We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Remember that email I got from Tim Evans flagging up this? Well someone called James Tyler responded to it, also sending his reply to all of us on Tim’s list, with a link to this, which I likewise recommend. It’s a piece in Portfolio.com called “The End of Wall Street”, by the guy who wrote Liar’s Poker. I’m still reading the piece, but this is my favourite bit so far, about the observations of a man called Eisner:
More generally, the subprime market tapped a tranche of the American public that did not typically have anything to do with Wall Street. Lenders were making loans to people who, based on their credit ratings, were less creditworthy than 71 percent of the population. Eisman knew some of these people. One day, his housekeeper, a South American woman, told him that she was planning to buy a townhouse in Queens. “The price was absurd, and they were giving her a low-down-payment option-ARM,” says Eisman, who talked her into taking out a conventional fixed-rate mortgage. Next, the baby nurse he’d hired back in 1997 to take care of his newborn twin daughters phoned him. “She was this lovely woman from Jamaica,” he says. “One day she calls me and says she and her sister own five townhouses in Queens. I said, ‘How did that happen?'” It happened because after they bought the first one and its value rose, the lenders came and suggested they refinance and take out $250,000, which they used to buy another one. Then the price of that one rose too, and they repeated the experiment. “By the time they were done,” Eisman says, “they owned five of them, the market was falling, and they couldn’t make any of the payments.”
Paragraphs like that make me optimistic that statists just will not be able to pass the catastrophe off as a mere failure of unregulated capitalism. Yes the whole Sub-Prime thing was aided and abetted by Wall Street, big time. But it was set in motion by Washington politicians, and in particular politicians of the Democrat persuasion. This was, as we cannot repeat too often, a failure of the mixed economy, not of the extreme free market of the sort we here favour.
The folly of the Republicans, which has already been electorally punished, deservedly, was that most of them didn’t see it all coming and panicked when it did, and those that did smell the coffee were unable to do anything to soften the blows when the coffee exploded, or whatever. My guess is that there will soon be a cull of Washington Democrats as soon as the voters next get a culling opportunity – two years from now, right? And the big question is, what will the new intake’s take be on it all? But, as I often say on my personal blog when discussing gadgetry of various kinds beyond my understanding, what do I know?
UPDATE: Although, I’ve now finished reading the piece, and it is clear that its author derives no such anti-statist moral from his wretched story. Wall Street is the villain, and Wall Street is being justly, although very insufficiently, punished. Not a word about Democrats, or for that matter Republicans.
The email I got today about it from Tim Evans of the Libertarian Alliance started “Dear All”, so I don’t know how many other bloggers have already noticed and linked to this. But like Tim, I strongly recommend it, having watched it earlier today. It’s an American banker (who is also a follower of Ayn Rand) talking about the financial crisis, why it happened and what to do about it. The circumstances he describes so confidently, convincingly and knowledgeably are American, but the message of the talk is universal. He uses the word “interesting” a lot, by which he mostly means “disastrous”.
Apologies for not having any time left over from watching it to add any thoughts of my own. But the thing itself is so good that I am sure I will be forgiven for simply recommending this remarkable talk. I daresay some may even prefer this.
Life for me is hectic right now – for all the right reasons – but I wanted to quickly put up this link to an excellent commentary by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute, concerning the current US government’s drive against offshore tax havens, especially Switzerland. Governments such as that of the spendthrift US, UK and France are getting desperate for cash, and low-tax regimes which respect client confidentiality make for an easy target.
I can also recommend Dan’s recent book, co-authored with Chris Edwards, as a fine study of the whole case for tax havens and why they are a thoroughly good thing. Whenever you read someone arguing for ending “unfair tax competition”, what they really in fact want is to create a cartel. Most cartels, if not backed by states, tend to disintegrate in time, but are generally thought of as bad. Tax cartels are a prime example of cartels of the worst kind.
“What did you do during the recession, Daddy? I installed solar panels and wind turbines. If only Franklin Roosevelt had thought to put millions of Americans to work during the Depression doing make-work jobs that were gee-whiz futuristic…. Oh, that’s right. He did. And it didn’t work then, either. But this time is different, you know.”
– Nick Gillespie, at Reason’s Hit & Run blog.
