Monday, November 30, 2015

GOPe Denies Trump But Accepted Romney

It has become more disgusting with each passing week to see the essays, the interviews and the tweets from GOPe pundits, analysts and media figures. There are the pro-Rubio missives. Rubio is a slick, polished speaker. He is also an empty suit. There are the Rubio is surging tweets, which look weird in the face of Trump and Cruz both surging without as much of the media help as Rubio gets. There are the anti-Trump articles, both left and right, with the right acting like the left. The latest meme is the "take our ball and stay home" threat by the GOPe crowd. The funny thing is that the GOPe wholeheartedly supported a figure very similar to Trump in 2012, begging the peasants to support their chosen one, Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney, for all of his faults as a candidate, was a very smart, competent and skilled administrator. In a broken-up USA, he would make a fine elder statesman for Deseret (Mormon-land). Romney was always a winner, and very attuned to pitching himself to voters with what he and his advisors thought they needed. In 2008, he was ahead of the game with a focus on immigration. In 2012, he continued his anti-illegal immigration pitch and "Mr. Fix-it" for the economy. He could not connect to the base, could not shake off his prior support for Obamacare that he signed into law in massachusetts as Romneycare, and he could not plunge the dagger in the second debate. He was not loved by the GOPe, but when he had the nomination sown up with the Michigan primary win righting his ship, the GOPe backed him with passion.

Romney is no different than Trump. Trump's signature issue is immigration, but a focus on being anti-illegal immigration. Trump's wall? Romney wanted a wall. Romney wanted to do just about everything Trump wants to do with the exception of deport millions starting day one. Here are his political positions with regards to immigration per La Wik.

During the 2012 presidential election primary campaign, Romney called Arizona’s approach to illegal immigration “a model for the nation.”[384] He vowed that on his first day in office as president, he would bring an end to the lawsuits the Obama Administration’s Justice Department had brought challenging Arizona’s immigration policy.[384] He also praised the anti-illegal immigration efforts of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a law professor who had drafted much of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration enforcement lawand similar measures around the country. Campaigning with Kobach in January 2012, Romney said, “We need more conservative leaders like Kris willing to stand up for the rule of law. With Kris on the team, I look forward to working with him to take forceful steps to curtail illegal immigration and to support states like South Carolina and Arizona that are stepping forward to address this problem.”[385] When the Supreme Court struck down parts of Arizona's SB 1070 in June 2012, a Romney campaign spokesman said that Romney supports the rights of states to make their own immigration laws when the federal government has failed to address illegal immigration.[386] 
To help combat illegal immigration across the border with Mexico, Romney has said that the U.S. must erect a fence along the entire 2,600 mile border, equipped with technology to detect attempts to breach the barrier, and outfitted with adequate numbers of border patrol agents.[387] 
Romney also said during the primary campaign that he would seek to make the U.S. a much less hospitable place for undocumented immigrants by eliminating what he called the magnets that attract them.[387][388] An example of a magnet, he said, would be offering to undocumented immigrants the same tuition discounts that are offered to legal residents who attend public colleges in their states, a benefit that rival candidate Governor Rick Perry supported for Texas students who had been brought as children to the U.S. by their undocumented immigrant parents.[388] Romney similarly said that he opposed all forms of amnesty because he regards amnesty as another magnet for illegal immigration.[389]He vowed that as president he would veto the DREAM Act (legislation which would allow individuals who had been brought to the U.S. as children when their families immigrated illegally an opportunity to qualify for permanent residency if they met certain qualifications), because he considered it yet another magnet for illegal immigration.[390][391] 
Romney has argued that a key step to reducing illegal immigration would be to reduce the job opportunities available for undocumented immigrants. He has said that requiring employers to confirm each worker’s immigration status using an E-Verify-type database, such as in Arizona, and punishing employers who hire workers lacking proper documentation, would lead employers to stop hiring undocumented immigrants, with the result that fewer immigrants would choose to come to the U.S. illegally, and many of those who are already in the U.S. would "self-deport."

This is not that different than Trump's desired policies nor the means with which he would execute his policies. The hate on Trump cannot be fore unreasonable, racist policies since they mirror the policies that the prior nominee wanted to implement as president.

The other attack is on Trump being photographed with Democrats, donating money to Democrats and beign Democrat friendly. The GOPe does not want to admit that a FIRE economy dependent billionaire is going to have to butter both sides of the bread to get his way. Elon Musk donates money to both parties, yet if he ran for Governor of California, the Democrats would toss roses at his feet despite the GOP donations. There is a "Johnny-Come-Lately" tag attached to Trump, which is comical considering it was the same thing said about Romney.

Let's use one of these GOPe Twitter pundits own writing. This baseballcrank post sums it up. Crank wrote 15,000 words against Romney prior to a final blast, mocking Romney for being an unconvincing convert. Crank is sharp, and secretly, Trump is the candidate Crank has wanted for years. Crank and company still supported Romney like good soldiers. Romney passed Romneycare. Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in the '90s and said he would spearhead and pass things Kennedy could not because he knew how to work the government of the '90s. Romney was a victim of geography, and he did not want to move to Michigan and run there. Had he done so, he probably would have won a presidential election. The GOPe knew all of this about Romney.

They still supported him in the summer and fall. They still backed him. They still told you little peasants to get your asses to the voting booth for him. They did not take their ball and go home because voters did not support Gov. Rick Perry. They did not dream of a white knight to save them in the spring despite Gov. Mitch Daniels being at the ready. The GOPe and Smart Set were perfectly fine with Trump. Romney and Trump were both sons of wealthy men who made even more money. The GOPe even whispers now of using Romney against Trump in the spring if they get desperate enough. This is a circus for a position with less power than the public imagines, but the GOPe threatens a backstabbing.

Trump is not their guy. Trump is not jumping through the hoops they have set up. Trump is not speaking to them, but he is speaking to the little guys. The GOPe has deamed of a populist candidate. They have dreamed of a guy that blacks may slide over to by even an additional 5-10%. They have prayed for one who fights the media for being unfair and goes out to every stump speech with this message; "DC-NYC is corrupt and needs a spring cleaning" for decades. Trump just isn't their guy, and they hate him for that.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Social Matter - Enabling The Left's Economic Lies

Today's essay at Social Matter is Enabling the Left's Economic Lies. It is hard for the media to cover up for the obvious, but they will do so as long as they suffer no consequences.

What is unwritten in a New York Times article is always the real story.
What they write is what they want to show you–with the goal of stirring up anger.
Even NY Times readers have been rebelling in comments sections. The NY Times’ effect on the public debate is not always political, but it can reveal the motivations behind their bias. This summer, the NY Times became angry with airline profits and mark ups.
This is a bit topical as one GOP candidate, Ted Cruz, has recently stated how Big Biz and Big Government go hand in hand. This slight deviation from the right's slavish devotion to Big Biz is newsworthy. Big Biz all celebrated the gay marriage SCOTUS ruling. Big Biz loves poz. They are no friend to traditionalism.

