Our topsy-turvy economic world: legislating social and economic justice
Economic bubbles are a repetitive historical reality, as are their precipitous bursting and the resultant downturns. Here’s a history of some of the major ones that have occurred; there are others.
But there’s something about the current situation that is sui generis, as far as I can tell: it began with legislation designed to create a financial reality that would reflect our desire to end what was perceived as social and racial bigotry, and to achieve more economic parity. This does not appear to have been true of previous bubbles, which were not the result of deliberate social engineering.
In this piece, Thomas Sowell outlines how the real estate bubble began. Although it started during the Carter administration with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was just a general statement about banks needing to serve their communities. The Act didn’t really result in any major drive to change the way lenders made mortgage loans.
In fact, the language of the law was quite careful. The idea was to “encourage” lenders:
to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
Of course, these twin goals are always in conflict, almost by definition. For example, I might have a “credit need,” but if I’m not a good financial risk those needs will just have to go unfulfilled if lenders are going to operate in a manner that is “safe and sound.”
This isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even arcane financial knowledge. It is one of the most basic premises of our financial system. And yet it was violated with impunity during the Clinton era (and this continued in the Bush administration) when the old adage “a chicken in every pot” was replaced with “a home for every citizen.”
How did this happen? It occurred under the guise of nondiscrimination. The notion was that, if banks were not lending in equal amounts to the poor—and especially African-Americans and Hispanics—the reason wasn’t that they were following “safe and sound” financial practices. It had to be about about racism.
Here’s how it worked in the 90s, according to Sowell:
What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required “innovative or flexible” mortgage eligibility standards.
In other words, quotas were imposed– and if some people didn’t meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.
Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bakers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.
Nowhere have I read any indication that the government cared whether those minority applicants who were turned down were in fact poorer loan risks than candidates who were approved for loans.
There is no doubt that this used to happen—just as there is no doubt that minority (read: African-American or Hispanic) students used to be discriminated against in the university admission process. But, just as affirmative action for the latter came to mean equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, so the percentages of minorities receiving mortgages became the standard by which discrimination was judged, rather than whether the denial of a particular mortgage was actually racially motivated rather than economically motivated. The unfairness was assumed by the unequal numbers.
Of course, the fact that loan standards ultimately had to be relaxed in order to accommodate low-income minority applicants is the clearest evidence of all that the earlier loan denials were likely to have been the result of sound economic practices rather than discrimination, at least in the vast majority of cases. But by that time the goal had changed from the prevention of intentional racial discrimination to the prevention of all racial inequality, even if it were based on sound economic reasoning rather than any purposeful racial discrimination.
It’s certainly possible that there was some small amount of intentional racial discrimination going on as well, somewhere in all those loan denials. But if so, the proper remedy would have been to find the cases in which minority applicants with the proper financial and credit history were being denied loans that white people with exactly the same finances would have been granted. Forcing banks to make bad loans to achieve racial parity—that is, equality of outcome—is bad business. But the need to achieve the appearance of racial equality was considered far more important than the preservation of the banking system.
As I wrote yesterday, these governmental regulations were not the whole problem. But they were the springboard for the whole problem, which was an enormous blossoming of bad loans as the housing bubble starting to grow. Then the risk was spread by derivatives and other instruments to nearly every corner of our financial system.
Some interesting questions: would banks and mortgage companies have come up on their own with “creative” financing, had they not first tasted the fruit of that forbidden tree by government order and found it to be sweet in an era of continually rising real estate prices (and indeed, would prices have risen so precipitously without the government jumpstart)? Would lenders still have forgotten the most basic rules of lending, and surrendered to the siren song of the “math guys,” who reassured the more staid banker types that all would be well, since their computer simulations decreed it?
I don’t know the answer; no one does. But there is little doubt that in the beginning there was the affirmative action loan by government decree, breaking time-honored rules of lending.
And presently we have something similar: the affirmative action real estate bailout. Now the impetus is not primarily to achieve racial equality, although that’s still in there somewhere. Now it’s about continuing home ownership for those who cannot afford it.
