The CRA Conspiracy Theory and Why It is Hooey

Did Bill Clinton cause the housing bubble?   If so, why did George Bush do nothing in eight years in office to prevent it from bursting?  The answer is, of course, Bill Clinton didn't cause the housing bubble.

I my last posting, I talked about Real Estate market bubbles - and they do exist.  You may recall one or two people losing their life savings a few years back.  Or, right, that was more than 18 months ago, so it never happened.

There is one thing that didn't cause the market meltdown of 2008, and that was the so-called "Community Re-Investment Act" passed under the Clinton Administration more than a decade earlier.

In case you haven't heard this crazy theory, it goes like this.   In 2008, the American financial market collapsed, reaching its nadir right about the time President Obama was inaugurated in February 2009  (and the markets have been going up since!).  Gas was $5 a gallon right before the election, and George Bush had to push through a bailout program (not Obama, Bush!) to keep the economy from falling apart entirely.   Eight years of Bush deficits, tax cuts, and laissez-faire regulatory approaches had come home to roost.  And it didn't look good for the Republicans, who took a drubbing in the 2008 elections.  So they had to come up with a story.

It took a few years, but they finally invented one, which started making the rounds around 2011 or so.   According to them, the problem wasn't that Americans were high as a kite on inflated real estate values and were buying and flipping and over-mortgaging themselves.   Oh, no, we can't say that, because those are the core middle-class and upper-middle-class white voters they want to court with promises of the low taxes which caused half the problems with deficit spending.

Similarly, we can't blame Wall Street or the Banks for making shitty "liar's loans" with nothing down and optional payments and then packaging them as grade-A mortgage-backed securities insured by reverse default credit swaps.  No, no, we can't do that, as that would mean offending the donor base of the GOP.

So.... who to blame?   Well, duh, black people, of course!  And Bill Clinton (boo! hiss!) because we all hate him, right?   So they dig up this "Community Reinvestment Act" that was passed to prevent banks for "redlining" neighborhoods and refusing to write mortgages in poor neighborhoods.   According to this Carl Rove Approved Fox News Talking Point(tm), the problem was all these black folks buying their inexpensive homes and then defaulting on their mortgages.

There are a number of holes in this story, of course.  To begin with, think about all the weepy stories the media put on the television from 2011-2014 about homeowners losing their homes.   How many of them were black?  Yea, that.  The poster boy for being "forced from your home" was usually a middle-class white couple who over-extended themselves.  Like these folks, for example.

And there was outright fraud.  Not on the part of the banks, but by organized rings of criminals who were buying and selling homes to straw-men buyers and sellers and then profiting the proceeds of the inflated prices (all paid by the banks).   It is a fairly complicated scam, and I tried to explain it in this posting.   Most people don't get it.  They think the banks committed the fraud somehow - when in fact, they lost their shirts on these fraudulently obtained loans.

You see, it wasn't black folks getting the liar's loans and buying million-dollar (or even half-million-dollar) homes, but rather middle-class people like you and me - the kind the GOP wants to court.   The folks I saw on the ground in Ft. Lauderdale playing the buy-and-flip game were white as a ghost.   And this is not unexpected - we white folks make up about 70% of the country.

Warren Buffet said it best:

"...there were a vast number of things that contributed to it.   The basic cause, you know, embedded in psychology - partly in psychology and partly in reality in a growing and finally pervasive belief that house prices couldn’t go down and everyone succumbed –- virtually everybody succumbed to that. But that’s –- the only way you get a bubble is when basically a very high percentage of the population buys into some originally sound premise and - it’s quite interesting how that develops - originally sound premise that becomes distorted as time passes and people forget the original sound premise and start focusing solely on the price action.

So every - the media investors, the mortgage bankers, the American public, me, my neighbor, rating agencies, Congress - you name it - people overwhelmingly came to believe that house prices could not fall significantly.  And since it was biggest asset class in the country and it was the easiest class to borrow against, it created probably the biggest bubble in our history." FCIC Interview of Warren Buffett, May 26, 2010

But the GOP came up with a more compelling narrative - blame the black folks.   Certain white folks like to hear this narrative - that "all their tax dollars" are going to pay ungrateful blacks who are "welfare queens" for life, even though President Clinton signed into law a welfare reform bill that made it impossible to collect welfare for more than five years.

The problem with the Community Reinvestment Act narrative is that it fails to address one salient point:  It was passed during the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration had over eight years to address this issue, if it indeed was one.  But they didn't.  And today, it still is the law, but for some reason, we are not seeing huge defaults by black people today - just as we didn't in the past.   It is just a made-up story so white folks can blame blacks and Democrats for what is essentially a problem created largely by middle-class white folks, namely the insane greed people had over housing - just as in Thomas Wolfe's time.

The other problem with the story is that it only appears on right-wing conspiracy sites and even then, only a few years after the Real Estate meltdown.  For some reason, no one in the GOP saw this coming until it was too late, and even then, not until about three years after the nadir.   Sorry, but I don't buy it.  It is just a story, told to people to blame Democrats for the horrific Bush Presidency - where we invaded the wrong country, rang up a shitload of debt, and then collapsed the economy - and in the process created ISIS.  Even George Bush seems embarrassed by his own Presidency.  You should be too.

