The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Debt and Blame but Offers No Solution.

As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- we look for new ideas from various   leftist perches. Problems must be solved by government as we know. Always replete with noisy praise and grand salutations for some misguided person’s replastered precept of socialism that must be summarily incorporated into our society with great haste and song, we must follow the clarion calls, hear the trumpets ring and scrounge for suitable social solutions for problems.   Taxes are the way. Such solutions are supplied daily by the New York Times. There is always some pressing grave threat to society than can be handily solved with a good stiff tax increase. We are recurrently offered detailed analyses of:  how we were steered into this swamp by capitalism, how the tax increase opportunity that will hoist us from the communal latrines, and, how we learn, anew, about the basics and root causes of our societal problems. Liberalism always provides a solution.  Capitalism and private property are always the culprits. Such is the mission and mantra of the Times and, today, our BabblingBrooks[2] examines the mechanism of credit abuse and offers us an explanation.

Frequently, the lessons learned from a narrow analysis of the actions and antics of a few persons can be extrapolated beyond the usual horizons of reason and geography and supply us with sober coaching for necessary change. Thus, the Old Gray Lady[3] offers us the best path forward. The instant case in point here is demonstrated with some video about the sad case of Diane McLeod [4] about the [mis]use of money. She solved her problems with credit cards starting in 1996. The ensuing (and unexpected?)debt she created, the mental stress and mandatory shopping was used as  a palliative. She could not pay off her cards after a time, but she felt better.  So, she rolled her debts into her home equity. From market value of her home was rising from $135,000 to $ 228, ooo she had equity to burn.  Shopping was the solution to her problems and she solved them neatly. Her home was later foreclosed with all the pomp and circumstance of a sheriff’s sale. Nobody bought her place; she now has an eviction notice. She cried.

Now, who can we blame here as blame must be placed?

According to Brooks:

“On the front page of Sunday’s Times, Gretchen Morgenson described Diane McLeod’s spiral into indebtedness, and now a debate has erupted over who is to blame.”[5]-- The Culture of Debt by David Brooks July 22, 2008. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

What else?  No liberals can be blamed here. We are offered these possible choices of the reasons from the hackneyed list:

[1] Predatory lenders, the evil scrooges of capitalism.

[2] McLeod’s lack of responsibility and handling of her financial matters.

[3] A third position [and novel] begins with the notion that people are driven by the desire to earn the respect of their fellows.

The first two items seem to fall into some categories that might be influenced by reason, education and self control. But, in the third novel proposition ‘respect’ is a great leap backward in social science. One might assume that earning your own living and building a nice life f or yourself and family with property and vacations might gain some respect. Not necessarily so.

As to the predatory lender argument we read:

“In short, these predatory companies swooped down on a vulnerable woman, took what they could and left her careening toward bankruptcy.”

There outta be a law!

On the second point we read:

“Free societies depend on individual choice and responsibility, those in this camp argue. People have to be held accountable for their indulgences or there is no justice. As McLeod herself admirably told Morgenson: “I regret not dealing with my emotions instead of just shopping.”

Now, that sounds like sound advice. The salient question here, not addressed by the maudlin ones, the red-wine-and-uppers druggie crowds and social preceptors is this: what happens to society if there is no responsibility for choices and actions? Not discussed here, the point is mute as the need to whine and blame transcends reason and gets votes. Regrets cannot reverse poor decisions.  There must be a recompense to lack of respect, and that must involve government regulations and/or taxes.

Now, new ground is broken!

“If you go to the online comment section affixed to Morgenson’s article, you see advocates of these two positions talking past one another, one side talking the morality of social protection and the other the morality of personal responsibility.”

Gee, they just won’t listen! How sad. They need to be reeducated. The extrapolation is now revealed by Brooks!!

“According to this view, what happened to McLeod, and the nation’s financial system, is part of a larger social story. America once had a culture of thrift. But over the past decades, that unspoken code has been silently eroded.”

Woe is us!

“And now the reckoning has come. The turn in the market punishes many of those seduced by financial temptations. (Sometimes capitalism undermines the Puritan virtues, but sometimes it reinforces them.)”

So, what do we do?? How about we fix prices as FDR did and solve this problem? Let us repeals the laws of supply and demand and that will fix it!

“But the important shifts will be private, as people and communities learn and adopt different social standards. After the Depression, a savings mentality set in. After the dot-com bubble, a bit of sobriety hit Silicon Valley. Now it’s the borrowers’ and lenders’ turn. As the saying goes: People don’t change when they see the light. They change when they feel the heat.”

Frogs do not if the temperature changes slowly we are advised. Nothing in Silicon Valley was ever related to sobriety. They earned their profits and shut out the suckers.

Were we suddenly dropped on the sidewalk here? What do we do? Do we subsidize the debts of the irresponsible for their votes or not?  What about Greenling[6]? Wasn’t that a different social standard? Can’t we just forgive the debts of those who deserve some property? This is even more important if they vote for Democrats for their unearned gifts.  Should we hike taxes on lenders or given them ‘sensitivity’ courses so they can identify and not loan money to mental misfits or dead beats? Shall we put limits on credit cards? Should the government inspect shopping profiles and home expenses and issue summons to courts or force the financially reckless to take courses in home economy? We can buy back some respect for her with a good tax hike. It is amazing what remarkable things happen with hefty tax hikes.

Do we need the IRS to expand into the Credit Inspection and Certification Service?

Missing here is the oblivious: A command economy like the USSR and improvements upon the theme as we saw from the Cambodians is the obvious answer. Nobody there died in debt. We can control credit and debt!  Did we ever hear of a Russian peasant in bankruptcy?[7] The best goods and services in the New Russia were limited to the 4% party membership. Nobody who celebrated the social splendor of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia [8] ever went bankrupt or ate too much or bought frivolous goodies to appease their unhappiness. Apparently they had respect. They did get high praise from Noam Chomsky. They had little need for heart bypasses as well. No North Korean peasant ever died from the embarrassment of bankruptcy. There system is superior to ours in that respect.

This article just howls for this: The Brooks New Paradigm.

But, where is it? What do we do-- just ‘learn’ slowly and let things just happen as do goat droppings ripen in the sun?

The basis of liberalism is to showcase the losers and then create new way to force an ‘equal outcome’[9].  

From a previous essay:

“The very existence of citizens who have average wealth, above some arbitrary level, as defined by the left, of course, is necessary and sufficient proof of crimes against humanity such as economic violence, racism, starvation and worse.”-- Posted by rycK on Thursday, March 15, 2007.

There is nothing as unfair as noticing that the upper half of some average population has more wealth than those in the bottom half.  Mathematics is obviously capitalist and evil. This outrage begs for Fabianism [10] or Communism to ensure equal outcomes. Losers must be subsidized so that they can be ‘equal’ to those who live their lives according to their own standards and avoid bankruptcy, jail, sloth, sodomy, drug addiction and STDs. Taxation will cure this inequality! They need respect.  Let us raise taxes until there is respect for all.

The USSR broadcasted the ecstasy of highest saving rates in the world, about 15%, in the 60s to the 70s and into the 80s. They were proud of their citizen’s thrift. The fact that there was nothing to buy (unless you were in the Communist Party) had little to do with savings it seems. The later salient fact that the 1989-1990 inflation wiped out 99% of their savings when the Ruble collapsed [a quickie 1500% inflation must be some form of respect] is not an issue open for discussion in leftist matters. Blame Reagan for that. They carefully ‘educated’ their people for 74 years under the Soviet System and everything was wonderful. The West was a dung heap, the epitome of failure and pinnacle of poverty and the USSR abounded in social splendor. The KGB assured equality and tranquility in the land and there was peace.

What we need is a Credit Equality Respect and Normalization Act of Congress that would subsidize people who seem to drift away in their excessive or imprudent spending by socializing their debt. That is the New Paradigm! We can always hike taxes and fix little problems like bankruptcy especially if the victims are poor or Democrats or illegal aliens and vote accordingly.

We can now legislate respect and also support respect with the higher taxes.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com