by von
There has been a great deal of outrage -- both here and elsewhere -- regarding how much blame should fall on folks working in the financial sector (e.g., "Wall Street [types]", the "Masters of the Universe," etc.). Many harsh words have been directed at AIG. A lot of those harsh words were deserved. But some were not.
Jake DeSantis' open letter of resignation from AIG's infamous financial products division gives the unpopular view--the view that this whole mess is more complicated than casting villains and heroes. I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here's a snippet:
It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:
I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.
....
I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. ....
....
My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.
....
You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.
As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.
Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.
There's a lot of blame to go around. There are good reasons for outrage. But, as I've argued, some of the blame--probably, most of the blame--for the current financial mess falls on us. You, me, your neighbors, or the folks down the block. We bought houses we couldn't afford; we expected the bubble never to burst; we took on too much risk; we relied on credit instead of savings (we haven't been saving enough for years). After the shocks in the oil market, a recession was all-but-inevitable.
It's satisfying and comforting to blame someone else; to make a scapegoat out of someone you've never met. Even better if that someone is rich and lives far away. Unconstrained by personal knowledge, you can fill in the important details however you like. But, ultimately, it's not right.
A few sidenotes:
Publius implicitly argues that some scapegoating is necessary. He might be correct. But I have the luxury of sitting in the peanut gallery. I'll choose to shoot a different spitball.
This post indirectly responds to a series of posts by Hilzoy. I want to be clear that I largely agree with Hilzoy's specific points. I am responding to certain broad statements of outrage made by her and our commentators (and, mostly, our commentators). Your outrage is understandable and, in part, justified--but it's now obscuring the real story. It's starting to cause harm.
UPDATE: Added a clarification to the "we" statements. UPDATE 2: Apparently, I'm too-clever-by-half. The point of the "we" statements is that, if you are going to generalize, generalize correctly: include yourself in the group. We're to blame for this mess; not some group of faceless folks who aren't "us".
Since you apparently don't get it, that is precisely what my schtick is all about. In fact, I have called out the offending parties . . . to no avail. The claim seems to be that what was said wasn't 'really' offensive. Since, in fact, I am only using their words (be my guest and check this out - nothing I have said today that is supposedly out of line was conceded to be so yesterday), there seems to be a slight contradiction.
As I recall that exchange, I was the one pointing out that you had made some rather ridiculous statements and used an ad absurdum argument that most seemed to feel proved the point. Could you be simililarly mistaken in what was said here? Let's check:
Doesn't read quite the way you would have others think, eh? Just a sharp reprimand, a warning of the consequences, and an attempt to return to the thread of the discussion. Doesn't seem particularly angry now, does it?
Right. It's nothing to do with teaching a lesson. Given your behaviour the last time we talked, you'll pardon my skepticism.
Okay, challenge. Show us where this 'incessant name calling' crops up in anything I've posted today. If you look, you'll see that I've been quite careful to say things like "I understand how your anger can make you say things that perhaps you didn't intend to. ". You know, something that you've just said is not an infraction.
Or are you applying a double standard here?
I find it hard to believe you misread what I wrote that badly. I didn't say anything about 'oughts' or the simple power to ban, I said that if one wants to be consistent, nothing I have said is worthy of banishment. You really didn't see that? Seriously?
Okay, here's the deal: saying things like that is rude and abusive, even if they aren't a violation of the posting rules here. Perhaps you're a bit on the young side, but I recall an occasion when a slightly older, much better dressed woman burst into the break room of our company in tears. Angry tears I should say: she had been in an executive meeting voicing some legitimate concerns only to be told "You're cute when you're angry", which was an occasion apparently for general amusement and some guffaws from the older managment guys.
Yeah, that one's a real knee slapper all right.
Or how about that perennial favorite one-liner, used on women who are telling you what to do and you don't want to do it: "must be that time of the month again."
I'm rolling on the floor laughing, that one's such a killer. Not nasty or snide or a banning offense at all. Just good, clean fun.
Look, I don't particularly care if you don't get this, Carleton, but saying things like that are genuinely offensive. And apparently, more than a few people agree with me.
