Friday, October 03, 2008
McCain will not attack on Fannie, Freddie
I had speculated that McCain was waiting for the bill to pass before going after Barry and the Dems on Fannie and Freddie, and that's why we heard the nonsense from Sarah last night about treacherous Wall Street. Looks like the plan is simply to drop it. I agree with MKH and others that this sure looks like a terrible mistake and may blow a great opportunity to educate and make up lost ground. I had also assumed that Ayers, Rezco, and Wright ads were coming, but maybe that's out too. If so, is there any chance?
Sobering look at the Electoral College map
Stephen Green wargames and finds McCain's chances "daunting."
Biden's lies/gaffes
I knew Biden was lying, but curiously didn't consider them gaffes. Geraghty counts 24 of them.
VDH on Peoria
From his blog:
...
Sophisticates would rather listen to the six-term Senator Biden suavely and masterfully mislead (on every thing from the legislative responsibilities of the Vice President and confusion about Article I of the Constitution to Hezbollah in Lebanon) than an honest and sincere Palin speak directly to the people. Everyone else would not.
So yes, Biden sounded the more impressive in terms of recall and facts, but it was the transitory experience of a mint that melts almost instantaneously—once you realize that almost all of the sweeping sweet assertions you just heard were, on reflection, simply untrue and so now gone and forgotten. The story today is an embarrassing fact-checking of Biden’s bombast to a far greater degree than is true of Palin’s assertions.
...
So the debate had the character of one of those 1940s “champ” fight movies, in which the deft, cocky and more refined puncher beats up—at the beginning—the nervous sweaty challenger with the far greater heart. A man with three decades in the Senate, who reminds us ad nauseam of where he was and what he has done almost every second, in theory should have easily won; but this simply did not happen, in part to Palin’s charisma and Biden’s pontifications and distortions.…
As the rounds wore on, Palin lost much of her nervousness, smiled, and came into her own as the voice of an outsider who was not impressed by the same old, same old DC smugness. And as she did punch back, Biden began losing his composure, sighing with occasional break-ins and interruptions.
The more data he cited (much of it, again, less than factual [e.g., Biden really did, as Palin noted, rule out coal-generated power; he really did once deprecate Obama’s Iraq suggestions as ill-founded and dangerous; and he really does wish to create a trillion dollars in new spending entitlements; and senior commanders really do think the tactics in Iraq, mutatis mutandis, are of enormous advantage in Afghanistan]), the less effective he became. He’s a good debater, but he ended up out-pointing Palin and still clearly losing.
...
I cannot think of any presidential or vice presidential candidate who talked—manner, accent, gesture—in an authentically Middle Class fashion, and did so unapologetically. Bill Clinton could do it, but it was a performance to be turned on and off as needed. She sounds like voices in America (I’m in rural Michigan as I write this); but compared to life in the DC/NY nexus, she sounds like she’s from Mars as well. Biden often looked like an anthropological grad student on a South Pacific island doing his field work, both intrigued and taken back by the quaint habits of the otherwise inferior natives. I almost thought in the fashion of John Kerry he would sigh “I can’t believe I’m losing to this…..”
Rep. Pelosi and Sens. Obam and Reid
Anybody else get the feeling that if Sen. Obama wins Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid think that they'll really be the ones running things.
Podhoretz says we just don't know
JPod echos what I was thinking last night:
Watching my old classmate Jeff Toobin and my old boss David Gergen, both of whom share with me a surpassing ignorance of the gut reactions of a fairly traditionalist swing voter in Western Pennsylvania in the midst of the economic crisis of 2008, attempt to gauge the effectiveness of Palin in speaking to and convincing that voter has an inadvertently comic aspect.
I would trust both of them with my life if I needed an extensive analysis of the offerings at Zabar’s, the relative merits of the executive lounges of different airlines, or the disposition of Harvard’s endowment. But on the matter of Sarah Palin’s appeal, and her ability to help bring that dot pattern to resolve itself in McCain’s favor? That would be like asking me to diagnose the condition of your carburetor. I’ll do it if you pay me, but if you actually listen, the joke will be on you.
Watching my old classmate Jeff Toobin and my old boss David Gergen, both of whom share with me a surpassing ignorance of the gut reactions of a fairly traditionalist swing voter in Western Pennsylvania in the midst of the economic crisis of 2008, attempt to gauge the effectiveness of Palin in speaking to and convincing that voter has an inadvertently comic aspect.
I would trust both of them with my life if I needed an extensive analysis of the offerings at Zabar’s, the relative merits of the executive lounges of different airlines, or the disposition of Harvard’s endowment. But on the matter of Sarah Palin’s appeal, and her ability to help bring that dot pattern to resolve itself in McCain’s favor? That would be like asking me to diagnose the condition of your carburetor. I’ll do it if you pay me, but if you actually listen, the joke will be on you.
NYT censors itself?
I get the NYT in paper form. I saw something in David Brooks' column this morning that I wanted to put up and went to the web site to pull it. It's not there. Several paragraphs have been cut. Paul Krugman has a column also today and every word in the paper is on the web.
Brooks is of course the Times' resident conservative; Krugman is their mad lefty economist. What's going on?
Brooks is of course the Times' resident conservative; Krugman is their mad lefty economist. What's going on?
Debate stuff
I thought it pretty much went as expected. I thought that in terms of "debate" Sen. Biden clearly won.
Having said that, I'm not at all dissappointed with Gov. Palin. No "Poland is free" or "You're no Jack Kennedy" moments and she's on the bottom half of the ticket. Her job was to not crash and burn. She didn't.
Having said that, I'm not at all dissappointed with Gov. Palin. No "Poland is free" or "You're no Jack Kennedy" moments and she's on the bottom half of the ticket. Her job was to not crash and burn. She didn't.
Debate - My Take (and a little more)
Of course C and I watched and while we did, I was playing a Palin drinking game. I was drinking every time I heard "maverick", "you betcha", any time she substituted "ya" for "you". My overall impression was that she looked like she belonged up there and that was what she needed to do. No real gaffes, no goofs. As for Biden, of course his substance resonated more with me, but his goal was to be concise and not sexist, which he also accomplished. As was obvious by watching CNN and Fox afterwards, both sides thought their person was great and won. Some other thoughts:
1) I found it strange that she asked if she could call him Joe, but never did. What was the point of that?
2) I thought her winking at the camera was a bit much.
3) I hate when lawmakers get into Congress-speak, which Joe did, and when they mention other lawmakers by name and add the "my good friend", "my dear friend:, etc.
I also hate how they all talk about all the bills they have written. It's amazing how they all write all these bills, but none of them ever seem to get passed into law. They always forget to mention that part. Whenever they get into this, I just tune out.
4) I was surprised that none of the pundits, experts, hosts that I watched mentioned that Joe almost broke down talking about his dead/injured children. It was very obvious. I was watching CNN and they had these reaction meters with men and women voters in Ohio and during that portion, the women reaction was off the chart.
