Chickens coming home to roost on the house of cards

As the financial markets roil with the latest developments Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and even Barack Obama are distancing themselves from the legacy of policies they have endorsed or proposed. They try to blame this mess on Bush’s last 8 years where in fact the roots of this dilemma go back to Clinton and earlier. As this article in Investor’s Business Daily says the main motive of the policies leading up to this was to provide people without good credit ratings to buy homes. So lenders were strong armed into lending to risks they normally wouldn’t have to avoid the wrath of the regulators.

The regulation grew to monstrous proportions during the Clinton administration, obsessed as it was with multiculturalism. Amendments to the CRA [Community Reinvestment Act] in the mid-1990s dramatically raised the amount of home loans to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers.

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama.

HUD, in turn, pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more subprime mortgages, and Fannie and Freddie, in turn, donated to the campaigns of leading Democrats like Barney Frank and Pelosi who throttled investigations into fraud at the agencies.

The problem is that all of us will pay for the sins of these policies while the true perpetrators pontificate about the greed of Wall Street and the “failure” of the market. Most people don’t understand economics (like many politicians) so it’s appallingly easy to throw “bad guys” (i.e., Wall Street) as chum into the water. Meanwhile the true lesson will be lost in this feeding frenzy: when the government tries to force the market to behave in a certain way to achieve egalitarian goals this goal to make everyone equal indeed does becomes reality but not in the way that was intended. We’re all made equal – in terms of financial losses and the pain that goes with it. Instead of a rising tide of prosperity lifting all of our boats we’re drowning in the rising tide of tears and pain, the inevitable consequences of bad premises.

Financial Meltdown: Bush's Legacy ... or Clinton's?

While McCain lays the blame for the recent financial woes on greed and Obama points at Bush's 8 years as the cause Investor's Business Daily has an interesting article titled The Real Culprits In This Meltdown. Check it out.

Also recommended, http://www.gregransom.com/prestopundit/ for interesting commentary from a Hayekian viewpoint and for many posts on the Palin impaling by the media.

McCain and Obama: Principle versus Personality?

It seems that we’re going to be faced with a choice between principle and personality. By that I mean McCain’s up front theme is the importance of principles. I’m not talking about his particular positions on, say, global warming or what to do about high oil prices (with which most libertarians and Objectivists would disagree) I’m talking about his advocacy to adhere to broader principles of integrity, courage, and honesty. True, he also maintains the importance of committing to something larger than oneself, which drives Objectivists and many libertarians nuts. I’m not dismissing these disagreements with McCain’s principles and how this can affect his positions on things. What is clear through all of this is his profound love of this country.

Meanwhile it seems that Obama is mightily impressed with himself as witnessed by the pompous stage setting for his acceptance speech and his behavior. Obama has done a good job of marketing himself up to this point as an agent of change while touting the same tired message that the government is the cure-all for the “ills” of the market. He has also done a good job (with the media as accomplices) distancing himself from his father’s socialist background (see www.gregransom.com/prestopundit.), his choices in associates (such as Bill Ayer, Reverend Wright, etc.), and his voting record (See www.ontheissues.org.). Obama has also managed to make his strong liberal views sound downright centrist without getting into specifics. It’s almost as though he is speaking on two levels with his vague generalities. To people who know the depth of Obama’s liberalism they hear the code loud and clear. To people who aren’t ideologues they are swayed by his personality, delivery and his noble sounding generalities.

For me with the looming threats of Iran, North Korea and now Russia in addition to the continuing menace of terrorism I’d rather put a man like McCain in office than Obama. The later feels he can deal with our opponents by talking to them, like he’s Oprah interviewing a guest on her show. And, in looking at the voting records of McCain and Obama it’s obvious that McCain, despite his warts, votes much more consistently to protect our rights than Obama has. Again, see www.ontheissues.org for a side-by-side comparison of their voting records.

So we ultimately will have a choice between McCain who believes we should serve our country in order to protect and improve it versus Obama who wants us to sacrifice ourselves to everyone else, both foreign and domestic. On the surface it appears there is no fundamental difference between the two. McCain asks us to serve our country while Obama wants us to serve others in general. I think buried in this is a key distinction. McCain is not denying that we have a right to be happy or to pursue happiness. (At least I haven’t found any quotes to that affect.) I think he believes we need to put the interests of the U.S. first because protecting this framework will ensure our freedom and our ability to pursue our values. I’ll admit that maybe this is wishful thinking and might be too generous but I think his voting record supports what I’m saying. (I am starting to read his Worth Fighting For to see if my theory is correct or not.) I have provided some lengthy quotes below rather disrupt the flow of this post.

