The Housing Bubble

(w/apologies to the female posters for the sexist remarks)

Nigel: Well, so what? What’s wrong with bein’ sexy?
Ian: Sex-IST!

The Young Ones!

That show was insane. I loved it.

Young Ones was a great show, but packman is quoting the guitarist from Spinal Tap which is only the greatest movie of all time!

The ‘Slaw Wrasslin’ event is about 5 miles from my house and I try to go every year - I missed it this year. Quite a spectacle I must say…

I assumed it was a Spinal Tap-ism…

Oh frack. Yeah. Spinal Tap.

“It goes to 11.”

Spinal Tarp it is - and yes one if not the funniest movie of all time, especially for those of us from that era.

Maybe that’s because the roller derby isn’t as worldly and sophisticated as slaw wrasslin’.

That’s fine, but doesn’t address my post. My point is, they seem to EVERYWHERE today including in “Recession proof jobs” articles. I can’t tell you how many friends and acquaintances I have who are nurses. Okay, its about 20. I don’t know any mechanics. And in every “change your career” article I read, Nursing is always mentioned.

I’m not busting on the career or the field by any means, it just seems like it is the “it” career these days which raises red flags to me as I have other friends interested in this as the answer to unhappiness in their current gigs. And wasn’t there a just glut about 15 years ago?

The previous “shortage” was of teachers. THAT hasn’t played out well.

I’m not busting on the career or the field by any means, it just seems like it is the “it” career these days which raises red flags to me as I have other friends interested in this as the answer to unhappiness in their current gigs. And wasn’t there a just glut about 15 years ago?

Demographics (baby boomer aging/die-off) suggests that nursing and the medical profession in general should be in strong demand for the next 30 or so years. After that there may well be a glut.

That’s it jbunniii.

Sorry sleepless_near_seattle, I didn’t understand your question, but jbunniii nails it.

whatever lowish inflation/deflation we have now ??

Only in things we want, not in things we must have so, although I agree with combo regarding the power of cash/no debt, we are to some degree losing purchasing power with our cash in the things we must have…

I’ve seen 50% inflation at my grocery stores over the last 12 months.

I’d say that qualifies as “things I need.”

So the 0.5% now with whatever lowish inflation/deflation we have now (other than education, health costs, what have you) might not be that much different that having a 5% short term CD with 5-6% annual inflation.

It may actually be worse. 5% interest turns into 3% after taxes. Net real interest negative 2-3%.

Versus the situation now: essentially zero interest before or after tax, negligible inflation (in theory at least), net real interest 0%.

Just sayin what if …..so it becomes another “reason” to keep ZIRP almost forever….

Most definitely, in a general sense.

However given what actually did happen - if you were say a bank that held to its guns of only making loans at 20% down, then you would have weathered the storm way better than other banks.

However, stepping back - such a bank actually wouldn’t exist anymore, because it would have been overwhelmed by the competing banks offering zero-down loans. That’s what’s so messed up about this - the banks that really were prudent got hosed on the front end of the bubble, by the implicit assumption of bailouts coming to the less-prudent banks on the back end.

such a bank actually wouldn’t exist anymore, because it would have been overwhelmed by the competing banks offering zero-down loans.

But that’s where uniform banking and underwriting regulations would have put the banks on more-or-less the same page when it came to price-to-income and down payment ratios.

Not necessarily so. We have one bank here in
southern Oregon that was tighter than a frogs
a__ and had very high lending standards with
real low earnings on savings, yet they’re doing
great. The reason, yours truly included, was
that a lot of people saw it as a SAFE bank and
acted accordingly.

I’m not sure that the BANK wouldn’t exist, but the management would certainly have been under EXTREEME shareholder pressure to change their ways and embrace the new paradigm. It’s difficult for a publicly traded company to stay sane when all around are acting crazy.

But that’s where uniform banking and underwriting regulations would have put the banks on more-or-less the same page when it came to price-to-income and down payment ratios.

The problem with this is - it actually prevents riskier banks/investments from existing. There is a place for riskier lending - it needs to be allowed. If the 22nd bank of Aurora Illinois wants to loan a mortgage to Joe Smith who just got out of college, has little credit record and a horrible price-to-income ratio, with little down payment - it should be allowed to do so. Perhaps the 22nd bank can vouch for Joe’s character, because he’s been a customer there for a few years, and he’s got a solid family financial background, or whatever.

Key is that banks should be allowed to make such judgment decisions for themselves, not have them dictated by a single entity on the east coast, by someone who’s never been to Aurora Illinois, and certainly doesn’t know Joe Smith.

I’m not sure that the BANK wouldn’t exist, but the management would certainly have been under EXTREEME shareholder pressure to change their ways and embrace the new paradigm. It’s difficult for a publicly traded company to stay sane when all around are acting crazy.

Agree.

To Rancher - yes I think some safe banks do exist, though they’re getting fewer and farther between as time goes by unfortunately.

There have been countless articles recently documenting the amount of banking consolidation going on - with the larger and higher-risk banks taking profits away from smaller and lower-risk banks.

It’s all relative. Did your bank really only loan to people with 20% down? I’ll bet not.

Also it depends on location - what part of southern Oregon are you talking? West was way bubblier than east, thus the banks in the west (Bend etc.) I’m sure were a lot riskier.

However given what actually did happen - if you were say a bank that held to its guns of only making loans at 20% down, then you would have weathered the storm way better than other banks.

No. You would have been sued into submission by lawsuits from Acorn and “Community Organizers” because you weren’t making enough loans to minorities.

Key is that banks should be allowed to make such judgment decisions for themselves, not have them dictated by a single entity on the east coast,

Then those banks should be allowed to fail by that single entity on the east coast. In absence of such reality, I demand my taxpayer money be protected from being used to bail out “risk-takers”, otherwise there is no risk, but rather just a fraud.

It’s obvious that our current debacle has just attempted to teach us (again) that lending on national scales should be guided by a rational mixture of both regulations, and REAL risk-taking.

If we have not learned this lesson this time, it will be taught again soon enough.

I wouldn’t consider Bend southern Oregon.

Grants Pass, Ashland, Medford, Talent, Phoenix, Jacksonville I would consider southern Oregon.

ACORN? In southern Oregon? You jest?

They wouldn’t last a day in this town. The bank I’m talking about was run for 35 years
by a ex-state senator who ran it like his own
personal bank, which in a way it was. They
gave loans out grudgingly and only after
close scrutiny and board approval. The folks here apparently liked it because the bank is thriving, while three other banks are on the problem list and probably won’t last.

