Supply does not create demand

The present state of Spain’s real estate market should suffice to explode that theory:

A better known real estate debacle is a sprawling development in Seseña, south of Madrid, one of Spain’s “ghost towns.” It sits in a desert surrounded by empty lots. Twelve whole blocks of brick apartment buildings, about 2,000 apartments, are empty; the rest, only partly occupied. Most of the ground floor commercial space is bricked up.

The boom and bust of Spain’s property sector is astonishing. Over a decade, land prices rose about 500 percent and developers built hundreds of thousands of units — about 800,000 in 2007 alone. Developments sprang up on the outskirts of cities ready to welcome many of the four million immigrants who had settled in Spain, many employed in construction.

At the same time, coastal villages were transformed into major residential areas for vacationing Spaniards and retired, sun-seeking northern Europeans. At its peak, the construction sector accounted for 12 percent of Spain’s gross domestic product, double the level in Britain or France.

But almost overnight, the market disappeared. Many immigrants went home. The national unemployment rate shot up to 20 percent. And the northern Europeans stopped buying, too.

A number of mainstream analysts believe that the downturn has reached its bottom and things are turning around. However, it defies reason to believe that a 12.8% decline in prices is enough to offset the preceding 500% increase, especially when the banks that financed the boom haven’t booked their existing losses from the bust yet. My suspicion is that we are getting very, very close to the end of the reactive bounce in Europe and the USA alike. All of the conventional signs of Wave 2 bullishness appear to be present now and the rejection of the omnibus spending bill indicates that Congress is not going to play along with the Fed’s plan to replace private debt and spending with public debt and spending.

Those who think the Fed can print money ad infinitum have forgotten that it requires the government to play along and take on more debt that can be monetized. While I don’t expect an actual reduction in public debt, I do expect a rate of increase that is insufficient to keep pace with the private contraction.

UPDATE: Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the central bankers were lying and those of us who identified the crisis as being a solvency issue rather than a liquidity problem were right all along. Notice the date of March 2008, while Bernanke was still making speeches about how the Federal Reserve would solve the liquidity problem in May.

“Monday, 17 March 2008, 18:27
C O N F I D E N T I A L LONDON 000797
SIPDIS
NOFORN
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 03/17/2018
TAGS ECON, EFIN, UK
SUBJECT: BANKING CRISIS NOW ONE OF SOLVENCY NOT LIQUIDITY
SAYS BANK OF ENGLAND GOVERNOR”


The beauty handicap

Feminism makes pretty women less employable:

Researchers at two Israeli universities started their study by first asking an eight-member panel to scroll through a series of photos and separate the lookers from the merely OK-looking. That was designed to create some level of group consensus on who qualified as attractive versus not (the researchers had already vetted the pool of photos to eliminate as much as possible photos of candidates whose ethnicity could be easily identified.)

Then the researchers sent off 5,312 resumes in pairs of two to advertised job listings. The resumes themselves were nearly identical, but one resume did not include a photo at all, and the other resume in the pair contained a photo of either an attractive male/female candidate, or a plain-looking male/female candidate.

The overall positive-response rate was 14.5 percent. The resumes that got the highest callbacks from the hiring folks were:

• Resumes for attractive men (photo included): These had a response rate that was 45 percent higher than for plain-looking men whose photo was included, and double the call-back rate for male resumes that were sent without a photo.

• Resumes for women with no picture: These had a response rate that was 30 percent higher than for attractive women whose photo was attached to the resume, and 22 percent higher than “plain” women whose photo was attached.

The reason, it turns out, is that 96 percent of the firms had “a female employee between the ages of 23-34 doing the screening”. And women don’t like pretty women or ugly men. So, if you’re looking for a job, it would probably be a good idea to include your picture if you’re a dashing man but leave it off if you’re a woman.


