PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP
 Some Thoughts on The Mortgage Meltdown
Karlyn Hiatt Lewis
April 2011

MY HUSBAND AND I have talked, and if we were asked today by our bishop to give our house to someone more in need, we agree that we could do it. In fact we’ve discussed how silly it is of humans to insist “I own this little plot of earth.” Would we feel a sense of loss as we walked away? Of course. I remember the sudden--and very unexpected--sadness as we drove away from a car of ours that had been totaled. We had become attached over the years! But how, if we are not willing to let go of the ownership of Things, can we ever expect to become as God who is willing to give away “... all that [he] hath ...” to his exalted children? (D&C 84:38)

It’s certainly not that we’re somehow better than others. We certainly struggle with being charitable, in not judging others. And it happens in the most common of situations. I’m a very visual person, and I constantly evaluate everything by its appearance. Recently, I was sitting in the reception area at a medical facility, looking around at all the other people and I thought, “I so don’t belong with this group.” Right away I knew I’d done it again: judging others on how they look.

Judgment is such a harsh thing, and a scary thing when we remember that with “... what judgment [we] judge, [we] shall be judged; and with what measure [we] mete, it shall be measured to [us] again.” (3Ne 14:2) But how often do we fail to see ourselves as the sinner for whom He bled and died? Well, most of the time.

In hindsight, I realize that I should have stayed out of the Facebook discussion about The Mortgage Meltdown. I just did not expect the vehemence with which my fellow church members condemned those who have, or will, or might lose their homes.

But I should start with what I believe. I believe that many aspects of our finding and buying this home that we have owned for 25 years were direct blessings. And I don’t think that these blessings came because we were any better than anyone else.
LET'S COUNT SOME of those blessings that led us into home ownership.
We have been blessed to be born into intact families who raised us in religious homes where we were taught about God, about discerning
     right from wrong, and about love for our fellowmen.
We have been blessed to grow up in families who owned homes.
We have been blessed to to grow up in families where our parents were good examples of frugality.
We have been blessed to grow up in fairly poor families: Jim’s family had eight kids supported on his dad’s very modest income; my mother
     was widowed with 3 children age six and under--at a time when women did not have the education and experience to easily step into the
     role of breadwinner.
We have been blessed to be members of a church whose leaders are concerned enough about our temporal welfare to give us wise
     guidance and counsel.
We have been blessed to have many good teachers and many other good examples.
We have been blessed to have had experiences that taught us that God answers prayers and how to recognize inspiration.
We have been blessed with opportunities to work and earn money at a young age.
We have been blessed with experiences that helped us learn how to handle money wisely.
We have been blessed with the ability to learn quickly and we never had to work hard to get good grades.
We have been blessed to receive scholarships to get a college education.
We have been blessed in the breadth and depth of our educational opportunities that not only afforded us the ability to support ourselves but
     the know-how to manage our income wisely.
We have been blessed with the capacity to see many down-the-road consequences as we make decisions.
We have been blessed with families who were willing and able to help us get on a sound financial footing.
We have been blessed to be a single-income family.1
We have been blessed with the discernment to judge between necessities and luxuries.
We have been blessed with many of life’s luxuries.
We have been blessed with the good health and safety that has allowed us to continue to work and provide for our needs.
We have learned the veracity of the statement, “There but for the grace of God, go I.”
IN 1985, WE LEARNED that the owners of the home we were renting had decided to sell it. With four children and a good job, we thought this might be our chance to get into a house of our own. We worked with a local realtor to try and find something we could afford. We looked at lots of houses. Some were truly creepy. Others were adequate but one thing or another didn’t work out with them. After a while, our realtor went on vacation.

I continued to watch the newspaper for ads, and one day I saw a new listing that was in our meager budget range. I told Jim that if the house was indeed as described in the newspaper, we were buying it. We called for an appointment and the owner said that another couple was scheduled to view it but if we wanted we could come earlier. We did, we liked the house, it felt right, and we accompanied the owner to the title company to start working on the sale.

