Saturday, January 28, 2012

Distributism 101: Is predatory capitalism a conservative doctrine?

There are some so-called "conservatives" who are really liberals.

The Bain controversy is the perfect case study to illustrate the distinction at the center of the economic school of thought called "Distributism." And it is a case study in the Fallacy of the Appeal to the Aggregate that seems to infect the rhetoric of a lot of people who call themselves "conservative."

The Bain controversy, let us remember, involves Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's involvement in Bain Capital, a private equity firm. As a private equity company, Bain has invested in numerous companies and, in the course of its regular business, employees were laid off and jobs were outsourced.

In our last installment of Distributism 101, I discussed the Distributist distinction between theoretical and applied economics. "On the one hand," said Hillaire Belloc, "theoretical economics focuses on the way economics laws work. On the other hand, applied economics tell us what the economic state of affairs ought to be."

What people like Romney do to justify their own individual actions in pursuing profits is to clothe themselves in the mantle of "conservatism." But in doing so, they confound the two modes of economic thought: Whatever "works" economically, they seem to suggest, is ipso facto the way it ought to be.

Furthermore, among such people the definition of what "works" is always cast in aggregate terms: if an economic action produces greater aggregate income or greater aggregate employment, etc., then it is automatically considered to be the result the individual ought to pursue.

To propound this doctrine on a policy level is one thing. There, it has a certain air of plausibility--although it is still not unproblematic. But to propound it on the personal level, as Romney has done, is to completely confound both economic and ethical categories.

To say that your personal action is right because it contributes to the greatest good of the greatest number may or may not be the doctrine of Adam Smith, but it is certainly the doctrine of John Stuart Mill. More specifically, it is the doctrine of utilitarianism, the doctrine of which Mill was the most prominent historical exponent. And to acquiesce to such arguments in the name of conservatism is to imply that conservatism itself is a utilitarian doctrine, which it most certainly is not.

The problem, of course, is that there are people running around calling themselves conservatives who are spouting economic utilitarianism and don't seem to realize it, and Romney is one them.

Predatory capitalism is not a conservative doctrine. It is economic utilitarianism, and economic utilitarianism is the soul of liberalism properly so-called. American political rhetoric has developed in a rather strange way and has seen the term "liberal" turned into a reference to someone who believes in socialism. "Liberalism" used to mean--and still does mean in Europe--someone who believes in economic freedom.

In fact, I think partly because of the changed application of the word in American politics, we seem to have come up with a new word to mean what "liberal" used to mean: libertarian. I suppose it gets us out of the problem of calling people we think of as conservatives "liberals."

When Romney was called out for this, out came all the libertarians who have convinced people that they are conservatives to defend him: David Boaz at the Cato Institute, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, and Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity.

But, as I have pointed out on this blog before, libertarianism is not conservatism. In fact, pure libertarianism is almost the exact opposite. This is why social conservatives (the ones who really understand their social conservatism, anyway) should have a troubled conscience in making common cause with libertarians. I'm not saying they should never do it. Sometimes the predations of socialism require it. But we shouldn't forget that conservatism is ultimately inimical to libertarianism. And I'm afraid we forgot that some time ago.

People who think it is right to lay people off and outsource their jobs purely for the purpose of padding their own profits are not conservatives. Conservatives are about conserving things--things like families and communities. This requires an acknowledgement of the efficiencies of the free market in subordination to common good, to which the efficiencies of the free market are sometimes blind.

The extreme individualist utilitarianism that is espoused by some people who want to call themselves "conservative" is corrosive of these things.

They are utilitarian capitalists, which is another word for "liberal."

36 comments:

Lee said...

How important are labels? There was a time, once, when free-market economics was considered "liberal". If I'm not mistaken, so was libertarianism. Milton Friedman insisted on calling himself a liberal, in that sense. It wasn't until progressivism needed a facelift that it absconded with the "liberal" name-brand, confusing things, and of course progressivism is quite a different thing.

I remember reading a book twenty or thirty years ago by Michael Novak, an avowed Catholic, named "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism", wherein he noted the hostility in the Church against the free market. Maybe I'm seeing some of that in your article, Martin.

