From his analyses of interaction in different groups, Georg Simmel concluded that groups often find it convenient to think of nonmembers or outsiders as somehow inferior to members of the group. But why does this familiar in-group/out-group bias develop? Simmel explained it as arising out of the intensity of interactions within the group, which leads its members to feel that other groups are less important. Once they have identified another group as inferior, it is not a great leap to think of its members as enemies, especially because doing so increases their sense of solidarity.
A perfect summation of how I am viewed/treated at TSM. Even more ironic considering that Simmel was a neo-Marxist and a contributor to the Frankfurt School.
33 comments:
From his analyses of interaction in different groups, Georg Simmel concluded that groups often find it convenient to think of nonmembers or outsiders as somehow inferior to members of the group.
A perfect summation of how I am viewed/treated at TSM.
But of course, no resemblance at all to how you view "The Cult"...
You give yourself far too much credit. The way you are viewed/treated at TSM is solely the result of of your own actions. You avoid addressing points that are troublesome for your ideology (thus the charge of running away), you habitually mischaracterize other people's positions in a way that is dishonest or simply untrue (thus the charge of arguing with the conservative in your head, rather than the ones right there), and you don't learn from or admit to your errors, seemingly preferring to repeat the same talking points, perhaps adding some different window dressing the next time you say them.
There is a reason DJ refers to you as teacher BOY. You argue like a child, and you have earned the title over the ~3 years you have lengthened comment threads at TSM. Simple as that.
Actually, what's simple is your Rovian response here. That's the problem with DJ as well. I've admitted significant error plenty of times here and there. By nature, I'm a very reflective person so I'm constantly question my ideology and beliefs which I view as being organic. Can you say the same thing for yourself? If so, please give me one example of just one tenet in conservative ideology is flawed.
Just one.
Unsurprisingly, you give an excellent example of the argument style that leads to such scorn from TSM. Line by line:
>Actually, what's simple is your Rovian response here. That's the problem with DJ as well.
A non-sequitor. What is a Rovian response, and what does it have to do with anything I said? I gave fairly explicit descriptions of the behaviors that have led to the low opinion TSM-ers have of you. Aside from claiming you do admit error, are also claiming that you don't engage in those other behaviors? If so, why not say so, instead of muddying the waters with claims of being "Rovian"? It's about as useful as my saying that you are being "Elmo-ian." You're just throwing buzzwords in there to try to distract. It doesn't work on TSM people either Mark. Sorry.
>I've admitted significant error plenty of times here and there.
Admitting you didn't understand the definition of "verbatim" when you used it doesn't count. (Actually, I don't think you ever admitted that.) I'm curious - where do you think you've admitted error? I'm talking seriously considered that some part of your ideology is flawed. Corporate force is a good example - you get hammered every time you bring it up, as you continually show examples of corporate force that .. require government complicity in order to work. Have you questioned your "we are dominated by corporations!!!" schtick, even though you haven't come up with a single example, much less demonstrated a trend, that corporate force is anything other than captured government? Nope.
>By nature, I'm a very reflective person so I'm constantly question my ideology and beliefs which I view as being organic.
This is funny. Somehow, your opinion of yourself seems to have been unjustifiable boosted. What kind of arrogant individual claims that it is "by their nature" to have good attributes x y and z? Anyway, I have read large amounts of your writing on TSM and here, so the idea that you even remotely reflective and question your ideology strikes me as utter nonsense, of course. Also note the addition of a buzzword, "organic." Why is that even necessary? Why must you pepper an already absurdly self aggrandizing statement with another meaningless word? I guess you think it makes you look good?
>Can you say the same thing for yourself?
No, I would most definitely not say it in such a nonsense way. I'd say that I always try to find errors in my thinking and priors. Errors are simply part of being an imperfect human.
>If so, please give me one example of just one tenet in conservative ideology is flawed.
