Intergenerational dynamics

I’ve been having a little email debate with John Xenakis, who I suspect has somewhat misapplied his own Generational Dynamics theory to the financial crisis as a result of Boomer idealism failing to grasp the full extent of Gen-X cynicism. His interpretation is as follows:

“The evidence is overwhelming that Gen-Xers were the perpetrators of the crimes related to the financial crisis simply because it was only the Gen-X financial engineers who had the education and skills to create fraudulent residential mortgage backed collaterized debt obligations (RMB CDOs). And the evidence is overwhelming that they created and sold these fraudulent synthetic securities knowing full well that they were fraudulent. And the evidence is overwhelming that their Boomer bosses knew what was going on, but let it go on because they were making too much money. I’ve written about this evidence dozens of times.”

Now, in support of this interpretation, here is the question that he has asked of his Gen-X interlocutors:

1. “Jon Corzine should go to jail, and any Gen-Xers reporting to Corzine who committed fraud or who participated in co-mingling investor funds illegally should also go to jail. Do you agree with that or not?”

To which I will add three more questions.

2. To what generational cohort do you belong: Greatest, Silent, Boomer, Gen-X, Millennial?

3. Do you believe there is any chance, however remote, of an investigation that will dig into the organizations, find all the perpetrators, and send them all to jail, including Corzine?

4. It is the members of the _______ generation that are primarily responsible for the perpetration of the crimes related to the financial crisis.

Answers in the comments, please. I’ll tabulate and send the results to John later. I’ll have some more on the exchange between the two of us in a future post, which I suspect a few of you here may find interesting. I do find his theories to be remarkable, inasmuch as it is almost creepy to listen to the original Down to the Ground and see how some of his themes are readily apparent in lyrics written 15 years before I first encountered his theories.

Insufficient and irrelevant

The NCAA goes light on Penn State:

The NCAA has hit Penn State with a $60 million sanction, a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins dating to 1998, the organization said Monday morning. The career record of Joe Paterno will reflect these vacated records, the NCAA said. Penn State must also reduce 10 initial and 20 total scholarships each year for a four-year period.

This is a ridiculous penalty. The problem wasn’t football-related cheating, so vacating the wins makes no sense. This is pure historical revisionism. The postseason ban won’t matter because Penn State isn’t going to compete for any of the serious bowls in the next four years, and while the scholarship limitation will hurt a little, the whole package falls well short of the four-year death penalty that was merited.

WND column

The Lone Gunmen

No doubt many Americans believe James Holmes acted alone in shooting up the Denver theater because they were told that was the case, despite at least one witness report that someone else appears to have been involved. While it is a remote possibility that Holmes was the individual seen opening the emergency exit prior to the entrance of the gunman, the fact that he has his hair dyed bright red tends to preclude that possibility as the witness would be expected to have remembered such an unusual attribute. And even if the man taking the phone call was Holmes, that would raise the question of who called him just prior to the attack.

Mailvox: Aussie logic

Freddy suggests that America should follow Australia’s example in fighting crime by banning guns:

Australia has very strict gun laws following several mass shootings. People get shot but mainly as a result of gangs who fight their vendettas out between themselves. It is rare for people to shot in domestic violence or random attacks. Most people don’t carry or own guns. Americans would do well to consider that many non Americans think it is insane to be able to buy a firearm off the counter.

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

I wonder why that might be?

Obama paraphrased

“I should have told better lies.” Joseph Farah on Obama’s illuminating answer to a question about the biggest mistake of his first term:

“The mistake of my first term . . . was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right,” he said. “And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

What’s so hilarious about this answer is it’s Bart Simpson-like juvenile appeal: Imagine Bart up to his neck in some kind of mischief. He gets caught. The principal of his school asks him if he has any regrets. He responds, “Yeah, I wish I had a better story to tell. I wish I could talk my way out of this.”

I would say the biggest mistake of Obama’s first term wasn’t his failure to present better fairy tales to the American public. That’s not even in the top ten. But number one was failing to endorse Ron Paul’s attempt to audit the Federal Reserve. A close second would be his nomination of Ben Bernanke to continue as Federal Reserve chairman. Concerns about policy and the popularity of the White House policies are considerably less important than having absolutely no idea if the information upon which those policies are based even has any basis in reality.

The danger of a “gun-free zone”

The Denver Batman shootings once more demonstrates that cardboard signs are an inadequate means of disarming mass killers:

Gun advocates say the movie theater where a Colorado gunman opened fire Friday, killing 12 and wounded 58, has a strict policy against firearms on its premises – even for patrons with concealed handgun permits.

Cinemark Holdings Inc. owns 459 theaters and 5,181 screens in the U.S. and Latin America – including the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo., scene of the mass shooting. The company does not appear to post its firearms policy on its website. WND’s after-hours calls and emails to Cinemark had not been returned at the time of this report.

Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told ABC News the Aurora Century 16 movie theater’s policy prohibits firearm carry.