5) Perhaps it was my bias, but Joe was better at obviously not answering questions than she was. Perhaps that is just an experience thing. I was interested to see how each would answer what I thought was just a stupid question, about what their achilles heal was. Joe at least, through humor, acknowledged what Ifill mentioned about him, but only with a sentence or 2. Palin, as I had expected, didn't even come close to answering it.
6) The after debate talk was the usual - not sure what the point of watching it is. I guess on the very rare chance that someone will break ranks. Thankfully C and I will be on the road today to Arkansas, so I won't be able he hear the rightie radio hacks go overboard in their reviews. They'll paint Palin's performance as just below Lincoln or Reagan and paint Joe as the next coming of that loser Ross Perot had as his VP. And I predict that Rush will almost be giddy over her comment about not answering a question and her using the term "main-stream media". If you actually read the transcript of her not answering the question remark, she mangles the sentence, but you get the idea of what she was trying to say.
Bottom line: much more entertaining than McCain-Obama I, no gaffes, lots of statements to fact-check.
1) I found it strange that she asked if she could call him Joe, but never did. What was the point of that?
2) I thought her winking at the camera was a bit much.
3) I hate when lawmakers get into Congress-speak, which Joe did, and when they mention other lawmakers by name and add the "my good friend", "my dear friend:, etc.
I also hate how they all talk about all the bills they have written. It's amazing how they all write all these bills, but none of them ever seem to get passed into law. They always forget to mention that part. Whenever they get into this, I just tune out.
4) I was surprised that none of the pundits, experts, hosts that I watched mentioned that Joe almost broke down talking about his dead/injured children. It was very obvious. I was watching CNN and they had these reaction meters with men and women voters in Ohio and during that portion, the women reaction was off the chart.
5) Perhaps it was my bias, but Joe was better at obviously not answering questions than she was. Perhaps that is just an experience thing. I was interested to see how each would answer what I thought was just a stupid question, about what their achilles heal was. Joe at least, through humor, acknowledged what Ifill mentioned about him, but only with a sentence or 2. Palin, as I had expected, didn't even come close to answering it.
6) The after debate talk was the usual - not sure what the point of watching it is. I guess on the very rare chance that someone will break ranks. Thankfully C and I will be on the road today to Arkansas, so I won't be able he hear the rightie radio hacks go overboard in their reviews. They'll paint Palin's performance as just below Lincoln or Reagan and paint Joe as the next coming of that loser Ross Perot had as his VP. And I predict that Rush will almost be giddy over her comment about not answering a question and her using the term "main-stream media". If you actually read the transcript of her not answering the question remark, she mangles the sentence, but you get the idea of what she was trying to say.
Bottom line: much more entertaining than McCain-Obama I, no gaffes, lots of statements to fact-check.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
My take
Ezra Klein says what I'm thinking:
Also, someone at kos confirms with word clouds that "also" was a huge word for Sarah.
I suppose there's a lot of work to be done to dig through all that was said. Man, they spoke fast and included a ton of references to records that'll be examined in coming days revealing "errors" or "lies", depending on your viewpoint. I'll be incommunicado, though, so you gentlemen will have to do it.
DEBATE LIVEBLOGGING.
10:30: Debate done. I'll write a bit more when I've had time to digest, but for now, Palin turned in a genuinely competent performance, and Biden turned in a superlative one. His performance tonight was the best I've seen from any candidate in this election, including the primaries. Just a superb job. I'm a bad barometer for middle America, but tonight seemed a clear win for him and his ticket.
Also, someone at kos confirms with word clouds that "also" was a huge word for Sarah.
I suppose there's a lot of work to be done to dig through all that was said. Man, they spoke fast and included a ton of references to records that'll be examined in coming days revealing "errors" or "lies", depending on your viewpoint. I'll be incommunicado, though, so you gentlemen will have to do it.
Debate
I'm posting this bf looking at or hearing any commentary bc I don't trust myself to be honest afterwards and bc I've discovered that I have a blindspot. Short points first. I thought Biden was wonderful. He lied and I yelled at him each time, and there will be ads that show him lying, but I think he came across (simultaneously!) as a statesman and an agent of change. How he did that, given his horrendous record, I'm not sure, but I'm afraid he did.
My gut reaction to Sarah was that she came off as painfully scripted. There were sparks of un-scriptedness, but then I came to think even those were scripted.
I know that I lose sight of what the average voter (let alone the average citizen) is aware of politically. We (the four of us (when LJ is not fed up and is paying attention)) and the people like us are a tiny tiny percentage of the electorate. What's important or significant to us from day to day never registers with the masses (and yes I'll use that term as a shorthand for what I'm talking about).
My problem is that while I'm sure Joe did well (at least until the ads come out), I haven't the slightest idea how Sarah played to the masses. I'm hoping against hope that she didn't seem wooden and scripted, but I really don't know. Which is what has me confused at the moment. How do I know that Joe did well but don't know how Sarah did? And I realized as I watched and didn't know how she was doing that NRO, Townhall, Hewitt, Rush, Weekly Standard, et al. don't know either. Hewitt, for example, thinks he's in touch bc he talks to people but he's talking to a very small self-selected group. We (on the right) often laugh at the echo chamber on the left but we have one as well, and I can't hear past the echo.
Why'd she step into the unitarian executive thing???
Biden's wife died?
Biden's proud of his hit job on Bork. Disgusting.
Final observation (and not original): "Bipartisanship" is a means to an end, sometimes. Never an end in itself.
My gut reaction to Sarah was that she came off as painfully scripted. There were sparks of un-scriptedness, but then I came to think even those were scripted.
I know that I lose sight of what the average voter (let alone the average citizen) is aware of politically. We (the four of us (when LJ is not fed up and is paying attention)) and the people like us are a tiny tiny percentage of the electorate. What's important or significant to us from day to day never registers with the masses (and yes I'll use that term as a shorthand for what I'm talking about).
My problem is that while I'm sure Joe did well (at least until the ads come out), I haven't the slightest idea how Sarah played to the masses. I'm hoping against hope that she didn't seem wooden and scripted, but I really don't know. Which is what has me confused at the moment. How do I know that Joe did well but don't know how Sarah did? And I realized as I watched and didn't know how she was doing that NRO, Townhall, Hewitt, Rush, Weekly Standard, et al. don't know either. Hewitt, for example, thinks he's in touch bc he talks to people but he's talking to a very small self-selected group. We (on the right) often laugh at the echo chamber on the left but we have one as well, and I can't hear past the echo.
Why'd she step into the unitarian executive thing???
Biden's wife died?
Biden's proud of his hit job on Bork. Disgusting.
Final observation (and not original): "Bipartisanship" is a means to an end, sometimes. Never an end in itself.