Finally, I might add that if you cause offense that you didn't intend, the usual practice(so I was told by my mother), is to acknowledge it, state that you didn't mean for it to be taken that that way, and say that you'll avoid making that type of remark in the future.
You don't ignore those comments, then whine later when those same types of comments are used against you. And frankly, I don't know why von, et al won't conform to this simple social convention. Maybe it just comes down to the fact that they really do know that what they said wasn't kosher, but that owning up would cause some sort of shrinkage(actually, I think that just the reverse is what happens in these situations.)
Well, I've said my piece, and that's the end of it, as far as I'm concerned. I trust that I've made my point, and in the future certain people won't be quite so cavalier in their remarks. Oh, and if I cause offense unintentionally? By all means, let me know. I don't by the remotest stretch of the imagination believe I am immune, that I never make thoughtless, demeaning remarks. But I think I'm big enough that it won't cost me to admit that I did so :-)
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 08:18 PM
For what it's worth, I think that most people understand the terminology to mean just what you say, rather than 'everyone who works on Wall Street'. Even if they didn't read "Bonfire of the Vanities"(not nearly his best, imho), there's still the movie.
Exactly. And I think that's what most people have been saying. They're more than prepared to cut this man some slack . . . but the default assumption is that he was in some manner complicit, if only by his knowing silence. Show me some paper- or email trail that shows otherwise, and I'll be much more sympathetic. Until then, bupkas.
Iow, the idea that there's some sort of pervasive, unthinking, and reflexive mob hatred, doubtless a close kin to Bush Derangement Syndrome, just isn't true.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 08:28 PM
In fairness, I think von's Ph.D bit was out of line, and while von has been patient he also IMO should retract that- the moderators owe a stricter adherence to the rules.
That's probably not my finest moment, true.
In any event, I think that SoV has now been warned by three front pagers (myself last), which seems a sufficient amount of time spent on him/her. Let's direct the conversation in more interesting ways.
Posted by: von | March 26, 2009 at 08:31 PM
Kinda depends on whether or not you think that India being an independent country is of economic significance...
Hence my qualifier: "personal life."
Posted by: von | March 26, 2009 at 08:32 PM
Von: I think your harsh -- black-and-white -- stance is not accounting for foreclosed victims who did not fall into the subprime or gimmick mortgage trap.
I actually thought that there was a great deal of grey in my comment. My point is that you and I are no less -- but also no more -- responsible for the crash than someone who worked in finance but wasn't involved in any of the risky trading activity. That's not an indictment of a victim of circumstances, much less you. It's a request that we recognize that a group that is being vilified unjustly.
Posted by: von | March 26, 2009 at 08:35 PM
Though, for what it's worth, I don't buy the idea that he's not responsible: unlike the rest of us, he worked in a unit of several hundred people one chunk of which was busy making bets that came close to taking down the financial system. At that level of proximity, I think one generally has the ability to see that something is wrong, and to make one's views known. If I am wrong, and he was working in a hermetically sealed room with no contact with his peers, I will of course conclude that he has no responsibility.
I work in close proximity with literally hundreds of lawyers. I have no idea what many folks in my practice group in my office are doing, much less what many folks in my practice group in other offices or doing, much less what many folks in a different practice group are doing. (Oh, I general sense about many, but no idea as to the specifics. And the specifics are important.)
This may just be a difference in perspective. I have some experience with academia through my father (who's the head of a department at a land-grant college). Most senior folks in a department have a pretty good sense of what others are going because (a) it's a smaller world and (b) it's their job to try to grow the reputation and evaluate juniors.
Posted by: von | March 26, 2009 at 08:39 PM
(TO)Francis makes an interesting point, which is
Did many of the poster here benefit from the cheap money era? Depending on your job and the year you bought your house, it's quite possible.