That helps explain why no one shot back. It’s kind of hard to do so when your gun is locked in the trunk. Now, I tend to doubt Holmes targeted the movie theater because he knew of the policy – although he was certainly smart enough to have been aware of it and taken it into account – but this intentional disarming of the theater crowd should give gun advocates the ability to punch back twice as hard when the gun control activists do their usual song-and-dance in the post-mortem of a shooting.

Interracial illegitimacy

A few months ago, I commented that when I was at Disneyland, I saw white families, I saw black families, and I saw single white women with mulatto children. As it turns out, this wasn’t simple happenstance, because based on the statistics reported by the CDC, a white woman has better than a 2 in 3 chance of being married to the white father of her children. A black woman has slightly worse than a 1 in 3 chance of being married to the black father of her children. But a white woman has barely a 1 in 10 chance of being married to the black father of her children.

You can check the math and see the posts from Susan Walsh and Steve Sailer that inspired me to have a look at the data at Alpha Game.

This is why you must carry

The Batman shooting in Denver:

A masked gunman shot dead 14 people and wounded 50 others at a midnight screening of the new Batman movie in Denver. The 6ft tall man, dressed in black and wearing a gas mask opened fire at the showing of The Dark Knight Rises in a mall in Aurora, Colorado and set off a smoke or tear gas bomb.

Witnesses said that the man, thought to be in his early twenties, burst through the emergency exit at the front of the auditorium, wearing body armour, and began firing into the audience with a rifle and two handguns as he made his way up the stairs, picking his victims at random.

It will be interesting to see if Obama is dumb enough to try running on gun control after this. The gas mask bit is certainly unusual and one wonders if the shooter was inspired by Bane or perhaps the local airport.

Mailvox: a correction on Hazlitt

I finally banned the highly unpleasant Unger a few days ago, after first forcing him to back up his claim about my supposed errors on the subject of free trade, then examining those claims and determining them to be almost entirely false. I don’t mind being criticized in the slightest, but the mistakes have to be genuine and the corrections not only correct, but substantive, otherwise the criticism is actually worse than worthless because it reduces the amount of attention that can be paid to more significant matters.

I value substantive criticism, which is why I am willing to tolerate highly critical jerks so long as their criticism is dialectical and correct, or at least reasonably founded. On the other hand, I’m not the least bit interested in rhetorical critics or permitting dogmatic ideologues to litter the comments with their emotional incontinence here on a regular basis.

That being said, Unger did point out one legitimate mistake when I wrote “Here Hazlitt ironically forgets that as a champion of free trade, he cannot assume an increased tariff of $5 on sweaters means five cents less spent on 100 other American products.” I should have written “an increased price of $5 on sweaters”. Of course, he promptly revealed his customary intellectual dishonesty by making the ludicrous claim that this mistake not only rendered Hazlitt’s original point correct – it did not – but somehow invalidated everything I had written about the flaws in Hazlitt’s chapter on free trade.

In which I demonstrate a gross misreading and consequent misrepresentation of Hazlitt, which you’ve ignored for the better part of a week now, because I’m unarguably right and the point is critical enough to where the whole essay now needs to be scrapped.

The essay was more crap, and proof that Vox is singularly incapable of understanding an argument. I haven’t the time to go point by point, but Vox’s reasoning, or lack thereof, with regard to point 3, is typical of the piece, and since most of the other points depend in one way or another on the validity of that point’s reasoning, it make an excellent target. And since Vox didn’t even bother reading what Hazlitt actually said, it makes a very easy target.

First, Hazlitt said nothing about a $5 tariff on anything at all, least of all sweaters. Hazlitt wrote – emphasis added for the benefit of the semiliterate: “We can perhaps make this last point clearer by an exaggerated example. Suppose we make our tariff wall so high that it becomes absolutely prohibitive, and no imports come in from the outside world at all. Suppose, as a result of this, that the price of sweaters in America goes up only $5.”

Just to make absolutely sure that there’s no excuse for anyone to misunderstand what Hazlitt wrote – not that there was any excuse before, and not that it will stop some of you publik-skuled clowns from continuing to misunderstand: Hazlitt presents an hypothetical example of America isolating itself from the world. It once traded; henceforth it will not import anything. The country is not imposing a $5 tariff on sweaters or any other doodads. The actual tariff amount is left unspecified. It could be ten gazillion dollars per item for all anyone cares. The point is that it is prohibitive and completely effective. And the $5 figure Hazlitt gives is something else entirely – namely, the effect of this prohibition is to raise the price of sweaters $5.

Now you should see, immediately, that historical data like ‘imports presently represent 17.3 percent of GDP’ are irrelevant. If you do not, you’re a walking argument for eugenics, and I address myself solely to your intellectual betters. Under Hazlitt’s hypothetical example, imports represent precisely 0% of GDP, along with 0% of every other possible economic metric, and, while I don’t want to spoil anyone’s fun with any complicated math shit, I have to say that this likely has something to do with them not existing.