Of course, things rarely go smoothly, and this was no exception. As our time began running out on leaving our rental, it became obvious that the closing wasn’t going to meet our deadline. We weighed all of our options and the two real choices seemed to be: 1) rent a storage unit for our belongings and pay for a motel room, or 2) talk the owner into renting the house to us until the sale went through.

The owner said that everyone had advised him that renting to us temporarily was a very bad idea. But he--a Jewish man--just couldn’t bear the idea that our family would have to stay in a motel for Christmas. Despite his misgivings, he let us move into our house before it was officially "ours."

(The photo above shows our little house in our decidedly blue-collar neighborhood in the early 2000s. A large limb from our front-yard tree had recently blown down, and here the rest of the tree is in the process of being taken down. It was very sad!)
THE BLESSINGS associated with owning this house didn’t stop there. We were able to refinance our mortgage in the early 1990s with a rate so low that people in the business are still amazed. There are many things that need fixing, refurbishing, or replacing, but we have quite an adequate shelter from the storms.

And here’s where I my thinking returns to, "There but for the grace of God, go I." Countless blessings have aggregated and magnified to get us to the point where we were able to buy and keep a home for more than 25 years! And if the circumstances that have made our home ownership possible were not the result of our merits, how can the circumstances of so many people losing their homes be the result of their faults?

Many times I hear arguments on a certain issue and think, "That just doesn’t sound right." If I do a little research on the subject, it doesn’t take long to realize that many of the assumptions I hear--and sometimes believe--are not based on actual, verifiable facts. And often when we are presented with actual, verifiable facts, we dismiss them out-of-hand because they disagree with our assumptions.

NOT LONG AGO, I read the book The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-class Mothers & Fathers are Going Broke by Elizabeth Warren and her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi. I have admired Elizabeth Warren from the first time I saw her speaking so rationally and explaining so simply her position amid partisan shrieks and cries. She is so intelligent, so knowledgeable, so down-to-earth, so compassionate.

The concepts and conclusions in this book were based on several in-depth studies including The Consumer Bankruptcy Project of 2001. Almost 10 pages in the appendix deal with the nuts-and-bolts of how the project was designed and conducted by a large group of eminently qualified scholars and researchers. So I tend to believe this gives Warren & Tyagi’s opinions ample credibility.

The most surprising aspect of the book was the authors’ debunking of a couple of widely-held myths, including "The Over-Consumption Myth" and "The Myth of the Immoral Debtor." I admit that I, too, believed these myths before reading the book. The over-consumption myth simply states that consumers today spend more frivolously than people commonly did in the past. The companion myth addresses the idea that more people are buying without the intention of paying for their purchases. I was amazed and chagrinned to have accepted these myths--and as a result had condemned others without a factual basis.

So with this entire background and "rehabilitated" point of view, I entered the Facebook discussion I mentioned concerning The Mortgage Meltdown. (I have edited some posts for identifiers but I have not corrected grammar or spelling.)

My friend started the conversation off like this:

Friend: Can't remember ever agreeing with Thomas Sowell but I do this time. Speaking about the housing crisis and "those who borrowed money to buy homes they couldn't afford or who borrowed against the equity in their homes" he says: "If anyone is especially deserving [of concern] it is those who had the common sense to avoid taking on bigger financial obligations than they could handle, but who are now expected to pay as taxpayers for other people's irresponsibility."2
Me: Except that many people in this situation were not capable of independently assessing their financial situation. They were told that 'this is a financially reasonable thing to do' and they believed it. Knowing what the financial ramifications of taking on a mortgage will entail is not a matter of common sense but of education. And when all the other parties in the transaction are telling you that this is a really good idea, lots of people would not have the knowledge and experience to question.
Participant 1: Plus, the lenders had government-imposed quotas to fill. Lenders who had never written a b-paper loan before were forced by the government to convert a percentage of their loan portfolios to b-paper. That forced them to open their lending guidelines way up, write those wacky adjustables, make loans to people who couldn't afford them, etc. it wasn't just the borrower's greed that caused this. (Although certainly it contributed in some cases.)
Me: And the b-paper loans are the ones with higher rates too, so you're taking someone who already has questionable finances and plunking them into a less-affordable loan.
Participant 1: Yep! Here in the central valley, we've also seen a much higher rate of hispanics having been foreclosed on. At first I thought it was because they don't speak the language- which is part of it- but it wasn't English-speaking loan brokers who sold them the loans. They did it to themselves. Spanish-speaking hispanics in our community use spanish-speaking mortgage brokers.

