I've been wondering how much more drama there would be in the economy right now if ordinary people on Main Street were cognizing this as the end of a decades-long bubble in home prices, instead of as something brought on by improvident lending practices, creation of and speculation in esoteric and opaque derivatives by elites, overuse of leverage and what-have-you. The master narrative—greedy elites getting carried away—seems to me a symptom masquerading as the cause. The cause is that everyone thought (thinks) that the next fellow would (will) pay more for the house. If any other kind of asset were involved—internet stocks, tulip bulbs—the illusion would have burst by now and everyone would be picturing the last day, but our time horizons for selling homes are long, homes have an intrinsic value and everyone needs a place to live.
This sure isn't a subprime mortgage crisis. Subprime mortgages are like the crap companies that came on the market near the end of the tech bubble: especially ugly pigs with thick, sloppy lipstick (to choose a random metaphor). They didn't cause the problem, they were just the only way to continue the game once the cute pigs, M.A.C. and Chanel ran out.
All the esoteric instruments and excesses of leverage are at bottom just clever ways of monetizing bubble expectations about home prices that remain more or less intact on Main Street. Blaming Wall Street elites for what's going on right now might be like plugging in 50 blow dryers and deciding you have a fuse problem. It's too metaphorically cute not to wonder whether we're watching the financial system slipping pennies into the fusebox to keep the lights on and the blow dryers running. I guess we may find out.
From an email tonight about why it's easier to be a lawyer in private practice than an academic:
[I]t's easier to force yourself to be a prostitute than a nympho. A prostitute doesn't have to enjoy the work. Scholarship doesn't have limits determined by practicality, so to really do it well you have to love it.
The handy thing is that I am extremely good at not being interested in people who are not interested in me. It's like if you need a cow and you realize you've been bidding on a goat. Who the fuck wants a goat? (Other than half the women I've dated in the last few years).
As of today, for sure, Hillary Clinton's continued presence in the race cannot be justified. It's one thing to be a fighter and another to stay in the ring, round after round, mathematically eliminated on every judge's card, launching low blows and hoping your opponent is felled by a meteorite.
Today is rightly the first day of the long-expected period when pressure grows everywhere (except in Republican circles) for her to get out. It's appealing to be "a fighter", but not to be "delusional".
I remain bewildered by the attraction anyone I know feels toward Hillary, but passions run deeper than I realize. Last night I took the opportunity to send a short Evite note to those I'd invited to my forthcoming "Hillary Drops Out!" party (which has been in the "hold the concept" stage for more than a month). All it said was "It's 10:05 on the West Coast and she could very well still lose Indiana! I hope to see you very soon." At the time, there were indications that she very well could lose Indiana as results from the last big county to be tallied were coming in 3 to 1 for Obama. This harmless note brought me not one but two responses from old friends, both charming and friendly women lawyers older than me.
"Are you trying to offend me or just being incredibly stupid?"
"[MWR], call me old and cranky, but please take me off this list as you know how I feel and I don't find it amusing."
Let's note how easy it's been, once people started voting, for McCain to secure the nomination despite the supposed distrust for him within the Republican "base." Did he have to run to the right to gain this nomination? (If you think I'm being premature, how quaint.) I didn't notice much of that.
Have dynamics within the Republican Party changed, or is this a special campaign cycle, candidate or field? Probably a bit of each. It surely mattered that there were three different varieties of goofball arrayed to McCain's right. But the real answer is that Republican dynamics are changing. Social conservatives are aging and the replacement generations are a different breed. They don't mind seeing a little more skin when they go to the beach, metaphorically speaking. Ten years from now the MTV Generation will start getting its AARP cards.
A year ago I said that, but for his support for the "surge" I thought likely to fail, "McCain seems like not only the strongest candidate on the Republican side, but the strongest overall." He should run very well against the Clintons (I'm test driving the developing pundit convention here) and even conservatives who don't like him won't need much enticement of come vote against the Clintons. Even if he moves to the center, which he'll have plenty of opportunity to do while the Clintons and Obama beat each other about the head and neck with delegate counts and polling in obscure California congressional districts, fighting on maybe even to the convention. Needless to say, McCain's very biography blunts Hillary's (test drive inconclusive) "experienced" pitch and her assiduously-cultivated "I'm tough enough to be Commmander-in-Chief" persona. Obama, with a qualitatively different appeal and no Clintonian ceiling on his potential share of the vote, makes a much more challenging and interesting opponent for McCain.
With this post, I'm debuting my "John McCain" label.
Security experts say even if these weren't dry runs for terrorist attacks, the good news is that this time the system worked: TSA officials did find the suspicious items. - ABC News reporter, July 25, 2007
This is like catching a few trout and then concluding that the river is out of trout . . . when the real danger is probably salmon or crayfish or periwinkles.
