Moral, økonomi og det multiukulturelle

Diverse, Multikultur — Drokles on October 13, 2008 at 5:36 am

“Gamle venskaber er farlige for en bank!” afbryder Viggo Skjold Hansen Hr. Steins loyale udlægning af bankdirektør Varnæs motiver for at holde liv i gamle kunders dårlige økonomi. Kynisk og ufølsomt, men venskab og socialt engagement har det ikke godt gennem det kapitalistiske maskin. En virksomhed er en organisation med et eneste formål - at ekspandere.

Det var det grundlæggende latterlige i 90′ernes mantra om virksomhedernes sociale ansvar, som om virksomheder ville sætte deres overlevelse på spil for tabere og som om folk i problemer har brug for konjunkturflygtig støtte.

Men det er også farligt for økonomien at lægge falske præmisser ind i markedet. Fra nogle fælles spilleregler, hvor alle kan regne med hinandens kyniske motiver, bliver en moralsk faktor uforudsigelig. Fra New York Post

THE seeds of today’s financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

Artiklen prøver i valgstemning at binde Obama op på denne udvikling, men det interesssante er moralismens indtog overalt og de skadelige virkninger.

Takis Magazine

Uncovering the roots of the disastrous home mortgage bubble that popped last year will keep economic historians busy for decades. Yet, one factor has so far been largely overlooked: the bipartisan social engineering crusade to drive up the rate of homeownership by handing out more mortgages to minorities.

More than a negligible amount of the blame for the mortgage meltdown can be traced back to multiculturalism: government-mandated affirmative-action lending, demographic change, illegal immigration, and the mind-numbing effects of political correctness.

The chickens have finally come home to roost.

About half of all mortgages for blacks and Hispanics are subprime, versus roughly one-sixth for whites. Not surprisingly, the biggest home price collapses have occurred in heavily Hispanic cities such as Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

The mortgage bubble was essentially a bet on the purportedly increased creditworthiness of the bottom half of the American population. After three decades of the home ownership rate stalling at around 64 percent, a series of federal initiatives to increase minority and low-income ownership helped push the rate up to just below 70 percent.

As this graph from a 2006 article by three economists with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis shows, the great bubble of the last dozen or so years was driven by bets on marginal households well below the median.

(…)

…The lower half of American society, where the new homeowners had to come from, isn’t getting better educated, is not settling down to more stable family structures, and is not developing a more rigorous code of honor about paying debts.

Nor was the government doing much of anything to help the bottom half earn more in order to afford home ownership. Indeed, by not enforcing the laws against illegal immigration, the Clinton and Bush Administrations were flooding the country with unskilled workers who competed down the wages of blue-collar Americans.

The home construction industry lured in Mexicans to build new exurban houses for Americans trying to get their children away from public schools overrun by the children of illegal immigrants—in effect, a Ponzi scheme that had to break down eventually.

It turned out, not surprisingly, that contrary to the assurances of the Great and the Good of both parties, many of these marginal homebuyers should have continued to rent.

Pushing black and Hispanics into buying was risky for all concerned. Economist Edward N. Wolff calculated that in 2004 the median net worth of black households was only $11,800, exactly one order of magnitude less than the median net worth of whites. (Hispanics were similar to blacks.)

Yet, pointing out that expanding credit to minorities was likely to lead to a debacle is not the kind of thing a prudent corporate manger would put in an email–too great a chance it would be discovered in a discrimination lawsuit.

For four decades, political leaders have viewed subsidizing minority home buying as insuring social peace. The Wall Street Journal reported on white flight from a Chicago neighborhood on March 2, 1977:

The whites in Marquette Park are particularly embittered over the Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance program, which they claim is causing neighborhood deterioration by subsidizing home purchases by blacks too poor to maintain them. Long conservatively run and an engine of the post-World War II suburban housing boom, the FHA program was liberalized shortly after the 1968 urban riots to encourage lower-income black home ownership (‘if they own it they won’t burn it’ was the maxim of the time).

Whether home ownership actually precludes riots is uncertain. In the Florence-Normandie neighborhood in South Central Los Angeles, where the 1992 race riot broke out, five of every eight residences were owner-occupied.

Still, “if they own it, they won’t burn it” provides a hardheaded-sounding excuse for a complex web of policies that please real estate developers, who contribute so much to local campaigns. (For instance, Barack Obama has admitted to receiving a quarter of a million dollars from developer Tony Rezko, recently convicted on 16 counts).

