Greed Has No Pride/Strata
Yeah, the bankers were greedy. And, yeah, this same greed no doubt played a role in the 2008 financial collapse. But what about the people who took out these loans; loans that even a fourth-grade education should have informed one were exceedingly ill-advised? Weren't these people being a little bit greedy, too (and isn't a person supposed to have a lawyer at closing to counsel them?)? I mean, I know that personal responsibility isn't exactly high on the agenda of certain folks on the left these days but, please, don't you think that a modicum of it is important in society (this, I'm saying, as opposed to this constant whine/victimization/poor, poor, pitiful me)? Occasionally, I'm saying?
Ya' know, Les, you just brought up a very interesting argument against Objectivism.
ReplyDeleteReally, in real life, it is only a minority of people who are truly greedy. Most people are happy to have so much, what they need, and not all that much more. It tends to be that those on the strata, who want more and more and more. Those most of us in the middle, we are content to have the simple things in life - a nice family, a decent job, access to the sciences, words, and arts, some fun on the holidays, a pleasant private life.
We don't need to radically change America to accomplish this. We have a good taste of it, but we're losing it. We're letting the greedy get away with using "liberty" to justify abuse of power. And Les, you have to understand something about greed and money - there are many ways to attain power, and there are a few that work really well, and one of them is money. MONEY IS POWER.
Now, I know you guys know that, but you say, well then let's not have money! Let's trade in precious gems and metals! Or property, Property, the Holy Grail of Objectivists!
What's it really worth if everything around it could be worth anything??? The value of property is ALWAYS correspondent to the properties around it.
The vast majority of people want to live in a modern society that can do business by normal, modern means.
One way or another you're going to have contracts and currency and law and government or you're going to live in prehistory. It's a lot easier to trade in credit than piles of wheat, and that means lots of people have to move lots of wheat. Ironic, huh?
Yet still, most people are happy if they can at least pile wheat for a living, and all they ask is that you pay a very small tax for them, for when they get old, for making your life easier, and theirs too.
There's a reason we have the systems we have today. As imperfect as they all are, and some just crooked, or inept, or just naturally and institutionally conflicted, we have these systems for a reason.
The reason is you, Les. You're an American just like the rest of us.
JMJ
jmj - I did not bring up any argument either for or against with respect to Objectivism, nor did the author of this post. It is interesting however you speak of something you obviously know little about.
DeleteI have however referenced the value of being "concerned for one's rational self interest" (a Rand concept) many times and of course am a very strong advocate of "rational self interest."
I shall leave it for you to continue to struggle to understand precisely what the concept means.
I happy you have a nice day! Very good article, well written and very thought out. I am looking forward to reading more of your posts in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe elected elite decided that everyone should own a home and lowered the standards to qualify. No Doc, sub-prime was the result and, like having children, you didn't have to take a class or a test to get a mortgage so many were not aware of what they were doing. There was a lot of fraud, greed, lies and deceit but to blame GWB entirely for this is looking past where it started, Carter followed by Clinton pushed a house for everyone.
ReplyDeleteMany time the impartial news would interview someone who was foreclosed on and hear, the loan person said I could afford it. Unfortunately those are the same people reproducing. Some people should rent.
Ask members of the "occupy" crowd. How many of them got a loan they knew they could not pay back, or at least knew was irresponsible for their situation.
ReplyDeleteAfter observing OWS beyond it's early beginnings I have lost any interest in much of what they have to say. They are nothing more than a counter culture with little drive or direction. IMEO.
Delete"Carter followed by Clinton pushed a house for everyone."
ReplyDeleteskudrunner, that was an awfully neglectful timeline of the problem...
It went from Carter, to Reagan, to Bush, to Clinton, To Bush, To Obama. It's the same Milton Friedman school of economics that we've had for two generations. It is the obvious and fatal flaw of modern economic conservatism - free trade.
JMJ
JMJ
ReplyDeleteCarter pushed the Affirmative Action Banking laws and it remained inactive until Clinton pushed banks to lend to people who did not qualify and with the help of Frank and Dodd, that policy continued. As soon as everything collapsed, the Democrats bailed and pointed the blame to GWB. If you remember in 2003, GWB tried to enact the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Who stopped him, Dodd, Frank, Waters who were to busy accepting sweet heart loans and protecting the head of Fannie Mae.