July 29, 2013

Yellen v. Summers: What is and what should never be respectable identity politics

From the NYT:
In Tug of War Over New Fed Leader, Some Gender Undertones

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM and ANNIE LOWREY

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s choice of a replacement for the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, is coming down to a battle between the California girls and the Rubin boys.

Janet L. Yellen, the Fed’s vice chairwoman, is one of three female friends, all former or current professors at the University of California, Berkeley, who have broken into the male-dominated business of advising presidents on economic policy. Her career has been intertwined with those of Christina D. Romer, who led Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers at the beginning of his first term, and Laura D’Andrea Tyson, who held the same job under President Clinton and later served as the director of the White House economic policy committee. But no woman has climbed to the very top of the hierarchy to serve as Fed chairwoman or Treasury secretary. 
Ms. Yellen’s chief rival for Mr. Bernanke’s job, Lawrence H. Summers, is a member of a close-knit group of men, protégés of the former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who have dominated economic policy-making in both the Clinton and the Obama administrations. Those men, including the former Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Gene B. Sperling, the president’s chief economic policy adviser, are said to be quietly pressing Mr. Obama to nominate Mr. Summers. 
The choice of a Fed chair is perhaps the single most important economic policy decision that Mr. Obama will make in his second term. Mr. Bernanke’s successor must lead the Fed’s fractious policy-making committee in deciding how much longer and how much harder it should push to stimulate growth and seek to drive down the unemployment rate. 
Ms. Yellen’s selection would be a vote for continuity: she is an architect of the Fed’s stimulus campaign and shares with Mr. Bernanke a low-key, collaborative style. Mr. Summers, by contrast, has said that he doubts the effectiveness of some of the Fed’s efforts, and his self-assured leadership style has more in common with past chairmen like Alan Greenspan and Paul A. Volcker. 
But the choice also is roiling Washington because it is reviving longstanding and sensitive questions about the insularity of the Obama White House and the dearth of women in its top economic policy positions. Even as three different women have served as secretary of state under various presidents and growing numbers have taken other high-ranking government jobs, there has been little diversity among Mr. Obama’s top economic advisers. 
“Are we moving forward? It’s hard to see it,” said Ms. Romer, herself a late addition to Mr. Obama’s original economic team, chosen partly because the president wanted a woman. 
She said she viewed the choice of the next leader of the Fed as a test of the administration’s commitment to inclusiveness. “Within the administration there have been many successful women,” she said. “There are lots of areas where women are front and center, where women are succeeding and doing very well. Economic policy is one where they’re not.”

This controversy is an illuminating example of 

- What is encouraged to be treated as legitimate identity politics: e.g., gender. There's never been a female Fed chairman, so Janet Yellen's supporters are praised in our culture for trumpeting her candidacy as promoting women.

- What is uncomfortable as an identity politics issue: age. Summers is 58 and Yellen is 66. The latter seems troublesome for an extremely demanding four-year term in a job where two terms (or more is common) to avoid "roiling the markets." As Baby Boomers (currently ages 49 to 67) age, they become less tolerant of anybody attempting to, in effect, foreclose their career prospects due to advancing age.

- What should never be tolerable identity politics: anybody mentioning that if either Summers or Yellen gets the post, then the 98% gentile majority of America won't have held the Fed Chairman's post from 1987 through 2018. Noticing that is simply beyond the pale, even though the Fed Chairman post is not simply a technocratic macroeconomic position, but is also a major regulator of financiers. 

I don't know much about Yellen, but Larry has been a big personality for a long time. I've written four articles defending him in the 2005 evolutionary psychology brouhaha. But, as a regulator, Larry is representative of the dominant tendency of the last generation in both parties (such as Larry's mentor Robert E. Rubin for the Democrats and Greenspan/Bernanke for the Republicans): pro-Wall Street economists or operators who tend to see attempts to regulate billionaires as at least subliminally anti-Semitic. 

There's a lot to be said for this dominant standpoint, but let's also be clear that it has been dominant, and that it might well be time to try somebody, at least for a change, who doesn't suspect effective regulation of financiers is the first step to Nazism.

But of course we can't even mention this, so forget I ever said it.

126 comments:

Hail said...

"The 98% gentile majority of America won't have held the Fed Chairman's post from 1987 through 201"

This is what an elite looks like. Still most people don't have a clue. (One or two before '87 were also Jewish).

Speaking of which: Headline news this week is that they are tracking down another Nazi War Criminal or somesuch. No matter how much time is past, somehow events of the 1930s and 1940s stay headline news.

That, too, is what an elite looks like. The latter is probably more significant in terms of control.

DR said...

[I]t might well be time to try somebody, at least for a change, who doesn't suspect effective regulation of financiers is the first step to Nazism.

Where the heck are you even coming up with this notion? Do you have any actual specific examples of where a mainstream pundit or thinker has ever linked a financial regulatory proposal to anti-semitism? Just one, any single clear example will do. I'd like to see all these examples of financial regulations blocked by the ADL.

Otherwise this is just another typical Steve Sailer attempt at casting aspersions on half-baked supposed Jewish conspiracies. The first step is to make a vague, unsupported implication ("Jews prevent financial regulation", "Jews are responsible for indicting George Zimmerman", "Jews are the reason non-white immigration is currently so high").

The modus operandi is that the claims are only implied. This allows Steve to avoid being directly linked to the claim, as well as actually bothering to make a logical and empirical case out of his cockeyed conspiracy theories. Of course the wing-nuts in the very weakly moderated comments section aren't afraid to go full retard. They do the legwork of actually running with these vagaries and making the vitriolic direct assertions that Steve won't.

To be fair I don't think Steve is actually anti-semitic. Rather I think he has a major intellectual weakness for conspiracy theories of all kinds. He rarely ever out-right advocates conspiracy theories, but if you follow his writing he tends to lends many ridiculous ones far more credence than any rational person should. Of course most anti-semitic talking points frequently involve some sort of Jewish conspiracy theories. So one shouldn't be surprised to see the overlap.

Orthodox said...

The credit bubble that still exists to this day started blowing up in the early 1980s and by 1987 the bubble was bursting. Greenspan made sure it didn't take down the economy, and he created the legacy of responding to every financial crisis by blowing an even bigger bubble. These are all his protegees.

Anonymous said...

Yup.

In today's 'equalities' ridden American it is good and 'justified' to root for a fvaored group, to the point of being distinctly unequal in procedures to favor them, but no amount of openly accepted, vociferous and explicit state backed discrimination is enough for the unfavored groups.

'Equalities' as espoused by lefty politicians actually has nothing to do with the real concept of 'equality' (which is a nonsense anyway), basically it's a ruse to favor those whom they wish to favor.

Maya said...

Can holding the top position at the Fed be even remotely comparable to being a president's adviser on economy? Isn't an economic adviser just a person who tells the president what he wants to hear or risk losing favor, while any decision involving the Fed has very real consequences?

Dave Pinsen said...

"pro-Wall Street economists or operators who tend to see attempts to regulate billionaires as at least subliminally anti-Semitic.
There's a lot to be said for this dominant standpoint, but let's also be clear that it has been dominant, and that it might well be time to try somebody, at least for a change, who doesn't suspect effective regulation of financiers is the first step to Nazism."


This might be news to Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Brad Sherman (your Congressman?) who co-sponsored legislation earlier this year to break up too-big-to-fail banks. Sanders and Sherman are both Jewish, no?

Steve in Greensboro said...

I'm skeptical of the idea that government drones (working 9 to 5, surfing the internet for porn most of that time when they are not counting the days to retirement) can "effectively regulate financiers". The only really effective regulation of financial institutions is bankruptcy.

And no serious person cares about racial, ethnic or sexual nose counting. The only important criterion for choosing the next Fed chairman is religion. And both of these clowns are Orthodox Keynesians, so there really is no choice. QEn as n goes to infinity. Fasten your seatbelts, its going to be a bumpy few decades.

Jim Grant as Fed Chairman is as likely as Ron Paul as President.

OSS said...

Yellen would be a decent choice:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/07/janet-yellen-for-fed-chair.html

She was talking about The Bubble in 2005. While I think she discounted the ability of the Fed to rein it in, at least she was talking about it.

Peter Johnson said...

Could the affirmative action angle just be a side issue that stokes up certain corners of MSM while the more important consideration is the substantive policy difference -- Yellen favors "softer" monetary policy and Summers slight "harder" -- for that reason maybe Yellen is the better choice.

AMac said...

Reporters Appelbaum and Lowrey noncontroversially write,

"'[snip],' said Ms. Romer, herself a late addition to Mr. Obama’s original economic team, chosen partly because the president wanted a woman."

