What,Me Worry?

So this is what the end of the world looks like. I gotta be honest - I was expecting something a little different. In the movies the end of the world is always dark and smoky, with littered streets and broken down, graffiti covered buildings and wet pavement and hot steam rising out of the sewers. When I was a kid the end of the world was supposed to be red and fiery, with great big mushroom clouds rising in the distance. I never expected it to be mild and sunny with fog at the coast and sunshine further inland.

Who knew?

Actually, just between you and me, I don't think this is really the end of the world. I don't know - call it a hunch, but I think the human race will muddle through the great financial meltdown somehow. Just look at the stock of Apple Computer (AAPL) if you don't believe me. Did you see what their stock did today?

Ok, first maybe I should explain something about stock markets and recessions. Typically, when stock investors are expecting a recession they like to move their money into so-called "defensive" stocks. These are the stocks of companies that make things that people need no matter what the economy does. Good times or bad, people have to eat so the food stocks are a good defensive play. Similarly, even if the economy is bad people still have to go to the doctor if they get sick so health company stocks are considered defensive, and so on and so on.

The collective term for such stocks is "consumer staples", and these stocks sit opposite the so-called "consumer discretionary" stocks. Consumer discretionary refers to those companies that make goods that people will buy in good times, but otherwise can do without. Things like fancy luxury goods, exotic vacations, new boats, home theaters, etc... When a recession is looming on the horizon, investors shun consumer discretionary stocks because they expect those companies will have a hard time turning a profit in hard times.

Which brings me back to Apple Computer. I know there are some Apple geeks out there who clearly consider Apple Computer a consumer staple company, but I think most normal people would consider it a consumer discretionary company. If you can't make the mortgage payment and the kids don't have anything to eat, do you really need to go out and buy that new Ipod? Hmmm, I know that's a tough call for anyone under the age of thirty, but I think not.

Anyway, the most active stock on the NASDAQ today was Apple Computer, whose shares rose about 8%. So what does that tell you? If you agree with me that a new Ipod is a discretionary purchase rather than a necessary one, then clearly the stock market is saying that they aren't too worried about a recession at the moment. If they were, they'd be selling Apple Computer, not buying it. Furthermore, if the stock market is truly a leading indicator and happens to be right about all this, then the least we can say is that all this talk about a financial meltdown might be a bit premature.

Which brings me to the point of this whole post. While I firmly believe that anyone who would take investing advice from a blogger ought to have his head examined, just remember the old adage that it is always best to buy stocks when things look their bleakest, and things couldn't look any bleaker than they do right now. I mean, you have the President, the Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve all getting up on national tv and telling the country it's the end of the world. Things can't get much bleaker than that, can they? And yet, that's not what the stock market is saying. Could this, then, be the time to buy?

Before you answer that, however, a few caveats. First, it just might be the end of the world. Second, stock markets have been wrong before. Third, and most important of all, we're about to see a massive government intervention into the country's financial markets - some are comparing it to the situation that Japan faced when it's real estate bubble popped. As you may recall, the Japanese government also made a massive intervention into their markets in order to keep their banking system from failing, and the result was a decade of stagnation for their stock market.

So, while the stock market thinks it might be a good time to buy, that doesn't necessarily mean that we'll see a rapid climb in stock prices anytime soon. Not that I have a crystal ball or anything, but managed economies aren't typically robust growth machines. One thing's for sure, the government seems comitted to keeping stock prices and housing prices high, so that has to be good for stocks going forward. If Apple Computer were falling instead of rising, then that would be a clear signal. Instead, we're getting mixed messages, so my investing advice is flip a coin (and beware of dead cat bounces).

And that's all I have to say on that.

One last thing before I go, though. I saw this story on the BBC news, and for the life of me I don't understand why networks spend so much time on all this financial crap instead of covering the really important news of the day. Apparently, the Zurich Opera gave a performance of "La Traviata" in a Zurich railway station in what was billed as a "flashmob" opera. I'm not really hip to this whole "flashmob" phenomena, but I think what happens is that a bunch of people spontaneously text each other on their phones and agree to show up at a certain place at a certain time, thereby creating an instant "flashmob." I probably got that all wrong, but it's something like that.