NY Sun
I hate to weigh in on something I know so little about but I'll miss the New York Sun. I've been reading for at least five years. There was a guy whose name escapes me who wrote a lot about the NYC jazz scene whom I will particularly miss.
The first 400 names in the Boston phonebook
WFB famously said something to the effect of, "I'd rather be governed by the first 400 persons in the Boston phonebook than the faculty at Harvard."
I never really bought into that sentiment being the elitist that I am...until the last 10 days and all the nonsense with the bailout.
I'm starting to think that is what tonight's debate is about.
I never really bought into that sentiment being the elitist that I am...until the last 10 days and all the nonsense with the bailout.
I'm starting to think that is what tonight's debate is about.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
The Poll-->
No too close to call option?
My thought is that Sen. Biden will do very well with the impromptu button turned off. I've always liked him and thought him very sincere but, oh, those gaffes and his writers' plagiarism.
Gov. Palin could possibly make a Fordian gaffe.
If both were off the leash, I'd go with Gov. Lipstick.
Still, I'm going with the guvnah. Wishful hoping? Maybe.
My thought is that Sen. Biden will do very well with the impromptu button turned off. I've always liked him and thought him very sincere but, oh, those gaffes and his writers' plagiarism.
Gov. Palin could possibly make a Fordian gaffe.
If both were off the leash, I'd go with Gov. Lipstick.
Still, I'm going with the guvnah. Wishful hoping? Maybe.
NRO’s Red Meat (online videos)
Maybe they are trying to honor WFB’s famously rumpled look but these guys at NRO (Jim Geraghty and Mark Hemingway in this instance but the others, too) need to decide…go casual (jeans and a polo) or put on a decent (read pressed) suit and tie (and, my heavens, decent shoes).
As a 48-year-old male, I won’t address the hair. Yes, yes I will. Jim, get a real haircut and Mark, embrace the dome.
As a 48-year-old male, I won’t address the hair. Yes, yes I will. Jim, get a real haircut and Mark, embrace the dome.
On the offense
I think A. Serwer writing at Tapped correctly predicts what the debate will be like:
Sarah Palin has been at her most effective delivering scripted attack lines, and the debate won't be an interview. She won't be answering tough questions as much as she will be re-heating the slams against Obama she's spent time memorizing all week. All indications are that Palin is actually very good at "the nonanswer." Whether she comes across as knowledgable doesn't matter if she manages to reopen doubts about Obama's ability to be president. Expect her to turn questions about her qualifications into questions about Obama's, and inquiries about her religion into arguments about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. All she has to do to reignite that conversation is frame herself as a victim of a double-standard -- and that's the other thing she seems to be great at. The media will do the rest.
Gaffe poll
I'm counting all answers that fail to contain both a subject AND a verb as a gaffe.
If you're looking for a drinking game while counting gaffes, try this: drink every time Palin emphasizes a preposition, (e.g. "...IN the United State..." , "...TO blah blah blah").
If you're looking for a drinking game while counting gaffes, try this: drink every time Palin emphasizes a preposition, (e.g. "...IN the United State..." , "...TO blah blah blah").
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Re: the diagram
(Per Steph's suggestion.) All the facts would make the diagram even more complex.
Beyond my Alinsky connection, I also used to play cards with Paul Begala and worked with both Paul and James Carville in Lloyd Doggett's US Senate primary race against Kent Hance in the early eighties.
I was Rep. Doggett's (D) recount supervisor in the Texas Panhandle counties. Hance was from West Texas so I was viewed as a pariah but Rep. Doggett won the primary and picked up votes in the recount.
On the way to the panhandle counties I had a rental car get washed away in the middle of the night in a flood between Wichita Falls and Amarillo and then had to hitchhike to get to Amarillo. The guy who picked me up...the backseat of the car was full (I mean full) of empty beer cans. Oh for the days of the open container but I digress.
Rep. Doggett lost the race to...
wait for it...
Sen. Phil Gramm [yes, I originally misspelled].
Doggett went on the Texas Supreme Court for a while and now is in DC as the rep. for a truly gerrymandered district that runs from Austin to the Valley. I even flew down to the Valley on an eighties version of a whistle stop tour with the candidate in a tiny little plane. The pilot had to buzz the airfields first...to get the cattle out of the way.
Nope, I wasn't a Dem but I was clerking for Rep. Doggett's law firm at the time.
Beyond my Alinsky connection, I also used to play cards with Paul Begala and worked with both Paul and James Carville in Lloyd Doggett's US Senate primary race against Kent Hance in the early eighties.
I was Rep. Doggett's (D) recount supervisor in the Texas Panhandle counties. Hance was from West Texas so I was viewed as a pariah but Rep. Doggett won the primary and picked up votes in the recount.
On the way to the panhandle counties I had a rental car get washed away in the middle of the night in a flood between Wichita Falls and Amarillo and then had to hitchhike to get to Amarillo. The guy who picked me up...the backseat of the car was full (I mean full) of empty beer cans. Oh for the days of the open container but I digress.
Rep. Doggett lost the race to...
wait for it...
Sen. Phil Gramm [yes, I originally misspelled].
Doggett went on the Texas Supreme Court for a while and now is in DC as the rep. for a truly gerrymandered district that runs from Austin to the Valley. I even flew down to the Valley on an eighties version of a whistle stop tour with the candidate in a tiny little plane. The pilot had to buzz the airfields first...to get the cattle out of the way.
Nope, I wasn't a Dem but I was clerking for Rep. Doggett's law firm at the time.
For the beetle lovers out there
Jonah Goldberg today from the LA Times:
Two decades of crapulence by the political class has been prologue to the era of coprophagy that is now upon us.
I had to look it up on Dictionary.com:
cop·roph·a·gous (adjective): feeding on dung, as certain beetles.
Two decades of crapulence by the political class has been prologue to the era of coprophagy that is now upon us.
I had to look it up on Dictionary.com:
cop·roph·a·gous (adjective): feeding on dung, as certain beetles.
I spent some time with the diagram
and discovered quite a bit more damning evidence against Obama:
Was surprised to discover I'm in cahoots with Lee Harvey Oswald. But boxes/arrows don't lie so it must be so.
Was surprised to discover I'm in cahoots with Lee Harvey Oswald. But boxes/arrows don't lie so it must be so.
One alternative approach
The rejected plan called for the U.S. to get equity in the underlying foreclosed properties (i.e. we'd own a bunch of empty houses). One alternative that sounds to me like a better deal would provide for the U.S. to instead get an equity stake in the banks that hold these mortgages. I've heard this described several places; here's one.
Commodity markets & Reserve Requirements
Here's an interesting read discussing 1) commodity markets (and how no bailout will mean lower oil prices; I think this is in line with what Scooter mentioned earlier) and 2) reserve requirements.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Colbert
asks Begala which candidate is better suited to guiding us through the downward economic spiral? More specifically, whose wife has a better recipe for shoelace soup?