Bend is a disaster area and won’t recover
because tourism is dead and they built for
that. No industry plus to far away from
anything. The town used to be a ranching
center decades ago before they discoverd
skiing on Bachelor. Too cold for retiree’s
in the winter and to hot in the summer.

During the boom they were giving zero/low down loans to investors . Come on, someone lives in California and works in California yet they were saying the condo they just bought in Florida was owner occupied . Historically investors put down more and payed higher interest rates and fees . A investor loan is a higher risk loan .But that goes back to the bogus underwriting during the boom and the Industry breaching their duty to prevent fraud . And these purchase money second trust deeds they were writing in order to get people in with low /no down payments was another contrived thing to get around underwriting loans on their merits .

But ,this faulty lending was Global with all the Casino games that went with it ,and don’t forget the benefits to Corporations that people had RE equity or CC cards to spend on just about anything .All systems still in place and
loose underwriting and fraud still taking place with leverage still in the crazy-zone .

The whole con that Wall Street Money Changers sold was that securities spread out the risk ,and the Trench design of these securities would take care of risk . Faulty design of the Trenches being in conflict of interest and faulty concept that
loss or risk was something that could be eliminated so underwriting loans and preventing fraud was unnecessary and off the charts leverage was OK.
These faulty loan models were no different than faulty breaks on a car . To add insult to injury Wall Street was relying on the long history of a stable secondary market to
slip this con into the mix ,just like a car company can change their model after years of having safe cars.
The truth is that Wall Street will always make faulty loans in order to get people to invest and in order to get their hands on other peoples money to make money .That’s why Glass-Steagal was such a good law . Lending principals have nothing to do with investing principals and the conflict of interest sets the stage for ,”We didn’t see it coming “…blind greed .

I wouldn’t consider Bend southern Oregon.

Grants Pass, Ashland, Medford, Talent, Phoenix, Jacksonville I would consider southern Oregon.

Yeah I haven’t been to Bend - I was thinking it was more down towards Medford/Ashland (where I have been), but I see it’s more central/west.

Regardless - I know Bend was a bubbly area, as was Ashland/Medford - way more so I’m sure than the more agricultural and rural eastern part of the state. So I would imagine the banks would reflect as such.

Just for kicks I was trying to check out zillow for Burns (larger town in eastern OR), to see how bubble it looked - but zillow doesn’t even have estimates for there!

Bend was much worse than the Medford area,
although every area is getting hit. In our
local rag we had 40 NOD in two days.

FYI about 90% of Oregon is high desert and only fit for cattle and buzzards. We have some farming in southern Oregon but more cattle.

The Willamette valley from Eugene to Portland is ag and so is the area near the
Idaho border. Everything else is scrub land and cattle..

Oregon Bubble Central=Deschutes and Jefferson counties.

If you’re there and you’re counting on a depreciating, man made “asset” funding your retirement, you might want to come up with Plan B. And do it in a hurry.

HW –IMHO part of the problem is that those securities were EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of failsafe. Keep in mind that when an engineer says “failsafe,” they do NOT mean safe from failure. They mean that WHEN a failure occurs, the system will fail in a safe(er) way. But of course by pooling an tranching loans, they created bonds that would only fail in a sustained, national decline in RE prices. And then they proceeded justify crappier and crappier underwriting until that is just what occured. Instead of “failsafe” these were “catastrophe-ensuring.”

Key is that banks should be allowed to make such judgment decisions for themselves, not have them dictated by a single entity on the east coast,

Then those banks should be allowed to fail by that single entity on the east coast.

Absolutely agree.

Burns is too dinky for zillow? Try Baker City or Ontario.

Uhm, not totally sure about this BUT I believe that the housing bubble, that was probably the real cause of the great depression, occured when people had to put down 50% and loan terms were very short.

Burns is too dinky for zillow? Try Baker City or Ontario.

Nope.

Both were the problem (IMHO). The reason I harp on the 20% down is because, had there been no other options (you NEEDED 20% down) I can say, without hesitation, that the housing bubble never would have happened.

The teaser rates resetting is causing another problem, but, the fundamental problem was lending too much money to people who could (and should) just walk away should the bubble pop. If the bank had 20% down on all those walking, the landscape today would be very, very different.

Prior to the housing bubble, loans were made using only 3% down with Fannie and Freddie. I don’t recollect hearing about massive foreclosures.

I know you all disagree with me, but the 20% down (or lack thereof) wasn’t the problem. Teaser rates that reset to high monthly payments were the problem.

ARMs have been around since 1982 - introduced by the Garn – St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which ironically also contributed to the S&L problems in the 1980’s, and were quite prevalent as well before the housing bubble. Back then though 8% was considered a “teaser rate”.

The problem wasn’t so much the concept of teaser rates, but that the teaser rates were just so damn low, as driven by low rates in general.

All players in the same chess game. Just because one player has an impact doesn’t mean others don’t.

Fake property increase in value based on faulty lending ,not enough in down payments and toxic loans ,fraud and no screening of the riskier investor loan . A total breach of duty to underwrite loans by the Industry is a major different in this
cycle of lending .
Down payments were designed to put skin in the game of the borrower ,but they were also designed to cover loss if the property did go into default .
FHA low down loans had insurance on them also . I assume that prevented some of the loss ,as well as PMI insurance did on the lower down loans on conventional loans.

Credit default swaps replaced your typical
mortgage insurance ,yet the reserves of the CDS Insurance
makers (think AIG ) was not sustainable .

This is what they don’t like to talk about on the news . The casino system is bogus in terms of reserves ,leverage ,the whole Casino . It’s almost like a shill operation that just sets up games without true reserves to back the games . What are the reserve requirements of Insurance Companies these days ? If your getting the benefit of saying something is insured ,yet the Insurance Company can’t pay ,aren’t you just trying to benefit from saying something is insured ?

We always like to talk about Bankers and their games ,but
Insurance Companies and Investment Houses come into the mix on this whole meltdown in the financial markets also / All these entities worked together in taking their cut .But this whole financial house of cards was conducted on a Global level . I still can’t believe to this very day those bogus Casinos are still operational under the same rules .

One of the Lender CEO’s actually said in essence that the Government wanted them to make these sub-prime loans . I don’t believe this was a mandate from the Government at all .I think it was more like the Politicians gave Wall Street/Lenders their unregulated wants and than just closed their eyes because they were their masters and they got into believing the hype also . These Lobbyist brainwash Politicians and the money bribes help a lot to .