Anyway, the opera was filmed for television, and what the article doesn't mention is that besides the thousands that turned up at the railway station, the tv broadcast was watched by fully 30% of the Swiss viewing audience. Dude, that is so kewl. That's like as many viewers as you would get for a typical football game over there, and it just goes to show that there is still a huge audience for opera. All that's needed is some creative marketing and some 21st century technology to make the connection.

Now, if SF opera ever decides to do a flashmob at the Embarcadero BART station, I'm there. Someone needs to text me though. Someone? Anyone?

Am I My Brother's Keeper?

The good news is that California finally has a budget. The bad news is that the budget California finally has is really just a make-believe budget, with the important point being that after seventy something days (I've lost count) of haggling, the Governor and the Legislature have finally found something they can agree on. Putting partisanship and rancor aside, they have agreed not to deal with the state's financial mess until next year.

That's the net effect, at least, because although the state was able to balance the books, it was able to do so only by borrowing billions from the state's lottery fund, closing unspecified tax loopholes, and conjuring up some black ink through fiscal sleight of hand. No one was fooled by any of this, of course, not even the legislators themselves, but with millions of Californians looking on they promised it was the best they could do. Everyone would get the state money they were looking for, and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a cent in new taxes. All that was required was a little razzle and a little dazzle, and the magic of pretend money.

And you know, pretend money is wonderful stuff. It's all over the front pages these days. Everybody's using it - investment banks, insurance companies, homebuyers, and now even the State of California is joining in the fun. The great unknown in all this, however, is if the state goes belly-up, will the Treasury also be there to bail California out? I only ask because when you continually have more money going out than money coming in, that's what happens.

As things stand now, I wouldn't be suprised if at some point California eventually finds itself down at the courthouse filing for bankruptcy (remember, you heard it here first). We've had cities declare bankruptcy before, and even Orange County had to file once, so if it's the state's turn, would that be such a bad thing? Let's face it, our credit rating is already one of the country's lowest, so how much damage could we do? It might give us the chance we need to get our debits and credits in order, and we could always bill the Treasury for the massive defaults on our bonds and other outstanding debts. More importantly, we could clean the slate and start to bring our pretend finances more in line with reality.

We're a can-do state, so I say go for it.

Meanwhile, just to change the subject, back in Washington it looks like things are really getting weird. First our Congress started with a simple 700 billion dollar bailout of the financial system, but not safisfied to leave well enough alone, they now want to tack on all kinds of other goodies just so they can raise the price tag even further. For example, they've decided that they also want to regulate executive pay. Well, the pay packages have been excessive, but do we really want the government to start regulating wages? I say give the shareholders a rope and a sturdy limb to hang it from and they'll know how to deal with poor performance. Ok, maybe nothing that extreme, but at least let them toss a few rotten tomatoes.

The government, it seems, also wants to enter the foreclosure market. Another good idea? Perhaps we should remind them that the national foreclosure rate currently stands at 1.6%, so when they talk about "Americans losing their homes" they're really only talking about the 1.6% who got in too deep and can't make the payments, not the 98.4% who have been able to manage their affairs responsibly and will now be asked to foot the bill. That may seem like a heartless thing to say, but I swear that in all the years I was involved in that industry I never saw a single broker put a gun to anyone's head and make them sign the papers. Sure, some brokers may have been more aggresive than others, but the final decision always rested with the buyers. Do they bear any responsibility for the decisions they made? Does anyone anymore?

But then, that's not the problem, is it? The problem is we need to stabilize the housing market (i.e. stop prices from falling), and therefore we must renogotiate these problem loans. Once again it's the "problem loans" and the "problem companies" that get assistance, while everybody else gets the bill. It's not fair, we are told, but necessary, and for that we should be glad. As the Bible says, "thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found." Amen, but just how much are fatted calves are running these days?

