I hate stupid people....

Now before you run off and call me an elitist or a snob realize that I'm referring to those who continue to hold outdated and prejudicial views.  

Such as those that have a nasty habit of blaming the victim.

I've included just such an exchange with what I consider to be a charter member of the "stupid people" group.  The topic is predatory lending specifically as to how it relates to the 2008 financial crisis.  

What follows is the unedited exchange....

Stupid Person...

Dumb people making dumb decisions. They should have read the fine print. They should have a good job and a good set of skills so that if they lose their current job by no fault of their own they can find a new one without too much trouble. If you do not have at least these things, you should never consider taking on a mortgage. 

And yes it is shitty that banks gave these mortgages out anyway, but the information is not misleading. At the time of things like Fannie the fine print was still given to the buyer in full. While it may be legalese, that is what lawyers and accountants are for. The banks are happy to give you credit even if you won't pay, and they are perfectly happy to give you all the terms and conditions. There is no serious wrongdoing here except for the buyer being negligent.

Less Stupid Person ( ME ) ....

Thank you Bernie Madoff....

That's the "They deserved to be F'd because they're stupid argument" 

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions there. Like assuming that everyone out of work or underemployed are stupid and lack skills. Never mind that many skilled and professional jobs have been shipped overseas leaving people with a whole lot of debt and nothing to replace the income. As for the fine print, you literally would have to have a Juris Doctorate degree to understand every term and condition. I suppose you read every word of every EULA you click "accept" to in that case. Good luck getting anything done. 

It's called predatory lending for a reason. There was a time when you could trust your banker, lawyer and even your doctor to do the right thing and give the right information. Now it's all about padding profit margins and when banks started using their deposits as gambling money on wall street speculation...well....all bets were off. You can't trust a banker any more than you can trust a used car salesman so whom are you supposed to seek guidance from? 

Do you think a 25K a year guy with a wife and 2 kids is going to be able to afford 300/hr for an attorney to look over every line of a mortgage? Most people were sold a bill of goods and they believed it because somebody told them that the "pros" would never lie to them. If it were just simple interest that's one thing but try to explain amortization and compounded interest to a bunch of people left behind by a public education system that barely teaches them to tie their shoes. 

In a culture of desperation it's easy to leave your skepticism behind when the "pros" are telling you otherwise. Your admonition of "good job and good set of skills" doesn't fly anymore and it hasn't for 30 years. You're assuming a level playing field and it's not. If you think it is, I've got a bridge to sell you in New York...

#sotu : Look, I like President Obama but...

Hey, make no mistake, I'm positive the country is in far better shape than it would have been with anyone else in office the past 7 years.

It's an undisputed fact that given a largely hostile congress over 3/4 of his presidency, great things have at least been attempted.

• I don't deny that getting healthcare for those that didn't even have the option because of a pre-existing condition or lack of an employer sponsored plan is a good thing.
• I don't deny that throwing a lifeline to the American auto industry saved the last vestige of American manufacturing.
• I don't deny that because of programs like HARP and mortgage lending reform families are still in their homes.
• I don't deny that there's been some improvement in how student loan programs are administered.
• I don't deny that some people that didn't have work after the financial meltdown have managed to find something.

But let's get real here.  

There's a lot of fuzzy math and hollow declarations of victory to consider.  Let's start with the thing that makes everyone's world go round, money...

Banking reform has been largely toothless and your money can be just as much at risk as it was before the crash.  Worse, many of the people who caused the financial crisis are still holding the reigns and are even richer today than they were 8 years ago.

It's no secret that the top 3% hold more than 1/2 the nation's wealth and that's not going to change anytime soon. The tax rate isn't going to move if you're a billionaire and in spite of claims to the contrary there's little desire on either side of the aisle to change that when campaign coffers are frequently filled by that top 3%.

Many of which made their billions on subprime lending, oil futures and predatory credit and collection practices.  The rest made their money on Wall street which favors those businesses that keep their overhead low ( AKA Wages) and profits high.  So what has the Obama presidency done about all this inequity?

The "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" or CFPB.  Look, the old dogs haven't changed their tricks.  The best that can be said of the CFPB is that your credit card statement is a little easier to read.  Oh yeah, and they win "symbolic" lawsuits against defunct diploma mills.  

BUT...