Friday, November 27, 2015

Social Matter Review and Preview 24

This week saw the start of a podcast that I am doing that Social Matter is hosting, Weimerica Weekly. Go listen to it there! I am aiming at podcast of 25-45 minutes in length. Two hours of talking seems ridiculous. I do intend to have guests if they accept invitations, but I have to get the proper equipment and software for recording first.

Last week I wrote on hidden underclass coddling and how this coddling leads to continued dysfunction because the prog system needs it. Seems to have struck a chord. This week, I will discuss how the media can enable the economic lies of the Left. As much as we all mock the NY Times, it is fantastic in what it reveals by hiding facts. All the Narrative that's fit to print even if it unravels or is a fabrication.


One of the greatest misconceptions among liberals and normal folk is how poor people manage to live. How do they have kids? How do they exist? Oh gosh, how do they even live? You’re well aware of the the exasperated tone used when considering the plight of the poor. The progressives have set up a jobs machine for themselves that creates a situation in which we socialize the losses for every dysfunctional decision a person can make. We have divorced consequences from actions, resulting in disastrous cultural results.
There was a tremendous tweet about the network of government agencies designed to help the poor.
That is absurd. It is impossible to follow. Zero Hedge has tracked the disincentives and corrosive effects of such lavish welfare systems in different states. Think tanks are even on-board with the analysis that welfare undermines marriage and healthy family formation. Any homosexual thinking that gay marriage would earn them benefits is the last American to know the scam. The progressive goal is to remove any self-sufficiency and non-government bonds and replace them with dependencies that are contingent on one’s status with the government.
It is beyond money and benefits. When Nixon and Moynihan tried to install a UBI, the goal was to remove those programs to be as efficient as possible. The other consequence was a class of unemployed former “do-gooders” that actually contribute to the malaise and dysfunction of the underclass by enabling them. They have to maintain dysfunction, or else the need for those do-gooders dries up. With a check in the mail and no programs, there is no one who has a vested interest in the dysfunctional government consumer not improving.
One program that crossed my path is a curious one in Ohio. There is a Furniture Bank of Central Ohio. This helps the poor get free furniture to furnish their apartments and homes (rent paid for by you with Section 8 and welfare). Furniture is donated, so there is no money on the government ledger. This actually is not for the poor. This is for the poor that have social workers and case managers. These can be parolees, recovering addicts, and even people in the child protective services (CPS) web. Yes, you or your partner beat your kid to a pulp but get furniture if you promise not to do it again! A case manager refers a person in a “difficult situation,” and said person can pick up 14-16 items for their home. One has to be part of the system to reap the benefits of the system. Employed college graduates with mountains of debt do not reap this benefit. There is no starter apartment for them.
This socializes the losses because a recovering junkie who gets his or her kid back needs a place to stay. No way is he or she moving back in with their parents, if they even know them, so they need furniture. They may be a junkie, but they are not such a loser that they should be forced to have to live with their parents again. What women needs to carefully plan or avoid pregnancy or consider the merits of her child’s father if Uncle Sam will keep her out of third-world poverty? This program enables them to have a place with relative comfort, so they do not have to face the hardship and consequences of their bad decisions. They never have to learn and never have to feel shame. CPS sends their kid back to them. The junkie’s parent never has to face the problem of their dysfunctional kid being dropped on their door again. No one faces consequences.
A case worker explained to me the story of a woman who had her twins taken away due to drug offenses. At the Family Court session, the judge asked the maternal grandmother (father was in jail) if she would take the twins while the mom was in rehab. Grandma said no because she liked going to the bar on weekends, as well as bingo and bowling twice a week. Those twins went into the system. Mom got them back after her rehab stint, and mom also got new teeth because her old grill was rotten. The sickest part? Mom had an older child that she lost custody of (the father won) due to her drugging and drinking. Once custody was stripped on kid one, she got knocked up by father two. She is free to cause mayhem on society and her children with the knowledge that the system will always be there to make sure her kids are not walking the streets barefoot.
We are told it’s the “good” thing to help these people. What is the help? The help seems to be in making their life free to chase fun, whether drugs, drinking, or sex. They all get to pursue their fun in relative comfort provided by you and I. The kids can be snatched up and sent to Head Start while mom does… whatever recovering addicts of child abusers do… and then the kid comes home to sleep in a bed and sit on a couch, rather than on milk crates and cinder blocks. Mom can still eat plenty (EBT from you and me!), pop pills (Medicaid, from you and me!) and today we see our poorest citizens are also our fattest citizens. Take a one day staycation and watch daytime television. Not the programs, but watch the television advertisements. You will see antidepressant ads, lawyers to help with Social Security filings, ads for class action lawsuits for mothers of children with birth defects due to mom using antidepressants while pregnant.
These are nice things, but in being nice, despite the original person’s breach of the social contract, are we not doing society harm? Like a genome accumulating mutations, how long can society rack up dysfunctional members? The entire system is set up to keep the dysfunction staggering along, so that we can employ a myriad of people doing what families were formerly in charge of doing. The progressives destroyed the family, atomized existence, and then built up government structures to replicate the family. We are failing miserably. Family is more than transactions, actions, and money. The love, investment, and connection felt between active family members transcend whatever PowerPoint presentation goals a man made program could ever imagine.

Thursday, November 26, 2015

WW1: Shell Shock

Look Left

Sweet Dreams
Why waste describing "Shell Shock" with words. The pictures tell enough.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Social Matter - Weimerica Weekly Podcast

The gentlemen at Social Matter are hosting my weekly podcast. Go listen to it there. The idea is to tackle the absurd, the weird, and the themes and undertones to what we see in the news. Because this is Weimerica, there is usually a dark reason below the surface.
In this initial podcast, I introduce the idea of Weimerica, the Obamas and then discuss the odd focus on women's hair in the last 5 or so years and how it fits into the problems of our diverse Weimerica. I finish with a completely bizarro song that is high on pop charts and heavy in pop radio play right now. It is a little over 30 minutes.
Next week's podcast discusses infantilization of Americans, the obsession with youth culture and mouse utopias. Thank you Social Matter for graciously hosting this. Enjoy!

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

The Dual Rise of Obesity and Anorexia

The rise of the fatties has no single cause. It is a multivariable problem with many different features. What we can all agree on is that people of all types are getting fatter with no end in sight. At the same time as this meteoric rise in obesity rates, Americans also saw a rise in eating disorders of the purge and starvation variety (bulimia and anorexia). These two disorders became cultural phenomena with many think pieces, sob stories and Hollywood attention. Why the rise of both obesity and on the other end of the spectrum, eating disorders?