Anyway, I saw President Clinton on the TV tonight. He's advocating a revival of FDR's Home Owners Loan Corporation to help people renogatiate their loans. It worked back in the 1930's, he said, so why not do something similar today. Of course, what the President forgot to mention was that the after the HOLC was enacted in 1933, home ownership rates sank, and by 1940 had reached their lowest level of the entire century. We can argue the reasons, but I just wanted to offer that as a historical reference.

My guess is that despite the federal government's efforst to prop them up, home prices are going to reach bottom one way or the other, and the bottom will come when houses become affordable enough so that people can put their 20% down and make the payments on a 30 year note. When that happens we won't have a pretend housing market anymore, but a financially sound housing market instead. I believe that's the whole idea.

But, I'm no expert, so what do I know.

Like Hamsters In A Wheel

In Tom Vanderbilt's new book "Traffic", a man questions those people who complain about being stuck in traffic jams. Don't they understand, the man asks, that "they are the traffic jam." It's true. We complain, and yet we are all collectively a part of the very thing that we complain about.

With that in mind, I'd like to address a similar question to those who complain about the financial crisis, as though it were some kind of "Wall Street" phenomena. Really? Take a look around you, friend, and ask yourself just who is this thing we're calling a crisis. After all, wasn't it the credit bubble that bought you that new house, and that new kitchen, and that luxury SUV sitting in your driveway, and all those designer fashions hanging in your closet? Wasn't it the credit bubble that bought you those Caribbean cruises and paid for that college education? Isn't it you that spent beyond your means and is now looking to the government to stop the carnage and, in the process, secure that financial house of cards you've built for yourself?

Of course not. It's those flim-flammers on Wall Street who were the greedy ones. You'll hear no mea culpa's here. Too bad, though, if in our rush to punish others we end up punishing ourselves. Too bad, if the cure turns out to be worse than the disease.

Take the housing market, for instance. It always amazes me when people ask "when is the housing market coming back?", as if the real estate market were just experiencing some momentary indigestion and would soon resume its double-digit climb into the eternity. Well it might, but then again, not so fast. Consider, for example, that thanks to the rapidly deflating credit bubble, the days of no money down, stated income loans are probably not coming back anytime soon. Since those types of loans were a major fuel for the housing boom, their disappearance is going to make it tough to reignite the housing market. Think about it - first-time home buyers are going to need actual money to buy a house (20% in most cases). Good heavens!

Here in the Silicon Valley, 20% means a down payment of at least $80,000 to buy even the tiniest of Condominium units. Now I don't profess to know what's in your wallet, but I think there are a lot of people around here who barely have enough cash in the bank to keep their checking accounts afloat, let alone an extra $80k or so to put down on a house. If their stock options pan out or if they've managed to salt enough away in their 401k's then maybe they can swing it. Otherwise the first-time buyer is going to be in trouble.

That's not good for real estate. The high end of the market will still be ok, of course, because the person who can afford to pay millions can probably afford to pay cash. The entry level of the market, though, is going to need credit, and it looks like that is going to be hard to find. So how exactly is the housing market going to rebound without qualified buyers? I'll let the experts on TV figure that one out.

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the politics. As you may have heard we're in an election year, and Washington is fairly tripping over itself with new ideas on how to save the economy. In this climate even bad ideas are better than no ideas, and don't be surprised if Congress and the new administration manage to over regulate themselves from this mess to an even graver one. Maybe I'm just being a cynic, but as you listen to the proposals that are sure to come out of Washington, ask yourself not "how do I feel about that", but rather "if I was a lender how would I feel about that?"

The problem, after all, is to get the lenders back to lending money, and the more onerous and unprofitable our political leadership can make it for them to lend, the less likely it is that you'll be getting that new mortgage you want. I don't have a crystal ball, but just keep your eyes and ear open over the next 6 months or so and see what happens.