Republicans theorized that raising the rate of home ownership would create more conservative voters, as Margaret Thatcher was said to have done in Britain by selling public housing flats to their tenants. Thus, George W. Bush campaigned in 2004 under the rubric ”the ownership society.” As the President explained in his eye-glazing prose style:

…[I]f you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country.

Thus, in a 2004 address to home builders, Bush called for the Federal Housing Administration to issue zero down payment mortgages in order to aid 150,000 first-time buyers per year, saying,

To build an ownership society, we’ll help even more Americans to buy homes. Some families are more than able to pay a mortgage but just don’t have the savings to put money down.

Long before Bush came up with the phrase “ownership society,” Democrats had gleefully been using this justification to funnel vast sums of mortgage money to their base voters among minorities through the liberal-dominated quasi-state institutions Fannie Mae (once run by former Obama adviser Jim Johnson) and Freddie Mac and via leftwing NGOs such as ACORN (to which Obama had long and close ties). The government both devised de jure quotas and leaned on lenders with discrimination lawsuits to get them to impose their own de facto quotas.

(…)

Rather than make the fundamental reforms needed to help the bottom half actually become economically productive and domestically stable enough to afford to buy a home, the government tried to juice the home-ownership rate directly. Indeed, without ever-increasing government efforts, such as the 1977 anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to artificially boost minority housing purchases, the rate would have naturally fallen due to the increasing number of single parent homes.

The CRA enables leftist lobbies like ACORN to shake down big financial firms whenever they tried to merge. Economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo observed that the Community Reinvestment Act:

compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call ‘communities of color’ that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria. … These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made …The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA ‘protest’ is issued by a ‘community group.’ … They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

To avoid the Community Reinvestment Act hassles, more than a few respectable institutions avoided doing business in minority communities. A lender could define its “community” as, say, stretching only five miles north and south from Mulholland Drive along the top of the Hollywood Hills.

Then, who’s more likely to offer mortgages to Compton and Pacoima? Why, high-pressure bucket shop operations that have no skin in the game—they’re just sales outfits that immediately repackage often fraudulently documented subprime mortgages and sell them to Wall Street.

Selv om hele historien om den økonomiske krise ikke fortælles her, hvor grådighed og mangel på politisk ansvarlighed nok har hovedrollen kan vi trods alt lære at moral er farligt for økonomien. Underkendelsen af kulturelle værdier, som det at ville skabe sig et liv i modsætning til det at ville ha’ rigdom kombineret med en lighedstanke har kun negative konsekvenser.

7 Kommentarer »

  1. En enkelt sidebemærkning:

    Grådighed er godt, “etiske investeringer” er rendyrket idioti!

    Hvorfor skal min kommende pension lide under, at investeringsselskaberne skal have moralske kvabbabelser (for ikke at nævne dårlig presseomtale) over at investere i våbenfabrikation eller tobaksfirmaer?

    For min skyld må de finansiere lejesoldater i Congo hvis det er det, der skal til for at opnå et fornuftigt afkast af mine penge.

    Etikken kan vi lade præsterne om. Det er det, de er uddannet i. Der er nok en grund til, at der er så få teologer i bestyrelseslokalerne. (Men kvoter vil nok også blive forlangt indført dér før eller siden.)

    Comment by Mikael — October 13, 2008 @ 11:46 am
  2. http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2008/10/10-people-who-p.html
    Nogle der forudså finansers vej.

    Comment by Peter Buch — October 13, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
  3. Her troede man, naivt viser det sig, at USA var stedet, hvor frihedens og den realistiske økonmiske tænknings fakkel lyste!
    Jeg må tilstå at de seneste ugers oplysninger om visse fænomener i nordamerikansk politisk indflydelse på betydende financielle aktiviteter har været overraskende. Men der er jo altid tid til at blive klogere!
    Blot kommer jeg lidt i vildrede: Hvortil skal mine børn emigrere når forholdene her i landet bliver utålelige af samme årsag?
    Skal det så blive Australien, New Zealand eller hvor?
    Selv er jeg for bedaget og min tid ud, når den snigende socialisering og dhimmificering vel ikke at æde sig ind på min mangeårige pensionsopsparing. Ej heller, for det sidstes vedkommende, at indhente mig for alvor i mit eksil langt ude på landet. Men ve mine børn og kommende børnebørn!

    Comment by nimu — October 13, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
  4. Til nimu.