I don't understand what's immoral, or even particularly predatory, about about the sorts of acquisitions and liquidations performed by Bain. For a company to become an attractive candidate for liquidation, it has to be deep in the throes of mismanagement. The market must judge the company's assets to be worth more than the company itself -- worth more in the sum of its parts than in its whole. I don't think predation is the apt analogy here, but more like mercy killing.

In addition, such acquisitions may often coincide with outsourcing, but they are not the same thing.

As I see it, economic efficiency is itself a common good, or at least one aspect of it. While it's true nobody ever stormed the barricades in the name of the free market, it has done more to raise the standard of living around the world than any one idea in history. Thomas Sowell once wrote that if the growth of the American economy had been just an average of 1% per year lower, we'd have a lower standard of living today than Mexico.

For one's individual soul, a vow of poverty be just the thing to bring one closer to God. It's something else altogether to make that decision for others. Economic efficiency has its place at the table of moral concerns.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Based on what you just wrote, the Republican party is no place for you. Ron Paul won't be the GOP nominee, but the GOP has fully adopted his libertarian philosophy on economic policy; the intellectual elite of the GOP, such as it is, is dominated by Randians. The economic elites in this country are totally disconnected from ordinary people, almost as though they live in a different universe; they feel no allegiance to community or country and have no higher goal than improving the quarterly profit statement and boosting their own bonuses. The GOP has totally abandoned the middle class and exists solely to serve the avarice of the 1%.

Singring said...

'...it has done more to raise the standard of living around the world than any one idea in history.'

Well, there's free markets and then there's 'free markets', Lee. We have a 'free market' in Europe - its just not as free as in the US in some areas (though probably even more free in others). There has never been a free market as idealized by Friedman et al. and if you read Dan Ariely's excellent book 'Predictably Irrational' (for example) you will find out some of the reasons for why there probably never can be an ideally free market.

'Thomas Sowell once wrote that if the growth of the American economy had been just an average of 1% per year lower, we'd have a lower standard of living today than Mexico.'

Oddly enough, most of 'socialist' Europe enjoys an even higher standard of living than the US (on average). So again, just screaming for free markets (whatever you think these may be) and claiming they are solely responsible for raising the standard of living is not very helpful.

Back in the stone age we had free markets - but I doubt you would like to go back to that standard of living.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Among the things Romney is accused of is taking over companies, loading them up with debt to line his own pockets, then leaving them for dead while taxpayers were left to bail out the companies' pension plans. Knowing you, I doubt that you view profiting by lining your pocket with taxpayer money is how the free market is supposed to operate. The free market also doesn't work to increase living standards when a few people engage in fraud to become obscenely wealthy, which is what directly lead to the economic collapse.

Lee said...

> the intellectual elite of the GOP, such as it is, is dominated by Randians.

If only. I'm not a Randian, but I'd welcome a move or two in that direction, economically speaking.

I don't see the GOP as much different than the Democrats on that score, which makes them, in Randian terms, the "looters".

Lee said...

I don't disagree with most of what you say, Singring.

However,

> Oddly enough, most of 'socialist' Europe enjoys an even higher standard of living than the US (on average).

Last I read, there are only a couple of countries in Europe where the per capital wealth exceeds the U.S. Norway was one of them.

And last I heard, Sweden was heading towards a more free market, divesting itself of some of its state-run enterprises.

> So again, just screaming for free markets (whatever you think these may be) and claiming they are solely responsible for raising the standard of living is not very helpful.

Where did I claim that free markets are solely responsible for raising living standards?

Sorry, Singring, but it really is irritating when you reshape my argument into something that's easier for you to attack.

Lee said...

> Among the things Romney is accused of is taking over companies, loading them up with debt to line his own pockets, then leaving them for dead while taxpayers were left to bail out the companies' pension plans.

I don't know any specifics on this. Can you provide a link?

> Knowing you, I doubt that you view profiting by lining your pocket with taxpayer money is how the free market is supposed to operate.

You would be correct.

> The free market also doesn't work to increase living standards when a few people engage in fraud to become obscenely wealthy, which is what directly lead to the economic collapse.

I read an article recently, wish I had the link handy, which said that the gap between rich and poor has shrunk in the last four years, since the financial collapse. I guess that's one way to achieve egalitarianism -- make everyone worse off.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'Last I read, there are only a couple of countries in Europe where the per capital wealth exceeds the U.S. Norway was one of them.'