In the meantime, my solution is to just relax and not lose any sleep over this. If you're lucky enough to have no debts and be out of the stock market, then this whole financial crisis doesn't really affect you anyway. Instead, just do what I do - fire up your bike and go for a ride. Winter's coming so enjoy a little sunshine. If your bike isn't running, then watch this little video and take a ride with me instead. Believe me, I know it's a boring video, and I freely admit that the worst aspect of being an amateur photographer is the constant need to force others to feign even the slightest interest. I won't be offended if you decide to skip it, but it's got to be better than sitting around waiting for the world to end.

Or maybe not...




Sunday Ride - California Highway 84

Can You Turn Stop The Cameras While I Google That

One of the wonders of cable TV is that at any hour of the day or night a person can turn on their TV, flip through a few channels, and find himself watching a panel of pundits expounding on the issues of the day. We truly do live in a modern age, and though I don't have the exact figures in, my guess is that for every minute of news we can now get about 59 minutes of analysis - something our parents and grandparents could only dream about.

I happened to catch a panel of pundits on CNN tonight talking about the Sarah Palin interview, with all the usual back and forth. The secret to good punditry, it seems, is to say the most outrageously partisan things in the most gossipy and jovial manner. I think they call it banter, and when done well the audience doesn't even realize that if these people weren't on TV they'd probably all be institutionalized at some quiet retreat with long halls and plastic dinnerware.

Anyway, the analysis of the Palin interview was that these types of things (interviews, debates, etc...) don't really make much of a difference because supporters and detractors will always take what they want from such events with nothing gained one way or the other. Well, if that's true, then why even hold elections in the first place? If the electorate is so predisposed then why not just count up the number of Democrats and Republicans and settle the issue solely on the demographics?

Luckily, the founding fathers didn't listen to pundits and decided instead that matters such as the Presidency should be put to a vote. Good thing too, because despite the apparent contempt that the pundits may have for the voters at large, there still may be those outside the partisan rank and file who actually pay attention to what the candidates say and do.

Not me, of course, although I did watch the interview. Maybe you did too and maybe you even formed an opinion of it. I know I did, and to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I'd say that Governor Palin's grasp of foreign affairs runs the gamut from A to B. Yeah I know that people vote for Presidents, not Vice Presidents, but still that was not a very impressive performance.

The part that really sticks out in my mind is that little dance she did when Charles Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. I thought it was a totally fair question to ask. After all, the Bush Doctrine is not some arcane piece of trivia buried deep in the past. It is, after all, the entire basis for our involvement in Iraq, and I think it would be helpful if those who would be our nation's leaders were at least acquainted with it. And yes I understand that the Bush Doctrine is probably not relevant to the day-to-day management of the State of Alaska, but she's not running for the governership of Alaska, is she?

At least the interview answered the questions about her foreign policy experience, though unfortunately that answer is none. As for the necessity or relevancy of such experience I can only say that if Senator McCain were President I would feel completely safe knowing he was in charge of our national security, and if Senator Obama were President I would feel somewhat safe knowing he was in charge, provided Senator Biden was in the same room with him. However, if Governaor Palin was President, well...er...it's still early. She still has time to get up to speed.

In all fairness to her, though, she made a much better showing during the last part of the interview when she was discussing energy and energy policy. She did not seem briefed or coached but much more comfortable and in command of her facts . There is no question that she is a very smart and capable woman, and when we see the next part of the interview covering the domestic policy side of things, I expect she'll do much better. Still, her lack of foreign policy expertise is troubling. Fortunately for her, I'm sure the Democrats will show mercy and refrain from exploiting such a glaring weakness.

If not, then she'll just have to hope that the pundits are right and none of this makes any difference.

As A Matter Of Fact

The days when television news separated its' news content from its' editorial content are long gone. Whether on the left or the right, the viewers know that, and all that ancient footage of Eric Sevaraid offering his commentary (always carefully labeled as such) on the Evening News must seem horribly quaint and old -fashioned to the news directors running today's newsrooms. Still, most viewers, being the intelligent creatures they are, have at least some awareness that news and editorial are now one and the same, and so, in its' fashion, the whole system keeps chugging along. An odd result of all this is that as audiences have become skeptical, the ability of the newsroom to influence public opinion may, in fact, be diminished. Does anyone trust the "news" anymore?