(And yes, Obama has rung up even more debt since then - but he inherited a destroyed economy.  George Bush inherited the budget surpluses of the Clinton era.  What was his excuse?)

Yet I know a lot of people who try to sell me this story, convinced it was true, even though they really weren't "there" in the market and saw what was going on firsthand.   All they know is, they over-mortgaged their house and now are upside-down on the loan, and it is a lot more convenient to blame black people for this mess than their own greed and stupidity in over-mortgaging their own homes.

And maybe the same thing will happen in Canada.   If the Chinese economy slows down, maybe some Chinese will sell their houses - or walk away from over-mortgaged nightmares.   And we can blame the yellow man for our own greed and stupidity.   Hey, why not?  It is easier than blaming ourselves for our own malfeasance.

No one put a gun to anyone's head and said, "Buy this overpriced house, even though it is cheaper to rent it!"

No one put a gun to anyone's head and said, "Take out this liar's loan with optional payments and a interest reset!"

No one put a gun to anyone's head and said, "Take out a second or third mortgage and refinance your house to pay off short-term debts!"

No one forced middle-class Americans to do these things.  It was the conspiracy of 330 million people who all thought their houses were now gold mines and they were all going to be rich - without thinking about how that could work out when all their neighbors believed the same thing.

And maybe in Canada, the same thing is going on right now.

Canadian Housing Market Crash? Maybe.

There are signs of froth in the Canadian Housing Market.  There may be signs like this in the near future as well.

Note:  I have addressed this issue in an earlier posting as well.

Having lived through not one, but two housing crashes in the United States, I have seen a pattern in both instances, right before housing prices took a nosedive.   In both cases, we saw a number of the same things happening.  First, the talk.  We heard a lot of happy-talk from folks right up until the foreclosures started:

1.  People denying there was a bubble.

2.  People denying that bubbles even existed.

3.  People saying that "Housing will always go up in value."

4.  People saying that, "This time, it's different" (if they admit to past bubbles).

5.  People saying, "Our area is different" (again, if they even admit to bubbles existing).

6.  People quoting Mark Twain, who supposedly said, "Buy land - they're not making any more of it!"

7.  People saying, "Well, even if we can't afford these properties, the [name of foreign country] folks have lots of money and will snap these up!"

That's just the happy talk.   The talk that denies reality.   And reality is, that housing and real estate bubbles have occurred again and again in the history of our country, as people over-bid prices and "corrections" came due.   If you read Tom Wolfe's Look Homeward Angel, you'd know this - much of the book is about the aftermath of a housing bubble in Asheville, North Carolina, where the citizens became convinced that housing prices were going nowhere but up, and everyone started bidding up prices into the stratosphere.  Prices crashed in 1927.  Two years later, the economy crashed as well.  People became bitter that somehow they were snookered and it was someone else's fault.   Stop me if this sounds familiar.

The supposed Mark Twain quote is interesting, as at least on the surface, it appears that land is a finite commodity.   Indeed, they are not making "any more of it" but there is a lot of it around - more than we think.   And while over time housing prices will generally climb (as do stock prices) there are periods where prices make retreats as well.   It is like the gold market - yes, it will go up and up in price, eventually.  But if you bought at $1800 an ounce and need to sell today, you are in some trouble.

The problem with land as a finite resource is that people do have the choice to move to other places.  When I was representing silicon valley semiconductor firms back in the 1990's, the price of housing in the bay area was going up faster than inflation.   People complained that it was hard to find a good place to live.   Many semiconductor companies moved out of the area, to places like Austin and Boulder and Tuscon or wherever, where the cost of living was cheaper, and thus they could pay Engineers and support staff less but provide them with a better actual standard of living.  Today, housing prices in the Bay area are again through the roof, and we may see a similar tech migration in the near future.  Apple may regret investing so much in a "flying saucer" headquarters.

In the Washington, D.C., area, we saw people moving further and further out from the city, with many outlying smaller cities, such as Tyson's Corner or Reston, becoming employment centers for tech companies and government contractors.   Telecommuting meant that many workers no longer needed to "be" at an office more than a day or two a week.  Indeed, I left the area and now live on an island, because frankly, my job can be done anywhere there is an internet connection.   The Internet will be a great counterweight, I think, to this idea that you have to live in a particular place, when there are places cheaper to live. 

The last item is interesting in that in Ft. Lauderdale, right before the crash, I was told that Brazilians or British folks would pay these outrageous prices, as they liked to vacation in Florida.   And I am sure a few did.  A friend of mine bought a "short sale" home in The Villages from a Scottish couple who bought at the height of the market, thinking they would spend a few months every year in that retirement community.  It turned out to be a bad idea for them, but my friends snapped up a real bargain once the housing bubble popped.   And the Brazilians?  Well, there are a few of them who are fabulously wealthy and own their own jets and helicopters.  But most live in shacks and are dirt poor.  And the really rich ones don't want a two-bedroom condo in Ft. Lauderdale, but an estate on Fisher Island. 