Per capita wealth is an incredibly poor indicator for the standard of living, Lee. A country of 1,000 homeless and one billionaire would have an incredibly high per capita wealth - but would you call that a country with a high standard of living? If you want to use per capita wealth to indicate standard of living at all, then your watermark should include the equality in distribution of wealth - the more equal, the higher the number of people with a high standard of living. Currently, the US and even some European countries have wealth inequality that resemble a feudal situation we thought we had overcome centuries ago.

'And last I heard, Sweden was heading towards a more free market, divesting itself of some of its state-run enterprises.'

Maybe so. Many European countries are - disastrously - being pressured by Friedmanite economists into adopting conservative economic measures at the moment, ostensibly to deal with the debt crisis. These austerity measures do nothing but increase unemployment and reduce the average standard of living.

What we should be doing instead of bailouts of private banks and cutbacks in social program spending is to nationalize parts of the banking sector, drastically increase regulations and taxation of high-end income and capital gains and increase spending on social programs.

However, more to the point, I fail to see how one country or other adopting some conservative policy right now invalidates the fact that decades of policies that are far more socialist than any adopted in the US have produced higher standards of living in these countries as of now?

Some day you will have to deal with the actual facts, Lee.

'Where did I claim that free markets are solely responsible for raising living standards? Sorry, Singring, but it really is irritating when you reshape my argument into something that's easier for you to attack.'

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating you - so how about a deal?

If you stop using per capita wealth as an indicator for the standard of living, then I will stop exaggerating your statements.

Singring said...

'I guess that's one way to achieve egalitarianism -- make everyone worse off.'

How about making the poor and middle class better off while making the rich a little less well-off?

Why do you constantly ignore this rather attractive course of action, Lee?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"I don't know any specifics on this. Can you provide a link?"

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10538-romneys-skeletons-his-bain-capital-received-millions-in-bailouts

From the article:
"Reuters recently reported that a steel company taken over by Bain Capital went bankrupt and received another big handout from the government. After the Missouri mill’s approximately 750 employees were fired, a federal insurance agency had to bail out its underfunded pension plan to the tune of almost $45 million. But Bain still made millions in profits on the deal."

Lee said...

> Some day you will have to deal with the actual facts, Lee.

Speaking of facts, where are yours?

Singring said...

'Speaking of facts, where are yours?'

I'll give them to you if you want them, Lee. But quite honestly all you need to do is Google 'standard of living' prefaced with whatever governmental body you wish to get data from (say the UN, the OECD or maybe even the CIA) and you will have your answer.

But tell me: are you stating, for the record, that you believe the standard of living in socialist European countries as ranked by international bodies such as the UN or the OECD is poorer than in the US?

Is that what you believe the facts are?

Lee said...

KyCobb, thanks for the link. How utterly disappointing.

The GOP establishment wins again. Somehow, they always manage to nominate a so-called "electable moderate". These usually go on to lose in the general election. So much for electable.

Conservatives have already lost this election.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"I read an article recently, wish I had the link handy, which said that the gap between rich and poor has shrunk in the last four years, since the financial collapse. I guess that's one way to achieve egalitarianism -- make everyone worse off."

I would guess that would be due to the big drop in stocks in 2008, since the poor don't own much stock. Lots of countries, including at one time the US, make income less unequal by making everyone better off, rather than allowing the few to take almost all the benefit of economic growth.

Singring said...

'Speaking of facts, where are yours?'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

Note that in an unadjusted scoring, the US ranks fourth - but because of its high wealth inequality, it plummets to 23 when adjusted for wealth equality - which is exactly the point I was making earlier.

Lee said...

> If you stop using per capita wealth as an indicator for the standard of living, then I will stop exaggerating your statements.

In other words: "If you stop saying something I disagree with, I'll quit distorting your position."

Nice bargain.

Lee said...

> I would guess that would be due to the big drop in stocks in 2008, since the poor don't own much stock. Lots of countries, including at one time the US, make income less unequal by making everyone better off, rather than allowing the few to take almost all the benefit of economic growth.

Out of curiosity, would "lots of countries" include the ones that are in the process of losing their solvency?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

It would also include countries that aren't losing their solvency.

Singring said...

