Economists are usually ridiculed for spinning theories based on unrealistic assumptions about the world, but in this case, it is the economists (us) who are trying to be realistic. The argument for principal reduction depends on superhuman levels of foresight among lenders as well as honest behavior by the borrowers who are not in need of assistance. Thus far, the minimal success of broad-based modification programs like HAMP should make us think twice about the validity of these assumptions. There are likely good reasons for the lack of principal reduction efforts on the part of lenders thus far in this crisis that are related to the above discussion, so the claim that such efforts constitute a win-win solution should, at the very least, be met with a healthy dose of skepticism by policymakers.

Unfortunately, too many “freedom fighters” around the world seem to think the problem with oppressive governments is the specific personalities at the top, as opposed to the institutions themselves.

If there is an anti-intellectual movement in America it is the Liberal Establishment. They have no idea what intellectualism is and they believe that reading the well-written palaver in The New Yorker makes them intellectuals. They do enjoy listening to themselves turn phrases and deliver clever bon mots and deride the rest of us for not being who they are. Sorry if this sounds resentful, but I can turn an acid phrase as well as anyone. My concept of an intellectual is that of an educated person. That means you have been taught the history of ideas (philosophy), starting with the Greeks. It means you have studied the history of mankind. It means you understand the foundations of logic, reason, and understanding (epistemology). It means you have been exposed to cultural trends of civilization, including art and literature. It means you have studied the basics of science and mathematics. And it means you have then taken this foundation and explored something further in depth.

The message, which one does detect on elite campuses, is that the actual academic content to be found in these places is secondary. Colleges are distinguished most importantly by their cultures and personalities, not by anything that can be ranked by neat status rules.

In terms of jobs lost, that means that 2,276,949 of the jobs lost in the U.S. economy since 2006 have been jobs that were directly impacted by the series of minimum wage increases that were mandated by the federal goverment in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Interestingly, the average number of employed members of the civilian labor force in 2006 was 144,427,000. In 2010, the average number of employed members of the civilian labor force in the U.S. was 5,363,000 less, standing at 139,064,000. So, in percentage terms of the change in total employment level from 2006 to 2010, jobs affected by the federal minimum wage hikes of 2007, 2008 and 2009 account for 42.5% of the total reduction in jobs seen since 2006.

Has there ever been an engine of economic growth that required government mandates and massive subsides to make happen? Did we need to mandate that people by automobiles, houses, and desktop computers to make those sectors engines of economic growth?

I study fraud by elites, and even I am stunned by the frequency and nature of the frauds and felonies and the lack of prosecutions and the overall blasé attitude by CEOs to the fraud and felonies.

To summarize, we have a private company which entices people to use their free service with innovative social networking tools. The private company collects valuable information that will help private internet service providers improve the services they offer to consumers. Meanwhile, the federal government takes money out of peoples pockets to create a program that is designed to collect the same information (only without incentivizing users to participate) while refusing to accept the very data it seeks when it is offered by the private company free of charge. Such is the nature of government and markets.