flatlander

Regarding the Wall Street Occupiers, I have written the following essay and have posted it to my website and other places. I didn't see this topic on the masthead under "politics" so I started a new thread.

http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/dont_blame_wall_street.htm

Don’t Blame Wall Street
By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
10/13/2011

There are a lot of people I know via FaceBook and other forums that are falling for the idea that Wall Street caused the Financial Crises by coming up with and speculating on mortgage backed securities. As they put it, Wall Street was on a speculative binge and eventually the bubble burst because they got too greedy and had to be bailed out. This is an incorrect analysis of the situation.

What caused the bubble and the speculation was the government forcing banks to deal with uncreditworthy people, who bought homes when they couldn’t afford them or signed deals with a variable interest rate thinking interest rates would remain low. Both thoughts were supposedly backed by the government via Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, semi-government institutions that bought up mortgages to keep people buying houses they couldn’t afford. In other words, what fueled the speculation on the bundling of mortgages into securities was the government forcing there to be a bigger market than would otherwise exist in a free economy. There is nothing wrong with commodity backed securities, and nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities. But the speculation boom and then bust was caused by the government giving false promises of backing up mortgages via Freddie and Fanny. Once the mortgages were not paid back in sufficient numbers, the commodity became devalued and those mortgage backed securities became valueless as an investment tool. But, again, this was caused by the government guaranteeing those mortgages, at least in several statements made by the government, since they were forcing banks to deal with uncreditworthy individuals. Turns out it was an empty promise, so the market crashed when too many people defaulted. So, if you want to blame someone, then don’t blame the banks or Wall Street, but rather governmental interference in the economy – they caused the bubble and they didn’t stand by their promise to back those mortgages or to keep interest rates low.

Now, with that said, I do not think either the banks or Wall Street should have been bailed out when the market crashed. But again, this is governmental interference in the economy, and not a free market, so don’t blame capitalism. The closest system to what the government is trying to institute is fascism – where the government tells private businesses what to do at the point of a gun. It is not freedom and will lead to further government induced speculations as the government bails out one then another business that is doing what the government wants them to do. It is a way of the government accruing power over productive individuals. This is what people ought to be against – the regulations and the forced dealing with businesses that should fail due to making wrong decisions. So, don’t blame the banks or Wall Street for the Financial Crises – the blame rests squarely on the government that forced banks to deal with uncreditworthy individuals and then bailed out the banks and Wall Street when the market crashed. The government is in the process of shifting the blame to Wall Street, with some success, but the evil was committed by the government, not the capitalists.

Without getting into the realm of spoilers, Richard undergoes a process of integration over the course of the novels. In Blood of the Fold, his war wizard powers are new to him and because his gift is largely driven by anger and need, he tends to view his gift in terms of an emotion/thought dichotomy. He gives up eating meat in Stone of Tears (and Blood of the Fold) because he proceeds under the assumption that this provides balance to his gift.

As Richard's story progresses over the course of the novels, he gradually checks these premises. He discovers that emotions are not separate from or antagonistic to rational thought. He begins to understand that emotions are a response to values. But this integration does not happen all at once for him.

They actually need a 3/5 quorum, which means they need 20 senators. 19 Republicans, one with a donkey on his lapel, will not suffice.

A common theme of the union-side is that Gov. Walker is abandoning democracy. Of course I don't need to explain why democracy is bad on this forum, but I still think there is some irony here that shows how confused the term, "democracy," is today. Reducing the power of the teacher's unions is exactly what many of us in Wisconsin elected the Republicans to do. We voted, the unions lost. Sounds democratic to me.

Atheism is not a premise of Objectivism.

The fundamental premises of Objectivism are the three axioms:
1) Existence exists
2) A is A
3) Consciousness exists

Once one understands the full meaning of A is A, one CANNOT accept as evidence that which has no actual basis in reality - either via direct evidence or derived from the same.

In other words, for that which exists no conclusive proof, no proof may be considered to have been given.

One need never consider Atheism at all as an Objectivist - except that we keep getting asked about it by all the Theists out there who believe in that for which no evidence exists...

Consider, though - what is the first requirement of Religion? Believe. What if you doubt? HAVE FAITH. Ignore the evidence - BELIEVE. Don't question - TRUST.

But what is the first requirement of Objectivism? Simple - it's "Prove it".

Religion begins with the denial of reality. Objectivism begins with the denial of everything but.

I suppose I leaped to a conclusion myself, and engaged in some wild speculation that upon further consideration, is currently baseless. I commented with incomplete information, shooting my mouth off as it were.

My comments from this morning were ill-considered, and I suppose I may be too willing to imagine a conspiracy behind such an assassination attempt. I am working on writing a novel and allowed my imagination to run with it.

As for my underlying assumptions, I never underestimate the depravity of statists. Though I may at times overestimate their level of organization.