Which leads to our question, have you ever wondered why the tone in this blog, along with growing numbers of others, is increasingly snarky and angry at the very core of free market capitalist convention? Why is Free Market Socialism emerging as the most likely, most credible evolutionary step forward, from here?
Obviously, both ideologies hold Free, Fair, Open, and Transparent Markets, central; however, unless you are ready to conceed that a small handful of irrelevant, underemployed, disenfranchised malcontent bloggers and tweeters have actually succeeded in steering the entire public debate toward Free Market Socialism and other Mixed Economic models, you'll have to conceed that plain old boring Empirical Analysis warrants the Snark, Anger, and Activism. In either case, as a defender of the status quo 19th century industrial wage slavery capitalism meme, you lose. You're just increasingly out of touch with present economic reality.
And when level heads like Barry Ritholz concur with data-driven sentiment that further supports a secular bull market for Snark and Anger, you become utterly irrelevant. Obsolete.
Case in point: while sharing the Back Story to Bailout Nation, Ritholz wrote:
The more I researched and wrote, the more it was apparent we were witnessing the greatest heist ever made. By the last section of the book, history’s biggest transfer of wealth — from the taxpayer to the Banksters — was taking place. Trillions were being shifted from the responsible to the reckless, from the prudent to the incompetent. It was infuriating — and you will see as the book progresses my initial academic tone gets replaced with greater snark and anger.Keep in mind that The Reckless and Incompent referenced above are the same people that Mssrs. Kudlow, Forbes, Draper, et al, would likely refer to as the "Best and Brightest of Capitalism" off of whose backs government should dismount. Of course, when government gets off the backs of the criminals, then that same lot blames the government (us, You and Me) for not being on their backs. I used to think apologists for that circular argument were just stupid; now I realize that such are both stupid and malicious. Not stupid because they don't see their own logic as circular; but stupid because they think that We The People don't see right through it. The origins of the deeply rooted maliciousness -- toward themselves and others -- which seeks to further skew such an insanely skewed system simply escapes all rational explaination.
Disclaimer: I'm fairly confident that this blog takes exception to several of Mr. Ritholz's specific financial and policy perspectives and I'm equally confident that Mr. Ritholz would not likely give this blog the time of day. However, such speculative dissonance only serves to further strenthen the case for justifiable Snark and Anger directed at Las Magus: those thousands of alchemical scumbags, along with their posses of millions of boot-licking, ass-kissing, Office Space suck-ups that systematically fired the upstanding for "not fitting in with the team" as such teams twisted entire corporate cultures into the image of their own skewed and twisted makers.
All I'm suggesting here is that when diverse, data-driven perspectives come to agree, that's usual an area worth noticing. In this case, the Unsustainable Resources Skews that typify our increasingly obsolete 19th century industrial capitalism more than merit the Snark and Anger.
So shall we too remain, until the song no longer remains the same.