Our Idiot Brother: The Tea Party’s Relationship to Occupy Wall Street
I'm here for Occupy Basement.
We are products of our choices more than our environment. Perhaps nothing demonstrates this more than the stark difference between siblings. Two children born and raised in the same home by the same parents, taken to the same church, and taught in the same schools can nevertheless lead remarkably different lives. One may strive to achieve while the other slacks. One may obey the law while the other breaks it. One may take responsibility while the other places blame.
As Occupy Wall Street demonstrations carry on throughout the country, many commentators have made comparisons to the Tea Party. While there are far more contrasts between the two, there is nevertheless a relationship worth noting. In effect, Occupy Wall Street is the Tea Party’s younger, misguided sibling.
Tea Partiers and Occupiers are born of the same environment. Ideology does not affect reality. Whether you are a constitutional conservative or a rabble-rousing Marxist, we have all seen the American economy implode. We have all seen the housing bubble burst and the subsequent bailouts of banks and favored corporations. Likewise, we have all been privy to the gridlock in Washington, to the debates over the debt ceiling, government stimuli, and how to best recover from recession.
However, these events have been viewed from decisively different perspectives, producing wildly different protests. The consensus such as it is among Occupiers is that bankers, corporations, and the wealthy are to blame for the nation’s wrecked economy. The Tea Party recognizes that government is the chief actor. It’s not as though Goldman Sachs or Chrysler can tax Americans. Only government can do that. Only government can bail out private interests with public funds.
By failing to recognize the government’s role in the bailouts, Occupiers find themselves in the paradoxical position of advocating precisely what they claim to protest. Occupiers typically call for some form of wealth redistribution. They call for taxing the wealthy to provide for everyone else. What they don’t seem to realize is that the bailouts they claim to be against were precisely that! By definition, a government bailout is the seizure and redistribution of wealth to insulate bad actors from malinvestment. In that way, bailing out Wall Street is fundamentally no different than bailing out student loans (one of the Occupiers’ demands). One cannot be against the bailouts and for socialism, as they are one and the same.
Wrong. OWS is pure astroturf. The documentation is here:
http://owsmail.dc406.com/
and here: http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/10/16/journolist-2-0-occupydc-emails-show-msm-dylan-ratigan-working-with-protesters-to-craft-message/
Idiot brother is right. The main thing I get from nearly every OWS hippie wannabe is that they failed ECON 101 when they were getting their useless BAs.
Watch for the expedient logic of the amygdala. It beats reason flat on the basis of speed, and it takes peer assent as proof of validity, so it propels mobs with great efficacy. Being part of our reflexive arsenal, unbridled anger can be exploited by these who specialize in the manipulation of the discontents, a.k.a. community organizers, including those in high places. So, occupiers, please tell by which margin can you claim to be better than animals?
Watch for the expedient logic of the amygdala.
And don’t forget the primitive brain/limbic system buried deep underneath that nasty (reasoning) cerebrum.
Let’s not forget the perils of letting your Johnson do your thinking for you. The unchecked willy has brought down many a country.
It’s the size of the prefrontal lobe that counts.
That clearly explains my hard head.
Unemployed blue collar workers and less than smart whites are holding hands demanding a return to the good old days. Protests will not help, they must accept two jobs at the local fast food restaurants. Better days will not return.
Better days will return but not because of anything the Government does.
Notice John Stewart isn’t out protesting the protestors like he did last year.
By appearances alone, few of the OWS protesters look like they are willing to put forth any effort to secure the kind of job that starts before 11 am. Nor do many look like people that I would want to hire. That is to say, if you want a decent job, shave, get a decent haircut, take that jewelry out of your piercings, cover your ill-advised tattoos, and above all, take a bath and put on clean, ironed clothing.
I have never been one to bow to “the man”, but sometimes you have to play by the rules if you want to be on the winning side of the game.
What I see when I look at OWS are a bunch of kids who think that people who have money, never worked for it. I know, I spent my 20′s looking for that high-paying, low-work job. Thank God, the government refised to subsidize me (may have had something to do with being white, single, and male). I finally got tired of mac and cheese and ramen dinners. I realized that I probably had to get up at 5 am if I ever wanted to get anywhere. I still hate getting up in the early morning, but I do it, because I know that I’m the only one who can make me succeed. It’s called growing up. Something the OWS crowd refuses to do.