It is fun to read Harvard's take on this. A government program will get kids moving and not watching images of unattainable beauty! We need to not stigmatize fat people! A good recommendation is trying to push more home cooked meals. This runs into a problem. Americans have the time to cook them now but simply do not want to. The average American watches well over 4 hours of television a day, which is enough time to pack a lunch and cook a dinner if one wanted to. People do not. Americans, especially 21st century comfortable Westerners, take the path of least resistance.

The path of least resistance contributes to America's downfall. Why deal with something when you can take the easy way out? With demoralization of Americans and the rise in deaths of middle aged white Americans in the news, eating oneself into gargantuan clothes is another sign of emptiness. Fill the boredom with eating. Like druggies and alcoholics, these addicts do not stop and the food never ever says no. Obesity is another sign of our decay and decline as no one gives a shit about appearances anymore. This is shameless America.

Grerp ran through the causes for the rise in obesity well, and the media discusses it enough too, but why the rise in anorexia at the same time? Seems no one really knows, and the old correlation of higher socioeconomic status and anorexia/bulimia is not as strong as in days of old if it exists at all. There is something at play though in how it is mainly a white girl problem as even in weeks of searching, the only things I could find about black women and eating disorders were "me, too!" type articles that threw overeating as a disorder in a desperate attempt to say it affects black women at the same rate as whites.

We are not talking about as high of a population as the obese crowd, but what might be coming into play here? First is the idea of sexual marketplace value. Staying thin can keep one's value high. The fear of becoming fat can make one compulsive about maintaining a slender physique. Being thin to increase value can cause some women to become anorexic/bulimic to gain an edge. As American women grew fatter through the years, this made thinness an even greater premium, creating more incentives to be thin. This is in contrast to years past where there were maybe 2% obese and they were shut ins and 1/3 of women were overweight, but a sliver in that might be good overweight if placed well. Women had to compete on many things for mates, not simply "I've got a good body".

In contrast to years past, the sexual marketplace is not as much to find a husband as it is to find sex partners and maintaining curb appeal would force a woman to keep competitive with that fresh crop of 18-21 year olds hitting bars every single year. If you're just looking for a girl for the night, it does not matter what she acts like as long as she is on the "Go Team" and has a nice figure. Facial beauty is just a light switch away after all. We live in the age of the butterface, and this is part of it.

It is not just a sexual marketplace issue but a social class issue. Obesity is more prevalent among the poor. While the surveys are finding that eating disorders are becoming looser in their connection to class, there is still a strong connection to eating disorders and white women. Socioeconomic class over time has become pretty clearly correlated to race, which is a big part of the "evaluations" when one group dates out. Are you dating up or down? Women of middle to upper-middle class do not want to become fat to be like "those icky poor people". Women don't want to become fat like one of those Wal-Mart patrons or those girls at bars that sweat the moment they walk in the door. They don't want to get fat and have no guy talk to them, sorry, no white guy talk to them. Becoming fat became a way to class yourself down.

These women do not want to put in the effort like yoga, weightlifting, watching their calories, not eating ice cream every night so why not just skip a meal? Far easier. Far far easier to just blame avoiding food on a food allergy, and boy, have those risen in incidence, so easy to hide there. This is another least resistance path as starving oneself is much easier than working on your body and counting the calories and eating balanced. Just avoid the food, make it disappear, and the problem goes away. At my high school, eating disorders were so rampant they routinely brought in speakers who spoke of losing it all from anorexia. The girls track team or swim team would listen, and no one would care. They passed on their disorder like a cold. It was more a ritual though as they repeated the same tricks to avoid eating.

There are long term consequences, and like obesity and other addiction issues, there is always the fear that it might come back. When a fat person does lose weight, it is a great thing, but there is the fear that those pounds will return. It's not unrealistic body image expectations and it is not pressure to be thin. Anorexics have agency and choose to compete on being thin. The obesity problem is human weakness and how we have shaped a society to consume now and think later. Yes, television advertisements push food non-stop, but fatties have agency. No one is shoving the Little Debbie Oatmeal Cream Pies in their face for them.

Grerp's essay on this subject is here.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Grerp On The Rise of Obesity And Anorexia

If you’ve been paying attention lately, you’ll have noticed that the world has becoming a fairly baffling place, and not just baffling in the sense that mores are shifting and certain cultures are ascending and attempting to annihilate others, but in the sense that actual physical conditions of life have changed in the past five or so decades. Specifically, this would be the rise in strange allergies and autoimmune diseases, obesity, and widespread lower level mental illnesses.

28Sherman asked me to discuss the question of why our society has seen the rise of two very different and seemingly opposing problems: obesity and anorexia/bulimia. I’ve given this some thought over time as I’ve done some reading on health and nutrition as well as changes in societal trends. While I’m not a nutritionist, a doctor, or a sociologist, and I’ve done no research, either in the lab or in the field, on this matter, I’ll wade in with my ideas. Because why not?

The technological breakthroughs that occurred within the twentieth century affected people’s lifestyles in a number of ways, but on a basic everyday level three of them stand out: what people eat, how they treat their health problems, and how people move.

I’ve only been alive since 1971, but I’ll tell you that when I was a kid there weren’t fat kids. There were chubby kids who we thought were fat, but kids were not fat like they are today, let alone obese. Maybe somewhere they existed, but not in my small town/bedroom community. When I go through my high school yearbooks, it’s shocking how thin we all were. And, other than the usual “Am I too fat?” discussions we had with our girlfriends in our budding years, we never thought about our weight. We didn’t.

I’m sure that I probably knew girls who were anorexic or bulimic, and articles about the problem showed up in women’s and teen magazines, but this also was not an issue that we widely discussed, partly because we weren’t obsessed about weight. We weren’t fat.

We also brought whatever we liked or ate at home to school and ate it communally. This included peanuts and tree nuts, all of the gluten, and dairy. I’d say soy, but no one ate anything with soy in it or anything they knew had soy in it. We ate over at friends’ houses and their parents dished out to us the same casserole they were serving to their own kids.

My family sat down and had dinner together every single night, and the food was nearly always homemade and reasonably basic. Some of the ingredients, like cream of mushroom soup, may have been processed or canned, but the entire meal wasn’t. My mom canned and froze fruits and vegetables herself. The snacks that were in our house were homemade as well.

We never went out to restaurants. If we did it was an occasion like a birthday or anniversary. We also rarely drank soda, juices, or other sweet drinks. In our house we drank water, milk (dried skim - GAG), and tea. Every once in awhile my parents would order a pizza, and my sister and I would split a bottle of pop.

My sister and I were bookworms and not athletic, but that didn’t stop my mom from kicking us out of the house and telling us to find something to do. After a certain age we were free to roam the neighborhood. We were in and out of people’s houses all day. My mother wanted to know where we were, but as long as we were home by dark, she didn’t worry. This meant we spent summers swimming for hours at the community pool, biking, playing in the park, and running around. In the winter we played in the snow and went sledding.