As much as I love Hugh Hewitt...
He's going to lose me for a while if he's not careful. He's way too adamant on a position that I'm not sold he fully understands or has explained. It may be that he's too "center-right" to my "right-right."
Bailout a Bicameral or Bipartisan Contest?
A purely political observation.
I don't recall where I read or heard it but someone posed the question: Why does the House have to vote so far ahead [and I do think two days is a lot given the stakes] of the Senate on such a touchy issue [giving the Senate time to assess voter/poll/market reaction after the House vote]?
For those on the hot seat in an election year, the timing seems really unfair to the members of the House. I still think the "bailout" plan is big flyer so I'm not displeased with today's result but from a political standpoint I understand the House Dems' reluctance.
I don't recall where I read or heard it but someone posed the question: Why does the House have to vote so far ahead [and I do think two days is a lot given the stakes] of the Senate on such a touchy issue [giving the Senate time to assess voter/poll/market reaction after the House vote]?
For those on the hot seat in an election year, the timing seems really unfair to the members of the House. I still think the "bailout" plan is big flyer so I'm not displeased with today's result but from a political standpoint I understand the House Dems' reluctance.
Finally, a good night's sleep after a long, long time...
I got to evict someone today. Kidding of course about the good night's sleep but I post as an anecdote of the times. A B&B in Austin that was two month's behind and will be another month down the day after tomorrow.
David Gelenter in The Weekly Standard
[P]onder Obama's views of American reality in the context of his membership in the first generation fully shaped after the Cultural Revolution. Let's call it gen-CR. ...
We know what to expect of gen-CR. Unless they have grown up in regions or families with an unusually strong grasp of tradition, patriotism, and reality, gen-CR'ers tend to have a fuzzy view of history, an unconditional belief in tolerance and diplomacy, and contempt for the military and war-making. Their patriotism (such as it is) tends to focus on the "global community" or "the planet" or some other large, meaningless object. ...
Last July he listed crises America has faced, including "the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor." He spoke of "constantly evolving danger," not of "enemies"; he said that we had "adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world," not beaten our enemies. Gen-CR recoils from the idea of enemies. As for "the bomb," Obama was presumably conflating Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima. However that may be, the statement is a prime specimen of gen-CR thinking.
We know what to expect of gen-CR. Unless they have grown up in regions or families with an unusually strong grasp of tradition, patriotism, and reality, gen-CR'ers tend to have a fuzzy view of history, an unconditional belief in tolerance and diplomacy, and contempt for the military and war-making. Their patriotism (such as it is) tends to focus on the "global community" or "the planet" or some other large, meaningless object. ...
Last July he listed crises America has faced, including "the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor." He spoke of "constantly evolving danger," not of "enemies"; he said that we had "adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world," not beaten our enemies. Gen-CR recoils from the idea of enemies. As for "the bomb," Obama was presumably conflating Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima. However that may be, the statement is a prime specimen of gen-CR thinking.
Subtitle
After you guess who said it, click here.
Update: (Moving the quote from the subtitle to here) "I didn't decide
to run for President to start a national crusade for the political reforms I
believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In
truth, I wanted to be President because it had become my ambition to be
President."
Update: (Moving the quote from the subtitle to here) "I didn't decide
to run for President to start a national crusade for the political reforms I
believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In
truth, I wanted to be President because it had become my ambition to be
President."
Bailout falls apart
I've read and read and read and ended up with no opinion about whether the bailout plan (this or any alternative) was necessary or a good idea. And I take no issue with any of the House members who voted either way on the bill EXCEPT with anyone who a) thought the bill was necessary AND b) voted against it anyway because they didn't like Pelosi's floor speech. I found her speech to be unnecessarily and obnoxiously partisan. Still, that's no reason to tank the bill if you otherwise would have voted for it.
Anyone else have any opinion on the bill as voted on?
Anyone else have any opinion on the bill as voted on?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Still searching for numbers
Tapped takes on Krauthammer et al and the attempt to pin the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act:
Tapped also draws a distinction between the defaulted mortgages themselves and the profiteering off of these mortgages:
Update: This is a much more thorough debunking of the myth that CRA created this crisis.
This is the sort of Big Lie that people who are in a panic are inclined to believe, both because it is simple and it plays on longstanding prejudices. But, as Robert Gordon pointed out, only around 25 percent of subprime loans came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates covered under CRA.
Tapped also draws a distinction between the defaulted mortgages themselves and the profiteering off of these mortgages:
But as I've said before, even if 100 percent of sub-prime loan defaults were made by minorities, without the instruments developed to make tremendous amount of capital off of this debt, the crisis would not have endangered the entire economy. Even so, that's not the case. CRA did not play a key role in exacerbating this crisis, that was done by mortgage companies and bank subsidiaries not covered by that law. But once again, the attraction of Big Lies is that they are so terrifyingly familiar.
Update: This is a much more thorough debunking of the myth that CRA created this crisis.
Bailin' on Palin?
Kathleen Parker abandons Palin.
Anyone else ready to jump Palin's ship after seeing the Couric interview?
Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.and
and
If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.
Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
Do it for your country.
Anyone else ready to jump Palin's ship after seeing the Couric interview?
Sizing and categorizing the problem
Maybe this is neither here nor there, but I'm interested in understanding how much of the crisis is about the failed mortgages themselves and how much is about making bad bets about the mortgages (the derivatives).
Devilstower writing at dKos has numbers (but I don't know where s/he got them, unless it's all from the Jt Center for Housing that's cited) that show that the mortages currently in default amount to $111 billion. Extrapolating for expected defaults (X3) and then subtracting for remaining value (50%) in the properties (admittedly making assumptions through these calculations), s/he gets to $175 billion. To provide a sense of scale for that number, s/he also notes that Wall Street payed out $120 billion in bonuses alone between 2000 and 2006. In other words, the defaulted mortgages themselves are not so big a loss that the economy can't absorb it.
Further, his numbers suggest that the lion's share of the requested $700 billion is attributable to the derivatives, and not to people who defaulted on their mortgages.
Devilstower writing at dKos has numbers (but I don't know where s/he got them, unless it's all from the Jt Center for Housing that's cited) that show that the mortages currently in default amount to $111 billion. Extrapolating for expected defaults (X3) and then subtracting for remaining value (50%) in the properties (admittedly making assumptions through these calculations), s/he gets to $175 billion. To provide a sense of scale for that number, s/he also notes that Wall Street payed out $120 billion in bonuses alone between 2000 and 2006. In other words, the defaulted mortgages themselves are not so big a loss that the economy can't absorb it.