Tom T. The good news is, or maybe it’s the bad, that when you hit 60, you’ll be up at 5 A.M. whether you want to or not. Nothing for nothing.
Yeah, up at 5:00 am, and 1:00 am, and 3:00 am.
Also 60. I advise you to get that prostrate checked before you do a Frank Zapa.
I finally sucked it up and joined the protest last evening. Living on the Upper East Side makes it a bit easier for me than if I lived in some backwater, like Delaware. And that’s what I am compelled to reveal here, in the hope of getting at least one Cheneyite to understand. You know what we all say: we spend billions and billions on education, but if it can make the difference in the life of just one child, then all of the billions are worth it. I wholeheartedly agree with that maxim, and thus apply it here.
At the protest, I met “Bob”, a young unemployed man from a place I only knew as Delaware. Bob is a fascinating young man, 34 years of age, a graduate of a school called the University of Delaware, or something like that, and holds a degree in Modern Art, as well as a Masters in Ancient Irish Literature. A well traveled boy, he spent several years back packing throughout Europe (dreamy!) and worked for impoverished Africans in the Peace Corp. As I’m sure you all realize, Bob is the picture perfect example of everything we hope for in a new American male. The problem is that Bob now wants to take a different direction in his life. He wants to find a decent paying job that provides solid French benefits, and settle down with his new friend, who I’ll call “Mark”. Yet this proud, young, highly educated, motivated, and traveled boy can’t find anything except low paying wages as a waiter at a place called The Olive Garden and as a karaoke MC.
So this begs the question: do we not all owe this boy a helping hand? Is he not so valuable a member of society that we would all BENEFIT by helping him to be a productive, working member of the working classes, at the least? I gave Bob some money and my mocha latte, of which I had a whole thermos full. Please take this example of Bob and give it all some thought. Please.
PS: can’t wait to hit the protest tonight, after pilates! I’ll keep you updated!
Bob is likely a product of…
The University of Delaware’s indoctrination deal, thank God suspended since Bob’s daze there
I really hope this is snark.
Welcome to the fantasy-laden realm of LE’s imagination. You must give him some credit for creativity.
Here’s hoping that sarcasm is sometimes too thinly veiled.
“He wants to find a decent paying job that provides solid French benefits”
Tell him to become a muslim as France is an islamic nation now..
Oh and tell him his boyfriend Mark had better convert too. I hear Muslims aren’t very tolerant of other religions…….Oh, wait, one other thing…..about that boyfriend thing….
Lovely,
Your letter sounds so ridiculous, that I’m willing to bet you might be a troll.
Poor decisions bring bad consequences. Perhaps you should re-read the “Ant and the Grasshopper” story.
I take it that your definition of “New American Male” is some form of sensitive, yet worthless, girly boy. When you say he wants a “decent job with French(sic) benefits”, I’m sure he means something that’s low-pressure, well-paying, with no time clock, and attendance is optional. Good luck finding that one.
Sounds like he’s had a pretty good life so far, all on someone else’s dime. Isn’t it time for him to get his hands dirty and contribute something to society? Last I knew, Itinerant Philosopher wasn’t being posted on the help wanted sites.
Love you, LovelyEarth.
Always read you comments. Makes my day. Just one thing, “French benefits”??? If so, I hope he does get them, with his credentials, these are the only benefits he deserves. Not sure about job at Olive Garden thought.
Thanks for a laugh.
Skydiver,
Did I miss the obvious? Was it all “satire”. If so, my face is sure red.
Tom,
Read it again. It really helps to keep the theme of the article in your mind. She is GOOD. I think LevelyEarth is she, thou I might be mistaken. It’s just the sarcasm is pure….woman.
Regards,
Anatoly.
Lovely is a Loki troll. Sometimes s/he’s funny, sometimes not, but the one thing LE is NOT is genuine.
Damn you’re good! You have them nailed.
Merely taking the other’s side is intellectually lazy and not funny or satire; try a different line of patter for cryin’ out loud.
Jane, what shall I do to make you feel better about what all these other folks call “satire”. Hmmmm? Or are you bothered by the fact that I mean all of that which I espouse? Every little morsel. Every tiny-bitty crumb of it. Oh Jane, oh poor Jane……….
