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 Western. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Western. 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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Consensus And Truth
Sometimes I jot down notes about ideas that are churning in my mind, for later consideration. But, sometimes it seems to demand immediate attention; perhaps because it is directly relevant to recent personal or social situations. In this case it is both.
At this point in my life, the changes that have overtaken pop dialogue on what really are just a handful or fundamental ideas, have so saturated discussion that false implications that are deduced from them arise relentlessly. And, if your point of departure differs from the popular sentiment on those few fundamental axioms, you will find yourself on the other side in the details, incessantly.
I use the qualifying “pop” (I even use the “pop” contraction of “popular,” which literally means “of the people”), because I refer not necessarily to the public, but to the organs of mass deliberation in American and most Western culture: television, movies, popular journals, even public education textbooks and education environments. In fact, most Americans have sentiments that differ somewhat with many of these pop-culture premises. Most notably, typically even where the possible existence of God is granted, the relevance of God and implications of God are nearly always assumed to be irrelevant, indeed inappropriate, to deliberations of public principle and policy.
The accompanying fundamental assumptions about human nature and social and psychological matters are related to or derivative of this one. While in their personal sentiments most Americans believe differently, nevertheless the drumbeat of such thinking in “pop” consumption has the effect of dragging public sentiment in its wake, even if as pulled with locked feet through the sand.
The immediate question is the relevance of consensus (or perceived consensus) to the indication of truth in an assertion. You should already have perceived that to me such consensus means little. Especially when ultimately transcendent and fixed principles are involved, “consensus” is a feeble indicator of truth and a miserable substitution for argument. Yet, the appeal is instinctively made in case after case, my own publicly educated child has more than once explained to me that “no one thinks like you do.” I’m well aware of that. And, even if being in agreement with the “pop” consensus was an urgent concern of mine, reason dictates that it is no necessary indication of truth.
Certainly, a consensus perception in your own community is an indication that something should be given due consideration. But, it’s a suggestion of something to consider and weigh. It emphatically does not herald NOT necessarily herald truth. Thinking about it, it seemed more that consensus should be more like a road sign that says, “Deer Crossing.” “Dear Crossing” does not mean, “Slam On Your Brakes Because There Will Surely Be Deer!” No. But, slow down and take a look.
And in our case, we have more than our own confrontation with truth or deer, as the case may be, to be concerned about. We must carry on and productively engage the people who embrace this perspective, irrespective of whether we agree.
More often than not today, I do not agree. And, that does not surprise me. Again, if the basic premises are mistaken, sound logic will lead to mistaken conclusions. For me, if you were going to evaluate ideas solely on the feeble basis of consensus, and given the record and perspective of so many tone-setters, I would be more likely to assume the consensus wrong. I may spend the rest of my life working on engaging those with whom I disagree.
At this point in my life, the changes that have overtaken pop dialogue on what really are just a handful or fundamental ideas, have so saturated discussion that false implications that are deduced from them arise relentlessly. And, if your point of departure differs from the popular sentiment on those few fundamental axioms, you will find yourself on the other side in the details, incessantly.
I use the qualifying “pop” (I even use the “pop” contraction of “popular,” which literally means “of the people”), because I refer not necessarily to the public, but to the organs of mass deliberation in American and most Western culture: television, movies, popular journals, even public education textbooks and education environments. In fact, most Americans have sentiments that differ somewhat with many of these pop-culture premises. Most notably, typically even where the possible existence of God is granted, the relevance of God and implications of God are nearly always assumed to be irrelevant, indeed inappropriate, to deliberations of public principle and policy.
The accompanying fundamental assumptions about human nature and social and psychological matters are related to or derivative of this one. While in their personal sentiments most Americans believe differently, nevertheless the drumbeat of such thinking in “pop” consumption has the effect of dragging public sentiment in its wake, even if as pulled with locked feet through the sand.
The immediate question is the relevance of consensus (or perceived consensus) to the indication of truth in an assertion. You should already have perceived that to me such consensus means little. Especially when ultimately transcendent and fixed principles are involved, “consensus” is a feeble indicator of truth and a miserable substitution for argument. Yet, the appeal is instinctively made in case after case, my own publicly educated child has more than once explained to me that “no one thinks like you do.” I’m well aware of that. And, even if being in agreement with the “pop” consensus was an urgent concern of mine, reason dictates that it is no necessary indication of truth.
Certainly, a consensus perception in your own community is an indication that something should be given due consideration. But, it’s a suggestion of something to consider and weigh. It emphatically does not herald NOT necessarily herald truth. Thinking about it, it seemed more that consensus should be more like a road sign that says, “Deer Crossing.” “Dear Crossing” does not mean, “Slam On Your Brakes Because There Will Surely Be Deer!” No. But, slow down and take a look.
And in our case, we have more than our own confrontation with truth or deer, as the case may be, to be concerned about. We must carry on and productively engage the people who embrace this perspective, irrespective of whether we agree.
More often than not today, I do not agree. And, that does not surprise me. Again, if the basic premises are mistaken, sound logic will lead to mistaken conclusions. For me, if you were going to evaluate ideas solely on the feeble basis of consensus, and given the record and perspective of so many tone-setters, I would be more likely to assume the consensus wrong. I may spend the rest of my life working on engaging those with whom I disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)