I haven't seen the NYT use this construction to remark favorably upon racial pandering:

"'[snip],' said Mr. X, himself a late addition to Mr. Obama’s original economic team, chosen partly because the president wanted an African-American."

Anonymous said...

"pro-Wall Street economists or operators who tend to see attempts to regulate billionaires as at least subliminally anti-Semitic."

I don't think I've ever read this or seen this implied before, even by you. It strikes me as curious since most of the forces calling for financial regulation are those same progressive Jews who would otherwise be claiming anti semitism.

It also buys into the completely false liberal narrative of how the us has weak financial regs compared to the rest of the developed world. In reality, the us has always been the world leader in strict financial regs and istill has much stronger regs than all countries where Jews don't control the financial sector.

Scheissherr said...

Anti-Semitism? This is just self-dealing by the rich. Rich people have always supported each other.

I'm not saying the Scotch-Irish don't manipulate for their interests with regards to Israel, etc., but this is pure plutocracy.

AMac said...

I recall speaking with my uncle -- a wise and compassionate man who spent a lifetime in academics -- about Larry Summers' purge from the Harvard presidency for his ungoodthink on gender. I was shocked by my uncle's visceral disgust for Summers, because of his conduct in the Rape of Russia (Sailer on Marc Rich's role).

Harry Lewis in HuffPo:

--- begin fair-use extract ---

In September, 2000, the [US] government sued Harvard, [Andrei] Shleifer, and others, claiming that Shleifer was lining his own pockets and those of his wife, hedge fund manager Nancy Zimmerman...

Soon after, when Summers became a candidate for the Harvard presidency, Shleifer lobbied hard for him in Cambridge...

Summers did not recuse himself from the lawsuit until more than three months after his selection as president, and even then used his influence to protect Shleifer. The Fellows--including [close Summers associate Robert] Rubin, whom Summers added to the Corporation--fought the case for years, spending upwards of $10M on lawyers. But in 2005 a federal judge found Shleifer to have conspired to defraud the government and held Harvard liable as well...

Summers remained close to Shleifer, yet claimed in a February 2006 faculty meeting to know too little about the scandal to have formed an opinion about it. This prevarication brought a gasp from the assembled faculty and solidified faculty opposition to the Summers presidency.

--- end fair-use extract ---

Happily, this episode is long since forgotten.

sunbeam said...

F*#k Rubin, Greenspan, Summers, and Bernanke too, just F*#k 'em all.

Whether Yellen can do anything with that job to actually help this country is debatable. Whether she actually wants to is debatable.

But she has one important qualification for the job, she isn't one of the people I just mentioned, and well she isn't "one of the boys."

I want a new breed of disaster, or else I want to be screwed by a new person. Had enough of the old.

Who knows she might do some good. I think Greenspan has shown just how poorly a man can do that job. Maybe a woman can do better.

Anonymous said...

What specific evidence do you have that deregulation is an attempt to combat antisemitism? I'm not saying that's wrong: I just haven't seen anything to back that up.

I'd be more inclined to see it as a product of aspergery types with an overfondness for Ayn Rand.

Hizzle said...

Another area where the taboo hasn't been broken: Weiner, Spitzer, and Fillner,the tryptich of scandalous lechers, are all also Jewish.

anony-mouse said...

1/ I'd like to congratulate Steve for finally finding a higher IQ vs lower IQ situation where he favors members of the lower IQ group for a job (Jews vs Gentiles).

Personally I have always advocated for an affirmative action program for Gentiles since it's clear they are simply too stupid to compete with Jews.

2/ Steve correctly notes that Jews seem to be better at being financiers than Gentiles, going back hundreds of years. However these factors would tend to make them better Fed chairs than Gentiles. This however is now seen as a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

3/ The main regulator of financiers in the US is not the Fed chair but the SEC chair, Currently the SEC chair is Mary Jo White.

Kgaard said...

Well, Yellen is better on monetary policy -- she's a dove in a 1930s-like decade -- so she is the obvious choice. Summers ... since when does he even know anything about monetary policy?

Hunsdon said...

More jobs (gentile) Americans won't do.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I think your obsession with Jews is colouring your judgement. Larry worries about billionaires being regulated/criticised as "anti-semitic"? You have to be kidding me. This is a guy who belives in jacking up taxes and keeping the spending spigot going. This is a guy who described Milton Friedman as being unacceptable at his home dinner table as he was against "fairness". He's a waterned down socialist, a money-printer that will monetise Federal deficits for years and send oil to $200 a barrel (and beyond). HOWEVER, Yellen is a thousand times worse - I don't disagree.

The boomers will disover to their chagrin that there will be no such thing as retirement. They won't have a retirement. And also, if they don't have the funds they can also forget about social security and medicare - the unfunded liabilities of the US Government are now around $200 TRILLION (and counting). There is no money to pay for anything. Which is why Bernanke is printing a trillion extra dollars every year - we are lucky we don't have rampant inflation yet but when it hits, people's retirement pots which are overwhelmingly in bonds will get WIPED OUT. You heard it here first.

TGGP said...

"suspect effective regulation of financiers is the first step to Nazism"
Perhaps a lot of weight is going on what you'd consider "effective regulation", but I don't consider that an accurate reflection of our regulatory policy. Do gentiles like Geithner or Hank Paulson take a more restrictive attitude than Spitzer?

The real problem with Summers is that he hasn't clearly explained what sort of monetary policy he thinks we should have. Yellen is on record as being relatively dovish, and also the best forecaster currently on the Fed.

Luke Lea said...

Will Yellen (or anybody) have what it takes to unwind Quantitative Easing? I predict a trade-off between inflation and unemployment like we had in the 1970's. with the Phillips curve moving away from the origin. In other words with the terms of the trade-off continually getting larger -- 5% inflation and 5% unemployment in one period, 6% inflation and 6% unemployment in the next, etc. (or alternatively 7% inflation and 5% unemployment, etc.). I think they called this the misery index back then. It will be a hell of a time to be in charge of the Fed. After Yellen will come the next Volker.

All of this is just my intuitive hunch.

Anonymous said...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-big-data-taking-teachers-out-lecturing-business

Anonymous said...

"Where the heck are you even coming up with this notion? Do you have any actual specific examples of where a mainstream pundit or thinker has ever linked a financial regulatory proposal to anti-semitism? Just one, any single clear example will do. I'd like to see all these examples of financial regulations blocked by the ADL."

Because everyone is mum about it.

But see what happens if anyone mentions the J word in relation to Fed control.

NAZI!!!!!

Sometimes, silence is deafening.

Anonymous said...

"It strikes me as curious since most of the forces calling for financial regulation are those same progressive Jews who would otherwise be claiming anti semitism."

Talk is cheap. Most progressive Jews made all the right noises but breathed a sigh of relief when Obama bailed out Wall Street and allowed Wall Street Jews to keep the power.

It's like some lib Jews pay lipservice in criticizing Israel policy but really support everything it does.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nature.com/news/conflicting-studies-rekindle-monogamy-debate-1.13462

Anonymous said...

This reminds of an NYT article about how women were breaking barriers in hollywood leading talent agencies, etc. The article didn't mention they were all scot irish.

TomV said...

The prickly anti-antisemitic brigade misses the point as usual. It's right there in the title, folks. Read it!

* "There's never been a female Fed chief": Goodthink.
* "There's never been a gentile Fed chief since 1987": Crimethink.

Now, why should that be the case?

Anonymous said...

"The 98% Majority of gentile America will not have held the Fed Chairman's post from 1987 through 201"

This is technically impossible, especially when there is a much larger number of Gentiles as or more competent than non-Gentiles. Only one explanation for this is
Ethnic nepotism, they are chosen
by their peers.

''To be fair I don't think Steve is actually anti-semitic. Rather I think he has a major intellectual weakness for conspiracy theories of all kinds. He rarely ever out-right advocates conspiracy theories, but if you follow his writing he tends to lends many ridiculous ones far more credence than any rational person should.''

Funny how some conspiracy theories seem so real, must copy perfectly reality.

Anonymous said...

1/ I'd like to congratulate Steve for finally finding a higher IQ vs lower IQ situation where he favors members of the lower IQ group for a job (Jews vs Gentiles).

Except Steve never claimed this. He never said anything about the average representative of either group.

2/ Steve correctly notes that Jews seem to be better at being financiers than Gentiles, going back hundreds of years. However these factors would tend to make them better Fed chairs than Gentiles. This however is now seen as a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

How do you define "better"?

Anonymous said...

That, too, is what an elite looks like. The latter is probably more significant in terms of control.