The 3% down for FRE/FNM worked because of one reason: Values were increasing.

That, and because the houses were more affordable prior to the bubble.

Millions of people bought with 3% down prior to the bubble and they are still making their payments (unless they withdrew equity of course, but that’s another story isn’t it?)

“The 3% down for FRE/FNM worked because of one reason: Values were increasing.”

I beg to differ. I got one of those loans; it was the only way I could buy a house, and I’m grateful for it. It’s purely a matter of greed - among the borrowers, the lenders, and the politicians who wanted to be able to talk about how wonderful everything was.

That, and because the houses were more affordable prior to the bubble.

In part because Fannie and Freddie used to have reasonable conforming loan limits but in the past few years they have thrown all caution to the wind. I’m sure it’s only a coincidence that they failed in 2008:

1993-1995: $203,150
1996: $207,000
1997: $214,600
1998: $227,150
1999: $240,000
2000: $252,700
2001: $275,000
2002: $300,700
2003: $322,700
2004: $333,700
2005: $359,650
2006-present: $417,000
2008-present (”high cost” area): $729,750

“Consumers” is the modern euphemism for human cattle.

“Consumers” is what they used to be. Now they don’t have the money to consume.

Not a good thing in a consumer-based economy. Luckily ours can still go back to being a productive-based economy.

Oh, wait!

‘…the correct term which is “hosts”.’

Can you either confirm or deny the rumor about the Chinese bankers who are having microchips implanted into American consumer debtor’s heads to force them to use their credit cards to spend themselves into oblivion? (I heard about this from my SIL. )

Actually, I’d bet on cranial bombs to wipe out the consumer who refuses to consume. That seems more Shadowrunner-style.

I dunno. I read in today’s WSJ dead tree edition that companies are flush with cash. Let’s posit for a moment that there is a Plunge Protection Team which supports corporate share prices at levels above fundamental value; then wouldn’t that enable companies to issue stock shares and sell them at a profit? In other words, plunge protection measures can serve to provide stealthy helicopter drops of cash into corporate coffers, giving the companies carte blanche to buy stuff at fire sale prices whenever the opportunities present.

Not saying the above is a literal description of what is happening; it is merely an explanation of how firms could end up rolling in money at a point when households are barely able to breath, financially speaking. Of course, since the top 3 percent of the US wealth distribution owns a ginormous amount of collective stock market assets, I am also describing a financial engineering mechanism for ongoing wealth transfer into strong hands.

Last time I went to Walgreen retail outlet, it was empty. Where they are finding fistfulls of cash in a down economy ’tis a puzzlement, which the Wall Street Journal writer blithely ignores.

Here’s the article:

* MARCH 4, 2010, 7:35 A.M. ET

With Fistfuls of Cash, Firms on Hunt
Companies Begin to Tap Record Capital Piles for Mergers; Walgreen Says It May as Well Spend It

BY JEFFREY MCCRACKEN AND TOM MCGINTY

One year removed from the trough of the recession, American corporations continue to hoard more cash than ever. There are now tentative signs that they are finally comfortable using the money to do some shopping.

The 382 nonfinancial firms in the Standard & Poor’s 500 that have reported results for the fourth quarter of 2009 are now holding $932 billion in cash and short-term investments, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from Capital IQ. That sum is up 8% from the third quarter and up 31% from a year ago.
…

and how much debt do these same companies have??

Walgreen finally got around to building two huge outlets here, after decades of being practically everywhere else. I’ve never been in the store when it wasn’t empty.

Here in Tucson, there’s a new Walgreens that was built a block away from an older store. Location of older store is an empty shell. New store has been a ghost town every time I’ve been in there.

Corporations going on a shopping spree for other corporations with their hoarded cash is a sign that they do not think they can make any money opening their own new stores (without taking over a competitor’s location) or hiring new people. When one company buys another company, the first thing they do is figure out which “redundant” facilities to close and who gets pink slips. Corporate consolidations can be good for the bottom line, but they are almost never good for the rank and file.

It is also a sign that the M&A department has to get some deals done in order to earn their bonuses.

On of the points I make in my MBA level managerial accounting class is that for some period of time as business levels decline, businesses become cash generating machines. This is the result of declining accounts receivable and inventory levels both of which can produce copious amounts of cash in a relatively short period of time. This can give management a false sense of security. The trick is to minimize operating losses during the trough, horde the cash and be prepared to reinvest the horde back into Accounts Recievable and Inventory when business levels increase.

After about an hour of this lecture, I have a room full of 1000 yard stares, but it is a critically important concept of balance sheet management.

Poor Walgreens: When Good Drug Stores Go Bad.

They are expanding their products and services to include selling fresh sandwiches like a 7-11, trying to capitalize on their mainstreet locations. Apparently exec management has also noticed nobody in their stores.

they have a little bit of everything in those stores. I do like them when traveling, if I need to pick up toothpaste, beach towel, snacks etc.

measton, good point.

These companies may be flush with cash in the exact same way as a jingly-mail squatting FB is flush with cash. They don’t have enough assets to pay the mortgage, so they don’t pay the mortgage and use the (inadequate) mortgage money at the mall. It works until the sherriff comes a-knockin’.

“They are expanding their products and services to include selling fresh sandwiches like a 7-11, trying to capitalize on their mainstreet locations. Apparently exec management has also noticed nobody in their stores.”

Two other chains whose stores never seem to have anyone in them are Radio Shack and Kmart. Both of these companies simply seem to have lost touch with the times; many Kmarts are dusty, dingy flashbacks to the 60s or 70s, and Radio Shack seems to be trying hard to turn its stores into cell phone kiosks. There are two “Big K” Kmarts within 5 miles of my apartment, but I never even consider shopping at them because the prices are unimpressive and the service awful. Judging from how few cars I usually see in their parking lots, it seems like other people feel the same way too.

There has never been a better time to be a banker ??

There has never been a easier time for a banker to make a lot of money without taking any risk thats for sure…

100% yes. Redistribution is the end result of printing replacement money for the poof money…

Don’t forget how the Big Corporations gain also by this set up .Main street and the taxpayers are the ones taking the fall-out
by either being tossed by job loss ,no wage gain to fight inflation in needed purchases ,increased taxes and price fixing from Monopolies ,(as in the Health care monopolies as a example),war on savers and fixed incomes to aid the banks State and Federal governments also throwing on hidden taxes and Banks raising CC rates on stuck borrowers
with balances ,or people incapable of functioning without being a debt slave to high rates.
Talk about a situation that only pads certain pockets .Doesn’t the Constitution say something about promoting the general welfare ? Currently it’s just rigged to make sure that the Majority takes the hit while the minority stays healthy .