'In other words: "If you stop saying something I disagree with, I'll quit distorting your position."'

More like "If you stop saying something that is wildly inaccurate, I'll quit distorting your position."

Sounds like a fair bargain to me.

Also, since you did ask for them, what did you think of the facts, Lee?

Anonymous said...

Not only is Singring's "wealth equality" mantra subject to all kinds of dubious variables, as well as questions about who is doing the measurements, but it also fails to recognize that Americans get nervous about politicians promising income equality when we have so often watched politicians elsewhere make every one less free, sometimes horribly so, in the process.

Martin Cothran said...

Lee,

I remember reading a book twenty or thirty years ago by Michael Novak, an avowed Catholic, named "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism", wherein he noted the hostility in the Church against the free market. Maybe I'm seeing some of that in your article, Martin.

I think what you are seeing is a refusal to buy in to the false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism.

I think what you are also seeing is a reaction against Christian believers who seem to think that just because an action may be allowed in a "free market," it should therefore be considered an ethical action, consistent with Christian ethical principles.

I was very careful not to condemn all actions such as lay-offs and outsourcing, but, instead, condemn lay-offs and outsourcing for the specific purpose of making money for yourself.

There seems to be the idea among many conservative Christians that whatever action you take in a free market is therefore a right action. Whatever contributes to market efficiency is good. As I mentioned, this is pure utilitarianism.

We consistently condemn utilitarianism in every area, but for some reason, in economics, it's okay.

I'd love to see a Christian argument for that.

Lee said...

> Also, since you did ask for them, what did you think of the facts, Lee?

I'll comment on facts when you show some, Singring. What you linked to looks more like an opinion paper.

> "a measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account."

Wake me when you have some hard facts.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

> I think what you are seeing is a refusal to buy in to the false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism.

Who says it's a dichotomy? Not me.

> I think what you are also seeing is a reaction against Christian believers who seem to think that just because an action may be allowed in a "free market," it should therefore be considered an ethical action, consistent with Christian ethical principles.

And who says that? Besides Ayn Rand, I mean. The free market permits transactions to take place; nobody said all transactions are good in some sort of cosmological sense. The idea is that the general thrust of the free market is to create more wealth, which all things being equal is better than less wealth. Or, as Buckley used to say, freedom serves equality better than equality serves freedom.

> [Some believe that] Whatever contributes to market efficiency is good. As I mentioned, this is pure utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism can only be argued as a good when it serves a higher purpose. In the case of economics, the higher good would be to serve the material needs of a society. If you're arguing that this isn't the highest good, I would agree. But it is not a trivial one.

Man is a fallen creature and as such everything he touches is tainted with his evil nature. The free market just seems to be a mechanism where man's greed can sometimes be harnessed for the good of all. It really isn't a very good economic system. It's just better than all the others.

But you're not the first to have noticed that economic liberalism/libertarianism is not the same thing as conservatism, but is a great force of change. The reason conservatives like it, though, is that the market has alleviated many of the societal problems historically caused by poverty. Infant mortality. Hunger. Disease. Even dentistry.

But does it often create other problems? You bet.

I'm still trying to figure out why it's wrong when American capitalists exploit labor, ruin the environment, own slaves, etc., but it somehow becomes okay when we outsource all of that to China.

Lee said...

I got the following information from a real right-wing rag named the New York Times. An interesting perspective...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/magazine/the-other-reason-europe-is-going-broke.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&ref=global-home

> "But G.D.P. per capita (an insufficient indicator, but one most economists use) in the U.S. is nearly 50 percent higher than it is in Europe. Even Europe’s best-performing large country, Germany, is about 20 percent poorer than the U.S. on a per-person basis (and both countries have roughly 15 percent of their populations living below the poverty line). While Norway and Sweden are richer than the U.S., on average, they are more comparable to wealthy American microeconomies like Washington, D.C., or parts of Connecticut — both of which are actually considerably wealthier. A reporter in Greece once complained after I compared her country to Mississippi, America’s poorest state. She’s right: the comparison isn’t fair. The average Mississippian is richer than the average Greek.

> "Europe is undergoing not one but two simultaneous economic crises. The first is a rapid, obvious one — all about sovereign debt, a collapsing currency and austerity measures — that we hear about all the time. The second is insidious but more important. After decades of trying, Europe as a whole still can’t quite figure out how to be flexible enough to compete in the global economy."