Of course that's just a theory of mine, and I only bring it up because of an odd comment I heard on one of our local newscasts (unfortunately, in my dotage, I can't remember which one). While reporting on the Obama campaign, I heard a reporter describe Obama as "a great communicator". Mind you, he didn't say "some have described Obama as a great communicator". He merely said that Obama is a great communicator. Clearly, to my mind at least, that is a matter of opinion, and that it was offered as fact didn't really surprise me as I've come to expect such statements of fact from reporters these days. Later, though, as I thought back on it, I got to wondering - is Obama really a great communicator?

I'm not so sure.

Sure, Obama may be a great speaker, but he is a horrible communicator. Just think about it. After Sarah Palin gave her convention speech, America knew exactly who she was. She was a hockey mom, a governor, a reformer, a proud mother and a loving wife. People across the country knew women just like her. After John McCain gave his speech, America knew exactly who he was. He was a patriot, a maverick, a real stand-up kind of guy. People across America admired a guy like that.

But what about Obama? After years of campaigning and coutless speeches, does America know who he is? For me, there always seems to be this nagging question about just what this guy is really all about. After his convention speech everybody cheered and said "hell of a speech, Barak", but a week later it was hard to recall exactly what he had said. He's a Democrat, of course, and that may get him the Democratic vote, but to Republicans and many Independents he's still this unknown entity - this something that you can't quite get a sense of. Sarah Palin gave just one speech and everybody knew who she was, but Barak Obama...I'm not so sure.

I'm afraid that reporter may have gotten his facts wrong on this one. Given everything that's going on in this country and given the shrinking prospects for the Republican Party, a Democratic nominee should be a shoo-in for the Presidency this year. He should be walking all over the Republicans, and yet Obama is struggling just to stay even. Why is that? The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that he isn't able to communicate who he is and what his Presidency would offer. People like him, they love to hear him talk, but they just don't seem to know him. There's a big difference between being the candidate of "change" and being the candidate of "trust me, I'm different."

But let's get back to Sarah Palin. How many news reports did I hear about her convention speech where the reporter described her as "passing the test." Again, editorial content reported as news. Not only is her passing or failing a matter of opinion, but this whole idea that her convention speech was "the test" is simply a bunch of crap. Maybe it's just me, but I saw the convention speech as "the audition"; the next couple of months are going to be "the test."

And it's not going to be an easy one, either. She is finally scheduled to give her first interview today, and frankly it's about time. She's had her honeymoon and now it's time to get down to the nitty-gritty. I certainly can't speak for the rest of the country, but I must say that I haven't been much impressed by a candidate who asks to be second-in-line to lead this country, and yet cannot sit down with reporters and answer some tough questions about her qualifications and abilities. If she can't handle the heat of an interview, then what does that say about her ability to handle the much graver challenges of a possible Presidency.

But that should all come to an end starting today. She's scheduled for an interview on ABC, and we'll see how she does. Hopefully there'll be more on the agenda than just private family matters and women's cosmetics. She's young and untested in many areas, and she's made some claims on the campaign trail that many are questioning. I'd like to see some good, tough questioning and maybe then we can all decide if she's passed her "test". The first, I might add, of many tests.

And hey, Ms. Palin, don't start blaming the media. They've all got their opinions, but winning the White House ain't supposed to be easy. At least, not in my opinion.

Father Knows Best

"Uh, dad, can we talk to you for a second?"

"Sure. What's up?"

"Nothing...we just have something we need to talk to you about, that's all."

"Well...ok, just let me get cleaned up a little first. Where's your mother?"

"I thnk she's in the kitchen."

(Dad leaves the room. The two kids are left alone)

"What are you going to tell him?"

"I don't know. I'll think of something."

"He's going to be mad."

"No he's not, and besides, we have to tell him. He's gonna find out anyway."

"You and your stupid friends. I can't believe I listened to you."