Promote the general welfare? The next thing you know you’ll be talking about “domestic tranquility!” Or the Bill of Rights for that matter!!

What are you, some kinda damn socialeest /commie?

Umm… no.

Unless perhaps you think “history” started in 2000.

Good graph, packman. Note the downward trend in personal savings rates that started during the mid-1980s. IIRC, this was about the time that the debt pushers kicked into high gear.

Economic Report
March 2, 2009, 10:18 a.m. EST

Savings rate rises to 14-year high in January
Disposable incomes boosted by several once-a-year factors

This is an update to correct an historical comparison. The savings rate is the highest in 14 years.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — U.S. households socked away most of the extra income they got in January from annual cost-of-living raises, boosting the personal savings rate to a 14-year high, the Commerce Department said Monday.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/savings-rate-rises-14-year-high-january

Next-day post-hoc comment - “14-year high” for savings rates is kind of like touting houses as being cheap because they’re at a “7-year low”. It’s all relative.

“Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.”

I heard the same is true for divorce.

“I heard the same is true for divorce.”

I can say from second-hand experience that this rumor is false.

Allow me to reword what I said:

I heard the same is true AFTER divorce.

After divorce there is nothing left to lose.

The quote I remember from a friends divorce; “When somebody give you an ultimatum, they’re telling you what is more important to them than you are.”

Divorce..

Costs a ton of money, because it’s worth it!

Why is divorce so expensive? Because it is worth it.

That’s how it was for me… made a saver out of me. There I was, age 40, with a net worth of maybe fifteen grand. Since rebuilt… lesson learned.

Wow, I did not hear about another extension. Was it in the porkulous package?

OK, I looked it up, it is indeed 2012. $2 million cap for MFJ, $1 million cap for single or MFS.

Point still stands as a business model. The exclusion doesn’t apply to second homes or amounts over the cap. It wouldn’t take much detectivity to roust these deadbeats. Every dollar we get from them is one less that comes from me.

And PLENTY of us did, indeed get a 15 year in 2003. It will never be worth my while to refinance. Surprisingly to me, it actually might be worth my while to start paying down extra principal. 4.875% isn’t sounding like a terrible return these days.

Yeah me too. I’m *really* torn about it. I’d love to be able to pay down the principle, and could some. It would be a great investment - 5% or so guaranteed. Problem is keeping liquidity - saving for kids’ school and also rainy day fund. It’s hard to get anything more than 1-2% these days, if that, on liquid funds.

And of course there’s the risk that if we see 70s style double digit inflation, having that money “trapped” earning less than 5% might not look nearly so nice.

You people don’t necessary have to refinance . You can ask your lender for a loan modification at lower fees ,course that might trigger it being a recourse loan . Loan modifications have been around since the dawn of lending . I’m not talking about the relief modifications that are going on . For instance, let say you have a extra 50 thousand and you want to pay down you loan but keep your current terms and length of loan . They can reduce the principal balance and recast the loan at lower fees than a new refinance . They use to do this ,but I have been out of touch long enough that I don’t know if they are doing it now.

HW, I live in Maryland, where we don HAVE non-recourse loans.*

*except that there IS a legal provision for funky rent-to-own owner financing which is non-recourse but like ground-rents that’s a pretty rare occurance.

HW… on loan modification. Except who is a persons lender?? Most likely your loan has been sold several times and securitized. The loan servicer probably does not want to get involved.

In that case though you’re talking at the same interest rate though right? If so - what’s the purpose of that vs. just making extra payments towards the principal, which has no fees? That also reduces the principal balance and thus the interest remaining. And the length of the loan, since paying down principle doesn’t serve to reduce the subsequent mortgage payments - perhaps that might be a reason - if you wanted to pay down principle and reduce your monthly mortgage payments, but keep the term (e.g. 30 years) the same?

You would keep the same terms (interest rate ,years remaining on the loan ) ,but your payment would be reduced according to your buy down so to speak .You wouldn’t have to pay the extra costs and points of a refinance ,they use to just charge a loan modification fee . The same ratio of principal balance would apply to the payments and you wouldn’t have to start over
again on more principal balance being paid down as the years
go on with a loan . This is why it is crazy that people are trying to make money off even the relief modifications because it would be a simple matter to just do a loan modification of even the terms ,especially the fixed rate loans .

But of course I think the lenders want to get a bunch of these loans off their book and on to a FHA loan or something or make new fees on a refinance .

“And of course there’s the risk that if we see 70s style double digit inflation, having that money “trapped” earning less than 5% might not look nearly so nice.”

You ‘re looking at it from the wrong perspective, with luck: Inflation will lead to higher wages and prices, and the mortgage will be an ever-smaller portion of income.

Why the heck not. They’re lending money to banks at 2%, why not let the little guy get in on the action.

Oh, wait, if everyone could run their lives like The Priviledged Few, that would collapse the PTB power base for sure. We saw the fear from health insurance companies when the Public Option was being bandied about. You could see the fear when the Senate mentioned cramdowns. Banks managed to stave those off, but they can’t stop the strategic walkouts, or turnips who wise up and file BK while they still have a few pennies of their own.

21st century torches and pitchforks.

Interesting ,someone send me a website that has a bunch of free documentaries that are on subject matters we talk about
daily . I just viewed one called “Spin ” that was kinda interesting
They have dozens on this site and some are based on books that
have been mentioned on this Blog.

The web site is
http://freeviewdocumentaries.com/

Good find HW. Although some of those are fringe conspiracy stuff, most of it is good, hard hitting “off the radar” expose’s.

I just viewed another one of the Documentaries called “Prescription For Disaster “. It was pretty good .

The real interesting thing here is that the governments are complaining that the rating agency is going to downgrade the debt when it shouldn’t be downgraded. Now, rating agencies get things wrong, but don’t they generally get them wrong by rating the debt too high? Missing the problems, largely because they are being paid by the ones they are rating?

A government entity that wants to protect its people might (emphasis on might) cast a more sceptical eye on corporate debt. But it is never going to do that with its own debt (or in the EMU the debt of its members). Problem is that ratings agencies have to have decent reputation. So why bother to set it up if no one is going to believe you on the ratings of sovreign debt?

