Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
David Brooks on the Economy: One Hem for Every Haw
New York Times columnist David Brooks (he's the conservative one, right?) notes that the Bush and Obama administrations have "made a hash" of "the idea that people have to live with the consequences of their decisions," a principle on which "our moral and economic system is based":
The Bush and Obama administrations have compensated foolishness and irresponsibility. The financial bailouts reward bankers who took insane risks. The auto bailouts subsidize companies and unions that made self-indulgent decisions a few decades ago that drove their industry into the ground.
The stimulus package handed tens of billions of dollars to states that spent profligately during the prosperity years. The Obama housing plan will force people who bought sensible homes to subsidize the mortgages of people who bought houses they could not afford. It will almost certainly force people who were honest on their loan forms to subsidize people who were dishonest on theirs.
But Brooks is not complaining, because compensating foolishness and rewarding irresponsibility are necessary "in times like these," when "government is fundamentally in the business of stabilizing the economic system as a whole." Then again, "actually executing this is a near-impossible task," resulting in "technocratic Rube Goldberg schemes that alter incentives in lots of medium and small ways." But at least the president's men "seem to be driven by a spirit of moderation and restraint." And after all, "greedy idiots may be greedy idiots, but they are our countrymen. And at some level, we're all in this together. If their lives don't stabilize, then our lives don't stabilize."
At that point, Brooks reaches his limit of 800 words and four self-contradictions per column.
Astroglide|2.24.09 @ 5:45PM|#
"New York Times columnist David Brooks (he's the conservative
one, right?)"
You do a show or two a week with Jim Lehrer, unobjective Liberalism
is gonna start to grow on ya.
Federal Dog|2.24.09 @ 5:49PM|#
"And at some level, we're all in this together. If their lives
don't stabilize, then our lives don't stabilize."
In that event, people who have established that they cannot be
counted on to exercise even minimal common sense and responsibility
-- and who are demanding that society pay damages done by their
misconduct -- must be declared legally incompetent to do anything
in life (especially enter contracts) and have legal guardians
appointed to take over all decision-making in their lives.
If society is to be forced to assume their responsibilities for
them, declarations of incompetence and guardian appointments is the
very least that must be done as part of the quid pro quo.
Oceans|2.24.09 @ 5:51PM|#
or get employed by NYT and want to keep the job, you gotta sound "moderate" ... or may be Brooks is just an idiot with no ability for logical analysis
Cabeza De Vaca|2.24.09 @ 5:52PM|#
"greedy idiots may be greedy idiots, but they are our
countrymen. And at some level, we're all in this together. If their
lives don't stabilize, then our lives don't stabilize."
Fuck that shit. My countrymen better learn to take care
themselves.
|2.24.09 @ 6:02PM|#
New York Times columnist David Brooks (he's the conservative
one, right?)
I thought that was Bill Kristol? ;-)
On a serious note, though, while I don't like the idea of a
bailout, and think we'd be better off doing nothing, that's not a
viable option. We pretty much all agree that doing nothing is going
to cause a great deal of pain and suffering in the short term. You
think that the American people are just going to shrug their
shoulders and accept that we're going to have to live at a 70s
standard of living for a few years until conditions improve on
their own? Yeah, right. People will be out on the street demanding
a strongman to bring back the days when everyone could buy a new
car every couple of years and watch 300 channels on their big
screen TVs, not having to worry about how they were going to pay
the mortgage next month or where they were going to get their next
meal.
That said, the particular bailout proposal is terrible and won't
work. But we shouldn't appear to have no alternative; we should
favor a plan that will give us at least a soft landing, even if
it's not thoroughly consistent with libertarian philosophy.
sometimes you have to dance with the devil if you want to have a
chair to sit in when it's over.
Douglas Gray|2.24.09 @ 6:18PM|#
History repeats itself. During the New Deal, some wealth was
redistributed, and those on the receiving end were showcased as
evidence that "it's working". Meanwhile, the system as a whole
continued to deteriorate.
Maybe I'm too callous, but I would rather see bankers jump out of
windows. Let's put fire dept. catch baskets below their windows,
but not give them any money.
Small businesses are closing left and right. Extending credit lines
to banks is not what they need to re-open. People need to save and
skimp for several years before real demand returns.