It hasn't stopped abusive junk debt buyers from hounding hapless victims over debts long past any statute of limitations.  The only defense, an expensive legal action or bankruptcy..  With millions still in financial distress due to the financial meltdown, look for this to only get worse over the next few decades.

Speaking of money, don't get me started on student loans.  There's been a lot of flowery, happy talk over President Obama's tenure but unless you're a newly minted high school graduate don't expect much relief.

Yes it's true.  Under this President Federally backed student loans are now administered by the Department of Education not greedy "servicers" who made billions by fleecing borrowers.  A practice that was often in collusion with private schools with shady reputations charging more per credit hour than Princeton or Harvard.

But if you're not 20 something, things aren't much different.  Yes, your payments may be tied to your income and not exceed 10% but that's been available  for over a decade.  It was one of the options you had when you consolidated your school loans.  Which many did mostly because their interest rate was higher than they were paying for their mortgage and frequently so was the monthly payment.

Still, nothing's been done or even mentioned about the last remaining loophole that all those "servicers"  milk.  That being the scourge of capitalized interest which over time can swell a $25000 loan to $40000 over a decade.  If your student loan originated sometime around Bush 2's second term or before then you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Of course the reason most people go to college is to get a better job.  Nobody wants to be relying on Walmart or Burger King to support a family.  Yet that's the bulk of all those "new" jobs out there unless you count the dead end $10 per hour jobs that have sprung up in call centers in all of those "right to work" states.  

Every State of the Union address uses fuzzy math.  Speech writers pick and choose the most favorable of statistics to present a glowing picture.  Only once in the past century has a sitting president had to admit that the state of the union wasn't so hot.  Say what you will about Gerald Ford but at least he was honest about it!

So when I keep hearing about that magical 5% unemployment rate it drives me insane.  Much like President Bush 41's clueless V.P, Dan Quayle pointing to a Help Wanted sign at a Burger King as a sign of economic recovery on the 1992 campaign trail I don't see the substance in the numbers.  It's still harder than it should be for talented people to get the kind of work that they not only deserve but in most cases went into substantial debt for.  

What those numbers don't count are the millions who've given up not because of laziness but rather due to a lack of opportunities.  It's a common practice in technical fields, for example, to post positions with no intention of filling them in hopes of importing cheaper talent through work visas.  A practice nobody has addressed in any substantial way.  CEO's decry the lack of skilled labor pools while simultaneously dismissing experienced but "expensive" talent.

Lest we forget those who've long since fallen off the unemployment rolls.  2008 was almost a decade ago and many still haven't recovered.  Nor are they counted.

More fuzzy math.  According to the White House's own website the current rate of Americans without health insurance has dropped to 8.8%.  An attractive number to campaign on but just like the unemployment figures, largely meaningless.

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to get everyone medical insurance at an affordable rate.  Thing is, the only way the government can possibly know how many people are covered with any degree of certainty is through tax filings.  It asks you right on the form and if you answer in the negative then you get to figure out your penalty.

But if you're making less than $11000, chances are you're not filing taxes and considering many people are only finding low wage part time work that number could be huge.  

More fuzzy math.  Worse, many of those who've signed up for the ACA have found that their premiums and co-pays have in some cases doubled. 

Regardless of claims to the contrary, the only thing the Affordable Care act has done is to swell the coffers of insurance companies and punish those who often find the penalty cheaper than the insurance premiums!   It's a plan the Insurance companies love.  And why not?  It was their lobbyists that influenced the legislation and effectively killed any hope of a single payer, nationalized health care system.  Add a profit motive to a government mandated program and a whole lot of nothing happens.  Sure there's a few who benefit, good for them but most of us haven't.

The saddest part of the whole speech came near the end where the President essentially told working age people in their 40's and 50's, tough luck.  Too bad if you found your personal economy destroyed by a few greedy people peddling mortgages to Burger King employees.  If you're over 40 your best bet is to just wait it out till Social Security kicks in.  So much for hope and change.

It's not that I think President Obama is a bad president.  In fact I'm confident that he was the right guy at the right time.  Anyone else would likely have seen the "Great Recession" truly descend into another "Great Depression." 

Still, even the President had to grudgingly admit that all this economic growth has benefited those at the top of the money tree the most.  The rest of us are still fighting over scraps. 