Bailout proponents point out that things are so bad now that to let these people lose their homes would cause a cascade of events that would harm us all financially. They also like to paint such people as the innocent prey of predatory lenders, although we have no idea how numerous or rare such cases may be.
The argument on the other side is that people should not be rewarded for bad financial decisions. Bailout naysayers also predict that the mortgage bailout (as well as all the other huge bailouts that preceded it) will only temporarily postpone the agony by taking money from those who were more financially prudent (and/or future generations) and giving it to those who were not. Better to let banks renegotiate mortgages with homeowners in order to forestall widespread foreclosures (which don’t benefit banks much either, when housing prices are low), using time-honored financial standards to determine which homeowners are good bets and which are not. Governmental intervention is only likely to blow the housing bubble up once again—and we all know what ultimately happens to bubbles.
One of the basic financial practices that was jettisoned in the 90s was the idea of the 20% down payment on a house. This not only reduced a homeowner’s mortgage payments, but it gave the bank a certain amount of non-refundable income from the transaction. In the event of a foreclosure due to the buyer’s failure to meet payments, the bank would only have had to recoup 80% of the purchase price in order to come out even.
This constituted a sort of insurance for banks even if the loan ended up going bad. The end of the practice meant trouble for banks, especially in a climate in which housing prices fall and foreclosures become commonplace—such as now.
The dream of equality of opportunity for all has become a kind of nightmare, escalated to the point where equality of opportunity is not enough. Equality of outcome, which has been the goal of liberals for some time, is a very slippery slope. Down it we all now slide.
[ADDENDUM: How many of the defaults are voluntary?]
Yes, it’s a terribly sad thing: making reality better is good, but pretending that it’s better leads to catastrophe. I, too, desperately wanted the world to be other than it was in my socialist days. My favorite Tolkien quote seems appropriate. “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.”
I just bought a home and the offer was accepted 2 weeks ago.
Maybe I should be joyful that I got a Bank REO for such a low price JUST IN TIME.
There were 4 other bidders on this house.
I am now working with a lender (B of A) and I have been approved for the loan.
I was also pre-approved for the loan at a Credit Union.
I keep hearing Obama and other Democrats say that nobody is lending anymore and it’s FALSE.
The only way leftists can succeed is through lies and distortion of the facts.
People benefit from affordable housing. I am benefitting.
The classic defintion of inflation is that it requires more and more dollars for the same amount of goods and services.
If it requires more and more dollars for the same amount of homes – we will be driving the value of the dollar down and down.
People can move into apartments for a few years and rebuild.
Nobody (including my ex-wife’s family) should be bailed out of homes that were bigger than they needed. One of her brothers even cashed out and bought a Ford F150 King Ranch. So he bought a truck that he’s paying for for 30 years
I, Baklava, have just about had it and am fed up to my ears with know nothing leftists who do not know economics 101.
These policies are NOT good for America. Equality of opportunity means that people make good personal choices and are personally responsible people.
Now, we are subsidizing poor choices.
Why should I even better myself anymore or save (I had 20% to put down on this house) and do anything responsible when I can depend on the govt. to bail me out of every stupid thing I do?
Why invest 8K like I did last year on my education?
Why?
Dependency for me. Dependency for thee. Dependency for thee.
Dear Mitsu
You haven’t said what month yet. You owe us that.
BTW,
My credit score is over 800. The B of A manager was walking all over the place for me, making copies of my stuff, bringing me coffee, etc.
Nice analysis Neo.
One aspect of all of this that really bothers me is that we were assured for the past couple of decades, both by the government and the business community, that the days of vicious economic cycles was past. They understood the problems, and “it” could never happen again.
Notwithstanding the dot-com bubble, which was relatively contained, we marched forward with reckless abandon.
The reason that it bothers me so much, is that there was ample evidence from the the go-go consumer credit; the massive over-building of over-sized, over-priced housing; and the extreme focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term value, that it could not last. My gut told me to “get out, it is going to burst”. But, after consideration I decided to go with the experts and wise-men. That decision cost me about 30% of my life savings. Fortunately, I was reasonably conservative and did go defensive during the transition from the Bush economy to the Obama economy, or it would be a lot worse. But, shame on me.