Control of the Fed is about day-to-day power. Controlling the past is about providing the moral authority for that day-to-day power.

Anonymous said...

anony-mouse said: 1/ I'd like to congratulate Steve for finally finding a higher IQ vs lower IQ situation where he favors members of the lower IQ group for a job (Jews vs Gentiles).

But the number of high IQ gentiles far exceeds the number of high IQ jews.

Anonymous said...

Nobody mentions the fact that Jews have held the Fed Chairmanship since 1987 because nobody believes that there is anything preventing a Christian from holding that position, other than the fact that there isn't a suitably positioned candidate right now. It would be like pointing out that some important position had been held since 1987 by left-handers. It might sound like you were suggesting that there was discrimination favoring left-handers over right-handers, and since nobody believes that it would come across as odd.

Likewise, to notice that Jews have held the Fed Chairmanship since 1897 is to suggest that Jews are benefiting from some sort of discrimination against gentiles. This would aggressively step on all sorts of delicate sensibilities, which nobody wants to do unless they are 1) really sure about it, and 2) prepared to wage war. So it's no surprise nobody says anything.

OTOH, there are plenty of people who, rightly or wrongly, believe that there are social forces working to keep women out of important and influential positions such as this the Fed Chairmanship. Therefore we talk about it. No mystery!

Anonymous said...

I think people are reading too much into Steve's post.

Steve's point is simply that these days, whenever some high profile position is about to be filled and is being discussed in the media, there is a flurry of articles and reports about how all or most of the holders of that high profile position are white, how there needs to be more diversity, etc.

But in this case, the media is quite silent about ethnic/racial/religious etc. identity.

As Steve points out, there is only some half-hearted noise about gender identity politics.

Yeah, Sure said...

anony-rat wrote:
"Personally I have always advocated for an affirmative action program for Gentiles since it's clear they are simply too stupid to compete with Jews."

Has this assertion been corroborated by Ron Unz in his article, "The Myth of American Meritocracy: How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?"

anony-rat also wrote:
"Jews seem to be better at being financiers than Gentiles, going back hundreds of years."

A recent example, to buttress your point, is the archetypally honest Steve Cohen and his level-playing-field firm of SAC Capital Advisors.

Not going back hundreds of years, but Jon Corzine is also likely a better financier than most gentiles.

Anonymous said...

Wow, the Scots-Irish are unloading with all barrels on this thread.

L'il Steve Sailer - the boy who kicked the hornet's nest.

***************
***************
***************

I was shocked by my uncle's visceral disgust for Summers, because of his conduct in the Rape of Russia

Summers also directly oversaw [and very likely orchestrated] the rape of Winklevoss, Winklevoss, and Narendra, to the tune of roughly $100 Billion [give or take a few bazillion fiat electrons here and there].

BTW, speaking of Stieg Larsson, Fincher also directed 'The Social Network'.

It's a small world after all,
It's a small, small world.

Anonymous said...

- What should never be tolerable identity politics: anybody mentioning that if either Summers or Yellen gets the post, then the 98% gentile majority of America won't have held the Fed Chairman's post from 1987 through 2018. Noticing that is simply beyond the pale, even though the Fed Chairman post is not simply a technocratic macroeconomic position, but is also a major regulator of financiers.

Also charges of "white privilege" and calls for more "diversity" i.e. more black or Hispanic representation are noticeably absent.

eah said...

They seem more like overtones to me.

sunbeam said...

DR wrote:

"Where the heck are you even coming up with this notion? Do you have any actual specific examples of where a mainstream pundit or thinker has ever linked a financial regulatory proposal to anti-semitism? Just one, any single clear example will do. I'd like to see all these examples of financial regulations blocked by the ADL.

Otherwise this is just another typical Steve Sailer attempt at casting aspersions on half-baked supposed Jewish conspiracies. The first step is to make a vague, unsupported implication ("Jews prevent financial regulation", "Jews are responsible for indicting George Zimmerman", "Jews are the reason non-white immigration is currently so high").

The modus operandi is that the claims are only implied. This allows Steve to avoid being directly linked to the claim, as well as actually bothering to make a logical and empirical case out of his cockeyed conspiracy theories. Of course the wing-nuts in the very weakly moderated comments section aren't afraid to go full retard. They do the legwork of actually running with these vagaries and making the vitriolic direct assertions that Steve won't.

To be fair I don't think Steve is actually anti-semitic. Rather I think he has a major intellectual weakness for conspiracy theories of all kinds. He rarely ever out-right advocates conspiracy theories, but if you follow his writing he tends to lends many ridiculous ones far more credence than any rational person should. Of course most anti-semitic talking points frequently involve some sort of Jewish conspiracy theories. So one shouldn't be surprised to see the overlap."

Just curious DR, you got a dog in this fight?

From where I sit, Jews, at least the ones in politics are 100% behind current immigration policy, and are working to increase immigration.

While I gather from polls that this support isn't unanimous across all Jews, it sure seems hard to find a single Jewish Senator, Congressman, or even run of the mill billionaire who isn't totally pushing for more immigration.

So genius, am I to believe you or my lying eyes?

As for the rest of what you wrote, including the frankly stupid reference to the ADL, well let's take this one:

"Jews are responsible for indicting George Zimmerman"

Now let's get one thing straight: You assign aspersions of your own making to the writer of this blog. I think that's either dishonest or sloppy. So which one are you?

I read a lot of the Zimmerman posts, not all, but a lot.

I don't think I read anything where Zimmerman's indictment was attributed to the Jews. My impression was that it was more a case of most Jews being invested in the narrative:

"Zimmerman is a racist, he killed an innocent child, thus he must be punished as is fitting. How terrible it is that we still have barbarians in this country that torture and enslave poor, innocent minorities (that we strangely don't live around or have much to do with). The horror, the horror..."

Of course this isn't confined to Jews, I'd wager something similar was pretty much the gut reaction of a lot of upper class Wasps/Catholics/Agnostic/Financiers/Academics in all the usual places: New England, SF Bay area, LA, Pacific Northwest, Chicago, etc.

I know you are used to feeling special, but chief you got grouped with another group on that one.

Now I'll probably get cut off by the characer cap, but:

"Jews prevent financial regulation"

Wow, I could go on for pages analyzing this. Want me too?

Dave Pinsen said...

"It also buys into the completely false liberal narrative of how the us has weak financial regs compared to the rest of the developed world. In reality, the us has always been the world leader in strict financial regs..."

What seems to have slipped down the memory hole is that the Bush administration enacted strict financial regulations (and meted out severe punishments) in the wake of the Enron scandal. But of course those regulations dealt with the last crisis, not the next crisis.

Anonymous said...

What specific evidence do you have that deregulation is an attempt to combat antisemitism? I'm not saying that's wrong: I just haven't seen anything to back that up.


I'd be more inclined to see it as a product of aspergery types with an overfondness for Ayn Rand.



There's not much a a difference there though. The Randians/libertarian were and are predominantly Jewish - their leadership exclusively so.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why so many people are spluttering in outage. The idea that criticism of "Wall Street" or "financiers" is an attack on Jews is widespread among Jews themselves.


I'm not saying the Scotch-Irish don't manipulate for their interests with regards to Israel, etc., but this is pure plutocracy.


Of course the plutocrat class is predominantly Jewish.

Anonymous said...

Steve correctly notes that Jews seem to be better at being financiers than Gentiles


No, he notes that they are more likely to be financiers than are gentiles, not "better at" it. There's an important distinction getting lost there. Jewish success in finance is built on being plugged into the Jewish network and knowing the right people, many of whom are other Jews. It's the sort of thing which, in other contexts, Jews decry in the strongest possible terms.

wwwww said...

supreme court too

Jeeves said...

Commenter DR is right to ask you for proof that financial regulation=anti-semitism. He's also correct about your "Jewish problem."

And how would you answer Dave Pinsen's contention that the most ardent regulator types (can you say Jack Lew?) are also Jews?

Faithful readers would do well to follow your advice and forget you ever said any of this.

David said...

>>"tend to see attempts to regulate billionaires as at least subliminally anti-Semitic."

>I don't think I've ever read this or seen this implied before<

Really?

The most consistent opponents of regulation are the biggest proponents of the view that much of it boils down hating successful Jews. Here and here.

The mainstream ripples with this paranoia. If someone feels his hackles rising because of crooks and usury, then he needs to know that he's a conspiracy-theorizing success-hating anti-Semitic white supremacist. Look over there, don't look over here.

Goldman Execs Blame Anti-Semitism

Blaming the Jews

(The Bernie Madoff affair revealed the paranoia clearly.
Remember
?)