Further, his numbers suggest that the lion's share of the requested $700 billion is attributable to the derivatives, and not to people who defaulted on their mortgages.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Coleman beats Franken
if my experience this evening is predictive. I spent the evening doing voter ID for Obama's campaign. We were asking voters for their preferences in all the races. Found lots of Obama/Dem supporters, but every single one said they would not be voting for Franken.
Foreign policy cred
Watch CBS Videos Online
Update: Here's the transcript for your parsing pleasure:
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--
COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.
Ezra Klein at Prospect asks two questions: Has there ever been a national politician this incoherent? And how has the McCain campaign organization not helped her memorize a better answer to the Russia question?
And to Anonymous who thinks Couric asked this difficult question because Palin's a woman and Couric is sexist: you're kidding right? Couric asked this question because Palin herself previously cited proximity to Russia as a foreign policy credential. Had Palin ever said "I haven't dealt yet with foreign policy issues" then she wouldn't have been asked this difficult question. It's difficult to answer because the premise is ridiculous.
269-269
As of today, here's my state-by-state projection:
Update: that's using the create-your-own-map tool on RealClearPolitics.com
Update: that's using the create-your-own-map tool on RealClearPolitics.com
McCain's Left Eye
I'm not the only one who's noticed that there's something up with McCain's left eyelid. People are speculating the droop is caused by a brain tumor related to the melanomas. (I guess melanomas on the head can lead to brain tumors.)
Update: a detailed comment from opthhomd on HuffPo about this: Having seen McCain's face on TV numerous times in the past few months I was struck by something different in his appearance during his speech announcing his campaign suspension yesterday. It was the marked asymmetry of his eyes. The appearance of the droopiness (ptosis) of his left upper eyelid was accentuated by the retraction of his right upper eyelid (the entire iris showed and maybe some superior limbus). This is a compensatory mechanism in unilateral ptosis. It's Herring's law of equal innervation. He's also seemed to be trying to use his brows to elevate his upper lids, revealing some brow ptosis on the left side. A history and physical would be useful in making a diagnosis but without that one can only speculate.....like that the upper division of the seventh cranial nerve is weakened possibly from extension of the melanoma into the superior peripheral branches of the nerve as it travels by the area of tumor resection/reconstruction.
Update: a detailed comment from opthhomd on HuffPo about this: Having seen McCain's face on TV numerous times in the past few months I was struck by something different in his appearance during his speech announcing his campaign suspension yesterday. It was the marked asymmetry of his eyes. The appearance of the droopiness (ptosis) of his left upper eyelid was accentuated by the retraction of his right upper eyelid (the entire iris showed and maybe some superior limbus). This is a compensatory mechanism in unilateral ptosis. It's Herring's law of equal innervation. He's also seemed to be trying to use his brows to elevate his upper lids, revealing some brow ptosis on the left side. A history and physical would be useful in making a diagnosis but without that one can only speculate.....like that the upper division of the seventh cranial nerve is weakened possibly from extension of the melanoma into the superior peripheral branches of the nerve as it travels by the area of tumor resection/reconstruction.
What a Weekend
Sartins Seafood of Nassau Bay and High Caliber Gun Show.
Introduce B to the wonderful world of firearms to prepare for the Global Economic Collapse coming soon to theaters everywhere.
(Before anybody goes nuts...I'm just kidding. Still would like to go to the show, though.)
Introduce B to the wonderful world of firearms to prepare for the Global Economic Collapse coming soon to theaters everywhere.
(Before anybody goes nuts...I'm just kidding. Still would like to go to the show, though.)
Kudlow on the Plan and Speech
From the Corner:
.... I don't like it, but sometimes you just have to stop the financial fear. When I spoke to Alexander Hamilton last night about this, he told me it was the right thing to do. Like he did in the 1790s. Anyway, I think President Bush moved the ball forward tonight, and I expect a bi-partisan solution in the next day or two. Without pay limits for auction buyers and sellers, and without government ownership of buyers and sellers; no Soviet-style confiscation. All in all, looks like a good time to buy the depressed stock market. Spells more credit and better growth next year, that is, if we don't hike taxes and put up protectionist trade barriers.
I'm not sure I know what that means but I had to quote another Hamilton reference. Too, he touches on my time to buy thought.
I still have fears that in just a couple of weeks we could be advancing the ball toward socialism more effectively than Hillarycare did in a couple of years.
.... I don't like it, but sometimes you just have to stop the financial fear. When I spoke to Alexander Hamilton last night about this, he told me it was the right thing to do. Like he did in the 1790s. Anyway, I think President Bush moved the ball forward tonight, and I expect a bi-partisan solution in the next day or two. Without pay limits for auction buyers and sellers, and without government ownership of buyers and sellers; no Soviet-style confiscation. All in all, looks like a good time to buy the depressed stock market. Spells more credit and better growth next year, that is, if we don't hike taxes and put up protectionist trade barriers.
I'm not sure I know what that means but I had to quote another Hamilton reference. Too, he touches on my time to buy thought.
I still have fears that in just a couple of weeks we could be advancing the ball toward socialism more effectively than Hillarycare did in a couple of years.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Speech
Left a farewell happy hour (for someone leaving the office this week) early to get home to listen to the speech so take these comments for what they're worth.
Sounded like the prez sounded all the right notes (homages, sincere or not, to Capitalism and yet no favors/golden parachutes).
I bet the gets deal done before the markets open Monday for good or ill.
Sounded like the prez sounded all the right notes (homages, sincere or not, to Capitalism and yet no favors/golden parachutes).
I bet the gets deal done before the markets open Monday for good or ill.
Barney Frank, loser and liar
John at Powerline spots an ugly:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." RTWT.
UPDATE: Video here. Plus Schumer guilty as well. Barry absent, of course.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." RTWT.
UPDATE: Video here. Plus Schumer guilty as well. Barry absent, of course.
Doing Something Stupid
Does anybody buy stocks directly? Or, does everyone today–at least us lumps down here in the middle-class do so strictly through Pensions, 401Ks, mutual funds etc...so as to ensure enough diversity?
When employed by a big REIT in another life, I occasionally received paltry stock awards which I sold almost immediately with the idea being I don’t want my income and my investments coming out of the same basket. Likewise, I’ve only ever invested through the two of the three listed above to keep said basket as diversified as possible.
I’m sure it’s a terrible idea but I’m sorely tempted to jump at a few with the market as low as it is.
I think I’ve heard that on average over the last 60 years that when the market comes our of recession (and I know technically until we have two quarters of negative growth we aren’t really there yet...just a slowdown), the first 12 months of recovery have averaged in excess of 25% to the good. I know that trying to time the market is also nuts but a little dollar cost averaging doesn't seem too out of order. Much safer to pick some more funds but how fun to pick a winner or two.
When employed by a big REIT in another life, I occasionally received paltry stock awards which I sold almost immediately with the idea being I don’t want my income and my investments coming out of the same basket. Likewise, I’ve only ever invested through the two of the three listed above to keep said basket as diversified as possible.
