|Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
An argument on the Internet, scratching an itch
Anatomy of an argument on the Internet
Badhatharry (BHH) wrote this, in response to eeeeeeeeli, here:
” I know you disagree and that pretty much sums up the titanic struggle. I have no idea what it means to be an advocate for citizens. It sounds really nice, though. But what I suspect is that that impulse knows no bounds…”
I think the standard model for advocacy for citizens is Legal Aid. There is no mystery here. If BHH has no idea what it means to be an advocate for citizens, this could be evidence of a singular lack of curiosity on her part.
”…[Elizabeth] Warren's appearance on the scene is coincidental with the 'financial crisis' and the myth that people were duped into buying houses they couldn't afford. We don't need Elizabeth Warren. People need to relearn that they need to responsible for their decisions. She and her office building full of do-gooders cost lots of money and we simply can't afford it. Not only that but this kind of protection always grows. It never contracts.”
I took issue with the characterization of “the myth that people were duped into buying houses they couldn't afford.” I asserted that there was such a phenomenon as predatory lending, that predatory lending had occurred during the financial crisis. I cited the Wikipedia article devoted to “predatory lending” as a demonstration that predatory lending is a recognized phenomenon. I go on to point out that invocation of “the myth that people were duped into buying houses they couldn't afford” is tantamount to a denial that predatory lending occurred during the financial crisis.
BHH then denies ever having said that there is no such thing as predatory lending here:
“You might want to consider actually reading some books about the financial crisis instead of relying on Wikipedia citations for your information. I have never said that there weren't predatory lending practices. Those are as old as man and why the warning caveat emptor came into being. But people were not compelled in any way to be stupid, although there will always be stupid people.”
Let’s consider all the things that BHH manages to throw into this short paragraph. First, merely because I have cited Wikipedia on “predatory lending,” there is the injunction that I should “consider” reading some books about the financial crisis. But since I am believed by BHH to be so ignorant of the realities behind what she chooses to refer to as the “financial crisis” (in quotation marks), I ask her to cite some books about the financial crisis that make her point about “the myth” she invoked. That request was met with silence. But it is, by way of contrast, quite easy to find references to reputable sources that assert that predatory lending was a serious factor contributing to the crisis. For example, “The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report,” pp 90-91, makes the relevant points about predatory lending very succinctly and cites various sources to the effect that a high proportion of American borrowers in the residential housing market are unsophisticated. Also, Stiglitz, Joseph, “Freefall,” refers repeatedly to predatory lending practices as a major factor contributing to the genesis of the financial crisis, e.g., in the Kindle edition, Locations 19, 582, 601, 1108, 1792, 1947, 221, 3028, 3462, 3471, 3958, 4278, 5161, 5249, 6117, and 6641. However, BHH has sources, presumably in books and not in mere articles such as those in Wikipedia, superior to Stiglitz that show that Stiglitz is wrong on this point, is spinning a liberal myth, but she is retaining for her own purposes the relevant citations. I believe that former blogginghead Arnold Kling has written an article which argues that predatory lending was not a major contributing factor to the financial crisis.
So, first, there is the denial of having said, by implication, what she said, namely that predatory lending is not a problem. But then we elide from a denial of the phenomenon itself to correct interpretation of the phenomenon. The ground shifts. “Those [sc. predatory lending practices] are as old as man and why the warning caveat emptor came into being. But people were not compelled in any way to be stupid, although there will always be stupid people.” I somehow doubt that BHH knows how the apothegm “caveat emptor” came into being. I am not sure that anyone knows this in a precise way, so I don’t see how she could know. But it sounds good, this is one of her bids for seriousness, she knows this Latin phrase. I also doubt whether she can explain the verb form, but whatever. According to the OED, the first attested use of “caveat emptor” in English was in 1523. I’ve got a book called “A Textbook of Roman Law, from Augustus to Justinian,” by Buckland, Third Edition, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966, and there is no discussion of “caveat emptor” in that text. I don’t find “caveat emptor” cited in the standard dictionary of classical Latin in English, Lewis and Short. A similar phrase, “ut emptor caveat…,” is attested in the “Digest” of Roman Law of Justinian. It seems likely to me that the phrase “caveat emptor” initially had to do with the cash purchase of tangible property, not with predatory lending, and that its origin is late-medieval or Renaissance. It could belong to English common law. It is not “as old as man,” nor did it arise in response to predatory lending. I also doubt that predatory lending practices are as old as man. I doubt that they are as old as the beginning of the historical period. We would, of course, have to define what constitutes predatory lending, and the Wikipedia article has a survey of that topic.
Enough pedantry, however. I agree with BHH that there is a natural tendency among some humans to take advantage of other humans and that this problem will probably never be entirely solved, or not in a way that would not have such unfortunate side-effects that we would not prefer to live with less than perfect solutions to this problem. But what conclusions should be drawn from this fact? She has conceded the phenomenon of predatory lending, it is coincident with the human species, in fact, and she then gives her approval to some unspecified laws that protect the consumer in America from predations in the financial industry. It’s just that this Elizabeth Warren thing is unconscionable, it crosses some line. What that line is, however, BHH is keeping to herself.
Commercial law is a complex field. There is no regnant principle in contemporary America that it invariably falls to a buyer to inform herself exhaustively about possible defects in a product or service. There are disclosure laws involving real estate transactions, and they vary from state to state, I believe. Then there are federal disclosure laws when a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage is involved, which is normally the case in a US residential real estate transaction. There are disclosure burdens that fall upon the seller, and upon the seller’s agent(s.)
Let’s concentrate on this gem. “But people were not compelled in any way to be stupid, although there will always be stupid people.” What is the significance of asserting that people were not compelled [sc. in the course of borrowing during the period immediately prior to, and during the “financial crisis”, say during the subprime lending boom] in any way to be stupid? It is apparently that someone who is deceived or cajoled into entering into a bad contract, a contract that turns out not to be beneficial to them, should just take his lumps. It is that the government (i) has no responsibility to seek to protect such people from predators and (ii) even if we could identify such a responsibility in theory, implementation of the responsibility is too expensive for society and ends up becoming a Frankenstein’s monster of ill-conceived and unaffordable regulation. In any case, of course there are predatory lenders, says BHH, it’s just that there is no solution to this problem, governmental or otherwise. Everyone should fend for himself, and the government should stay out of the business of aligning itself with the borrower against the lender, except to the extent of existing law, which, for unspecified reasons, must be fully adequate and not supererogatory.
But let’s not stop there. What is the point of saying that no one is compelled to be stupid, and is this statement true? Do people really, by and large, have control over how stupid they are? Can’t genetic inheritance be interpreted as compelling some people to be stupid, if stupid in fact they are? And if not genetic inheritance alone, genetics combined with the circumstances of their education? Furthermore, what we are talking about here is a kind of practical intelligence, not raw mental capacity. Some people are too credulous. They do not realize that someone who represents himself as their benefactor or agent, someone who is cunning, might not care at all about their welfare, financial or otherwise. But it is not, per BHH, the part of government to intervene in the market transaction or to protect the excessively trusting from the time-worn malefactors. Well, maybe it is, after all, since we have laws to this effect, also per BHH, but those laws, whatever they may be, are certainly adequate, we don’t need the heavy hand of Elizabeth Warren and her new, well-intentioned but unaffordable bureaucracy.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|