Meanwhile, wannabees go all holier-than-thou on the mainstream. Example.

Here is another specimen from the bat-dip right, chosen more or less at random. This gentleman explains it all very tastefully, with flop sweat pouring down his face.

So the default logic of the culture, from top to bottom, appears to be the same. Hatred of Jews' succeeding -> regulations = socialism = National Socialism = Holocaust. If you say a word against Goldman, you're opening the door to Hitler.

As to Bernie Sanders (a legislative comfort woman for military interests), his fulminations in favor of financial regulation get a pass because everyone knows he doesn't mean them.

countenance said...

Bummer. The talk coming up on the Fed's 100th b-day is that it might be headed by a woman. I was hoping that by its 100th b-day, it wouldn't exist anymore.

Zoink said...

" I predict a trade-off between inflation and unemployment like we had in the 1970's. with the Phillips curve moving away from the origin"

Ahh yes, the bet on inflation that has been making the mainstream right lose money for 6 years now. The one that lost Paulson more than $5 billion of his quickly acquired fortune.

You know, even if you are right, your "OMG FIAT MONEY OBAMACARE SOCIALISM MONEYPRINTING HYPERINFLATION BUGOUT SHELTER" theory isn't exactly a secret, and should be priced into current market prices.

The bet Japan's massive monetary expansion/budget deficit would cause the Yen to fall and domestic rates to rise has long been known as "the widow maker."

It has been a loser since around 1990. Yet each and every year it makes new widows, this time it will be different they all think. Currently, after Abe's latest amped up expansion, Japanese government bonds pay 0.79% for ten years.

jody said...

lol. i also chuckle at how the nazi hunter stories STILL make it to headline news, 70 years later. and hey, gay bars are boycotting russian vodka. gays bars are such a huge part of the economy, everybody should know about this important business story. make it headline news.

in this article i like how they completely gloss over that christina romer was a colossal bust at her job, but that's irrelevant to "moving forward" or however they describe the relentless advance of cultural marxism. head counting and methodical group replacement are the order of the day, results are not particularly important. the next person must be a woman, then an african, then a homosexual, then a muslim, then a mexican, and so on and so forth, checking off all the boxes for first this, first that, before we're allowed to go back to considering the merits of each candidate. meanwhile decades will pass under incompetent "firsts" people.

unless the topic is jews, then you're not allowed to notice anything. there will be no relentless head counting and methodical group replacement of them. quite the opposite, it seems. only they are even allowed to be considered for many key positions now.

steve didn't mention, but the other candidate bandied about for a while was stanley fischer, governor of the bank of israel. no seriously, the guy who runs the banks in israel was under real consideration for running the federal reserve in the US. no conflict of interest here, no "doesn't look like america" diversity story here, no "israel runs american foreign policy, and now, domestic policy too" angle here.

Svigor said...

Of course the wing-nuts in the very weakly moderated comments section aren't afraid to go full retard. They do the legwork of actually running with these vagaries and making the vitriolic direct assertions that Steve won't.

You and your half-baked, cockeyed, retarded, anti-"gentile" conspiracy theories. Of course, they're always so vague, giving you plausible deniability.

To be fair, I don't think you're actually a misanthrope. Rather I think you have a major intellectual weakness for conspiracy theories of all kinds.

(P.S., to the gallery, consider the implications of the fact that "ANTI-SEMITE!!!" is a far more damaging accusation than "misanthrope." Kinda funny, innit?)

(P.P.S., freedom of speech = "very weakly moderated," LOL, I love it!)

Svigor said...

basically it's a ruse to favor those whom they wish to favor.

"Equality" is a way for them to get 'round everything they want to get 'round. They use "equality" to smash liberty and fraternity. They use it to justify unlimited central power. It's an all-purpose pathology.

This might be news to Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Brad Sherman (your Congressman?) who co-sponsored legislation earlier this year to break up too-big-to-fail banks. Sanders and Sherman are both Jewish, no?

Corleones vs. Tessios. Obviously, there are so many Jews in power in the USA at this point, some of them have to disagree about some things. Even a lot of things. I'm more interested in the things they agree about.

Steve, I think your obsession with Jews is colouring your judgement.

I wonder if the entertainment, media, and finance industries' obsession with Jews is coloring their judgement.

Larry worries about billionaires being regulated/criticised as "anti-semitic"? You have to be kidding me. This is a guy who belives in jacking up taxes and keeping the spending spigot going.

There's really no inherent conflict at all between plutocrats who want to keep their dealings unregulated, plutocrats who want their lessers regulated out of the market, plutocrats who want to privatize profits and socialize costs, plutocrats who want open borders, and plutocrats who want big gubbimint, etc.

Anonymous said...

What would be perhaps a more salient point is that Bernanke, Summers, Rubin, Geithner, Sperling and Tyson have all been disasters. Collectively, they (and yes, quite a few others) are directly responsible for the present dire economic climate.
If you seek their monument look around you (but don't mention Detroit!)
Like you, I don't know much about Yellen, but frankly, I find it hard to believe she can do much worse.
But so long as the media concentrates on who's stealing who's deckchair while failing to notice the Titanic's hit an iceberg, we're all going to drown.

Anonymous said...

"pro-Wall Street economists or operators who tend to see attempts to regulate billionaires as at least subliminally anti-Semitic.

There's a lot to be said for this dominant standpoint, but let's also be clear that it has been dominant, and that it might well be time to try somebody, at least for a change, who doesn't suspect effective regulation of financiers is the first step to Nazism."

I think Steve might be off a bit here. I do remember some conservative making a similar point, it might have been George Gilder or Norman Podhoretz, but it seemed like a cheap shot then and still does now.

After all, most Jews are liberal and support economic regulation of all sorts.

One could say that the essence of ethnocentrism is the double standard, so that while Jews who support regulation are not to be called anti-semitic, gentiles are fair game. But you don't see Jews being hypocritical on this particular issue of economic regulation (as compared to, say, immigration restriction in Israel vs the US.)

Whiskey said...

Steve, you're way off base. No one is suggesting that "regulating billionaires is anti-semitic."

Indeed, the "wrong sort of Billionaire" is dead-smack in the cross-hairs of regulation:

Rupert Murdoch.
The Koch Brothers.
Donald Trump.


If you read the articles and speeches by say, Elizabeth Warren, or Barack Obama, or Dick Durbin, or Charles Schumer, they consistently argue to regulate the heck out of billionaires ... that donate to the Republican Party and/or conservative causes.

No such regulation is viewed for say, Bill Gates Microsoft, or Warren Buffet's insurance/industrial behemoth that is Berkshire Hathaway, or Jeffrey Immelt's GE, or NBC/Comcast (currently planning a Hillary Clinton miniseries).

The rape of Russia? THAT was always in the cards because the local KGB hard boys and the organized crime syndicates were always going to come out on top. If it had not been Summers, it would have been, say, Mervyn King of the Bank of the England. Or some other connected Western financial type. The possibility of a fair deal for Russia was killed off by Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev, Adropovo, and Gorby. Seventy years in the making.

As for leches, I will see you your Filner, your Switzer and your Weiner, and raise you your Clinton, your Jessie Jackson, your Mark Sanford, your David Vitter, your Larry Craig, your Gavin Newsome, and your Antonio Villaraigosa.

Call.

Clinton ALONE trumps Switzer, Filner, and Weiner. Clinton!

As for Fed Chairs, those guys are usually selected from the late-in-life, won't go on to abuse the position of ex-Fed Chair, Wall Street big deals. Who also has to be an American. The Bank of England selected a Canadian, and Israel is rumored to be looking at a non-Jew, non-Israeli for the head of Bank of Israel. For the age range of 65+, American, Wall Street big-wig (so they understand at a trading level how the financial markets work) it has traditionally been a narrow pool.

Anonymous said...

It's not only a matter of which 'identities' can be politicized but how the politicization can be framed.

For example, white Liberals can claim to be 'more evolved' and more advanced than white conservatives cuz they support 'gay marriage', BUT white Liberals would be reluctant to say that white nations are culturally and morally more advanced than non-white ones because all nations that have allowed 'gay marriage' are white ones.

In this particular case, we know that Jews, stamped as permanent victims, can never have 'too much' power or privilege. Jews can only be 'victims'. So, even though Princeton's 10% of enrollment of Jewish students was way above the Jewish population of 2% in the nation, Jews turned it into a 'victim' narrative by saying that other elite universities had higher percentage of Jews.
It's like blacks can never be too prominent in sports. No one notices that all the running backs and most receivers are blacks, but everyone notices that there aren't 'enough' black quarterbacks, even though the percentage of black quarterbacks parallel the overall black percentage of the population. All that matters if blacks are less prominent in quarterbacking than in other positions, and therefore, a 'victim' narrative must be spun to demand more black quarterbacks.

