Category: Uncategorized

The murders Americans won’t commit

Exhibit A in the Ricardian argument for the free movement of labor:

Chandler police are investigating the bizarre case of a man who was stabbed, decapitated and left in a pool of blood in a central city apartment. One man has been arrested and police are seeking three more suspects in what may the city’s first beheading. “We don’t go to many cases where the victim has been decapitated,” said Chandler Police Det. Frank Mendoza.

At some point, I wonder if people are going to begin to realize that a) there are more immigrants than ever before, and b) the economy is not growing in proportion with them as the Ricardian argument predicts.

She’s back

Welcome back to the Internet, Rachel Lucas. It’s nice to see she’s posting again, even if she has come out of the closet as a belated mobile Macintosser:

On my birthday this past spring, Rupe surprised me with an iPhone. He quickly regretted it because I spent the first day staggering around the house clutching the phone a foot from my face, sporadically bursting into loud improvised songs of praise.

On a tangential note, I was ever so happy to have the chance today to tell a game developer that no, I absolutely would not check out his new, just-released iphone game app. Android, dude. iPhone is so… 2008.

Mailvox: the global consequences of Ricardianism

S asks a follow-up question of his own:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions regarding the Ricardian doctrine of free trade from an Austrian perspective last week, and for answering EJ’s follow-up as well. I do have an additional question to ask on this subject. I agree with you about the problems with the “Ricardian Vice” of freezing all but a few variables in place and then coming to conclusions on the assumption of ceteris paribus. I agree that the doctrine of free trade does not take into account temporal limits on the acting man’s preferences. And I agree that these two problems combined reveal that the logical foundation of free trade is more than a little unstable. The question remains: what can be done about it?

I ask because on most questions about economics, applied praxeology dictates that government attempts to “manage” the economy or allocate resources will lead to inefficient outcomes. Why, then, should the same not apply to trade economics? How is the government to know exactly which industries should be slapped with tariffs and which industries should be left alone? Since Hayek proved that no single individual or government entity can ever have enough information to know everything about the economy at any given time, what then is the “correct” Austrian conclusion regarding trade tariffs?

The first thing to point out is that government-imposed trade restrictions are not synonymous with either “managing the economy” or “allocating resources. For example, a uniform 15% tariff on all imports doesn’t do anything except to provide a competitive advantage to all domestic producers. It doesn’t favor one sector over another, except to the extent that one sector is more dependent upon foreign inputs than another, and it doesn’t involve any government management or allocation of resources at all.

Applying the correct Misean-derived logic regarding the impossibility of socialist calculation, (Hayek only refined the concept first conceived by Ludwig von Mises), we can conclude that government cannot and should not be involved in making decisions regarding which domestic industries should be protected from foreign competition and which should be abandoned to it. However, it is a complete failure of logic to conclude on this basis that domestic industries should not be protected from foreign competition because the impossibility of calculation does not go so far as to preclude a government’s ability to distinguish between foreign and domestic production, let alone a foreigner and a citizen. And to deny that a national government can justly prefer the well-being of its domestic producers and citizens to that of foreign producers and non-citizens is no different than denying a national government’s right, (to say nothing of its responsibility), to defend its borders against military invasion.

It is, of course, no accident that the Ricardian supporters of free trade usually refuse to recognize either the USA’s right to defend its borders from foreign migration or the right of foreign nations to defend their borders from US military attacks. After all, what is the substantive difference between an “invasion” by a sufficient number of foreign soldiers to impose a new government by force and the “immigration” of a sufficient number of foreign civilians to impose a new government by their voting preferences? What is the logical rationale for resisting one and accepting the other?

There is strong empirical and logical support for a uniform protection of domestic industry; the fact that the Ricardian crowd has been reliably dishonest about the historical effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, the positive effects of tariffs during the 19th century, and the probable effects of free trade agreements like NAFTA should give serious pause to those who, like me, have tended to assume that free trade was an unmitigated societal positive without stopping to seriously consider all of the logical consequences.