Ah, let me answer my own question. This has regulatory requirements written all over it. Warning, this is speculation, but I’d put a sawbuck on it close the real situation:

Certain big pools of money (most likely pension plans or something similar in Europe) are required to have at least x% of their money in bonds that are rated at least y. If the private companies downgrade the debt, then these entities will have to sell off some of their holdings, forcing the price down/interest rate up. And these big pools of money won’t be able to buy more of this debt meaning the next offering will also have to pay higher interest. Higher interest means the country issuing the debt has more money going to interest and bigger financial problems and gets downgraded again….well, you get it - sovreign debt death spiral.

How do you prevent it? Well, the EMU would have to start a lot of quantitative easing to keep the interest rates down, but you can lower your need to do that if you make sure that your big (regulated) pools of money (like pension funds) don’t have to sell off the sovreign debt in the first place. Hence the first thing you do is set up a puppet ratings agency that is guaranteed to not knock the rating of sovreign debt down to where the regulated pools of money have to sell any.

Well, that is how I see it. The credit default swaps on the sovreign debt will tell you what the market thinks the quality of the debt it. The phoney rating won’t make people feel better, but they will satisfy the regulations.

Thats how I feel also packman ….”conflict of interest inherently built in .” The way of the future is going to be less transparency
I believe ,rather than more . Look at how the banks get to hide losses with accounting tricks now . Look at all the unregulated markets that just don’t want to reveal their worth in terms of “mark to market ” . Does anybody really believe any ratings
anymore ? Back to “buyer beware ” .

Here’s a question - there are lots of ratings agencies out there besides The Big 3, are there not (A.M. Best, Egan-Jones are two I see on Wikipedia)? Did NONE of these other ratings agencies see this coming, and rate the MBS securites lower than The Big 3 did? If any of them did - then how come there isn’t a really big deal made out of it - like how come such an agency hasn’t grown immensely in stature?

Seems to me one root of the problem is an oligarchy of these 3 agencies. In a true free market though, shouldn’t such an oligarchy be cast to the ground when its proven to be faulty? What prevented this from happening? I’ve put the SEC NRSRO status out there, as an oligarchy-enforcing thing - but that seems… weak.

Anyone more in the know than I - please weigh in.

I love words that says it all. “Bankster” is one of these words.

“prextend and praylay?” …….. `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

Gangster : Tommy Gun
Bankster : Money Gun

It was the first time that I’ve seen a movie where the “windows boot-up tones.” were the signal of heroic triumph.

sharing on facebook!

Google this Rio;

YouTube - “We’re Number 37″ - Paul Hipp

Hilarious! Thanks.

James said:

…I don’t disagree that some countries have better health care systems…I’d guess we are in the top 5 in line with similar per capita GDP counties.

You guess wrong unless your guess doesn’t consider 1/3 of our population important. 50 million in the USA are uninsured, 50 are under-insured. In the countries that round out the top 10 everyone is covered.

Similarly your list also shows something else. Perhaps the burden of those health care systems lead to other problems.

Yes, including less profit for middle-men, lawyers and insurance companies.

Further to consider: some of those countries have invested for years. It just isn’t easy to suddenly switch.

Then we’d better get started now.

Secondly, I still haven’t gotten a good answer about how to transition to this wonderful public system.

You have but it was indirect. We should study the top 10 health care systems in the world and see how they transitioned. Learn some lessons that could apply to our transition. But I know, it’s hard.

Jobs will handle the insurance problem.

Have you read much about job benefit trends the past quarter century?

About Canada; There are a whole bunch of things that are too hard to compare between systems due to scale.

OK but math isn’t one of them. Canada spends 10% of GDP on Health-care, the USA spends 17%. Canada covers 100% of Canadians. The USA has 1/3 of the population under-covered or not covered. Extrapolate the “scale” up or down. Not perfect but not bad either.

However, Canada covers their entire population

Yeah but you forgot about the two dozen ultra-rich people who had heart surgery in the US. Therefore, Canada sux and the US has the best health care in the world.

Google this Rio;

YouTube - “We’re Number 37″ - Paul Hipp

Those ultrarich types could have had the same procedures in Canada and had them in a timely manner. They chose to go south to private hospitals for treatment, which is their right. Many foreigners come to Canadian puplic hospitals for specialized treatments, and pay private rates, which are still less than U.S. fees. Ever heard of the Shouldice clinic in Toronto.

I had my eyes Lasiked in Vancouver BC, $1200 for both eyes, vs $4000+ in Rivercity.

The local surgeon tries to argue that the Canadians use laser machines that are not “FDA approved”. The Canadian clinics response is that “yep, thats true. We are a couple of generations of technology ahead of the US because of the time it takes the FDA to approve the equipment”.

One thing is clear though single payer or not, cost is not coming down in US until the system collapses and we start with something new. Too many parties enjoying the gravy train whether in Insutance Industry or public care like medicare. Unless these parties significantly lose, we the “customers” will not be winning. That’s just the plain truth and I don’t see a real leadership in cutting the overall cost.

Even with the single payer US employees will not be cometetitive to workers from Chindia. Employers will still have to pay the government similar amount or more in taxes that they spend insuring now. From what I read and heard sucks to be a small business owner in that environment.

The Canadian clinics response is that “yep, thats true. We are a couple of generations of technology ahead of the US because of the time it takes the FDA to approve the equipment”.

Doesn’t sound like Government actually helps in lowering the cost, does it? Also do canadians doctors have to spend useless 4 years in undergrad before going to medical schools? I know that thru their immigration policy they have gotten tons of doctors from third worlds, I wss curious how cheap/expensive is it to become a doctor there?

Yeah but you forgot about the two dozen ultra-rich people who had heart surgery in the US.

It’s not only ultra rich, even the middle class people who need to see a specialist and such would prefer US anyday. 8 months of wait to do a colonoscopy. I mean, come on.

Seems like Canada is cheap and efficent for basic care stuff. Anything serious, it’s not so clear.

Not to say that I am happy with status quo in US. Overheard someone in the office talking about how expensive of an ambulence ride it was for his relative. $1200 for 3 miles ride.

Overheard someone in the office talking about how expensive of an ambulence ride it was for his relative. $1200 for 3 miles ride.

Try $1400. I had chest pains last year (turned out to be gall stones) and had an ambulance ride to the ER from work.