On the other hand I’m confident that deep down Obama does indeed want to change us … into another more consistent welfare-state with a heavily government regulated market that is more in line with the “enlightened” European-model where we can’t drive our SUVs, have to turn down our thermostats and can’t eat as much. (This is paraphrasing a quote from him.) Kind of intrusive, isn’t it? I think he is ultimately uncomfortable with and ashamed of the self-interest that drives us. It doesn’t take much digging to find the collectivist intellectual influences in Obama’s life that would explain his antipathy to self-interest.

----------------------------------------

As mentioned above here are some quotes from McCain to illustrate his general themes.

From his book Character is Destiny,

It is your character, and your character alone, that will make your life happy or unhappy. That is all that really passes for destiny. And you choose it. No one else can give it to you or deny it to you. No rival can steal it from you. And no friend can give it to you. Others can encourage you to make the right choices or discourage you. But you choose.

From Faith of My Fathers,

Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles. No misfortune, no injury, no humiliation can destroy it. This is the faith that my commanders affirmed, that my brothers-in-arms encouraged my allegiance to… It was my father and grandfather's faith. A filthy, broken man, all I had left of my dignity was the faith of my fathers. It was enough".

From The New York Times July 13, 2008 interview. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13text-mccain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin When asked what kind of conservative he is, a Goldwater, Reagan or G. W. Bush conservative McCain replied:

A Teddy Roosevelt conservative, I think. He’s probably my major role model, we could go back to Lincoln, of course. In the 20th century Teddy Roosevelt. I think Teddy Roosevelt he had a great vision of America’s role in the 20th Century. He was a great environmentalist. He loved the country. He is the person who brought the government into a more modern – into the 20th century as well.

…

I believe less governance is best governance and that government should not do what the free enterprise and private enterprise and individual entrepreneurship and ¬¬ the states can do. But I also believe there is a role for government. If there is abuses, TR was the first guy to enforce the Sherman anti-trust act against the quote trusts that were controlling the economy of America. Because I believe his quote was unfettered capitalism leads to corruption. So there certainly is a role for government but I want to keep that role minimal. And I want to keep it in the areas where only governments can perform those functions.

Government should take care of those in America who can’t care for themselves. That’s a role of government. It’s not that I’m for no government. It’s that I’m for government carrying out those responsibilities that otherwise can’t be exercised by individuals and the states -- that’s the founding principles of our country -- and at the same time recognizing there’s a role for our government and society to care for those who can’t care for themselves, to make sure there are not abuses of individual rights as well as the rights of groups of people and to defend our nation. And National Security is obviously No. 1.

From The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103032_4.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Enter public life determined to tell the truth; to put problem-solving ahead of partisanship; to defend the public interest against the special interests; to risk your personal ambitions for the sake of the country and the ideals that make her great. Keep your promise to America, and you will keep your honor. You will know a happiness far more sublime than pleasure.

From Reason magazine, “Be Afraid of President McCain, The frightening mind of an authoritarian maverick” by Matt Welch, April 2007. The quote below picks up at the point during McCain’s captivity in North Vietnam when he had his personal epiphany. http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html

After two weeks of particularly severe beatings in 1968, he recorded a forced confession—though not before half-heartedly attempting suicide—and then plunged into inconsolable, shame-wracked despair. “They were the worst two weeks of my life,” he recalled. What pulled him back from the brink was not the stubborn individuality that had sustained him through the years but the selfless encouragement of his fellow prisoners, who told him he did the best he could even while giving him strength to do better next time. “I discovered in prison that faith in myself alone, separate from other, more important allegiances, was ultimately no match for the cruelty that human beings could devise,” he wrote. “It is, perhaps, the most important lesson I have ever learned.”

Submerging and channeling his individuality into the “greater cause” of American patriotism became McCain’s reason for living. “I resolved that when I regained my freedom,” he wrote in Faith of My Fathers, “I would seize opportunities to spend what remained of my life in more important pursuits.”

…

“I have learned the truth,” he writes in Faith of My Fathers. “There are greater pursuits than self-seeking.…Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself.”

That “something” is the “last, best hope of humanity,” the “advocate for all who believed in the Rights of Man,” the “city on a hill” once dreamed by Puritan pilgrim John Winthrop (whom McCain celebrates in Character Is Destiny). Any thing or person perceived as tarnishing that city’s luster has a sworn enemy in the Arizona senator. “Our greatness,” he writes in Worth the Fighting For, “depends upon our patriotism, and our patriotism is hardly encouraged when we cannot take pride in the highest public institutions, institutions that should transcend all sectarian, regional, and commercial conflicts to fortify the public’s allegiance to the national community.”