Getting away from looking at mirrors and deciding who is to be judged, perhaps we can agree on the fact that what the financial crisis has done is to make random rewards. So rather than try to determine guilt or innocence from how much someone has benefited, one could simply adopt the notion that the haves need to give to those who have not. I realize that this may reek of class warfare, but by making random the rewards of hard work, we as a society need to make amends. I realize this may be a bitter pill to swallow for those who invoke the mantra of personal responsibility and the necessity of government to permit failure in order to punish bad behavior and create the most efficiency, but you should ask who is making you take your castor oil and take it out on them. And consider that taking your medicine in small doses might avoid you being force fed the whole bottle.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | March 26, 2009 at 08:46 PM
Since I doubt that anyone disagrees with your latest reformulation, you've provoked a good deal of trouble to say nothing new. Why didn't you just say this in the first place? Since nobody is for villifying someone unjustly, this thread could have died a peaceful death after maybe six comments.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 08:48 PM
SoV, I don't think that your 8:48 comment either accurately summarizes my point or the debate that we're having.
Posted by: von | March 26, 2009 at 08:52 PM
Could you then be specific about who's doing the villifying, what they have said, precisely that leads you to think this is happening, and finally, who, precisely, is being villified? Your characterization of Hilzoy's words to the contrary, neither she nor anyone else I can see is saying that we should kill them all and let God sort it out.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 08:57 PM
I submit that this is precisely what has so many people upset. They're not upset because they're Communists, or Socialists, or DFH's. They're not looking for a whipping boy or a sin eater to take out their frustrations. They're not practicing class warfare. Quite the contrary.
The're upset because the so-called free market isn't working . . . and they want it to work right, not break it or abandon it. That doesn't strike me as wild-eyed populism.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 09:05 PM
I actually thought that there was a great deal of grey in my comment. My point is that you and I are no less -- but also no more -- responsible for the crash than someone who worked in finance but wasn't involved in any of the risky trading activity.
Ok, so you *dont* think that Im responsible for the crash because I used a credit card in the last 8 years, you're just using this as a reductio- if everyone who benefitted from the boom is guilty, then we're all guilty. Do I have it right?
Hence my qualifier: "personal life."
I was kind of wondering about that. But then, who has had a huge economic impact in their personal life? Most people's impact involves their professional/political/etc life. I mean, Bill Gates has had a pretty big economic impact, but his personal life is pretty quiet.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | March 26, 2009 at 09:13 PM
"The larger point is that by saying we're all responsible you're (not so subtly) advocating that no one is responsible."
As larger points go, I think (The Orginal) Francis makes a good one, Von.
---
SoV: I hope you don't take this the wrong way because I always like to see new posters and I think they deserve a bit of latitude as being one of the new kids on the block. I also think you have more support than you realize. Sometimes it just seems more civil by toning down the rhetoric a notch. Not that regulars here, yours truly included, have not been guilty of using heated, perhaps over-the-line, rhetoric from time to time -- hey, we're all human, and, to some extent, I see that as healthy. But when it begins to dominate a thread is when I think -- and when that's pointed out by someone as even-handed as Carleton Wu -- is when it would not hurt to pull back a little.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | March 26, 2009 at 09:15 PM
von: I dunno. I worked for a large bank once upon a time, and I had a pretty clear idea of what my (largeish) unit was doing. Certainly I would think that in a group in which a whole lot of your money is being made making bets that could take down the company, that fact would not be a total mystery.
Posted by: hilzoy | March 26, 2009 at 09:18 PM
You might be right, Hilzoy. My sense is that professionals* (doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, and, I'm assuming, traders) have a great deal of personal discretion. So long as they are making money, sufficiently senior, and not obviously screwing up, they aren't carefully examined.
*I use the term loosely.
Posted by: von | March 26, 2009 at 09:25 PM
Ok, so you *dont* think that Im responsible for the crash because I used a credit card in the last 8 years, you're just using this as a reductio- if everyone who benefitted from the boom is guilty, then we're all guilty. Do I have it right?
I'm not trying to be difficult here, Carleton, but it seems that you're trying to fit this into a little either/or box when, in fact, it's both. Yes, it is a bit absurd (and reductio-to) to talk about large masses of folks having conscious guilt for the current economic mess. In that sense, I'm trying to demonstrate that efforts to blame equally blameless folk just because they make a lot of money or work in finance is silly.
