The Obama Administration hates wealth and success. That’s the only explanation for recent actions it has taking to bring down those who are wealthy and successful.
First, the administration is plundering J.P. Morgan of $13 billion, partly for actions taken by Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns, financial institutions that went broke and which J.P. Morgan took over as a favor to the federal government. These fines are for things WAMU and Bear Stearns did that no one thought were illegal at the time. The Obama administration has effectively made them retroactively illegal and fined a company that hadn’t engaged in similar activities itself. Normally, when a bank goes broke, the government asked another bank to take over so that people don’t lose access to their savings. Good luck convincing a bank to do that now. As J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon says, “A Bear Stearns deal would not happen again that way, we simply wouldn’t undertake it.”
Second, the administration has charged Apple for acting as a monopoly price fixer for selling ebooks at certain prices. Never mind that Apple was entering an already competitive textbook market and offering to sell ebooks for far less than its competitors sell hard-copy books. The judge in the case has appointed as an inquisitor someone who has no experience in antitrust law, but is charging Apple more than $1,000 an hour to go through its books and question its employees.
Third, the administration is trying to impose high-density housing on suburban communities on the grounds that low-density housing is unaffordable to minorities and is thus a violation of fair housing laws. It has drafted rules that basically assume that any community with less than a perfect balance of all minorities is guilty of discrimination and must be rebuilt to higher densities. Even before the rules are final, it has Also, it is important to resolve both physical and psychological viagra online http://respitecaresa.org/hello-world/ issues for the cause of erection breakdown then the answer is certainly the psychological causes. It involves the biological function of testosterone, the male hormone necessary for an erection, certain drugs used to treat high blood pressure, diseases of the gut and possibly the brain, including through diets (changing your diet rapidly changes your gut bugs), order levitra online get more or by providing “good” bacteria and suppressing “bad” bacteria, that can be noted at a glance, or by carefully feeling the capsule with your fingertip. Using your feelings is like pumping iron on the manifesting playground. cialis pharmacy A cover version was sung by http://respitecaresa.org/cialis-7358 commander cialis Kylie Minogue in 1992, which also became quite popular. tinyurl.com/k2otv82″>successfully sued a New York City suburb of 22,000 people for such violations and ordered that community to build multifamily housing.
Nevermind the fact that the administration itself appears guilty of racism in assuming that minorities prefer to live in multifamily housing. More important is its failure to understand the reason why housing is unaffordable in many areas is because of land-use regulation, not because of a shortage of multifamily housing. This is shown by the fact that single-family homes are available in Houston for well under $100,000, while multifamily condos in New York and the San Francisco Bay Area typically sell for $400,000 and up. It is further shown by Plan Bay Area’s finding that building 80 percent of new housing in the San Francisco area in high-density developments will make housing even less affordable than it is today.
Instead of insisting on multifamily housing, the administration could require states and metropolitan to eliminate those land-use regulations that limit the ability of developers to meet the demand for housing. There’s no reason to think that every little suburb has to perfectly reflect the incomes and races found in the U.S. as a whole, but urban areas would be able to provide housing for people of all incomes if it weren’t for such land-use restrictions. However, letting people build the housing they want would violate smart-growth demands that densities be increased. By blindly following the myth that multifamily housing is the solution to affordability, the administration threatens to destroy the entire concept of homeownership in this country.
As the Antiplanner found when doing research for American Nightmare, urban homeownership rates were very low until people found ways to protect their neighborhood from intrusive land uses that would lower the value of their properties. The 1926 Supreme Court decision affirming cities’ power to zone specifically mentioned multifamily housing as a use that could reduce the value of properties in neighborhoods of single-family homes. If people can no longer be assured that their neighborhoods can be protected from intrusions, homeownership rates will fall, and we will lose the many benefits of homeownership, including the ability to borrow against the value of a home to start a small business.
The Antiplanner wonders what kind of neighborhood Obama will choose to live in when he leaves the White House. Do you think he’ll rent a high-rise apartment? Or maybe a mid-rise apartment in some Greenwich-Village-wannabe new urban development? I have my doubts.
J.P. Morgan tribute not fines.