You can thank a congress more concerned with vendettas and cronyism than meaningful legislation for that.  The past 8 years have been more about who gets to marry who and dismantling healthcare reforms than anything else.  Expect more of the same if another Democrat takes over.  It's been an 8 year grudge match that even extended to his own party.  So it's no wonder that much of President Obama's agenda has amounted to less than was hoped for.

While the President's speech was hopeful and steadfast in his determination he knows that with a lame duck presidency and an obstinate congress his words will ultimately  ring hollow.  Look at the speech as nothing more than a platform for his successor,

Amazon isn't alone, this is how we work now

If you've been in the workforce for the past decade or so you may have noticed subtle changes.  Sure it takes hard work and sacrifice to get to the top but does it feel like all that effort has left you just spinning your wheels?

It's no secret that we're all working harder and getting less for it.  Less pay, less benefits and less free time.  The old adage was that work was its own reward but the guy who came up with that didn't have a mortgage or a dwindling 401K to worry about.

He also had his weekends...

Consequently, it's no surprise that we find today's workplace increasingly demands more than just a job well done, it demands a lifestyle commitment.

As in your job is your life.  

So what? That's work and that's how it's always been.

Except it hasn't...

Where the baby boomers may have had a reasonable expectation of a shiny pot of gold at the end of their career rainbow those that came after found themselves without a pot to...well you know...

Without falling into the trap of every succeeding generation blaming its predecessor, the point is that the endgame has changed.

While we hear a lot of lip service about work/life balance and the importance of family it seems such things are at odds with expectations of the average worker in today's corporate culture.

So is it any surprise that when the NewYork Times peeled back the curtain of Amazon's corporate culture they found more in common with the Kremlin than KMart.

Horrific stories like...

"A woman who had breast cancer was told that she was put on a “performance improvement plan” — Amazon code for “you’re in danger of being fired” — because “difficulties” in her “personal life” had interfered with fulfilling her work goals." NYTimes

Or...

"Amazon came under fire in 2011 when workers in an eastern Pennsylvania warehouse toiled in more than 100-degree heat with ambulances waiting outside, taking away laborers as they fell." NYTimes

If these were but a few isolated incidents they could be excused but it appears that rather than the exception, they're the rule...

"At Amazon, workers are encouraged to tear apart one another’s ideas in meetings, toil long and late (emails arrive past midnight, followed by text messages asking why they were not answered), and held to standards that the company boasts are “unreasonably high.” The internal phone directory instructs colleagues on how to send secret feedback to one another’s bosses. Employees say it is frequently used to sabotage others. (The tool offers sample texts, including this: “I felt concerned about his inflexibility and openly complaining about minor tasks.)" NYTimes

None of this shakes the Wall Street Glitterati though...

"I envision all investors saying 'Great,'" (Jim) Cramer said Monday. "Do I want to work at amazon? No. If you want to play your money with companies that only treat their employees well and do everything right, it's harder than you think to find." CNBC

Which has to be the most stunning display of cognitive dissonance (one of my favorite phrases) since Bernie Madoff uttered this 2007 quote, 

"It's virtually impossible to violate rules in today's regulatory environment"

InformationWeek

Of course Wall street loves this stuff.  We all know that nothing will raise a share price faster than pulling the rug out from under workaday America.  So it was with Amazon the following Monday after the New York Times expose'.  Amazon's share price was effectively unchanged.

Which is strange because for all the conservative admonitions about self reliance and the glories of capitalism Wall Street heaps praise upon companies that have effectively adopted management based on communism.

Hypocritical.

That any company can be celebrated for a institutionalized policy of devaluing people should be cause for outrage.  But there's that cognitive dissonance again.  So long as Wall street gets its money nobody really cares how it got there or who gets  hurt.

Think it's OK to throw a little Chairman Mao in with your capitalism?  Consider how relatively backward communist nations were before they embraced some form of capitalistic markets.  China wasn't known for anything but making cheap knockoffs of American goods.  The Soviet Union couldn't make a decent car and Cuba might as well have thrown out the calendars after 1962.

Creativity, innovation and progress are not born out of repression and abuse.  These days, however, no matter where you work you will suffer it in some measure.