But it's not absurd, to me at least, in talking about each of us bearing responsibly for the current crash to the extent that we participated in and benefited from activities that turned out, in hindsight, to not-be-so-good. It may be that we're a little too early to start down this path -- lots of folks are still hurting -- but the easy money that made me very happy when I bought my first home about five years ago is probably a direct contributor to the current mess.
Posted by: von | March 26, 2009 at 09:32 PM
Mmmm . . . possibly. But in my experience, letting people get away with snide little asides like the ones I was drawing attention to is the best way to keep things from going any further in that direction. Trying to pull things back from the edge after letting them slide for a while is a much, much tougher proposition. As just about every beggining teacher finds out to their sorrow.
Now, I don't expect the offending parties will apologize to me, or even admit to my face that they made a mistake. That doesn't appear to be in their nature. But I'll wager that they'll mind their manners a bit better for a while. Reepacheep, one of Lewis's Talking Mice had something to say on the subject you might want to look up sometime. It's in "The Voyage of the Dawntreader" where he spanks Eustace with his sword and the necessity of doing so.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 09:33 PM
By the way SoV: the folks who are saying you have a lot of support here are correct. I'm definitely an outlier on this site, so if you moderate your tone a bit you will find that people will want to hear what you have to say. Just a suggestion from someone who has been around here a little longer and seen it happen before.
Posted by: von | March 26, 2009 at 09:34 PM
Um, sorry, that was meant to be not letting people get away with snide little asides.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 09:35 PM
Since you apparently don't get it, that is precisely what my schtick is all about. In fact, I have called out the offending parties . . . to no avail. The claim seems to be that what was said wasn't 'really' offensive.
This bears no relation to what I wrote. What I wrote was that I thought von was wrong to say that, and that you could've pointed that out rather than taking it as an excuse to escalate insults. I did not say "call out", I said "call him on it".
Doesn't read quite the way you would have others think, eh? Just a sharp reprimand, a warning of the consequences, and an attempt to return to the thread of the discussion.
You offered a baseless insult. You can call that a reprimand. But what you do not understand is that you are not permitted here to escalate what you perceive as slights with a barrage of insults. Your recourse is to point out to the person that they've strayed, and if it continues to ask the moderators to intervene.
Frankly, it's also counterproductive. If you'd responded to von's Phd comment by just reproving him, you'd look like someone who just wanted to discuss the matter and he'd have admitted going overboard. Whereas escalating insults followed by an offer to end the flaming is virtually guaranteed to not produce a reasonable discussion.
Right. It's nothing to do with teaching a lesson. Given your behaviour the last time we talked, you'll pardon my skepticism.
When you get banned, it will no longer be my problem. I could sit back and watch that happen. Or, I could try to point you in the right direction. I've flirted with banning on a couple of occasions, and I don't always find the rules here reasonable. But feel free to assign questionable motives if it makes you feel better about being reproved.
Okay, challenge. Show us where this 'incessant name calling' crops up in anything I've posted today.
I don't recall saying that you had done nothing but insult people. If that were the case I wouldn't have bothered trying to help you understand how things work here. And it's a subjective phrase, so no amount of challenging is going to determine an objective truth value.
And I don't know why you think Id have a double-standard against you. I admire hilzoy. I disagree with von most of the time but we usually get along. I don't get along that well with Sebastian, and I *really* don't get along with Charles. I've got no particular reason to support the kitten (other than 'this place works & Id hate for it to stop working').
I find it hard to believe you misread what I wrote that badly. I didn't say anything about 'oughts' or the simple power to ban, I said that if one wants to be consistent, nothing I have said is worthy of banishment. You really didn't see that? Seriously?
Try applying that same logic to my statement, and you might find yourself unearthing meaning of a similar kind.
The rules are the rules. They aren't my rules, Id probably do things differently. But these rules allow for a pretty good discussion between left and right. They keep things under control. If you don't like those rules, you can follow them anyway, or you can break them repeatedly and get banned, or you can just leave preemptively. You want to argue about what you want the rules to be, but that is a basically fruitless argument to have.
Look, I don't particularly care if you don't get this, Carleton, but saying things like that are genuinely offensive. And apparently, more than a few people agree with me.