Fraser Nelson at the Spectator has an interesting column at the moment about how Britain’s Tories have been influenced by the culture of California, specifically, the northern part of that great state. I think his analysis is fine but I would add some caution, given that the state is, or is about to go, bankrupt. Here is what I wrote in a comment over at the Coffee House blog:
For a while, the political culture of California, both the northern, Silicon Valley/Napa/San Francisco and the southern, Hollywood bit, had been libertarian: or to put it in US politicsspeak: conservative on economics, liberal on social issues.
More recently, as the near-bankruptcy of the state shows, the culture of the state has become socialist. Spending is out of control; the Green movement has stymied developments such as new electrric power plants. Many of its best entrepreneurs are fleeing to nearby Nevada, or further afield. California has an economy the size of France and is exhibiting France-like dirigisme.
I would urge the Tories to draw the right conclusions from this state, not to get too dazzled by the admittedly superb economic success of Google and the tecchies.
One of the things that I liked about northern California when I used to visit a good friend of mine in Steve Jobs’ back yard of Cupertino was that you might be sitting in a bar, drinking a coffee next to some pony-tailed dude in a Grateful Dead T-Shirt, and that the latter would be tapping away on his laptop about his latest round of venture capital funding before heading off down the gun range to fire in his new Glock.
A good historian of California is Kevin Starr. Check this out.
Here is a website that is obviously produced by people very, very angry about what they see as the one-sided coverage of Mr Obama in his recent victorious campaign. You do not have to buy into conspiracy theories to be alarmed at the fawning press coverage that Mr Obama received during the campaign. As for the treatment of the McCain/Palin ticket, while I am certainly no great fan of either, the hysteria over Mrs Palin’s personal life or supposed wing-nuttery over religion seemed totally out of proportion.
In the end, we get the media we do because the underlying philosophical assumptions of the public at large are reflected by it and at the same time, those assumptions are held by the media outlets themselves. It pains me to say it but in many respects, the US is now closer to the social-democratic, corporatist model of Europe than many in the US will want to admit. There will, I hope, be a backlash, but whether that backlash is a particularly libertarian one is not something I am very confident about at this point.
Thanks to fellow contributor Paul Marks to alerting me to this website.
Ever since Ezra Levant came to the attention of Samizdata readers, thanks to a posting by Perry just over a year ago, I have had his blog on my personal blogroll and have occasionally visited there. But I do not read all of it. Sometimes the sheer detail of Canadian politics becomes too much to endure. But this recent posting I did read, right through, with great pleasure. Some political hack called Warren Kinsella, who sounds like a cross between Alastair Campbell and Derek Draper, has sued Levant for defamation, demanding five million dollars. The idea was presumably to make people scared of Kinsella, and maybe it has. But not Levant.
Filing a $5-million lawsuit to try to silence questions about his Adscam involvement probably isn’t Kinsella’s smartest move. I’m not sure why someone who wants to stop people talking about Adscam would create a conversation-starter like a massive lawsuit. And then there’s the prickly matter of Kinsella subjecting himself (and his private documents) to unlimited cross-examination by me – I mean days or weeks, not the brief appearance he made before Justice John Gomery’s Inquiry.
What is Adscam, I wonder? Something that makes Kinsella look bad, presumably. I ask this to show how right Levant is about how this bizarre and way-over-the-top lawsuit causes faraway people like me with no direct interest in any of this to get drawn into the story. Levant is asking for donations. Defending against lawsuits like this, thanks to the internet, can now be paid for by sympathisers.
The bigger picture here, or part of it, is that the political left is losing its grip on the means of political communication, and it does not like it. Time was when people like Kinsella could get up to all kinds of mischief and nobody would say a word. If anyone did complain, the story would be told from Kinsella’s point of view and then forgotten. Thanks to people like Ezra Levant, those days are passing. But Kinsella seems to be having a problem adjusting to this new media reality. It looks to me like Kinsella is really suing Levant for the more elemental crime, if that’s the right phrase, of not grovelling. Levant doesn’t know his place. But Levant does know his place. It is Kinsella who no longer seems to understand his.
The bigger party political picture is that Kinsella risks damaging his political master. This is a certain Michael Ignatieff, known to Brits only as a talking head on late night culture shows on the telly, but now a Big Cheese politician in Canada.
It is the bicentennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. I came across this powerfully argued article stating what a great man he was. I strongly recommend it, particularly as it wrestles directly with the accusation, made by some writers in the libertarian camp, that Lincoln was some sort of demon. The author, David Mayer, argues that with some exceptions, the accusations made against Lincoln were and are unjustified.
