as of Sept 2007 home sales and prices were both down 5%.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20970287/ even if the precent decline is much greater, what is the multiplier effect that is causing these large financial institutions to go bust? ( looking for big government as the cause somehow. possibly the home loan lenders have restricted rights to retake possession of properties from homeowners who have fallen behind on their payments. ) -Steve

ok. so those who advocate higher taxes do or dont want to pay those taxes voluntarily. Kleiman obviously makes a stronger case with his club dues analogy. Why does Megan choose to debate on such trivial grounds? Democrats should have the right to tax, spend and regulate to their heart's content. But the decent, self reliant people in the country should also be allowed to live free of government intrusions. People should be able to opt out of social security, socialized medicine and public schools. In exchange for a lower credit card finance rate a person should be able to waive their protections in the event of bankruptcy. or give the credit card company the right to levy their bank account. People should be free to purchase pharma drugs not yet approved by the feds. Or agree not to sue their doctor, in return, getting a discount from their bill. -Steve

Megan McArdle is my hero.

I think Mr. Kleiman delivers the definitive and understated reaction to Ms. McArdle that many of us share.

Quoting laura: Maybe I need to listen to this again, but could this be the first time Megan didn't mention her father?

In fact, she mentioned no family members that I can remember, nor did she base any argument entirely on what "this friend of mine" said. This is an accomplishment worth saluting. Nice sign of progress, Megan.

Megan was correct, and unfortunately, Mark was wrong: Ethical lapses are not a feature of just one political party. In an era of mass communications, mega-hundred million dollar political campaigns and several trillion dollars federal budgets, it is becoming ever more important to keep government divided. Two great benefits accrue to our citizenry by multi-party government: government activism becomes problematical, and the intense scrutiny by the party out of control helps the 'ethic' problem Mark is concerned about.

Quoting a Duoist: In an era of mass communications, mega-hundred million dollar political campaigns and several trillion dollars federal budgets, it is becoming ever more important to keep government divided.

the problem with divided government is it is inefficient. Microsoft would not be the great company it is if every 4 years it replaced its management with a new team that had a completely different approach to things. Democrats want socialism, government control of individual's lives. Republicans want freedom and self reliance for all. ( the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ) What we should be working towards is a government which allows ppl to choose the gov structure they want w/o dividing the country and adversely affecting their fellow citizens who opt for the opposite. -Steve

She did, however, maintain at one point that she was "poor." While, previously she had shared her concern about how current events were affecting her retirement fund. Note to Ms. McArdle: Poor people do not have investment portfolios. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

I love Megan's approach to losing an argument: Declare victory and retreat -- which in this context amounts to saying "I never intended to prove the point I claimed to be making -- I just wanted them to THINK REALLY HARD about it.
Could anything be lamer? Mark concedes that people who vote to raise taxes are concerned to make sure that others pay, not that they themselves pay for the programs they believe in. For the sake of argument this makes sense, since there was plenty more to object to even granting that.
But I wouldn't admit even that much. What I want is that genuine needs should be taken care of before more frivolous consumption. But I know that if I get my hands on my paycheck, I'm going to have a harder time parting with the money to serve these needs of other people. I want the money taken from me before I can start getting selfish with it. Of course, if self-control were the whole problem, then some kind of payroll deduction for charity could do the trick. But it's not the whole problem. First of all, there is no guarantee that charities serve social needs in anything

A lot of excellent points in that comment Bloggin Noggin.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: .
I generally like Megan and often feel she has interesting things to say, but this argument really was stupid, as she kind of seems to concede in the end when she declares victory for having gotten people to think (rather than answering Mark's argument).

Isn't this how nice but intelligent people reacted to Jonah Goldberg's book, "He got people talking about important issues." It's like when you're teaching a class and someone answers a question with a totally wrong and ridiculous answer...you don't want to discourage people from participating so you say, "Kinda" or "mmm" and find another hand to call on fast. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Enough on taxes already! That was a complete throwaway ending to an important diavlog. The conditions in the housing and credit markets dwarf it in importance and yet we have Dear Mr. Noggin writing a monograph on it! Didn't you notice that we hit a quadrillion ton iceberg and the pumps seem severely undersized?! Pay attention people! There is a bullseye being drawn on every equity dollar you think you have. The banks and the mortgage companies want them; your nice neighbor that thought she could afford her house wih the $40,000 of equity that was certain to appear like magic wants some of yours (its only fair, right??); the elected officials representing tracts of vacant McMansions wants plenty of them; and the homebuilders who hired half of Oaxaca as drywallers are trying to angle for a few, too. And if you waste your time chatting about Megan's family and friends showing up here, they are all likely to be successful!

First of all, there is no guarantee that charities serve social needs in anything like reasonable proportion to the needs. Think of all the money that went to 9/11 victims vs. less publicized, less popular causes. I want the genuine needs to be met, and I want to pay my share. Of course, government will not always be rational in its distribution either, but at least government is accountable to both those who need help and those who pay the bill.

There are watchdog organizations out there that assess and rate charities. Examples: http://www.charitynavigator.org/ http://www.charitywatch.org/

Thanks Wonderment. I know about the watchdog organizations. I still think the dynamic I'm talking about applies. People with needs usually have a better idea what they need and whether those needs are being met. If a charity doesn't have high overhead but spends money on fancy equipment that can't be repaired without further help or if it gives people something low on their priority list over something high on their priority list, that's not going to show up in an audit. (I'm reminded of the story of a poor man begging a dinner from Andrew Carnegie, who refused to give him a cent and encourage slothfulness. "Give the man a library!" Carnegie is supposed to have said.) Besides, even if donors can hold charities accountable, they don't have the incentive to follow up that people who actually need things have. I don't have a problem with charities and I'm glad there are watchdogs, but I don't think it's irrational or mean-spirited to prefer government social services in some cases to charity.

Besides, even if donors can hold charities accountable, they don't have the incentive to follow up that people who actually need things have. I don't have a problem with charities and I'm glad there are watchdogs, but I don't think it's irrational or mean-spirited to prefer government social services in some cases to charity.

(Almost) needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree with that.