Comments for sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/is-this-really-the-end-of-america

Comment #1360

2019-05-06T03:27:15Z

Be my guest. (Or is it not my guest?) I'd actually much rather you contribute to the Invitation to Conversation discussion, which is more serious and more important, although I think more intimidating, as there are many thoughtful and coherent comments that deal with several issues; I find it difficult to handle all the threads without dropping something important. I'd love your perspective on any and all of it. But if you'll just weigh in on the
health care discussion with the Swiss point of view, and maybe what you know about Japan, I'd be happy. As long as you don't neglect your family, that is. :)

I guess you have to be used to John C. Wright's style to appreciate it (or at least not to be turned off by it); he's a science fiction writer, and it shows, especially in phrases like "vampire hypnosis powers learned from the Secret Masters of Tibet." I find his perspective as a former-atheist-turned-Catholic Christian ("If Vulcans had a church, they'd be Catholics"), Great Books-educated writer of fantasy novels both entertaining and thought-provoking. But he does have kind of a Wild West style. :)

I am seriously concerned by the course we are setting, nay, being driven on as before a hurricane, for which I believe our children and grandchildren will suffer. But I'm quite happy to give up this comment thread!

Comment #1359

2019-05-06T03:27:15Z

If you remember (from this discussion, I was promoting a stabilization plan, not the "stimulus" plans(s) that have been foisted on us. There's nothing wrong with low housing prices if they come about as a result of normal market forces, I agree. I've always laughed (somewhat bitterly, I'll admit) at the news media, which reports a rise in housing prices as a disaster (because it is hard on buyers) and then turns around and reports a drop in housing prices as a disaster (because it is hard on sellers). Nothing makes reporters happy except bad news, because bad news sells.

But there's a big difference between normal market forces and panic-induced discontinuities and forced sales that bring down the good investments with the bad. If we had stopped the bleeding sooner, the patient would not now be in intensive care. The point was to stop the panic, not replace the patient's entire blood supply.

Comment #1358

2009-03-16T12:07:52Z

I love how people are angry that bonuses are being handed out to execs at AIG who just got done running their company into the ground. I think it's hilarious that AIG claim's it's legally required. Were it not for the bailouts, AIG's inevitable bankruptcy would have fixed that problem too.

Comment #1357

2009-03-10T19:26:00Z

Phil, I'm sorry I apparently wasn't clear in my comment. Neither the lack of alternatives nor the name calling referred to you, but both to John C. Wright's article. Only the line about mockery and poisoning the well referred to your comments. (In retrospect, and after some research, I think I meant circumstantial ad hominem and not poisoning the well. I wish I was more adept at identifying logical fallacies.)

Comment #1356

2009-03-10T03:56:03Z

The alternative I offer is for the government to let the market correct prices instead of intervening to keep them artificially high. The government should also stick a fork in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. With lower housing prices, the government would probably need to spend less on HUD too, in the same way that they'd have to spend less on food stamps if they stopped artificially raising food prices through "farm aid".

I cant see where i've name called above.

Comment #1355

2009-03-10T01:08:49Z

Another thing to remember about John C. Wright is that, as an artist, he is a conservative living and working in a very liberal world; this gives him more of an understanding of the "other side of the story" than many conservatives have, but also makes him more defensive than one might hope. At least that's what feeling dramatically outnumbered does to me.

Comment #1354

2009-03-09T20:27:04Z

I find it difficult to frame a cogent reply to an author who complains about everything and offers no alternative, and would find it difficult even if I knew enough to reply in a well-informed manner. I'd rather read (and perhaps even respond to) a focused complaint than an all-encompassing rant complete with name-calling. To respond well, I'd have to forsake work and family just to research all the issues, and I'd likely run out of energy and interest before addressing point #18.

Or I could resort to Phil's techniques of mockery and poisoning the well. That might save me time.

But - with permission - I'd rather do neither, for the moment.

Comment #1353

2009-03-08T12:00:43Z

What are "abnormal" market forces?

The only thing abnormal about the housing market the past few years has been the exotic mortgage products offered (Alt-A, Interest Only, blah blah blah) and the lack of due diligence. The current market and its resulting valuations seem far more normal to me.

Therefore it would seem to me that "stabilization" would basically mean artificially attempting to keep home prices at previous unsustainable levels. Important to note is that if nothing were done, the market would have cleared all the bad debt ASAP and we could all have gotten on with our lives. By "stabilizing" the market, you basically encourage people underwater on their homes to hang on and hope for free money. It also makes housing less affordable for lower income people.

I suppose you're in favor of artifically high home prices because you already own a home and therefore are happy to have your asset's price artificially inflated at the expense of low income families and first time home buyers. :(

Comment #1352

2009-03-08T05:52:29Z

The troubled properties aren't undervalued, IMO. At the very least, you can't prove that they are and the feds shouldn't be speculating that they are. The fact is that the feds' encouragement and pressure on banks through federally subsidized home loans amongst other things caused artificial demand for housing which the market met with increased supply of housing and which finally resulted in a glut of housing when the artificial demand couldn't be sustained. The solution here is for the feds to stay out of it. There is nothing wrong with low housing prices just like there is nothing wrong with low food or car prices.

Comment #1351

2009-03-07T17:40:32Z

For the record, lest anyone think my inclusion of the quote about a Euro-Canadian societal arrangement means I am being disrespectful of Europe or Canada, I am not. Ever since my high school years I have always thought that if I couldn't live in my own country my first choice would be Switzerland and my second Canada. (This was before I'd been to New Zealand, however....) There are many, many things other countries do better than we do. Off the top of my head I can think of Switzerland's seven-member executive with rotating presidency, France's subsidy of its small farmers, and Germany's attitude toward GMO foods. There's much, much more. But there's also a lot that we do better here. What's more, some things that work on a small scale cannot translate easily to a country as big as ours. More still, some of the European programs that look so attractive are beginning to fall apart as their demographics change, so we would do well to adopt them carefully, if at all.

Comment #1350

2009-03-07T17:14:32Z

Phil, please don't confuse what I said with what John C. Wright said. I'm afraid much of what he says is probably right, but they are his words, not mine; his opinions, and not necessarily mine.

If you will recall, I was (and am) not one bit happier with the financial shenanigans under Bush than you are. What I asked the government to do, back in the early stages, was to step in and bring some stability to the hemorrhaging credit markets by buying up properties that were clearly and obviously undervalued because of the panic—a move that could have been a net profit for the government instead of an unimaginable debt.

Comment #1349

2009-03-07T15:25:49Z

You want us to call our congresspeople? Ha!

I cannot fathom how you can possibly see any difference between the left and right on this issue, and in general for that matter.

Two facts I beg you to think about:

The Bush administration, and in particular Henry Paulson, begged for (in Paulson's case, literally on his knees) a $750 billion bailout package, just as harmful to the US budget as what Obama is doing.
95% of americans opposed it and made that fact well known to their congresspeople.

It seems clear to me that all the "pork" you list above is a far better use of money than giving it to irresponsible bankers so they can continue giving themselves $100 million bonuses and evading any responsibility for their choices. At least we get something, parks and roads, however little use they may be.