8 months of wait to do a colonoscopy. I mean, come on.

Maybe only 9% of Canadians have colons.

91 percent of Canadians like their health care system Sweeny Report 7/21/08

U.S. politicians — Republican variety — love to disparage Canada’s national health care system with the fact-free observation that Canadians come here to get vital operations so they don’t have to wait in line in Canada.

Because I’m a frequent visitor to Canada, and I actually talk to real people there, I’ve replied to these Republicans that Canadians I’ve talked to say they wouldn’t trade their health care for anything else, especially America’s roll-of-the-dice nonsystem of private insurance — “maybe we’ll cover you for that, maybe we won’t.”

Now I have data to back up these informal conversations: In a new, (CTV/Globe & Mail) bi-national opinion poll … 91 percent of Canadians said they preferred their national health care system over America’s pseudo-private system.

Ninety-One percent. In the world of scientific opinion polling, that’s about as unanimous as you ever get.

Also, 45 percent of Americans surveyed prefered Canada’s system, and 42 percent prefered to stick with what we’ve got.

Did the same poll ask how Canadians like their taxes?

It’s a package deal.

What difference does it make if you have to schedule a routine colonoscopy 8 months out? I’d be willing to bet that if a Canadian patient were showing symptons of colo-rectal cancer his primary care doc could get him to the front of the line. If the 8 month wait is a problem, just make the appointment 8 months earlier.

In the US we pay a huge price for an anything any time at any price ’cause I ain’t paying the bill approach to medicine.

First, health care is in a massive bubble. Costs are growing well beyond what anyone can pay for. Inflating beyond the rate of income growth. Everyone is figuring out how to throw more money at the problem.

Instead of looking at the system and figuring out why costs are so out of control; the socialists want to nationalize the system.

Fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

Secondly, I still haven’t gotten a good answer about how to transition to this wonderful public system. Seeing as how the united states has all these private hospitals and only a few private ones. Unless you socialist scum are deciding to nationalize all the hospitals.

About (or aboot) Canada; There are a whole bunch of things that are too hard to compare between systems due to scale. Canada has a doctor shortage. You can look it up and it is a well known fact. Canada has about the same population as California so when they need doctors they just import them. Seeing as we speak the same language and have well regulated system, mostly you are getting them from the united states. Again, the canadians live as a leech off the USA further sucking resources from us. The country invests in medical education SO when doctors get exported, then we lose money and drive up costs. Not hating canada for this either but it is what it is.

If the united states messes things up, we really don’t have such an option. Also we have the potential for pulling more doctors away from canada and making their costs skyrocket.

About this list and the grand comparisons… Here is an eliete group of countries that I just love our aspiring to be like…

Afghanistan*, Argentina, Chile, China, Cuba, Greece, Iraq*, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Oman, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom
*Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding

So, Argentina of multiple currency collapse fame, China of no healthcare what so ever for 600M peasants. Cuba. Are you kidding me? Greece of our daily joke fest. Ireland/Spain/Italy are already famous for stupid spending and currency devaluation. Korea? One of our protectorates. Sri Lanka of the Tamil Tiger fame? You think things are going well healthcare wise in Ukraine or Russia? There is a reason you can get a mail order bride from there.

And everyone’s favorite country! England!

I think you have to be very careful with considering this data.

I also read the American Heritages publications on some of this stuff. The claims that govt uses a lower percentage of money on admin support is very deceiving. The cost of procedures are typically higher on medicare hence the percentage of overhead looks smaller. The other data is the cost per patient on the government opperation is 30% higher. That data needs to be looked at with a wry eye. Again, something that needs to be thought about.

Further, you might talk about how Canada has price controls and does quite well. Not sure how that would work if EVERYBODY DOES IT. If you develop procedures in the USA and they control the prices elsewhere; it is still a market you might service. However, your business case might change pretty dramatically if you are take into account price controls in the US.

You can see the picture; yeah I will sell this equipment up there but I’m not chomping at the bit because I know the margins will stink. And makes it harder to innovate.

Again, works well when you can leech off someone else’s hard work.

Like Greece is trying to do to Germany. Every German needs to work till 72 and prositute his children so that Greek municipal benefits can continue!

Plenty of things to figure out in our system. Just think the insurance coverage is BULLSHIT of the highest order. Socializing the system.. difficult.

We’d have to start buying hospitals and figuring out how to manage them. Again a big fricking mess.

If you are of the young of brain Rio, take a look back in the history of socialized medicine in Canada. They have had problems on and off for years with it. Same with the paradise you are living in.

Also don’t just compare to the current troubled times in the US. Have to take a longer term view.

I don’t think rushing through a bunch of poorly thought out legislation is going to help much of anybody except the long term slackers who will have even less reason to work. Just like all the other bailout crap that has been shoved down our throats.

What difference does it make if you have to schedule a routine colonoscopy 8 months out?

Ofcourse it doesn’t if it’s you or somebody else who has to wait 8 months. If it’s me then it’s a problem.

Then again, I thought we all wanted to drive bmw in ford price.

First, health care is in a massive bubble. Costs are growing well beyond what anyone can pay for. Inflating beyond the rate of income growth. Everyone is figuring out how to throw more money at the problem.

Slim here.

As mentioned here, oh, about 2,476 times already, I am self-employed. Which means that my insurance options pretty much boil down to an individual plan with a high deductible. And that means that I need to be a rather careful health care consumer.

I’ve told you about my ditching of the high-priced dentist whose office had been redecorated to correspond with the upscale, cosmetic-based practice she aspired to. And there I was, just looking for a basic checkup every six months. Yeah, they did that, but the exam was done by a hygienist. And I was paying cosmetic-level rates for it.

I now get my care through a community college’s dental studies program. For a lot less money.

Also told you about the three practitioners I used to see each year — two doctors and one physician assistant. I cut the doctors and kept the PA. She costs a lot less and she isn’t as condescending toward the self-employed/high deductible people as the doctors were.

So, that’s how I’m handling things on the cost-cutting front. And, I think, I’m not the only one who’s following this strategy.

About this list and the grand comparisons… Here is an eliete group of countries that I just love our aspiring to be like…

That’s a good company, NOT!
Also have you noticed that nobody’s talking about the burden of healthcare cost in near bankruptcy of Greek/Spain/Ireland and etc.?

Unless you socialist scum are deciding to nationalize all the hospitals.

Please argue like a man if you want to debate with me.