In Canada, the foreign entity this time around is the Chinese.   Now, at least with the Chinese, it appears there actually are quite a few who have money and want to establish a foothold in Canada for political reasons.   But how many Chinese millionaires there are is a good question.  According to some sources, there are only about 3-4 million of them, as opposed to 4-6 million in the USA (and no, we aren't going to pull up stakes and move to Canada when Trump is elected, because Trump isn't going to be elected).

And as one of those American Millionaires, I can tell you I have no desire to overpay for a house, either in America or Canada.   Just because I have a million dollars doesn't mean I want to spend $3 million on a house.  I simply can't afford it.   Not only that, I don't want to overpay for a $450,000 house, either.  That is the thing about most rich folks, they are kind of smart with money, and aren't likely to just squander it, willy-nilly.

So while the wily Chinese may be buying, there will reach a point where prices get so high they will start selling.   And we saw this before with the Japanese in the late 1980's and early 1990's when they started buying up real estate (and golf courses) in California and Hawaii and everyone thought "they are going to take over!"   But a funny thing happened - Japan entered a recession that lasted a decade - even as the US economy surged ahead.   Suddenly, the Japanese were selling off U.S. assets at a loss.  The dreaded "Tora! Tora! Tora!" invasion failed to materialize.

And if you have been following economic conditions in China, you may have noticed that things are indeed slowing down.   Perhaps they will buy in places that are less expensive, such as Calgary or its suburbs (which will see a downturn due to the tar sands debacle).  Or maybe they will stop buying completely, realizing that a house in a foreign country is less and investment and more of an albatross around their neck, particularly as their own fortunes wane.  They may also realized that you don't need to own a home in Canada to seek asylum there.  You could rent.

But then again, the Chinese are shitty investors.   Chinese citizens have enormous amounts of cash tied up in low-return savings accounts.  Worse yet, they invest in U.S. Government bonds, which pay fractional interest rates.   The Chinese either don't need the money or are severely risk-averse when it comes to investing.  Which is odd, because they are the most heavily courted customers by the Casinos and cruise ships, as they will gamble like maniacs.   Maybe they are not as smart as we think they are.  After all, they did embrace Communism for over 50 years, right?

So you have to take these mantras and slogans and "stories" with a grain of salt.   Prices cannot keep rising at a rate above inflation forever.   If a house is cheaper to rent than buy, people will eventually wise up and stop buying.  Or they will see cheaper cities in live in, where the overall effective standard of living is better, even if income - as measured numerically - is slightly lower.

But that is just the talk.  What about the numbers? On the ground, you'll also see patterns in the market:

1.  Prices rise 10-30% a year for a number of years in a row.

2.  The cost of owning a home is double (or more) than the cost of renting the same home.

3.  People are buying and flipping homes, often remodeling the same home between flips.

4.  Housing being torn down and bulldozed to make room for even more elaborate homes.

5.  Houses that are bought at high prices, but remain vacant for long periods of time as money-losing "investments".

6.  People trying to outbid each other to buy houses, with houses selling for over asking price.  In a traditional market, houses sell for less than asking price - after months on the market!

The pattern is the same in almost every bubble.  Toward the end in Florida, I saw people buy houses and leave them vacant, convinced they were going to double their money so quickly there was no point in renting them out.   And quite frankly, renting them out would bring in only a trivial amount of cash compared to the overall carrying cost, due to the insane prices and nothing-down mortgages.

Now, of course, each bubble is different.   In the D.C. bubble of 1989, it was commercial Real Estate that was hit hardest - as new buildings went up empty, and went bankrupt, resulting in a free-fall in rental prices.   And this occurred just as many tenants who signed leases 5-10 years earlier, had their leases come up for renewal.   They left en masse for the cheaper formerly bankrupt properties, causing their former landlord to go belly up.  It was like dominoes toppling one another.   The housing market was also overbuilt, but we saw only modest (compared to 2008) declines in prices, except in some condo markets, where prices dropped by 1/3 or more.

In Florida, overbuilding of condos really killed some areas, such as Ft. Lauderdale, where huge numbers of vacant buildings topped off at the same time, many with unsold units, or units sold to "investors" who hoped to flip them before their balloon notes were due.  In places like Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, they got as far as bulldozing all the great old motels on the beach before they went bankrupt, leaving that charming seaside community nothing more than chain-link fencing and construction sites for years to come.

We also had two hurricanes in a row (three actually) that drove insurance rates through the roof.  And as housing prices skyrocketed, so did property tax rates - pricing many investors out of their homes.   When you are paying $12,000 a year in property taxes plus $5000 a year in property insurance - on a property that might rent for $1500 a month, something has to give.  Each situation has elements in common and also unique elements.  Las Vegas was similar to Ft. Lauderdale, but also had its differences - the big one being that no one really thought out why anyone would want to own an expensive condo in a gambling town.

