The Flaw in "The Flaw"

I strongly recommend you listen to RadioWest’s interesting and informative interview with David Sington, the filmmaker of the documentary “The Flaw” (thank you RadioWest for podcasts), and I am enthusiastic to view the film. The one truly misleading and unfortunate aspect I found in the interview was the dismissive response that Sington gave when the subject of blame for the financial disaster arose. His (admittedly brief, and so perhaps not completely nuanced) interpretation seemed to be that the bankers and financiers and executives were as blameless as everyone else in this economic cataclysm, that they, too, were just helpless cogs in a system run amok.

That is simply not so. For decades some of us have been arguing that this is exactly the outcome to expect from deliberately engineered economic policies that seek to monetize everything principally for short term returns and in which no other values play a role, that place blind faith in the efficiency of free markets and their ability to magically transform unbridled greed into social welfare without recognition of the significant limitations of that model, that use circular and hypocritical reasoning to justify obscene compensation schemes and the greatest transfer of wealth to the wealthy in history, that privatize profits and socialize losses.

The “blameless meme” seems to me a way to rewrite history, really a way to silence dissent on economic policies and pretend there are absolutely no other voices than those of our current crop of economic elite. It suggests that literally everyone was swept up in the fiction of these economic policies; it is a very thinly disguised version of the increasingly popular (among the elite) “no one could have foreseen” escape clause.

But the blameless meme is just not true: Alan Greenspan (for whose quote before congress I suppose the film is named), in spite of his revisionist claim, didn’t discover “the flaw”. He was merely forced to finally admit that his many critics who already clearly understood it were right.

And similarly, those bankers and financiers and executives (and their confederates in government, academe, and media) willfully chose to ignore all the contradicting data and analysis and all their critics, elected to believe that “this time would be different” and that they were truly the masters of the universe. They willfully believed, advocated for, designed, participated in, and benefitted from the system that ran amok and those transparent fictions. It was, indeed, the banality of evil, and for this they are well and truly blameworthy.

In Which T. A. Frank Super-Glues Both Eyes Shut, Covers Them With Hands, And Encounters "Trouble" Seeing

Someone is suffering from a crippling inability to discriminate the relative plausibility of two different arguments. I think I can help. From T. A. Frank in TNR discussing speculation about whether right-wing rhetoric shares some culpability for the Jared Lee Loughner shooting:

There is of course one advantage to all such lines of argument, if argument is the word for it. They are entirely faith-based, which makes them pretty much irrefutable. But faith-based punditry works in more than one direction. Seven years after the massacre at Columbine High School—in which two senior students shot and killed twelve students and a teacher—CBS News invited Brian Rohrbough, who had lost his son Dan, to explain why he thought the shootings had happened. “The public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value,” Rohrbough said. “And I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children.” Most liberals (myself included) would disagree with Rohrbough’s explanation for the shooting, but they’d have trouble explaining why it’s any less plausible or substantive than explanations blaming Jared Loughner on rightwing hysteria.

Consider the title of this course “Explaining why it’s any less plausible or substantive” 101: because there is not a single instance of a pro-choice advocate or biology teacher suggesting that high school shootings might be resorted to as a resolution of their concerns or expression of their principles in contrast with, oh, let’s take an example “Well it's [the second amendment] to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

Not plausible. Plausible. Really, no trouble at all.

Bryan Fischer's Difficult Dilemma

The near universal condemnation of Bryan Fischer over a recent editorial is, indeed, unfortunate. After all, so many of the critiques seem to intentionally misunderstand his position on the Giunta Medal of Honor. But a straightforward reading of his editorial clearly shows that he was not dismissing that award. It's just that Mr. Fischer is also simply pointing out an apparently politically motivated (and not coincidentally, liberal) policy, leading him to question why we aren't also awarding Medals of Honor to brave service members exclusively for acts of heroism more consistent with traditional conservative Christian values.

In sympathy with Mr. Fischer's difficult dilemma, I have done a bit of research and perhaps I could suggest that he nominate Steven Green for a Medal of Honor for his decidedly unfeminine acts of killing people and breaking things in our names.

Seriously, GTFOOTMYS.

Of Climate Hawks and Chicken Hawks

Around the intertubes, some Very Serious People™ are apparently throwing in with those who have had their hair on fire about climate change for a decade and more. But first, of course, they need to very carefully preen and pose and harrumph and distinguish themselves from the riff-raff and Very Seriously weigh the singular and foremost issue in addressing potential global catastrophe: the appropriate marketing tagline to convey their newfound conviction (and, not coincidentally, to slight and hold at bay said riff-raff).

I suppose beggars can’t be choosers and those concerned about climate change should welcome anyone into the fold, no matter their little idiosyncrasies, but holy f**k. Clean energy hawk, or environmentalist, or climate hawk? The Lord of the Manor is holding up swatches of wallpaper while the servants are battling a flooding moat that is, quite literally in Pakistan, washing crocodiles and s**t into the place? And could there be a worse metaphor for how we approach climate change than with Donald F**king Rumsfeld’s brand of proactive attitude toward gathering dangers – his resolute indifference to the expertise of and consequences to others? Holy f**k.