Three weeks in California

I mentioned this VDH column about his journeys through the California backcountry in yesterday’s post about immigration waves, but it’s really worth reading just in case you didn’t notice the link:

During this unscientific experiment, three times a week I rode a bike on a 20-mile trip over various rural roads in southwestern Fresno County. I also drove my car over to the coast to work, on various routes through towns like San Joaquin, Mendota, and Firebaugh. And near my home I have been driving, shopping, and touring by intent the rather segregated and impoverished areas of Caruthers, Fowler, Laton, Orange Cove, Parlier, and Selma. My own farmhouse is now in an area of abject poverty and almost no ethnic diversity; the closest elementary school (my alma mater, two miles away) is 94 percent Hispanic and 1 percent white, and well below federal testing norms in math and English.

Here are some general observations about what I saw (other than that the rural roads of California are fast turning into rubble, poorly maintained and reverting to what I remember seeing long ago in the rural South). First, remember that these areas are the ground zero, so to speak, of 20 years of illegal immigration. There has been a general depression in farming — to such an extent that the 20- to-100-acre tree and vine farmer, the erstwhile backbone of the old rural California, for all practical purposes has ceased to exist.

On the western side of the Central Valley, the effects of arbitrary cutoffs in federal irrigation water have idled tens of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land, leaving thousands unemployed. Manufacturing plants in the towns in these areas — which used to make harvesters, hydraulic lifts, trailers, food-processing equipment — have largely shut down; their production has been shipped off overseas or south of the border. Agriculture itself — from almonds to raisins — has increasingly become corporatized and mechanized, cutting by half the number of farm workers needed. So unemployment runs somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.

Many of the rural trailer-house compounds I saw appear to the naked eye no different from what I have seen in the Third World. There is a Caribbean look to the junked cars, electric wires crisscrossing between various outbuildings, plastic tarps substituting for replacement shingles, lean-tos cobbled together as auxiliary housing, pit bulls unleashed, and geese, goats, and chickens roaming around the yards. The public hears about all sorts of tough California regulations that stymie business — rigid zoning laws, strict building codes, constant inspections — but apparently none of that applies out here.

But remember, immigration is good for America! No matter what the empirical evidence might lead one to conclude, the important thing is that the theoretical case remains solid.


Mailvox: No fear!

Big Chilly sends word of an incredibly courageous woman who puts us all to shame:

“SM has been studied for more than 20 years, and many papers have been published about her fear-related abnormalities. She has trouble recognizing fear in facial expressions, for example. In another experiment, published in 1995, she was blasted with a loud horn every time she saw a blue-colored square appear on a screen. Despite the repeated blasting horn, she never developed the fear an ordinary person would feel when seeing the blue square.

Emphasis is mine. She not only does not, but can not fear seeing the blue square. Holy crap.


Assassinate the fat kids

It is, apparently, a matter of national security:

First lady Michelle Obama plans to warn in remarks Monday that the nation is seeing “a groundswell of support” for curbing childhood obesity, and she is unveiling new ammunition from current and retired military leaders.

“Military leaders … tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight,” the first lady says in the prepared remarks, “childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well.”

If this doesn’t lead you to start being more skeptical every time Washington rings the “national security” bell and expects you to begin salivating in acceptance of gate rape or whatever their latest crime against the citizenry is, you’re hopeless. But the logic is inexorable. If national security threats justify terrorist designations as we have been reliably informed by the judicial system, and a terrorist designation permits the president to assassinate American citizens as we have also been reliably informed by the nation’s courts, then based on clearly the White House would be justified in ordering Predators to begin raining Hellfire missiles down on playgrounds filled with obese little fatties.


For the pro-war “conservative”

An educational quote from George Will’s column today:

Two years ago this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, when asked about U.S. objectives in Afghanistan, stressed creation of a strong central government.

Since intrepid Tea Partiers can’t seem to grasp the fundamental contradiction between their support for small and limited government and foreign entanglements, perhaps this statement from the Secretary of Defense will expose their incoherence in a manner they can understand.

How can you possibly claim to support a limited and decentralized government at home while simultaneously supporting the establishment of a strong central government abroad?


