I was going to title this post “Megan McArdle is a Cunt,” but that would be too over-the-top for her milquetoast flavor of evil. One of the things life has taught me is that true evil doesn’t advertise its nature, but is usually wrapped up in blandness to disguise itself. And McArdle is nothing if not bland – I struggle to stay awake reading her stilted, dry, humorless prose. But evil she is, as she unironically argues in favor of debtors’ prisons as she makes a false equivocation between stealing from a store and defaulting on your debts:
Macy’s makes an allowance for theft (euphemistically known as “shrinkage” in the retail trade). It’s factored into the price of the product. They knew when they let me into the store that there was a risk that I might try to steal something. As soon as they opened the doors, everyone knew what was going to happen: a bunch of stuff would get bought, and some stuff would be stolen. One could argue that every time I have bought something at retail, paying an extra percentage to cover losses from shrinkage, I have been paying for the right to steal at some point in the future.
Macy’s doesn’t even use written contracts for most transactions! If they had wanted to, they could have asked me to sign a contract agreeing not to steal. Since they didn’t, why do I have an obligation not to steal?
Megan dear, pull that cock out of your piehole and listen to me. The difference between stealing from Macy’s and defaulting on a mortgage or student loan is that shopping at Macy’s is not a requirement to enter the workforce or raise a family. Macy’s “shrinkage” fees aren’t guaranteed by the government, meaning they actually lose money when people steal from them. Debt accrued from unpaid Macy’s bills can be discharged in bankruptcy. And, most importantly, Macy’s isn’t actively trying to fuck you over. Yes, the high interest rates suck, but that’s chump change in our glorious scam-based economy.
Debtors’ prisons are the only logical outcome of McArdle’s mindset. Can’t get a job to pay off your obscene student loans or obscene child support payments? It’s off to jail for you, welsher! Welcome back to the 18th century. We already have SWAT teams being sent after people who default on their college debt. It’s especially rich coming from McArdle, whose father got rich working as a public healthcare official in New York City in the 1970′s. A child of a public servant lecturing us about the glories of duh three-mark-it and the morality of getting ripped off by the private sector – that’s practically a call for a fatwa, right there.
Fuck McArdle and all the plutocracy’s paid-for whores. Welsh on your debts and tell the fat cats to choke. Rebellion is the only option.
Hat tip: Mike @ Crime & Federalism.
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
I must have missed her column when she wrote about how when a corporation declares Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid paying its creditors the officers of the company are the moral equivalent of shoplifters. But then again power is invulnerable to shame and will pass every shit-test unblinkingly, while the poor and weak should be shamed for their troubles on top of their troubles.
Good point.
The thing about moral indignation is that it’s effectiveness depends on the moral code of the other guy. He has admit that he’s wrong. I don’t reckon that you’ll get that out of McArdle.
I think there would be more power and “motive force” in saying “I pissed! The banks screwed me, and I’m gonna screw them back,” which you did at the end. No explaination, no negotiation, just action. It’s more intimidating.
“If they had wanted to, they could have asked me to sign a contract agreeing not to steal. Since they didn’t, why do I have an obligation not to steal?”
This is a typical modern female in a single phrase.
Probably it will convince some other men it is stupid to treat women like they are more intellingent than protozoa.
Very similar shaming of the little guy/presenting the banks as the wrong parties (!) found in the embedded video here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/homeowners-who-will-consider-strategic-default-doubles-in-one-year-2011-6
Breathtaking. How anyone could feel there is any sort of moral obligation on the part of the defrauded homeowners, I don’t know.
And let’s also point out that the banks managed to successfully lobby congress in 2005 (BAPCPA) to make it much more difficult for individuals to declare bankruptcy. So apparently not paying your debts is fine and dandy if it’s strictly business and you happen to be a corporation or a country but if you have the misfortune of being an individual you are stuck living in a moral dimension. (unless of course you are a rich and powerful individual, in which case a moral dimension doesn’t apply to you either)
I’m with you all the way there Ferd.