On your third point, I see a conflict. You claim that land use restrictions are bad, that we should lift them so people can build the kind of housing they want. But then later you say that land restrictions are good, because without them, people can’t protect their neighborhoods from intrusive land uses, meaning the value of their houses falls.
Which is it?
“If you like your current healthcare plan you will be able to keep it”
“My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government.”
“We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.”
“We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years.”
I don’t know who this guy is but based on current events his pants must be on fire.
What’s the one constant. Look at Detroit, the city in ruins and serves as the first example of 20th century archaeology, something to be excavated a thousand years from now. Economy gone, two-thirds of it’s population fled, inner city unemployment at 25%. The one constant, it’s all run by liberals for 50 years as a one party town with no political opposition. Liberal policies, liberal economics, liberal taxation and worse off, Liberal Spending habits. That town was a science experiment, a petri dish if you will of everything the Democratic Party stands for; massive unions, massive pensions, massive money consuming public sector workforce, the Math doesn’t add up. California is in a similar boat and sinking fast; a metaphor for where Europe is and where we’re headed. They’ve lost over a million+ people of considerable means who’ve fled the state in recent years, businesses are leaving the state, people looking for work are leaving the state, people not looking for work are what were coming to the state for years, it’s state employees are some of the most well paid in the nation. From 1985 – 2005, California’s population grew by 10 million but it added only 150,000 additional taxpayers to the state, but also added 7 million Medicaid recipients, One out of three welfare recipients live in California, over 8 million illegal immigrants, reasonably working under the table, very little tax base for such a massive labor force but they still put demand on public services like schools, hospitals. One of the most interesting things, the 2010 census, little discussed by the media, was the large scale movement of African Americans over the past 10 years from Democrat controlled cities in the northern United States including Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and New York to the more conservative south. In an historic reversal of the 20th century migration that brought millions north in search of economic opportunity, African American families are abandoning the failed liberal communities in which they have lived for decades. Over the past 50 years predominantly black neighborhoods throughout the north have been treated by Democratic Party as socialist proving grounds. While under single party rule, traditional American virtues like being more self reliant and education were abandoned in favor of liberal ideology that promoted victimhood and welfare. Not unexpectedly the socialist experiment worked about as well for the black community as it did for the Soviet Union. Instead of the utopian dream, the only thing many African Americans received in return for their loyalty to the Democratic Party was drug and violence filled streets and social devastation. It’s hilarious watching people fleeing the liberal utopia they’ve created for themselves. The real thing to worry about is when the people who left their state for a new one looking for work come to yours, you cant just welcome them with open arms. Some are conservatives but a lot of people who left aren’t. Just because they left doesn’t mean their ideology has changed and could have vast repercussions for your state…in their voting habits and elect the same type of people that ravaged their states. Beware the liberal locusts who move from state to state consuming everything they can before finding a new ground.
“The Obama Administration hates wealth and success. That’s the only explanation for recent actions it has taking to bring down those who are wealthy and successful.”
Starting the post today right off the bat with a logical fallacy? It just gives ammunition to your critics and makes it easier for them to dismiss the rest of the post. May I suggest taking a free online class from Coursera and Duke called Think Again: How to Reason and Argue? That is unless you’re intentionally trying to piss people off by using fallacies.
“Normally, when a bank goes broke, the government asked another bank to take over so that people don’t lose access to their savings.”
Except… Bear Stearns wasn’t a commercial bank. That was about bailing out investment bankers, and JPM believed it was getting a sweetheart deal on WaMu & Bear Stearns assets. And who the hell thinks they’re buying a company without buying that company’s liabilities?
I got zero sympathy to give for Wall St… they all woulda been bankrupt in fall 2008 if not for government intervention. Live by the sword, die by the sword. (And if that means there are no willing buyers for worthless financial firms during the next crisis, good. Corporate governance won’t improve until shareholders and bondholders feel real pain.)
Because nothing says “I hates freedom” like keeping bankers in line or low-income people out. No bankers rotting in jail – and still prosperous and free – refutes the first para.
“Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.”
