I have learned quite a bit in these last five months.  I saw myself "falling behind" and leaving myself to say "I guess I just wasn't made for these times."  When the bubble burst, and I saw the fallout, I knew there had to be rules that others were playing by, that I didn't see.  I'm glad I didn't see those rules.  But now I get the solution to the problem that has been pitched, and I'm left to say, "I guess I just wasn't made for these times."  My bailout better come in the form of a sweet interest rate when I move.

The new scheme is that we're going to spend money that as of now doesn't exist.  This money will fall into everyone's pocket, and there will be no ill-effects.  Nope.  None.  No way this manifests itself as higher inflation and interest rates.  None.  The rules of economics don't apply anymore.  It's change we can believe in, folks! [For the record, he seems like a nice fellow.  He's likable, and I hope for everyone's sake, that he succeeds.  I just don't see where the change part comes into play.  Deficit spending?  Noone's thought of that before!]

But even as individuals, there are schemes to hatch.  Take the latest one here http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/ (fourth one down).  At 2:45 it's very telling in what they don't tell you.  The house was purchased for $39,000.  The person in question owes $145,000 on it.  What does this mean?  "Banks are evil!!!"  Well perhaps, but back to basics, this person overspent by $106,000 (more when considering that at some point, a portion of the original principle went down when she was making payments) and lumped it into her mortgage.  What the bank did with this mortgage after the note was signed is a separate issue.  Also, the home's current value isn't mentioned.  Perhaps the purchase price was low due to a short sale. 

Now we're enabling these schemes by making them part of the news.  People will continue to flaunt the laws of economics and credit, because there's a scheme.  "They can't prove I owe them the money."  Funny, who did you pay when you could make the payments?  If you had concerns about making a payment to a specific bank, should that not have been addressed when you STARTED making payments?

Strange as it may be, this brings me to the New York Knicks.  There's always a scheme with these guys.  "We're going to bring in Larry Brown.  He's a Long Island boy.  He'll shape us up."  But the fish stunk at the head.  Naturally, make the head the head coach.  "Now we'll have Starbury and Stevie Franchise together.  That'll be awesome.  We're New York.  The stars play here.  Our New Yorkiness will out New York the non-New York teams like the non-New York Spurs or non-New York Pistons.  In fact how do fans of these teams root for them?  Don't they get confused about which team called non-New York they are rooting for?  Okay, so there's Boston, LA, and Chicago.  But with just five teams in the league, the stars have no choice but to come here."

It's this "how can this fail?" attitude that has left every Knicks scheme to fail.  Now Mike D'Antoni is the head coach under the eye of Donnie Walsh.  They're going to lose, but it will at least be fun to watch it happen.  And as we all know, this is just a stall tactic for the arrival of Lebron James. 

Everyone has made note of the fact that teams are making moves to clear cap space, all in an effort to presumable make a run at King James.  Knicks fans look for any clue to indicate that the team in the pole position is the Knicks.  He wears a Yankees hat!  (Knicks fans cheer) He played football in high school and they ran the statue of liberty play !(Knicks and Nets fans cheer this. Knicks fans look puzzled)

If I may, I'd like to pose this question: What if Lebron doesn't come to New York?  I can hear the laughter traveling through the Lincoln Tunnel, down the NJTP, through the Ft McHenry tunnel, and into my hears.  Now that it has subsided, I'll ask again: What if Lebron doesn't come to New York? [Vince in Hell's Kitchen nudges his buddy and says, "Do you believe this guy?  I think he's serious."] 

It may be a blessing in disguise.  All that money is freed up to pay a whole new team, not just one player carrying scrubs.  The idea is to win, correct?  If I'm not mistaken, James has "Bird rights."  The Cavaliers can give him the max contract, exempt him from salary cap ramifications, and use the cap allotment to build a team around James.  In essence, the Cavaliers can keep the second best team in the East together for several years.  The Knicks, on the other hand, have been sabotaging their current product in an effort to offer the same max deal - only that deal is subject to cap rules. 

So pray tell, who is going to play with Lebron James in this new star scheme?  The Cavaliers have better candidates to keep someone using the mid-level exception (or reach out to someone who wants to play alongside James).  If the Knicks want to get good, draft well.  Develop your own max-guy.  Then find MLE types to round out your squad.  Are the Lakers doing this?  Are the Celtics doing this?  Are the Spurs doing this?  Heck, what about Orlando?  There's always a scheme.  Someone always has a way to outsmart or outshine the rest.  It looks good in the short run.  How's that working out in the long run?