Once again, you argue with the conservative inside your head, rather than the one that is here. I disagree with the right in just about every social-issue. I support gay marriage, for example, and support abortion. However, there is no one "conservative ideology." It is probably comforting to you to think that the people that oppose you are a monolithic bloc of knuckle dragging morons, but I'm afraid it isn't true. The people at TSM have been telling you this for some time, but unsurprisingly, you haven't listened. You may think it is clever to throw in buzzwords like "Rove!" or "Cult!" and considered your opponents vanquished, but it only works in your oversized head.
Your assessment of me is not accurate at all. If you take the time to look through this blog, you will see that I've admitted significant error on several occasions. DJ doesn't see this because he refuses to read my blog. How is that my fault?
I would point you to the series I did on Manzi in which I realized that my thoughts on good capitalism were no accurate at all. I've also changed my views on Reagan over the years and have talked about that on here as well. These are but two examples.
When I say "Rovian" I mean his classic tactic of attacking someone with what is, in fact, your greatest weakness. It would be like me (bald) ripping a man with a full head of hair for being bald. It makes no sense and yet it succeeds quite a bit for the current form of the GOP--which is very Cult like--since their ideology is largely based on the temperament of a 7 year old boy. So when you say that I avoid points that's wrong and TSM commenters do it all the time. When you say I'm not critical of my ideology, that's wrong and TSM commenters are the ones that are actually like this. When you say I mis-characterize people's views, that's wrong. I'm simply repeating their words back to them. And, honestly, they are the ones who mis-characterize me.
I think it's just dandy that you support gay marriage. But that's not what I am talking about. I'd like to see a significant critique of laissez faire economics. Or Friedman. How about a critique of the philosophy of strict constructionalism? This is what I mean by flaws in conservative ideology, not social issues. There are plenty of flaws in arguing for more regulation. I addressed these in the Manzi series. So, let's see some critical thinking about libertarian views. If you can't come up with any, then my point stands regarding ideology and Cult like behavior.
What's interesting about all of this is if you look at my blog and TSM, I'm the individual...the smallest minority. Most of the discussion comes from conservative minded people arguing for rugged individualism yet attacking from a collective...against an individual....ME. Quite ironic and the exact reason why I put up this quote.
I'm simply repeating their words back to them.
Then no doubt you can link to where someone besides you said (See: CEOs=Jesus), right?
"If you take the time to look through this blog, you will see that I've admitted significant error on several occasions."
"Admissions" you never seem to be able link to.
I've admitted significant error plenty of times here and there.
If you take the time to look through this blog, you will see that I've admitted significant error on several occasions.
Uh, M - those aren't the same. You are much closer on the second - I'd say you've admitted a couple of major errors and a few minor ones. But you CAN NOT admit such colossal blunders as Corporate Force; instead, you ignore the errors or insist that it is all OUR blindness to it. I can only understand that as religious belief - something you cling to bitterly in the vain hope that it will provide you some comfort.
I'm simply repeating their words back to them.
You mean like "Muslims taking over space"?
You mean like when you demonstrated astonishing obtuseness about the word "verbatim".
You mean like repeated ignoring actual comments placed before you while ranting about things NO ONE said?
There is a reason I've called you a cargo-cultist with respect to your grasp of conservative thought, i.e. you have no grasp and all you say is crude parody of the original. You would be much more honest admitting that you don't understand it rather than claiming to when you so obviously don't.
...you have no grasp and all you say is crude parody of the original.
See: "CEOs=Jesus"
I see Mark, so your overall response is "I know you are, but what am I?" That is why Kevin keeps you around though - you may not think you are avoiding points, mischaracterizing other people, or failing to admit error, but other people can fortunately see for themselves. To what you said:
>Your assessment of me is not accurate at all.
Well, gee, unsurprisingly, you aren't going to agree with an uncharitable view of yourself. Fortunately, there is a large body of work from which to draw, which I believe convincingly supports my assessment of you.
>DJ doesn't see this because he refuses to read my blog. How is that my fault?