Franklin Harris|2.24.09 @ 6:23PM|#
"or may be Brooks is just an idiot with no ability for logical
analysis"
We have a winner!
Jennifer|2.24.09 @ 6:34PM|#
I'm using my first $13 tax rebate to buy an enormous novelty lollipop to symbolize what a sucker I was, rejecting a mortgage a few years ago for some silly reason like "I can't afford it."
Brian Sorgatz|2.24.09 @ 6:34PM|#
I think I'm going to have fun watching the new-New-Deal people
make fools of themselves-in much the same way that the
avenge-the-Twin-Towers-by-invading-Iraq people made fools of
themselves.
Within his lifetime, FDR more or less "got away with" the New Deal,
but that was before the Internet. My arrogant prediction is that
Obama won't be so lucky, thanks to the increase in flow of
information since the 1930s.
|2.24.09 @ 6:41PM|#
Brooks is no more a conservative than Bill Maher is a
libertarian. There is something in human nature (or in a nature of
a lot of humans) that makes them dream of a large centralized
utopian state controlling all aspects of human existence. Paul
(seize the means of production) Krugman, Brooks (to a lesser
degree), and their intellectual brothers insist that current
economic downturn should be used to take over as much of the
economy by government as possible.
As I see it, there is nothing unnatural in a current downturn. It
is a correction to an accumulation of bad choices,
irresponsibility's, and mismanagement in addition to simply
changing times. Nothing is for ever. It is a janitorial action. It
should happen once in a while to keep the economy healthy and
dynamic. People should be allowed to take risks and to be expected
to accept the consequences of their choices. Good or bad.
The mighty dinosaurs had to be wiped out after millions of years of
rule in order to let a small and completely unremarkable
rodent-like mammal to emerge and finally rule the world.
It would be more beneficial if congress would find some other, more
benign way, to make it look like they are doing something: may I
suggest a rain dance for example, or sacrificing a goat in front of
Karl Marx's or Alan Greenspan's effigy.
Tim Cavanaugh|2.24.09 @ 6:43PM|#
And at some level, we're all in this together.
Why do I keep hearing this phrase? Every newsbot says we're all in
this together. Every High School Montana the Explorer thing my kids
watch has a chorus of We're All In This Together every two minutes.
Brooks says we're all in this together.
Canadians say we're all in this together. Potash
says we're all in this together. Bridges
says we're all in this together.
Until somebody can tell me what they mean by "we," "all," "this,"
"together," and "in," I'm saying we are not all in this
together.
|2.24.09 @ 6:55PM|#
Brooks has always been a magnificent writer, but the dunder chief of intellectuals.
|2.24.09 @ 6:55PM|#
Until somebody can tell me what they mean by "we," "all,"
"this," "together," and "in," I'm saying we are not all in this
together.
It means "give us your money", Tim.
Spoonman|2.24.09 @ 7:01PM|#
Tim, the same thing they mean when they say "service", "sacrifice", "common good", or "oath of fealty".
Astroglide |2.24.09 @ 7:04PM|#
""or may be Brooks is just an idiot with no ability for logical
analysis"
We have a winner!"
No, agree with him or not, Brooks is not an idiot with no ability
for logical analysis. You must be thinking of "Foreign Affairs"
columnist Thomas Friedman.
Kilroy|2.24.09 @ 7:04PM|#
@ Tim Cavanaugh: Excellent point, and do you notice that they keep saying it with a pronounced tone of a wimpering question? As in "We're all in this together . . . right? Please tell me we're all in this together, I don't want to be alone . . ."
Kilroy|2.24.09 @ 7:07PM|#
. . . just think of the Blair Witch Project:
"Mike?! Mike! Where are you Mike?!?! I pissed off the Blair Witch
and now I want you to sacrifice yourself to save me. Mike!"
|2.24.09 @ 7:22PM|#
There is something in human nature (or in a nature of a lot
of humans) that makes them dream of a large centralized utopian
state controlling all aspects of human existence. Paul (seize the
means of production) Krugman, Brooks (to a lesser degree), and
their intellectual brothers insist that current economic downturn
should be used to take over as much of the economy by government as
possible.