I don't even know what you're trying to say. You list several sexist jokes that would not be considered acceptable here as examples of what's wrong with the rules here? Suddenly, everyone (including some women, as you may not realize) are sexists because you can't make the rules or comply with the ones that do exist?
Posted by: Carleton Wu | March 26, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Back at you, von. Don't make any snide remarks and you'll get no trouble from me. I've got enough troubles without borrowing more. My philosphy on this matter, honed from life in general, years in the classroom, and now a teenaged daughter is not to let things slide too far before addressing them. If someone makes a smart remark behind your back and it's only the second week of class, turn around and deal with the offender immediately; don't let some threshold get established. It will only creep forward until people are arm-wrestling in their chairs when your back is turned . . . and Halloween is still a week away.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 09:46 PM
"But it's not absurd, to me at least, in talking about each of us bearing responsibly for the current crash to the extent that we participated in and benefited from activities that turned out, in hindsight, to not-be-so-good."
"My point is that you and I are no less -- but also no more -- responsible for the crash than someone who worked in finance but wasn't involved in any of the risky trading activity."
Which is it, von? In the example of DeSantis, he was an Executive Vice President at AIG FP. Even if his division was doing everything aboveboard, he was in an executive position, where he should have known what was going on in the rest of his office. And he also participated in, and benefited from, the bets that went on in the derivative market far more than you or I.
And the same goes for many other people at Wall Street. They were in positions to know, and the benefited and participated in what was going on to a much greater degree than everybody else. ESPECIALLY the executives, who are paid enormous sums of money to be responsible, and weren't. The janitors at AIG? Not so much. Derivative traders, definitely. Junior clerk in accounting? Probably not so much. Senior Vice President in charge of Lobbying? Oh hell yes. Bank teller? Nah. Phil Gramm? Heh.
But which is it, von? Are people all equally culpable for the derivative bets, you and I as much as somebody who worked at a company that made them, in a high level position? Because you've said both in the last page. I, and I think many others, have been interpreting what you've said as the "we're all equally guilty", which is a cop-out to avoid dealing with the people and systems that really are guilty, or are you just saying that not everyone on Wall Street, and not even everyone at AIG is directly responsible for the way their company crashed the economy?
Posted by: Nate | March 26, 2009 at 09:52 PM
Shrug. It's over, Carleton. Drop it. Don't try to stir up trouble all over again. Let's get back to the topic, okay?
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 09:53 PM
Exactly so. I see that you use the word 'many' and not 'all' when referring to people working on Wall street. I suspect that is the case for most people. Certainly the ones I have seen are of this frame of mind. They don't have anything in particular against Bailey Savings and Loan; they do have a few beefs with Countrywide they'd like to discuss out back with the executives of that firm.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | March 26, 2009 at 09:59 PM
I'm not trying to be difficult here, Carleton, but it seems that you're trying to fit this into a little either/or box when, in fact, it's both.
Fair enough. I was really doing some head-scratching there, thinking: if he is serious, then it's not a reductio because the endpoint isn't a contradiction any more. But then, over here, he seems to be ridiculing those who blame DeSantis using his own argument's falsehood as the proof. It was like that Star Trek episode with Harry Mudd.
[I just googled to get the name right, but I thought it was "Harvey Mudd". And what do I find? Harvey Mudd College. I wonder if they teach smuggling and drinking classes? I bet the graduates get that all the time, from boomers anyway].
Posted by: Carleton Wu | March 26, 2009 at 10:48 PM
As far as DeSantis is concerned, I can't really bring myself to care. Im sure some people in the industry knew that things were rotten. Im sure others lacked the information, or imagination, or foresight, to see that they were. I just can't care because of all of the raw deals people have got from the economy in the last year, his seems like one of the least possible raw deals. He is very rich, but slightly less rich than he would have been- Im almost certain that I could find someone getting a much worse deal in 15 minutes on a downtown sidewalk here.
It's not class warfare, I don't hate the guy or want him to lose money. I just don't see what the fuss is about, other than the very wealthy class boggles at the idea that it's possible for them to get occasionally get boned just like ordinary folks, but with fewer bad consequences to them personally.
