Throughout the semester, it is clear that housing is a necessity, not only for shelter but also for maintaining physical and mental health. The Parable of the Sower establishes water as the most expensive and valuable commodity. However, “The country was full of people who could earn or steal food and water, but could not rent even a cot” (Octavia Butler, 174). So, even those who possess water, the most expensive commodity—regardless of how they obtained it—are still homeless.
Alternatively, there is a seemingly intangible value placed on shelter. In an environment where storms are rare, there is no obvious reason for housing. Lauren notes that her house is in disrepair, as “time, wind, and earthquakes have taken a toll” (Parable of the Sower, 48). Additionally, she explains that “If it only rains once every six or seven years, why bother” repairing the roof of the house” (Parable of the Sower, 48). Again, for how rare rain is, having shelter against a storm is irrelevant. If anything, being in a house during an earthquake is a detriment. So, ultimately, the only reason to have shelter is to protect against the wind. It is almost as though shelter is only valuable because it is scarce. In a way, it is a luxury good. This can be related to The Big Short because the value placed on housing was artificial. Ultimately, the value placed on a house is finite. This is similar to the intangible value placed on housing in The Parable of the Sower.
The Parable of the Sower can relate to The Big Short in that crises often create conditions where the powerful are immune and the powerless are vulnerable. For example, leading up to the early 2000 financial crisis, “A giant number of individual loans got piled up into a tower. The top floors got their money back first and so got the highest ratings from Moody’s and S&P and the lowest interest rate. The low floors got their money back last, suffered the first losses, and got the lowest ratings from Moody’s and S&P” (Lewis, 26). Notably, “In 2005, over $1 trillion of bonds like Toxie were created. It was an ocean of money flowing into the housing market, contributing to the crowds of people showing up at open houses and home prices that kept rising” (Lewis, 145). Although immense wealth was created, it was artificial. To use the metaphor made by Lewis, the tower was built on unstable land. The housing bubble was bound to crash, and once it did, thousands of homeowners lost their property while Banks on Wall Street were bailed out. Just as Octavia Butler’s character Lauren says “Maybe God is a kind of big kid, playing with his toys,” the formulators of subprime mortgages in many ways were playing God. Knowing their position is secure, they are indifferent to the disastrous ripples their policies have (Butler, 16). Interestingly, The Parable of the Sower refers to a land speculator who banked on the thought of large housing developments to take place on his land, only for it to fail. The speculator said, “I own three hundred acres. I bought the property years ago as an investment. There was going to be a big housing development up there, and speculators like me were going to make tons of money, selling our land to the developers” (Butler, 273). However, “The project fell through for some reason, and I was stuck with land that I could either sell at a loss or keep” (Butler, 273). In many ways, this relates to the 2005 housing crisis. For example, Lewis mentions that “the underlying loans were heavily concentrated in what Wall Street people were now calling the sand states: California, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona” (Lewis, 97). Florida, in particular, was subject to several failed housing developments shown in “Human Landscapes in SW Florida.” Many speculators with enough capital to invest in housing complexes anticipated monumental profits from skyrocketing housing prices, something that never materialized. After the housing bubble ended, speculators in subprime loans were left with worthless bonds and undeveloped land, just like the speculator in Parable of the Sower. Although land has intrinsic value, subprime loans do not. In many ways, the value of subprime loans was fabricated. Historic prerequisites and regulations on grading the credit of subprime loan lendees were overlooked, therefore artificially inflating the price.
A consistent theme throughout the course is the extent to which someone has rights is determined by how much property they have. For example, in King Lear, although King Lear spent years as King, once he lost material possession of his Kingdom, he lost his status. A more direct example involves his expulsion from his daughters’ houses, where he was left in a storm without shelter. In the storm the deranged yet disillusioned King Lear reflects “Poor naked wretches, wheresoe’er you are, That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm, How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides, Your looped and windowed raggedness defend you” (King Lear, Act 3, scene 4). Regarding the impoverished in his Kingdom, King Lear laments “O, I have ta’en Too little care of this” (Act 3, scene 4). Now deprived of his property and, by extension, his legitimacy as King, King Lear’s status is comparable to that of poor Tom.
This relates to the Parable of the Sower because there is a literal and intangible barrier between those who own property and those who do not. Lauren’s hometown, Robledo California, is a gated community that physically separates sheltered people from homeless people. There is also an intangible distancing of Robledo residents from those outside the barrier by dehumanizing them. This trend is not unique to Robledo. For example, “The people of Olivar aren’t frightened, impoverished victims. They’re able to look after themselves, their rights and their property” (Parable of the Sower, 120). Of course, selfishness is a learned behavior. There is a finite amount of houses in California particularly, which is constantly threatened by arsonists, so it is natural to cherish property. However, placing a premium on the value of property inevitably leads to selfishness and conflict. In contrast to King Lear, the residents of Robledo are not necessarily threatened by the elements, especially rain, since water is an invaluable resource.
Interestingly, property is often listed first when listing objects lost during a robbery or arson over necessities like food and water. For example, the Parable of the Sower mentions that rich people “managed to hold on to their property and feed their families” (Parable of the Sower, 264). In another example, when describing a robbery, “Someone’ property was lost—someone’s food, no doubt” (Parable of the Sower, 208). In both examples, priority is placed on property, naming it first instead of a necessity like food. The Parable of the Sower may also suggest that housing and property are prerequisites for necessities. In a land where water is scarce, independent farming is impossible, necessitating preexisting capital to trade for goods like food and even water. Relating back to the land prospector, he obviously had enormous preexisting capital to invest in housing complexes, allowing him to pivot to farming after the housing market dried up.