The only good thing that can come out of this is if the American people become more skeptical of “experts” when their own common-sense raises warning flags.
This is a two-edged sword of course. I saw my own Dad miss opportunity after opportunity because of the fear lingering from his depression experiences.
PS
Baklava is absolutely correct. My bank with whom I have a long relationship just confirmed that I still had $60,000 on a home equity line of credit. I am sure it would be higher if I wanted it. (BTW the current interest is about 2.9%).
They just lent $20,000 on a new car based on a phone call.
In other words, we are being fed a line of bull. If you have a history of paying your bills, there are people anxious to lend you money. You don’t have to be rich to do business either; just responsible.
Oldflyer: I listened to “experts” rather than my gut as well, and lost a fair amount of money (maybe 20% of the whole, so far).
In that link I provided about previous bubbles, there’s this relevant passage regarding the market that led up to the 1929 crash:
The raging U.S. stock market of the late 1920s was hailed by many as evidence of a “new era” of economic fundamentals. Proponents of this theory pointed to evidence such as the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913; Coolidge administration policies including the extension of free trade, anti-inflation measures, and the relaxation of anti-trust laws; and corporate improvements such as increased worker productivity and expanded research and development.
In reality, the driving factor behind both the inflation and the bursting of the speculative bubble was the expanding use of leverage (i.e., debt) by individuals as well as corporations.
Apparently there was a thought back then, as well as now, that something fundamental had changed that meant the market wouldn’t fall. Wrong both times.
I’ve never understood the doublethink necessary to entertain simultaneously the following two (mutually exclusive) propositions so beloved of liberals:
1. Lenders will do anything for money.
2. Lenders won’t loan money to minorities because they don’t like them.
So which is it? #1 is clearly more plausible; I doubt that lenders have to like someone to loan him money. Most likely, their only concern is the likelihood that they’ll make money on the deal, if necessary by charging a higher interest rate to offset the losses from those who default.
Or do our friends on the left believe that payday loan companies, pawn shops, and loan sharks loan to minorities because they like them?
There is another lesson to be learned from the unintended consequences of the way the CRA was interpreted and applied by Clinton’s, Bush’s, and now perhaps Obama’s Justice Department people. In 1992 the Boston Federal Reserve did a study of lending patterns and practices. They found that minority groups were not being the recipients of a lot of funds, and the study concluded (in error, as this was determined years later when the study was revisited and the methodology debated) that racial prejudice was the likely “cause” of it.
At this point, let me interject something that should be obvious to all who are familiar with the scientific method and with statistical analysis: correlation is NOT causation. But lawyers (and “climate change/anthropogenic global warming” advocates) often will seize upon a strong correlation and make unwarranted assumptions. Anyway, by the time the study was re-examined years later the legal and institutional changes had already been put in place. And those things have a life of their own, as you well know now.
Neo, the last point I want to make about the traditional 20% down: this is actually a kind of insurance for both the homeowner and the bank against falling home prices. Whenever a bank’s asset falls below market value it has to balance the equation Assets = Liabilities + Equity/Capital by taking money out of the capital account. And that means the banks have less money to lend. And that’s why when you have homeowners who have negative equity in their homes they are often summoned by the banks to make up the difference. If they cannot, foreclosure may happen. Even if one is very, very good about making the payments.
This recession started as the real estate bubble in the West burst, combined with the steep and rapid increases in energy hit the economy.
What the American people and our politicians need to learn is that there’s no such thing as a perfect economic system. Keynesian economic philosophy has never been proved to work – in every economic system it has been tried, that system has failed. We should be opposing these “stimulus packages,” because at their best they are magic bullets (that never seem to hit the target), and at their worst they are merely another step on the road towards collectivism.
– G
Giles wrote, “What the American people and our politicians need to learn is that there’s no such thing as a perfect economic system.”
Yes there is.
It’s called capitalism.
Capitalism = the people choose who gets what resources.
We are a nation with laws and protections. The government can tax and provide for a safety net and provide national security.
What has happened since 1960 is the federal government went from spending 50% of it’s budget on defense to spending about 19% now.