Anyway, since women can still play 'victim', I suppose a case can be made for Yellen, even though, as a Jewess, she is many times more powerful and privileged than 99% of all gentiles, male or female.

Anonymous said...

Otherwise this is just another typical Steve Sailer attempt at casting aspersions on half-baked supposed Jewish conspiracies.

M. Sailer is merely noting that Jews have a high degree of ethnic solidarity combined with an above average IQ that can accurately figure out where Jewish interests lie on the big topics of the day, as well as propel them into high-level positions where they can dictate what is and isn't politically-correct thought with respect to the tribe. Conspiracies are for those without a common lineage dating back thousands of years.

Anonymous said...

As a Jew I am pissed off that the Fed head has been Jewish since 1987 and Yellen will extend this. Far better if a non-Jew heads it up. It would reduce antisemitism and claims that Jews run America. Who was last non-Jewish chairman? Paul Volcker who was very good. Previously he advised Nixon on closing the gold window 1972.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-nixon-shock-08042011.html

Anonymous said...

Can we decide once and for all whether libertarianism is supposed to be the Jewish disease or whether it's communism, or whether it's bleeding heart soft-socialism? I keep getting confused.

Somewhere I heard that opposition to regulation was a Scottish-Anglo thing... got figure.

Anonymous said...

Alan Blinder made an excellent short summary of the Greenspan era ("Understanding the Greenspan Standard", 2005), aptly noting that Greenspan was then held in the same esteem as Chairman Mao was once revered in China. This showed that in spite of the "maestro" or "impressario" image, Greenspan substantively deviated from the Taylor monetary policy rule only three times, the most significant being the easing after 9/11, which contributed significantly to the housing bubble. The fed made a lot of statements about deflation risk at that time, evidently strongly influenced by Bernanke's study of the depression. Bernanke had developed the conventional view that the length of the depression resulted primarily from deflation. deflation was potentially so pernicious that preemptive action should be taken against it, notwithstanding the incredible consumerist momentum created by the modern economy (which might steamroll the effect of slightly lower expected future prices). This contrasted significantly with Vernon Smith's novel (and later) assessment which found that boom and bust in 20s and 30s residential housing was the primary factor extending the depression.

It remains to be seen what economic effects will result from Bernanke's engineered asset price inflation as the quasi-maestro applies the glass bead game of 70s new-keynsianism to combat the impact of the housing bubble. But fed non-gentile maestro intellectualism doesn't have the best record vs. the Taylor rule.

The Bush people chose Bernanke over Taylor with the half excuse that Taylor was "overly academic". However, you have to figure there was a fair amount of non-gentile politics as well that ultimately redounded to the benefit of non-gentiles in the financial industry, such as Goldman in the later bailout.

Anonymous said...

This is a guy who described Milton Friedman as being unacceptable at his home dinner table as he was against "fairness". He's a waterned down socialist, a money-printer that will monetise Federal deficits for years and send oil to $200 a barrel (and beyond). HOWEVER, Yellen is a thousand times worse - I don't disagree.

Summers was describing the intellectual atmosphere in his house during his childhood, not what he believes as an adult. He is about as far to the right as it is possible to be and still be trusted by Democrats and be given important jobs in Democratic administrations. One of the main bones of contention when he was President of Harvard was that his girlfriend was a Republican. He also studied at Harvard under Martin Feldstein, who is a Republican and has lobbied for reducing corporate and capital gains taxes. This guy is no John Kenneth Galbraith, he is a political centrist in the Democratic Party, and yes, he would be a lot better than Yellen.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Summers has two things going for him, first the support of Robert Rubin and the Wall St technostructure he represents, and second, Summers is a major proponent of the "FED is the lender of last resort" policy. The banks still need that function, and Yellen's experience at the FED during and after the financial crisis may have soured her on that feature of lending.

Either way, the markets will test the new FED chair, and we'll see a swoon around time of confirmation or directly after.

TGGP said...

Rumors that Summers would take the position seem to have scared the markets. As an EMH kind of guy, that;s pretty good evidence in Yellen's favor.

Institute of Economic Understanding said...

The Jewish conspiracy theory falls apart when you consider that Geither, bush, paulson, Cheney etc are all goyum. That we're witnessing instead is a globalist takeover of America its Constitution by a coalition of globalists with an unquenchable desire for power. We're all the losers in the this debate because no matter who is nominated the same cabal of elite wins. There is no silver lining here.

Anonymous said...

"Personally I have always advocated for an affirmative action program for Gentiles since it's clear they are simply too stupid to compete with Jews."

The European affirmative action program would consist in simply having our own territory to govern as we see fit.

But then, judging from the last 2000+ years, the superior jews would want to move in.

Reg Cæsar said...

…the us has always been the world leader in strict financial regs…

A half-century ago a Canadian dancer named Nicholas Darvas made a killing in the stock market and wrote a how-to guide for the rest of us. He traded almost exclusively at NYSE and AMEX because of the higher standards not yet applied in his native Canada or other countries.

Anonymous said...

"'[I]t might well be time to try somebody, at least for a change, who doesn't suspect effective regulation of financiers is the first step to Nazism.'

Where the heck are you even coming up with this notion?"



Don't know about Steve, but David Brooks must have written a Times article (not a conspiracy rag), that elicited a response, "Is Occupy Wall Street Anti-Semitic?", Marc Tracy, October 11, 2011, in what appears to be an online mag, "The Tablet, a New Read on Jewish Life". The article appears to be by a pro-Occupy type, who criticizes Brooks as follows:

"... for Brooks to use his extremely large—and, particularly as far as the Jewish community goes, influential—mouthpiece to tar Occupy Wall Street as essentially anti-Semitic is highly irresponsible, ..."

He links to "The Milquetoast Radicals", David Brooks, October 10, 2011, NYT, which contains:

"Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. This uprising was sparked by the magazine Adbusters, previously best known for the 2004 essay, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” — an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy.

If there is a core theme to the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is that the virtuous 99 percent of society is being cheated by the richest and greediest 1 percent.

This is a theme that allows the people in the 99 percent to think very highly of themselves. All their problems are caused by the nefarious elite.

Unfortunately, almost no problem can be productively conceived in this way. ..."



Seems mild and circumspect, but evidently also counts as highly irresponsible anti-Semitism.

sef said...

"pro-Wall Street economists or operators who tend to see attempts to regulate billionaires as at least subliminally anti-Semitic."

Obviously, Steve is making a joke, and it is funny in his dark sense of humor because maybe it rests on a kernel of truth. If a policy hurts the economic interests of one group to the advantage of another group, proponents of the policy MUST be anti-firstgroup, IF the identity of the first group is X. This sentiment is always in play these days. These are the times we live in.

You people above need to lighten up

Tom Regan said...

@DR
"Do you have any actual specific examples of where a mainstream pundit or thinker has ever linked a financial regulatory proposal to anti-semitism?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/goldman-sach-execs-blame-_n_264850.html

Plenty more examples from around that time, like Taibbi being accused of effectively being an SS member for his Rolling Stone article. Google it.
As Joe Sobran observed, antisemitism used to be a tag applied to people who disliked Jews, now it is a tag applied to people Jews don't like.

Anonymous said...

The identity politics game is only allowed to be played under certain rules. Lack of experience isn't a disqualifier for a black person. It is a moral imperitive for women to be elected because there are more women than men in the country. Latinos have special needs that can only be addressed through elected office. When age is a factor only men are described as old and white. The holocaust grants special protections against criticism.

Anonymous said...

disparate impact for thee but not for me.

.

Free markets only produce better results when they are free markets and a free market is the result of meeting certain practical conditions e.g. perfect information, low cost of entry etc - or as close to those conditons as possible.

Unconstrained capitalism doesn't naturally lead to free markets. It does the opposite. Unconstrained capitalism leads to cartels. Only constrained capitalism leads to free markets.

Unfortunately decades of Randian BS has obscured this fact.

Anonymous said...

"And no serious person cares about racial, ethnic or sexual nose counting."


The New York Times cares. It goes on about it all the time - except from a few blind spots like the Fed and the media and the Supreme Court.

blictri said...

It is certainly of interest that we're in for at least 31 years of jewish Fed chairmen (not to mention that jews are curiously exempt from equality-of-outcome rules), and I know it must be tough to have to write up politically incorrect insight on a regular basis, but do you have any evidence that Larry Summers thinks financial regulation is antisemitic? It seems like an insinuation, like it was derived from looking at certain facts and then filling in the blanks.