We’ve heard that one before

About the only idea dumber than not sending Mexican immigrants back to Mexico is the idea of returning the favor and invading Mexico right back:

National pride is a good thing – until the water reaches your chin and your nation is still sinking. Mexico is not in that deep yet, but parts of the country are. Seven criminal cartels effectively control most cities and the drug trafficking lanes near the U.S. border, as well as their bases and production centers in the interior.

The Mexican government announced on Wednesday that it will send more troops and federal police to its northeastern corner near the U.S. border.

Yet the Mexican elite class and military remain too proud to do what they immediately should: Call in the Marines.

I say this a bit tendentiously to get Mexicans out of their nationalistic stupor. They, in fact, should call in the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, too. But not in large units. Rather, Mexico is in dire need of American military specialists stationed within its borders to help the country build powerful electronic intelligence systems and train modern military and police forces to replace its suffocatingly hierarchical, outdated ones.

Just a few specialists, right. And then when a number of specialists are taken out by the armed cartels who presumably are capable of understanding why the American specialists are there, the Obama administration will either a) withdraw the specialists in which case they need not ever bothered sending them in the first place, or b) escalate American forces there. Regarding which notion Fred Reed, who lives in Mexico, has a few thoughts.

The ridiculous thing is that the possibility of some kind of violent conflict with Mexico became not only realistic but probable the minute that the immigration spigot was opened. The dangerous thing is that because of the Mexification of California and portions of the American Southwest, all of the fireworks aren’t going to take place south of the border.


America A is no more

Thomas Friedman laments American decline:

Former President José María Figueres of Costa Rica has a saying I like: “There is no Planet B” — so we’d better make Plan A work to preserve a stable environment. I feel the same way about America these days. There is no America B, so we’d better make this one work a lot better than we’ve been doing, and not only for our sake. When Britain went into decline as the globe’s stabilizing power, America was right there, ready to pick up the role. Even with all our imperfections and mistakes, the world has been a better place for it. If America goes weak, though, and cannot project power the way it has, your kids won’t just grow up in a different America. They will grow up in a different world. You will not like who picks up the pieces.

This is extraordinarily ironic, coming as it does from an elite Jewish liberal. He quite clearly doesn’t recognize that it is the very causes he has championed for decades, from diversity, equality, and secularization to free trade, immigration, and globalization, that have so weakened America in the manner that concerns him now. While he is correct in saying that a successful and powerful America committed to its core values could again become a world leader, his definition of those core values almost surely includes those values that have proven so pernicious to American success, power, and world leadership.

The North American landmass isn’t going to disappear. There will still be Americans proper – descendants of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who founded the nation on principles derived from the Bible and the Magna Carta – as well as those who call themselves Americans but have no cultural, ethnic, or religious connection to the historical America that is now essentially gone. The results of the great experiment are now sufficiently observable that we can pronounce the failure of the Viral America hypothesis.

It is now clear that one cannot catch Americanism. Just as the Irish, German, Scandinavian, and Italian immigrants never fully grasped the English concepts of liberty and limited government*, thereby transforming what had been a voluntary union of sovereign states into an involuntary empire ruled by a sovereign central government, the subsequent wave of immigration from Mexico and other third-world nations has transformed what had been a rich and powerful empire into an impoverished and corrupt one. Read Victor Davis Hanson’s haunting article on the devolution of central California into third world poverty; it will give you a more clear perspective on what has already happened and what is eventually in store for many communities across the country.

This is not to say that it was ever the intention of the various waves of immigrants to destroy the very haven they sought, it was merely the natural consequence of immigrants bringing their cultures with them, as they always do. And history clearly demonstrates that this is always the consequence when a sufficiently large number of people migrate to new lands. There is a reason that the northern province of Italy is still named Lombardia after the people who settled there after invading in 568 rather than after those they displaced, after all. It does not matter what historical example of mass immigration one examines, the result is invariably the same and it does not matter if the immigration is legal or illegal. The only variable of any significance is the percentage of the population represented by the immigration. Consider, for example, the original English colonists. Did they adapt to the ways of the Indian tribes or did they bring their native English way of life with them and transform the area they inhabited?

