Saturday, October 29, 2011

Emotion, not logic, drives politics

A major interest behind a fair number of California Moderates posts was to see if arguing that emotion, i.e., political or religious ideology, (i) significantly drives people's political beliefs and world view and (ii) resonates with the public. In part, this blog was  an experiment to test the American appetite for logic and reason in politics. That was a conscious poke with a stick in the eye of the sleeping dog to see if it would wake up and bite. Would those logic/reality arguments resonate with the public? Well, within the confines of this obscure blog, they didn't. Maybe on a large scale these things might resonate.



Given the response so far, it looks like the sleeping dog (i) doesn't care, (ii) does care but is too busy to afford to pay much attention, (iii) is not educated enough or cannot think clearly free from emotional distortion, (iv) disagrees and/or (v) has a special (personal) interest in injecting emotion into politics (distort reality). Item (v) is a real killer - it has endless cash and some of the finest and/or wealthiest minds in America supporting it. Those are some of the main ingredients in the toxic stew called contemporary American politics. American politics since the end of the second world war betrayed and failed the U.S. public. Emotion is a key reason why it failed.

A reasonable conclusion: There are powerful incentives to inject emotion into politics. Emotion dominates politics because it serves special interests, not the public interest. That's political business as usual. That has already delivered to most of the American public a significant decrease in median income (about 9.8% since the start of the recession in 2007). If U.S. politics remains the same sloppy, emotional, irrational enterprise that it is now, we are going to see if (i) politics as usual can fix the messes it created, (ii) the situation rights itself despite business as usual or (iii) we go over the cliff and take a bigger and/or permanent hit to our standard of living. Time will tell.



Of course, if the situation rights itself despite their inept or even counterproductuive efforts, ideologues will claim full credit for the success. That too is just politics as usual.

In politics, religion is an ineffective source of authority

There are many instances where religious belief dictates facts and reality despite contrary evidence of a "secular" nature. Over the centuries, the Christian religion has rejected all sorts of realities or facts that it later conceded were real, e.g., the Earth is not the center of the universe. Today a few Christians believe that the Earth is literally about 6,500 years old (link 1, link 2, link 3). Because of that and coupled with acceptance of the fact that dinosaurs existed, some Christians believe that humans and dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time (link 1, link 2). Concluding that the Earth is a few thousand years old or that dinosaurs and humans coexisted is a perception of reality grounded in religious faith and belief, not modern science.

If religious faith can lead people to believe things that compelling evidence says is not true, then how might religion affect politics when the evidence (reality) is less compelling? Consider, for example, climate change (discussed here before in a similar facts/reality vs. perception context), the impact of human activity on it and its potential severity.

Assume for the sake of argument, that something important in the Bible or Christian faith holds that Christian belief about the issue should come down on the side that says humans have no affect on climate change, it can't be affected and it is a mortal sin to even try to interfere with God's sacred intent. Also assume that that Christian driven belief comes to dominate politics and becomes official policy, the policy is ultimately proven wrong and the consequences are worse than catastrophic. Could that happen if this hypothetical were true? If not, why not?

Religious belief can lead some to believe that humans and dinosaurs literally coexisted. Given that, why can't religious belief lead some to believe that God does not want humans to interfere with global warming or advocate something else that reality says ought not to be done?

None of this is an attack on religion. Religion is an innate part of human beings. For addressing a person's spiritual needs, religion can be a great thing and can effectively serve that innate human need. A human need for religion simply needs to be acknowledged while minimizing its capacity to inflict damage on politics and political policy.

Religious beliefs are not the only source of distortion. Political ideology such as liberal and conservative ideology can and do distort reality. But in politics, devout religious belief is a more powerful source of distortion of fact and reality than pragmatism or political ideology. That can undeniably lead to flawed or ineffective political policy and waste. Compared to reliance on pragmatism or liberal or conservative ideology, religion is the worst source of political authority because it has the greatest power to distort reality.

A version of this with more context was posted earlier.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

A different debate, part three: Religion - the worst source of authority

There have always been two main manifestations of human nature, thought and/or ingenuity: Religion or spirituality, collectively "religion" or "emotion" and secular humanism or pragmatism. In general, religion is faith in the unknowable. It is belief in things that we cannot perceive or analyze. It is not grounded in reason and based on tangible (provable) knowledge. It is mostly grounded in culture and things other than tangible facts. Call it emotion for lack of a better term. Pragmatism is generally the opposite. Its mostly reasoned faith in the knowable (tangible) based on what we can perceive and test or analyze and is generally less tainted by culture.

Guam Rail - extinct in the wild

Science and pragmatism mostly end where our ability to test and analyze ends. Beyond that is the realm of religion. The relatively thin line between them is usually, but not always, clear. Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus and the theory of relativity are obviously on opposite sides of the line. That clarity creates an unusual situation in human affairs: Distinguishing between two complex ways of seeing the world can usually be determined. One world view is faith based and the other is reality based.

Hard wiring
Religion and pragmatism have always been there. They are innate and fundamental characteristics hard wired into the human brain. Depending on the situation and the individual, one may dominate the other, but both are always there contending for mental bandwidth and influence. The interplay is mostly unconscious. The result of the competition manifests as an opinion or belief about something. Sometimes the result accurately reflects reality. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes facts and logic dominates the output. Sometimes emotion dominates.



It isn't the case that pragmatism will always get reality right or mostly right. Nor does religion always get it wrong. But on balance, it is reasonable to expect that beliefs or perceptions of reality coming mainly from pragmatism will get things more right more often than when religion dominates. Why? Because attempts to see or understand reality for what it is should be more accurate if religious ideology is not a source of distortion. Of course, that only makes some sense if you believe that religious faith can distort a person's view of facts and thus reality.

The following is a political argument, not an attack on religion. As argued here before, religion is hard wired into the human brain. It is part of our innate character. What varies between individuals is how that character manifests itself in a person's world view including (i) what constitutes fact vs. fallacy and (ii) the person's religious beliefs or lack thereof. Attacking religion makes no sense.



Can religious faith dictate facts and reality?
Are there instances where religious belief dictates facts and reality despite contrary evidence of a "secular" nature? Yes, there are. Over the centuries, the Christian religion has rejected all sorts of realities that it later was forced to concede were real, e.g., the Earth is not the center of the universe. Today some, but not most, Christians believe that the Earth is literally about 6,500 years old (link 1, link 2, link 3). Because of that and coupled with acceptance of the existence of dinosaurs as a fact, some Christians believe that humans and dinosaurs and humans in fact existed at the same time (link 1, link 2). None of that means that Christians reject logic and reason (link). However, concluding that the Earth is a few thousand years old or that dinosaurs and humans coexisted is a perception of reality based on religious faith and belief, not modern science.

Specifically, the context and facts that Christians use to conclude these things comes from religious belief, not science. Their conclusions do not mean that their logic or reasoning is flawed. It is just that the context and facts they use are at odds with modern secular reality. Faith in the bible dictates the facts and once those facts are accepted, logic and reason can flow naturally.



Religion and politics
If religious faith can lead people to believe things that overwhelming evidence says is not true, then what might the effect of religion on politics be when the evidence is much less compelling? Consider, for example, climate change (discussed here before in a similar facts/reality vs. perception context), the impact of human activity on it and its potential severity. The facts are hotly contested, in politics. But not so much in science. Majority scientific opinion, approaching overwhelming consensus opinion, if not already there, says its an urgent problem and we should at least try to do something about it.

Assume just for the sake of argument, that something important in the Bible or Christian faith said that Christian belief about the issue should come down on the side that says humans have no affect on climate change, it can't be affected and it is God's will to not to even try to interfere. Assume that the contrary facts and consensus scientific opinion on climate change are dealt with the same that some Christians use to conclude that the Earth is 6,500 years old in the face of those contrary facts. Finally assume that Christian driven belief comes to dominate politics and becomes official policy, the policy is ultimately proven wrong and the consequences are worse than catastrophic. Could that happen if this hypothetical scenario were true? If not, why not?



Its not about global warming, its about
how your ideology affects your perception of reality
It does not appear that Christian faith underlies most of the distortion of facts and reality in the global warming political debate. Instead, that distortion seems to come mostly from rigid conservative ideology that dislikes government and has faith in the belief that government should not deal with such matters. From the rigid conservative ideological point of view, the facts make it look like addressing global warming will require coordinated action at the federal level and would have adverse impacts on the economy.

Given that accurately perceived reality, many or most conservatives unconsciously distort or discount contrary majority scientific opinion and facts that global warming is something to be concerned about. They come to an inaccurately perceived reality based on their faith in their "sacred" ideology. That politically ideologically driven distortion is necessary to logically conclude that global warming is nothing to worry about. Its the same process that leads some Christians to conclude the Earth is just a few thousand years old.

Consider dealing with facts that are less convincing than facts about the age of the Earth. What could religious faith do to those less convincing facts if they contradict an important sacred, infallible religious belief? How hard would it be for many (most?) believers to conclude something that conforms to the religious faith but contradicted by the facts? What proportion of people with faith would come to the wrong faith based conclusion? Its reasonable to guess a lot higher than for the young Earth issue because the facts and science are less solid and more open to attack and doubt.



Liberal, conservative, religious,
compromise (moderate) ideologies & pragmatism
Of those five sources of authority and world view in politics, two stand out as fundamentally the most different, religion and pragmatism. Religion and faith for their capacity to lead believers to conclusions and perceptions regardless of contradictory facts and reality. Pragmatism, as I define it, for its emphasis on trying to understand facts and reality for what they are while trying to downplay effects of other ideologies. Those are two very different vantage points from which to see the world and from which to conduct politics.

It is not the case that liberal, conservative and moderate ideologues don't let their ideology affect the way they see things. As discussed above for global warming, they clearly do and sometimes to a surprising degree. Despite that, it seems that facts and unspun reality generally have a bigger impact on perceptions of people with those "secular" beliefs than on persons who are also deeply (and maybe moderately) religious. That is just opinion, but it is based on listening to people and trying to understand what shapes their perceptions of reality. Religion seems to have a more powerful effect on perception than the other authority sources. That's fine, if it leads to an accurate perception of reality and intelligent politics. It can be a bad thing when it doesn't and mistaken perception leads to bad political policy and a waste of tax dollars.


The foregoing describes the context in which our politics operates for the most part. From that context, it is reasonable to believe that reliance on sources of authority that can more easily lead to mistakes from misunderstanding reality should be de-emphasized. Reliance on sources of authority that minimize mistakes should be emphasized. From that, it is reasonable to conclude that the influence of ideologies on politics should be minimized as much as possible. Reliance on pragmatism should be increased as much as possible.

For addressing a person's spiritual needs, religion can be a great thing. But for politics, religion is the most powerful source of distortion of fact and reality. It is the worst source of political authority.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

A different debate, part two: Four failed viewpoints

Most mainstream political discussion derives from three major points of view or ideological comfort zones, liberal, conservative and compromise. That can be thought of as the standard 3-point political universe, i.e., politics as usual. If pragmatism is included, one gets a theoretical 4-point political universe. However, that is not politics as usual. Pragmatism is of limited relevance to mainstream American politics, at least to the extent average people see it. If pragmatism in service to the public interest does dominate somewhere, it is buried in the bowels of obscure government or political party operations. But, there is another possible point of view for political thinking and belief and that is religion.

Japanese destroyers

It is the case that we already have a 4-point universe where religion or spiritual belief, not pragmatism, is the fourth foundation of politics. Presidents Carter and Reagan were fairly comfortable with religion in politcs. In the Bush presidency, Christian religion was a major part of thinking that guided policies and actions. President Bush made it clear that Jesus was his inspiration and guide. Cabinet meetings started with prayer. For a while, daily briefing cover sheets for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld included Biblical quotes. Those things, and others, made faith in Christian ideology plus faith in conservative ideology the two controlling viewpoints in the Bush era. With liberal and moderate ideologies are included, we had a 4-point political universe. That is what we have today.

So what?
How is any of this relevant to politics and our political and economic situation? That's what we should focus on, isn't it? Aren't we all reasonable people who use logic and reason to come to our political opinions? Those are reasonable questions. But are the answers to those questions true? For the most part, they are not. How people see the world and what influences perception is not irrelevant. It goes straight to the heart and core of the problems behind discontent with politics and political failures.

Japanese sailor on Japanese destroyer taking opictures

To get to the point, do average Americans mostly use pragmatism and reason to come to their political opinions? Or, do they rely mostly on ideology, faith and/or emotion? Listen to how hard core liberals and conservatives describe each other and the world as they see it. They can be intelligent and articulate. Nontheless, listening to opposing ideologues as they describe almost any fact pattern, situation or policy choice is hearing to two different things. The liberal and conservative perceptions of reality are usually mutually exclusive and they usually disagree about what ought to be done. Given that reality, and it is reality, if opinions are mostly grounded in facts and reason, how can such huge differences in descriptions of reality possibly come about?

Reality doesn't care what you think
Of course, such differences cannot and do not exist. There is only one reality and it is independent of anyone's ideology. What we get from the hard core extremes and people guided mostly by faith is their perception of reality, which is not necessarily true unspun reality. In politics, the dominant liberal and conservative ideologies give us their versions of reality. Those usually incompatible versions have to come from somewhere. The logical explanation is that it comes from innate human hard wiring that allows for faith in a perceived reality regardless of the real reality. Where else could such differences come from? There is no other source.



That leads to some straightforward conclusions. Pure faith distorts reality. It has to. If reality wasn't distorted by something, we would have smaller and maybe fewer gaps in how we perceive reality. If faith, religion in a sense, didn't distort reality, how would it be possible to maintain it in the face of conflicting reailty? Perception certainly is reality in the mind of one who perceives, but it is not necessarily reality in the real world.

Of course, most all ideologues of all types will disagree. They know they see it all clearly. They know their vision of reality is right. They know their political opposition lives a fantasy. They know it. Its an article of faith, especially for the religious. Yes, it is an article of faith. Does that make all sides right or wrong?  If they are all right, how does one reconcile the differences? If one is right, which one? Why chose one over the other? If all three versions of reality are distorted by faith, why think that any one version is acceptable?



What about the moderates?
Does that mean the moderate version of reality is a distortion as well? Moderates are often, maybe usually, interested in pursuing compromise between the liberal, conservative and maybe religious viewpoints. If that is true, does their world view feed off the distorted versions of reality coming from the left, the right and the spirit world? Or, maybe their version of reality comes from elsewhere. If so, where? Since the end of the second world war, moderates had political power and influence on occasion. Moderates are part of the story. Did they mostly fail? Or, did they mostly succeed by leaving us in a better situation than would have been the case if they did not have power or influence? Were they neutral? That's a hard call. It is easier to trace successes and failures to liberal, conservative and religious ideology than to moderate ideology, whatever it is.

On the wrong track
Many people believe that our political and economic affairs are unacceptable, in disarray and generally "on the wrong track." America recently dominated and had all advantages anyone could ask for. Despite the advantages, here we are. The same goes for religion in politics. It had its chances. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to reject the liberal, conservative, religious and maybe moderate versions of reality and politics as flawed.


They all had power on one or more occasions with access to great wealth and human talent. All four sources of authority had chances to succeed. Nonetheless, they collectively failed. What does that leave as a viable, but mostly untested source of authority? Unless you believe that moderates are mostly pragmatists, pragmatism is what is left.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

A different debate, part one: Four politics or just one?

My main complaint about politics as usual is that something important is missing from mainstream political debate and policy. If you believe that the U.S is off track in some way, it is reasonable and defensible to argue that if something is missing it could be a major part of the problem. At the moment, most mainstream Americans think we are on the wrong track, although most politicians apparently feel otherwise. For the mainstream, what the "wrong track" means comes primarily from three basic political viewpoints.

Japanese destroyers
San Diego bay - July 2011

Big three politics
The three main viewpoints are liberal, conservative and compromise or centrist. One of those three seems to be the political space where most Americans mostly live most of the time (but not always, e.g., fiscally conservative social liberals/moderates). Its their ideology and what they are comfortable with. That's how they see the world as it is and how it ought to be. When over 80% of mainstream Americans say we are on the wrong track, that arguably means to many or most that our politics isn't sufficiently liberal, conservative or compromise. Not many people even question whether there is political space outside that political universe of three points. The competition among ideas is largely between liberal and conservative ideas - pragmatism plays a minor role at best.

Big four politics
There is space outside those three points. Lots of it. In fact, the best political universe has four points, (1) liberal, (2) conservative, (3) pragmatic and (4) compromise between 1-3. Of course, calling that the best political universe just means that is how I see the world as it is and how it ought to be. Arguably, pragmatism is missing and that is a major part of why our politics and political institutions have failed, i.e., its why we are on the wrong track. Lacking cold, unemotional pragmatism, liberals and conservatives cannot see the real world without distortion. They generally cannot conceive of political solutions or options outside the world they are comfortable with. Money in the process tends to reinforce political disconnects from reality. Pragmatic options that don't fit with the 3-point liberal, conservative or compromise universe don't get serious consideration even in the rare cases when they are acknowledged.

Japanese destroyers
San Diego bay - July 2011

What's so great about pragmatism? Why should it get equal standing with the three standard viewpoints? The big three are well established, so what's wrong with that? What's wrong is that the status quo is what got us here. That political model is why we are on the wrong track. No one can blame our problems on pragmatism any more than they can blame the messes on control of politics by Socialists or Libertarians. There is no logical place for the blame and failures other than in the dominant 3-point universe itself.

Who is at fault?
Many (most?) liberals blame conservatives and/or moderates for all/most the problems. Many conservatives blame liberals and/or moderates. Maybe moderates mostly blame ideologue zealots on both sides. Maybe they blame themselves some. But as far as I can tell, very few or none of them blame pragmatists. Why is that? Maybe its because pragmatists and pragmatism hasn't had much effect on politics. It isn't relevant.

Japanese destroyer
San Diego bay - July 2011

The big one politics - doomed from the start
I mostly live in the pragmatic political world and believe that it should dominate politics and political thinking. According to that world view, politics should be conducted with minimal regard to ideology or emotion. Unspun facts should define the context of the debates and cold, unemotional logic should dominate the thinking. That's not to say that compassion has no place. It has a place. Its part of what makes us human and not of machines. Compassion just needs to be reasonably and intelligently integrated after clear-headed assessment of the problem. Otherwise, the emotion skews reality and makes policy less effective and efficient.

In any event, humans are what they are and emotion in politics or anything else dominated by ideology/emotion isn't going away. A one-point political universe of pure pragmatism can encompass the entire 4-point political universe, i.e., its capable of seeing all the options. In addition to arguing for political policies that liberals, conservatives and centrists might all oppose, pragmatism would align with what any of those three would want if it made sense to do so. That's the true freedom of being pragmatic. Unfortunately, pure pragmatism won't work. Emotion makes a 1-point pragmatic universe unfeasible. At present and maybe forever, the three points won't be completely pushed aside.

Japanese destroyer
San Diego bay - July 2011

Because of that, the best one can hope for is compromise that includes a bigger contribution from pragmatism than what we have now. That would seem to argue for a new political party in view of resistance to change from the current two. As argued before, a 4-point universe is about the best we can do. Or, is there some reason other than the status quo for the discontent?

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Legalize vice

Going forward, prospects for robust economic growth (> ~ 6% or thereabouts) don't look so good. Not for the middle and lower classes, at least. Incomes have been stagnant recently and income inequality is increasing. Our political stsyem including the two parties offer no solutions that make much sense or look compelling. They got us into these messes so it isn't surprising that they don't know how to get us out. Even if there was a good idea from either side, it has little chance of implementation in view of current political stalemate. Unemployment is likely to stay high for years, further eroding the middle and lower classes. We are in a rough patch, if not something worse.

Getting ready for a basketball game on an aircraft carrier
San Diego Bay - November 2011

Despite the unpleasant situation, people will be people. Human behavior isn't going to change as long as there is sufficient wealth to maintain it. Given the situation, it is time to reconsider human vice. Vice is potentially a huge, high value industry. It includes illegal drugs, prostitution, gambling, smoking and alcohol consumption. To a large extent, the last three of those are legal and generating tax revenue instead of just diverting money from public coffers to criminal organizations.

But, what about drugs and prostitution? They aren't going away, now or ever. They have been with human society for about as long as recorded history, if not longer. The war on drugs is a massive, costly failure. It has no prospect for anything better than continued costly failure. Anti-prostitution laws are about the same - they don't seem to stop many people from doing much of anything. That's just the reality.

Warming up before the big game on the big boat

Cost-benefit - drugs
Legalizing drugs and prostitution would impose costs on society and provide benefits. As usual, the question is where does the balance lie? Costs and benefits are both obvious and subtle. For drugs, possibly more lives would be destroyed or lost than now. The drug cartels would oppose drug legalization for the obvious reason, tens of billions of dollars in lost, untaxed revenue. Taxpayers ought to supprt legalization to get those revenues, to reduce the burden on our criminal justice system and to stop the needless injury (criminal record, etc) to people who do nothing  more than recreational drug use. Adverse health effects would be expected, depending on which drugs are legalized. It probably makes sense to not legalize the most dangerous drugs. Some drugs, e.g., marijuana, are likely* to be less toxic or lethal than cigarettes or alcohol. But, that probably isn't to be true for all drugs.

Before the big game on the big boat

* That belief is anectdotal. There is insufficient data that I know of from controlled studies to show that marijuana use is safe and has no long term adverse effects. My instinct is that marijuana use isn't completely harmless. Whatever affects the human brain and perception has a basis in human physiology. Showing safety requires large, rigidly controlled, professionally conducted, unbiased, long term safety studies. Until those studies are done, firm conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn. But, legalizing it could and should provide the money needed to investigate its health effects, good or bad. Marijuana safety studies haven't been conducted probably because politicians and people who oppose legalizing drugs fear that marijuana will be shown to be relatively safe (comapred to alcohol or cigarettes, at least). That outcome would of course undermine arguments to keep marijuana illegal and that's probably why we still don't know what adverse effects there are, if any. That lack of knowledge may be unconsionable to some (including me), but it is politics as usual.

Prostitution
In the case of prostitution, legalizing it would (i) divert revenue from crime to taxes, (ii) impose health protections and (ii) keep "innocent" people out of the criminal justice system. Associated health rules presumably would reduce inherent risks, e.g., STDs, human slavery, child abuse and whatnot. Prostitutes and organized (or disorganized) crime would probably mostly oppose legalization for the same reasons that crime would oppose legalizing illegal drugs. Billions and billions in lost, untaxed revenue.

The game on the boat (UNC vs. Michigan State)
San Diego, November 2011

A costly indulgence?
Keeping prostitution and drugs like marijuana illegal arguably is a costly indulgence that we can't afford any more. Probably never could have afforded it. Why should tens or hundreds of billions in tax dollars be spent fighting against something that cannot be changed? Why should those billions in tax dollars be diverted from a public revenue stream to support underground criminal enterprises? What is the evidence showing that what we do now confers a net benefit over the massive costs?

We face a very large federal debt and a falling standard of living. Its time to rethink human vice and reconsider our policies in view of their high cost and undeniable failures. It is time to legalize normal human behavior to the extent it makes sense.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Sticky debt

Sometimes it is easy to see why some people rage against banks, bailouts and politicians. To a large extent, they were protected while average citizens are not. A recent example of a harsh reality called the "deficiency judgment" comes from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on Oct. 1-2, 2011, page A1, A12 (online article here).

Here is how a deficiency judgment comes about. A person buys a house, the value of the house drops, the homeowner can't maintain the mortgage, the lender forceloses and sells the house for less than the loan amount and then sues the former homeowner for the difference to get the deficiency judgment. The former homeowner now owes the lender the differnce between what he paid for the house and what it sold for after foreclosure.

IED jammer - Afghanistan - December 2011

In a hypothetical example, say a buyer paid $400,000 for a house, then lost his job two years later and defaults on the mortgage because he couldn't sell the house. The lender then sells the house for $200,000 and gets a deficiency judgment for the remaining outstanding balance, about $200,000. That's pretty nasty. In those circumstances, declaring bankruptcy may look appealing to the shell shocked consumer.

Of course, circumstances vary for each borrower. Some were speculators and flippers. Some were not. Some people just needed a place to live and had sufficient income to maintain the mortgage. Some didn't. Some were naive and/or irresponsible, while some weren't. Some borrowers are "strategic defaulters", who simply walk away from a mortgage once it is obvious it makes no economic sense to continue paying the mortgage.

Marine with local child - Helmand province, Afghanistan
December 2011

The housing market was overheated and everyone involved, including real estate agents, loan originators, appraisers and lenders, were all pushing sales as hard as they could. Each sale made them money. The entire industry didn't care if the borrower could repay or not. They didn't care if what they were doing could damage the economy or not. That's why liar loans came about - people could simply lie about their income and still get a loan. All that helped grossly inflate home prices.

Marines - Helmand province, Afghanistan
December 2011

Where's the homeowner's bailout? There is none. For consumers in trouble, its caveate emptor and you are on your own. For powerful industries particularly including the financial sector, when trouble is on the horizon, its time to unleash the lobbyists, make a few "campaign contributions" and relax. Under the circumstances, there is no stigma when a consumer just declares bankruptcy. Its just business.