An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Showing posts with label character. Show all posts
Showing posts with label character. Show all posts
Monday, October 6, 2008
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
How I Might Vote For Barack Obama Over John McCain
A family member forwarded this link to a video about the frightening prospect of a President Barack Obama. It is followed by my response.
“It takes about 13 minutes to view the video on this link. It was an eye-opener for me in some aspects.”
Barack Obama Video
You know, I know that millions of people vote on the basis of this kind of information. But, such matters don’t even get on the map for me. Barack Obama has never said or done a single socially constructive thing that I am aware of, beyond the most non-specific calls for "change," “unity,” “hope,” and such general abstractions.
He has persuaded populations of people to support him, as many anti-liberty tyrants in history have done. Honestly, it is difficult for me to look at a man who has earned a law degree and an accompanying fortune, and who can construct a speech that moves populations and is at least syntactically correct though substantially empty, without the strong suspicion that his ideals have nothing to do with American society but are primarily oriented toward personal wealth and power. I’m sorry, but it’s just extremely difficult for me to imagine that these people could be so utterly ignorant about human nature and the social dysfunction that will grow from implementing their totalitarian supposed ideals.
You know of course, that there is little danger of me casting a vote for Barack Obama. Though I can imagine a scenario under which I might consider it: At least two gunmen break into my home on election day, one of whom corrals my family at gunpoint and instructs me that I will go with the other man to my polling place and he will watch me cast my vote for Barack Obama. He tells me that if I do not return in an hour with the other man’s confirmation that I did indeed, cast my vote for Obama, that the brains of my family will be splattered on the walls of our home.
It is at such a point that I would seriously consider the benefits of voting for Barack Obama. And, I hope that this dispels any suspicions that I might be entirely closed to the idea.
We should consider, on the other hand, that though I have frequently disagreed with conclusions that John McCain has reached. He is exceptionally strong on a few points that are of particular importance at this time of American history: on spending (today we are not just spending foolishly, but on the brink of budgetary calamity, and that’s not just words) judicial restraint that respects liberty and The Constitution, and the defense of American welfare and moral standards. And whatever John McCain concludes, he concludes it sincerely with America’s interest in mind. That is a monumental difference that I hope intruders don’t impose upon.
“It takes about 13 minutes to view the video on this link. It was an eye-opener for me in some aspects.”
Barack Obama Video
You know, I know that millions of people vote on the basis of this kind of information. But, such matters don’t even get on the map for me. Barack Obama has never said or done a single socially constructive thing that I am aware of, beyond the most non-specific calls for "change," “unity,” “hope,” and such general abstractions.
He has persuaded populations of people to support him, as many anti-liberty tyrants in history have done. Honestly, it is difficult for me to look at a man who has earned a law degree and an accompanying fortune, and who can construct a speech that moves populations and is at least syntactically correct though substantially empty, without the strong suspicion that his ideals have nothing to do with American society but are primarily oriented toward personal wealth and power. I’m sorry, but it’s just extremely difficult for me to imagine that these people could be so utterly ignorant about human nature and the social dysfunction that will grow from implementing their totalitarian supposed ideals.
You know of course, that there is little danger of me casting a vote for Barack Obama. Though I can imagine a scenario under which I might consider it: At least two gunmen break into my home on election day, one of whom corrals my family at gunpoint and instructs me that I will go with the other man to my polling place and he will watch me cast my vote for Barack Obama. He tells me that if I do not return in an hour with the other man’s confirmation that I did indeed, cast my vote for Obama, that the brains of my family will be splattered on the walls of our home.
It is at such a point that I would seriously consider the benefits of voting for Barack Obama. And, I hope that this dispels any suspicions that I might be entirely closed to the idea.
We should consider, on the other hand, that though I have frequently disagreed with conclusions that John McCain has reached. He is exceptionally strong on a few points that are of particular importance at this time of American history: on spending (today we are not just spending foolishly, but on the brink of budgetary calamity, and that’s not just words) judicial restraint that respects liberty and The Constitution, and the defense of American welfare and moral standards. And whatever John McCain concludes, he concludes it sincerely with America’s interest in mind. That is a monumental difference that I hope intruders don’t impose upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)