Well, that’s out of my system. Door’s open, c’mon on in, welcome to the fold climate hawks.

Unsourcing

It seems at least plausible that a principal contribution to the burgeoning income inequality in the U.S. is offshoring and outsourcing. The mechanism is straightforward supply and demand economics coupled to the de facto compensation mechanisms for corporate executives: if a corporation outsources and offshores those functions and obligations that are typically performed by lower earning workers – custodial, secretarial, customer service, manufacturing, and so on – at lower cost (and almost invariably lower compensation to the workers performing identical functions) than it would incur by hiring its own employees, it simultaneously undercuts the compensation bargaining position of its own and its competitors workers in these lower earning roles, and it boosts corporate profits which are in turn used to justify increased compensation of the high earning executives. The executive rewards incentivize (for the executives) the repetition of this income diverging cycle.

What is only now becoming obvious (at least to me) in the unfolding mortgage debacle is that a significant portion of the U.S. corporate sector has added a third component to the outsourcing/offshoring strategy: unsourcing.

Unsourcing: deliberately failing to perform essential and/or long established and/or legally required corporate functions and obligations, usually as a means only to increase executive compensation. Usage: The Countryslide Mortgage Company recently announced that it will be unsourcing its processing and maintenance of mortgage documents in all future mortgage transactions. Executive bonuses totaling the GDP of Bolivia were distributed following the announcement.

In retrospect, I suppose, we should have anticipated this. Unsourcing is the easiest and least costly of the three strategies to implement. The corporation simply doesn’t fulfill its functions and obligations.

To flesh this out just a bit, my reading of the Daily Caller article linked above (disclaimer: have your favorite stomach remedy handy before reading - it’s sickening) is that one significant element now contributing to a potentially renewed and particularly virulent contagion of the financial sector is through the complete abandonment by – for lack of a better word – “banks” of their admittedly mundane but long established and essential clerical role in processing and maintaining documentation associated with the mortgages that they issued, bought, sold, sliced, diced and apparently pureed.

Now don’t get me wrong. On the scale of evil, unsourcing by Corporate America is probably not the worst. This unfolding economic dark night of the soul has unearthed evil upon evil: gambling, unconscionable greed, collusion, corruption, extortion, narcissism, deception, delusion, fraud, theft, malfeasance, misfeasance, and on and on. But somehow through all that I still, probably foolishly, retained a sense that if we could just peel off those rotting outer layers, thick as they were and difficult and unpleasant as it might be, that there was at least a tiny redeemable core at the center. But there is something so primal about unsourcing as a corporate strategy in such a central position in the economy, that now I am not so sure.

Update: More here.

U.S. Economy, 2010 (In A Nutshell)

What do you call it when the proudest infrastructure accomplishment of a country whose economy is imploding, primarily provides quicker access for retirees to gamble away their savings and is named for a friendly fire casualty from a deficit-fueled and unwinnable war?

Prescient.

Are you taking notes, China?

GTFOOTMYS

In response to the “shrillness and intolerance” of the New Atheism (NA), one of the distasteful conceits that has enjoyed a revival in defense of religion against the onslaught of the NA “barbarians” is that religion and science/rationality are non-overlapping magesteria, NOMA. The basic idea is “that’s yours to think about (leptons and quarks) and this is mine (how many angels can dance on the head of pin), and you stay out of my business (wine BECOMES the blood of Christ) and I’ll stay out of yours (covalent bonds).”

There are some pretty straightforward arguments that decimate the NOMA paradigm, but the fact that despite these it is stronger than ever, suggests it may not be a worthwhile front in the overall conflict.

So rather, than fight the NOMA paradigm in a frontal assault, I humbly suggest that a more productive approach might be to enlist, to challenge, the ardent NOMA proponents – for example, the Karen Armstrong’s, and the Francis S. Collins’s, and the Francisco Ayala’s and the whole Templeton lot for that matter – to live up to their grand NOMA ideals. If they are genuinely willing to live the NOMA ideals then I am genuinely willing to give them a second listen.

But let’s be perfectly clear about what that means in practice: when some s**thead two-bit cleric says of homosexuality:

"Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”

a s**thead two-bit cleric utterly lacking in understanding of prenatal biochemistry, genetic predisposition, the empathy necessary to gracefully accept others living out their lives as they were born, and even, apparently, the reflective ability to experience cognitive dissonance at his infantile doctrine in the face of something like, say, spina bifida [yes, why would our heavenly father do THAT to anyone?], then the brave little NOMA warriors will in unison, very loudly, and in boldface font say unto him or her: “Get The F**k Out Of This Magesterium You S**thead!”

Karen? Francis? Francisco? Anyone??

Update: Shrill and intolerant. Guilty as charged.