DS
I’ve no love for the corrupt banking system (arguably the real government) that perpetuates fraud against every depositor and rips off everyone who is forced to use FRNs. From Mises.org:
I’m with Dan on this one. Why no mention of HSBC. You know the bank that laundered money for the Russian Mob, terrorist organizations and Mexican drug cartels? No jail time for that?!?!?
Regarding LazyReader’s multipule points: I couldn’t agree more with his first comment. One of the reason why Obama’s approval ratings are so low is that the constituents that voted for him are very upset about the lack of prosecution of Wall Street illegal activities by the DOJ (despite the stupid claim of today’s post), the NSA and their shenanigans, GITMO, DOJ’s continued pursuit of medical marijuana dispensaries in CA… That and republicans hate him no matter what despite the fact he’s implemented their best ideas. I’m disappointed because he’s a more fiscally responsible and better public speaking version of Bush, he’s just clever enough to hide it from the bewildered herd on the left.
RE: Detroit. The favorite red herring of the right, “Detroit is fucked up because of liberals.” Sure the political leadership in Detroit is as culpable as anybody in the demise of the city but show me a major city that hasn’t been dominated by liberal leadership over the last few decades? Was it Houston’s ultra liberal gay mayor that made it into the Antiplanner wet dream? What has happened in Detroit is an interesting story involving bad policy, corrupt and overzealous unions and shady private sector practices. CA seems to have turned things around a bit as of late, mostly by cutting spending AND raising taxes. Conservatives might need to find a new punching bag soon.
Maybe that punching bag will become TX. A surge in democratic dollars and an intense get-out-the-vote campaign has republican sweating bullets down here. Or maybe it’s that the conservative polices have put the state into the red and we lead the nation (or are among the leaders) in DWI fatalities, teen pregnancy, HS drop outs, children not attending any kind of school, uninsured adults, uninsured children, violent crime, gun fatalities………. Can we blame decades of “conservative” leadership on the poor state of affairs in TX? As Rick Perry says “Business is good in TX.” What he doesn’t tell you is it’s because we poach talent from CA and the North East and give big tax incentives for companies to move here. How long will we be able to poach residents from states that educate their citizens? How long until other states realize their subsidizing TX?
Funny how Frank lectures The Antiplanner about how he (The Antiplanner) needs to review an online rhetoric course to properly develop and present an argument, and then goes on to quote the “Austrian School of Economics” (sic), who generally aren’t too fond of empirical evidence, lest it undermine their a priori premises:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/who-needs-posner-when-you-have-mises-and-hayek-.html.
For the Barro article at Bloomberg, it is probably a waste of time reading the comments because most are the “Courtier’s Reply” ilk most often used by Scientologists (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply). But my favorite in that thread was “[Austrian economics (sic) is] Dianetics for libertarians.”
Funny that msetty appeals to ridicule just before building a straw man and then posts an op-ed as evidence. I’m sure your comment on that article, made just two hours ago, will be read far and wide given that the thread has been dead for a year.
Here’s a thought: Why don’t you attempt to refute arguments instead? Perhaps you have some actual evidence that refutes that fractional reserve banking and central banking is the opposite of the monetary system found in a free-market economy? Perhaps you could present some evidence that forces other than fractional reserve banking and central banking inflate the money supply? Perhaps you could post some evidence that Mises was wrong about an inflated money supply leading to higher prices?
Or maybe you’ll just continue with the snide attacks.
My vote for the worst Obama action against JP Morgan was when they recently sued JP for violating corrupt foreign practices legislation. The administration claimed JP acted wrongfully by hiring some people who had relatives in high Chinese positions.
Can you imagine that? Hiring relatives or cronies of government officials? You can only imagine what would happen to any US company that refused to hire any Obama-administration cronies and relatives.
JOHN1000, It’s not like Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate was chosen to screw up heatlhcare.gov because he had connections… This is the most transparent and least crony administration ever. /sarc
John1000, are you saying there is no law in the US preventing JPM from hiring paid off foreign elites?
Nevertheless, I’m all for ending the three-decades transfer from public to private. Amen.
DS
Only three decades? Ha.
The revolving door to K St really began to spin fast enough to look like a pinwheel in the Reagan era. The Geithner/Paulson/Orszag show is just the latest grift.
DS