a grand illusion.
At the heart of America’s problems is not the unwillingness of cash-rich corporations to bail the economy out, it is in the enormous disparity between the rich and the dispossessed. One percent of the wealthiest Americans have more assets than the bottom ninety percent! The only instrument that can right this obvious wrong is a government with the will to make changes. In America, and I have to guess, in Canada too, no one wants to rock the leaky boat. Let’s try another tax cut. Thankfully Harper seems to want to delay any such government largesse, at least for the near future. Which I guess is the fundamental difference between us and our neighbours: they are the wealth-based orthodoxy and ours is, no matter what government is in power, still a “liberal” democracy which pays attention to social responsibilities. Most of the time.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
AUTHORS OF OUR OWN MISFORTUNES?
More than twenty years ago I wrote and voiced a commercial for a new way to raise money: “reverse mortgages.” I did it for an insurance agency that was offering these panaceas for older people in financial straights.
Since that time the reverse mortgage business has thrived. The latest TV commercials tell us that there are now lower rates, thanks to a major insurance company.
The commercials tell us that if you are over age 62 you can access “as much as” 40% of the value of your home. Sounds good. Then tell you: “You continue to live in your house until you either leave or sell.” Still sounds good. But, and this is advice to fellow seniors, there is no Santa Claus. There is an American TV commercial featuring a failed Republican presidential candidate (and sometimes actor) Senator Fred Thompson. He actually tells viewers that he is proud to be part of this program.
I have always wondered why people who are at or nearing retirement age, and may have become empty nesters, decide that a four bedroom house for two people in foolish. So what do so many of them do? They continue the foolishness: They sell their home and re-invest the proceeds in something else, usually a condominium. They jump, if not from the frying pan into the fire, from one frying pan to another. Nothing seems to change. True, if you timed it well, you sold your home at a profit and promptly paid too much for a trouble-free condominium. The only answer to this decision seems to be that it is somehow better to own than rent and that owning represents an investment. At your age why would you want to make that kind of investment? It’s like taking your money and putting it into the stock market in common equities that do not produce revenue (or produce very little) and have the possibility of increasing or decreasing in value.
The choice to jump from one frying pan to another seems to be right up there with staying in a home you no longer need and financing that stay with a reverse mortgage. In all the ads I’ve seen, there is no discussion about the downside – of course. You get the money yes. But your home is encumbered with a mortgage. You make no payments of course, but someone has to be paying. Indirectly it is you. The lending company which holds the mortgage will be making regular payments to itself, at least on paper. Those payments will of course be added to the existing reverse mortgage on your home.
Now, you decide to sell the house. Whoops. It is encumbered not only with a mortgage, but with the paper payments that have to be made at what the company says are “lower interest rates.” The net value of your home is diminished.
The other situation: you decide to move, perhaps into an assisted living home. The mortgage on the home, and accrued interest become payable. You will be lucky to have anything left.
When my wife and I finally decided that it was folly to keep our house, which was a money pit and the money supply had seriously diminished, we sold. Guess what. The obligations outstanding, between our mortgage and the liability on our line of credit amounted to about 40% of the value of the house! We got out with 60% of the value, invested it, and live comfortably in a downtown condominium where we rent a spacious 2 bedroom apartment. We live with just as much comfort and security as the people who live in their home encumbered with a “reverse mortgage” except that we are free and clear. We owe nothing.
While I’m on the subject, I have come to believe that home ownership is greatly overrated. It is embedded in our psyche. People who say: “I don’t want to pay rent and have nothing to show for it,” opt instead to be mortgage poor. You are still paying rent. The difference is that instead of renting a place to live you are renting the money that appears on your mortgage.
Never mind what I say – I’m not really qualified. Go talk to your accountant.
I did write "Don't Be Blind=sided by Retirement," but at the time I wasn't so steamed up about the reverse mortgage.
Since that time the reverse mortgage business has thrived. The latest TV commercials tell us that there are now lower rates, thanks to a major insurance company.
The commercials tell us that if you are over age 62 you can access “as much as” 40% of the value of your home. Sounds good. Then tell you: “You continue to live in your house until you either leave or sell.” Still sounds good. But, and this is advice to fellow seniors, there is no Santa Claus. There is an American TV commercial featuring a failed Republican presidential candidate (and sometimes actor) Senator Fred Thompson. He actually tells viewers that he is proud to be part of this program.
I have always wondered why people who are at or nearing retirement age, and may have become empty nesters, decide that a four bedroom house for two people in foolish. So what do so many of them do? They continue the foolishness: They sell their home and re-invest the proceeds in something else, usually a condominium. They jump, if not from the frying pan into the fire, from one frying pan to another. Nothing seems to change. True, if you timed it well, you sold your home at a profit and promptly paid too much for a trouble-free condominium. The only answer to this decision seems to be that it is somehow better to own than rent and that owning represents an investment. At your age why would you want to make that kind of investment? It’s like taking your money and putting it into the stock market in common equities that do not produce revenue (or produce very little) and have the possibility of increasing or decreasing in value.
The choice to jump from one frying pan to another seems to be right up there with staying in a home you no longer need and financing that stay with a reverse mortgage. In all the ads I’ve seen, there is no discussion about the downside – of course. You get the money yes. But your home is encumbered with a mortgage. You make no payments of course, but someone has to be paying. Indirectly it is you. The lending company which holds the mortgage will be making regular payments to itself, at least on paper. Those payments will of course be added to the existing reverse mortgage on your home.