And since McArdle fancies herself economically literate, I don’t know why she forgot to mention the reason shoplifting is illegal whereas defaulting on loans is not: debtors prison doesn’t make economic sense for anyone. If you’re in prison, you can’t very well contribute to the economy now can you? By the same token, the reason we allow corporation to declare chapter 11 and reorganize is due to the understanding that sometimes shit happens and it’s often better to make the most of what’s still around than to throw it all away. The banks understand this when they loan money to businesses or individuals. They are taking a risk, and for taking on that risk they charge a premium. Then, if shit goes down, you scramble, reorganize your business or your life and do what makes the best sense for you to keep living another day. Keeping individual drowned in debt for the rest of their lives isn’t good for anyone in the long run. Why, it’s whole fucking reason the economy is so fucked right now: too many people drowning in debt. If more people walked away from debts they can’t repay the economy would turn around faster. The banks need to recognize their losses and fucking deal with it.
At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed.
Deuteronomy 15:1-2
Again, as with feminism, to fight the banksters and to lead to their collapse the best strategy is the following:
1] Borrowing the highest sums of money,
2] Delaying in returning the loans. Even if the cost is jail or mortgages, the sum of all borrowings and delays will lead to the banksters’ collapse.
Since everybody is borrowing, then there is no point in abstaining from borrowing in order to dry out the vains of the system. Instead, borrowing more and more is the best strategy.
This type of argument is also made on every DVD I buy. It lectures me on how copying copyrighted material would be exactly the same as ripping an old ladies purse out of her hands as I pass by, or hot-wiring someone’s car. The point, however, is that they are not the same. If they were, it would be so obvious that pointing it out would seem trite and dumb. By having to argue that two things are exactly the same, you are in fact emphasizing that they are NOT.
Post-act lack of consent date rape is NOT the same as real violent rape. Statutory rape with a willing minor is not the same. Copying a file is not the same as stealing a TV — it’s more like taking a picture of a TV and leaving the original where it is. Stealing from Macy’s is not the same as ripping off an old ladies’ purse. Renegging on debt to a money warehouse because you don’t have the means to pay is not the same as theft. Is IS, however, exactly the same as how banks themselves dispose of unprofitable commercial real estate deals.
But wearing clothes is sort of a prerequisite for moving through society. Try going into Chili’s with no pants on, and see what happens.
I actually defaulted on a large amount of credit card debt in the 90′s. I couldn’t pay, so I didn’t. I was never sued and so never declared bankruptcy. I felt pretty bad about the whole thing at first but I got over it. I don’t know how much harder the 2005 banking law made it to default; it makes the petitioner pay something in bankruptcy, but the credit card company still has to find it worthwhile to sue you.
Society has certain sanctions to make you obey. If you can live with those sanctions, you don’t have to obey. The individual in question, Elie Mystal of abovethelaw.com, apparently quit his well-paying blawyer job because he hated it and then stopped paying his loans. They can sue him, and collect some money from him, but they can’t make him go back to his old job.
The real issue here is student loans, which are *not* dischargable. I’m guessing Mystal will eventually wish he had paid, because they have a lot of leverage over him. The best strategy is to avoid debt.
Chuck – you don’t have to buy those clothes from Macy’s.
Let me guess, she is a feminist with CONservative family values….
JWRebel,
I would say that pirating music and movies is immoral. Lars Ulrich of Metallica eloquently explained why Napster was wrong…..
That being said, if you must view pornography, please don’t hold the same level of ethics. They are an incredibly misandrist industry who pay men much lower rates than women–so bootleg all your porno in an effort to bankrupt them.
Thrasymachus,
A strategy applied in a massive manner that aims at draining the banks of money is efficient. Surely, don’t lend your money to the banks on interest.
To sabotage the system you have to use means that defy logic.
I made a similar argument a while ago when Glenn Beck said strategic defaulting was “evil.”
The banks often deliberately violated the underwriting policies they themselves crafted to prevent themselves from being overexposed. I have fucko sympathy for them.
Here is the comment I left at her site–wonder how long it’ll stay up….
Stoner With a Boner 0 minutes ago
Listen, you idiot–a loan is NOT the same as someone stealing a product. A loan is issued on good faith that it will be paid back and some money will be made on usury. When someone makes a loan, they know there is risk of default. The issue might be if someone strategically defaults versus someone who intended to pay, had a good payment history/credit score and couldn’t pay due to unforseen circumstances. I don’t know where you got your degree, but you should ask for a refund because your critical thinking skills show your ‘diploma” should’ve been printed on toilet paper.
Flag
you blow, girl
You are taking this out of context. Megan McArdle does not oppose restructuring or bankruptcy for people who cannot pay their bills. Megan McArdle opposes people who ARE able to repay but choose not to.
And government does help out individual homeowners. They’re called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they provide the financing for the majority of American mortgages.
Proph,
I’m not talkin about strategic default while being able to pay back the loan. I’m talking about sucking loans from the banks while being unable to pay, then spend them completely and not pay them back at all. Then let the loan war begin.
This strategy defies logic.
And thus the system grinds to a halt.
No one wants to borrow from the bankers because they are thieves, and the bankers won’t lend to their customers, who are thieves as well. Everyone screwing each other over. Welcome to the economics of Albania.
The pigmen are corrupt, the government is corrupt and the people are corrupt.
Has conservative thinking sunk this low?
Moral corruption is the poison of society.
Slumlord, from your link:
An avidity for power, then, combined with a deeply materialistic outlook on life, which regarded an increased level of consumption as the summum bonum of human existence, lay behind the crisis, and certainly not only in Ireland. Greed, either for power or easy gain, acted everywhere in our societies.
Greed is a constant, it can’t explain the recent crisis. And I highly doubt we are more materialistic than our predecessors. In fact the evidence seems to be going the other way: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v023/23.1inglehart.html
Ignorance, cognitive error and systemic risks have more to do with economic crises than folk narratives involving fallen morality.
Ignorance, cognitive error and systemic risks have more to do with economic crises than folk narratives involving fallen morality.
The problem isn’t about logic or information, the problem is with not wanting to see. We keep repeating the same mistakes not because we are poorly informed it’s because the rationalisation hamster keeps telling us that this time it’s different.
When I read Megan here’s what I think: Al Qaeda had the right idea. Kill and fucking destroy American bankers who think they are above everyone else. Note that the tone of moral superiority only applies to the proletariat. The banksters are whitewashed in advance.
The Patriot Act proves we are a country of fucking faggots. So time to destroy that country. I didn’t sign up for the faggot police state act. Al Qaeda, surprisingly, was right.
anna ardin’s professor:
http://www.smwane.dk/content/view/153/34/
http://rixstep.com/1/1/0/20101231,01.shtml
and more bizzaro:
http://www.yakida.se/max/epilogue.html
i’ve thought about defaulting on an insane amount of debt, but the collection agencies would most likely harass my family (they didn’t cosign, but their names are on the promissory notes as references and contacts) and i dont want them to have to deal with that
If you think the Macy’s article is bad, read this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/should-we-care-if-people-dont-pay-their-debts/240392/
Here was the response I left:
Stoner With a Boner 0 minutes ago
The Banksters got 700 BILLION of OUR dollars in bailout money and you are talking to us about “moral obligation.” Somehow this feels like someone telling a slave they aren’t working hard enough for their master. After all, their benevolent master paid for them to be kidnapped and imprisoned–it’s only fair that they kill themselves by working super hard.
Lady, get you head outta your @$$
Flag
And quoted from her article:
“People really underweight the role that norms play in sustaining a modern economy. I suspect that if the “default option” folks got their way and people started regarding default as a commercial decision with no more moral weight than changing cable vendors, the advocates of this position would be unpleasantly surprised to find that the only thing less fun than being young and burdened with student loans is being young and completely unable to access any form of credit at all.”
Is she agreeing with Nestorious ;)
Oh and from her student loan default article:
2) As someone who graduated from business school with nearly $100,000 in student loans, and whose first permanent full-time position paid $40,000 a year in New York City, I feel entitled to say that for anyone with a professional degree, defaulting on your loans is a choice, not something that just happens to you.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/dont-count-on-settling-those-student-loans/240272/
hahahaha, I noticed how she used feminist shaming language like “entitled” so I will use “privileged.” Even though 40k ain’t a ton of money and 100k is toooo much debt, obviously she graduated when better paying jobs were available. She was privileged not to have to struggle to find a 25k a year job–what she describes as a “choice” isn’t for everyone…..
hahahahahahaha,
(and sorry if it is bad form to post so many comments in a row)
but there was a funny quote from some con artist—
If I owe you $100 I have a problem, if I owe you 1 million, you have a problem……
What’s wrong with debtor’s prisons? In an ideal world, all prisons would be debtor’s prisons trying to make reparation to the torted.
Greed is a constant, it can’t explain the recent crisis.
The removal of restraints on greed, however, is not constant.
———————————————————————-
I actually can understand where McArdle is coming from. If everyone is just looking out for number one then society breaks down. She is trying to uphold the informal moral code, the social trust that does keep society running. The problem is that the globalized, impersonal, free market and government bureaucracy world we live in tends to undermine that same informal moral code. For example, the banks go strictly by what they can get away with in the contract and in the law.