Your choices are to literally be a "Wage Slave" or strike out on your own.  Of course if whatever shingle you hang happens to threaten one of those places you choose NOT to work for, expect to be crushed. 

Ask Barnes and Noble how that feels...

Let's bring back the America we were sold.  The one where hard work was rewarded and CEO's didn't look to Chairman Mao for guidance.  Let's get the Labor Department to actually do something other than print lunchroom posters and spit out manufactured statistics for the crystal ball prognosticators on CNBC.

How far have we really progressed over the past two generations when wages remain stagnant, women are still underpaid and companies blatantly abuse their workforce without consequence? 

We need real progress, not just some dumb commercial of waving wheat fields complete with proclamations of America's greatness on Bloomberg.

There's only one way to do it, make them fail and to hell with what Wall Street thinks.  There are other places to buy crap that aren't Amazon.com, other retailers that don't have "Walmart" over their doors and other phones that don't have an Apple Logo on them.

Dow Jones, an index of shame

I happened to be channel surfing the other day when I stopped on a PBS station.  The Nightly Business Report was on and the hosts were putting their best spin on the latest "non-event" Apple announcement ( 2 new versions of the same old phones). 

Financial correspondents understand charts, trends and indicators.  None of which have any basis in reality.  Well,  at least not to anyone with a net worth of less than 7 figures.  They have their own reality and it doesn't involve keeping the lights on or the kids fed. 

That's why Wall Street is a farce.  That anyone treats it as an economic indicator is laughable.   That is, unless you consider1% of the population a reliable demographic.

I almost switched the channel after suffering clueless commentary about yet another tech bauble.  I stopped when I found that following story concerned 3 companies being dropped from the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA.) 

The DJIA supposedly reflects a cross section of American based companies publicly traded on the stock market. 

It's the "I" in the industrial average that's amusing.  The 3 companies that didn't make the cut were:

Alcoa     Bank of America     HP

No love lost for B of A but what replaced them were:

Nike      Goldman Sachs     Visa

The criteria for membership in the exclusive DJIA club is simple, share price.  The highest performing and generally most expensive stocks make the cut so long as they continue to "perform." Performance is measured in a consistently high share price.  Often brought about by ruthless worship of the bottom line; many of these companies reflect the worst in corporate pandering to shareholders.

Much has been made of the inequity of the index affecting the entire market with just a handful of "representative" stocks.  Regardless, the DJIA is still the daily number most reported and most relied on as the de facto indicator of the economy.

If that's true then perhaps a name change is in order.  Perhaps something more along the lines of the DJFI or Dow Jones Fantasy Index.  Think of it like fantasy football except you lose real money when you pick the wrong team...

God knows most people with 401K's see it that way...

When the DJIA first came about in 1896 there were only 12 companies that represented the nation's industrial sector.

They were:

General Electric, American Cotton Oil, American Sugar, Chicago Gas, Distilling & Cattle Feeding, Laclede Gas, National Lead, North American, Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad, U.S. Leather and United States Rubber.

What's the common thread?  They all actually made something tangible.

Let's look at 2013's class...

3M, American Express, At&T, Boeing, Caterpillar, Chevron, Cisco Systems, Coca-Cola, Dupont, ExxonMobil, GE, Goldman Sachs, Home Depot, Intel, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase, McDonald's  Merck, Microsoft, Nike, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Travelers  United Health Group, United Technologies, Verizon, Wal-Mart, Walt-Disney

Look at that list closely.  Only a handful of the constituent parts of the DJIA are companies that actually produce any kind of tangible product and of those most of them produce their wares somewhere other than U.S. soil.

The rest is comprised of mostly banks, insurance companies, big pharma and other followers of the cult of  the bottom-line.   

It's all about the money but it's not about reality unless you think that an economy driven by outsourcing, medication and interest charges reflects its "Industry."

McDonald's and Wal-Mart, low price leaders known for low wages and substandard products.  Often the butt of jokes from those concerned about a failing career. 

Visa and JPMorgan Chase known for questionable financial products and poor treatment of their customers. 

Intel and Microsoft, tech pioneers but respectively proponents of offshore labor and unfair business practices that harm consumers and workers alike.

Insurance companies whose bottom line is best served by denying coverage even if the result is death. 

Pharmaceutical companies who lobby congress to artificially inflate profit margins and force the elderly to choose between medication and food.