The situations in Vancouver and Toronto, for example, are similar to each other in some regards, and also different from one another.   They are similar to bubbles in the U.S. and also different in many ways.   But there have been bubbles in those markets before (particularly Toronto) and yes, people have told me with a straight face that the Toronto market never had a bubble before.  Google it.

What got me thinking about this was in addition to some links sent to me by a reader, I noticed (while traveling and staying in a hotel) that the "Home Shows" on HGTV and whatnot are now dominated by Canadian programs (or programmes).  The flip brothers are, of course, Canadian as are most of the folks on the "house hunting" shows.  The reason for this, of course, is that only in Canada can you still buy a house, fix it up and re-sell it at a profit.   After 2008, the idea of doing this in the USA seemed kind of obscene, particularly as people were losing their homes to foreclosure.   But the urge to watch other people do these things is apparently strong, so we Americans live vicariously through our Canadian neighbors, hoping that some day again, we will again go crazy and start to think of our homes as "investments" when they really aren't.

So, is there a Canadian housing bubble?  Maybe.  Since I am not "boots on the ground" in that market, I hesitate to pass a judgement.   Look at the criteria above and see if you see similar patterns where you live.  If things seem to make no sense, maybe it isn't because you are too dumb to understand it, but because everyone else is drinking the Kool-Aide.

Having the courage to act on convictions is another matter, however.   For example, are you willing to sell your house (at a profit) and move into a rental property based on your perception of where the market is heading?  And if so, when do you do so?   

In our case, we "got out" of the market around 2005, although I sold properties as late as 2008.  Timing the absolute peak of the market (which was around 2007) is hard to do.   Just as I thought the market was at its peak of insanity, it went up a couple more notches.   I call this the Donald Trump effect.   Just when you think Americans can't get any crazier, well, they take it up another notch of crazy.

And speaking of right-wing conspiracy theory nuts, there is one thing that didn't cause the market meltdown of 2008, and that was the so-called "Community Re-Investment Act" passed under the Clinton Administration (see my next posting).   The GOP concocted this theory that all the middle-class white people (potential GOP voters) didn't lose their homes to their own greed, but because Bill Clinton, in cahoots with Black People, took away all their money!  It is, of course, a lot of hooey.

Yet I know a lot of people who try to sell me this story, convinced it was true, even though they really weren't "there" in the market and saw what was going on firsthand.   All they know is, they over-mortgaged their house and now are upside-down on the loan, and it is a lot more convenient to blame black people for this mess than their own greed and stupidity in over-mortgaging their own homes.

And maybe the same thing will happen in Canada.   If the Chinese economy slows down, maybe some Chinese will sell their houses - or walk away from over-mortgaged nightmares.   And we can blame the yellow man for our own greed and stupidity.  Canadians are not all that different from Americans in that regard.

UPDATE:  There is one other factor that is a sure sign a housing bubble is about to pop:  You see more and more articles about whether in fact there is really a housing bubble.  Most of these come to vague or generic conclusions, or ask the reader to decide, as no one wants to go out on a limb predicting the future.   But there  are signs the Canadian bubble is popping in some places, according to some sources.

And it makes sense.  A slowdown in the Chinese economy plus satiated demand will mean slower sales in Vancouver.   The low price of oil is causing huge layoffs in Calgary, which will drive the prices of those acres and acres of new condo developments into the ground.   As a country with an economy based on the export of raw materials, Canada is very vulnerable to a downturn in the price of oil.

And some Canadians are starting to see this.   This does not bode well for the new Trudeau administration.   And I so liked his Dad.   This could mean a multi-year recession for Canada, unless oil prices recover quickly.

UPDATE:

“Recent momentum in prices in Toronto and Vancouver may increase the likelihood of a correction in house prices, which could affect vulnerable households,” Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz said at a press conference in Ottawa on Dec. 15, 2015

"Without calling the overall national issue a bubble, it's pretty clear that it's an unsustainable underlying pattern," Mr. Greenspan told the Economic Club of New York at the Hilton New York hotel in Midtown.  Mr. Greenspan emphasized that he sees no sign of a nationwide housing bubble, but he acknowledged concerns over "froth" in the market and pointed to a big increase in speculation in homes -- particularly in second homes. As a result, he said, there are "a lot of local bubbles" around the country. (NY Times, May 2005).

Wow, is there an echo in here?   Almost 10 years apart!

Star Worship

Worshiping a music or acting or political star is really just un-empowering yourself.  Who is this middle-aged woman in a pants suit?

There is something about human nature that requires us to elevate one of our own above ourselves.   Throughout history, we have created kings and emperors and dictators and superstars that we worship from afar.  In many instances, we worship them like Gods, claiming they have supernatural power or talents.   In the case of kings and emperors, this was often literally so - we said they were appointed by God or were Gods themselves, as in Japan.

Why is it we do this?  It must satisfy some human need to find that one of us is better and perfect and spectacular and worthy of worship and adoration.   We even call them "Pop Idols" and fail to register that the source of the word "Idol" is Idolatry or worship of false Gods.