Would I advance my argument if I were to imply that you were a fascist, ignorant pig?

Even if it would, I wouldn’t do it.

Your agitated argument also contains a liberal helping of straw men, and implies positions I did not take or do not believe in.

Also have you noticed that nobody’s talking about the burden of healthcare cost in the near bankruptcy of Greek/Spain/Ireland and etc.? The United States of America?

About this list and the grand comparisons… Here is an eliete group of countries that I just love our aspiring to be like…

Woa ya got me huh? You guys are funny. (and missing the point even while misrepresenting)

My list of countries with universal coverage had many great countries on it too. You guys think that by only highlighting the lousy countries you can discredit the argument?

When did you (not) learn how to debate?

Well, here’s a concept that’s complicated but you and James might understand it if you try.

The fact that even inferior countries (like James cynically cherry-picked) attempt to provide universal coverage and the USA does not is a very poor reflection on one of our societal values EVEN in comparison to countries we scoff at or despise. It shows we can do better.

To put it simply. It makes us look bad in comparison on the subject of caring about the health of all of our people.

So thank you James and Basrua for inadvertently bolstering my argument with your childish attempts to discredit it.

You said we are childish but you posit that only the “socialistic” approach is the way to go. Our goal is not follow what other countries do or wanting to look good on their eyes. Rather our goal is to find a solution that will provide a better health care for our masses at reasonable cost. I happen to believe that this can be achieved by fixing the existing systems without having to resort to government care. That’s all.

You know Rio I didn’t actually direct socialist scum at you. If you think that applies then so be it.

As for strawmen. What of it? I said how do we transition? Buying hospitals? Like I said, good luck with that.

Similar comparisons on health care are very difficult. I mention Canada’s system because so many love to do that. What I stated is a widely know fact. Canada plans to import doctors to handle their shortage. Same thing with equipment and medicine. While we can beat down the margins in companies it will not be a lively or attractive market. Canada can get away with stuff because it’s small.

Further you don’t do much of a job showing costs.

I’d also look at the percent of GDP comparison with a careful eye. If you go and examine it, several other non-cherry picked countries have a higher per capita GDP than the US. Hence more likely to have money to pay for health care than the US.

While I don’t disagree that some countries have better health care systems, it is a lot smaller list than you put up there. I’d guess we are in the top 5 in line with similar per capita GDP counties.

Similarly your list also shows something else. Perhaps the burden of those health care systems lead to other problems.

Your entire line of reasoning and data was very weak. I pointed out the countries on your list because it made your data very skeptical. By your response I assume I scored in the debate. Didn’t realize what you were typing eh?

Further to consider: some of those countries have invested for years. It just isn’t easy to suddenly switch.

Love to do something about it but consider post bubble employment the larger concern. Jobs will handle the insurance problem.

1. Our goal is not follow what other countries do…

2. Rather our goal is to find a solution that will provide a better health care for our masses at reasonable cost.

Sure.

If your goal # 2 is less important than your goal #1 then your goal # 2 might never come true, at least in our lifetimes.

You know Rio I didn’t actually direct socialist scum at you.

Right James. Right. Your post addressed my post. And your post addressed me by “Rio”.

1. So if you did it on purpose, you are ignorant, can’t debate effectively and you don’t have much class.
2. If you didn’t do it on purpose, I would question your IQ or your EQ for you not understanding how easily one could come to my conclusion.

Or maybe it was a simple mistake.

My arguments are superior to your talking points because they are concrete examples of countries who provide universal coverage at less cost.

Your arguments are a good part noise, distraction, straw men and right wing dogma thrown in with some concern and a few good points lacking solutions.

Calling names will not hide the truth. And FYI I’ve been a capitalist business owner all my working life, probably been in the free-market trenches of capitalism more than you so don’t try your right-wing, tea party name calling with me. That dog don’t hunt.

Both of us identify ourselves as Christians. As a Christian I found this song on YouTube funny, true, disturbing but right on too. Especially on how a Christian country and especially the right wing hypocrites professing to be Christian can neglect a huge portion of the population (decade after decade) when it comes to health-care coverage for all.

The first time I heard it was today.

Google: youtube, we’re number 37 Paul Hipp

Did the same poll ask how Canadians like their taxes?

It’s a package deal.

I know but the poll asked how the liked their health-care system.

Most Canadians know how the system is paid for.

I know but the poll asked how the liked their health-care system.

Sorry,

…the poll asked how THEY liked their health-care system….

Sure you are in a capitalist system but are trying to steer us further down the socialist path. Hence socialist. And scum.

Look. The problems I pointed out are major flaws and you have not talked about addressing cost. At all.

We’ve also beat on the insurance numbers and the money isn’t there. It is just another handout and entitlement program.

Unless you address the COST PROBLEM then all of your other arguments vs my talking points are moot. You have nothing but a statement that you’d like things to be different with out any sensible way of getting there.

Be as eloquent as you like. Y’all aint got no plan.

Giving more people “coverage” means we will be spending even more per capita.

No. I don’t have an answer and again; rushing through some stupid legislation is a bad idea.

James, Name calling and maybe worse? Darn. It’s just a blog.

You implied I was a “socialist scum” at 13:26:50 Wow.

When I called you on it, you said:

Comment by James:
2010-03-04 17:02:28
You know Rio I didn’t actually direct socialist scum at you.

Fine. Then I guess I made you mad by disproving your points and explaining my capitalist, business history so you called me those exact same names again.

Comment by James
2010-03-04 22:13:40
you are in a capitalist system but are trying to steer us further down the socialist path. Hence socialist. And scum.

So were you, James, misrepresenting the truth at 17:02:28 when you said you weren’t calling me those names at 13:26:50?

Or was it that you just got so mad later, that you actually called me those exact same names at 22:13:40 that you “didn’t actually direct” towards me at 13:26:50? Coincidence?

And you misrepresented my points or was confused when you wrote:

Comment by James: The problems I pointed out are major flaws and you have not talked about addressing cost…Unless you address the COST PROBLEM then all of your other arguments vs my talking points are moot…Giving more people “coverage” means we will be spending even more per capita.

Actually I addressed COSTS (and your other points) each time I pointed out single-payer countries PAY LESS as a percent of GDP for universal coverage than the USA. I even showed charts with numbers.

Complicated? Maybe but that IS addressing costs. The whole point is that single-payer systems bring down costs while increasing coverage. If you want me to address it on a dollar per dollar basis per-capita for other countries vs USA, you’re going to lose that point as well.