This is also not to say that the native population does not undergo its own transformation over time, but the transformations happen much more quickly and to a much greater extent with the arrival of new influences. The adaptation of black ghetto culture by white suburban teenagers following the end of segregation is one of many cases in point. But keep in mind that the point here is not whether the transformation is good or bad, it is only to note that the transformation has taken place and, for better or for worse, the new blended culture is never going to be the same as the one that it replaced.

From the New York Times: “In 1980, the foreign-born population in the United States was about 4.5 million. By 2000, it had reached 11.3 million, bringing the foreign-born population to about 13 percent of the total. In the early 20th century, after the last big wave of immigration to the United States, immigrants had reached 15 percent of the population.”

Therefore, Friedman is wrong as one cannot expect to make America A work when it has been transformed into America A + (M+I2+G+S+J+3). America A no longer exists. This is the B-Ark nation.

*Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I invite you to compare the number of Irish, Italian, German, and Scandinavian political philosophers who have written on liberty and limited government with the number of English philosophers who published works on the subject.


Top conservative blog?

John Hawkins of the Right Wing News has VP at #16 on his list of the 40 Best Conservative Blogs. I’m flattered, of course, but just a little confused given my decidedly non-conservative views on a whole panoply of political issues. Although perhaps this is a sign that conservatives are moving in a more libertarian direction after that whole experiment in Big Government Conservativism didn’t turn out so well.


The glorious return of Uber Dawks

Speaking of social autism, Uber Dawks offers this timely reminder that atheists who believe in reason don’t actually tend to utilize it well:

I see that your and fellow idiot fundies at WND who are somehow trying spin the Florida School Board shooting story into an anti-atheist screed because the shooter listed his religion as “Humanist” and was obviously ultra-liberal. I am now anxiously awaiting the typical Vox Day commentary bereft of logic and reason, much like your belief in Jesus.

This is typical conservative bait and switch and it disgusts me. You and your WND comrades should be ashamed. The world would be a better place if you idiots would just realize that you are fighting a losing battle against progress, including atheism and social equality. You just don’t understand that the human society is evolving into a better social construct, much like humans themselves have evolved into creatures that transcend racial inequality and sexual biology. We are no longer driven by the need to herd and procreate but have progressed into a society where freethinking is encouraged and sexual preference has transcended basic biology.

I’ve said it before an I’ll say it again – YOU IDIOT FUNDIES ARE LOSING! Humanism is a philosophy that will take over because it is based on REASON – and no smear campaign against it like linking a crazed Florida shooter to humanism will change that. Learn to give up your myths and this season celebrate reason. You people infuriate me and I anxiously await the day that you have been pushed out by science reason and are gone from our society.

Ah, yet another atheist arguing that the actions of a humanist [and probable atheist] should not be cited as an argument against atheism even though he has cited the actions of religious individuals as an argument against religion in the past. No doubt he would similarly argue that mass murders committed by atheists cannot possibly be attributed to their atheism even as he “anxiously” awaits the day that “science reason” has pushed theists out of his society. No doubt that’s just a coincidence and has nothing to do with his own atheism, right?

And who but an atheist would ever think to take the example of a humanist committing suicide and attempt to spin it into evidence for the ultimate triumph of humanism. Remember, these people genuinely believe they are more intelligent than you are.

UPDATE: Uber Dawks adds the following: You are missing the point entirely. The man did not shoot at others and then kill himself BECAUSE he was a humanist or an atheist, which is the same mistake you make when you mention Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. The conservative media is already pointing to his atheism/humanism in order to paint the same sort of idiotic argument you make when mentioning the atheism of Joseph Stalin, etc. Epic fail.

Interesting. And leads to the question, would Uber Dawk hate “IDIOT FUNDIES” and dream about “Science Reason” pushing them from his society if he were not an atheist? Isn’t it his atheism that is behind his hatred? Some people really need to stop deifying reason and start using it.