Entitlement spending has taken all of that slack and the promised amount would take 100%+ in our future (when the baby boomers retire).
With capitalism – the people have opportunity, with a free press, the people can be well informed.
Why people want to have socialism (the government choosing who gets what resources) is beyond me except that the press/politicians create situations that are unhealthy and then blame it on the “market”.
Keynesian economics was the orthodox and reigning theory when I was in college (1977-82) and majoring in economics. Econometrics was only just beginning where I went to school (University of New Hampshire) and Milton Friedman was getting some play. I must admit, I had uncritically accepted it during my Leftist days and it was only very late in Ronald Reagan’s 2nd term that I finally understood that Arthur Laffer was on to something. It was hard to argue against the obvious success of “supply side” economics.
Since we do not have access to any of Barack Obama’s academic records, we do not know if he ever took an economics course. No matter, since I do not accord to him the origination of the policies he is putting into play. He’s a figurehead who takes his cues from other people, some of whom are most public in their stated aim to bring the United States of America and capitalism down. I think what these people want is a socialist international system in which they are the oligarchs. The nomenklatura, if you will.
Investors know what’s coming. Higher taxes, the cap and trade/carbon tax system. And socialized medicine. The crew in charge now seem unperturbed by the market’s steady decline along with the administration’s steady drumbeat of fatalism, doom, crisis, and gloom. I’ve never seen a POTUS talk the economy down like this guy has.
What the American people and our politicians need to learn
they are not that stupid…
they dont need to learn anything. in a short while they will have finished running the system till the engine blows and then own everything and us by default.
its like watching people argue over a-rod… he made a half a billion dollars doing what he did. there is no way he feels bad for his steroid use, no way in any way shape or form. why would he if he cant separate if he would have succeeded without it?
everyone is stuck on the wrong track in a circle. just as there is a “man who is not thought of”, there are a few options here that everyone is refusing to think of, and so refusing to prevent.
if the square pegs in 40 years havent fit into any of the round holes, at what point do you juggle the thing and find a pattern in which all the pegs DO fit?
Mein Kampf was written by hitler BEFORE his traipse through history. I got news for ya’ll, that was a wisper of a text compared to the constant droning messages telling you clearly (which is why everyone is swooning), what is happening.
seems that until everyone is rioting and completely too taken up to discuss it, is when they are going to get it…
there is a pattern to this… step back and take a look. i said everything was going to heat up. the global warming crisis would be the key to inidcating when all the chess pieces should converge (gorbachevs quote). we have notes by people actually credited in history for doing what the notes said… we have che posters in votors offices, soviet art for the campaign posters, new world order speeches for more than a decade. our president chose to have the communist international at his stump campaigns. his daughers are sasha and malia… he idolizes FDR, who transformed the country with WAR… from his bombing and radical friends… to bushes grandfather… how about a previously elected president who was a fullbright scholar to the soviet union? his wife, now secratery of state writing marx was right?
hey…how about the idea that they are pretending to be in opposition, and playing two ends against the middle? something the soviets called the hammer and anvil…
i said that another stimulus is going to come… they are printing money to the point that when it strikes mainstreet, what you have left, aint going to be worth diddly..
social justice is the formulea for a dynastic dark age… even daschel is quoted as wanting to stagnate science… and in the other way to long post, i quote huxley saying that that was the idea from 60 years ago… (and i can show something from a bit earlier). there are about 4 policies that would lead to stagnation with global warming fading as one that didint finish its points (but will still move us on the chess board)
bush and cheney and obama are related… care to see how many kids these people are having, and how they are taking up political posts like royalty in court… the kennedys were staunch anti communists till the president got shot, then they went which way?
guys… the oligarchs just got us…
they are now tapping out the value in the system so we are as moribund as the russian population and most of the chinese… and just as helpless…
things are going to start accelerating… so fast you wont keep up with them… it will be a lot of two steps forward, one step back things that everyone will think is abberant… but its not..
a cop recently in the news for pulling over a person driving with an anti obama and anti abortion thing in the window. it was confiscated..
the article is clear that he was wrong… but the truth is that there is a whole percentage of people who are now going to remove things just in case another cop is wrong, and that to generates a response from the secret service.
just as police searching civilians on the trains under the guise of antiterrorism (which the way its done would not facilitate such at all), gets us used to police checkpoints looking in our bags. people now pay little attention… some volunteer to be searched when they see the table.
national id was created by what two people? well i will give you one name.. marcus wolf… the man who created the stasi
pavlov would be proud…
and huxley would have kissed skinner…
and if the messages had a big neon glow to them, a 2000 piece band, and a huge arrow that said this way to enslavement… we would ignore it.