This year, a number of pop idols have passed away, and like clockwork, people claim to have a special relationship with (fill in the blank) and rush out to buy all of his/her albums, which causes a spike in sales, before we realize that really, we didn't like their music all that much and that the media, who owns the record company that sold us the album, was behind all the hype.

While some of these folks have a modicum of talent, others are less savory when you look into the details of their lives.  They may have coined a catchy tune or two, but are hardly worthy of worship in any form.  And when you look into their personal lives, it is like overturning a rock in the forest and seeing all the worms and bugs underneath.  Kind of gross, really, and it makes you wonder why you worshiped this person in the first place.

Don't get me wrong - we are all frail and fragile and prone to sin.  None of us is perfect.  But for some reason, the opinions expressed by a pop idol are ignored, while the same opinions expressed by Ted Cruz would generate violent protests.

Elvis was the prototypical pop idol, and the problems with him started at the very beginning.  Like so many white performers, he made a shitload of money by doing covers of black artists' songs.  The original "You ain't nothing but a hound dog" by Big Mama Thorton puts Elvis' version to shame.  Elvis, like so many "pop" artists sold not only the music, but the image - the sneer and the shaking hips and the implied sexuality.  His personal life, of course, was a trainwreck.  He gave away half his money to "The Colonel" who many think may have been a Nazi war criminal hiding out from the authorities (the truth isn't much better).  He dated a 14-year-old girl (and had sex with her) and married her when she was 16.   He wallowed in excess and became a bloated pill-popping drunkard who died on the toilet.

And yet people worshiped him - and still do.  But a lot of his early music, today, is not really memorable or even listenable.   The original black artists from whom he stole are much more satisfying to listen to, today.  His music sounds more like bubblegum pop.

The Beatles were of course talented, particularly later in their careers when they really explored what studio production could do for their sound.  But their early works?  Do you really want to listen to "She Loves You, Yea, Yea, Yea?" accompanying by the sounds of screaming teenage girls?  Of course not.  Yet some would hold them out as rock Gods, even if their personal lives were somewhat troubled and the band couldn't stay together due to tensions largely over money.

David Bowie was lionized after he died, but after we all heard "Major Tom" and "Young American" a few times too many, the hoopla died down.   Bowie, like so many pop stars was more a businessman than artist (as was Madonna) and they even invented a financial instrument named after him - the Bowie Bond.   Usually musicians play another sort of instrument than a bond.  He was all about the posturing and posing and the costumes and the implied androgyny - until it became unfashionable in Reagan's (and Thatcher's) 1980's - and he quickly backtracked and trotted out his wife to show he really wasn't "one of them".   Yet people worship him as well.

Michael Jackson of course was crazy - and a pedophile, there is no doubt about that.   And again, he sold an image that was more powerful than the music he created.  He is credited with "writing" some of the most memorable pop tunes of our generation, but whether this is actually true or not, I am skeptical.  Yes, songwriters often sell their songs to performers, who then in turn claim to have written or arranged them.   He was a talented guy, but completely insane.  And yet people worship him and forgive his extreme excesses because, after all, he was a Pop God, right?

Eric Clapton is touted as the "best guitar player who ever lived" but frankly, I don't see it.   He rose to fame by ripping off black artist's tunes, such as "I Shot the Sheriff" which was a Bob Marley Reggae tune from Jamaica.   And yet, most white people only know the Clapton version.   Same Elvis in a different suit.  The irony is, later in life, he came out of the closet, so to speak, as a virulent racist and xenophobe.  Colored folks are OK to rip off music from and make money from, but you don't want them living next door, apparently.

Frank Zappa is another interesting character.  When I was into the drug bit, most of my friends loved Frank Zappa and his offbeat brand of music.  They thought he must be high as a kite when he wrote these oddball songs.   But if you examine his lyrics, they are actually very anti-drug and anti-gay.  He really was not a very nice person, even inflicting bizarre names on his own children.  And yet so many worshiped him as a music God.  Can you name even one song of his today - that you'd actually like to hear?  Me neither.

Prince died this week, and it appears he had a prescription drug habit involving opiates.   Phillip Seymour Hoffman syndrome strikes again.   Once again, we are told (by his record label) that he was the best artist that ever lived.  But if I listen to "When Doves Cry" or "Raspberry Beret" a few times, my love for Prince pretty much peters out- quickly.

And it gets worse.   He was a right-wing bigot, being a member of the cult-like Jehovah's witnesses. He was anti-gay, anti-atheist, and anti- a lot of things his fans would have actually embraced.   He exuded sexuality on stage, but his actual beliefs were more staid and conservative.   It turns out that Prince was just selling an image of sexuality to make money (act shocked).

Of course, artists, like anyone else, are entitled to their opinion.  But I find it ironic that "Liberal" people will tolerate incredible hostility and conservative thought from an artist, but if a politician expressed the same thoughts, they would shout him down.  If Ted Cruz said the same things Prince said, people would be picketing his speeches.  In fact, they already do.