    Nu er tiden ellers kommet, hvor du burde slå koldt vand i blodet, nimu.
    Det absolut gunstigste af alle moralske tidspunkter er indtruffet, hvor multikulturalismen kan folde sig helt ud i ansvarlighed, næstekærlighed og bevise sin medmenneskelige og intellektuelle overlegenhed.
    Det kan allerbedst ske midt i en verdensomspændende finanskrise mod økonomisk krise mod recession, hvor trillioner af US-$’s tabes og finanhuse braser sammen i alle tiders pyramidespil lidt i stil med Wall-street krakket i -29?
    Plejede vi ikke at bruge begrebet ‘Ebberød Bank’ om en adfærd, som var for tåbelig? - Nu har vi chancen for at modernisere udtrykket. Nu kan vi tale om - ‘Roskilde Bank’ - for den er fra virkelighedens verden.

    Men er dette ikke netop multikulturalismens europæiske super-chance for at doble. JO - Og ved GUD. Med pokerfjæs - man gør det!

    Midt i alt det her hurlumhej med en truende recession lige om hjørnet har EU-meritokratiet just begået en guddommelig genistreg. Fællesskabet har besluttet, at vi fremover (og som sædvanlig i al stilhed) skal modtage 50 millioner muslimske afrikanere (som araberne foragter), dem syd for middlhavslandene, de skal ind i EU for at sikre Europa - og vor fælles fremtid! (Meget tys,tys, fordi de europæiske befolkninger hele tiden er et problem for meritokraterne - heriblandt især for ‘The Fabians’ langsigtede planer med Europa). Anders Fogh Rasmussen har allerede meldt ud, at han har brug for flere hænder, industrien holder, mest tror jeg af etiske! grunde svingdørene åbne, så vi snupper lige 500.000 utilpasselige muslimer fra Ghanesiens land, heriblandt familiesammenførte pushere, kvindehandlere, prostituerede, AIDS-ramte og andet godtfolk.

    Er det ikke bare vidunderligt timet - og moralsk fremsynet? -Multikulturalisme i sin essens?

    Danmark har til den ende med regeringens velsignelse og målrettethed allerede investeret 5 millioner kroner i et projekt for førstegangsafviste negre dernedefra, så de kan komme i betragtning, næste gang de søger om adgang til det europæiske ‘arbejdsmarked’. Det tiltag skulle sikre en opkvalificeret, stabil og kontinuerlig tilførsel af ubrugelig arbejdskraft i mange år fremover.

    Med venlig hilsen
    Emeritus.

    Comment by Emeritus — October 14, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
  5. Vi må kun få det her at vide drypvis. Ellers får vi bare vore morgenkryddere galt i halsen, og det er jo ikke meningen.

    Comment by Emeritus — October 14, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
  6. Til Emeritus:
    Tak for opfordringen til at slå koldt vand i blodet.
    Men når min og mines få stemmer ikke er tilstrækkelige til at påvirke Folketingets (flertallets) selvmorderiske politik, må man jo på et tidspunkt stemme med fødderne.
    Som sagt, min tid ud kan jeg vel være i fred for “Utilpassede unge” i mit landlige eksil. Om 10 år, hvor jeg efter statistikken skal sige Verden farvel, kan man vel stadig få en Kristen begravelse.
    Men mine børn og kommende børnebørn!
    Skal de leve i særlige, sikrede bebyggelser, køre rundt i pansrede biler når de skal bringe deres børn i sikrede friskoler og sig selv på arbejde? Skal de leve med en uhyrlig skatteplyndring for at medfinanciere et socialt og kriminelt morads?
    Jeg tror ikke de vil!
    Hvis danskerne vil begå kollektivt selvmord, ved at affinde sig med en ukontrolleret indvandring af ukvalificeret, analfabetisk “arbejdskraft” er det faktisk deres egen skyld, at andre egnes eksotiske begreber om Loven og dens håndhævelse vil blive prædominante.
    Jeg siger bare: Stakkels de danskere som ikke kan skabe sig en tilværelse i et passende eksil. Det gælder de danskere som i folkeskolen og gymnasiet ikke har haft mulighed for at modtage fyldestgørende undervisning i sprog, historie, geografi, naturvidenskab etc. De er ilde stedte, og må blive tilbage i et samfund, hvor de som dhimmier må skaffe føden til de nye herrer og, i anden række, måske også til sig selv.
    Jeg skal nok selv blive her, men jeg tør ikke svare for mine børn.
    Med venlig hilsen
    nimu

    Comment by nimu — October 14, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
  7. Hey there! Someone in my Facebook group shared this website with us so I
    came to look it over. I’m definitely loving the information. I’m book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers!
    Wonderful blog and brilliant style and design.

    Here is my web blog … car insurance quotes california

    Comment by car insurance quotes california — June 30, 2014 @ 9:40 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress