Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:06:58 -0800 (PST) From: Gilbert Lawrence <[email protected]>
In the US, those that just repeat what "Conservative talking heads" write or say are called "Ditto Heads". The law encouraging mortgages to low income earners, which is referred by some as "government intervention", is / was not the cause of bank failures. Mario responds: Sigh! So much ignorance, so little time:-)) First, a clarification of modern political American jargon and how it is often twisted by writers of political poppycock. Here we see Gilbert, who supposedly has access to the internet for some minimal research, misrepresenting the term "dittohead" and the term "talking heads", which is something that politically liberal critics of the most popular "talking voice" on the radio, Rush Limbaugh, an aggressive political conservative, often resort to. A "talking head" is a TV talk show personality. The term "dittohead" comes from listeners to Mr. Limbaugh's radio show, which dominates talk radio in the USA. Thus, Limbaugh is not a "talking head" since one cannot see his head during his show. Secondly, the origin of the term "dittohead" is as follows: "As Limbaugh often explains in his books and radio show, these are not necessarily those who agree with his views. Rather, he believes they are people who love the show and what he's doing, and hope he never stops doing it. The term came into use because callers would frequently begin by giving praise and thanks to Limbaugh. Knowing that the caller’s and listener’s time is valuable, one caller simply said roughly "ditto to what those guys said (how much they enjoyed the show)." Thereafter, callers were encouraged to simply say, “Dittos,” and then get right to their point. Thus, long-time listeners would begin their calls with “Dittos, Rush,” leading to the term “dittoheads.” Source, Wikipedia. Since this term originated with Mr. Limbaugh in the context of his show, his critics like Gilbert, who obviously do not listen to his show long enough to understand its nuances, do not get to revise what it means without being corrected. Gilbert wrote: It is widely believed that, Derivatives and other risky instruments that banks and other financial entities (like brokerage and insurance companies) developed and widely used, to leverage themselves, that caused the financial failures. Those practices exposed the financial entities to far greater risk than giving sub-prime loans. Let's not tell the above to the "talking heads". For these "talking heads" and their followers, politicizing very issue is the name of the game. William Black is Associate Professor, University of Missouri, was the senior regulator during S&L debacle. Alan Greenspan who permitted the development of Derivatives and other such debt instruments has?take responsibility for his role in this debacle. Mario observes: Here we see Gilbert criticizing what he falsely claims are what "dittoheads" say, while himself repeating what "is widely believed" and citing what Associate Prof. William Black has said, who is himself a "talking head" in the classroom. This is like a pot, played by Gilbert, calling the kettle, represented by Mario, "Black", pun intended:-)) To get back to reality, a "cause", by definition, is something that starts a chain of events. By citing the excesses of the bankers Gilbert ignores the root cause of the financial crisis, the Community Reinvestment Act and the subsequent threats of lawsuits during the Clinton administration against banks who were slow to comply with its provisions. There would have been no "derivatives and other risky investments" in the absence of this economically flawed attempt by politicians and government regulators to "spread the wealth" by government fiat and force banks to lower lending standards to low income people. These instruments became risky precisely because they were backed by bad loans, which the borrowers were unable to repay. Had the loans been of good quality, as home loans were previously, the bankers' investment instruments would not have failed. The excesses of the bankers started well after being forced by the regulators to make loans to unqualified people, under threat of lawsuits and other negative bureaucratic consequences. I doubt Associate Prof. Black or Alan Greenspan, both of whose views Gilbert has cited out of context, would deny the facts in Prof. Sowell's column: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021809b.php3