I had a big argument with a broker right before the crash. She told my client he should just take the adjustable rate mortgage, because then he could buy more house and just refinance in a couple years when the values went up. I said, "You can't tell him that! Nobody knows what prices will do!" Unfortunately, a lot of people got that story and believed it. And a lot of people bought investment properties only thinking they'd hold them for a couple years and then sell. It was the perfect storm, and we're all paying for it.
Participant 2: the thing is that we had a notion that owning a home in this country is a right it is not a right it is a priveledge for those who work hard and can afford it.
Participant 1: Exactly. "Homeownership for all" changed that. Big push by Carter, then Clinton- with Obama in the Black Congressional Caucus at the time. That was why they changed the regulations- to help "under-represented" parties own homes.
Participant 3: Really? You don't usually agree with Thomas Sowell? I think he's brilliant as both an economist and a political commentator. We have all his books if you ever want to delve deeper :-)
Me: But whether or not you view home ownership as a right or a privilege, the financial consequences of buying a home are not something that most buyers understand. How many of us who are homeowners actually read all and understood all of what the loan papers said?

The blame doesn't lie entirely with those who tried to expand homeownership to minorities, or those who wrote the loans, or those who approved the loans, or traded the loans, or those took on the loans. It was a combination of all of the above, but to blame either the politicians or the home buyers doesn't make sense, because they're the ones with the least amount of expertise in finances.

And if the industry had actually tried to genuinely help the "underrepresented" into home ownership instead of trying to make money for themselves, I think we would have a much different current situation. In the recent foreclosure court case, the judge ruled that the banks couldn't foreclose because they didn't have any documentation of whether or not they actually owned the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. Banks were trading and selling mortgages like baseball cards with no thought of how it mattered to real people who owned real homes.

I truly believe that it was and is possible to help minorities to own homes, but not while they're being cardsharked into ownership. Most minorities are hard working people who have invested savings and work into having a home. They are not just some scum who only deserve to have a home because some political caucus of any ilk deigned to create a program for them. But now--just like so many who are not minorities-they have lost their savings and their homes ... and still get to be thought of as rubbish.
Participant 3: ?"Underrepresented" for a reason. If you're too poor (nothing to do with race) to buy a home, you're too poor to maintain the home, the mortgage, the insurance, the attendant energy costs. Lending institutions aren't in the charity or social "justice" business. They're in business to provide a safe haven for their depositors, and a profit for depositors, shareholders and investors. America was doing quite well until the gov't (Repub and Dem) decided to change the rules of responsible home ownership and investment. Instead of "save your money" it became "go into debt as far as we'll let you". Presto:disaster.
Participant 1: The industry was responding to legislation forced upon them by legislators who thought it was a brilliant idea to force them into writing these loans. There were many companies who didn't write b-paper loans. Why? Because they were too risky. It wasn't part of their business model. But throw in some legislation with a deadline forcing compliance, and all of that changed. The government shouldn't have messed with this. Encouraging home ownership is one thing- forcing companies to re-structure their business plan to accept more risk than they're willing is not right.
Me: The legislation could have been written in a way that made sense for all entities. And the loans could have been written (and managed) in a way that made sense for the home buyers. Lending institutions can make a perfectly reasonable profit and still function in a manner that does not practically guarantee that a risky loan will fail.