McCain's V.P. Choice

In response to John McCain’s announcement of his choosing Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Robert Bidinotto posted on August 29 his as-usual excellent analysis. My apathy mixed with antipathy for the candidates on both sides prepared me to expect the worst and to be unimpressed with McCain's choice. However I heartily agree with Bidinotto’s assessment of Palin's demeanor and message. I think this is a clever choice on a number of fronts. It does hamper McCain's early criticisms on Obama's lack of experience but I don't think it's a fatal error. As Bidinotto said, Palin has the most experience actually running a government than any of the other candidates.

Below I have provided some snippets from Robert’s analysis. I particularly agree with his comment on Obama as a self-proclaimed agent of “change.” When I read Obama’s Blueprint for Change there is precious little deviation from the traditional liberal mantra that the government is the cure-all for all ills.

Politically, this is a brilliant move. Absolutely brilliant. I say that with the caveat of my abiding philosophical disagreements with both McCain and Palin on certain issues. But the overarching issues of this campaign for me are national security and energy policy, and on these, the GOP wins over the Dems, hands down.

…

If a candidate for president is trying to brand himself as a force for political "change," he shouldn't pick as his running mate an aging liberal fossil who's sat in the Senate for 36 years -- an old-boy-network Washington insider. That completely undercuts his "change" message, communicating instead a desire to pander to the Establishment and a clinging to "business as usual." It informs voters that the "change" message is utterly phony.

By contrast, if you are campaigning as an independent-minded maverick, you'd lose credibility by selecting a standard old-school politician as your running mate. You'd want somebody who underscores your outsider, maverick image and message. And if you select such a person, it communicates to voters: I'm the real deal; I mean what I say; you can trust that my actions will match my words.

Ask yourself, strictly from a branding and marketing standpoint, which candidate now comes across as the authentic and genuine agent of "change" -- McCain or Obama.

…

Obama is increasingly coming across as an empty suit, an ambitious phony with a dubious background; Biden is just another stock liberal. By contrast, McCain is showing independence and daring; his biography backs it up; and so does his running mate.

I’d say McCain’s choice was courageous. We’ll see if it was a brilliant decision after the election.

Some tips on Objectivity

We’re confronted daily with competing demands and claims of people from opposite points of view. Conservatives rail against liberals and vice versa. Creationists fight Darwinists. Pro-life wrestle with pro-choice advocates. How do we decide? There isn’t a foolproof method that ensures everyone will come to the same conclusion. A lot of factors affect our ability to be objective. Since the theme of this blog is about thinking objectively I thought I’d share some ideas on how I try to practice what I preach. In essence I recommend taking the effort to check both sides. (In some cases there are more than two prominent positions.)

• How do they argue? Do they confront the opposition’s positions head on or do they skirt the issues?
• Do they fairly represent the arguments of the other side or do they “refute” these arguments by setting up easily-refuted straw men?
• Do they try to build a cogent argument based on empirical data or do they simply state their final conclusions?

For example, if you’re considering whether global warming is caused by humans or by other causes (assuming there is warming), you could go to a site such as http://climatedebatedaily.com/ which provides links to global warming advocates and skeptics.

Let’s say you want sort out the creationism-evolution debate. This web page at Cal State Fullerton - http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web/#1.%20INTRODUCTION - provides links to various sites on both sides of the issue.

On general political issues, check publications such as National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/) for conservative viewpoints, The New Republic (http://www.thenewrepublic.com/) for the left and maybe Reason magazine (http://reason.com/) for the libertarian perspective. For detailed analysis of policy issues you can go to The Cato Institute [http://www.cato.org/] (libertarian), The Brookings Institution [http://www.brookings.edu/] (liberal), the American Enterprise Institute [http://www.aei.org/] (conservative), or The Atlas Society [http://www.objectivistcenter.org/] (Objectivist).

A relatively new site and promising has popped up, http://www.opposingviews.com/, which offers debates on a wide variety of issues: politics, society, health, money and religion.

Another good source of information is www.wikipedia.com. The main articles usually refer to other sources on both sides of an issue and provide links to articles in the media and links to related web sites. Be sure to click on the “discussion” tab to see the dialog among the various contributors to the wiki entry. However, you need to be careful with controversial subjects. For instance, an ardent Gore supporter fanatically guards entries on global warming and pounces on any added text that challenges or contradicts the Gore-thodoxy (that global warming is man-made).