Now, you decide to sell the house. Whoops. It is encumbered not only with a mortgage, but with the paper payments that have to be made at what the company says are “lower interest rates.” The net value of your home is diminished.
The other situation: you decide to move, perhaps into an assisted living home. The mortgage on the home, and accrued interest become payable. You will be lucky to have anything left.
When my wife and I finally decided that it was folly to keep our house, which was a money pit and the money supply had seriously diminished, we sold. Guess what. The obligations outstanding, between our mortgage and the liability on our line of credit amounted to about 40% of the value of the house! We got out with 60% of the value, invested it, and live comfortably in a downtown condominium where we rent a spacious 2 bedroom apartment. We live with just as much comfort and security as the people who live in their home encumbered with a “reverse mortgage” except that we are free and clear. We owe nothing.
While I’m on the subject, I have come to believe that home ownership is greatly overrated. It is embedded in our psyche. People who say: “I don’t want to pay rent and have nothing to show for it,” opt instead to be mortgage poor. You are still paying rent. The difference is that instead of renting a place to live you are renting the money that appears on your mortgage.
Never mind what I say – I’m not really qualified. Go talk to your accountant.
I did write "Don't Be Blind=sided by Retirement," but at the time I wasn't so steamed up about the reverse mortgage.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
SEXUAL JOUSTING UNDER THE MAGNIFYING GLASS
Here go my feminist credentials up in smoke! Maureen Dowd, very feminine and very feminist Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times has declared that the Strauss-Kahn headlines have caused a sea change in European attitudes toward women. If the former head of the IMF did in fact sexually assault a chambermaid, he should be appropriately prosecuted. But Dowd goes a lot further.
“In the wake of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn scandal, as more Frenchwomen venture sexual harassment charges against elite men, the capital of seduction is reeling at the abrupt shift from can-can to can’t-can’t. Le Canard Enchaîné, a satirical weekly, still argues that “News always stops at the bedroom door,” but many French seem ready to bid adieu to the maxim.”
She writes about how Sarkozy is trying to re-invent himself as a loving family man. She cites the “fact” that the French are no longer going to wink at sexual impropriety. Berlusconi tops the current list of misogynists.
She also makes reference to how the French have long disdained the Puritanism of America but now everything may be changing. For me, and I am a fan of Ms Dowd, she has gone from the particular to the general, a long leap and a stumble.
I know what you’re thinking: I grew up at a time when pretty girls were fair game. They were submissive and knew how to flirt and how to protest and how to say “no.” And it is not that long ago that signs appeared in the dorm and frat windows of a major Canadian university reading “No means keep trying.” I know all that.
What is missing is not, as Dowd puts it, the macho of Ernest Hemingway, but the charm of sexual jousting; the back-and-forth of suggestion, innuendo, and flirting that characterized a very human exchange between a man and a woman. Both parties knew what the other one was up to. Both were adults. Both were capable of resistance or compliance. It was, admittedly, an uneven playing field.
Many years ago when I was doing features on CBC News I interviewed Germaine Greer. She was the hottest of the hot feminists. She had just published the “Female Eunuch.” She was in no mood for pushy men. I had to try her out. At one point I called her “dear.” I could hear the uproar coming through the control room glass. She pounced on me. But I knew she would. I hoped she would.
I forget, was it Livy or Ovid who wrote “The Art of Love.” For me, all the artistry has gone our of the male-female connection. I do not countenance the degradation of women. But I simply can’t tolerate the decline of that wonderful, sensual, sexual, human encounter that is measured and clever, and represents give-and-take between the sexes. We are, I think, still different.
“In the wake of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn scandal, as more Frenchwomen venture sexual harassment charges against elite men, the capital of seduction is reeling at the abrupt shift from can-can to can’t-can’t. Le Canard Enchaîné, a satirical weekly, still argues that “News always stops at the bedroom door,” but many French seem ready to bid adieu to the maxim.”
She writes about how Sarkozy is trying to re-invent himself as a loving family man. She cites the “fact” that the French are no longer going to wink at sexual impropriety. Berlusconi tops the current list of misogynists.
She also makes reference to how the French have long disdained the Puritanism of America but now everything may be changing. For me, and I am a fan of Ms Dowd, she has gone from the particular to the general, a long leap and a stumble.
I know what you’re thinking: I grew up at a time when pretty girls were fair game. They were submissive and knew how to flirt and how to protest and how to say “no.” And it is not that long ago that signs appeared in the dorm and frat windows of a major Canadian university reading “No means keep trying.” I know all that.
What is missing is not, as Dowd puts it, the macho of Ernest Hemingway, but the charm of sexual jousting; the back-and-forth of suggestion, innuendo, and flirting that characterized a very human exchange between a man and a woman. Both parties knew what the other one was up to. Both were adults. Both were capable of resistance or compliance. It was, admittedly, an uneven playing field.
Many years ago when I was doing features on CBC News I interviewed Germaine Greer. She was the hottest of the hot feminists. She had just published the “Female Eunuch.” She was in no mood for pushy men. I had to try her out. At one point I called her “dear.” I could hear the uproar coming through the control room glass. She pounced on me. But I knew she would. I hoped she would.
I forget, was it Livy or Ovid who wrote “The Art of Love.” For me, all the artistry has gone our of the male-female connection. I do not countenance the degradation of women. But I simply can’t tolerate the decline of that wonderful, sensual, sexual, human encounter that is measured and clever, and represents give-and-take between the sexes. We are, I think, still different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)