Everyone, including libertarians, think that there is a right way
to run society. It's just that our solutions are extremely rare
since they consist mostly of consciously choosing inaction. We want
minimalist rules that are uniformly applied.
Most people I think are hardwired to regard inaction as a
nonpolicy, rather than a policy of inaction. We want to see people
"doing something". We want the big chief out there ordering people
around. And when you mix in our knowledge of economics the "doing
something" inevitably ends up meaning government intervention in
the economy.
Personally, I think the concepts of "the economy" and "economics"
are inherently problematic. The terminology creates a contrived
separation between the social, personal, and economic spheres of
life. In reality it's impossibly to separate economic choices from
personal choices. ALL choices are economic in some way. Much of
economics is socio-cultural in nature. We see things manifested in
"the economy" that are cultural artifacts, and vice versa, which
creates all sorts of misguided notions that "the capitalist system"
gives rise to phenomenon like "greed" and "consumerism". Phenomenon
that are really more like biological features or reality. Somehow
we then get the idea that these "alien" external forces can be
controlled, when really those forces are extensions of our lives,
and by seeking to control and constrain them, we are really
chaining ourselves.
Paul|2.24.09 @ 7:35PM|#
You're right, David Brooks. Hey, can I have sex with your 16-year-old daughter?
MNG|2.24.09 @ 7:44PM|#
I think what they mean by "we are all in this together" is that when houses are foreclosed upon it can make housing prices everywhere go down. And other stuff like that...
|2.24.09 @ 7:52PM|#
I beleive that all of these people that we are being forced to compensate for their stupidity should be required to send to all of us pulling the wagon, a nice thank you note...I think they hsould also be required to rid themselves of cell phones, cable and or satellite tv, high speed internet and any other non necessity. I also believe that on demand, as reimbursement for my "voluntary" charity on their part, they should clean our homes or clean the public streets...do something to earn my hard earned money.
MNG|2.24.09 @ 7:54PM|#
Another funny thing is to assume that everyone being hurt is
being hurt "for their stupidity." You mean like the "stupidity" of
choosing to work for a company that, in the face of the tough
economic times, now engages in lay-offs?
Sure, you saw these lay-offs coming a mile away and chose your
workplace with that in mind...Sure...
MNG|2.24.09 @ 7:55PM|#
Hazel
We probably won't agree on much else tonight, so let me say I think
your last post was incredibly thoughtful...
|2.24.09 @ 7:57PM|#
No I mean the stupidity of people buying more house than they can afford, the stupidity of lenders lending money to people that wouldnt qualify for an annual zoo pass...that is the stupidity that I am talking about. I am not talking about someone that has lost their job through no fault of their own. I dont believe however that it is up to me to subsidize them either.. this housing "crisis" has not been caused by massive layoffs
MNG|2.24.09 @ 8:13PM|#
Are you against action that would make sure that your house and mine's value does not fall due to these stupid people's actions?
Tim Cavanaugh|2.24.09 @ 8:16PM|#
I think what they mean by "we are all in this together" is
that when houses are foreclosed upon it can make housing prices
everywhere go down.
Exactly, so by definition anybody who is shopping for a house right
now is not Together with All of Us in This.
|2.24.09 @ 8:18PM|#
I think what they mean by "we are all in this together" is
that when houses are foreclosed upon it can make housing prices
everywhere go down.
Ah, this explanation would make sense, were it not for the nitpicky
fact that "we" are not all homeowners. Indeed, a significant
percentage of "we" would benefit from housing prices going
down.
|2.24.09 @ 8:21PM|#
Exactly, so by definition anybody who is shopping for a
house right now is not Together with All of Us in This.
You can't make an omelette without shitting on a few eggs.
economist|2.24.09 @ 8:24PM|#
"Are you against action that would make sure that your house and
mine's value does not fall due to these stupid people's
actions?"
Given that those values were inflated, yes, I am against it. I'm
looking for a house myself right now (not a big one, but one with a
guest room and a decent kitchen) and the last thing I want is for
prices to reinflate.
H. Chavez|2.24.09 @ 8:25PM|#
"Are you against action that would make sure that your house and
mine's value does not fall due to these stupid people's
actions?"