Lovely,
You do write very eloquent prose. I could almost see a Red Hat in my mind’s eye. I should have flagged it when you said Bob had a BA in Modern Art and an MA in Ancient Irish Literature (insert Irish Literature joke here). It was one of those over-the-top, too cliched descriptions to be true. But I’m quite amused, nonetheless.
Jane, satire is the one of the highest forms of writing and under-appreciated here in the States. When done right, satire should leave the reader with just a hint that something’s amiss. The fact that Lovely “got” some of us is a testament to “her” abilities. I tip my hat.
Somebody, please, help poor Jane up.
It’s not the content but the utter repetition of the format and for months on end. It has all the humor of the droning of an insect. BzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzSawMonkey take note.
The satire is appreciated.
In another era “Bob” might have been OK. He has (presumably) at least the ability to read and write. He was able to present at least enough cogent critical thinking to convince someone in an obscure liberal arts department to award him a graduate degree. He spent a few years gaining some sort of experience, getting his youthful ya yas out of the way and might want to settle down to reality now.
In another era there was someone, maybe his dad, or “Mark’s” family, or his uncle Bill, or someone connected to him who had a business. Could be carpet store, grocery, billing or delivery service, some kind of family business, who would find a place for him. Uncle Bill has mentored young people before and some of them have become very valuable in keeping the business running. Maybe the guy could have made something of it if he really wanted to if that option were open.
He has a point. Uncle Bill’s carpet chain was bought out by a larger corporation. The family run grocery has folded. The market is now dominated by big corporations who have very different concerns. He is angry that this happened while he was doing all that other stuff. These are the folks who do not get interviews now. They are not qualified in this tough environment.
Given that, sure he made a bad choice. He did not bother to think about his future and now finds that he has no prospects. He could have become an engineer, dentist, IT specialist, or nurse but did not. Now what?
Well I have no easy answer to him. This is what the world has become and it is not going to get better anytime soon. Dig in young man because it is tougher than when I was your age.
I must ask the obvious. What are the Peace Corp folks hoping to accomplish when they send some jackass with a masters in ancient Irish literature to live among poor impoverished souls in Africa? Since he apparently knows how to be a successful student I suggest that he enrolls at Purdue or Iowa State and gets a degree in Agronomy and then return to Africa with the ability to make a worthwhile contribution. My god, you must be able to get into the Peace Corps with a degree in Thumbsucking!
I think it might be better if he managed something with engineering(thought perhaps this part of engineering is subsumed under agronomy). Developing more effective irrigation methods of even water pumps that can be powered where gasoline is both rare and expensive.
An interesting experience of mine back from high school was in the our Model United Nations, which might have actually gotten more decided than the real thing, and we got nothing done. Digressing, a bunch of generally well-enough white kids spent a while discussing the issue of starvation in Africa, quite a few of them quoting the oft-used “Give a man a fish..” saying, until they brought in a guest from Africa, who rather patiently, considering who he was speaking with, explained that they really did know how to farm but drought and sometimes over-farming areas to the point of needing fertilizer which they couldn’t afford was part of the bigger problem. I don’t think he particularly mentioned the corrupt governments but those are undoubtedly the other large part.
This discussion on education just reminded of that situation, not saying that anyone is suggesting the sort of youthful naivete here, though I’ve sure heard it on the radio.
“but if it can make the difference in the life of just one child, then all of the billions are worth it.”
Great parody, funniest riff I’ve read all day!
“You know what we all say: we spend billions and billions on education, but if it can make the difference in the life of just one child, then all of the billions are worth it.”
Very funny, thanks! For some reason, this sentence made me think of the last scene of the movie “Amadeus,” in which the now elderly Salieri finally realizes and accepts his true calling as the patron saint of mediocrity, and goes around the nursing home blessing all of us underachievers.
“The answer is a lack of maturity.”
Nail, head. The liberal mind is essentially a child’s mind; one that refuses to grow up, one that refuses to abandon magical thinking or admit hard reality, nor accept responsibility for itself.
You nailed it too. Liberals are so out of touch with reality its frightening. It’s like they are in never never land where food/cloths/ipads grow on tress and no one needs to work to survive!
We as a people have had it too easy for too long, which has bred some people to not get reality. That its hard work to live and survive. The fact we have shelter and food so easily is from our ancestors hard work.
Reality is: We are not far removed from going back to eeking out a life in a hut.
Then where will these people be when they actually have to grow food, build their own shelter and NO one around to pay for it cause everyone else is struggling to get by as well.
We are a soft nation now……just wait until our enemies realize HOW weak we are and get the balls to do something about it….
Your post reminded me of an old quote that summarizes the liberal mindset to a “t”.
“Reality is just a crutch for people who can’t handle drugs.”
― Robin P. Williams
Bob could become a Muslim in England, where a huge number of Islamic radicals live on the dole.
They, too, have lots of free time to rant and rave in the streets.
that was to vangrungy #7
– what a concept!
The OWS crowd has now been granted understanding from Mitt Romney and Eric Cantor. Compassion is next.
Jimmah Carter’s main guy Zbigniew Brzezinski just said on daughter Mika’s MSNBC show that we need to make a list of “the rich”, apparently in the interests of the unwashed and brain dead being more able to pick them out.
Perhaps a tattoo on the forehead ? A number on the wrist ?
(Mika and Dad, as a function of income, should get the tattoos)
Zbigniew is the same guy who advocated shooting down Israeli airplanes over Iraqi airspace if Israel decided to move on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Brain deader and brain deader.
They could force the rich to wear green dollar signs on their clothing. If the rich happen to be Jewish, there’s always the yellow Star of David symbol for historical accuracy.
Seriously, I wonder about people like Zbigniew Brzezinski. Is he oblivious to how his stupid ideas sound to sane people?
Zbigniew Brzezinski is simply an evil person. Like Carter and Obama, he furthers the agenda of Islamic expansionism every chance he gets.
Walter Hudson – I beg to differ with one of your sentences. You wrote: ‘Occupiers appear to be instinctively aware that their wealth has been among that plundered.’ Maybe their parents’ wealth has been plundered, but not theirs, at least not yet. At the moment, they have no wealth, just debt (student loans). If they default on their debt, which I fully expect them to do, those whose wealth will be plundered will be the lenders who forked over money so the occupiers could get their useless degrees; ultimately, though, it will be the wealth of the taxpayers that will be plundered.
BTW If the Occupy movement demonstrators really wanted to do something useful, they would demonstrate at their respective colleges for not providing them with adequate career counseling and decent college advisors.
You may be right, Jack. It’s tough to get inside people’s heads, especially when they are illogical. I may be giving the Occupiers too much credit. Regardless, the point is they don’t realize that the bank bailout was every bit the socialist exercise they champion.
In effect, Occupy Wall Street is the Tea Party’s younger, misguided sibling…This is what makes the Occupiers idiot brothers of the Tea Party. Both movements are driven by the same impulse, but toward different ends by a completely different understanding.
Well written article, but I resist any comparisons…at all. One group is for preservation, of liberty, of the Republic, the other is for destruction, of anything and everything.
I find it reprehensible that this President and liberals in general are latching onto the “occupiers” as a desperate measure to shore up democrats as they go down the drain.
Criminally irresponsible.
I hope people are beginning to see the left and the Democrat party for what it really is. Many of us learned this lesson at Chicago’s 1968 Democrat convention.
The comparison is valuable. It highlights what many of us have long known to be true. Regardless of one’s politics, there is no escaping economic reality. The fact that these Occupiers object to socialism in practice, even while advocating it principle, is a testament to socialism’s innate injustice. In other words, socialism is so self-evidently wrong that even its advocates moan under its weight.
“‘I want to own my own catering company. I want to start my own cafe. I want to start my own non-profit…What’s stopping me? My own lack of unmotivation.’ – actual quote from real Occupier”
A lack of the ability to construct a coherent sentence in English seems to be in residence as well. (Extra credit for anyone who can spot the word which negates his entire whine.)
“Do Occupiers want to pay for their neighbor’s mortgage? Clearly not. Otherwise, they wouldn’t object to the bailouts. So what’s the divide? How does one start from the same basic objection and reach the polar opposite prescription?”
Simply that, while they certainly do not want to “pay their neighbor’s mortgage”, they expect everybody else to pay THEIRS.
This is a “revolt” of the sons and daughters of the privileged elite; who else goes to a high-end college for a degree in something like Critical Dance Theory, or backpacks around Europe for half their peak earning years for the “experience”?
By comparison, Douglas Adams did it for one summer, wrote a radio show, TV show, and series of books about it, and got filthy stinking rich as a result. THEN, he went around the world looking at the pretty places- and wrote a book about that, too. (Look up “The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” and its sequels, plus “Last Chance to See”.) And please note, he did most of it while living under the UK’s confiscatory tax structure, to boot.