As I said at the beginning, checking these sources won’t automatically spoon feed you with answers. What I have found, however, is that people who honestly and fairly look at more than one viewpoint before settling on their own tend to be more reasonable than those who only look at sources with which they already agree. If we are confident in our ability to think critically and objectively we won’t be threatened by exposing ourselves to opinions that might differ from ours. At the very least going through this exercise will better prepare you for counter-arguments.

My main point, which is a theme running through this blog, is that maintaining objectivity isn’t easy! It involves hard work and resisting the temptation to latch onto conclusions. If you work through issues like health care, global warming, abortion, and intelligent design by carefully evaluating the different viewpoints, by comparing the facts each side musters for their case and by looking at how they argue, you stand a better chance of reaching a sound conclusion. Who knows? You might even end up changing your mind? THAT, I believe, is the threat of checking your premises: the possibility of abandoning a position and even disagreeing with friends who share your overall beliefs. Another drawback is that objectivity doesn’t carry the sex appeal of being an ardent advocate of [insert your favorite “ism” here]. It might even sound boring and dispassionate. Yet the overall purpose of being objective is to get you closer to the truth which ultimately can improve the quality of your life. And, if you have done the hard work to sift and digest the facts and arguments you can be justifiably certain of your position. To me that’s the exciting part of trying to be objective!

The Happiness Trap Review

The Happiness Trap: How to Stop Struggling and Start Living by Russ Harris is one of the best self-help books I’ve ever read. Yes, that’s a bold claim, especially with how many books of this kind fill the shelves of bookstores. I’ve read a lot of these books over the years. Almost all of them offer variations on one of several themes. Think positively. Repeat affirmations to counter negative thoughts. Bolster your self-esteem. All of them, according to Harris, share the same trap. “To find happiness, we try to avoid or get rid of bad feelings, but the harder we try, the more bad feelings we create.” This trap comes from the shared definition of happiness as feeling good. The Happiness Trap
adheres to a different definition of happiness: living a rich and meaningful life.

Living such a life doesn’t automatically mean we’re feeling good all the time. We will still have negative feelings and challenges to overcome. The goal of The Happiness Trap then is to give us strategies to deal with negative feelings without denying them. Harris offers six core principles.

1. Defusion. Painful or unpleasant thoughts are defused by various techniques such as labeling them. When one notices such a thought instead of suppressing or denying
it we create some distance by saying “I’m having the thought that …” In doing so we put some distance between the thought and us. In other words, we strive for objectivity.
2. Expansion: consists of making room for unpleasant thoughts and feelings.
3. Connection: being fully aware of your here and now.
4. Distinguishing between your thinking self and observing self. The various techniques in The Happiness Trap get us out of our thinking self and into our observing self.
5. Values: what kind of person are you and want to be? What is significant and meaningful to you? What do you stand for?
6. Committed action. All of this business about being objective and mindfulness must be followed by a commitment to action if we truly want to change.

These principles form the core of Action and Commitment Therapy (ACT), developed by Steven Hays. While Hays and others have published a number of books on ACT they were written for therapists applying ACT to different conditions. The Happiness Trap
translates ACT’s principles for laymen interested in applying these principles. As Harris points out ACT also stands for something else:

A – Accepting your thoughts and feelings and being present in the moment,

C – Connect with your values, and

T – Take effective action.

The Happiness Trap holds a lot more insights and techniques than I can do
justice to here. Overall I like several aspects of The Happiness Trap and ACT.

1. They don’t try to suppress or ignore emotions. The recommended methods aim at honoring these emotions while trying to get beyond them.
2. They emphasize mindfulness and objectivity.
3. The end goal is to get us to act, not just to idly analyze our feelings.
4. Values play a key role because ultimately this is what motivates us to action: what is important to us.

As I said at the beginning The Happiness Trap has joined the small group of my favorite books. It offers a realistic guide with a number of helpful activates to get us to move beyond self-limiting thoughts and emotions so we can obtain, express and enjoy our values.

Obama: Saving us from us?

I recall earlier this year Michelle Obama took some heat because she said Obama was going to save our soul (or something to that effect). At the time I figured her comment was just election-year hyperbole, magnified by talk-show hosts who like to create controversy. Well, looks like I was wrong. To see what I mean please check out Robert Bidinotto's excellent analysis of Obama's recent behavior and statements, "Obama the Presumptious continues his premature victory lap" (dated July 31), complete with humorous animation.