What about those of us who staked our nation's economies on high
oil prices? What about us, huh?
|2.24.09 @ 8:28PM|#
since when did a correction in housing prices become so terrible that our politicians are now considering reducing principal amounts on loans? the claim that it is necessary because "we are all in this together" is very weak and very bunk. yeah, there are people who have lost equity in their homes because they bought them at the height of the housing bubble. but if they are planning on living in those homes for a reasonable period of time, and were not just trying to make a quick buck, then the lost equity is a non-issue, except that they can no longer borrow against it. this is because housing prices will once again rise, though they may not return pre-recession levels for a while. Rewarding irresponsibility is the absolute worst thing we can do. It will just lead to more in the future. When you subsidize something, in this case poor and reckless financial decisions, you only get more of it. And that is what we are about to see as a direct result of the government's plan to subsidize peoples mortgages. More of these kinds of bad financial decisions is much worse in my mind than everybody losing a bit of equity in their homes.
economist|2.24.09 @ 8:29PM|#
The stupid people's actions caused housing prices to go up, which prompted more building and the allocation of more resources than might have been prudent to housing. That said, there's not a whole lot you can do about the supply-demand imbalance now (Unless you want to adapt a policy from FDR and burn down houses to raise prices). Don't worry, I don't think it will take long for houses to become hideously expensive again.
economist|2.24.09 @ 8:31PM|#
ceanf,
" Rewarding irresponsibility is the absolute worst thing we can do.
It will just lead to more in the future."
But Barack Obama promised to make sure everyone receiving bailout
money acted responsibly!
economist|2.24.09 @ 8:33PM|#
I will be seriously pissed if reinflating the housing bubble becomes government policy. So pissed that Lord Xenu XXV might come back.
|2.24.09 @ 8:34PM|#
You can't make an omelette without shitting on a few
eggs.
Eggs come out of the cloaca! It's kind of like shitting!
"Yah, they're fresh, eh! Straight out of my body and on to
your plate!"
Tim Cavanaugh|2.24.09 @ 8:36PM|#
economist, I've been reading a lot of Hollywood blacklist memoirs lately. At one point the agent John Weber shows he's more than just a pretty face by telling how in school his fascist teacher flunked him for delivering a presentation "debunking the law of supply and demand" -- in an economics class.
|2.24.09 @ 8:37PM|#
economist, maybe you can help me out here. Is there any truth to
the reports that there is a fuckton of money invested against these
bad motgages? Investments that were sold as AAA? Investments
totaling many times more than the actual mortgages? If all theses
are true, won't the foreclosures lead to the ruination of the
economy of the entire world?
yes I am serious in me own tardo way.
economist|2.24.09 @ 8:41PM|#
"At one point the agent John Weber shows he's more than just a
pretty face by telling how in school his fascist teacher flunked
him for delivering a presentation 'debunking the law of supply and
demand' -- in an economics class."
Sounds like the time in college chemistry, so many years ago, that
I denied the existence of atoms.
My chem professor was such a fascist.
MNG|2.24.09 @ 8:41PM|#
OK, I think I said "And other stuff like that..."
Like as the markets fall, anyone with holdings in it is
punished...
Like as credit markets tighten, those seeking credit are
punished...
Like as times get worse, people are laid off...These people don't
buy our libertarian magazines as much (among other stuff)...
No man is an island bro...
economist|2.24.09 @ 8:47PM|#
brotherben,
This might just be me blowing smoke, but I don't think the
foreclosures will lead to "the ruination of the economy of the
entire world". In general, I think that as long as the productive
capacity of the world exists, and we don't have governments
intervening to fuck things up, the economy will recover in time.
Some economic resources will shift from their former allocations
(like housing) to different sectors, and there will undoubtedly be
short-term pain involved for quite a few people, but I don't see
this precipitating a worldwide economic collapse.
economist|2.24.09 @ 8:50PM|#
"No man is an island bro..."
No, that's why I have my eyes on a seastead. Then I can have my own
island.
MNG|2.24.09 @ 8:52PM|#
It's kind of like the best test to see if someone is a libertarian: would you support a policy that would actually fuck you if it also would make sure that it fucked someone who acted foolishly much more? If you answered yes, then you are a libertarian...Or as I sometimes say, a responsibiletarian...