Our TV got four different stations: NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS. Much of the programming wasn’t too interesting. We didn’t have a computer and Atari games didn’t come out until I was in fourth or fifth grade. Since my mother didn’t entertain us and she wasn’t worried about our safety, we were expected to figure out to do with ourselves during free time. We were pretty active. In high school I walked to school. It was only a mile away. Most kids did not own their own cars. They didn’t fix cars either. Many of them had jobs, but they were mostly in the service economy. To get around they borrowed their parents’ cars, got rides, or rode the school bus.

It’s hard for me to comment on medicines because except for ear infections, strep throat, and the kidney infection I had in fourth grade, for which we took antibiotics, we didn’t take medicine. We were vaccinated and we took a multivitamin. None of the kids I knew took regular medication for anything. The spazzy kids just spazzed out, and people got annoyed with them. Honestly, I don’t remember spazziness being a general problem, and I was a kid who was pretty serious about school.

I know this is only first-hand experience, but this is not the world my son lives in. He, like my husband and I did, is growing up in the middle class. Our lifestyle is a bit different than that of his classmates. From what I can tell, kids now play a lot more video games and participate in scheduled activities quite a bit more than they play freely outside. I almost never see kids in our neighborhood just goofing off in groups or hanging out on each other’s lawns. My son texts his cousin to talk to her.

Families rarely sit down together to eat dinner, and nearly all of the snacks and lunch food I see is processed and packaged. People eat out and drink soda on a nearly daily basis. This is because in most of the families we know both parents work. I’ll take a guess and say that a large majority of what Americans eat today, including middle class Americans, is in some way processed.

Finally, kids today are highly medicated. Recently doctors have been trying to stem the tide of antibiotic use, but kids are on all kinds of medications for depression, anxiety, and hyperactivity. What’s more, many of these kids were exposed to medications like these in the womb, and that may have had an effect on their formation. Anecdotally, my son was adopted from abroad. He is probably the healthiest kid I know.

My hypothesis about why kids and adults are simultaneously experiencing high rates of both obesity and anorexia is that they eat a high-sugar, high-caffeine, low-nutrient diet, they rarely exercise and even more rarely exercise in the kind of way people did for millennia, and they have completely messed up digestive tracts that lack healthy gut bacteria.

It seems intuitive that if you eat high calorie foods and you exercise less, you’ll gain weight. But the kind of gross obesity that we’re getting used to seeing is abnormal. I’m not saying that in an “I’m judging you” way. I mean, there are enough people these days who look like lab experiments gone wrong to wonder what is this lab experiment they’re running on us. Food is manufactured to be addictive now. That wasn’t the case when I was little. Most of the food I ate as a kid was okay. I had favorite foods my mom cooked. I did not crave any of it, except for maybe the chocolate chip cookies.

Why are they craving this food? Is it only because of the way the food is manufactured? Or is it because their bodies have changed and are no longer satisfied with the kind of ordinary food we used to eat? This is where gut bacteria factors in. I think that the increase in obesity, immune disorders, depression, anxiety, mental disorders like anorexia, and odd allergies is the result of an entirely abnormal gut bacteria ratio in the digestive tracts of Americans. We are discovering that a healthy gut keeps bad bacteria at bay and actually produces some of the the vitamins and nutrients people need to feel good and think clearly as well as aiding in actual digestion.

New research indicates that gut bacteria produce nearly all of our neurotransmitters, including serotonin and dopamine which are crucial to maintaining good mental health. In fact, depression, anxiety, OCD, and autism have all been linked to gut bacteria balance. Anorexia, some believe, is on the same spectrum as OCD and has much in common with that disorder.

Anorexia and bulimia are both disorders that involve an obsessive anxiety (in both cases, being fat) and a coping behavior designed to nullify that anxiety (avoiding food or purging it after eating). That is why they are linked to OCD. It would make sense that as people actually do get fatter, they would feel anxiety about being fat, but neither anorexia or bulimia are rational disorders. In fact, no matter how thin patients with these disorders become, they continue to feel the same anxiety and continue to try to address it in destructive ways.

Doctors have had some success treating them with antidepressants because, by modifying brain chemicals, including serotonin, in the body to more normal and healthy levels, this type of behavior wanes. Lessening the anxiety will lessen the need for destructive coping mechanisms. Some doctors also believe that antidepressants regular hunger signals that can trigger binge eating. Personally, I believe that the increase in brain chemical imbalances triggering these strange new neurotic behaviors is also a result of diet, lack of exercise, and a proliferation of bad gut bacteria.

In some experiments, researchers introduced gut bacteria from obese women into the gut bacteria of thin mice, and the result was that the thin mice grew fatter than the control group despite eating the same diet. Certainly there are a number of factors at work here, but that to me is fascinating. If we could recreate the living conditions that people had, say, prior to 1930, and instead of sending people to inpatient therapy, drug rehab, or America’s Biggest Loser, we sent them to work on a farm doing regular exhausting manual labor, living a good portion of the day outside, and eating simple foods, including fermented ones like sauerkraut, would that work better? Would they be happier and less neurotic? Would they be thinner and healthier overall?

I believe they would, and it is unfortunate we can’t try this out on many of the miserable people we encounter in our daily lives. It would certainly not eliminate pain or sadness. It wouldn’t solve all of the world’s problems. But it might restore their physical and mental health and make a greater point to society about the lifestyle we’re touting as “better” and “more enjoyable.”

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Social Matter - Hidden, Subtle Underclass Coddling

Today at Social Matter I write about the underclass coddling across America and a particular sneaky program that enables the underclass to live comfortably while not helping you.
One of the greatest misconceptions among liberals and normal folk is how poor people manage to live. How do they have kids? How do they exist? Oh gosh, how do they even live? You’re well aware of the the exasperated tone used when considering the plight of the poor. The progressives have set up a jobs machine for themselves that creates a situation in which we socialize the losses for every dysfunctional decision a person can make. We have divorced consequences from actions, resulting in disastrous cultural results.

Please go read it there. You will shake your head at the lengths the progressives go to make sure our underclass does not have to endure the consequences of their bad decisions.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Podcast News + SM Review + Preview 23

Looks like the podcast idea is a go. It should be every Wednesday on Social Matter. Weimerica Weekly. The alliteration was just too tempting for me to resist, and the editors at Social Matter agreed to host and distribute it. The first one will go up next week. It'll just be me, but I will work to line up folks for interviews in the mix.

Last week I discussed the problem of our System, SCALE and the scams that it fosters. SCALE is from the guys at MPC. It is a great concept, and it applies to our housing market. The dangerous part was applying the dangerous effects of SCALE to something like housing that affects everyone and destroys communities. The next two weeks will publish posts on how the media enables the Left's economic lies and then some sneaky forms of underclass coddling.


Technology creates new problems that require new solutions. New technology then creates additions to the original problems that require more solutions. No one voted on being able to sign up for credit cards online, but it happened and identity theft took off. Consumers should be able to vote on this with their pocketbook, but there is one problem. Our government stopped caring about antitrust law, and we never really put in protections against oligopoly. Corporate consolidation meant fewer options, and a bad choice by a company for efficiency cannot be avoided. We are victims of scale.

An interesting symptom of our scale problem is the entire housing casino that our elites created. Scale is not just the size issue, but the acronym of size, complexity, atomization, liberalization and elitism. Looking at our housing debacle, scale fits perfectly. Make more loans, securitize the asset, offload it onto someone else for a few points above Treasury bonds, collect a fee for processing and servicing and leverage up. Only credentialed experts can allocate capital and make the proper loans. Keep getting bigger. Reduce costs through efficiency. Automate as much as possible to just read the data and not verify. Efficiency means streamlined approval processes. Approval processes means the loans must meet a base minimum underwriting standard to have the loan packaged and sold off. Keep growing the pot bigger while shrinking who collects the winnings to concentrate more wealth.

Hustle and lies created borrowers, but the size of the problem now creates new scams. Some slick mortgage firm created NINJA borrowers (no income, no job or assets), but someone on the other end allowed for underwriting standards to accept that risk and market it to asset buyers. Off-loading the risk and separating borrowers from lending institutions created more holes for others to fill. Who files complaints? Who defends the little guy when the process is automated? Where is due process and when a man's day in court? Brookstone Law fills a need and hole with a great pitch. Sue the bank keep your home.

It is a great pitch and one that works well for any American angry at the legal system and desperate to stay in their box. These guys are also fraudsters. Forget the Bloomberg article, even amateur sites were onto the spotlighted scam law firm. Is it technically a scam? That is the problem of our financial and legal system. We encourage such twisting of the law and legal loophole finding, that the line of law abiding and breaking behavior is blurry. The size of our system and scope of our housing problem allows weasels like these men to wiggle into a spot and collect millions.

Bloomberg scolds this law firm, but the system allows it. This law firm benefits from honest laws that give individuals the right to challenge the foreclosure process. Just filing the proper forms and asking for extensions gives homeowners time to plan a next step and not have to pay their mortgage. This specific law firm is manned by former crooks, but our American legal system looks softer at what we call white collar crime. The due diligence a homeowner would be responsible for is their responsibility, but we are already discussing a stressed and frazzled homeowner behind on mortgage payments. A snazzy website with a solid sounding name can trick just enough of the people to reap millions for sharps with questionable ethics. Law firms like this firm are also helping the banks.

These delaying actions give the banks a breather as the home retains an occupant to prevent the banks from having to perform upkeep. Not foreclosing means they do not have to realize the loss on the property as now their collateral is worth far less than the loan they secured it with. The banks dragging their feet on foreclosing some high end California homes was not about helping the wealthy out as much as it was delaying the recognition of a loss on the loan. To recognize such losses would have brought calamity to the banks.

For our current political-economic system, that cannot be allowed to happen. The five biggest U.S. banks control half of the industry's total assets. These banks fund our political elites and need government sanction and blessing to continue their control over the allocation of capital not just in America but within the American empire. These same banks have the majority of total derivatives as the government's lack of regulation of derivatives acts as an economic moat for those same banks. If the banks go down, the danegeld holding together the Left is threatened and large corporations suddenly have to adjust long term planning.

Our government went along with this because it sold out the productive elements of our economy for a FIRE economy. It boosted aggregate GDP. Asset holders and information gatherers over natural resource extraction and product manufacturing. Capital over labor. GDP uber alles. We had to grow the economy to soothe the left to pay for those social welfare programs through taxation and a large economy to perform a nation-sized leverage buyout. It soothed the right as economic interests were pacified as well as the pitch to the voters that the right would make your materially better off. No one questioned the continual centralization and consolidation of decision making since it made things more efficient.

Because of the size of dollars and institutions involved and the limited number of credentialed geniuses at work, wealth and income concentrate and million dollar scams pop up like the Brookstone Law firm. The system's scale and scope changed home mortgages from a relationship between two locals (lender and borrower) forging a relationship in their community into a transactional relationship for lowest cost and efficiency. Brookstone's pop up because they fit a transactional need, just like the newly minted mortgage originator did. Brookstone is an unintended consequence of the financialization of our economy. Brookstone is a side effect of the cure that easy money will fix the economy. Like the fine print side effects of big pharma's supposed cure alls, take the pill, the experts said so, and just keep quiet about the negative side effects a few of you little people face. There is too much money at stake for the big boys to slow down for you.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

WW1: Morbid Humor

Safe space? There was no safe space as a pilot in WW1. The picture above is a memento mori of a German fighter squadron.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Upbeat Downer Songs

There was someone on Twitter a couple years back (Matt Frost, actually) who asked if there was a more "upbeat downer" song that "Pumped Up Kicks". Interesting thing is that I view that song as sounding completely haunting and dark to match the lyrics, but goddamn does it have a beat you can move to. I don't see how "Pumped Up Kicks" is a peppy song. If Hollywood were smart, they'd eventually use it in a movie about a serial killer where the serial killer playfully dances with a knife to the song as they approach their victim in the basement. Set the murderer up in a Bob Fosse styled solo, dancing around the victim before making the first slash. The song is haunting but people still consider it a feel good tune.

Are there more songs like this? Of course there are. One of my favorites is "Kicks" by Paul Revere and the Raiders. This was an American band that blatantly ripped off the drum heavy sound of the Dave Clark Five, channeled the Beatles visually and churned out some hits. "Kicks" is pretty upbeat sounding and the embedded video shows the girls dancing onstage. It's a dark song about a young woman caught up in a hedonistic pursuit that leaves her feeling empty. This is a warning to her to stop with the drugs, booze and sex or else she'll chase the next, greater high to a point of no return. This was 1966. That was a big enough problem for this to become a written song and a message culturally broad enough that people would listen. The rot runs deep.

There are many others and it plays to the human ability to not really pay attention to lyrics with music. What are we listening for? What in the structure of the tune is reaching you? This is a nice trick the R&B and rap world pulled to create fantastic beats and melodies with the worst lyrics in the world... well at least lyrics that would cause a commotion if the rapper or singer was white (ask Eminem why only he was ripped for anti-gay lyrics fifteen years ago). You have had generations of women dance to songs calling them bitches, hoes and freaks for 25 years. Very easily R&B songs could switch to romantic instead of graphic, yet they do not. The message then is important for the listener to hear repeated over and over again on top of that catchy beat. "You are a worthless ho, act like one." If you believe in hypnopaedia at all, there has to be something to listening over and over again to the cultural messaging while awake.

One hit wonder "99 Red Balloons" is about nuclear war, yet how many can even catch the military lines, and that killer '80s dance beat makes you forget. I have heard interpretations of The Cure's "Just Like Heaven" to be about Hamlet and Ophelia. Ophelia drowned or purposefully drowned herself in Hamlet (read the dialogue discussing her death). Listen to "Just Like Heaven". Kind of flows, but The Cure were always depressing so I have a hard time seeing their music as upbeat. These depressing but upbeat songs are around and can even drive an album.

Bruce Springsteen's entire "Born in the USA" album is a nostalgia album for Boomers facing their mid-life crisis by echoing the '60s in either the sound or in the subject matter. Billy Joel did this same Boomer nostalgia for the '60s in the '80s as his audience aged. Echoing the sound of the early '60s is easy to spot with "Cover Me", "I'm Goin' Down", "I'm On Fire", "Working on the Highway", and "Darlington County". The depression hits in other songs. "Glory Days" gets fools moving but is depressing nostalgia of divorcees and High School peakers. It rocks like an over-the-hill band at a high school reunion. "Born in the USA" is a Vietnam War protest  and yet an Affirmative Action-Outsourcing protest song. "My Hometown" is straight up depressing and nostalgic for the old days. It might as well be the background track for my Takimag column on heroin in Fishtown.

We all have a favorite though. Third Eye Blind's "Semi-Charmed Life" is my favorite example as it was a song that even your mom listened to in the '90s, singing along to the "doot-doot-doot" bits. She could even clean the kitchen counters while doot-doot-dooting along to the song. Similar to Georgy Girl where some whistling or doot-dooting can mask depressing lyrics. Semi-Charmed Life was about an empty life of doing meth and sex, highs and lows. Meth addiction sounds so damn happy when you just wrap it in "doot-doot-doot, doot-doot-do-dooooo". You still hear it today. It's on those '80s and '90s flashback stations that always have '80s hits weekends. Don't be alarmed and enjoy those tunes, but your kids call those stations "Mom Rock".

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

But How Right Will Houllebecq Be?

This book is principally the story of a man who lived out the greater part of his life in Western Europe, in the latter half of the twentieth century. Though alone for much of his life, he was nonetheless closely in touch with other men. He lived through an age that was miserable and troubled. The country into which he was born was sliding slowly, ineluctably, into the ranks of the less developed countries; often haunted by misery, the men of his generation lived out their lonely, bitter lives. Feelings such as love, tenderness and human fellowship had, for the most part, disappeared; the relationships between his contemporaries were at best indifferent and more often cruel. - Michel Houellebecq

Let France focus on and remember those that died in the Paris attacks of 11/13/15. Let the survivors begin to process their trauma. Let the families of victims bury their dead. Let the loved ones left behind begin their marking of firsts without their relatives and friends. Let the authorities chase down those involved.

The timing of the attacks are spectacular not for the date involved but for the European and French mood. Europe is wrestling with an immigrant invasion fostered, enabled and condoned by an elite full of traitors. This is but the logical extension of decades of the steady flow of third world immigrants they have allowed in for government benefits, secure Left wing votes and little else. The nationalist parties and certain Eastern European nations, led by Viktor Orban's example, saw this for what it was and seem to be ready to defend the continent. Will it be enough?

For France, this is all the more spectacular and is life imitating art. Practically ripped from fiction, there is the prosecution of a National Front leader to suppress her chances in an election as the actual barbarians are inside the gates killing French citizens. Marine LePen is facing trial for saying "mean things" about Islam and Muslims. Michel Houellebecq's most recent novel is a near future depiction of a France that slides into a Muslim framework. Will the French Establishment sell out? Will they continue the self-immolation of their nation and people? Where is that French chauvinism I have heard about all my life? Does not the history of France, the cathedrals, the art, and all that goes into forming a people move you to individually and collectively push back? 

I don't think anyone knows. A major problem is the traitorous elite that give orders. The word traitor should be used often and openly when it correctly applies. This immigration play is only insanity if you doubt it is the plan all along. Recall that "Platform" starts with the lead's father being murdered by a Muslim but the cops treat it as an accident they will not chase. Are there French leaders or potential leaders who would channel De Gaulle and his ability to push back on the USG system? I hope the French nationalists, the LePen crowd, the Generation Identitaire youth and those in the middle with loyalty for their civilization over alien barbarians are enough. The fact that we question it is dangerous. 

The bloc quote above is the opening paragraph for Houellebecq's novel "The Elementary Particles". That book changed my life. I read it while studying in Europe, and had been there long enough to see how soft Western Europeans had become. Right book, right place, right time. If the journey that placed me typing this here started anywhere, it was buying that book in London. It is a tremendous book, and one that you can re-open and reread. There is a reason Heartiste references him and praises Houellebecq; it's like reading one of us but with tremendous writing skills.

Houellebecq was a keen observer of the modern Euro. This is why Douthat is right that they can be bought off by Saudi money because they are so empty. They want to LARP as men, hell, they are LARPing as men. That is the secret lure to Islam: structural and legal patriarchy for men unsure if they can pull it off themselves by force of character. You think it's a coincidence that Islam can do well with black men in prison raised in matriarchies with zero close male role models who have seen the women in their families use and toss men aside at will for the sperm to earn government revenue streams?

In multiple books, he has portrayed the Last Frenchman as one with nothing to pass on, disconnected from France's past, sex obsessed, empty, passionless, seeking a rush (vitalism) in relations with non-French women because the taboo of the other and the other's taboos against sex. French women are portrayed just as poorly, yet both genders find meaning and joy when they connect love, passion and emotion into their sexual encounters. That is when they finally try, and stop rejecting ancient gender duties and roles. 

While disparaging of his French peers, he often portrayed the Aussies and Americans as the confident leaders of civilization. They were the narrator's description of the face and power of the future and masculine energy in "Platform". Was he right about his fellow French men? Maybe the cosmopolitans. Was he right about the elite? Most likely, unless there is a French Deep State that will end this public insanity or want to end it. Was Houellebecq projecting his failings onto his countrymen? Possibly, because has he ever written a lead who was not a reflection of his personality? Can Islam be softer and beneficial to a nation? Forget it. Would the French readily stop being the French of centuries of history as portrayed in Submission? We will see. Was he too negative? 

I hope he is wrong.

Monday, November 16, 2015

China, Forex and Robert Rubin

There is much talk of China's foreign exchange reserves. it is a subject of concern for some and for back-patting by globalization pushers. It is good old fashioned mercantilism, where the Chinese manipulate the trade set-up to pull in more and more investment to build up its manufacturing base. This has led to the horrible situation of knock off products full of impurities being sold in the domestic Chinese market. The counterfeits make up 40% of the market. This is bad for everyone, but a product of the American FIRE economy.

Why would anyone manufacture products in China, not for China, but in China? It does not have the skilled manufacturing expertise to match America or Germany's bases, and definitely not in the '90s. Several years ago, a website contrasted the safe, automated and machine perfected casting techniques of a product made in America versus the hand casting done in China that was prone to errors and hazards. Didn't matter. It was cheaper in China, so orders were sent there. The reason is for wage differentials. Capital will always seek cheaper labor costs.

