'Human beings and Wall Streeters have diametrically opposed goals in life'

[checks-n-balances]

Tear Down the Ghetto: The Price is Wrong
Wednesday, 09 April 2008
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

"If these ghetto houses cannot be financed at the bubble prices demanded, then they must be torn down."

<snip>
Here's the latest criminal enterprise hatched by the ruling sectors of U.S. society: tear down all that overpriced housing, the stuff that was only recently built but can no longer be financed for sale. No, don't convert it to useful purposes as rental units or reasonably-priced family homes to satisfy the desperate needs of millions of families - and of people who wish they could successfully constitute themselves as households in this jungle-like environment. Just make it all go away, with the federal government paying the bill for the massive destruction.

<snip>
The Wall Street Journal's Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., in the April 2 issue, suggests "using tax dollars to buy and demolish foreclosed, unoccupied or half-built houses in selected markets," thereby driving up prices by lowering availability. Jenkins points to ghettonomics - government at its most destructive and least responsive to the citizenry - as the emerging business model. "In highly depressed housing markets," Jenkins quotes Federal Reserve Chief Ben Bernanke, "the worst-quality units are often demolished to mitigate safety hazards and reduce supply."

But Jenkins' is not concerned about safety, only with keeping supply down and price up..."Knocking down surplus homes would be the most efficient and equitable way to spend taxpayer dollars. It can proceed experimentally. It can be turned off quickly when the need evaporates. It would not be a lesson to Americans that housing debt is not real debt and need not be repaid. It wouldn't benefit the most irresponsible lenders and borrowers at the expense of responsible ones. The housing market would still have to hit bottom, but the bottom would be higher (and sooner)," said Jenkins.

"In this same sense, the problem with New Orleans was ‘surplus people.'"

FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=577&Itemid=1

This madness sounds every bit like another aspect of The Shock Doctrine as described by Naomi Klein.

I wonder if all WSJ readers will just go along with the idea.

[bobbolink]

1. Thank you so much for posting this --- BUT, it needs to be in GD!

This MUST become an issue!

Finally, some DUers are going to start understanding what we "leftwingers" are winging about....

:argh: :nuke::wtf: :argh: :nuke::wtf: :argh: :nuke::wtf: :argh: :nuke:

[Canuckistanian]

4. I agree. Xpost this immediately! n/t

[skids]

2. Appalling. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

3. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. Hmmmm....

Doesn't sound like anyone I met at the Food Bank last year.

Any bets his son is named Holman W. Jenkins III?

[unblock]

5. please be careful who you bash. the WSJ EDITORIAL BOARD are not "wall streeters"

the strong majority of "wall streeters" are actually democrats, and liberal ones at that. hey, this is new york city we're talking about, after all.

the wall street journal editorial board, on the other hand, are a bunch of polemic right-wing partisan hacks pretending who abuse their position by claiming a false authority about economic and financial matters. if they really knew what they were talking about, they'd be earning millions on wall street instead of compressing every complex issue into a couple of simplistic paragraphs that just happen to line up exactly with the republican platform.


as to this particular issue, true wall streeters would NOT like to see diminished supply, nor extraordinary measures to restore other houses to their recent grossly overpriced status. wall street thrives on inventory and turnover, and demolishing low-priced houses would reduce both. true wall streeters would prefer to see those in who bought too much house to move out or get foreclosed on so that the house can be resold at a more reasonable price and the previous owner can by a more reasonable house as well. that makes two new mortgages for wall street to play with. demolishing houses does not give wall street new mortgages to play with.

[checks-n-balances]

6. I wasn't bashing them; the title itself that I used was in quotes

It came from elsewhere in the article that I posted. But after what you said, I did some research and found out that Jenkins is, in fact, on the WSJ Editorial Board! Wikipedia article also quotes him on climate change:

"That man-made carbon dioxide has a net planetary warming effect is an important hypothesis, one that science can make stronger or weaker, but can't prove. It may be true, but a layperson only has to look into the antecedents of today's "consensus" to realize it wouldn't be too surprising if tomorrow's consensus were that CO2 is cooling, or neutral, or warming here and cooling there."

You may be right about true wall streeters, but unfortunately they don't seem to be the ones in power these days. The corporate sociopaths are taking us & the world off the cliff with them.

[unblock]

7. wall streeters are brokers, financiers, financial facilitators, etc.

they help make deals happen, but for the most part, the money and desire and judgment to decide on which deals to do come from "corporate sociopaths" as you so nicely put it :) in a way, wall streeters are responsible for the current financial morass only as much as local real estate brokers are responsible for the sub-prime mortgage debacle. sure, they facilitated deals that may have involved un credit-worthy people getting into too much house, but the real fault lies with the lender and the buyer, not so much the broker.

i told you those wsj editors are right wing hacks!

[raqi]

8. Most Dems aren't getting rich off stock, heck

most folks don't trade enough, have enough to invest to make a real difference in their lives, or even have enough left over after bills to even buy a ticket to take a trip to "Wall St."