You ask, "well, what is the harm in this?  Worshiping a Pop Idol is just harmless fun!"   But I would beg to differ.   When you decide your own life is so bland and dreary that you have to find refuge in being a "fan" of someone else, you give away a lot of power and control in your life - as well as a ton of money - to someone who really doesn't have your best interests at heart. 

And of course, the young 16-year-old closeted gay who is attracted to Prince's androngynous sexuality (or that of Bowie, or whoever), the comments about "God's wrath" or whatever can be very hurtful.  When your pop idol tells you that you are God's mistake, well, suicide seems like a viable option.

Fuck Prince.  He was a dickhead.

On a larger scale, being a "fan" is a dead-end.   It doesn't make you a better person, but rather a pathetic loser who basks in the reflected glory of someone else's fame.  Whether it is a sports star, a politician, a musician, or an actor, the net result is the same - you lose, and they win.

This is not to say it is bad to enjoy the music of a band you like or the movies or plays of an actor who is talented.   But to become the rabid fan waiting outside the stage door for a glimpse of your idol and possibly a scribbled signature on a cocktail napkin - that is taking things to the next level.

I had friends who were "dead heads" back in the day.  They spent every last penny they had following the Grateful Dead around, often quitting jobs in order to keep to the schedule.   They competed with each other to see who was the biggest fan, who went to the most shows, did the most drugs, and collected the most bootleg concert tapes.   And then one day, the Dead stopped touring, and a lot of people started to wonder why they wasted 10-20 years of their lives following a fairly mediocre band around.   The band made money from them, but the fans had to forgo careers, marriages, and raising a family for the transient satisfaction of being one of the "hard core" fans.

Fanaticism - from which the word "fan" derives its name - is a dead-end.   ISIS and Al Qaeda were full of "fanatics" and look where it got them - nowhere.  And the terms Fanaticism and Fascism are only a few pages apart in the dictionary - and even closer in real life.  Both elevate an ordinary person to God-like status.  Both do not tolerate dissent or questioning of the God-status of the celebrity.

Of course, being something like a "metal head" isn't quite as bad as strapping on a suicide vest (although both can cause severe hearing damage).  But the end result is the same - you sacrifice your own life in order to be beholden to another's.   And the artist you pledge your allegiance to hardly knows that you exist, if they know at all.  It is a one-way street.  You give, they take.

I saw a discussion online the other day about Ticketron and concert prices.   The fellow was complaining that he logged onto a ticket site within seconds of concert tickets going on sale, but was locked out and told all tickets were sold.  Meanwhile, Ticketron had the tickets for sale for a lot more - plus their fees.  He felt this was an "outrage".

I asked him if he thought about his alternative - to simply not go to the concert.   And it was like I was talking Esperanto to a Monkey.  "Not go?  Why?" - that simply was not an option to him.   He would pay and pay and pay to see his "favorite band" even as he was racking up student loan debts.   He had to go, right?  He was a fan.

When I was younger, I was a fan, too - although not that rabid.   In the 1980's the "new wave" and "art rock" movements were popular on college campuses.   The Talking Heads had a number of songs that hit the top 100.  For a brief period, they were famous and then faded to obscurity, like so many other pop and rock artists.   And 30 years later, I listen to the music and wonder why it held any fascination for me at the time.   The music was all about posturing and posing - the MTV video sold music back then.   But it seems not much of the music had "staying power" to the point where others were doing covers of them 30 years later (as with the Beatles).

Some music endures.  The "old standards" are still being played today, and the best of the music of the 50's through the 90's still is listenable.  Much more of it died a painless death and it was a good thing.  Classics by Sinatra - from his later years - still get airplay.  Not many want to listen to his Elvis-like "bobbysoxer" era recordings, however.  Similarly, Sting has found a second career doing old standards and jazz.   But "Don't stand so Close to Me" or "Roxanne" is really hard to listen to, today.

The best endures, the rest is forgettable.  Most of what you think of as "your music" today will be stuff you won't listen to in ten years.  Building a lifestyle around a pop musician is thus a futile and pointless endeavor.

UDATE:  Here is an example of the sort of shit I am talking about.  The "Beyhive?"   Really?   People really have no other life than to worship Beyonce and harass a lady who sells dog food?   I really fucking give up on humanity.   No, seriously.

Personal Choices versus Group Experiences

Does the thought of participating in group activities generate even a small amount of social anxiety?  I think this is the new normal for modern Americans.

We all have personal choices and preferences today.  I have a friend who makes a big deal about what she likes and dislikes.  So whenever we go out to eat, go to a movie, or whatever, her preferences and tastes have to be taken into account.   At first I thought she was being a bit of a dick about this, but then I realized this is how an entire generation is being raised.   We no longer have group experiences, but rather individual ones.

For example, the Keurig coffee maker is now wildly popular.  Since more and more people live alone, the idea of making an entire pot of coffee seems wasteful.   But more importantly, in a group situation, the Keurig allows each person to have their choice of beverage.   No more do we have to live under the tyranny of the pot of coffee!   Instead of all of us sharing a beverage we each have our own flavor to choose from - regular, decaf, cafe au lait, or chai tea - or whatever.