Nice timing, Baklava. I just refinanced at 175 basis points below last summer on a 30 year fixed. A very quick process, no fuss or mess.
Baklava,
I would maintain that like democracy, capitalism (I prefer to call it a free market society to avoid sounding like a socialist) is the worst system next to all the others. There will always be recessions, depressions and bubbles; often it is the fault of the private sector, but I would maintain that the best economic results are produced by minimal government involvement.
What I’m worried about – I didn’t make myself clear before, and I apologize for that – is that the Obama Administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress might manage to convince the American people that a Keynesian pseudo-socialist economic policy is the only way to go, and that the free market has failed.
– G
Paying your bills on time is as uncle tom-ish as studying in school to some among us.
The culture you embrace should come with consequences when it fails miserably.
“Investors know what’s coming. Higher taxes, the cap and trade/carbon tax system. And socialized medicine. The crew in charge now seem unperturbed by the market’s steady decline along with the administration’s steady drumbeat of fatalism, doom, crisis, and gloom. I’ve never seen a POTUS talk the economy down like this guy has.”
He’s not here to lead, or to fix anything.
He’s living the revolutionary’s dream: he’s bring the system down from within.
The executive orders. The blatant disregard for the office, as evidenced in his flip and churlish demeanor. The parrot – like fealty to FDR’s legacy in the face of all the evidence that it was Franklin’s meddling and ego that turned a depression into the Great Depression.
Rush was right. Obama wanted to win the presidency. Not be the president.
Except to destroy the establishment, of course. If that’s not his chosen path, then he’s just a hack flaming out so fast that nobody has twigged to it yet.
Giles wrote, There will always be recessions, depressions and bubbles
So what.
What we know is that is a constant. What you, I, we have to do is do the right thing and save for the rainy day and for retirement. It is my philosophy to save 20% not 10%.
If we each do the right thing we insulate ourselves from the recessions.
Of course… after the greatest generation came the self indulgent baby boomer generation and the savings rate with that group went way down compared to the WW2 generation.
I hope I’m not offending anyone. I’m generalizing about a generation which have many fine and upstanding people who DO SAVE money.
Giles,
What i’m saying is capitalism is the best economic system inside a nation with protections and laws. You cannot have capitalism inside a natino with no government (anarchy). Please don’t confuse the type of government with the economic system.
Capitalism allows for people to live their dreams. Do what they want. Earn their own way. Take risks. BE FREE.
It isn’t right that the government is picking winners and losers and propping up businesses that made bad decisions. Those businesses need to go and make room for businesses that are making good decisions.
CAN I GET AN AMEN? 🙂
I think Giles is saying that life isn’t perfect, even under a free market system, but nothing else comes close, so people need to belt up.
That clicking sound you hear is me tightening my belt…
Eric Holder thinks we should have more racial discussions; well, this is one we need to have, though I doubt it’s the sort he has in mind. And leave it to the redoubtable Mr. Sowell to bring it up.
why dont we hear from the past?