I’m sure it’s a terrible idea but I’m sorely tempted to jump at a few with the market as low as it is.
I think I’ve heard that on average over the last 60 years that when the market comes our of recession (and I know technically until we have two quarters of negative growth we aren’t really there yet...just a slowdown), the first 12 months of recovery have averaged in excess of 25% to the good. I know that trying to time the market is also nuts but a little dollar cost averaging doesn't seem too out of order. Much safer to pick some more funds but how fun to pick a winner or two.
Max Boot
While some of his conclusions about WWII made me wince recently and I'm not sold on his optimism that, "... our politicos [can] cross party lines and formulate a decisive response in a time of crisis," I am somewhat comforted by his report on the dreaded sound fundamentals.
From the LA Times:
What the pessimists ignore is that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. Indeed, the World Economic Forum has ranked the United States as the world's most competitive economy for the last two years. (The new survey comes out next month.) Its statistics show that per-capita gross domestic product in the U.S. consistently has grown faster than in other developed economies since 1980.
Looking deeper at the causes of American competitiveness shows that we score especially strongly not only in domestic market size (No. 1 in the world) but also in such areas as time required to start a business (No. 3), venture capital availability (No. 1), the cost of firing an employee (No. 1), ownership of personal computers (No. 2), university/industry research collaboration (No. 1) and quality of scientific research institutions (No. 2).
From the LA Times:
What the pessimists ignore is that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. Indeed, the World Economic Forum has ranked the United States as the world's most competitive economy for the last two years. (The new survey comes out next month.) Its statistics show that per-capita gross domestic product in the U.S. consistently has grown faster than in other developed economies since 1980.
Looking deeper at the causes of American competitiveness shows that we score especially strongly not only in domestic market size (No. 1 in the world) but also in such areas as time required to start a business (No. 3), venture capital availability (No. 1), the cost of firing an employee (No. 1), ownership of personal computers (No. 2), university/industry research collaboration (No. 1) and quality of scientific research institutions (No. 2).
I'm convinced
that McCain has recently had a stroke or is suffering from some Bell's Palsy or something. I noticed his eyelid looked weird last week. Here's footage from today. Notice the droopy left eyelid. I think this is the real reason he's trying to bag the debate; the closeups are going to look nasty.
Revolving credit
Here's a diary at Kos that offers a number of reasons the plan should not be approved, including this gem:
We had the sense to be suspicious that "$700 billion" meant "way more than $700 billion", but I hadn't appreciated how completely open-ended it really was.
Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.
The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time
Did you catch that? There's a great little language shift. The Treasury Secretary's authority is limited to $700 billion outstanding at any time. That means he could buy $700 billion -- then sell some at a loss -- and then buy more to get back to $700 billion. This is a revolving credit line, not a firm upper limit. It's conceivable the Treasury could but and sell trillions of dollars under this authority.
We had the sense to be suspicious that "$700 billion" meant "way more than $700 billion", but I hadn't appreciated how completely open-ended it really was.
The politics
So there's that Raffini guy (Republican congressman) who's trying to talk the Republicans into all voting against the bailout, leaving the Dems in political bed with Bush for the November election. Smart, in one sense: if the bailout were actually a good idea and worked magnificently (to whatever good end), we'd never really notice it because it would mean the markets would perk along just fine without substantial losses and taxpayers would be mad because they'll feel like they paid a lot for nothing, but if the bailout doesn't work and we pay all this money and there's still a huge loss in value, we'll be pissed. Either way, taxpayers are going to be disaffected by any bailout plan that occurs.
This morning I heard that Harry Reid was threatening to let Congress take its sweet time until AFTER THE ELECTION with the bailout bill. I wish he meant it, since the more time passes, the more the markets will solve their own problem. But I'm afraid it is just posturing for leverage for Nancy...
Now, Halperin is previewing that Pelosi and Paulson have been negotiating and that may bear fruit, whatever that might mean.
I wonder whether the threat of public protests on Thursday will push a resolution before the end of the day Thursday.
This morning I heard that Harry Reid was threatening to let Congress take its sweet time until AFTER THE ELECTION with the bailout bill. I wish he meant it, since the more time passes, the more the markets will solve their own problem. But I'm afraid it is just posturing for leverage for Nancy...
Now, Halperin is previewing that Pelosi and Paulson have been negotiating and that may bear fruit, whatever that might mean.
I wonder whether the threat of public protests on Thursday will push a resolution before the end of the day Thursday.
My firm's 401k Manager...
Carl Stuart is coming in 10 minutes for a chat. This should be interesting.
(I know what you're thinking...a radio host? I listen and he's really good. "He owns his own firm where he manages approximately $280 million of clients' assets.")
Accountability.
(I know what you're thinking...a radio host? I listen and he's really good. "He owns his own firm where he manages approximately $280 million of clients' assets.")
Accountability.
Text of the plan
in its Sept. 20th form. We should have this handy:
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS
Section 1. Short Title.
This Act may be cited as ____________________.
Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Authority to Purchase. The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.
(b) Necessary Actions. The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:
(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;
(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;
(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;
(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and
(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for—
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer.
Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.
Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.
Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Exercise of Rights. The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.
(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets. The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.
(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets. The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.
(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets. The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.
Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.
The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time
Sec. 7. Funding.
For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.
The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.
Sec. 11. Credit Reform.
The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.
Sec. 12. Definitions.
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Mortgage-Related Assets. The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.
(2) Secretary. The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.
(3) United States. The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS
Section 1. Short Title.
This Act may be cited as ____________________.
Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Authority to Purchase. The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.
(b) Necessary Actions. The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:
(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;
(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;
(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;
(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and
(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for—
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer.
Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.
Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.
Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Exercise of Rights. The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.
(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets. The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.
(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets. The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.
(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets. The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.
Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.
The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time
Sec. 7. Funding.
For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.
The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.
Sec. 11. Credit Reform.
The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.
Sec. 12. Definitions.
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Mortgage-Related Assets. The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.
(2) Secretary. The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.
(3) United States. The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.
Thorough assessment of plan
Mankiw's blog points to this assessment of the bailout plan. Old news, now, though. I think we can be confident that the plan won't be passed in its original form.
Michael's neighbor on the Fin'l Meltdown
Does Mr. S have anything to add that you can post in less than 100 pages?
and not to mention Social Security and Medicare
We've been struggling with the former since Reagan and Tip and the latter for the last ten years; we think we can muddle our way through here in a week or two.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Take action against bailout
Several groups are organizing to say "No" to the bailout. (Damn those worthless community organizers.)
Update: The Minneapolis gathering is in front of the Federal Reserve Building.
Oh for Pete's sake
From the AP:
The FBI is investigating four major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger a $700 billion bailout plan by the Bush administration, The Associated Press has learned.