We are being screamed at by people who expect the rest of us to pay them to do things we generally define as a “bad investment”. (Not to mention “mildly to extremely silly”.) In the case of the arty types, I’d suggest contacting the John & Catherine MacArthur Foundation, as they actually have programs to fund this sort of thing.
As for the rest… clean up the park before you leave, please.
clear ether
eon
Grammatically, the word is “unmotivation”.
Morally and intellectually, it’s the oft-repeated “I want”.
We have a winner!
cheers
eon
(Extra credit for anyone who can spot the word which negates his entire whine.)
You give extra credit so easily
Not to mention that unmotivation isn’t really a word.
True, but “unmotivated” is, being a word I was taught (in Psychology class) to use to describe people I otherwise referred to by the term I learned from my uncle; lazy-a$$ goldbricks. (He was a Master Sergeant, U.S. Army Transport Command, with Patton’s Third Army.)
“Unmotivated” isn’t supposed to hurt their feelings, I was told. I’m still trying to understand why they need to be coddled to that degree as adults.
My father died when I was 13. I was the “man of the house” from then on, and I’m 53 now. I see a lot of people in their twenties and thirties who still have the sort of don’t-bug-me-with-reality-man mindset I had to put up with from my “peers” in high school and college.
I’m wondering when this lot is going to grow up.
cheers
eon
They’re not, eon.
Here’s my take on it.
If we subscribe to the idea that Wall Street owns the banks and our government, then how did the government force the banks to make all of these crappy loans unless the banks were complicit in orchestrating the entire fiasco? Perhaps I am splitting linguistic hairs here, but what you insist on calling a “bailout” is nothing more than the completion of the deal that was made between our elected representatives, the banking industry and the marxists. That was the deal wasn’t it? The bank makes the loans and the government pays them off when the bubble collapses after they cash in after selling their own stock short?
The OWS group should grow roots in Wall St. and sit in their own filth for eternity. Ask me, they deserve each other.
You’re on to something there, although I see it a little differently. Yes, the bailouts were the last phase of a deal. But the ultimate beneficiaries were those who received real assets without trading value for value – the sub-prime mortgage holders living in houses not paid for. In other words, the real bailout was the establishment of Freddie and Fannie and the implementation of the Community Reinvestment Act. The later bank bailouts which have received all the attention were just the consequence, like a sonic boom drawing attention to an object long gone. If there is anyone to blame other than the government, it is the people who took out those mortgages. Its the homeowners that got bailed out. The banks are just patsies. The banks had virtually no choice in the matter.
“The banks had virtually no choice in the matter.”
Wow. Congratulations on submitting perhaps the dumbest statement anyone has ever made, anywhere, on any topic.
These are really interesting times. I wonder if they will clean the park before they leave or whether they will fully trash it. Perhaps they will not leave the park for decades, raising their children there. Perhaps the governor will call in the National Guard to clear the park. Perhaps they will stay until spring and then redecorate before they leave. Perhaps they will secede. There was a movement a while back to purchase large ships, tying them together out in the ocean and starting a new country. Perhaps they will whimper into oblivion or be cut down when they try to murder those who work across the street. Maybe some will become politicians, while others will teach kindergarten. Did I miss anything?
The banks aren’t exactly blameless.
They packaged up subprime mortgages and sold these securities to unsuspecting investors as if these were safe securities.
The rating agencies like Moody’s, which were paid by these banks to rate their securities (a blatant conflict of interest), overrated those securities as safe AAA investments.
True, there was “insurance” available in the form of credit default swap derivatives. But having sold off over $40 trillion (yes, trillion) of those CDS’s, there was no way that any private company had the resources to pay off to make investors whole if something went wrong.
They could get away with this because they knew that Uncle Sugar would bail them out if anything went wrong. Just like the Savings & Loans were bailed out in the 1980s.
But that doesn’t excuse their shamefully unethical behavior. The fact that they could get a bailout from the Government once their little scam was exposed didn’t mean they were right to conduct that scam.
We conservatives should talk about job creators, not scam artists. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates created jobs. Small businesses create jobs. But what the banks created was a financial collapse and they damaged our country. And we should NOT be defending them, but demanding that they clean up their act.
Absolutely. But how do we do so *from the right* without supporting the current crop of OWS freakazoids?