It is commonly asserted that there are in the United States no classes, and any allusion to classes is resented. On the other hand, we constantly read and hear discussions of social topics in which the existence of social classes is assumed as a simple fact. “The poor,” “the weak,” “the laborers,” are expressions which are used as if they had exact and well-understood definition. Discussions are made to bear upon the assumed rights, wrongs, and misfortunes of certain social classes; and all public speaking and writing consists, in a large measure, of the discussion of general plans for meeting the wishes of classes of people who have not been able to satisfy their own desires. These classes are sometimes discontented, and sometimes not. Sometimes they do not know that anything is amiss with them until the “friends of humanity” come to them with offers of aid. Sometimes they are discontented and envious. They do not take their achievements as a fair measure of their rights. They do not blame themselves or their parents for their lot, as compared with that of other people. Sometimes they claim that they have a right to everything of which they feel the need for their happiness on earth. To make such a claim against God or Nature would, of course, be only to say that we claim a right to live on earth if we can. But God and Nature have ordained the chances and conditions of life on earth once for all. The case cannot be reopened. We cannot get a revision of the laws of human life. We are absolutely shut up to the need and duty, if we would learn how to live happily, of investigating the laws of Nature, and deducing the rules of right living in the world as it is. These are very wearisome and commonplace tasks. They consist in labor and self-denial repeated over and over again in learning and doing. When the people whose claims we are considering are told to apply themselves to these tasks they become irritated and feel almost insulted. They formulate their claims as rights against society–that is, against some other men. In their view they have a right, not only to pursue happiness, but to get it; and if they fail to get it, they think they have a claim to the aid of other men–that is, to the labor and self-denial of other men–to get it for them. They find orators and poets who tell them that they have grievances, so long as they have unsatisfied desires.
Now, if there are groups of people who have a claim to other people’s labor and self-denial, and if there are other people whose labor and self-denial are liable to be claimed by the first groups, then there certainly are “classes,” and classes of the oldest and most vicious type. For a man who can command another man’s labor and self-denial for the support of his own existence is a privileged person of the highest species conceivable on earth. Princes and paupers meet on this plane, and no other men are on it at all. On the other hand, a man whose labor and self-denial may be diverted from his maintenance to that of some other man is not a free man, and approaches more or less toward the position of a slave. Therefore we shall find that, in all the notions which we are to discuss, this elementary contradiction, that there are classes and that there are not classes, will produce repeated confusion and absurdity. We shall find that, in our efforts to eliminate the old vices of class government, we are impeded and defeated by new products of the worst class theory. We shall find that all the schemes for producing equality and obliterating the organization of society produce a new differentiation based on the worst possible distinction–the right to claim and the duty to give one man’s effort for another man’s satisfaction. We shall find that every effort to realize equality necessitates a sacrifice of liberty.
thats all i can post… since i am trying to point to what would be a whole library of forgotten literature and views…
and if you didnt read them, you would not understand how things have moved, and how far things have changed to reaquire the kind of rule that neitzche spoke about… there are only two kinds of people, the rulers and the ruled. free markets gave us another option, it still said there were two kinds of people, but they were inside all of us, not expressed outside.
that we are all rulers of ourselves, and so are slaves to our own wills.
extend this outside ourselves, and we wish others to take over the responsiblity for the outcomes of decisions we would make, and become slaves to their wills, pretending that theirs are the same as ours (when this is decidedly not so).
i would love to put up a document and then challenge the leftist liberals here like mitso to refute it…
for informational purposes that quote is from
What Social Classes Owe to Each Other by William Grahm Sumner 1883
excerpted from the first chapter:
On a new philosophy, that poverty is the best policy
if anyone takes the time to read the whole thing they will walk away with an understanding that they would nto have any other way no matter how much spewing i do here…
i would like to know how mitsu would refute the argumetns here..
and if mitsu would notice how clear, well written, thought out and such compared to todays crap…
i hope you all enjoy. 🙂
by the way.. if you type in the title of these documents… google comes up claiming that they appear to be viruses, and you ahve to key in text to get them to tranfer you there!!!!!!!!
this is the first time i have ever seen such a page in any year that i have ever used the net.
interesting eh?
Fundamentally, what is going on is a coverup of the fact that politics got us into this, in the belief that politics can get the guilty back out of this crisis with their credibility and honor, such that exist, intact.
Hah!
And I’ve commented on this here (shameless plug):
http://21stcenturyschizoidman.blogspot.com/2009/02/causality-and-inevitability.html
Artfldgr — I’d rather read Mitsu than you.
If you wish people to read your comments, I suggest you post in a more considerate and readable fashion, i.e. not shoveling large amounts of unformatted text sometimes bolded, sometimes italicized onto the screen.