If this is a cross section of American industry we might as well give up.  Nothing is being produced but misery and to celebrate the practice is madness. 

You can't blame globalization for the decline in American industry.  We are where we are because of the lesser parts of our nature.  Avarice, ignorance and ego,  Global markets have just allowed us to nurture the darker sides of our ambition.  Worse, we aspire to dwell in some corner office atop the glistening skyscraper producing nothing but the wages of our own sins.

We value those whose success was built on exploitation and dismiss all others.

Change may have come to America but real change involves a change in values.  Hard to do when popular media continually drives home the edict, "Greed is Good."  Openly we reject  it but secretly we hold it to be true.

That's why we fail.  

Why the Conservative Media got it wrong

Article first published as Why the Conservative Media Got it Wrong on Technorati.

If there was any question as to whether there is such a thing as a conservative media it was settled in the run-up to  the Presidential election.  From Forbes to the WashingtonTimes,  right-leaning  media outlets predicted a close but decisive win for Mitt Romney.

Their assertions were based almost entirely on the Romney campaign platform which focused on perceived weaknesses in the Obama presidency. Let's take a look at a few of them...

The weak Economy...

"Obama and congressional Democrats are clearly to blame for the dismal economy." said Policymic.com...

The argument ignores basic economics if not the calendar. 

For one thing, Economists of any stripe agree that it's impossible to completely recover from a worldwide economic recession (near depression) in less than four years.  It also ignores Wall Street, a favorite economic indicator of the media.

Speaking of Wall Street...

Throughout the Romney campaign President Obama was accused of being "Bad for Business"

Obamaand the belligerent anti-business cartel running Congress have created anincreasingly hostile environment for businesses to operate in. from the Weekly Standard...

On January 20th 2009 (Obama's Inauguration) the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 8279.63.  Election day 2012  found the close at 13245.68.

We all know that Wall Street isn't main street  but the media treats the securities markets as an economic barometer.  A 5000 point spread is hard to ignore.  A number conspicuously absent from the Republican campaigns.

Let's try another one...

Legislative gridlock that could only be resolved with a Romney presidency...

"Obamahas needlessly created political enemies among the electorate.", again from Policymic.com

This one is pure fabrication unless the mere existence of the man is reason enough to despise him.  Remember Republican Senator Mitch McConnell's quote?

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

For the two years since the quote to the National Journal, McConnell has insisted he was taken out of context.  Considering the almost intractable ideologies we've seen in congress throughout the President's first term I'm not sure what other context would apply. 

Both parties were aware of the frustration of the electorate with approval ratings leading up to the election hovering at 17%, an historic low.  "My way or the highway" isn't compromise and even a casually informed voter knows that the President can only propose not write legislation.  After that he has to wait for something to come to his desk  to sign.  Misdirection and the fallacy of the straw man. 

Finally, the straw that was to break the back of any hope of  the President's reelection.

 Democratsare not as motivated as they were in 2008. thanks again Policymic.com...

This one was more wishful thinking than calculated advantage...

Even in the face of reduced voting hours and recent challenges to early voting laws Obama voters turned out in force.   In many cases standing hours in line to cast their ballot.  Chants of "Let Us Vote" still ringing in the electorate's ears from the weekend before the election.

Whether or not voter suppression was going on, the suggestion alone was enough of a motivation to engage the ambivalent.

So how could conservative media get it so wrong? 

"MittRomney will win big tonight.  His popular vote margin will be between 3 –5%.  He will win the Electoral College I believe by a vote of 321 to217,"  Steve Forbes, Nov 6, 2012

Three possible scenarios come to mind. 

·    The people writing this stuff are just pandering to their readers who are comprised largely of well heeled conservatives. 

·    They based their assumptions on campaign rhetoric without any fact checking.  The second Presidential debate should have discouraged that route.

·    They're just the media arm of the Republican party.

None are good options and all call into question the standards of the publication.  Popular media is no longer under any type of fairness doctrine, however,  short of libel.  That's allowed media outlets to safely engage in a political bias.    Nobody would confuse Fox News with Mother Jones for example. 

In the end I offer no cautionary admonition against such gaffs.  If anything this is simply an  example of media consumption (or creation) based on individual biases.  Most bias is usually based on at least some factual information even if it's of our own creation .