As IF Times

link Black conservative tea party backers take heat.

An interesting and unexplored angle in U.S. politics.  Lost among the on going love affair with U.S. president Obama are an unexpected group of Americans who do not subscribe to the policies put forth by his administration.  Some conservative Black groups oppose the initiatives pushed by the Democratic agenda and some dare to be members of the upstart Tea Party political movement.  This of course is viewed with disdain and contempt by the mainstream black community, an overwhelming 95% of whom apparently supported Obama and the Democrats in the last election.

While it’s natural to support those that may represent your best interests if only through accident of  appearance.  it’s actually the epitome of dumb.  Think of all the brylcreem white guys who voted for John Edwards.  Think of guys like Blagojevich, the ex Illinois governor; what if the Polish community came out to support him despite his alleged indiscretions? In the 70’s the Democratic party pushed Carter into office with the constituency of the South supporting him.  As history now shows, he is widely regarded by objective pundits as heading the most disastrous administration in U.S. history, at least up to now.  When a person is elected to the highest position arguably on the planet, their constituency is everyone, not just the demographic slice to whom they belong.  The notion has been fed to everyone through school that achievement is about abilities not appearance.  If this were not the case, why bother going to school?  Unfortunately, the realities of life and the pull of tribalism apparently exert a stronger influence on people than they would care to admit. 

Can it be that in comparing the policies of the Obama platform that the 95% of blacks that voted for him have all independently decided that his vision is the best for everyone compared to not only the Republican candidate, but also the Democratic contenders?  If so, then it leads to two possible conclusions. 

One, the black population favors the policies proposed by the president to a degree that non blacks don’t or don’t see.  If Obama’s  policies are considered to be beneficial to the entire population, wouldn’t that translate into similar showings of overwhelming support by other constituencies?   Does this mean that there are issues affecting blacks that have not been addressed by all previous administrations? If so, would enactment of such policies be negative for the population at large?

The second conclusion is that support was given to this president solely because of his skin color.  The black conservatives referenced in the article are publicly pushing back against this expectation. Their position is that the man’s policies are wrongheaded and will drive the country down an unsustainable financial road.  The fact that he happens to be black is irrelevant.  Such a position is apparently at odds with the majority of vocal blacks.  It’s as if the conservatives are self loathing and need to be condemned.  In fact the opposite is true.   Critical thinking drives these people more than a nominal allegiance to skin color.  People should scrutinize the careers of  Maxine Waters, of Charlie Rangel and certainly people like Rep Hank Johnson of Georgia who famously expressed concern that the island of Guam would capsize like a rubber raft if too many people went there.  Do these people really deserve the support of intelligent people?

Political discourse in the U.S. has become a spectacle of tribalism on a large scale much like fans at a sporting event.  Those who don’t fall in line with your team completely are the enemy and vilified.  Imagine if Sean Penn decided to run for office and his constituency en masse decided to support him.  If nothing else, we would see the actual size of the crazed, self deluding idiots of the country.  Would it make sense to support his vision solely because he was white?  Years ago, the ex wrestler Jesse Ventura ran and succeeded in attaining political office.  I had no idea there were so many ex wrestlers with brain damage who would support him.  Thankfully, he was voted out after one term.  Can anyone take this guy seriously today?

As the old saying goes, people eventually get the government they deserve not necessarily the one they want.  The other bit of wisdom is from an old communist turned capitalist, Deng Xiao Ping who famously observed, “it doesn’t matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice’.

link Greenspan Should Have Seen Housing Crisis, Burry Says in Times – Bloomberg.com.

For those watching the repercussions and players surrounding the recent bank collapse in the U.S., it’s fascinating to watch the responses of the very key players.  Michael Burry will be recorded as one of the first and few people to actually key into the gross imbalances building in the bond and swap markets for mortgage debt.   He came to this conclusion not because of accident, but by very painstaking and thorough individual research, poring over volumes of dry and numbingly arcane documents.  He was amply rewarded for his work and conviction.

Alan Greenspan, whose genius credentials are eroding rapidly with the passage of time, dismisses Burry’s work as “statistical illusion”, basically saying Burry was lucky.  Alan Greenspan’s own place in history is yet to be written given his being totally blindsided by the debacle in the housing market and the ensuing collapse of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and essentially, Merrill Lynch.  For years, the maestro of incomprehensible economic babble, he assumed the position of oracle of the financial markets deigning to be able to read all the statistical measures of economic activity with authoritative accuracy.  Not to deny his immense intellect, nonetheless, Mr. Greenspan has spent his life in academia having essentially no real life experience, certainly not in putting his money where his mouth is.  Sound like anyone else we know?

The point is not to dump on Mr. Greenspan, because people make mistakes.  But he does ask for some questioning of his credibility if he dismisses the work of others whose views don’t align with his own perceptions.  This smacks of arrogance and lack of intellectual integrity.  It may be that he has a stake in the consequences of an interest rate policy which he was very much responsible for during the balloon like expansion of credit which fueled the run-up in home prices.  Even a person not as endowed with his intellect would know that when a large pile of dry tinder is assembled, all that is needed as some kind of spark to set the whole pile alight.  This is the kind of homespun wisdom acquired in real life experiences.  The artificially low interest rates which prevailed on his watch as Federal Reserve Board Chairman undoubtedly was a main ingredient to the speculative housing bubble that ensued.  To not think that this might end in some kind of calamity is a serious professional mistake.  Apparently the complex and artificial models of the world which Greenspan works in didn’t allow for this.  As I have opined before, I’d much rather listen to a guy with a chest full of experience than a desk full of theories.