It looks obvious

If it wasn’t sad it would be pretty funny.

The new campaign

And while we are on subject of wealth distribution from me to failing corporations I have short message to the Republicans congressmen from NY who voted today in favor of bailout - King, Knogllenberg, LaHood and LaTourette - you are never, ever, going to get any type of support from me - not a vote, not a donation, nothing! and I promise to donate and help any candidate that will run against you - from any party.

(via kids prefer cheese)

Here we go again: as part of the effort to promote as many and as comprehensive distractive policies as soon as possible the government is creating a new role, that will be a corner stone in nationalizing the car industry, of a Car Tzar. This decision is being justified by former horrible decision to protect failing corporations. And since these measure will not “save the economy”, and how could they?, they will not be the last.

In her excellent book, The forgotten Man, Amity Shales asks why it took the US so long to recover from the great depression. She answer and demonstrate how the policies of the New Deal worsen the depression and made it harder to recover. With the promises from another New Deal, and the signs of aggressive socialist policies, we are going to face a very long and dark winter.

This video is pretty famous by now. It is the great “We told you so” of those kind of Capitalists that always argued that money represent real value, creativity and productivity. Those who argued that when you create money out of thin air you create bubbles. But this is not the reason I link to this video today

Often when somebody want to criticize the out of control Consumerism culture they blame Capitalism. But listening carefully to this video, and to the Peter Schiff’s arguments will indicate the opposite - it is actually those who accept the Keynesian economics who advocate stimulus of the market by encouraging spending, and its the extreme use of this method that is in the base of the current crisis. The extreme capitalist in this debate argued for saving and slow down of the market not for irresponsible consumerism.

Despite his many shortcoming I really like old Fred:

(h/t QandO)

“Where once more-marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed by individual applicants and to price that risk appropriately. These improvements have led to rapid growth in subprime mortgage lending.”

The former chairman of the organization that many people hope will assume more responsibilities of oversight over the financial markets.

Short, and right on the money:

That’s how much Paulson’s plan might cost. That’s a lot of zeros. But, hey, no one said socialism was cheap, did they?

It is sad to see how the promise of individual liberty and freedom being destroyed, not because it failed but because it was poorly represented.

Recently the voices that calling for tighter control of the government on the market are much louder than usual. The crashing of investment banks and the threat of spreading the credit crisis into a full recession, along with massive tax money given as bailout to failing business, are among the reasons for such calls. But while many rushing to blame the risks of the free market, and the unreasonable greedy private sector, as a main reason to more government oversight - they are forgetting that the government had a major role in creating the credit crisis:

Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more “affordable” loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

[...]

The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.

[...]

In 1995, President Bill Clinton’s HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

So maybe instead of increasing government oversight we should do the opposite and simply reduce it?

Last month I learned that we are all Georgians now dragged into another stupid conflict without any clear understanding of the region, the forces and the consequences. Now I’m reading that I’m to be blamed in the credit and real estate crisis:

Liberals are blaming the banks, and conservatives the government, for the push into no money down housing purchases. But the fact is, we’re all at fault. Everyone in the country–buyers, sellers, financial advisors, bankers, regulators–became convinced that owning a home was a surefire ticket to wealth, and that therefore everyone could and should buy one. Now we’re surprised that we’ve gotten into exactly the same trouble as everyone else who thinks they’ve got a way to make money without working.

I’m sorry to disappoint those who are seeking to create false solidarity here - it isn’t my fault and taking my money to bailout people who made irresponsible decision is immoral. I took responsible loan I bought a smaller house than I would have wished too so it will be in my calculated budget, the only reason I’m being included in this mess is by making it harder on me to pay my own mortgage while saving other people - mostly bankers who were blinded by greed.

You might argue that providing safety net to those who cannot afford the house they bought and that saving the banking system is crucial for the economy. I would disagree with this argument but I think it is a valid one; however arguing that we are, all of us, in fault - and as a result should morally responsible to pay for the recovery effort - is plain simple wrong.

The wonderful Jan Helfeld, who in the past debated harry Ried whether taxes are voluntary or not, insist on an interview with Nancy Peloci to get an answer why her interns don’t deserve the same minimum wages she insist everybody else to pay. Unlike most interviewer Helfeld doesn’t move on when his questions are not being answered and the results are, to say the least, embarrassing.

I always thought that Peloci as an apparatchik, she is a political being that live and thrive on backdoor deals. But even I didn’t expect such low ability to form and protect an idea. And she is, together with the clown from the link above, the majority leaders - what a shame!

I’m developing higher level of sympathy to George McGovern. I really appreciate his intellectual honesty as it is demonstrated in this op-ed:

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

Words have meaning, and calling a law that will limit the choices of workers - because it will outlaw secret ballots - is not really the Employ Free Choice Act. It might give more power to workers unions, and the unions bosses, but this is hardly giving more choice to workers. One should wonder what are the real interests, and why are they being covered by misleading names, of such Orwellian attempts.