For quite some time, companies could pull in workers from the interior  to work for Gavekal platform firms and wages would remain steady since the demand for labor and the labor supply met well above subsistence farmer earnings, so labor supply was always available. American companies could lower labor costs, squeezing the blue collar class. This also did shift more focus to supply chain management, marketing, design and other white collar work, and give better returns to capital owners in America whether debt or equity. Who did the Left abandon when the McGovern Coalition formed? Blue collar workers.

It was a good system to screw over the American middle and working class. No corporation of size would make huge investments though because China did not have Most Favored Nation trading status. This was a problem and obstacle that was debated in the US Congress. Candidate of Main Street and the working man, President Bill Clinton, is the president who changed that. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton criticized President Bush's approach to China for not being tougher on China for human rights violations, and for coddling them for economic reasons.

Clinton changed his tune. Clinton did so in '94, and the floodgates opened. From the link, below is one section that was the repeated lie sold to American workers for free trade.
Many major American businesses see even greater potential in Chinese markets, expecting China to become a massive purchaser over the next decade of the phones, electronic gadgets and thousands of other products made in America.

Uh-hunh, and I bet that Iphone you have says "Made in the USA". This was a lie as everyone should have been aware that capital will always flow faster than labor if unrestricted. With no trade restrictions, there were plenty of reasons to invest in China. Now if you pay attention to China's forex reserves, you can see the history and where they really take off in the '90s; right after that MFN decree. This allowed for massive investments in China, and the growth in American manufacturing stopped even as the '90s consumer boom grew. From 1987 to 2000, America had roughly the same level of manufacturing jobs: 17.5 million.

China performed on more trick, and this was one that served the Chinese regime as well as our elite. Because of their foreign dollar recycling program, trade imbalances were never restored. Wages never rose in China to reach equilibrium. Their manufacturers earned dollars, traded them to the Chinese central authorities for yuan at the peg, and China accumulated Treasuries. It was the great addition of China to the petrodollar recycling program. Some economists called this Bretton Woods Two, but not yet, and I will get back to this. The Chinese needed this for growth, jobs and whatnot so that they could increase the standard of living and please their people while keeping the voices of the chattering class that wanted political power quiet. America needed this because it created buyers for our debt, helping to push interest rates down. With our FIRE economy, we were dependent on there always being a marginal borrower (consumer or business), and the way to guarantee that was a never-ending decrease in rates for all types of debt. As Eric Janszen has written, it created an economic Mutually Assured Destruction situation.

The forex hoard grew through the '90s (hundreds of billions) and came in handy when the Asian financial crisis hit. In overly simple terms, many Asian Tigers had hot flows of money from direct foreign investment turn sour, and the money flew out. They blew through their forex to maintain their currency, but were broken. The key thing that happened was that the IMF, therefore the USG, imposed strict rules on the Asian nations. The US, with Robert Rubin, Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers leading the way, brushed off a Japanese proposal to have an Asian led rescue package.

This entire fiasco led to political upheaval and lo and behold, reform of their economies along the neoliberalism economic approach. Some Asian nations still bristle at the memory of '97. Much of the protectionism in affected nations was gone, dismantling long-standing economic interests as well as changing political leadership. Odd Rubin coincidence is how South Korea had to open up their financial markets, which led to Citigroup entering them after the crisis, and of course, Mr. Rubin was in a sinecure executive role at Citigroup at that time. China survived unscathed. The US did not meddle with China at all. China retained their political and national sovereignty by giving up the money printing power to the FED through the yuan-dollar peg. Every damaged Asian nation saw how China survived and copied China's peg and forex accumulation. This was the start of Bretton Woods Two.

This funneled even more money into our debt. Everything is tied to its risk premium over Treasury rates, so the lower Treasury rates went, the lower other debt could drop due to normal risk spreads. This fueled the rise of FIRE to greater heights and pushed misallocation of our capital towards instruments that could be securitized and sold to buyers who just wanted to keep their currencies devalued. The explosion of China's reserves in the 2000s was more due to the US deficit spending and the credit bubble after the dot com implosion. We printed more, and therefore, they had to print more just to offset the printing and prevent their currency from rising. They were not alone as the other Asian nations in Bretton Wood Two followed suit as no one wanted to move out of step with China and lose investment. This pushed even more investment and economic power into our banks, who unsurprisingly kept consolidating and merging with one another.

Now America is on the verge of importing Buicks made in China. America was suppose to be sending Buicks to sell to the Chinese market. Did not happen. Their consumer goods market is 40% counterfeit, and it's not like anyone in America's power structure is going to push to force American made goods onto Chinese shelves. This is because of Clinton's decision. In reality, it is because Clinton sided with Robert Rubin's decision to benefit the FIRE economy's interests rather than the manufacturing economy's interests. A decision maker works with the words whispered into his ears by his counsel.

In one sentence, Robert Rubin beat Robert Reich once more in the Clinton administration because Wall Street was now writing campaign checks and promised more to help Clinton. In Rubin's autobiography, he says how he supported the MFN decision and thought it would make China engage with America more. Instead, the relaxing of economic rules and increase in benefits in trade only made them more economically powerful. It only allowed them greater freedom and sovereignty.

Shucks, Rubin, a legitimately brilliant man, was either wrong out of incompetence, or it was the plan all along.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Social Matter - The System, SCALE, and Scams

This week's Social Matter post discusses our system, SCALE, and scams. Housing became a gigantic playground for scammers due to the size of the market, centralization, automation and this is all SCALE.
Technology creates new problems that require new solutions. New technology then creates additions to the original problems that require more solutions. No one voted on being able to sign up for credit cards online, but it happened and identity theft took off. Consumers should be able to vote on this with their pocketbook, but there is one problem. Our government stopped caring about antitrust law, and we never really put in protections against oligopoly. Corporate consolidation meant fewer options, and a bad choice by a company for efficiency cannot be avoided. We are victims of scale. 

Please go read it there. I hope you enjoy, and yes, MPCers, this is a tip of the hat to your concept. Our conflict of globalization forces vs. nationalism or tribalism involves SCALE, and it is an unnatural state for mankind.

Friday, November 13, 2015

Podcasts + Social Matter Recap + Preview 22

Would you guys listen to a weekly podcast run by me? It'd be 30 minutes or so touching on the weird stuff of American politics, culture and society. I'd call it "Weimerica Weekly". I could discuss the insanity around us, and there are plenty of topics to discuss each week. It would be me, and if I can wrangle anyone into being a guest, maybe one or two people could join. We will see, but stay tuned. If this gets going, I, or Social Matter if they host it, would gladly accept a sponsor.

Last week I wrote about how the Feds are going to send section 8 blacks into the suburbs. Lots of page views on that one. It is below, but there have been 9 comments on it over at SM, including a piece of the puzzle that I missed. Go read it there. This week I will discuss the problem of SCALE, how the system loves it and how it creates scams within scams when it becomes involved in an issue. Housing just happens to be the perfect example of it.