'Too poor' may not have anything to do with race, but any study of census demographics will show that 'poor' and 'race' are sadly very correlated ... and not because minorities are too lazy, too dumb, or whatever. There are times when we actually need to do something to provide more opportunities for the poor to climb out of poverty. We can't just keep thinking that the people who 'deserve' homes get them and the people who don't 'deserve' them do not. That's a pretty slippery slope.
Participant 4: Nobody deserves to own a home. Period. Many people have earned the money to purchase a home. But again nobody simply deserves one.

The Government tried to expand the home ownership among minorities by buying up all of these mortgages and requiring the mortgage companies to write loans to people who were not good credit risks. They created a system were it was in the best interest of the mortgage brokers to write the loans regardless of the ability to pay. Because once they sold them off to Fanny and Freddie they would have [their] money back and we the taxpayer would be on the hook. So the combination of loosened lending requirements and the desire of the mortgage companies to push more loans through each month combined to create this real estate bubble.

The source of this problem is with the politicians. The real estate industry just operated by the urealistic rules created by the politicians. If the people who bought these houses are now upside down then they need to take a hit, and the banks need to take a hit. We the tax payer should not be footing the bill. And we should not be bailing out people who made bad choices and purchased homes they could not afford. Because if we do then the next time those of us who didn't buy into the overpriced market because it was overpriced will just jump in since we wont have to pay the price.
Me: I still disagree with the idea that these are--by and large--people who knowingly made a "bad" choice to purchase a home they could not afford. They were advised by "experts" in the lending industry--not politicians--that they could afford those loans, and proceeded on that advice. Would we not do the same?
Participant 4: Nope. I didn't buy a house because I recognized that the markett was over priced. And I am not a real estate "expert". The people who bought homes they couldn't afford are not blameless. They made poor choices, informed or not. But if the government had not meddled then they would not have had the opportunity to make this bad choice because they would not have been able to secure a loan.
Participant 5: I hate to sound cold hearted, but make a budget, look at the numbers. It's our responsibility to say no, I can't afford that. And while I agree their were predatory lenders out there, I have a hard time with people who can afford their mortgages (and I realize that not all can) who walk away because "it's not worth whay I'm paying." Where's the integrity in that?

My husband and I didn't buy a house when many of our friends did because we looked at what we had as a deposit, looked at our budget, thought about what maintaining a house costs and realized we couldn't afford it. ESPECIALLY in Southern California. Many of our friends did NOT do that and simply thought that owning was better than renting. I don't know anybody who was told by an "expert" that they could afford a home. I do know people that were told by lenders they could afford a mortgage payment. But anyone with a head on their shoulders knows lenders are part of a business to make money. It is frustrating to be part of a group who was financially responsible and has to "help" those that were not.
Participant 6: I agree too. I didn't buy unless my payments were the same or less than the rent I was paying. Also, I was not going to rely on a roommate either. Took awhile but here I am.
Friend: I remember reading about a family who lost their home. They were neither educated, nor savvy about the real estate business. The wife said she knew they couldn't afford the home but the lender kept saying they could. This hard sell technique isn't exclusive to home buying. Someone is always trying to get you to buy something you can't afford. Some people give in to the hard sell, the responsible ones don't. I don't buy the idea that ignorance is an excuse to this mess. If someone is willing to enter into a risky venture just because an "expert" tells them to, they're going to have a lot more problems in life than just financial ones. I'm with [Participant 5] on this one. If an "expert" told me I could afford something, I would look at my finances and make the decision. Everyone who earns money needs to understand how to manage that money. Giving in to sales pressure is not an excuse for mismanaging your own finances.
Participant 4: Additionally, if people do not have to pay a price for their poor decisions, financial or otherwise, they will continue to make poor decisions. And eventually those who avoided the poor choices will decide that their is now down side and make the same poor choices. Eventually the system will collapse under its own weight.
Participant 6: When the government steps in so people avoid the consequences of their poor choices they will keep doing it because they know someone will bail them out. The problem with the government is that its my money they are using. Someone else is benefiting from my hard work and its not me. Entitlement and redistribution of wealth is becoming more common. The system wiil break and those who think they are entitled won't know how to do any work to survive
Me: Ah, the myth of the "Immoral Debtor." "In the good old days" people had moral values and integrity. They paid their bills/mortgages because it was the right thing to do. Now people just want to abuse the system. That's the story that has been told over and over since Cotton Mather in 1716 bemoaned that the colonists would soon stop paying their debts because the fear of God was not "before their eyes." Unfortunately, the numbers don't show any financial "good old days" nor any current rise in numbers of "immoral debtors"--people who know that they are taking on debts that they can't or won't pay.