Strange - you had plenty of opportunities to admit significant errors on TSM - why haven't you? Or maybe I missed them - surely you can link to them? Surely, also, you can link to the significant errors you admitted to on this blog (where in the Manzi series?) - Juris says you have, and I trust what he says more than you, but I'd be very curious if you actually took those errors and internalized them such that they informed your future thinking on the subject at hand. I really doubt it. Your writings lead me to believe that you are not an individual who has developed an effective feedback loop for your thinking, that is, taking in information, making an assertion based on that information, then retracting or modifying your assertion when reality doesn't match it. It's one reason why you regularly get creamed over at TSM - the people there are largely engineers, and having an effective feedback loop is an absolute *requirement* for having a job in that area, because you generally cannot hide the reality of how well an engineering solution works.
>When I say "Rovian" I mean his classic tactic of attacking someone with what is, in fact, your greatest weakness. It would be like me (bald) ripping a man with a full head of hair for being bald. It makes no sense and yet it succeeds quite a bit for the current form of the GOP--which is very Cult like--since their ideology is largely based on the temperament of a 7 year old boy.
(cont)
So wait, let me get this straight. You made the assertion you are treated a certain way at TSM because they think of you as an outsider and thus inferior to them. I countered and said that this is silly; there are three years of your behavior archived at TSM that more than adequately explain how you are treated. I gave examples of three of your habits that I felt were representative of this behavior. You counter that this is a "Rovian" tactic - that of giving you a different (and much more plausible, in my opinion) explanation for a phenomenon. Do you even know what a non-sequitor is? I'll ask you again - why do you pepper your statements with buzzwords and catch-phrases, when simply stating "I disagree" or "I disagree and think you are projecting" would be sufficient?
>So when you say that I avoid points that's wrong and TSM commenters do it all the time. When you say I'm not critical of my ideology, that's wrong and TSM commenters are the ones that are actually like this. When you say I mis-characterize people's views, that's wrong. I'm simply repeating their words back to them. And, honestly, they are the ones who mis-characterize me.
Since this amounts to "I know you are but what am I!", I'll repeat: I think the body of your work very convincingly supports my assessment of you.
>I think it's just dandy that you support gay marriage. But that's not what I am talking about. I'd like to see a significant critique of laissez faire economics. Or Friedman. How about a critique of the philosophy of strict constructionalism? This is what I mean by flaws in conservative ideology, not social issues. There are plenty of flaws in arguing for more regulation. I addressed these in the Manzi series. So, let's see some critical thinking about libertarian views. If you can't come up with any, then my point stands regarding ideology and Cult like behavior.
Lets see, you originally said this:
If so, please give me one example of just one tenet in conservative ideology is flawed.
and after having given you a large example, now you have decided to move the goalposts, and want to hear about specific parts of what you appear to think is conservative ideology. Or libertarian ideology. Or whatever. See what Mark has done though? He has changed the subject of the thread from himself to me - I must pass some kind of "questions ideology enough" litmus test based on Mark's criteria or Mark is free to ignore whatever I say. Do you even remember the original topic? To Mark, it doesn't matter whether something said makes sense - it matters first whether the person saying it has the right cred in order to say something worth listening to. Pay attention here Mark, this is known as a genetic fallacy, and you are one of the foremost practitioners of it. When someone says something, it is either true or not, regardless of what else that someone believes, and regardless of what you think of their ideology. Simply dismissing it is fallacious. Now, while I realize that I am playing Mark's little game by answering his question, I figure I will answer it to both to foreclose his flawed premise, though he'll probably try to take that route anyway, (If you can't come up with any, then my point stands regarding ideology and Cult like behavior.) and to see if he has the balls to double down. My problems with libertarianism primarily revolve around being over simplistic - markets do not solve every problem, especially when negative externalities exist, like pollution. Government is the only plausible entity to help in some of those cases. I also find that the belief that we can simply use our military for defense only is not realistic in this day and age. Not when WMD can potentially fall into the hands of people who would willingly kill innocents for their religion/ideology. I'm sure there will be libertarian people who might *gasp, I can't take it!!* disagree with me. Or wait, should I be mad that other libertarians might not toe the monolithic line that you have imagined everyone to your right toes? I've lost track. It's probably just easier to say that I'm part of the Cult, right?
>What's interesting about all of this is if you look at my blog and TSM, I'm the individual...the smallest minority. Most of the discussion comes from conservative minded people arguing for rugged individualism yet attacking from a collective...against an individual....ME. Quite ironic and the exact reason why I put up this quote.