There's a discernible WASP-good Jew-bad undertone in your work. That could be because you're unrestrained by norms exempting Jews from criticism, but it could also cause you to give undue credit to theories that comport with that way of thinking. For some reason, the essay Alice in Blunderland comes to mind.

I'm not jewish and in my experience jewish noses are only more sensitive to any whiff of antisemitism than mine, so I'd say some of your readers have noticed.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


[I]t might well be time to try somebody, at least for a change, who doesn't suspect effective regulation of financiers is the first step to Nazism.

Where the heck are you even coming up with this notion? Do you have any actual specific examples of where a mainstream pundit or thinker has ever linked a financial regulatory proposal to anti-semitism? Just one, any single clear example will do. I'd like to see all these examples of financial regulations blocked by the ADL.

Otherwise this is just another typical Steve Sailer attempt at casting aspersions on half-baked supposed Jewish conspiracies. The first step is to make a vague, unsupported implication ("Jews prevent financial regulation", "Jews are responsible for indicting George Zimmerman", "Jews are the reason non-white immigration is currently so high").

The modus operandi is that the claims are only implied. This allows Steve to avoid being directly linked to the claim, as well as actually bothering to make a logical and empirical case out of his cockeyed conspiracy theories. Of course the wing-nuts in the very weakly moderated comments section aren't afraid to go full retard. They do the legwork of actually running with these vagaries and making the vitriolic direct assertions that Steve won't.

To be fair I don't think Steve is actually anti-semitic. Rather I think he has a major intellectual weakness for conspiracy theories of all kinds. He rarely ever out-right advocates conspiracy theories, but if you follow his writing he tends to lends many ridiculous ones far more credence than any rational person should. Of course most anti-semitic talking points frequently involve some sort of Jewish conspiracy theories. So one shouldn't be surprised to see the overlap"

Exactly DR. Ive made this claim a couple of times before about Steve's plausible deniability strategy.It was clever and subtle at first but lately he has been coming unhinged.
Steve Sailer may not be an anti Semite but he is working really hard to be one and as a result his analysis suffers a great deal.In this case he is following in the footsteps of another once brilliant commentator- Joe Sobran.
This is what happens when you dont get out of the house!

Theodore Dalrymple said that political correctness makes you both evil and stupid
He was right of course.But the mirror image of PC folk are the crank conspiracy theorists which this and other "paleo" boards.
What they dont realize while "speaking truth to power" that their bizarre notions of pro Nordic mysticism masquerading an objective HBD makes them equally stupid and evil.

Uncle Peregrine said...

Larry Summers has had an incredible number of high profile jobs and shown no stability in any of them.

rob said...

DR,

While he doesn't quite fit your (self-serving?) criteria, the blogger Half Sigma, who totally not overcompensating for anything, now calls himself Lion of the Blogosphere, considers support for a gold standard and anti-Fed sentiment proof of anti-Semitism.

Anonymous said...

There are some unwritten sureties in politics: Anything economic is best understood by a Jew; If you're going to have an aggressive foreign policy, have lots of women in top defense/diplomatic positions, and; A black president always earns an 'A' without even trying.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to "the rich" (or "Jews", which is close to being the same thing) we can't really say that they favor or oppose regulation. They favor a good deal of regulation in some cases and oppose it in others.

What the rich always want is regulations which enable them to get richer and which hamper other people from getting rich at their expense. One thing they never want is genuine no-rules no-holds-barred competition.

Anonymous said...

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/washington-post%E2%80%99s-jennifer-rubin-promotes-call-for-palestinian-genocide/

American conservatism takes orders from the likes of Jennifer Rubin.

In Rubin's mind: Jason Richwine = Palestinians = subhuman savages to dispose of.

Americans conservatism isn't about conserving white America but about serving the neocon Zionists.
It might as well be call
neocon-serve-atism.

Anonymous said...

"Whistle-blower: Not only MLB players"

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9508288/biogenesis-whistleblower-broke-open-scandal-says-ncaa-mma-nba-other-athletes-used-clinic-mlb-investigation

"The man who turned the Biogenesis clinic from a quiet investigation in Miami into a national scandal says there are at least a dozen more athletes whose names haven't been exposed and that they come from across the sports world.

Porter Fischer, the former Biogenesis of Miami clinic employee who turned boxes of documents over to the Miami New Times last year, declined to name the athletes. But in his first television interview, Fischer told "Outside the Lines" that numerous sports had at least one athlete who received performance-enhancing drugs from clinic founder Tony Bosch.

"This isn't a 2013 thing or a 2012 thing; some of these people have been on the books since 2009," Fischer said.

Fischer said he and associates have identified athletes from the NBA, NCAA, professional boxing, tennis and MMA, in addition to other professional baseball players who have not yet been identified."

Anonymous said...

Look, the world has changed. At one time, if you were trying to staff the best baseball team, you would choose among a bunch of white Christians, if you were trying to staff the Federal Reserve you'd choose among a bunch of white Christians, no matter what you were doing you were going to choose among a bunch of white Christians. This meant that the society was not reaching its true potential in many areas. But, contrary to blank slatism, talent is not even spread among the races - some groups are better at some things than others. So you have an NBA that is mostly black and a finance sector that is disproportionately Jewish, programmers who are disproportionately Asian, sprinters who are mostly West African, etc. Now this is not as much fun for white guys as it used to be when they could just exclude everyone else and be sure of holding the top positions in every field, but get used to it. Find your niche and excel in it. Farming, hockey, etc. - there are still some things that are best suited for white men.

What are some occupations that white men would naturally still be best at and dominate the field in the way that certain minorities now dominate other fields?

Anonymous said...

What I'd like to see in a Fed Chairman is someone who's run a small business, namely someone who's in touch with the reality of economic struggle and having to put in an 80-hour week. That sort of person understands if you don't have money, you don't spend it, and if you don't keep your finances in line you'll go out of business and put you and everybody you employ out of their job.

The people who make up the Fed now belong to a special, self-perpetuating social class that is trying to rake in as much money for themselves and their friends as possible, and they need to be gotten rid of for the economic good of the country. These people have no sense of personal honor, which is almost the only thing that keeps a person in a responsible position both responsible and accountable.

Mark Caplan said...

Summers is the obvious choice. He was one of the leading architects of the financial meltdown, so why not hire him to clean up his own mess?

Anonymous said...

Assuming completely random selection from the population, the odds of all 15 chairmen in history being male are 0.5^15 or 0.003% while the odds of three successive jews is 0.02^3 or 0.0008%

2Degrees said...

Slightly off topic, but this Daily Telegraph article might interest you.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100229154/the-murder-of-stephen-lawrence-and-the-strange-case-of-the-missing-wikipedia-entries/

Anonymous said...

The wall street bailout punished the middle which is disproportionately gentile and rewarded wall street which is disproportionately jewish.

Anonymous said...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/07/robotic-lawn-mowers.html#more

"Robotic mowers are a rarity on American lawns, though they are popular in Europe, where landscaping services are particularly expensive."

ATBOTL said...

"It also buys into the completely false liberal narrative of how the us has weak financial regs compared to the rest of the developed world. In reality, the us has always been the world leader in strict financial regs and istill has much stronger regs than all countries where Jews don't control the financial sector."

The regulations we have now are often CYA measures designed to keep the big players out of serious trouble as long as they fill out certain paper work.

Anonymous said...

I would like to read a post on the ethnic restrictions on repeat champion NBA coaches.

Anonymous said...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/bring_me_your_tired_your_smokin_your_totally_hot.php


Anonymous said...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/meritocracy-gelmans-sixth-column/

Anonymous said...

http://chronicle.com/article/US-Higher-Education-System/140631/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Jewish privilege masked as 'white privilege'.

Anonymous said...

"The regulations we have now are often CYA measures designed to keep the big players out of serious trouble as long as they fill out certain paper work."

This is just liberal propaganda (ironically enough, usually pushed by progressive Jews in the media and academia).

To put differently, I'd like Steve to give examples of non-Jew developed countries have tighter financial restrictions? It's possible that some exist, but most don't. And I'm not just talking dodd frank. It's been this way for decades.

Anonymous said...

USA = "Jew developed" Huh?

Anonymous said...

"What are some occupations that white men would naturally still be best at and dominate the field in the way that certain minorities now dominate other fields?"

"Markopolos discovered evidence over nine years suggesting that Bernard Madoff's wealth management business was actually a massive Ponzi scheme." - Wikipedia
Greek Catholics are the best at sniffing out corruption.