Therefore, if you are a conservative, you often are faced with an agonizing choice of participating in behaviours which contribute to moral decline or getting royally screwed. An old fashioned virtue like loyalty is not rewarded anymore.
The knock against McArdle isn’t that she is totally wrong, its that her analysis is so one sided. Why should the banks and such get to go strictly by the book, while ordinary people are the one’s expected to uphold the traditional virtues?
Daily Show video on how the MBA defaulted on its mortgage. I’m sure most here have seen it but it holds up well upon re-watching.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-7-2010/mortgage-bankers-association-strategic-default
As for McArdle, her posts on the subject are irrelevant. Regardless of her (and others) moral preening, people will default, strategically and otherwise. They did so in ’29, when people stopped paying on “call money” loans taken out to buy overpriced stocks, and now they’ll do the same on mortgages taken out to buy overpriced houses.
No one is going to continue paying a $350k mortgage for a house that is worth only a third of that. The people still paying are only five or six years into their 30-year mortgages. Sooner or later exhaustion will come calling, and these people will free themselves of their senseless burdens.
Ferds,
Oh, you haven’t even scratched the worse aspect of that 6’2″ deep-voiced cougar Megan McArdle.
She wrote an article slamming Game, based on (as usual) a poor understanding of it. Plus, she married a man 9 years younger than her, meaning he is an ultra-mangina. See Roissy’s : “Aging Urban Broads : The Manliest of Men”.
Slamming McArdle for the debtor’s prisons issue is like slamming John Edwards for consuming too much energy for his mansion. He has done much worse than that, as has McArdle.
Also, anyone worried about ‘shrinkage’ in the retail store can shop online. The ‘shrinkage’ from Amazon.com’s delivery model would be much less.
I have little to no sympathy for people who don’t pay their debts. I’m a saver, and therefore a lender, so those sorts of people are (indirectly, and maybe) ripping me off. Bastards.
But welshing on a debt shouldn’t be a crime. It’s a civil matter. (It gets a little murky if you take someone to court, get a judgement, and he then flat-out refuses to pay … but if you’re going to come out against the law getting involved at that point, you’ve basically thrown in the towel on any and all enforcement of contract law, which is essential to the modern economy. The difference between our traditional system and one of debtor’s prisons is that the inability to pay is a defense.)
Not to wander too far afield, though: Welshing is not stealing. Lenders have always taken on the risk that a borrower will turn out to be a deadbeat. Whining about it is just another form of modern entitlement. There’s more in common between a slut who doesn’t want to be judged for her triple-digit count and an MD at Goldman Sachs who doesn’t think it’s fair that his counterparties turned up insolvent than either would like to admit.
A third world population means a tird world nation.
Robert in Arabia
I don’t normally try to support terrorism, but I think Dirk is right. since 9/11 the government and it’s banker owners have been following the mein kampf playbook step by step for oppressing a populace and maximising profitability, fear, and class distinctions.
If I were in the middle east’s shoes, where a bully was constantly pressuring me politically and militarily to enslave myself to a culture, religion, economic system, and morality that encouraged me to give up my rights as a husband and a father, submit to constant commercialism and propaganda, throw away logic in favor of ‘truth by consensus’, throw away my right to protect myself and my family, and assume that I am the ‘property of the state’, I think I would start seriously considering running planes into skyscrapers too.
We went from being a nation proud of being underdogs to being the biggest bullies on the block. When did that happen?
I am proud of being an American, but I am humiliated at being ‘Property of the United States’.
But hey, at least I can tell myself I’m not Canadian :) they are ahead of the curve in ‘social progressiveness’ (removing the rights of the individual). That might even make me feel better when the police kick in the door and confiscated my firearms in the name of ‘public safety’.
And I would happily default on Child support or alimony because it’s a debt I never agreed to take on. I have no ‘moral responsibility’ to care for a child I have never even met, and any fuckhead that tries to tell me how to ‘be a man’ while acting like a cuntstool is welcome to discuss it with a swollen lip.
Stoner,
“If I owe you $100 I have a problem, if I owe you 1 million, you have a problem”
The strategy I’m talking about is based on this.
The flow of this post seems to be something like this:
1. Make up words that you attribute to someone who didn’t say them.
2. Call them names for saying words that they didn’t actually say.
All right, then.
{ 3 trackbacks }