If you stop and carefully think through the matter, it eventually becomes obvious that unfettered globalism is both the underlying conceptual foundation as well as the ultimate consequence of Ricardian free trade. To accept the concept of free trade and its necessary consequences such as open immigration and universal citizenship, it is therefore necessary to reject the U.S. Constitution and the idea of limited government as well as everything that history has taught us about cultural, ethnic, national, and religious differences.

Ricardianism is a doctrine no less utopian, and no less ultimately destructive to society, than Marxist scientific socialism, feminist equalitarianism, and the pseudo-scientific New Atheism. Note that its primary justification of collective enrichment at the expense of certain individuals is virtually identical to the Marxist justification of socialist distribution and is one of the many theoretical connections between Marx and Ricardo. This will be a hard lesson for many conservatives and libertarians to accept, as the idea that the doctrine of free trade is ultimately and inevitably anti-liberty is somewhat counter-intuitive. But the verdict of the logic is inescapable.

A noble opportunity to contribute

I am confident that the American people, being staunchly committed to their hallowed and time-honored principles of diversity, social justice, and the sanctity of public union contracts, will welcome this opportunity to ensure that no retired government employee is denied the right to live large while not working at home instead of not working at the office:

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more “fairly” distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.

This is precisely why I never contributed a dime to any 401(k) plan. Even in my misspent youth, I understood that which Congress gives, Congress will take away the moment it decides it wants to do so. Fortunately for those who have been diligently salting away their retirement money in these plans, since 2008 we have repeatedly been shown that Congress is much more prone to listen to the voice of the outraged masses than to a statistically insignificant but wealthy and politically influential special interest group that is demanding large sums of money.

Wait a minute….

WND column

A Den of Vipers and Thieves

“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves.”
– Andrew Jackson

The French famously say that the more things change, the more they stay the same. While the particular form that the latest banking fraud has taken is different – there were no option ARMs, mortgage-backed security tranches or electronic mortgage registration systems in the 1830s – the United States found itself similarly afflicted by the financial predations of a private central bank.

ADDENDUM TO THE COLUMN: Unsurprisingly, those freedom-loving Republicans and champions of the Rule of Law in the conservative media are following the grand tradition of presidential candidate John McCain by rushing to the wrong side of the issue and the defense of the impoverished bankers of Wall Street.

Talk about a financial scandal. A consumer borrows money to buy a house, doesn’t make the mortgage payments, and then loses the house in foreclosure—only to learn that the wrong guy at the bank signed the foreclosure paperwork. Can you imagine? The affidavit was supposed to be signed by the nameless, faceless employee in the back office who reviewed the file, not the other nameless, faceless employee who sits in the front.
– The Wall Street Journal

The No. 2 House Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, said a national moratorium would remove the protections that lenders need. “You’re going to shut down the housing industry” with a national stoppage, Cantor said. “People have to take responsibility for themselves.”
– The Associated Press

This is pure banking propaganda. The idea that the foreclosure fraud is simply a little clerical error and that homeowners are attempting to capitalize on a minor issue of missing paperwork is a blatant and shameless lie. The mere fact of their focus on the borrowing parties rather than the banks is proof that they are intentionally evading the real issue. Karl Denninger, who has been on this for three years now, explains it more succinctly than anyone. “The issue is not about which paper-pusher signed documents. The issue is whether the origination and securitization of this paper in the first instance was fraudulent, and whether we now we have a Watergate-style coverup of what a gang of brigands did to steal literal trillions of dollars!” As he further elucidates, there are three primary parts to the problem; notice that the latter two have absolutely nothing to do with the borrowers that the Republican Cantor declares must “take responsibility for themselves”. But if a poor Hispanic family living in an overpriced house have to take responsibility for themselves, why don’t the bankers who are holding Cantor’s leash have to do likewise?

1. Borrowers overstated income, assets or both. In some cases they did so willingly and knowingly. In others loan officers changed numbers to “ram it through” the computer-operated approval systems, submitting files multiple times while doctoring figures. In the latter case perhaps the borrower knew, perhaps not – many people didn’t read the entire 100+ page stack of paper at closing. That’s dumb but it’s not criminal. Changing the figures or lying, on the other hand, is criminal.