Anonymous said...

Plenty more examples from around that time, like Taibbi being accused of effectively being an SS member for his Rolling Stone article. Google it.

Taibbi was also accused of being an anti-Semitic Arab, because his name sounded Arabian, even though he isn't.

Anonymous said...

Greek Catholics are the best at sniffing out corruption.

On the "it takes one to know one" principle?

They say that FDR appointed Joe Kennedy to head the SEC because he was a stock manipulator that knew all the tricks.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody ever calls anyone an ANTI-SEMITE!!!, what are you, some kind of ANTI-SEMITE!!!?"

lol

Anonymous said...

Y'guys are just crazy

Dave Pinsen said...

There's a bit of obfuscation in the comments. Steve floated two claims in this post:

1) It's okay to count women and racial minorities, but it's not okay to count Jews.

2) Sensitivity re 1) prevents effective financial regulations.

Claim 1) is self-evidently true. Claim 2) is specious. There has been plenty of regulation of the financial industry in the wake of Enron and other accounting scandals (Sarbanes-Oxley) and in the wake of the credit bust (Basel 3, Dodd-Frank), and Jews (e.g., Frank) have been among those sponsoring the regulations.

The problems with effective financial regulations are several. One is it's not always clear in advance what regulations will prove effective and what will prove harmful. Another is regulatory capture. Still another is when political goals (e.g., expanding minority home ownership) conflict with prudential regulations.

You could make a strong argument that the Treasury department's regulatory apparatus has been captured by the financial industry, but it's harder to make that case about Bernanke at the Fed. The whole QE business seems like a risky, Rube Goldberg-ish way to stimulate job creation (why not just subsidize jobs directly), but Bernanke is acting in accordance with his dual mandate, and in the absence of effective fiscal policy. It's also helped too-big-to-fail banks repair their balance sheets, but I think most serious observers agreed that was necessary in the aftermath of the crisis (though reasonable people differ on how to prevent those banks from precipitating the next crisis).

Anonymous said...

"suspect effective regulation of financiers is the first step to Nazism"

If you argue online about banking regulation and the cause of the credit crunch and you win then the people who lose almost always start with ad hominem attacks re. Jewish conspiracy. It's happened to me hundreds of times.

It was one of the things that made me realize Jewish paranoia is self-fulfilling.

.

"Nobody mentions the fact that Jews have held the Fed Chairmanship since 1987 because nobody believes that there is anything preventing a Christian from holding that position"

Wrong, the NYT uses things like that all the time as prima facie evidence that something is preventing it. The NYT doesn't mention it in this case because it involves Jews.

The only person liable to be offered the Fed job is someone considered 100% loyal to the Wall St. mafia by the Wall St. mafia. It's *possible* that someone like that could be White but it is highly unlikely.

Also, if they were White they would be guaranteed to be a sociopath.

.

"other than the fact that there isn't a suitably positioned candidate right now."

That just pushes the Jewish ethnic nepotism back to more junior positions.

.

"It would be like pointing out that some important position had been held since 1987 by left-handers."

Not remotely like that.

.

"Can we decide once and for all whether libertarianism is supposed to be the Jewish disease or whether it's communism, or whether it's bleeding heart soft-socialism?"

The Jewish disease is, "Is it good for the Jews?" So marxism when at the bottom, left-liberalism when in the middle, plutocrat libertarianism when at the top.

.

"…the us has always been the world leader in strict financial regs…"

The regs were unbuttoned with the repeal of Glass-Steagal onwards.

.

"if you were trying to staff the Federal Reserve you'd choose among a bunch of white Christians, no matter what you were doing you were going to choose among a bunch of white Christians. This meant that the society was not reaching its true potential in many areas."

hahahahahahaha

"true potential" = fully looted.

Porter said...

What are some occupations that white men would naturally still be best at and dominate the field in the way that certain minorities now dominate other fields?

That's easy to answer. White men dominate the field of building countries in which those superlative asians, jews, and africans are desperate to reside.

ricky said...

"Look, the world has changed. At one time, if you were trying to staff the best baseball team, you would choose among a bunch of white Christians, if you were trying to staff the Federal Reserve you'd choose among a bunch of white Christians, no matter what you were doing you were going to choose among a bunch of white Christians. This meant that the society was not reaching its true potential in many areas. But, contrary to blank slatism, talent is not even spread among the races - some groups are better at some things than others. So you have an NBA that is mostly black and a finance sector that is disproportionately Jewish, programmers who are disproportionately Asian, sprinters who are mostly West African, etc. Now this is not as much fun for white guys as it used to be when they could just exclude everyone else and be sure of holding the top positions in every field, but get used to it. Find your niche and excel in it. Farming, hockey, etc. - there are still some things that are best suited for white men."

I think your trying to say it's a meritocracy. We are saying, no it isn't. It is the rest of the world, more numerous than European-descended people, who are moving in on us and cashing in on what we made. They are winning more by numbers than merit (maybe not the runners&jumpers entirely), and winning with the tools and situations that "we" (European gentiles) provided and gave them access to.
Your listing various aspects of modern society invented almost entirely by white men, who still do most of the inventing. The blacks have yet to invent their own game. Programmers? If you mean Indians, they haven't invented programming languages, and are not considered good by those who program. They are just cheap and there's a lot more of them than us.
Ditto most of the other things things you've mentioned.


'

Anonymous said...

Jews define themselves as white so that the media (many of them Jewish) address the issue of white privilege, the same way they portrayed Jewish bankers in a movie about the mini stock market crash of NY, as Gentiles Arians, who seemed to have more out of a movie about Nazism.
They play with the HBD ignorance of much of the population, especially non-whites, ignoring the difference between white gentiles and Jews.
At the end of the day, they charge that any a prestigious university, has 60% of white students (who would not be a scandal, since 60% of Americans are still white), when in fact it is 30% white and 30% ashkenazi Jews and call for more'' diversity'' resulting in fewer white students Gentiles, while most Jewish students and non-whites occupy the place of the white students.

BB753 (ab urbe condita) said...

The best way to find out who rules the show is to see who defines the bounds of debate.
And public discourse increasingly sounds like a talmudic debate in an echo chamber.

Svigor said...

It's like some lib Jews pay lipservice in criticizing Israel policy but really support everything it does.

My favorite is Tim Wise. Once every couple years he goes on the record with some tepid criticism of Israel once every couple years; no books, no lecture circuit, no fundraising, no advocacy - ust an article. Then he goes back to hammering the Euros.

That way he can talk about how he's critical of Israel when someone throws his ethnocentrism in his face.

How do you define "better"?

I dunno, but along with his definition of "stupid," I think ethics and ethnocentrism play into it...

After all, most Jews are liberal and support economic regulation of all sorts.

I bet Jews', even liberal Jews', voting patterns on repealing Glass-Steagall are a matter of public record.

As for leches, I will see you your Filner, your Switzer and your Weiner, and raise you your Clinton, your Jessie Jackson, your Mark Sanford, your David Vitter, your Larry Craig, your Gavin Newsome, and your Antonio Villaraigosa.

Call.


I don't think you understand how proportions work. 5% vs. 95%. You still have about 57 "gentiles" to go.

Israel is rumored to be looking at a non-Jew, non-Israeli for the head of Bank of Israel

Hitler was rumored to be looking at a Jew to head the bank of Germany.

Somewhere I heard that opposition to regulation was a Scottish-Anglo thing... got figure.

We put more people in prison in this country than just about anyplace else. Yet, when was the last time one of these multi-million/billion swindlers saw the inside of a jail cell? Has there been anyone, other than Madoff, locked up for stealing millions/billions in the last 10 years? That's not laissez faire, that's double standards.

This is a theme that allows the people in the 99 percent to think very highly of themselves. All their problems are caused by the nefarious elite.

There must be a Jewish gene for that "all their problems" thing. It goes from Bob saying "there's a problem," to Maury saying "you think all your problems," pretty much every time. David Brooks does it for G-d's sake.

You people above need to lighten up

Everything's a joke, everything's mocked, everything's "iconoclastic" and "irreverent" and "edgy," until the wrong subject comes up. Then it's deadly serious, sanctified, and no laughing matter.

Svigor said...

Look, the world has changed. At one time, if you were trying to staff the best baseball team, you would choose among a bunch of white Christians, if you were trying to staff the Federal Reserve you'd choose among a bunch of white Christians, no matter what you were doing you were going to choose among a bunch of white Christians. This meant that the society was not reaching its true potential in many areas. But, contrary to blank slatism, talent is not even spread among the races - some groups are better at some things than others. So you have an NBA that is mostly black and a finance sector that is disproportionately Jewish, programmers who are disproportionately Asian, sprinters who are mostly West African, etc. Now this is not as much fun for white guys as it used to be when they could just exclude everyone else and be sure of holding the top positions in every field, but get used to it. Find your niche and excel in it. Farming, hockey, etc. - there are still some things that are best suited for white men.

Sure, and when Israel opens their financial sector to merit-only, maybe I'll consider it okay to open our financial sector to them. Probably not, but maybe.

None of the people you claim to be freely competing in an open meritocracy reciprocate in their enclaves. They don't follow your advice, at all. In fact, they do the opposite.

Svigor said...

If Israel opened their critical sectors (and corresponding immigration policy, of course) to blind merit, the whole country would be run by Chinese.

And it would be far better-run.

Svigor said...

"The world has changed"...


HAHAHAHAHA, funny.

Yep, Israel, total meritocracy there. China? Yup. Sub-Saharan Africa? Yep. Latin America, yup.

Yeah, the "world" is meritocratic.

Anonymous said...

aWhat are some occupations that white men would naturally still be best at and dominate the field in the way that certain minorities now dominate other fields?

The strength of the white race is that we are all-rounders, reasonably good at everything, with occasional excellence, and a good enough avearage to maintain all aspects of civilization on our own without help (if need be).

The one thing that whites do really excel at, however, is outgroup altruism, at considerable cost to ourselves.

Anon.

ricpic said...

"Will Yellen (or anyone) have what it takes to unwind Quantitative Easing?"

I don't know about "anyone" but Yellen certainly does not have what it takes because she's perfectly happy with QE. She's part of the herd of independent minds. She's a true blue Keynesian. She's all about stimulus. As long as her beloved State manages more and more of the economy in partnership with the Too Big To Fail's she's happy. She'll be Bernanke II. Until the whole house of cards implodes. That's the future under Chairman Yellen.

Anonymous said...

Steve's jerking knee acting up re: the hive mind of prominent Jews is amusing as always but he might have stumbled onto something with the basic question "whence this non-sequitur Campaign To Get A Woman Appointed"--in practical effect there's no divergent outcome from picking Yellen over Summers or vice versa, it's just that the professional feminists have overfarmed their land. As the appeal of cultural feminism to its supposed beneficiaries recedes, the chiefs are getting antsy.

Silver said...

"Look, the world has changed. At one time..."

At one time whites had their own countries. Now they're told they have to - HAVE TO - share them with the rest of the world, to the point where there will not only no longer be any white countries, there will not be any more white people either. They are also ordered to believe that all this is a very desirable, very beneficial outcome - it's a "strength." (Something like "Awww yeah, baby, no more us, celebrate that s--t!"

I don't know how you can dump all that on a people and not expect them to get upset. After all, it's not as if the hypocrisies and contradictions of anti-whitism are sutble; they're blatant.

Just consider:
I don't care about other people - pariah
I don't care about other white people - paragon

How can people not eventually notice and resent that?

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Your open antisemitism is why you'll always be radioactive.

Silver said...

DR,

Consider the crowd you're addressing here. What effect do you suppose your outburst is going to have, especially after you were denying being Jewish just a few threads ago?

Yes, there is that perplexing tendency for people to go "full retard," but if you hadn't spent the last fifty years crying wolf people might be more sensitive.

Dave Pinsen said...

The NYT reports that the Obama Administration considered a gentile for Fed chair (Geithner), but he said he wasn't interested.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that NYT (orthe rest of the media) havent comnented on the dominance of jews at the fed. But several years ago the NYT (and the rest of the media) were so concerned about the majority of catholics on the supreme court

Porter said...

Steve,
Your open antisemitism is why you'll always be radioactive


Not necessarily. This is strictly a function of suffering a jew dominated media. If Al Jazeera had a media monopoly, then anti-semitism would be as lovingly nurtured as anti-white sentiment is presently. If the Chinese dominated the nervous system, then both would be accepted with equanimity.

The lesson, which must always remain studiously unlearned, is that allowing a coterie of hostile aliens control of the terms and conditions of debate is how one comes to occupy museums rather than countries.

Anonymous said...

and a finance sector that is disproportionately Jewish
that is because of ethinic nepotism and ethnic collusion not because of some innate talent. but if it's a 'free market' shouldn't gentiles have the 'right' to do the same thing?

The objection many of us here have with the jewish elite is that they loudly complain that uncle irv didn't get into yale then when wasps feel guilty and give them the keys to the place, the jews mutter 'ha sucker!" under their breath and turn around and not only discriminate AGAINST wasps, but favor their own- the fact that they did this in the context they did - violating the trust of wasps - is particularly immoral - we see it that way, jews don't . that's the probema and that's why we'll probably never get along.

Anonymous said...

Traditionally the jewish elite have always feared populist and reform minded monarchs (Queen Isabell for example)>
Almost always anti-corruption and reform movements end up being 'bad for jews'

Anonymous said...

''Steve,

Your open antisemitism is why you'll always be radioactive.''

'I do not understand' why these people who accuse others of ''anti Semitism'' try, at least once, put your points, defend their side instead of making these childish attacks.
Must be because it is smarter to continue to perpetuate the ''damn word anti-Semitism'', brainwashed, than trying to discuss honestly about extremely super obvious representation of Jews in key areas of American society.
Now, say that the obvious is ''anti Semitic.''



Anonymous said...

We are so angry at NY Times because their bean-counting obsession (women and blacks in Fed/military/golf clubs) is not the same as our bean-counting obsession (Jews in Fed, etc)

Anonymous said...

were so concerned about the majority of catholics on the supreme court
and then when a third jew was appointed, they said it represented meritocracy!

I really wonder, do jews even begin to see that how hypocritical their behavior is? do they just not care?

Silver said...

"Your open antisemitism is why you'll always be radioactive."

Calling people antisemites has been so spectacularly successful I don't expect it to stop any time soon. But when even the simple act of noticing Jewish power (like, say, reading JJ Goldberg's book, actually entitled "Jewish Power") is "antisemitism" then people will eventually stop caring about even real manifestations of it.

Anyway, the issues involved are very real and very important, so ultimately it doesn't matter what names people get called. The task is simply to speak racial truth to Jewish power and hypocrisy and let the cards fall where they will.

Scott said...

We are so angry at NY Times because their bean-counting obsession (women and blacks in Fed/military/golf clubs) is not the same as our bean-counting obsession (Jews in Fed, etc)

Notice this really clever guy leaves it at "Jews in Fed etc." and not something more accurate and to the point, like "Jews in control of all cultural, legal, and economic choke-points, such as the Supreme Court, political campaigns, academia, advertising, entertainment, media, etc." (and come to think of it, the NY Times itself) -- which would have explained a little too well the other "bean-counting" we're supposedly "obsessed" with.

He understands, of course, (as most jews do tacitly) that a common thread to all of this bean-counting is "jewish interests," but he'd rather we not make the connection. Even mentioning the term "jewish interests" (much less that such interests are actively pursued and conflict with our interests) is forbidden. So, thank you, Steve, for having the balls to raise this "radioactive" topic.

Anonymous said...

"We are so angry at NY Times because their bean-counting obsession (women and blacks in Fed/military/golf clubs) is not the same as our bean-counting obsession (Jews in Fed, etc)"

Nope the NYT sets itself up as a *moral* authority on the basis of supposedly universal principles like disparate impact but those principles aren't applied universally. They are only applied in an anti-white direction.

Anonymous said...

The overrepresentation of Jews in many high-paying fields does indicate a rather serious weakness in arguments for affirmative action and disparate impact.

A. Why are jews overrepresented in law, science, medicine, business, finance and other cerebral jobs? Is it due to anti-goy discrimination?

B. Of course not! Jews are just very talented, smart, dynamic people.

A. So it could be cultural or genetic factors that make them more accomplished?

B. Yeah, it could.

A. So, I notice that white people are overrepresented in law, science, medicine, business, finance , and other cerebral fields compared to blacks and Hispanics. Why?

B. Obviously its due to white racism.

A, Its not because whites are just smarter and more talented, due to cultural or genetic factors, than blacks and Hispanics?

B. Of course not. There's no such thing as racial or cultural superiority.

A. So logically speaking, then, the overrepresentation of Jews vs. goys in these jobs must be due to anti-goy discrimination?

B. Urgh! Splutter! Ow, my brain...


A. Could it be that, like Jews compared to goys, whites are just smarter and more talented, due to cultural or genetic factors, than blacks and Hispanics?

B. Urgh! Splutter!

I guess this works with Asians, too.