"They're not my friends, and you're the one who said we should do it."

"Did not."

"Did so."

"Did not. It was your stupid idea."

"Was not."

"Was so."

"Was not..."

(Dad reenters the room)

"Okay then, what did you want to talk to me about?"

"Well...um..."

"Yes? What is it? Did something happen at school today?"

"No, nothing like that. It's just that..."

"C'mon Freddie, I haven't got all day. What did you want to talk to me about? Fannie? What is it?"

"Well you see dad, Freddie and I were wondering if...if..."

"If what?"

"If maybe somehow you might want to give us an advance on our allowance."

"An advance? Do you need some money for school? I'll give it to you. You don't need to spend your allowance."

"No, it's not that."

"Well then, what is it? What do you need the money for?"

"Nothing."

"Nothing? It's got to be something?"

"We'll pay you back and all. I mean, we already told mom we'd clean the house and she said ok, and we'll even do the laundry if we have to. We promise."

"Uh-huh. I see. Well that's certainly nice of you two to offer to help your mother out around the house, but I'm a little surprised at this sudden outburst of industriousness and responsibility."

"We want to do it. Honest."

"Fannie, there's something you're not telling me. C'mon now, why do you two need an advance on your allowance? Tell me the truth."

"What do you mean?"

"Fannie - I asked you what's the money for."

"Can't you just give it to us?"

"Are you two in some kind of trouble?"

"No, it's nothing like that."

"Freddie? Are you in some kind of trouble?"

"No...I mean not really...I mean...we kind of owe some people some money, that's all."

"Kind of owe which people some money?"

"These banker guys. You know, foreigners and pension plan guys."

"Foreigners and pension plan guys? Why do you owe foreigners and pension plan guys money?"

"Umm..."

"Freddie - I asked you a question."

"Well...you see...we had to borrow some money from these foreigners and pension plan guys so that we could loan it to some mortgage guys."

"You what? Ok, let's back up here. First tell me how much money you owe these people?"

"I don't know. About (mumble) dollars."

"What? I didn't catch that. How much do you owe?"

"About 15 trillion dollars, I guess."

"About 15 trillion dollars you 'guess', but you don't know."

"Not really. It's complicated."

(Fannie interrupts)

"It's not that much dad. Freddie's just being a moron. Most of that money's going to be paid back. We don't really owe that much."

"Well then Fannie, why don't you enlighten me. If it's not 15 trillion dollars then how much do you owe?"

"I'm not sure. It all depends. If the money we lent to the mortgage people gets paid back then we won't owe anything 'cause we'll be making money. You see?"

"No I don't see. Why are you lending people money in the first place? And where did you get 15 trillion dollars?"

"We got it from these foreigners and pension plan guys, and we use the money to buy loans from the mortgage guys who lend it to people so they can buy houses. Then we guarantee and sell the loans we buy to more foreigners and pension plan guys and pocket a little for ourselves."

"Then what's the problem?"

"The problem is that some of that money got lent to people who couldn't really pay it back."

"You lent money to people who couldn't pay it back?"

"Sort of."

"I don't understand. Why did you lend money to people who can't pay it back?"

"It was Freddie's idea."

(Freddie stands up)

"Was not my idea."

"Was so."

"Was not. Dad, Fannie's lying."

"Am not."

"Are so."

(Dad's had enough)

"That's enough! Now both of you sit down. Right now!"

(They quiet down. Dad continues.)

"I don't care who's idea it was. You took money from foreigners and pension plan guys and gave it to people who couldn' pay it back, and now you've got to find some money to pay back the people you borrowed from. Right?"

"..."

"Right?"

"Sort of."

"No, not 'sort of'. That's exactly what you did, and now you want me to help you clean up this mess. Right?"

"..."