I’ll believe OWS is “real” when I see Mom, Dad, and the kids down there protesting. Right now, all I see is hippies, freaks, and communists. Not people who should be influencing politics anymore than fat-cat businessmen should be.
I can’t argue your moral point. However, I see no reason to focus on it. Implementation of a truly free market would be more than sufficient “insistence” that banks “clean up their act.” What you’re saying is kind of like arguing that people shouldn’t steal regardless of their liklihood to be caught. That’s true. But we still need a system which punishes immoral behavior. The market, left to its own devices, punishes malinvestment.
The banks behaved like capitalist institutions when they issued subprime debt. They took advantage of government’s view of themselves as omniscient. Get government out of business and business will take risks that are within their means to control sans government bailout. It is the well known problem of “moral hazard.”
That’s exactly right. The role of governor is distinct from businessman or head of household. I’m going to pursue my best interest within the system I find myself in. Individuals cannot compensate for systematic injustice. The system must be put right. Being the one guy who doesn’t play is just sacrificing yourself.
A lot of people do that. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve encountered that shrug off their potential because they object to the world they live in. Well, no one ever changed the world by warming the bench. You have to play the game with today’s rules in order to position yourself to change them.
Campaign finance is a good example. I find campaign finance laws immoral and abhor them on principle. But if I want to be politically active, I have to do so within the confines of the system as is, which includes holding the opposition accountable to rules I don’t think should exist. Otherwise, the bad guys get an unassailable advantage from the status quo.
The motto of the OWS crowd, Gen X, Gen this and Gen that, and ultimately, most of the Baby Boomers is this:
Rather than being a cute saying seen on a bumper sticker, it is, in fact, a terrifyingly accurate indictment of several generations.
We see the fruits of it every day, and they are rotten.
Tea Party and OWS:
They are both protests. They are both protests against larger systems from which they feel oppression.
One wants to stop being bitten on their own hand which feeds the system. The other wants to put the bite on the hand that is not feeding them enough.
This happens to me a lot. I wasn’t thrilled with the way the war in Iraq was going back in 2005, but I couldn’t bring myself to make common cause with the freaks of the anti-war movement. Same here – the financial system and government are screwed up, but I won’t rush under the big tent with the hippies, communists, and spoiled college babies.
Everybody wants to improve our situation. Everybody has different solutions. Nobody knows which one is “right.” And nobody’s really in charge. So I’m content to stay on the conservative site, fight for the conservative side, and avoid doing anything that will give the freaks any more political capital than they already have.
It’s not all about economics and politics. Some of it’s cultural. The culture I see in the OWS movement is not something I want to be involved in.
“Nobody knows which one is ‘right.’”
If you haven’t already, read Atlas Shrugged. You may find it insightful.
I hear you. Unfortunately, Randian principles aren’t in the mix at the moment. Maybe someday…
John Galt’s solution in Atlas Shrugged just might be the key.
The producers withdraw, and then the street wallowers can blissfully wallow in what they have left after that.
No lattes, no sleeping bags, no clothes, no boom boxes and no music to dance in the street.
No indoor plumbing at the McDonald’s across the street, no showers at the guy’s apartment down the block.
And that’s just for starters.
The key chapter in Atlas Shrugged:
John Galt’s Speech
Occupy Wall Street Protesters sing F**k the USA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3eetvHeSvg
This is the Obambi voter base in action and Obambi right on cue is endorsing them. Remember that if you ever lose your mind enough to think that four more years of the Disaster USURPER HUSSEIN will be good for America.
That is why I’d rather have a full bottle in front of me than a pre frontal lobotomy. LOL
Walter’s point about sub-prime borrower responsibility is well taken. But then again, this was a very well conceived trap. In the words of H.L.Mencken, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” And no one did…at least no one at the top did. Blaming the borrower is kinda like blaming a squirrel stuck in a trap for liking peanut butter. Which brings me to my point, speaking truth to squirrels, why don’t we try it?
It would seem to me that on a very fundamental level that there is common ground between elements of the OWS movement and the Tea Party. For one, each of us recognizes that there is a need for change on both Wall St. and in Washington. By opposing the Occupiers, we support the establishment by agreeing to cancel our votes. The theme for the remainder of this Presidential campaign will be “divide and conquer”. I would suggest joining with the Occupiers in order to advance a single issue that could save the Republic. Term Limits.