And of course, we are encouraged to build our personal identity around these choices.

The same is true of Pizza.   Not long ago, you would go to Pizza hut and have a large pie and share it with your friends - along with a picture of Pepsi or Budweiser.   Everyone had the same thing and we all "went in" on a Pizza.   Today, well, it is different.  You go to a restaurant, and if you suggest ordering a pitcher of beer, you are seen as a fascist.   Everyone has their own choice now.   Everyone orders a different kind of slice or an entree item.   Getting people to agree on even an appetizer ("Oh, I don't like that!") is nearly impossible.

Even if you get them to agree to order a pizza, they want one half vegetarian, one half meat, and one-quarter with no olives.

At home, it is no better, if not worse.   Everyone has their own television and computer, so the idea (which the networks still show in their ads) of the entire family sitting around the telly watching their "favorite shows" is antiquated.  Even here on our little island, the retirees retreat to opposite ends of the house, which are alight with a blue glow in the evening.  He watches Fox News and gets outraged, she watches her crime shows and double-locks the front door.

Even family meals are passe.   The kids all grab a "hot pocket" when they get home from their after-school activities, and Mom and Dad wolf down something separately as well.   A friend of mine did this, and when we went to their house for dinner, they would make a separate entree (usually pasta) for their kid, who would scamper off to his lair to watch violent television or play video games, rather than join us at the dinner table.  "It's just a lot easier to let him do what he wants," his Mom explained.  I watched in horror as he washed down a head-sized plate of pasta and cheese with an entire six-pack of Pepsi.  "He's ADD you know," she said.  When I mentioned his diet of all carbs, it was quickly dismissed as a possible cause of his hyperactivity.

In the olden days, we sat down as a family for at least one meal a day - usually two, breakfast and dinner.  On weekends, lunch was a family affair - often a picnic.   We had to learn our manners, and our parents had to tolerate eating with children (the ultimate diet plan!).  Today, well, we all go our own way, as it is "easier."

The family home once had a single phone - perhaps an extension in the bedroom.   But the whole family had one phone number.   Maybe those fancy rich kids had a "kids phone" extension, but even then, three or four children would have to share one phone line.   Today, we all have our own cell phones, of course, and a phone number is assigned at birth it seems, much like a social security number.   In the future, we will all be able to tell our places of birth by our area codes, much as the prefix of our social security number indicates.   Perhaps this is already happening.

It is funny, but people ask us, "which car is yours and which is Mark's?" as if the cars had personalities.  They look flabbergasted when we say we use whichever car is appropriate for the task at hand - hauling people or lumber or whatever.  But for most people in the USA, a car is yet another personal choice that we are told tells everyone something about us.  Most married couples have "his car" and "her car" and the "family station wagon" is no more.   And it goes without saying that each child has their own car once they reach age 16.   Asking Dad for the car keys on a Saturday night long ago ceased to be a ritual of adolescence.  Why would you ask Dad for his car keys, when you have your own car?

Group experiences are just not as popular as they once were.   Summer camps, once the staple of middle-class America, have largely gone bust.   The camps of my youth are all abandoned properties now - or vacation homes.  Kids don't want to go away in the summer and have a group experience but rather an individual choice.

And speaking of vacation homes, the idea of the vacation resort lodge, with family-style dining, has given way to the individual vacation cottage.  While in Northern Minnesota, we saw a number of the old style "family lodges" on the lakes that were very impressive - and throwbacks to a simpler time.  Most have gone bust, and a few remain.  But fewer families want to live in a big hotel and eat at the same time as everyone else - and eat the same food, often at the same table.   So instead, miles of unoccupied vacation cottages have sprung up - empty for most of the year except maybe a month in the summer.

One thing that drives this is wealth.   Shared experiences were a way of saving money.   We had one phone number and one phone for the entire family, because that was all we could afford.  Similarly, we all watched the same television shows (often having to compromise on choice) because we had only one television (and it was black and white).  Hey, there were only three channels anyway, so it wasn't such a big deal - and all the shows were the same.  But it is one reason variety shows were so popular back then - and why they have fallen from favor since.

Today, we are a wealthier country, so the family car is gone and everyone in a middle-class family has their own set of wheels.   People eat apart, work apart, watch television apart - even go to the movies apart, thanks to the multiplex (Mom and Dad can see one movie, the kids another).   Doing things together is frowned upon or just avoided.   Too much social anxiety to be with all those other people!

And I have to say that I am part of this trend.   I don't like being with the herd, and like everyone else, I like to think I am unique and individual, even if I am unique and individual in a very ordinary and common sort of way.  Things like potluck suppers and group activities are not something our generation really is into.  Perhaps it is all that marijuana smoking that made us anti-social.

Even something as common and binding as the Internet turns out to be dividing, not uniting.  We all find our cubbies or chat groups or facebook friends or subreddits where everyone agrees with what we say.   Group activities where you might have to deal with someone you don't like, or worse, who disagrees with you is atypical.