"Well, I've got news for you. As far as I'm concerned you're responsible for what's happened and it's up to you, not me, to fix it. You hear me? That's your responsibility. I want you to go talk to your foreigners and pension plan guys and tell them you're sorry but you might not be able to pay them back the money you owe. Explain what happened, just like you did to me. They won't like it, but things like this happen sometimes. Afterwards, maybe you can think of some way to make it up to them. In the meantime, I don't want either one of you to make any more loans or borrow any more money. Is that clear?"

"Yeah, ok, but..."

"But what?"

"But...it's just that...you see...we kind of promised."

"Promised what?"

"We promised them if we couldn't pay the money back that they could bill you for what they were owed."

"They could bill me?"

"Yeah. We promised. We had to. They wouldn't have lent us the money if we didn't."

"Oh they wouldn't. Well isn't that just too damn bad. Sorry boys and girls, but I never promised them anything. If they want to collect anything from me then they can talk to my lawyer. Capiche? You tell them I'm not paying them a dime."

"But you can't do that."

"Oh yeah, just watch me."

"No, I mean you can't do that."

"What do you mean I can't do that?"

"Because we're your kids. They said that makes you, you know, responsible."

"Who said?"

"Everybody. You see dad, half the mortgages in the country wouldn't get made if it weren't for our, I mean 'your' guarantee. Everyone knows that. If you don't make sure the foreigners and pension plan guys get paid, then the whole housing market could collapse."

"Are you crazy? Are the both of you out of your flippin' minds? You think I've got 15 trillion dollars just laying around the house that I can pay to a bunch of foreigners and pension plan guys because my kids decided to go out and start lending money to people who can't pay it back? Are you out of your flippin' minds?"

"You don't have to pay back the entire 15 trillion. Most of the loans are good."

"Oh. 'Most of the loans are good'. That's great. I don't feel so bad now. Gee, and I was getting worried there for a minute."

"You don't have to get sarcastic."

"I'll get as sarcastic as I damn well please. I'm still your father you know."

"..."

"Tell me something, if your so sure I won't have to pay back the entire 15 trillion then exactly how much will I have to pay?"

"We told you. We don't know for sure."

"Well, Fannie, then why don't you give me your best guess."

"Maybe only about 200 billion or so."

"Oh. Maybe only 200 billion or so? Is that all? Why didn't you say so in the first place? No problem. No problemioso. Let me just check underneath the sofa cushions for some loose change."

"You're mad at us, aren't you?"

"..."

"We're sorry."

"You bet your little behinds your sorry, but not nearly as sorry as your gonna be when you get finished paying this money back. And you are going to pay me back. You hear what I'm saying to you. From now on I own you and you're going to pay me back every last penny."

"It won't be 200 billion. It probably won't even be close. That's just worst case."

"Let's see. How much is your allowance? 20 bucks a week. If you pay me back 20 dollars a week then you should have this paid back in, hmm, around 19 billion years. How's that sound? Does 19 billion years sound right to you?"

"Daaaaaad...."

"You think I'm kidding? You think this is some kind of a joke? Ok, how about if both of you just skip your suppers tonight and go straight up to your rooms instead. That way maybe the hunger pains can help you focus on figuring out how you're gonna come up with 200 billion dollars to pay me back."

"That isn't fair."

"What isn't fair? This?"

"We didn't do anything wrong. We were just trying to help people."

"Help people? By lending them money they couldn't pay back? You weren't helping them, you were taking advantage of them. There's a big difference Fannie. Maybe when you're sitting up there in your room you can think about that a little too."

"We didn't know they weren't going to pay it back. Anyway, it was the mortgage people who lent them the money. We just bought the loans."

"I don't care. You should have known. You should have known what you were buying. Ignorance is no excuse. You hear me? You hear what I just said?"

"Yeah, we heard you."

"What did I say?"

"Ignorance is no excuse."

"That's right. Geez, what a mess. How could you be so dumb?"

"..."

"Taking trillions of dollars from people and lendng it to people who couldn't pay it back. What were you thinking?"

"..."

"Wait till I tell your mother. She's not going to be happy. Is she?"

"..."

"No, she's going to be spittin' mad. For crying out loud, how could you do something like this? Huh? Why didn't you ask me before you started lending these people money? You could have asked me first before you started throwing all this money around. Didn't you think of that?"