2. Lenders stuffed paper they either knew was bad or had the ability and legal duty to verify the provenance of but intentionally did not into securities sold to investors. This has been disclosed in FCIC hearings and is no longer speculative, although as I noted in 2007 it had to be the case because it was the only way the deals that were being done could have possibly been done. This was an act of deception and in my opinion (along with many others, including plenty of attorneys) meets the legal definition of fraud.

3. The land title system in this nation was intentionally subverted and corrupted by both intentional act and intentional laziness, all driven by the motive of profit. Original paperwork was either shipped overseas or intentionally destroyed. In even more cases it was not conveyed as legally required by the trust documents. This has massively-corrupted the chain of title for perhaps as much as one third to one half of all residential housing units in this country and if not corrected will render these homes unmarketable in the future. This is the vastly unappreciated problem with what has been done to date.

If the Republican leadership is dumb enough to attempt to defend this large-scale banking fraud against the interests of defaulting homeowners and responsible taxpayers alike, they’re going to risk throwing away the entire advantage that they have derived from two years of Obama’s political incompetence. This is the one thing they could do that would force the Tea Partiers to leave the Republican Party and transform into a genuine third party. And it’s not impossible; remember, it was a Republican who introduced HR3808 and it was the Republican leadership that was complicit in allowing it to pass on an unrecorded voice vote.

VPFL Week 4

96 Valders Quixotes (3-1)
47 RR Redbeards (2-2)

79 Moundsview Meerkats (1-3)
51 Meigs Marauders (2-2)

74 Bane Sidhe (3-1)
34 Blackmouth Banksters (2-2)

61 MS Swamp Spartans (1-3)
46 Judean Rhyneauxs (2-2)

68 Winston Reverends (3-1)
43 Greenfield Grizzlies (1-3)

After four weeks, there is no obvious dominant team, but at least the Meerkats and Swamp Spartans have broken their duck. But all of this pales beside the burning issue sweeping the NFL this week: what does Brett Favre look like with his pants on the ground?

The media wakes up

The Washington Post finally notices that there might be a little problem in the housing market:

Senior Obama administration officials said Friday that a nationwide moratorium on foreclosure sales may be inevitable, despite their grave reservations about the impact a broad freeze would have on the nation’s housing market and economic recovery…. With foreclosed properties comprising one in every four homes sold in the United States, the spreading moratorium could disrupt real estate deals in progress, slow down the process of clearing the backlog of troubled home loans and prolong the economic recovery, analysts said.

A freeze would also strike at the financial sector, just two years after it suffered one of the worst crises in its history. One government official who has been in discussions with several big financial firms said the banks are bracing themselves for a wave of lawsuits from homeowners who are fighting to keep their homes and from investors who had bought mortgage loans on Wall Street. On Friday, while the Dow Jones industrial average crossed 11,000, most major bank stocks fell.

Translation: Senior Obama administration officials said Friday that a nationwide moratorium on foreclosure salesallowing the big insolvent banks to go bankrupt may be inevitable, despite their grave reservations about the impact a broad freezefailure to enact a second banking bailout would have on the nation’s housing market and economic recoverydepression.

Yesterday’s post about the 13.3% decline in bank credit didn’t really do proper justice to the seriousness of the situation. One also has to factor in the historical 8.4% annual increase in bank credit. This means that there is presently a $2.2 trillion gap between the current credit supply and the $8.477 trillion in credit that a nominally healthy economy would have at the end of 2010.

That is the gap that the massive increase in Federal outlays are attempting to fill. In other words, the magnitude of the problem isn’t defined by a 13.3% decline from where we were, but rather, the 25.8% shortfall from where we should be.

They can’t steal if you don’t work

Gonzalo Lira of Zero Hedge is correct. Once the middle class realizes that they are being scammed and participation in the scam is no longer worth it, what is presently and fraudulently passing for “America” is doomed.