MNG|2.24.09 @ 8:54PM|#
A lot of libertarians seem to rub their hands together and twist their handlebar mustaches while saying "jesus if only that lazy/stupid/no count so and so down the road from me gets it for their stupid actions then I'm happy..."
|2.24.09 @ 8:55PM|#
economist, thanks. My very limited understanding of it is from
public tv programs. It was explained that the world's economy is a
huge upside down pyramid. With the numbers they were using, it
seems to me an impossibility for the govt or anyone else to throw
enough money at the problem to fix it.
Enron accounting on a global scale.
economist|2.24.09 @ 8:59PM|#
MNG,
No, it's awfully tough to get chicks if you have a handlebar
mustache, these days.
And I don't really care either way if my idiot neighbor gets his
for his idiotic decisions. I just don't want him to bitch and moan
to me about it.
economist|2.24.09 @ 9:03PM|#
"would you support a policy that would actually fuck you if it
also would make sure that it fucked someone who acted foolishly
much more?"
Since I'll probably be alive to see the public debt come due (and
pay taxes towards it), I consider it more of a "fucked now vs.
fucked worse later" proposition.
In general someone fucking up (with collateral consequences to
others connected economically to them)+redistributing wealth from
the people who didn't fuck up does not equal prosperity, especially
for the more responsible individuals.
MNG|2.24.09 @ 9:05PM|#
economist:
WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR IDIOTIC NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE PRICE WILL EFFECT
YOUR HOUSE PRICE (and other stuff).
There, jesus, maybe you'll see it now...All caps, y'know?
economist|2.24.09 @ 9:08PM|#
MNG,
There's no need to attribute nefarious purposes to the critics of
current government policy. Unlike some posters here, I don't
usually infer the worst motives from people's actions (at least
when I'm sober). For example, I don't think that environmentalists
really want us to live in the stone age. I just don't think that
they've considered the costs vs. the benefits, if any, of their
proposed policies. Similarly, I think it's rather unreasonable of
you to assume that everyone here acts out of spite.
economist|2.24.09 @ 9:10PM|#
MNG,
I live in a condo. I'M CURRENTLY SEARCHING FOR A HOUSE.
Proportionally, the amount I have invested in housing will go up,
so the dip in housing prices ends up being a net plus for me.
Naturally, I wanted to make sure you didn't miss that I'm searching
for a house.
MNG|2.24.09 @ 9:10PM|#
Again, the fucker-uppers actions will hurt the
non-fucker-uppers.
Housing foreclosures will mean a drop in housing values for ALL
FOLKS WITH HOUSES. This will mean less loans they can get against
the equity, etc...
Layoffs will mean that those folks laid-off do not spend their
money on Reason magazine, or other things (maybe things you
make!).
Etc. It would be nice if what stupid people in an economy did only
negatively effected those people...
It would also be nice if I had wings and could fly, but you don't
see me basing an ideology around that...
MNG|2.24.09 @ 9:12PM|#
Err, so if we fast forwarded three years to when you are a home
owner you would see that the failures of others is a terrible thing
for you, right?
So the luck of the draw has you where you are at?
economist|2.24.09 @ 9:12PM|#
15% drop in my condo's market value (according to the realtor)
gets balanced out if what I'm buying generally costs twice as much
as a condo.
Plus, I expect housing prices will go up sooner than most people
expect.
economist|2.24.09 @ 9:14PM|#
"Etc. It would be nice if what stupid people in an economy did
only negatively effected those people..."
Again: How, exactly, does redistributing wealth from responsible
people to idiots help the responsible people who've already
suffered blows from the aforementioned idiocy.
economist|2.24.09 @ 9:17PM|#
MNG,
Not entirely the luck of the draw. I deliberately minimized my
housing costs because prices were high (price goes up, quantity
demanded goes down, that sort of thing). I'm interested in buying
right now because my credit is in good shape and prices are lower
(and, as I've mentioned before, I think prices will go back up in
the near future, and I would prefer to lock in at a low price).
economist|2.24.09 @ 9:18PM|#
Oh noes, I just realized that I am engaged in speculation.
I am unclean!