Each new evil that bubbles up from DC rarely is released to the rest of America at the same speed. This summer's announcement to radically transform the suburbs by the federal government has been hushed up fairly well. Steve Sailer has spent post after post discussing it, but rarely does a pundit mention this plan. The progressive media cannot mention it because it might spark a Boston Busing Riot. The right has not figured out how to make it fit their political pitch, if they even want to make it fit. The thing no one really discusses is how this would be implemented.

How will you get blacks to the suburbs? That is what we are talking about here. When President Obama discusses diversifying areas, you can eliminate the idea of moving whites on government assistance to white suburbs. You can also eliminate the idea of moving poor whites into black areas. Hispanics in public housing and in line with their population numbers. The public data shows that blacks are overwhelmingly the dominant group using public housing programs in our multiethnic society. Blacks make up 33% of project based section 8 households and 45% of public housing and voucher households. Blacks have also been the subject of weepy news articles discussing black poverty, black communities full of violence and mind control, voodoo by whites, causing their neighborhoods to become hellholes. Pay no attention to the white, gay and Asian gentrification squads that turn those same neighborhoods into hip, safe spaces once the blacks are gone.

The fights will be between local governments and the federal government withholding money. The fight will be for developing lots and old buildings into apartment complexes that cater to disadvantaged Americans. Now if a community is a little bit black, it might be spared. Inner-ring suburbs will most likely be free of these cramdowns. They already have been invaded, and you can find the whites and well to do minorities of those suburbs sending their kids to private schools. Outer-ring suburbs and exurbs have much more to fear because as the most recent creations of white pioneers, they are most likely the whitest.

For example, the Midwestern city Indianapolis is a metropolis with no water border so development can proceed in 360 degrees. If you look at the development north of the city along the formerly more prosperous townships and the bedroom community "northeast corridor", you will find townships such as Washington and Lawrence that were absorbed by the city decades ago. Blacks in the city core fled each other poverty and crime to apartment complexes and cheap developments in those inner ring suburbs. Those township schools became bad enough that whites sent their kids to private schools, and if they could not afford to, they moved to Fishers, McCordsville and Carmel for quick commutes. If they were fine with a longer commute or priced out, they moved out to Noblesville, Fortville and Westfield. Looking at the population breakdowns and demograhpicchanges, cheap land sucked in well to do blacks who do not want anything to do with poor blacks in the townships, and now Carmel, Fishers and McCordsville all have black populations between 4-10%. Noblesville, Fortville and Westfield are all below that level of precious diversity. They are the most at risk. As the progressives say, they will require diversity enrichment.

Those communities are most at risk not just for being the whitest, but for economic and political factors. Raj Chetty's data seems to favor the growth of exurbs and suburbs and cites poor mobility for major cities. This trick of people reverting to the mean protects wealthy neighborhoods in cities and older suburbs from invasion. With fewer resources, exurbs and newer suburbs will not be able to fight the federal government as well. This happened in Portland, Oregon where the middle class eastside could not fight progressive calls for fairness as well as the westside, and now it is a dump. It is not just a dump but the underclass residents flooded into the area do not have the means to do anything about it. Another economic factor is that as exurbs, they were saddled with incomplete developments, stalled growth and foreclosed families moving out. This is their weak spot, and where the Feds will get them.

Wall Street and other big investors have been scarfing up distressed homes and renting them. While the focus is on the states hammered by the housing crash, exurbs in smaller markets are worthy of the vulture treatment. They keep waiting for a rebound to unload the properties, but in the meantime are renting. 
Wall Street played a central role in the last housing boom by supplying easy — and, in retrospect, risky — mortgage financing. Now, investment companies like the Blackstone Group have swooped in, buying thousands of houses in the same areas where the financial crisis hit hardest. Blackstone, which helped define a period of Wall Street hyperwealth, has bought some 26,000 homes in nine states. Colony Capital, a Los Angeles-based investment firm, is spending $250 million each month and already owns 10,000 properties. With little fanfare, these and other financial companies have become significant landlords on Main Street. Most of the firms are renting out the homes, with the possibility of unloading them at a profit when prices rise far enough.

Because of their pricing power and no recovery in the job market in sight, there are no new buyers and companies can place rent increases. Here is the devious part and where the symbiotic relationship between the banks and the federal government comes into play. These same firms have been turning these rent checks into pooled securities for investment. This is the Federal Reserve's world of zero interest rate policy. Everyone is chasing yield. Securitized rent checks become an asset with a yield well above what a 10 year Treasury yields.

The federal government can provide these same firms with guaranteed renters and guaranteed cash flow. The greatest bit will be Wall Street receiving a high yield but with reduced risk due to the government subsidized rent. The banks provide the federal government with a landlord that has control over dozens or hundreds of homes in a white majority area. The section 8 tenants move from the landlord in the city to the landlord out in the green suburbs. The renters just become a new conduit for Wall Street to suck money away from tax payers. By partnering up with a major force like high powered Wall Street firms, the federal government has options and can fine tune where they send people. No one is checking to see the wreckage left behind from prior minority relocation attempts, and no one with power cares. Plus, there will be new parcels of even more remote land to sell to fleeing middle and upper-middle class families. There might even be some pricey and new developments and high rises in metropolitan areas formerly occupied by the very section 8 tenants shoved into the suburbs.

Even if Wall Street wants to leave the party of renting and sell the assets, the federal government is making moves to help them replenish the sucker pool. New Fannie Mae rules for credit score calculations will make it easier to minority borrowers to get mortgages. American policymakers have forgotten how minorities, due to federally mandated requirements on mortgage lenders, fueled the prior bubble and crash. Tucked away but inspiring Bush's owensership society push and expanded Latino lending was the sweetener that made Democrats support the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall: banks could only merge if they had great scores on minority lending measures and the Community Reinvestment Act provisions. The Feds are sending disadvantaged borrowers to slaughter again. This is a repeat of the end stages of the prior bubble. While we had a near death financial experience in 2008, nobody went to jail and our economy remains hooked up to the FED's fiat, easy money machine.

Would this not be the same thing as using easy money mortgages to send minorities into the suburbs during the housing boom? Yes, and it is by a combined Wall Street-DC progressive design. A quarter of a century ago, Robert Rubin selected Bill Clinton as the horse he would back in the 1992 presidential campaign. The financial coup he performed on the Democrats turned them into Wall Street's best friend even if the rhetoric used at campaign stops demonized Wall Street. President Obama is the latest version of that marriage, and Hillary Clinton looks to repeat Bill's efforts. The progressives in charge of the federal government have a desire: disperse the blacks and free up the cities with minimal public confrontations. Wall Street has a need: maximize yield and reduce risk. What major force will represent the interests of exurbanites and suburbanites from seeing their neighborhoods get a taste of Detroit, St. Louis and Gary, Indiana? No one. Sorry, exurbs and suburbs, but the DC-Wall Street axis will use your safe, quiet communities to experiment with for profit.