Whoa man, deep. You know whats doubly super duper ironic? That you are a collectivist/statist individual complaining about how a collective of individualist individuals treats you.
Question for you Mark - have you ever worked in a career where merit was the primary means by which you were judged rather than seniority?
>I think it's just dandy that you support gay marriage. But that's not what I am talking about. I'd like to see a significant critique of laissez faire economics. Or Friedman. How about a critique of the philosophy of strict constructionalism? This is what I mean by flaws in conservative ideology, not social issues. There are plenty of flaws in arguing for more regulation. I addressed these in the Manzi series. So, let's see some critical thinking about libertarian views. If you can't come up with any, then my point stands regarding ideology and Cult like behavior.
Lets see, you originally said this:
If so, please give me one example of just one tenet in conservative ideology is flawed.
and after having given you a large example, now you have decided to move the goalposts, and want to hear about specific parts of what you appear to think is conservative ideology. Or libertarian ideology. Or whatever. See what Mark has done though? He has changed the subject of the thread from himself to me - I must pass some kind of "questions ideology enough" litmus test based on Mark's criteria or Mark is free to ignore whatever I say. Do you even remember the original topic? To Mark, it doesn't matter whether something said makes sense - it matters first whether the person saying it has the right cred in order to say something worth listening to. Pay attention here Mark, this is known as a genetic fallacy, and you are one of the foremost practitioners of it. When someone says something, it is either true or not, regardless of what else that someone believes, and regardless of what you think of their ideology. Simply dismissing it is fallacious. Now, while I realize that I am playing Mark's little game by answering his question, I figure I will answer it to both to foreclose his flawed premise, though he'll probably try to take that route anyway, (If you can't come up with any, then my point stands regarding ideology and Cult like behavior.) and to see if he has the balls to double down. My problems with libertarianism primarily revolve around being over simplistic - markets do not solve every problem, especially when negative externalities exist, like pollution. Government is the only plausible entity to help in some of those cases. I also find that the belief that we can simply use our military for defense only is not realistic in this day and age. Not when WMD can potentially fall into the hands of people who would willingly kill innocents for their religion/ideology. I'm sure there will be libertarian people who might *gasp, I can't take it!!* disagree with me. Or wait, should I be mad that other libertarians might not toe the monolithic line that you have imagined everyone to your right toes? I've lost track. It's probably just easier to say that I'm part of the Cult, right?
>What's interesting about all of this is if you look at my blog and TSM, I'm the individual...the smallest minority. Most of the discussion comes from conservative minded people arguing for rugged individualism yet attacking from a collective...against an individual....ME. Quite ironic and the exact reason why I put up this quote.
Whoa man, deep. You know whats doubly super duper ironic? That you are a collectivist/statist individual complaining about how a collective of individualist individuals treats you.
Question for you Mark - have you ever worked in a career where merit was the primary means by which you were judged rather than seniority?
"the people there are largely engineers, and having an effective feedback loop is an absolute *requirement* for having a job in that area, because you generally cannot hide the reality of how well an engineering solution works."
If that's the case, why have they not ever admitted that their ideas regarding the economy essentially failed? They still can't admit that the CRA had nothing to do with our current situation. I have explained to the reality that CRA only regulated banks and thrifts. They won't accept this. They start from "Gubmint Bad" and go from there. That's not how it works with me. I'm in a constant state of reflection. I thought George W. Bush was an awful president, for example, and actually made us less safe from extremists but I have to admit that his administration effectively disrupted their financial networks to the point of where they haven't been able to carry out any significant attacks. These are facts. Just as it is a fact that he ignored Pakistan to the point of where they are now more of a threat than any other country.
"why do you pepper your statements with buzzwords and catch-phrases, when simply stating "I disagree" or "I disagree and think you are projecting" would be sufficient?"
You mean like "do it again, only harder" or "let's nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure?" This would be why I say Rovian. You are attacking me with what is, in fact, your greatest weakness.
As to your last long comment, I reject your assessment that the goal posts were moved. There are plenty of Democrats who are against gay marriage and abortion. That's not a conservative tenet. These are social issues.