Just like the poker player who’s been fleeced by all the other players, and gets one mean attitude once he finally wakes up to the con? I’m betting that more and more of the solid American middle-class will begin saying what Brian and Ilsa said: Fuckit.

Fuck the rules. Fuck playing the game the banksters want you to play. Fuck being the good citizen. Fuck filling out every form, fuck paying every tax. Fuck the government, fuck the banks who own them. Fuck the free-loaders, living rent-free while we pay. Fuck the legal process, a game which only works if you’ve got the money to pay for the parasite lawyers. Fuck being a chump. Fuck being a stooge. Fuck trying to do the right thing—what good does that get you? What good is coming your way?

Fuckit.

When the backbone of a country starts thinking that laws and rules are not worth following, it’s just a hop, skip and a jump to anarchy.

TV has given us the illusion that anarchy is people rioting in the streets, smashing car windows and looting every store in sight. But there’s also the polite, quiet, far deadlier anarchy of the core citizenry—the upright citizenry—throwing in the towel and deciding it’s just not worth it anymore.

If a big enough proportion of the populace—not even a majority, just a largish chunk—decides that it’s just not worth following the rules anymore, then that society’s days are numbered: Not even a police-state with an armed Marine at every corner with Shoot-to-Kill orders can stop such middle-class anarchy.

It really isn’t even debatable anymore. Does anyone seriously believe that the bankers who are now known to have stolen literal billions from the government and from the public alike are going to spend any time in prison, let alone 12-15 years like my father? There is no rule of law, there is only the massive and ongoing monetary rape of the middle and lower classes by the financial-government complex. The latter have been gambling, and losing, at the former’s expense for decades; they have set up an indefensible system where it is heads they win, tails everyone else loses.

But more and more Americans are finally realizing that they can’t steal what you don’t earn. They may not have minded being milked, at least not within reason, but they also understand that there’s no benefit in being turned into hamburger.

Mailvox: homeschool or die!

Yet another example. Which makes one wonder: what good is that all-important socialization to a corpse?

It was the fourth time in little more than two years that a bullied high school student in this small Cleveland suburb on Lake Erie died by his or her own hand — three suicides, one overdose of antidepressants. One was bullied for being gay, another for having a learning disability, another for being a boy who happened to like wearing pink.

The emailer who sent me this article wondered where the parents were. “How come they never have the parents of the bullies on the news? After all, what kind of kid walks around knocking books out people’s hands and calling them faggot? What kind of kid’s take pleasure in doing these kinds of cruel things to people? They weren’t provoked after all. I mean, I know from experience that the kid with the stuffed toy was just asking to get picked on, but I can’t imagine going out of my way every day to make someone else miserable.”

I don’t think it’s profitable thinking about the parents of the bullies. They may be unintelligent, unreflective bullies themselves, or more likely, they either a) have no absolutely idea what their children are doing to other children, b) they are in denial, or c) they’re total idiots who believe their little cretins are permitted everything. I actually had a run-in with the latter some months ago; the morons actually believed that their little thug-in-training shouldn’t even be threatened with being hit back after he, unprovoked, hit another kid in the face with a hockey stick. Needless to say, the little thug is going to be wondering what the hell happened the first time he runs into someone who doesn’t give a damn that his parents have declared him off-limits to playground justice.

My question is where the parents of the bullied children are. Protecting one’s children is a parent’s paramount duty. If one’s child is genuinely being seriously bullied to the point of personal danger, first train the child to defend himself by massively violent overreaction. Chances are very high that he’d be never be directly bothered again.

But in the unlikely event that fails, then the adult must directly confront the bullies and let them know in no uncertain terms that one will cheerfully spend the rest of one’s life in jail for multiple charges of homicide and desecration of a human corpse rather than permit one’s child to come to harm. And if spending a few days in jail on an assault and battery charge is necessary to send the message in a manner that it is received, then so be it. If your kid knows one thing, just one solitary thing, he should know that you have his back. No matter what.