Shit. I said I was going to limit myself to (point) 3, but I can’t help but poke some fun at (point) 6, too. Yes, tariffs and the lack thereof are totally irrelevant to the question of employment. Barring legal restrictions, former steel workers can flip burgers, do laundry, or even sell their affectionate manly embraces for coin, and whether they will do any of those things or hold out for other employment has nothing whatsoever to do with trade theory. Any evidence purporting to show a link between trade policy and long-term unemployment is nonsensical, for the same reason any evidence purporting to show a link between trade policy and Martian ice cap expansion is nonsensical: the causes are elsewhere.

First, let me admit to my misreading. Unger was correct to point out that Hazlitt does not, as I had said, postulate the imposition of a $5 tariff on imported sweaters, but rather a complete ban on imports that has the effect of raising the prices of domestic sweaters by $5. So far, so good. Mea culpa.

However, Unger is completely wrong to claim that this mistake invalidated, or even altered in the slightest, my correction of Hazlitt and that this additional $5 now spent on sweaters means that 100 other domestic producers are not robbed of 5 cents each, but rather 4.14 cents apiece. His claim about the irrelevance of previous imports is not only incorrect, but underlines how his ability to reason is demonstrably lower than that of those he asserted were “a walking argument for eugenics”.

Unger himself admits that the tariff wall did not previously exist, but is a change from the previous situation. He writes of the nation-state: “It once traded; henceforth it will not import anything.” This means that of the additional $5 now being spent on the sweaters due to the unspecified tariff wall, 17.3 percent of it was previously being spent abroad, just as stated in the case of the erroneous $5 sweater tariff. The 100 other domestic producers cannot be losing the entire $5 amount to the sweater manufacturers because they were only receiving a maximum of the $4.14 cents that was being spent domestically anyway.

So, despite the misreading, my correction of Hazlitt stands. Moreoever, it should be readily apparent that because the erroneous substitution of a specific $5 tariff for an unspecified tariff wall with a $5 effect didn’t alter the correctness of my critique on that point, it is not critical enough to require the scrapping of the other 22 identifications of Hazlitt’s errors. This is little more than wishful thinking and blatant dishonesty on Unger’s part.

While I genuinely value honest criticism, this sort of exaggerated rhetoric is simply ridiculous, adds nothing to the debate, and in fact detracts significantly from it by wasting time on nonexistent and insubstantial matters rather than genuine ones. It would have been perfectly reasonable to simply point out the misreading without attempting to use the mistake as a foundation upon which to build a fictitious case in defense of Hazlitt. Some mistakes are critical, others are not, and the honest critic will always be careful to distinguish between the two. Note that I did not claim that Hazlitt’s 86-cent error in any way invalidated his entire case for free trade, it merely happened to be a minor mistake which tends to illustrate the careless and outdated nature of his reasoning.

UPDATE: Just to underline Unger’s unusual combination of ineptitude and dishonesty, he popped up here to complain about how I initially omitted the part now seen above in italics.

“How nice of you to ‘selectively quote’ (read: lie about) what I wrote. You left out a paragraph, which explained what Hazlitt said and why he was right. I said a few days ago that you weren’t a fraud, but it looks like I was wrong.”

Of course, I omitted it because it was irrelevant, neither helping his case nor hindering mine. In fact, I probably should have left it in, since “most of the other points depend in one way or another on the validity of that point’s reasoning” is obviously a false assertion. This sort of thing is precisely why I ban incompetent but energetic critics like Unger; it doesn’t matter how many times you show them to be wrong, they will just keep swinging wildly and ineffectively at you. Leaving out irrelevant elements of an argument is selectively quoting, but it is most certainly not lying about anything. Selective quoting can be dishonest but it is not, in itself, an indication of dishonesty by the person quoting.

The state of the kleptocracy

Barry Ritholtz provides a useful summary of the crimes committed by the financial sector, complete with links and sources:

Laundering money for drug cartels. See this, this, this and this (indeed, drug dealers kept the banking system afloat during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis)

Laundering money for terrorists

Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments.

Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide.

Charging “storage fees” to store gold bullion … without even buying or storing any gold . And raiding allocated gold accounts

Committing massive and pervasive fraud both when they initiated mortgage loans and when they foreclosed on them.

If it is not eminently clear that there is no rule of law whatsoever in the USA, this should suffice to prove it. It should come as no surprise that financial crime and corruption are on the upswing, as it has become increasingly obvious, even to those who don’t pay any attention to the financial sector, that the entire system is a criminal enterprise run by short-sighted financial gangsters. However, since they’re fast running out of other people’s cows to milk, as exhibited by the fact that less than one-third of the people who owe $1 trillion in school loans are repaying anything, the whole structure appears to be rapidly approaching collapse.

Some say it will end in fire (inflation), others in ice (deflation). But either way, it will end.

In the meantime, be sure to start a corporation and hire yourself before committing any crimes. Then fire yourself, and tell the police that you are no longer with the company when they come to investigate. They will then turn the matter over to the appropriate regulatory agency, which will fine the corporation about five percent of the profit you made from your illegal acts. This is what passes for criminal justice in America circa 2012.