And over this, Brett is ready to leave the country. Not, say, the results of The Innocence Project- poor minorities wrongfully executed, Brett loves America. Rich guy doesn't get to keep his bonus because his company ran itself into the ground, Brett wants out.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | March 26, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Carleton: First, thank you for your efforts to improve civility. I thought I could best help by silence on the point, but perhaps I was just being lazy. On reflection, I think yours is the better way, if one has the energy.
second, I was listening to a lecture by the novelist Margaret Atwood (probably best known for the Handmaid's Tale). In it she mentioned a experiment with 2 monkeys. Both needed to cooperate to get the food treat; if one got the treat and didn't share, the second monkey would thereafter stop cooperating. Rather punish the other monkey than risk the chance of not getting a portion of treat.
I wasn't concerned whether people cared about DeSantis. My position has been that self-interest should lead to the payment of the AIG bonuses so as not to jeopardize the unwinding of AIG FP and taxpayers getting their money back.
I guess I am naive to expect rational self-interest to prevail over the opportunity to punish perceived villains.
As to what DeSantis must have known, my experience predisposes me to the same default position as Von and the opposite of Hilzoy. I suspect titles way mislead. In some organizations vice presidents may know what is going on throughout the organization; in others only what the people below them are doing.
Posted by: Johnny Canuck | March 26, 2009 at 11:26 PM
But, you see, with tar and brushes, almost nothing gets a completely even coat. Especially the first coat, when the brush is kind of dry and the tar isn't fully adhered, and the surface being tarred doesn't have that initial smearing of tar that all subsequent coats adhere to.
This thread is suddenly deficient in pie.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 26, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Completely devoid of pie, at this point. Will no one remedy the pie shortage?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 26, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Johnny - the second monkey is correct, right? If I withhold co-operation I pressure monkey 1 to share in good faith. If that pressure ends up ineffective, well.. better I spend my time swinging in the trees, than laboring to make some other monkey rich.
One nuance I think we're skipping is that (from what I read, here and elsewhere) the populist rabble-rousing and bonus outrage started on the *right*, at least at the political level. Republicans trying to throw red meat to the base and saddle Obama with the bad PR of bailing out *their* good buddies on Wall St.
You thought our Democrats were gonna wear both sides of that? Well, maybe a couple years ago you'd have been right.
Posted by: Shane | March 26, 2009 at 11:46 PM
I guess I am naive to expect rational self-interest to prevail over the opportunity to punish perceived villains.
Despite your expectation that monkeys ought to behave in accordance with your ideology, primate evolution has long had a well-known liberal bias.
Posted by: now_what | March 27, 2009 at 12:19 AM
A quiz. Which is more to blame for the current financial crisis?
A)
B)
If you picked B, congratulations, you have what it takes to make it in today's conservative movement! Enjoy this free ticket good for one passenger on the Rush Limbaugh Limousine Ride to Irrelevance.
Posted by: now_what | March 27, 2009 at 12:34 AM
now_what: I don't get to choose anything related to our trade deficit? Or the Fed's refusal to use its powers to regulate the mortgage industry?
*pouts*
Posted by: hilzoy | March 27, 2009 at 12:46 AM
So von is a ham-handed postmodernist, and probably should think twice about posts like this in the future.
And Anonymous' 7:33 post has more than a kernel of truth in it because of that.
Posted by: mattH | March 27, 2009 at 03:58 AM
MattH, I may be "ham-handed," but I don't think my call for personal responsibility is properly characterized as "postmodern[]". (Even accepting that "postmodern" can mean almost anything ....)
Posted by: von | March 27, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Wrong interpretation of postmodernism, but then maybe I mistook your reason for posting this. If so, I take back the postmodern moniker and any suggestion that you might have been attempting any level of satire beyond a purely superficial one. Too bad Carlton's viewpoint is wrong then, and Nate's spot on in everything he's said.
[In this case, by postmodern, I mean that you took an outlandish position in an attempt to illustrate the absurd position of your opponents, and get them to realize the absurdity of their position, but that only works if you really don't support said outlandish position. So in this case, Nate "wins" and you "lose".]
Posted by: mattH | March 27, 2009 at 02:55 PM