Two law enforcement officials said Tuesday the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG) Additionally, a senior law enforcement official said Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH) also is under investigation.
The inquiries will focus on the financial institutions and the individuals that ran them, the senior law enforcement official said.
Reich on extent of debt
Robert Reich says bad mortgages are only part of the debt picture. I don't expect his proposed solution (extend unemployment insurance, freeze mortgage rates, stimulus package) will seem like a good idea to all, but still his portrayal of the larger picture of debt is probably right.
Too big to fail
A seriously not thought out idea:
Maybe the SEC should condition mega-mergers on a condition...no bailouts. Then the shareholders could decide. I know, I know, shareholders don't really have a say...so don't invest in big companies or divest after the merger.
Won't help with companies that just grow huge on their own or "quasi-governmental" enties like Freddie and Fannie but would at least make directors and shareholders think twice before an Exxon/Mobil type merger.
I'm just sick that we are on the verge of this...$700B, and we all know that really means: >$1.5T.
I'm not afraid to say markets fail. They do. Business will aspire to monopoly because once attained it no longer has to compete. Markets succeed when businesses compete. When businesses have to compete that's when markets succeed.
Freddie and Fannie didn't have to compete. I have no idea about AIG. Let the brokerages burn.
Maybe the SEC should condition mega-mergers on a condition...no bailouts. Then the shareholders could decide. I know, I know, shareholders don't really have a say...so don't invest in big companies or divest after the merger.
Won't help with companies that just grow huge on their own or "quasi-governmental" enties like Freddie and Fannie but would at least make directors and shareholders think twice before an Exxon/Mobil type merger.
I'm just sick that we are on the verge of this...$700B, and we all know that really means: >$1.5T.
I'm not afraid to say markets fail. They do. Business will aspire to monopoly because once attained it no longer has to compete. Markets succeed when businesses compete. When businesses have to compete that's when markets succeed.
Freddie and Fannie didn't have to compete. I have no idea about AIG. Let the brokerages burn.
Another reason for a "deep breath before...
the plunge" on the bailout. If this AP report is true:
Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.
We should see another big drop in oil prices and eventually local energy costs. It will be the equivalent of a big tax break.
Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.
We should see another big drop in oil prices and eventually local energy costs. It will be the equivalent of a big tax break.
Jonah Goldberg goes a bit beyond my position but...
I echo the sentiment. From The Corner:
Even if I completely trusted the wisdom of Paulson and his bureaucrats — which I don't — there's no way that I trust the Dodds, Franks or the next Treasury secretary. Every day the markets don't go off the cliff suggests to me that we can do this in stages and that Paulson's do-it-my-way-or-it's-the-Dark-Ages-for-us-all argument doesn't hold water.
Even if I completely trusted the wisdom of Paulson and his bureaucrats — which I don't — there's no way that I trust the Dodds, Franks or the next Treasury secretary. Every day the markets don't go off the cliff suggests to me that we can do this in stages and that Paulson's do-it-my-way-or-it's-the-Dark-Ages-for-us-all argument doesn't hold water.
Kurtz puts on Ayers
This is Kurtz's big expose on Obama and Ayers?! Looks like a whole lot of nothing to me, but then I'm not seeing it through the same surely-Obama-must-be-an-evildoer lens that others are.
Ed Feulner (Pres. of heritage.org) on the bailout
From RealClearPolitics:
As a rule, Congress is good at two things: 1) doing nothing at all. 2) overreacting.
Lawmakers appear ready to prove that rule with a massive overreaction. They would be better off letting free-market principles guide any rescue package. Otherwise, who’s going to bail out taxpayers?
As a rule, Congress is good at two things: 1) doing nothing at all. 2) overreacting.
Lawmakers appear ready to prove that rule with a massive overreaction. They would be better off letting free-market principles guide any rescue package. Otherwise, who’s going to bail out taxpayers?
Re: Stein and Schumer
I don't have the foggiest idea if Stein is right but he and Sen. Schumer to be on something of the same page....why turn Paulson into Hamilton so quickly? Let's go slow...if we go at all.
Let's not have another Sarbanes-Oxley here. Let's not, in an effort to solve the Enron crisis, send investors to London instead of New York. Let's put our toe in before we dive.
Let's not have another Sarbanes-Oxley here. Let's not, in an effort to solve the Enron crisis, send investors to London instead of New York. Let's put our toe in before we dive.
Schumer asks why $700 billion
Senator Schumer wonders why the check has to be for $700 billion; why not write a check for a smaller amount and see what happens, allowing for more Congressional oversight and leaving some opportunity for the next president to deal with the mess.
Newt Gingrich thinks the plan is a loser and suggests anyone who votes for it will lose in November.
Newt Gingrich thinks the plan is a loser and suggests anyone who votes for it will lose in November.
Credit Default Swaps
Ben Stein discusses credit default swaps:
I haven't the foggiest idea whether he's accurately described the situation.
I keep meaning to write a blurb about Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine. I gave up on it because I thought it was too sensationalistic but I think we're watching exactly what she describes: the manufacturing of a "crisis" that requires emergency action, during which the population is led to believe that power must be handed to a few to address the crisis. When we do this, those few rob us blind and insist it was in all our best interest while the few profit mightily.
Has anyone seen a good description of exactly what would happen (immediately as well as in the coming months or year) if we did nothing?
Here s one big part of the answer. First, the alert reader will notice that Ben Stein said many times that the amount of money at risk in the subprime meltdown was just not enough to sink an economy of this size. And I was right...to a point. The amount of subprime that defaulted was at most - after recovery in liquidation - about $250 billion. A huge sum but not enough to torpedo the US economy.
The crisis occurred (to greatly oversimplify) because the financial system allowed entities to place bets on whether or not those mortgages would ever be paid. You didn't have to own a mortgage to make the bets. These bets, called Credit Default Swaps, are complex. But in a nutshell, they allow someone to profit immensely - staggeringly - if large numbers of subprime mortgages are not paid off and go into default.
The profit can be wildly out of proportion to the real amount of defaults, because speculators can push down the price of instruments tied to the subprime mortgages far beyond what the real rates of loss have been. As I said, the profits here can be beyond imagining. (In fact, they can be so large that one might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse...)
I haven't the foggiest idea whether he's accurately described the situation.
I keep meaning to write a blurb about Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine. I gave up on it because I thought it was too sensationalistic but I think we're watching exactly what she describes: the manufacturing of a "crisis" that requires emergency action, during which the population is led to believe that power must be handed to a few to address the crisis. When we do this, those few rob us blind and insist it was in all our best interest while the few profit mightily.
Has anyone seen a good description of exactly what would happen (immediately as well as in the coming months or year) if we did nothing?
Eat, Pray, Love
This was a book club pick. I couldn't get through it. It's a memoir.