"..."

"Up to your room - both of you. And let's just hope you learned a valuable lesson from all this."

"We're sorry."

"I know you are, but you've got to learn to be more careful."

"We will be."

"Go on. And if any of your friends call you can tell 'em you're both grounded. Is that clear?"

"Yes."

"Ok."

"Dad?"

"What."

"There is one more thing."

"What's that?"

"We both had contracts. You know, employment contracts."

"So?"

"So, if you're going to ground us you have to pay us our severance."

"For what?"

"For our hard work and stewardship."

"And just how much is that worth?"

"Well, Freddie gets 14 million dollars and I get 9. It's only fair."

"You think that's fair?"

"It's in our contracts."

"Well, I'll tell you what. How about I throw both of you in the river. That way, as your next of kin, that money would come to me. That would be fair, wouldn't it, seeing as I'm paying all this money to bail you out."

"Oh dad..."

"..."

"You're not serious are you?"

(exasperated sigh) "Don't worry, you'll get your 25 million. After all, it's in your contract."

"Thanks dad. You're the best."

"What's fair is fair. That's what Dad's are for."

What Hath God Wrought

I don't normally write about video games, and not because I know nothing about them, but simply because I never play them. Oh, I've played them before, but that was a long time ago, and I realize other people play them and that's fine.


Now, having said all that, anyone who has ever read this blog must certainly know by now that not knowing what I'm talking about has never stopped me from offering an opinion, and so I want to talk about this new game that is being released next Sunday called Spore. I've never seen it nor played it, but I know that for about the past 5 years it has been one of the gaming world's most hotly anticipated games.

Spore is the latest creation of Will Wright, the video gaming genius behind the mega-selling "Sims" franchise (which in and of itself speaks highly of the game's market potential), and, as I understand it, the idea of Spore is that the player attempts to take a lowly single cell protozoa and evolve it through gameplay into a highly intelligent being that colonizes the Universe.

Keep in mind that Will Wright is a game designer, not a microbiologist, so the educational potential of Spore is likely to be low. Parents shouldn't be confused into thinking that playing 500 hours of Spore will get their child into Harvard Medical School. From what I can tell so far, Spore will be less like science and more like Intelligent Design. That is, the player will be given a small opportunity to play God and evolve a species.

Interesting idea, huh, evolving your own species and all. C'mon, honestly haven't you ever found yourself peering into a microscope and quietly wondering quietly what your life would be like if you had been born an amoeba - feeling the things an amoeba feels, thinking the thoughts an amoeba thinks? I've got to admit I'm a little intrigued. Just what do amoebae think about? Lacking brains it can't be anything too deep. They swim, they eat, and every now and then when they're feeling lonely they unchain their genes and split down the middle. A pretty self-absorbed existence, if you ask me; one best suited to either movie stars or bloggers. Now that would be the scenario I'd like to play - to see if I could evolve the lowly amoeba into Sylvester Stallone.

Actually, I don't have a clue how this game will play, but it's an interesting premise. According to the website, Spore will be available for Windows and Mac and the graphics requirements aren't too steep so most recently purchased computer should be able to run it. Like I said, I'm not a gamer so I think I'll wait for the reviews to come out before I plunk down any cash. If it lives up to the hype, though, it sounds like it might be fun.

And while we're on the subject of science and technology I just have one more thing I'd like to mention. I bought a little portable USB mouse for my laptop the other day, and while that usually wouldn't merit a mention even in a blog as useless as this one, I did notice one thing. Isn't it strange that here we are almost 9 years into the 21st century, and still no one has managed to invent a package that is incapable of being opened?

Think about it. We've split the atom, we've mapped the human genome, and yet we still haven't invented the totally unopenable package. Not that we haven't tried. The plastic packaging that my USB mouse came in was certainly a valiant effort, but with the aid of a blow torch and a couple of hand grenades even that was ultimately openable.

There is clearly much more to be done in this area.