Anton Shrek wrote, “Blaming the borrower is kinda like blaming a squirrel stuck in a trap for liking peanut butter.”
How quaint – comparing humans to squirrels. Let me tell you something about squirrels. They learn from the experiences of their contemporaries. Seeing their litter mates in the humane trap teaches them to forego the peanut butter or cat food. Probably humans could learn similar lessons!
“Blaming the borrower is kinda like blaming a squirrel stuck in a trap for liking peanut butter.”
It’s certainly true that people can be short-sighted. Peanut butter looks good to a squirrel. A house looks good to a qualifying borrower.
However, the difference between the two is significant. If we give in to the sentiment that people are stupid and can’t help being so, we concede the fundamental premise of the Left – that the masses must be herded like cattle by the state. The fact of the matter is man has volition, while squirrel’s do not. So I can blame man for his decisions. And I do.
Again, if we had a free market, the combined intelligence of independent actors in the economy would be higher. The borrower may be stupid enough to take a loan he shouldn’t. But the loan officer won’t be stupid enough to offer it without the government guarantee. Bill Whittle has a great analogy he uses to make this point. He talks about the impact of multiple processors in a computer. Each human being acting upon his own judgment in a free market is like a separate processor. As in a computer, even if some processors in the chain are slower than others, the overall capacity of the machine (the economy) is greatly improved by more processors. This is the essence of the Invisible Hand. Many minds make light work of economic decisions, enabling much smoother and much smaller corrections than seen in a cumbersome statist bureaucracy.
At any rate, you’ll never see a political alliance between OWS and the Tea Party, because each movement is ultimately pursuing opposite tracks. Term limits would not necessarily be a unifying issue. You need a broader principled consensus to sustain a coalition. One issue won’t cut it.
An interesting read, but that article kindly omits any mention of corporation influence IN the government, their ability to change the laws, regulations and stipulations (lobbying). Also, it fails to mention anything to do with the fact these banksters hedged bets that the people going out ‘irresponsibly’ over-reaching their finances and getting these mortgages, would in fact, cave and need foreclosing. (credit default swaps)
Where is the addressing of these issues? its like media black-out to mention that for the right leaning. Why is that?
Thanks, Runey.
The Peter Schiff blockquote explicitly mentions crony capitalism. Aside from that, implicit in advocacy for free markets is an end to state favoritism toward certain actors in the economy.
That said, when you say “corporation influence IN the government,” I imagine you mean more than favoritism. I imagine you mean the ability of corporations to participate in the political process. If so, any “omission” on my part is due to a fundamental disagreement on the nature of speech and its free exercise. I don’t think lobbying is evil in and of itself. I don’t think campaign contributions are evil in and of themselves. The problem is not that there’s too much money in politics. The problem is that government is empowered to do things it has no business doing. Were government confined to its sole purpose of protecting individual rights, there would be much less for corporations to buy with their lobbyists. Elections would no longer be a contest for control of a club with which to legally bludgeon the competition – economic or political.
You and I also appear to have a fundamental disagreement about the role of credit default swaps and other derivative instruments. I omit it because I find it irrelevant. You might as well blame sports betters for the outcome of a game. The price of these instruments signaled what was happening. It didn’t cause it to happen. The fact people bet against borrowers only demonstrates that they were intelligent enough to see the forest from the trees. What would you have had them do? What power did speculators have to make sub-prime loans serviceable?
Being able to describe patterns of interaction (in your case, between corporations and government agencies) is a primitive level of analysis. Sticking to this simplistic format leaves no options but revolution, thereby throwing out everything accompanied with much pain and suffering.
Better to devise changes that can reinstate competing forces to zero out their effects. That is how the brain works. Neurons fire in such a random fashion that small changes in stimulation input lead to changes in behavior. When too many neurons go off together, it results in pain, spasm, seizure or tics. The best system is sensitive to inputs from all sources. We had such a system of “checks and balances” until bills became too difficult for our elected representatives to understand, until the judges decided that precedent was useless in determining current decision and until the executive branch decided that large changes were more important than small changes. What we have here is the Peter Principle applied to an entire system. Pelosi’s comment to the House of Representatives about Obamacare is most emblematic of the stage we have reached in our ability to govern ourselves, i.e., “We’ll have to pass [Obamacare] to find out what’s in it.”