And maybe this is why we are so partisan today.   We all want things "our way" and individualized.   We don't want to share - not one iota.   If we have, we want to keep.  If we don't have, we want to take.  There may be two sides to any given issue, but each side really isn't interested in listening to the other or worse yet, compromising on any given position.  Heads I win, tails you lose - no one wants anything less than that.

Even group activities that still exist, such as group sports, are becoming more individualized.  There may be no "I" in "Team" but the superstar athlete is not viewed in the context of his teamwork, but his individual achievement.  We are fans of a team not as a group, but as individuals.  The box seat is the new norm.  Leave me alone, I'm watching the game.

Of course, folks in other countries still do group activities.  The Germans love their Volksmarches and their beer festivals, where everyone sits at a "fest bench" and shares a beer and bratwurst with total strangers (who often become friends).  Of course, the Germans were famous for their group activities and that sort of got them into a lot of trouble a few years back.  But I digress.

I guess it just struck me that our world is changing in this one small way.  Our generation are not joiners.  We don't join clubs or organizations like our parents did.   Dads today don't go to the "lodge" to be initiated in the fraternal order of the buffalo or whatever.  We kind of look at that sort of stuff as hokey and dumb.

And maybe it was, or maybe we are losing something important by being so individual.

Normative Cues and the Toll Booth

There are three lanes, which do you chose?  In this photo, people line up, at the left two lanes, while  while the right lane is empty.  Why is this?

Coming back on the island today, I had a small epiphany.  We have a toll to get on the island, which is good as it keeps the crime rate low and helps pay for the upkeep of the island (we ask too much of the taxpayers as it is!).   There are three lanes and they are all identical.  You can use any of the three lanes to pay by cash, credit card, or use an RFID pass decal.   The lanes are automated and you have to insert a credit card (or cash) into a machine.

It seems pretty simple, and if you've ever used a parking kiosk in a city to buy a parking pass for your car, it is pretty much the same deal.  Insert credit card, press button, take ticket.   The authority kind of screwed it up a bit, as the decal which showed which direction the credit card should go in (and there are four possible orientations) was covered over by an idiotic decal saying "INSERT CREDIT CARD HERE!" which is dumb, as we know the slot is for credit cards, but want to know the correct ORIENTATION. To make matters worse, they thought it would be helpful to have an audio recording (for visually impaired drivers, apparently) that yells, "Hi!  Welcome to the Island!" and reads instructions on how to use the machine - just as you started to figure out how to use it.  It is more hindrance than help.

But all that aside, we have three lanes, and all are identical. And it takes about 1-2 minutes for people to figure out the machine.  Like with drive-up ATMs, it seems about half the population is utterly unable to judge the distance between their car and the machine, so people have to stop and get out of their car or open the car door and reach out, because they can't really drive.   It can be a bit comical at times.

But what is really interesting is how people line up - often in the left lane - for no reason, even when the other two gates are available.   It may be the signage is bad.   There are signs on the two right-hand gates and not on the left.  The left has a "booth" that is usually unmanned, so maybe people think they need to go through the manned booth.   

What is funny, is that people will go to an empty lane then back up and get in line behind six cars, rather than continue.  They were so close to getting through, and then changed their mind and decided they needed to wait in line for some reason.

I think a number of things are going on here:

1.  People think they need to go to the left lane because the other lanes have some sort of green sign, which they think doesn't apply to them.

2.  People want to ask questions at the "booth" but don't realize it is fake and the left lane has the same machine as the other two lanes.

3.  If there are people in line at the left lane booth, then there must be reason they are waiting in line, right?  I mean, people wouldn't just wait in line when they don't have to, right?  So folks shy away from trying the other two lanes, because they don't want to be stuck in the wrong lane or something.

It is an interesting study in human behavior.  Today there were 10 cars in line in the left lane, and the two right lanes were clear.  The guy at the end of the line would wait 10-20 minutes to get through the booth, while two other lanes stood empty.   And in 20 minutes, I think you could figure that out.

Of course, island residents with RFID decal passes are not too upset about this.  If the tourists think the other lanes are "reserved" then so much the better for us, right?   I mean, I sped through the booth, bypassing the 10 cars that broke the speed limit to pass me on the Lanier bridge, only to languish, unnecessarily, for nearly a half-hour at a toll booth, all because they felt they needed to stand in line.

There is an old joke that if you get three people and stand in line, before long, a queue will form.   If folks are standing in line, it must be for something important, right?   Why else are they in line?  Better get in line before it gets too long!

Similarly, if you get two or three people to look up at the sky and point, pretty soon a crowd will emerge all looking at the sky and pointing and claiming to "see it" - even when there is nothing to be seen.

The behavior of people, singularly or in crowds, is fascinating.   And I wonder if our little toll booth isn't some clever psychology experiment put together by some professor at UGA.   Or perhaps they need to hire that professor to tell them how to better manage the toll booth.   Because when it comes to crowd management, you don't need an Engineer, you need a psychologist.