November, 2008 browsing by month


Faltering Principles

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

Here’s an article from standard and poor’s suggesting some underlying problems emerging in derivatives because of mark to market, yet people were even suggesting then that it shouldn’t be a problem. The date? Oct 2007. When the problems became apparent, who did what?

It can’t be denied that some people started making statements of concern about Fannie and Freddie starting in 2003, as problems began to emerge, and even drew up legislation (see S-190). And some other people said that everything was fine, and we shouldn’t worry. Now it’s clear those other people were wrong, but will they be held responsible? Can they be? Will people still vote for them? It actually appears so…

I don’t think there’s a coincidence that those who resisted warnings and legislation were also receiving campaign contributions from those who would be impacted by the warnings and legislation. But that’s just me.

Ultimately I think people are making a mistake trying to point fingers at individuals or political parties. It wasn’t a failure of party or politics, but principle. If conservative principles had been followed, it simply wouldn’t have happened. Neither republicans nor democrats followed these principles (the community reinvestment act is a perfect example). Now of course it’s nice that people can realize a dream to have their own home, but if they can’t afford it, and they have no “skin in the game,” why are they somehow entitled? the results were completely predictable. The policy obviously had good intentions, but now who’s responsible? Again, it’s the responsible people who are responsible.

So it’s odd to me that when government policy creates a problem, there’s not a call to undo the policy or throw out the “officials” who created it. Instead support rallies behind a nominee that says we need more policy.


Collection of Individuals

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

Obama said last night that we’re “Not a collection of individuals.”

Watch out. If we’re not a collection of individuals, than we must be a “collective mass.” This does not portend an auspicious beginnning.

What’s this “My President” silliness?

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

Roger Kimball is over at PM is quoting Andrew McCarthy trying to separate himself from those who would “tear down the country…” to which I responded:

Your post is correctly conditional, but I’d make it more so. I have no intention to tear down the country, but perceive that Obama plans to do just that. If Obama wins by 10 points, then we should indeed become the loyal opposition. But if he wins only by one or two, then there will be undeniable questions about his legitimacy. Without a “clean” result, amid such obvious election fraud and intimidation, how can we lose gracefully? I just hope McCain is willing to put up a fighter’s fight for America to make the election legitimate.

But why don”t we go even further? How do we demand a fair accounting?

ACORN has been front and center in the news (at least the right-leaning news) this season. I also read that people are using absentee ballots to vote twice. And black panthers are intimidating people with billy clubs. Winning has evidently become so important that it doesn’t matter how the game is played.

We can’t accept it. We can’t concede. The cheating has to stop. It has to be fair. And that has to start with laws that are enforced. And real journalism.

The only thing worse is that the cheater in this game is going to get a shiny new set of guns to come after what is ours. And they will because all their promises say they have to. Since liberty is so dangerous, they plan to round it up and put it in a corral.

Crisis Managed for Gain

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

Do you want Obama to be elected?

What better way than to make the economy look worse just before the election. Does that sound pretty cynical? Note how we have a finance committee led by democrats. These guys, we’ll assume, know something about finance. They would know, for instance, that large government expenditures on all sorts of projects are simply a future drain on investment and consumption. (Y=G+I+C)

The larger each proposal gets, the more the market adjusts downward to compensate for the recognition that investment capital (and consumption) will be reduced or displaced in the future. So the democrats continue to promote and pass expensive pork laden legislation in the name of crisis rescue, making certain the market reacts in a way that discourages people at the polls, while Obama blames it on the bad economic policies of the last eight years.

You go!