- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Connect with Us
Letter writer misses the mark | LETTER TO THE EDITOR
To the editor:
In Tom Ewell’s letter of Jan. 21, “An Egregious Offender,” he states the reasons for his support of the occupy movement and the demonstration against the banking firm of JP Morgan Chase.
I would agree with Mr. Ewell if he had stated specific cases in which the bank had violated any laws associated with their lending practices. That he has failed to do. If they had been in violation of the law they should definitely be held accountable.
I did visit the website mentioned in his letter and found no such violation, but a warped and highly slanted history of the housing crisis. It doesn’t mention, for example, that the housing bubble was driven by low interest rates where the equity in the property purchased secured the loan regardless of whether the borrower was credit worthy or not.
It also didn’t mention the fact that the Federal Reserve sets the interest rates and not the banks so we have the housing market driven by political considerations and not market forces based on supply and demand.
Additionally, it doesn’t mention the fact that the treasury is pumping money into the economy 24/7 and when you increase the money supply you bid up the price of everything, housing included (notice the price of groceries?). Inflation is here.
In his letter, Mr. Ewell mentions the greed of the bank and their profits in addition to the large salaries and bonuses paid to its top employees.
May I remind Mr. Ewell that the bank is a publicly traded corporation and their only loyalty is to their stockholders? Accordingly, they are not in the business of dispensing charity or compassion. The salaries and compensation paid to their employees are none of anybody’s business, but they are my business because I have stock in that company. It’s a strong company that earns a good profit and I get a dividend each quarter.
Finally, Mr. Ewell quotes Biblical scripture and uses Jesus to justify his political opinions. This is one of the lowest forms of political argument. The premise is that God almighty is in agreement with the writer so to disagree with any of its content is to be in opposition to God’s will. Such an approach is not worthy to be considered by an intelligent and rational mind.