Sure, NYC and Cali have a gaggle of wealthy Dems, but the rest of us are just normal, every day, folks who have meager holdings for retirement.

[unblock]

9. same could be said for more republicans, actually.

the vast majority of republicans aren't rich at all. they just cling foolishly to the idea that they WILL be rich and therefore want the playing field tilting NOW in favor of those who are rich, in the hope that this will work out in their favor when they win the lottery.

in any event, i think of the term "wall streeter" as referring to the people (like me) who actually work in the "high-finance" industry.

[raqi]

10. Agreed, they have a false-sense of being 'one of them'

when, in fact, they are just being 'used by them'.

But, I was replying to a specific posters contention that NYC was full of 'Wall St. Dems'.

[caseycoon]

11. K&R GRRRRRRR n/t

[Kajsa]

12. Thanks so much for this, C & B.

I agree- this needs to be in GD where more will
see it!

To quote Barack Obama,

" If there’s one thing this crisis has taught us, it’s that we can’t have a thriving
Wall Street and a crumbling Main street, because we’re all connected. "

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBhQS


K & R.

:kick:

[Two Americas]

13. opposite

What you quote Obama saying here is the exact opposite of what this suggests.

We obviously CAN have, and in fact do have "a thriving Wall Street and a crumbling Main street" - that is the problem. One thrives as a direct result of the other crumbling. And merely saying "we are all connected" is meaningless. Of course we are all connected - we work and they thrive. It is the WAY in which we are connected that is the problem, and fighting for justice is the solution, not telling the children to play nice and share their toys. That disarms the oppressed and will be ignored by the oppressors, and it is extremely naive to think that "believing" something else to be true will make it so.

Imagine if in the 1850's a candidate ran for office saying "we can't have a thriving and prospering slave owner class, and a shackled and abused slave class, because we are all connected..." What would that mean? Would not Abolitionists have been suspicious of that? Are we to imagine that if the slaves had been nicer, and had "moved away from the divisiveness of the past" and had "hope" and sought "unity" with the slave owners, that this would have made one whit of difference? If anything, it would have made life easier for the slave owners.

[mntleo2]

14. As Thom Hartmann Says ...

The stock market is an indication of what billionaires are raking in, it is not about the little guy. He was talking just the other day about how Alan Greenspan said out right that when unemployment is down, this is bad for the economy (read "billionaires"). Greenspan is now scrambling for his reputation after practicing several decades of the disastrous Ayn Ran "supply-side economy," which has caused misery and poverty all over the world, including here in America.

When the stock market roars, unemployment and homelessness soars ...

Corporate law is counterproductive to people. Any person who did what a corporation does to our society would rot in jail. The corporate world tries to assert itself as a "person" where that "person" can irresponsibly poison our waters, create blight in our cities, lay off their workers for their bottom line, cause poverty to make a few rich without so much as a slap on the wrist or a question as to how this is enhancing the Commons, and somehow this is considered by people like Greenspan and his ilk as "good."

What is wrong with this picture?

Cat In Seattle

[bobbolink]

16. "When the stock market roars, unemployment and homelessness soars ..."

Is that a quote from Thom Hartmann, or is this original to you? Because that is a GREAT quote!

Very concise and to the point!

"Any person who did what a corporation does to our society would rot in jail. "

Oh, man, is THAT true!!

You have a way of pinpointing this exactly! a bit too long for a bumpersticker, but it would sure get lots of people to thinking....

Thank you for laying it out like this!

:applause:

[Kajsa]

15. I think you misunderstood me.

In no way, shape or form am I ( nor, I believe, Obama) suggesting ANYONE play "nice".
How in the HELL did you get THAT from his speech?
Did you read the whole thing- especially the part where he states the Repugs tell
those of us who are struggling that we are " on our own"?


Yet when Bear Stearns is heading for the toilet, financially, the Feds are more
than happy to bail them out?

This is pointing out the huge disparity between the rich ( Wall Street) and those who are struggling to
survive on a daily basis.

Obama clearly states THIS IS WRONG.

To suggest that is OK is ANY fashion is to spin and twist the message.

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was trying to point out-

The rich are getting richer and the rest of us
are struggling.

The poor are all but ignored.
-- because--
There is no financial "profit" involved with helping those most in need.

[Two Americas]

17. ok

But Obama didn't say that, not in the excerpt you quoted. In any case, this discussion isn't about candidate partisanship.

[Kajsa]

18. It most certainly isn't.

Neither was that the intention of my posting.

To the best of my knowledge, that's the only speech from
any candidate right now addressing the disparity between
human beings and Wall Street- the title of this thread.

That's the reason I posted not only the quote,
but the whole speech to substantiate what the OP was saying.

I felt it did- I'm sorry you see it differently.
No partisanship was intended.

[Two Americas]

19. no problem

I see what you are saying.

[Kajsa]

20. Thanks!

:)