What has risen since the 1970s is families in financial distress due to involuntary job loss (up 150%), loss of work because of illness or disability (up 100%), divorce (up 40%), increased out-of-pocket medical expenses (up 49%), and loss of work while caring for a family member (up 1,000%).

And for most of us, it's really a "there but for the grace of God go I" kind of situation. Our financial stability is not necessarily because we chose better (although I'm not going to discount the gift of inspiration), or that we are more moral, or that we "deserve" what we have, but that we have been abundantly blessed.

When we are more than happy to see others suffer the consequences of their misfortunes and judge them for their "poor choices," how is that materially different than, "The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand ... for his punishments are just ..." ?? (Mosiah 4:17)

I think I'm going to go with Dieter F. Uchtdorf on this one: "It is unworthy of us as Christians to think that those who suffer deserve their suffering. ... As disciples of Jesus Christ, our Master, we are called to support and heal rather than condemn." I can think of no reason these statements would not apply to people who have suffered through financial difficulties and foreclosure.
Participant 5: I'm not sure about the "good old days" because these are my days, but I can say this. None of the people I know that bought a house they can't afford are in financial distress due to any of the reasons you stated. They have jobs but simply chose to live beyond their means. The church constantly cautions us not to spend more than we earn, but I see countless people do just that. In that case, my financial stability IS because I chose better. No one here is talking about those that face any of the situations you mentioned.

I don't think those that chose poorly "deserve" to suffer, nor am I happy to see them suffer. I do think that part of learning and growing is dealing with our own consequences and not expecting someone to bail us out. That is why our Heavenly Father put us on this earth. If we never have to accept the consequences of our actions, how do we learn and grow? This is, after all, why we chose the path of free agency, so that we can make our choices and learn from them.

I would also like to point out, even though we were not talking about the misfortunes of others but rather poor choices, that my mom was sick and [her husband] didn't have a job, but they still kept their house. Why? Because they didn't own anything extravagant (huge home, expensive cars, etc...) and had a savings. I'm not saying that's always possible, but I am saying more people should follow the advice of the church and then even when those misfortunes you spoke of occur they would be better prepared to weather the storm.
Participant 4: People in the "good old days" paid their debts because if the didn't they went to jail. Today people pay their debts because they either honor their commitments, want to keep up their credit scores, or in the case of a mortgage don't want ...to loose the money they have already invested.

I don't think anybody here has taken the position that any of these people should "suffer". We don't have debtors prisons anymore. Nobody is saying that people should be thrown into the streets and left to starve.

I will continue to donate money and time to charitable organisations to help those in need. But that is a individual obligation not a collective one. When President Uchtdorf talks about "support and heal rather than condemn" he is talking about us a individual disciples of Christ. Government bail outs and hand outs are not charity because it is not the governments money. They take the money from the tax payers under threat of force. The hand that we want to stay is the one of the Government reaching into our pockets, and the pockets of our children and grand children to bail out people who made poor choices.
Me: I completely agree with you, [Participant 5]. But don't you think that a) having been taught the "advice" of the Church, and b) the inspiration you receive in making wise choices, are both blessings?

No, we shouldn't expect to "live beyond our means," but statistics show that "frivolous" spending by families is basically the same as it was a generation ago. And the most common reason behind people overspending on a house--one expense that has changed--is because they want a safe neighborhood and good schools for their kids. That still doesn't make it a wise idea, but certainly more understandable.

A very readable book on this subject is The Two-Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren--a Harvard Law professor and former Sunday School teacher--co-written with her daughter.

And as far as being here to act and accept consequences, I don't think that Heavenly Father is a punitive parent who makes sure we suffer consequences to the fullest extent possible. As parents ourselves, don't we soften the consequences of our children's actions, knowing that with our support and nurturing, they are more likely to learn and grow? There are lots of ways to learn, and the 'consequences' route is not always the best.
Me: I simply do not believe it is somehow evil for the government to function as a redistributor between those who have surplus and those who have dearth. The meal provided through my fast offering will taste the same as the meal provided through my taxes. My attitude in giving only affects me. If I want to look at taxes as the government forcibly taking away my money, I’m free to do that. But that doesn’t make it illegal or immoral ... or make it not charity.
Participant 4: Fast offerings are an act of agency. Taxes ARE under threat of force. It's not a question of how you want to look at it. It is a fact. If you don't pay your taxes you will go to jail.

How is the government taking money from you by force and then using it to feed and clothe the poor any different that the plan that we all rejected in the pre-existance. Since you are not making the choice it absolutely is NOT charity.

I am not advocating a complete absence of social programs. But they should be funded and administered at the local and state level. Because the larger the government the more waste, fraud, and abuse.
Participant 5: Of course it's a blessing having been taught what I've been taught and raised how I've been raised. But I don't think making wise choices is exclusive to inspiration. The church isn't the only organization out there that teaches not to live beyond your means. So, again, anyone who chooses not to do so is making a poor choice.

It doesn't matter if frivolous spending occured a generation ago. I'm not comparing spending now to then. I only mentioned the "good old days" because you did, and said I knew nothing of them. However, over spending shouldn't have happened then and it shouldn't happen now.

I'm not sure where you received your information that the most common reason people overspend on a house is because they want a safe neighborhood and a good school, but that is simply not true in my area. Southern California is one of the most expensive places to live, and a majority of our schools are terrible (except for Southern OC), so to leave here and go where it is safer and there are better schools would be cheaper. Our friends were buying $500,000 homes when they could have gone to another place where homes the neighborhood was nicer for $200,000. No, they certainly didn't buy to be in a nice neighborhoods or to be in a good school district. Maybe that's true elsewhere, but not here. And, there are apartments in those same areas, so the don't have to buy.

I actually have heard of the book you mentioned, but don't care to read it. Why? Because I don't know a single two-income family that truly only pays for necessities. Manicures, cable, the internet, a new car, eating out, vacations, etc. are not necessities. Also, it's not a necessity to live someplace expensive. If you can't afford to live where you do, go somewhere where you can. Again, maybe it's the area I live in, but I don't know any of those people that this book applies to. I think that learning what necessities are needs to change first.

I also never said anyone should suffer consequences to the fullest extent possible. I don't think these people should be left homeless, but I don't think they should get a complete bail out. Soften the consequences, sure. That's what friends and family are for. Bail out with my money. No. Again, why can't support and nurturing go along with the consequences? It's not black and white. It's not harsh consequences or support and nurturing with no consequences. I believe in consequences with love. I never take away consequences completely from my daughter. I may soften the blow, but not do away with completely. No, I don't think you can learn without any consequences.

While I'm sure no one thinks it's "evil for the government to function as a redistributor between those who have surplus and those who have dearth" you are mistaken if you believe 1) taxes are only taken from those who have "surplus" and 2) are redistributed to "those who have dearth". Many who don't have surplus still have to pay taxes. And taxes don't only go to those in need. I definately think taxes are necessary, that statement was just not correct.
NOTE: At this point it was obvious that I was only irritating people who would never agree with me, so I apologized and concluded with:
Me: Certainly taxes are not only taken from those who have and redistributed to those who need. But I was responding to the idea that the government shouldn't have a hand in helping out the poor (using money we have contributed), not how the current tax structure affects the taxpayers themselves. Tax reform is a whole other discussion we could have on Facebook!

THERE ARE A LOT of points that could be addressed from this discussion, such as:
 Is charity only charity if it comes from non-governmental sources?
How did government programs designed to help increase home ownership affect the Mortgage Meltdown?
 How much profit is enough?
Does our government now promote personal debt over personal thrift?
 How valid are anecdotal arguments versus those based on empirical evidence?

But I’m going to limit myself to the topic as it was initially introduced: the people who had the "common sense" to stay above the mortgage mess are now being "expected to pay as taxpayers for other people's irresponsibility." (Thomas Sowell)

The discussion seemed to clearly divide ME from THEM; ME being those participants who are not having mortgage problems, aka the "Common Sensers," and THEM, being the ones who are having mortgage problems, aka, the "Irresponsibles."

HERE ARE THE characteristics that the participants implied they ("ME") possessed.
 I make wise choices.
 I am responsible.
 I am hardworking.
 I have financial integrity.
 I live frugally and manage my finances wisely.
 I did my homework (due diligence) and analyzed the housing market correctly.
 I didn’t listen to so-called "experts" nor give in to hard-sell tactics.

I have no doubt that the members of the discussion do, indeed, possess most if not all of these characteristics. The problem comes when home ownership becomes a "privilege" that accrues only to people who also have these characteristics. "... owning a home in this country is not a right it is a privilege" (Participant 2). It is the Just Reward for people who--like ME--are, well, better, more responsible, more savvy.
IN CONTRAST, PEOPLE who are losing their homes in the Mortgage Meltdown ("THEM") have the following characteristics:
 They do not make wise choices.
 They are not responsible.
 They are not hardworking.
 They do not have financial integrity.
 They do not live frugally and they mismanage their finances.
 They didn’t do their homework (due diligence) nor analyze the market well.
 They listened to so-called "experts" and did not resist hard-sell tactics.

For THEM, losing their houses is their Just Punishment for being this way. Because one must suffer in order to make better choices in the future. "The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him ... of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just ..." (Mosiah 4:17)

TO QUOTE Dieter F. Uchtdorf again:
     "At its core, pride is a sin of comparison, for though it usually begins with 'Look how wonderful I am and what great things I have done,' it
     always seems to end with 'Therefore, I am better than you.'"

The phrase "Pride of Ownership" is ubiquitous in sales marketing. "Pride of Ownership" shows up on how-to lists like "Marketing Tricks, Tips, and Traps," and "The Six Hot Buttons of Selling Housing." Pride of Ownership "has a lot to do with emotions; it is products or brands that generate a sense of inclusion in a selected/special community that present a perceived exclusivity."

What red-blooded American hasn't gloried in their Things? I certainly have. But our Pride of Ownership has led us to fashion a narrative to justify ourselves, ME versus THEM, dividing rather than unifying, discounting the blessings that have aggregated and magnified in our behalf while imagining the sins of others which have certainly brought them their misery. "And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts..." (Jacob 2:13)

Owning a home may be the result of a thousand tiny blessings or the result of a few colossal ones. But unless we acknowledge that our Things--including our houses--are the result of the 'hand of providence' in our lives, we will be inescapably caught up in the pride of our hearts. We will continue to condemn others, and with that judgment will God likewise condemn us.
I DO NOT ACCEPT Mr. Sowell's 'frame' that using tax dollars to help those facing foreclosure in The Mortgage Meltdown is employing the funds of the responsible in behalf of the irresponsible. That argument discounts the complexity of the situation, but more importantly it draws a false moral line between those who are secure in their home mortgages and those who are not. As long as we buy into that argument, we too are guilty of the false "Pride of Ownership."

NOTES
 1. Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi, The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-class Mothers & Fathers are Going Broke, Basic Books,
     2003.
2. Thomas Sowell, "How can a housing market be 'saved'?"  3 Jan 2011,
     http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/thomas-sowell-how-can-housing-market-be-saved#ixzz1GXldxpeM
3. Doctrine & Covenants 59:21 -- "And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his
     hand in all things ..."

BACK TO LIBRARY

HOMEGRAPHICSLIBRARYWEB DESIGNPHOTO EDITING