Actually, I would pin high gas prices on greed — just not on the greed of the gas companies. I blame it on the greed of the American public, who want their cake and to eat it too, and who not only allow, but call for things like sub-prime bailouts, "stimulus packages" and cheap credit, leading the Federal reserve to release money at somewhere around 7% a year right now, causing a weak dollar and people with any sense to flock to commodities to protect their wealth.

Or, in other words, the very people crying "greed" are the greedy.

Commit... Accuse...

I guess now that I hit send, I realize I can't blame the American people, just the strange representation I see of them through the filter of the media. My apologies.

Upon further reflection I have realized several things:

1) Don't hit the "Post" button too quickly

2) I really have a knee jerk reaction to "Oh, I lost my home" sob stories at this point.

and

3) The media do a really good job of trying to portray the people of America as a bunch of leftists. It's the left complaining about greed, big corporations, etc. However, I don't really know how the majority of people in America feel. I'm disappointed that we, as a country, haven't been protesting the actions, but I can not say the majority agree with them.

It's hard to tell, since speech is also very sanitized, and for the most part I live in my quiet little hobbit hole right now. I guess this leads me to the question, what do you people think about how left the American populace is leaning? Are they crying for bailouts/handouts?

You've hit the nail on the head: a huge part of the problem with American government is... (opening the envelope to drum roll)...

Americans!

I mean, if we wanted fiscal responsibility, we could at least try electing someone who'd promise that. If we wanted lawsuits reduced, we could elect someone who would at least promise to promote "loser pays" -- and so forth. We want a balanced budget, but we also want our Social Security -- which is based on a money-transfer system which is called "fraud" when any private company tries the same thing.

Okay, we agree violently.

But I find it amusing that the party which claims to be the ones who most want us to break our dependence on oil are also the same ones who fly into a rage every time the prices rise high enough to naturally encourage alternatives to become economically viable.

True, the fault is mostly ours, but the Democratic party is more naturally in tune with our id.

Sowell's point (and mine, before I read it as his) is that people don't understand how economics works, so they favor rent controls, minimum wages, and emotion-based explanations as to why prices are sometimes high.

Okay, but to ask the conservative follow-up question: "Then what?" Whence does that ignorance derive? Where's the moral culpability? Certainly we're born ignorant of economics (and math, and language, and current events) -- but when does that transition from our natural state to something which we should really have acquired?

I mean, I can walk to a store and buy Sowell's books on economics, or a dozen other at least semi-lucid authors. Even a playwright like Mamet did the same thing. What's going on with the rest of the populace?

My two cents: It takes MORE effort in many areas in life to do the right thing; discipline children, pay off credit card every month, be kind and helpful when ever possible. So now, considering issues like trying to understand economic theory, or to take a stand against 'man-made global warming' can take real effort for most. This applies to all people at every level our society. That ROI calculation for most individuals doesn't create enough motivation. Therefore, what seems to be obvious doesn't get done or said. Consider the ROI for Al Gore's carbon offsets. $$ is his reward, and he gets a Nobel prize to boot! Clear thinkers like Thomas Sowell are incredible writers that can help the cause of motivating people to *do* the right thing by taking the time to understand what's going on, and to then his readers can spread the good news..so to speak. ;) I do find myself often slipping into the thought that it's all beyond any influence I can give...why should I try? I know the reason, but it certainly isn't the easy path to take! And my evalution of those who are advocates of what is clearly not heathly for our society? One short answer is the great deceiver is alive and well in this world causing confusion to bring himself glory; but that's not PC to say. Perhaps man just needs to build another great tower to reach to the sky? /sarcasm off/

I worry that reasoned debate, outside of internet forums, has mostly disappeared from our society.

And while there are plenty of areas where I disagree with Chomsky, I agree with him that debates with only 30 second soundbite responses (or less, counting interruptions and other unpunished deviations from 'the rules' ) make it impossible to change anyone's mind. These things look like debates, but are not.

There does seem to be a little bit of the exact reverse going on as well - "Greed" being attributed to simple supply and demand. For instance, I can understand that subprime borrowers must be charged higher interest rates, and that the alternative is 'red lining.'

But if the extra charge for an ARM or Interest-Only is simply to cover costs associated with higher aggregate risk (as would be true if the market was functioning ideally and buyers were informed about the TCO of various loans) then you would not have loan originators incented to sell people interest-only or subprime loans. Such loans should offer them an equal or lesser return than a standard loan.

I've known a few people (two business majors, ironically) who have gotten bad loans when they could have gotten standard conforming loans with much lower closing costs and TCO. Considering that the only collateral on such loans is the house itself, I'd wager that these loans are at least a little more likely to be forclosed on, once the loan itself goes underwater and becomes a bad investment that the homeowner can walk away from if they choose.

Don!

Clear thinkers like Thomas Sowell are incredible writers that can help the cause of motivating people to *do* the right thing by taking the time to understand what's going on, and to then his readers can spread the good news..so to speak. ;)

But only if the readers WANT to do the right thing, or help promote whatever works. The sad problem, I have come to believe, is that many are involved in politics mostly to feel good, not do good. Sure, they'd like to do good too, but not if it gets in the way of feelings, which come first.

This, I believe, is why the Obama campaign works so well. When he talks about "Hope", juxtaposed against vague, vague stances, he's saying, basically: "Vote for me! I'll give you a feeling! If you vote for me, you can have a positive feeling!" And that clearly resonates.

One short answer is the great deceiver is alive and well...

I do actually agree that there is a subtle, spiritual influence which generally draws the masses and elites towards bad solutions, not good ones. But it's not an explanation I talk much about, not because it's un-PC, but because there is, as far as I can see, no clear way of proving it. And there's not much I can do about it directly, in either event.

I've been meaning to get into that some time, but not precisely this moment. Perhaps soon.

Ryan: I worry that reasoned debate, outside of internet forums, has mostly disappeared from our society.

I agree. I was listening to a radio talk show on the greatest debates in American history. They used to have this format: One hour for A, an hour and a half for B, and then a half-hour closing statement from A. Ohmigosh! People would stand around listening to that for three hours.

Today, we expect candidates to explain their view of national policy in ten seconds. TV has so degraded discourse.

I disagree with Chomsky, I agree with him that debates with only 30 second soundbite responses...

I actually agree with Chomsky a lot in "micro" points he makes. (Some are absolutely fictional, of course, such as the alleged American-caused starvation he reported in Afghanistan, which never happened.) But it's usually in the next level "up", the next higher level of analysis, where we diverge.

He rightly criticizes many things America has done wrong. (Or Israel, for that matter.) But he implies wrong motives, and he doesn't rightly compare them to similar or worse things done by other nations and groups.

Hey, you used the word "incented". IBM, who coined the use of "incent" as a verb, would be proud. :-)