So, I'll ask you again...more specifically this time...and then we'll see who has merit, can admit significant error, and who gets "creamed" (aka, "I don't like what you are saying, Mark).
How did deregulation contribute to the fiscal crisis? What evidence is there that demonstrates a decided lack of government involvement in the financial sector? Why did crises such as this not occur in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s?
"How did deregulation contribute to the fiscal crisis?"
Begging the question
"What evidence is there that demonstrates a decided lack of government involvement in the financial sector?"
Begging the question
How about avoiding it, ED? I think Mark is looking for some criticism regarding deregulation. You are up to your usual tactics of throwing out fluff in the hopes of feeling better about clear failings. Can you be critical of deregulation?
If that's the case, why have they not ever admitted that their ideas regarding the economy essentially failed?
Because their ideas weren't actually in effect might be the reason. You see M - you are cargo-culting. You ape the words, but you don't understand them. You immediately go into your Pacific Islander dance of "gubmint bad" and then don't understand why they look at you so strangely.
I don't know what to tell you. You've made up your mind, you have your belief and I don't think any reason, fact or other aspect of reality will change that.
I don't see this as an failure of deregulation. The housing bubble was driven by the bi-partisan policy of excessively encouraging home ownership facilitated by bad loan-making policy. And yes, derivatives should've been better regulated (though there is a real old saying about fools and their money that also seems to apply). You keep insisting it was all the fault of evil, greedy banks and financiers - ignoring the many greedy PEOPLE flipping houses and/or over-borrowing. Everyone fully believed that housing just couldn't go down - and that kind of mania should be a clue to anyone who can rub two neurons together.
The crowning irony is that you insist on as simplistic, if not moreso, narrative than those you [incorrectly] criticize.
brendan,
Did you read the description of what "begging the question" is?
Actually, I'm hoping that Brendan doesn't answer your question, Ed, until you answer his. If the government is supposed to protect us against force or fraud, why do you defend private corporations and worship CEOs as if they are God?
If the government is supposed to protect us against force or fraud, why do you defend private corporations and worship CEOs as if they are God?
That is the single stupidest fucking question you have ever asked.
It is the equivalent of asking when you stopped beating your wife.
Haplo9 = ownage.
I don't worship CEOs so I guess I don't know who you are talking to when you say that.
>If that's the case, why have they not ever admitted that their ideas regarding the economy essentially failed?
Which ideas? When were they implemented? Be specific please. If you try to say "Bush's policies" then I'm afraid you lose. Bush's policies were most certainly not fiscally conservative, unless you are trying to smear conservatives by association. (Which you are more than likely trying to do here.)
>They still can't admit that the CRA had nothing to do with our current situation. I have explained to the reality that CRA only regulated banks and thrifts. They won't accept this. They start from "Gubmint Bad" and go from there.
Mark, here is a simple true/false question for you. Did the government, over time and controlled by both parties, encourage home ownership though a variety of policies? As the real estate bubble could be fairly characterized as a bubble in prices resulting from too much demand for a scarce housing resource, wouldn't it be logical to ask how much of that demand is the result of government actions? The CRA is just one of those policies. Can you link to where it was claimed that the CRA was entirely and solely at fault?
>That's not how it works with me. I'm in a constant state of reflection. I thought George W. Bush was an awful president, for example, and actually made us less safe from extremists but I have to admit that his administration effectively disrupted
You know, I thought your first response was a fluke, but it seems like you really do stroke your ego with this "i'm super reflective" stuff. Mark, I'll give you a free note on life - being reflective, or as you seem to think it, really, super, awesomely reflective, doesn't automatically make your opinions better or more valid than someone elses. It just means that you believe you have thought a lot about something. When you are wrong, you'll be no more or less wrong than someone who didn't think about it as much as you have and arrived at the same conclusion. Kudos for thinking Bush did one thing right, I guess. Why do you think that is important? You seem to think that proving your "reflective" bona fides in one area carries over to other areas. Let me be the first to disabuse you of that notion.
>You mean like "do it again, only harder" or "let's nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure?" This would be why I say Rovian. You are attacking me with what is, in fact, your greatest weakness.
You're right, I should have clarified. Why do you pepper your statements with nonsensical buzzwords and catch-phrases? When someone says "do it again, only harder", or "let's nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" it isn't exactly a mystery what they mean. When you say, "my ideology and beliefs which I view as being organic." or respond to something by saying it's "Rovian", you're just throwing words in there for the hell of it. (In case it wasn't clear, "organic" and "Rovian" are the key words of confusion there.) I suppose that the last time I met people that talked like that in order to bloat their egos, I was in school, so it's not entirely surprising that you would do the same.
>So, I'll ask you again...more specifically this time...and then we'll see who has merit, can admit significant error, and who gets "creamed" (aka, "I don't like what you are saying, Mark). How did deregulation contribute to the fiscal crisis? What evidence is there that demonstrates a decided lack of government involvement in the financial sector? Why did crises such as this not occur in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s?
Lets review how we got here, because this is pretty funny. (Some paraphrasing going on here.)
1. Mark says that he is treated badly in TSM because they think he is an inferior outsider.
2. I say, no, you are treated badly because, among other things, you engage in three behaviors that are childish.
3. Mark says that's Rovian (translation: Rovian = projection), and by the way, I'm reflective. Are you? Please demonstrate.
4. I make a little bit of fun of him, and then demostrate that I am "reflective", guessing at what that is supposed to mean.
5. Oh no, Mark says, that isn't enough, you must demonstrate something else - disagreement with libertarian views. If you can't demostrate such, then it validates my beliefs about the sheeple-ness of those who disagree with me.
6. I demonstrate certain disagreements I have with libertarian views.
7. Oh no, Mark says, that isn't enough, you must demonstrate, by answering certain questions that assume their answers, that you think the same things I do.
Observations:
1. What does 3-7 have to do with .. anything? Mark seems to be engaged in some kind of dick size contest, where whoever is more "reflective", whoever can admit "more significant error" .. wins? Wins what exactly Mark? Why is any of that at all important? I don't see how it has any bearing on the truth or falsehood of the original premise I presented in #2. You just seem to want to establish how wonderfully reflective you are, and thus above criticism.
2. This is the third time he has tried to figure out some sort of litmus test for me - you must demonstrate x before your criticism of me can have any value! Strange that I don't seem to be able to pass the test he has crafted. It's almost like I won't be able pass it. Weird!
3. His final set of questions are revealing - rather than asking me to demonstrate disagreement with some doctrine or ideology, I now must accept the premises that are part of his questions, and then expound on those premises in order to demonstrate my reflectiveness to his satisfaction. Gee Mark, it's almost as if being as "reflective" as you means coming to the same conclusions as you.
There probably isn't much point to continuing this. Mark could have left it at #3 by saying he disagreed, but he had to try to demonstrate his own reflective wonderfulness. All he ended up doing is showing off his irrationality, and an oddly inflated ego, in my opinion. Well, it was fun.
Love it Haplo9.
"6. I demonstrate certain disagreements I have with libertarian views."
Where, exactly? It's certainly possible that I missed something in your posts but all I saw was you stating that you were for gay marriage and abortion which are honestly libertarian views.
What's amusing about the rest of your criticisms is that you can't see how clearly they originate from Rule #1 of The Rove Playbook which is why I call them Rovian. Cases in point.
"you engage in three behaviors that are childish."
"Mark seems to be engaged in some kind of dick size contest"
"All he ended up doing is showing off his irrationality, and an oddly inflated ego"
These are all more accurate descriptions of most of the commenters at TSM, not me. In fact, they are perfect summations of their sort of mindset.
Hap, being reflective means being critical of oneself, not being above criticism. When it comes to their ideology, most of the TSM commenters and some here are most certainly above criticism. This is especially true if liberals or Democrats have ever gotten anything right. In their reality, the liberals always get it wrong. One need only ask them for examples of this and you will see what I am talking about.