Torpid|2.24.09 @ 9:31PM|#
I have come back to get revenge on the Economist for being
reallly mean to me on Sunday's thread. No more of MNG's kid glove
treatment, Economist. Now the REAL argument begins!
Libertarians are a bunch of fetus-fetishizing gun nuts who don't
understand my great mind!
Yeah, I BURNED you!
economist|2.24.09 @ 9:38PM|#
And I was really getting into the argument.
Where did MNG go?
Probably to spend time with his family. No time to argue on the
interwebs.
It's making me feel...unimportant.
MNG|2.24.09 @ 9:50PM|#
Economist
I feel what you are saying and I am glad if you can capitalize off
of this economy. My firm and my wife's employment are not going to
be touched by this, and that is great...
But I argue that other people are effected by other people in this
economy...People who own houses who did nothing stupid will see
their housing values, and hence many options to them, go
down...Many people will be laid off through no fault of their
own...Credit will be denied many a businessperson through no fault
of their own...
The plague here and coming will not fall on just the wicked...and
this is why liberals want to lessen the hardship.
MNG|2.24.09 @ 9:54PM|#
Spending time with family is important, but my kid goes to bed around 8:30 and then my wife must spend time with my step-kids, I'm free during this time, and then I am not...usually at this time I am not free, but tonight my step kids have some unusually difficult homework...she'll come up soon, and I will vanish...that's how it is...
Paul|2.25.09 @ 2:53AM|#
WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR IDIOTIC NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE PRICE WILL
EFFECT YOUR HOUSE PRICE (and other stuff).
MNG, you've convinced me. If you could make a cheque out to my
neighbor to, you know, prop up the price of his house because I
hear-tell mine is falling.
More zeroes... MORE ZEROES, MNG!
Jennifer|2.25.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Housing foreclosures will mean a drop in housing values for
ALL FOLKS WITH HOUSES.
Which also means a drop in housing prices for ALL FOLKS WHO LIVE IN
APARTMENTS BUT WANT TO BUY A HOUSE. (Apparently, all-caps is
necessary to get certain points across.) Housing prices
historically averaged about three year's average salary for a given
area. This, of course, meant that an average wage-earner who wanted
to buy a house could do so without going into ridiculously deep
debt holes. But during the bubble years, this traditional
price-to-wage ratio was left far behind, and now people want to
maintain these wildly unaffordable prices.
When the hell did the meme "affordable housing is bad for America"
become popular? When did "it is bad when non-millionaires can
afford a house of their own" become the status quo? And what
bizarre pretzel-shape must you twist your mind into, to believe
that wanting houses to be affordable somehow means you "hate the
poor?"
I don't hate the poor, assholes; I AM the poor. And I want the
market to be left alone so that house prices will fall back into a
range I can afford.
|2.25.09 @ 11:09AM|#
Etc. It would be nice if what stupid people in an economy
did only negatively effected those people...
I think what you're missing, MNG, is that the stupid people drag
the rest of us down regardless of whether we bail them out or
not.
If we don't, then, as you noted, the drops in housing, spending,
etc., affect us all.
If we do bail them out, though, we do so either with a current
transfer of wealth which does not, in a best case, help the overall
economy (rearranging deck chairs, etc.), or we do it with borrowed
money, imposing a drag on the economy and/or inflation in future
years.
TANSTAAFL, dude.
Jordan|2.25.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Housing foreclosures will mean a drop in housing values for ALL FOLKS WITH HOUSES. This will mean less loans they can get against the equity, etc...
Housing prices were already overinflated. You took a risk and you
lost. Deal with it.
economist|2.25.09 @ 3:20PM|#
"I think what you're missing, MNG, is that the stupid people
drag the rest of us down regardless of whether we bail them out or
not."
They drag more if you transfer wealth to them. They certainly don't
have the money. Personally, I figure all the institutions that are
"too big to fail" are also WAY too big to bail out.
economist|2.25.09 @ 3:22PM|#
"I don't hate the poor, assholes; I AM the poor. And I want the
market to be left alone so that house prices will fall back into a
range I can afford."
Admit it, Jennifer! You're just twisting your handlebar mustache
and laughing at the unfortunate! You'll need to get a monocle,
too.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245