> "European leaders like to mock the U.S. for its inequality and lack of social safety net. Though, for now, it looks as if Europe is headed for a two-tier society without any plan for improving the lot of the lower tier. How can Brussels excite a generation of ambitious young people — the ones who will determine Europe’s future success — when too many of them are offered low-wage, short-term work in stagnant industries to pay for the far more generous benefits their elders receive? How can Europe compete if its youth experience the flexibility while the old get the security?"

Lee said...

And here's the real question: is European socialism, presuming it finds its way out of the tar pit of debt that it's currently mired in, going to survive the upcoming Islamification of Europe?

The birth rates are clear: there will be more Muslims -- Turks, Arabs, Pakistanis, etc. -- in Europe than Europeans. The math seems pretty clear. As Mark Steyn says, to win the future, you have to show up for it.

So assuming for the sake of argument that European socialism represents government at its historical best, what is will its prognosis be when European countries will be inhabited primarily by those from a completely different and not necessarily friendly culture?

That day will be here in probably thirty years or less. Who knows what will happen? But I say, collect your government benefits now, while you still can.

Singring said...

'Not only is Singring's "wealth equality" mantra subject to all kinds of dubious variables, as well as questions about who is doing the measurements,'

This raises a couple of questions:

a) what 'dubious' variables are you talking about?

b) automatically questioning the source of the data that seems to contradict your dearly held ideological beliefs makes you appear rather paranoid, which I am sure you are not. So what leads you to believe that the United Nations Development Programme (which is responsible for the data I have linked to) is biased in its measurements?

'...but it also fails to recognize that Americans get nervous about politicians promising income equality when we have so often watched politicians elsewhere make every one less free, sometimes horribly so, in the process.'

And where would that be?

YOu see, I am not talking about absolute income equality - I am talking about a situation were income is more equally distributed than it is now, that's all. Do you honestly believe that concentrating wealth and income in the top few percent of the population as is currently happening in Europe and even faster in the US is a good way of increasing the overall standard of living? How would that work? I'm eager to hear your explanation.

As you may well be aware there have been situations in the past in the US and there still is a situation in some parts of Europe (e.g. Finland) where taxes on high income were much higher than they are now and where income inequality was much lower than it is now and the average standard of living was/is - relative to the time - very good indeed.

So it seems to be very possible to achieve a higher standard of living for everyone by making income and wealth more equal.

Those are the facts.

Singring said...

'What you linked to looks more like an opinion paper.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#New_methodology_for_2011_data_onwards

So the United Nations Development Programme Report is a mere 'opinion paper'?

Your capacity for rationalizing away hard data never ceases to amaze.

'Wake me when you have some hard facts.'

I'm sorry. I didn't realize reading a few paragraphs and clicking on a few links was too much to ask.

'But G.D.P. per capita (an insufficient indicator, but one most economists use)...'

Thanks for making my point for me, Lee. Always hlarious to read an article that makes its arguments based on an indicator it flat-out admits to be insufficient itself.

'"Europe is undergoing not one but two simultaneous economic crises. The first is a rapid, obvious one — all about sovereign debt, a collapsing currency and austerity measures — that we hear about all the time.'

What does an economic crisis in the South of Europe brought on by in large part by conservative policies (banking deregulation and low taxes) have to do with the standard of living at this time?

'Though, for now, it looks as if Europe is headed for a two-tier society without any plan for improving the lot of the lower tier. '

Maybe you missed it - but this is exactly what I was saying earlier. *Because* European countries (as you yourself pointed out, Lee) are adopting severe austerity measures and other radically conservative fiscal policies at the moment we are racing toward higher inequality.

The fact that you can cite an article that makes exactly this point for me and think it supports your position pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

'...going to survive the upcoming Islamification of Europe?'

Oh goodness me, off the rails we go. Tin foil hats out, folks...

Lee said...

> So the United Nations Development Programme Report is a mere 'opinion paper'?

I'm so sorry, I didn't realize the UN never had an opinion about anything.

Lots of variables there, Singring. Lots of room for argument about any single one of those measures, let alone what they are worth when you start building formulae from them.

As I said: it looks like an opinion paper. The opinions begin with which measures are more important.