Is this you? I guess I don't really know you well enough to say but it does appear that you use the same tactics that they do which are honestly brilliant. I could say nothing but then I am weak--not defending myself. If I say anything or act like a dick (as the Cult does all the time), then I have become unhinged or am childish. Either way, you win the argument...which is your only goal.
I'm more interested in definable results and if those results are achieved by me being wrong, great! I wasn't a fan of Reagan when I was younger but his actions produced results. His tactics against the Soviets were brilliant and I was wrong back then. Of course, these tactics today would be called traitorous by the Cult. His economic ideas were also brilliant for the time and his deregulatory steps were necessary to insure our standing in the world. Those ideas will not, however, work today. Ask Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's chief economic adviser.
Deregulation in the housing industry, however, proved to be a disaster. It was too interconnected to the financial services industry. Hap, I would urge you to watch the doc "House of Cards" the next time it's on CNBC. This program was shown to be Last in Line who, ironically, still hasn't gotten it's message: the actions of the private sector were to blame for our current economic crisis and the inaction of the government allowed them to do this. "The government was nowhere" is repeated time and again in this doc so to say that the government "encouraged home ownership though a variety of policies" is akin to burying your head in the sand like a fucking ostrich not to mention the fact that it is incredibly myopic. And that's being kind.
So, until I see some critical thinking on your point regarding economic ideology and serious conservative fiscal policies, your list characterizing me above is pretty empty and pathetic. See, Hap, I live in a world where just because you say something, doesn't mean that it is true. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion...but not your own facts.
Hap, being reflective means being critical of oneself, not being above criticism.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. You don't deserve near the praise you give yourself. Staring at your navel is not reflection, let alone critical thinking.
Deregulation in the housing industry, however, proved to be a disaster.
Say WHAT?
You can seriously claim something like that and think you are part of the reality based world? No fucking way.
This might even top Corporate Force for absolute insanity.
Deregulation in the housing industry, however, proved to be a disaster.
The "deregulation" that "proved to be a disaster" can be summed up in two word: "Liar loans", correct?
Have you noticed that all the "reform" has accomplished is make it so the only people who can make "liar loans" is the government?
Have you noticed that it still doesn't prevent the government from selling those bad loans as investment securities, guaranteed at taxpayer expense, just like what got us into this mess?
And this is supposed to improve things how?
Juris, all you have to do is look at reality. The government was absolutely nowhere when it came to regulating CDOs and the like. Watch the doc, dude, and listen to the testimony.
Fannie and Freddie were following what the private sector started to do. This is all explained quite nicely in the documentary mentioned above. I know this is just bouncing off a brick wall since the government is at fault for everything in your world but it's just not what happened.
Ah, reality in 2010. I guess there can be none.
The government was absolutely nowhere when it came to regulating CDOs and the like.
CDSs - and if you think that was the ONLY reason for the housing debacle you are madder than a March hare.
I know this is just bouncing off a brick wall since the government is at fault for everything in your world but it's just not what happened.
Just like "bad capitalism" is all to blame for you?
Too fucking bad that the world isn't simple enough for you to understand. Read what I write, not the crap rolling around inside your head. I noted that CDSs were a bad deal, and it would have been worthwhile for the govt to regulate them, but even better for prudent investors not to play high stakes poker. Although they didn't start out as such, they ended up being a pure scam. If YOU don't understand that bi-partisan policy was overly in favor of home ownership, well, I guess if you didn't watch it on TV or in a "documentary" - it just isn't reality. Fannie and Freddie were PART of the problem, not the whole problem - again, sorry if that doesn't connect with your set of dots (govt good, corporations bad). As for anecdotal evidence, well, I can't tell you how many people I've heard of that thought they were going to get rich by flipping houses. But hey, you've got that reality TV in your head - in living color and with LOTS of voices.
See, Hap, I live in a world where just because you say something, doesn't mean that it is true.
You mean like, "AGW is 90% likely to be true, factual and correct"?
See, Hap, I live in a world where just because you say something, doesn't mean that it is true.
Yep. M's world is if he finds ONE link, even if the data contained therein contradicts his view, he has "confirmation". Same goes for TV or 'documentaries'.
Remember kids, if you read it on the Internet is MUST be true.
Post a Comment