Apparently other people have more patience, but I continue to find your posts a blight in this blog.
huxley,
Artfidgr apparently has a lot to say, but can’t start his own blog for fear the Man will track him down and disappear him.
From a previous conversation we once had a while back:
i do not have a blog, because i dont want to be a sitting target. with defiance out in the movies, people cant understand that i am hiding in the woods… as i move over time from place to place i have a large following of people that follow me… they like to tune into what i say… often i find them appear on other sites and such. some have appeared here too… but i wont say.
Sometimes he has some insightful things to say, but it all drowns in the paranoia. Like a dollar pancake in a gallon of syrup.
hey lee,
have you ever had feministing or pandagon follow you around and creat hell?
how about the leftists getting the list of prop 8 supporters and terrorizing them at home and work?
Sometimes he has some insightful things to say, but it all drowns in the paranoia
parnoia is only paranoia when no one is out to get you.
personally they just got 40k of my tax money with the bail out… no? so is it paranoid to think they are going to take more? is it parnoid to think that they are going to do what their ideology says?
Paranoia
The individual thinks that harm is occurring, or is going to occur, to him or her.
The individual thinks that the persecutor has the intention to cause harm.
the key word is think…
do i think that our leaders are going to harm us? yes
do i think that they intend to do this? yes
now the thing that makes it paranoia or prudence.
are they hurting people? yes
do they intend to do more harm? yes
intentions have nothing to do with it.
the argyument that i should get a blog is an argument to remove me from the discussion where it is occuring. my reasons are not paranoia, but prudence.
lee… you dont like what i say
you also cant refute me, or do you desire to leave your lazy comfortable spot to research to refute me.
so your using a collective nasty thing to try to get rid of me. talking to others as if i am not here, and being snide about me. why? oh, to get a collective going to crush the individual who doesnt cooperate with your end goals.
the topic here in this thread was social justice and economics.
how does having a discussion as to me, my reasons for not sitting in a cave waiting for you to come. are you saying that the whole concept of missionary and NGO is invalid, or only when i do it?
this is trying to win by another means
to cut or shame the tall poppy that blows the curve
i have had this all my life from bronx science thru various employ…
actually lee, i do have my own venue for writing…
want to see it?
go to blogwonks and mensnewsdaily…
you can see my articles next to bob parks, doug powers, and many others.
but i get tired hacking out articles sometimes and i take breaks, and visit other places which have intelligent people and civil discussion.
you can go and read them if you want..
Eternal Maiden Actualization is here! You can call her EMA
blogwonks.com/2008/06/20/eternal-maiden-actualization-is-here-you-can-call-her-ema/
blogwonks and mensnewsdaily get quite a lot of hits… but its not about that.
i have been posting against ideological things for almost 10 years now… mostly feminist commentary… so there are a lot of wackaloon mil femnuts out there…
so lee… i will not leave to make your tiny collective happy… your going to have to study and refute me.
and your going to have to show me how the state doesnt hurt people in order to prove me paranoid, not just assert it because your super confident ignorance makes it a conclusion.
Oblio,
That’s exactly it.
– G
“talking to others as if i am not here, ”
You’re not here, Art, and neither am I. Even Neoneocon isn’t “here”. This is a weblog, not a conference room. If I wish to address you directly, as I am doing now, I will be sure to let you know when I am addressing you directly. (BTW, I am addressing you directly, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.) My last comment was for huxley.
As I have stated before, no one is disputing your facts, just your conclusions that the police state is upon us. Government, even relatively benign ones like ours, by their very nature hurt people either deliberately or inadvertently. The very fact you and I can exchange ideas and opinions in this forum is proof enough to me we are a damned sight away from the midnight roundups you keep crying worf about.
And, typical of your level of paranoia, no one is suggesting you not be allowed to comment here. Just don’t expect your delusional rants to go unchallenged, even ridiculed. I and others have questioned why you don’t have your own blog. You claim you do, as well as visit other sites playing Paul Revere. Fine. I just wonder why I see no ships in the harbor, or regiments marching while you scream “the redcoats are coming!”.
“worf”?