E.g., we've talked about one of those measures, life expectancy at birth. As I recall, you used infant mortality rates to indict American health care, apparently without realizing that it's not a simple measure, and that the U.S. numbers look bad in large part because when a premie dies, we count that as an infant death.

So, yeah, I tend to see per capita income as not the best measure, but at least it's free of some of the question-begging measures I see in here.

Probably disposable income would be another statistic that I would find interesting. Ooops. I forgot. Europeans don't have much of a disposable income. Their betters in Brussels and Bonn have things all figured out for them.

> Always hlarious to read an article that makes its arguments based on an indicator it flat-out admits to be insufficient itself.

Always hilarious when you do your touchdown dance on things like this. I never said there was one simple measure that explains every difference. All part of your tendency to distort my argument into something you can deal with.

> What does an economic crisis in the South of Europe brought on by in large part by conservative policies (banking deregulation and low taxes) have to do with the standard of living at this time?

Yeah, I've always heard Greece was a bastion of conservatism.

> Oh goodness me, off the rails we go. Tin foil hats out, folks...

Denial is a river in Egypt.

Singring said...

'As I said: it looks like an opinion paper. The opinions begin with which measures are more important.'

So when you agree with a newspaper article, it's hard fact, when you disagree with an official report from the largest overgovernmental organization in the world, its an unreliable opinion paper.

Makes complete sense.

'...and that the U.S. numbers look bad in large part because when a premie dies, we count that as an infant death.'

So do other countries that outrank the US I posted the relevant data in that thread and you decided to ignore it.

'Probably disposable income would be another statistic that I would find interesting.'

I bet you would. Because it would ignore all the tax funded systems that improve general standards of living in Europe, like socialized medicine and unemployment onsurance. It really is quite remarkable how you manage to latch on to precisely pretty much any indicator that supports your ideology rather than going with an official international report on the *actual* standard of living - you know, the measure you originally were talking about.

'I never said there was one simple measure that explains every difference.'

So what other indicators would you take into consideration? Tell us, pleeeeze.

'Yeah, I've always heard Greece was a bastion of conservatism.'

Dodge.

And by the way, pressured by Friedmanite economists and bankers, Greece is now embarking on some of the most drastic austerity and privatization ever seen in Europe.

Gee, I wonder whether those measures will raise the standard of living for most people or if they will make the rich folks who can now buy up massive amounts of state property at discount prices even more rich?

'Denial is a river in Egypt.'

If you ever come to Europe, Lee, I'll gladly take you on a tour of Dublin, Stuttgart or Oslo (all places I have lived) and you can show me where all these masses of invading Muslims are. It'll be an entertaining afternoon for at least one of us.

Lee said...

> So when you agree with a newspaper article, it's hard fact, when you disagree with an official report from the largest overgovernmental organization in the world, its an unreliable opinion paper.

Well, when I posted the newspaper article, I prefaced it by saying, "An interesting perspective..."

Lee said...

> If you ever come to Europe, Lee, I'll gladly take you on a tour of Dublin, Stuttgart or Oslo (all places I have lived) and you can show me where all these masses of invading Muslims are. It'll be an entertaining afternoon for at least one of us.

Take me to Paris. I want to see the neighborhoods where all those "youths" torched cars and burned buildings.

Singring said...

'Take me to Paris. I want to see the neighborhoods where all those "youths" torched cars and burned buildings.'

Are you seriously telling me you think those youths rioted because they were all Muslim fundamentalists that simply wanted to destroy their neighborhood? Because of what - Sharia law?

Lee said...

You are uncharacteristically careful about your wording here.

Yes, I'm telling you they were Muslims.

Muslim fundamentalists? Not a clue.

"Simply wanted to destroy their neighborhoods"? I would imagine it's more complicated than that.

Because of sharia law? I don't know. Maybe because they don't like French police.

Singring said...

'Yes, I'm telling you they were Muslims.'

And what does that have to do with them rioting, rather than their economic situation, for example?

The rioters in LA after the Rodney King trial - did they riot simply because they were black? Or because they were already furstrated by their economic situation, their marginalization by society and their treatment by the police?

'Maybe because they don't like French police.'

How does that relate to them being Muslim? Do you think all Muslims don't like French police?