Update: Well that was a bracing set of mostly hostile responses about Lincoln! A question that I would put to those who claim that the secessionists were justified and Lincoln was a monster is why are some libertarians so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a group of men who kept slaves and defended the practice? Several commenters argue that slavery was never what the civil war was about, but that is a bit like saying that the English Civil War was never about religion. Plainly it was a factor. Not necessarily as big as the Unionist defenders always claimed, but a factor nonetheless.
The buyers will take possession of this seat April 7, 2009 at 8:00pm and retain custody for 10 years.
Rent seekers and power crazed collectivists from the ruling class, your bids are recorded here.
Small government conservatives and people who believe in personal rights and responsibilities, your bids are recorded here.
Aaaannnnd, (suspenseful pause) as of February 2nd, 2009 the totals are:
Rent seeking collectivists and associated members of the ruling class – $1,068,551
Small government conservatives and supporters of individuals rights and responsibilities – $53,674
I often hear people on this blog and elsewhere say “the voters are idiots, we get what we deserve.” Leaving aside the grating sound of “we”, when the small government conservative is outbid by a 20 to 1 margin, there is no way the message of small government and liberty can be heard. Incidentally, over $20,000 of his $54,000 came from his own pocket. And while your at it, compare Abrahamson’s and Koschnick’s statements of financial interest. I thought the small government conservatives were supposed to be the rich ones.
MSNBC reports that:
The Capitol Hill publication Congressional Quarterly yesterday reported that the White House, responding to minority groups’ concerns about Gregg’s commitment to funding the census, has decided to have the director of the Census Bureau report directly to the White House.
Why am I expecting ACORN to get the census contract?
In Article I, Section 2 the US Constitution orders that “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
The Congress, by law directed that:
“The Secretary [of Commerce] shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate.”
As I read it, the Director of the Census must, by law, be within the Department of Commerce and under the direction of the (Senate approved) Secretary of Commerce who then reports to the president. Am I missing something?
Correction: From reading through Title 13, Chapter 1 it appears obvious to me that the POTUS has no role in the census whatsoever beyond, with Senate approval, selecting the Secretary of Commerce and, also with Senate approval, selecting the Director of the Census who ” shall perform such duties as may be imposed upon him by law, regulations, or orders of the Secretary.” Hhmmm… No president mentioned.
The Secretary of Commerce is the only authority the law recognizes. Since as commenter Laird points out, the Constitution did not place the census function in Article II – the Executive branch but in Article I – the Legislative branch, it is not at all within the President’s reach unless the legislature places it there.
I think that interpretation is supported by phrasing such as this taken from Subchapter 1 section 9 “No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall …”
The Secretary of Commerce does not even report his findings to the President, but rather is instructed to ‘publish’ them. It looks quite clear to me that any incursion by the White House after those two Senate approved appointments is clearly against the law.
Here is a collection of good articles attacking the massive US stimulus plan. Fair play to Andrew Sullivan for linking to them. There’s hope for him yet.
Nicolas Chatfort calls foul on the absurd sense of moral superiority trumpeted by Paul Krugman when the man’s own pronouncements are riddled with falsehoods
In a recent New York Times column, Paul Krugman wrote about what he called the bad faith of the opponents of President Obama’s economic stimulus plan. Krugman is apparently labouring under the view that his side has a monopoly of virtue in the current debate and that the Obama plan can not possibly be attacked on the merits. It must be comforting to be allied with people of such beneficence and infallibility.
Perhaps Krugman, however, should examine the good faith of his own claims before casting aspersions against his opponents. At first glance his counter arguments appear cogent, but a closer look reveals that Krugman is a master of illusion, employing many tricks that would do any sideshow magician proud.
First, Krugman assails the criticism that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created as being a bogus talking point. His reasoning is that this figure involves taking the multi-year cost of the program and divides it by the number of jobs created in just one year. Krugman claims that the true cost per job is closer to $100,000 – or even a net cost of only $60,000 if you take into account the higher taxes that would be generated from a stronger economy.
Let us examine this counter argument carefully as Krugman is employing some slight of hand here. He is pulling a switch by re-framing the costs from a total program basis to an annual basis. The critics of the plan never claimed that the $275,000 per job was an annual cost. By the way, the $275,000 per job estimate is generous as it cedes the point that the plan will create the 3 million new jobs claimed for it by President Obama. Not all economists believe that anywhere near this number of new jobs will be created under this plan. → Continue reading: On true ‘Bad Faith Economists’
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