Gilbert takes a year off from ordinary life following a divorce and spends it questing for pleasure and spiritual growth and balance, by spending four months in Italy (experiencing pleasure through eating and learning Italian), four months at an Ashram in India meditating, and four months in Bali seeking balance by spending quite a bit of time with a medicine man. She seems to find everything to be laden with meaning and magic and that gets old after a few chapters.
I always have problems reading memoirs. I dislike the inevitable posturing/posing; it's usually transparent and that makes me a bit embarrassed for the author. It's sort of like how I feel watching bad actors in a play. The authors always claim that they knew that for their memoir to be compelling they needed to show the readers their failures and inadequacies and they seem to think they've portrayed themselves honestly; but typically any such disclosures are coupled with explanations or excuses or balanced against something charming, all in the effort to be likable.
Couple that kind of posturing with pontifications about spiritual matters and you have Eat, Pray, Love.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The delay on the bailout...
Not that I think Sen. Reid has good intentions but I have to think a deep breath would be a good idea. Hewitt is hammering the Dems on the delay but this time he's really wrong.
Computer fixed and faster than ever...
Wasn't me though. Had to call Austin Computer Pro..."Don't Send a Geek to do a Pro's Job."
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The new bridge
We drove over the new 35W bridge today. It smells new. Really. Like wet concrete. It's an odd experience to drive on it because it doesn't seem anything like a bridge. It's hard to describe why exactly. For one thing, from the inner lanes, you cannot see the river at all thanks to a high centerwall. It's thoroughly integrated with the road on the ends of the bridge so that you have no sense of the beginning of the bridge. You cross the river without ever realizing you've gone up in the air. I suppose it was a design objective that we have no sense of it being a bridge to minimize our morbid thoughts, so we're not thinking on every pass, "what must it have been like to have been here when the bridge fell".
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Insurance and solvency II
Maybe everyone but me knew this, but I'll share in case you were wondering: states do guaranty insurance payouts for most types of insurance. But there are caps that may be below the payout limits you'd have received under your policy; so if your insurance company goes under about the time you have a claim, you may be wildly underinsured.
In Minnesota, for life and health insurance, we'd rely on the Minnesota Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Association which is a statutory entity:
For property and casualty, we have a different association that doesn't have a website, so I can't tell easily what limits are.
Knowing that a) we really can't count on the solvency of our insurance carrier and b) state guaranties may not be sufficient, what is one to do?
[Update: In Texas, the limit for property and casualty is $300,000.]
[Update II: so if the federal government hadn't loaned cash to AIG and if it had needed to declare bankruptcy, then the state of Texas would be on the hook for AIG property and casualty claims from Ike.]
In Minnesota, for life and health insurance, we'd rely on the Minnesota Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Association which is a statutory entity:
In the event that a member insurer is found to be insolvent and is ordered to be liquidated by a court, the Guaranty Association Act enables the guaranty association to provide protection (up to the limits spelled out in the Act) to Minnesota residents who are holders of life and health insurance policies and individual annuities with the insolvent insurer.The limit for life insurance is $410,000.
For property and casualty, we have a different association that doesn't have a website, so I can't tell easily what limits are.
Knowing that a) we really can't count on the solvency of our insurance carrier and b) state guaranties may not be sufficient, what is one to do?
[Update: In Texas, the limit for property and casualty is $300,000.]
[Update II: so if the federal government hadn't loaned cash to AIG and if it had needed to declare bankruptcy, then the state of Texas would be on the hook for AIG property and casualty claims from Ike.]
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
More lefty anguish from Salon
"A man and a woman whose values we loathe and despise -- lying, rageful and incompetent, so dangerous to children and old people, to innocent people in every part of the world -- are being worshiped, exalted by the media, in a position to take a swing at all that is loveliest about this earth and what's left of our precious freedoms. When I got home from church, I drank a bunch of water to metabolize the Dove bar and called my Jesuit friend, who I know hates these people, too. I asked, 'Don't you think God finds these smug egomaniacs morally repellent? Recoils from their smugness as from hot flame?'
And he said, 'Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian.'" [Lileks on Twitter]
And he said, 'Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian.'" [Lileks on Twitter]
ACL, Ike and UT conspire against Razorbacks
From today's Statesman:
The postponed football game between the University of Arkansas and the University of Texas meant the Razorbacks lost out on 120 prime downtown hotel reservations.
Their new accommodations for the Sept. 27 game: the Hyatt Regency Lost Pines Resort and Spa in Bastrop, a less-than-convenient 26 miles from the stadium.
The postponed football game between the University of Arkansas and the University of Texas meant the Razorbacks lost out on 120 prime downtown hotel reservations.
Their new accommodations for the Sept. 27 game: the Hyatt Regency Lost Pines Resort and Spa in Bastrop, a less-than-convenient 26 miles from the stadium.
The nickname
"Sarah Barracuda" may not mean what you think it means.
Financial meltdown is too enormous to comprehend, so I'm ignoring it in favor of high school basketball nickname silliness.
Financial meltdown is too enormous to comprehend, so I'm ignoring it in favor of high school basketball nickname silliness.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Tax plans
NYT Freakonomics shows three interesting charts depicting the effects of McCain's and Obama's tax plans.
Insurance and solvency
I've heard that states back AIG policies, at least to some degree, so that if they go belly up, policy holders making claims could get payment from their state. If that's accurate (speak up if you know anything about such things), then that's yet another way that we'll all pay for these types of failures.
Ugh
Home computer has total meltdown while listening to Hewitt on KSKY's website.
Windows constantly opening and then the dread black screen. This is not going to be fun.
The router, Firefox and McAfee all failed me.
Windows constantly opening and then the dread black screen. This is not going to be fun.
The router, Firefox and McAfee all failed me.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Insurance claims
If you have a tree leaning against your house, leave it if it is not hurting anything. Most insurance policies will pay for removal of trees that are Leaners. These policies will generally not pay to clean up a yard.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Death once had a near Sarah Palin experience*
Chuck Norris endorses Sarah Palin.
*I liked this title so much I stole it verbatim from Ghost of a Flea. His post here. He's on our blogroll, you should go more often.
*I liked this title so much I stole it verbatim from Ghost of a Flea. His post here. He's on our blogroll, you should go more often.
Gilchrist
(between Crystal Beach and High Island) is reported to be wiped out.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=29.39773,-94.750214&spn=0.52644,0.878906&t=h&z=10
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=29.39773,-94.750214&spn=0.52644,0.878906&t=h&z=10
Power
is back in our neighborhood, but still out in most of Houston and all of Galveston. Bolivar and Crystal Beach very hard hit.
Saul Alinsky
I hadn't realized that Saul himself was running as the Democratic nominee, but according to Rudy Guiliani on Meet the Press, he is.
Classic from SNL last night
I've watched this 10 times already and I laugh so I hard I cry each time. Palin/Hillary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
