Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
18 comments:
I think Brooks has a point with his idea that our companies and institutions have generally moved beyond our government's ability to control them. But that's really way too easy and as Steve is always saying it ignores some pretty big and obvious problems.
It's hard to say exactly how much diversity-worship caused the crisis, but it is certainly a lot higher than 0%. It's a shame that nobody in power seems all that interested in figuring out exactly how much, why and how to stop it from happening again.
It looks like Steve's journalistic niche is safe for at least one more issue of the NYT!
But you knew this...
"Moderate," when used about politically controversial events, does not mean anything objective. It's code. It is a primitive, tribal word that people use to say that the ideas are only slightly uncomfortable to them. It is a statement about the speaker, not the object.
Possible meanings you can detect when the word "moderate" is used:
A) The blaming of we Right People is sharply limited, or even only hinted at.
B) I want you to think I am open-minded, so I tolerate mild disagreement.
C) This person is from my tribe and says your tribe is wrong, but he's not really, really nasty about it and admits that we might be 1% at fault, so you should listen to him.
D) I don't want you to be right, so you should back off from being so insistent about the truth. That's extremist.
And in the mouth of an extremist, or apologist for same, "moderate" has yet another set of meanings, none of which follow the denotative meaning of the word.
Steve, your article was far more comprehensive.
Washington is beyond being a swamp of corruption, it is a veritable ocean of corruption.
I have no respect for Brooks, and I am at a loss as to why you (seem to) take him seriously.
the chattering class is still looking for someone to blame for the crisis. the idea that the entire power structure of america was in on the gig would validate what otherwise sounds like a conspiracy theory, and americans don't believe in conspiracies. the govt tried to prosecute goldman sachs - didn't go so well. I think the next target is the ratings agencies - not quite as cool or smart as goldman sachs, so they might take the fall.
No, Steve, Dave's article does not make your writing look fat.
It's hard to say exactly how much diversity-worship caused the crisis, but it is certainly a lot higher than 0%.
All of us crimethinkers in the HBD-o-sphere are aware that only vanishingly small percentages of NAMs have sufficiently high IQs to earn enough money to afford the monthly payments on a $500,000 mortgage.
However, even many crimethinkers might not be aware that the absolute number of young folk with sufficiently high IQs [to earn enough money to afford the monthly payments on a $500,000 mortgage] has fallen off the edge of a demographic cliff:
2010 Statistical Abstract of the United States
Section 1, Population
Table 9. Resident Population by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Age: 2000 and 2008
pop.pdf
Not Hispanic White alone, 2008
45 to 49 years: 15,964K
40 to 44 years: 14,085K
35 to 39 years: 12,981K
30 to 34 years: 11,456K
25 to 29 years: 12,740K
20 to 24 years: 12,949K
15 to 19 years: 12,903K
10 to 14 years: 11,660K
05 to 09 years: 11,222K
00 to 04 years: 11,065K
***************
***************
***************
Washington is beyond being a swamp of corruption, it is a veritable ocean of corruption.
I think that it is "beyond" even corruption - I think [WARNING: Glenn Beck tinfoil hat alert] that there are more than a few nihilists in DC who are actively working to destroy this nation.
From the vdare article--
"In general, Morgenson and Rosner’s perspective is quite similar to the one I’ve been offering since 2007-2008."
True. Reckless Endangerment places Franniestein front and center in the credit debacle, a refreshing dispelling of all the squid ink that has gushed forth discounting the role of the GSEs and housing policy.
Don't expect this effort by two recognized and respected authors to gain any more traction, attention or utility in policy initiatives than Stevil's original and superior sleuthing of the roots of the crisis. Do expect this inferior rendering of endemic, systemic venality to be sans the name-calling attacks.
But you're not supposed to be 'moderate' toward 'racist' ideas. Extremism in the defense of PC is justified.
I haven't read you piece, not being interested in the book and knowing full well you position. So can't compare. Brooks' piece is pretty good - short and to the point. Of course, he only hints at but can't quite bring himself to mention the role NAMs played in all this.
But it's easy to be smart in hindsight. What matters a lot more is ability to diagnose and forecast. I don't think Brooks was among those who in 2004 told of the dangers that Fannie poses. Were you?
Fannie was a follower of the investment banks into the subprime market, and got in late trying to recapture market share. The real culprits are the bailed-out bankers, and Brooks is trying to deflect blame. From a Moody's assessment is 2006:
"Freddie Mac has long played a central role (shared with Fannie Mae) in the secondary mortgage market. In recent years, both housing GSEs have been losing share within the overall market due to the shifting nature of consumer preferences towards adjustable-rate loans and other hybrid products. For the first half of 2006, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac captured about 44 percent of total origination volume -- up from a 41 percent share in 2005, but down from a 59 percent share in 2003. Moody’s would be concerned if Freddie Mac’s market share (i.e., mortgage portfolio plus securities as a percentage of conforming and non-conforming origination), which ranged between 18 and 23 percent between 1999 and the first half of 2006, declined below 15 percent. To buttress its market share, Freddie Mac has increased its purchases of private label securities."
The private banks got everything they wanted from government, but the least intellectuals should be doing is letting everyone know that there's no talent or innovation there, only welfare queens.
But isn't that your writing style? I mean cool detachment as you offer unique observations and insights sometimes combined with humor. Whiskey called it "Sailerian insouciance" which is a pretty good description.
Your "just the facts ma'am" approach to most topics is a study in moderation. It's just that the facts you bring to light are very stubborn things, and unwelcome in the Pravda media.
Almost identically moderate.
Your piece was also far more reasonable then what Professor Mead wrote here:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/07/fanniegate-gamechanger-for-the-gop/
I tried reading his book SOCIAL ANIMAL and nearly gagged.
But Brooks' satire of Buckley in the University of Chicago student newspaper was classic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/opinion/29brooks.html
I saw Morgenson of Reckless Endangerment on the Charlie Rose PBS program. When she, Morgenson, attempted to point out the huge number of minorities in foreclosure or headed there, good old Charlie cut her off so she had to try to talk over him. Charlie also couldn’t seem to believe that Johnson was a bad actor in all of this because as Charlie noted, Johnson is a big time establishment player. Charlie Rose is a good old Southern boy, a throw back to all those knee jerk Solid South Democratic voters.
Irving Kristol’s Ghost
A good - and rather brave - article from Brooks, and not something I'd normally expect to see in the NYT, which I thought was pretty much the paper of the Establishment Brooks excoriates.
Anonymous,
It is true that banks and other private entities issued most of the mortgages and mortgage-backed securities in 2005-07. However, as Peter Wallison has shown, without Freddie and Fannie's "commitment to purchase the AAA tranches of these securitizations, it is unlikely the [MBS] pools could have been formed and marketed around the world." See Andrew Redleaf's excellent book "Panic," at 140.
Wallison (and Redleaf) have also chronicled how various federal agencies imposed increasingly ambitious affordable housing objectives on lenders that were wholly inconsistent with traditional 20 percent, fixed rate mortgages. And, it was the holders of these "innovative" prime and subprime mortgages who accounted for the vast majority of the defaults that began in 2006.
Post a Comment