James, Here’s what wiki says about name calling:
Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.[7]

It also says something about something else.

Maybe it is time for the banksters to innovate plankton aquaculture?

They already did. They call it Operation Gutenberg.

What about members of the Megabank, Inc cartel, aka, the “whales of Wall Street”?

“Whales aren’t parasites”

That’s a fact jack but this economy is much like a whale turd…it’s sitting on the bottom of the freakin’ ocean.

Whales aren’t parasites.

No, but some are killer whales.

Whale Street banksters support federal housing pogroms.

The check bounced and serious trolls don’t work for free?

maybe they needed overtime pay to keep up with us?

more like, they probably used little HBB as experience, and then sold their trolling services to a higher-profile blog.

I’ve never quite understood why someone would want a new car, unless they feel compelled to keep up with the Joneses. A good used one is so much cheaper to buy (for cash) and insure.

Maybe if its an American car. The asking prices in my neck of the woods for used Japanese cars, especially Subaru’s, are risibly high.

An interesting ancedote about buying used cars and the taxes associated with it.

I bought a one year old Pontiac on Ebay from an out of state individual a few years ago. I paid $19K for it. When I went to register it, the “fair market value” on the Department of Licensings computer showed a value of $24,000. So, the licenseing clerk wanted “use tax” based on $24K. She wouldn’t budge. She said if I wanted to plead my case to the Deartment of Revenue, I could do so.

So, I did. The DOR person basicly told me that unless there was something demonstritive wrong with the vehicle that would reduce its value (salvage title, damage, etc) the tax paid is on the “value” of the vehicle, not what I paid for it. And since the tax was use tax vs. sales tax, I had to pay based on the use value of the vehicle, which was what the MVA tables said it was. She was able to say this with a straight face.

I bought a 09 Pontiac when they were on clearance last year. Paid 12K for a car with a 19K sticker. DMV valued it at 17K and wouldn’t budge.

Interesting, I think in WA if you buy it deeply discounted from a dealer, you pay on actual purchase price because it is a sales tax. But if you buy from out of state or from and individual, you pay on the “book value” because that is a use tax. Normal people would think its the same transaction but the state taxing authority people aren’t normal.

I’m surprised that Co. didn’t try to assess income tax on the $5,000 windfall.

Well, I did pay sales Tax on 17K, because you always pay sales tax on rebates. Maybe that was the logic for the use tax as well.

The logic on the use tax is that if you go out of state and buy uncle Phil’s car for $10K less than it is worth on the open market (’cause uncle Phil always liked you better than his rotten son who partied too much and even the army didn’t want him….) and bring it back home, you should pay tax on what you got, even if that isn’t what you paid for it. You get to use a car worth $x in the state so that is the tax you pay. Besides, maybe next time you want to get a good deal, you’ll look instate and give some business to the local dealers you rotten scoundrel.

No idea how they justify it for an in state transaction where you are paying a sales tax on the actual transaction.

So I suppose that if I live in MA (hefty sales tax) and buy a car in NH to get some relief (no sales tax), you think Mass should have the “right” to extort sales taxes from me for a purchase that did not happen on its soil?

Just checking.

New Banner…to replace Old Banner:

“Shazam-Islam-is-now-Democracy”

Condi, Rummy, Colin…anyone have a FedEx Kinko’s credit card account?

“…Some cast their vote for Barry based solely on his promise to bring our troops home last year.”

Perhaps, maybe…I’m satisfied that NOW the America public gets to SEE the American Flag draped caskets that Cheney-Shrub tried to hide in their starting their Modern Legacy War Theory: “Shazam-Islam-is-now-Democracy” …7 years later, …here ya go lil’ Opie, all yous gots to do now is… cleaner up boy.

You can be sure he is a huge disappointment to many who voted for him though. Some cast their vote for Barry based solely on his promise to bring our troops home last year.

Count me as one of those disappointed voters.

But, as I’ve said here before, I think that the O-man will win a second term due to an upturn in the business cycle similar to the one that benefited Reagan in 1984. And, as in 1984, he’ll have a weak, Mondale-ish Republican opponent.

Perhaps, maybe…I’m satisfied that NOW the America public gets to SEE the American Flag draped caskets…

I am not so sure about that one. My bet is MSM will quietly ignore those and somehow creating an opening for Fox.

My God, how the world has changed in just a year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Um… OK.

- I see numbers that range from 110,000 to 1,033,000. Do you consider that “millions”?

- That’s total deaths (including U.S. military, contractors, etc.), not just Iraqi

- That includes military - not just “innocents”.

- If you choose to call it “murder” that’s your choice. That’s very subjective of course. The nature of our enemy there is that they like to shield themselves with innocents. It’s hard to blame us for that.

Not trying to say the war is justified. Just that “murdering millions of innocents” is way, way over the top, and just serves to make the anti-war side look stupid.

The only survey that show 1 million was based on the question to households, “How many members of your household have died as a result of the war, and by this I mean members of your immediate household.”

Do you think standard statistical margins of error apply in a culture that practices deception as a form of fine art?

“GDP” is usually the accepted standard.

Ha, I would like someone to estimate “replacement cost” …just for giggles, and all that “TrueAnger™” outrage about Lil’ Opie.

…curbs, fire hydrants, non-tangibles,… like the St. Louis Rams without a winning season x24 years!

Nooooooooooo!!!!

Maybe if A-B made a beverage that actually was worthy of the term “beer” as opposed to number one their sales wouldn’t resemble number two.

He was. But that dang book was way too long.

TPP/PPT … a palindrome?

Geez, I guess a WAR against GoldenmanSucks and their “mode of operation” kinda is something to fight against…

Almost without exception, every proud parent I socialized with over the last 10 years… talked so proudly of their off-spring pursuing a MBA and landing a job with…

Obviously the solution is to wage bigger wars again.

Which will cause student anti-war protests. It’s a vicious cycle, I tell ya!!

There’s always something to complain about…

B-I-N-G-O …B-I-N-G-O …B-I-N-G-O

Farmers, Financiers, porn “stars”, Green Bay Packer cheese heads,…

RunHwy, …RUN!

“Added to that a higher-than-average haul this season and you have soft lobster prices…”

I get the soft price side of the story; the record haul side has me scratching my head, though. I suppose so long as the cost of harvesting the lobsters is lower than the revenues generated by selling them, it makes sense to haul in more rather than less. The problem is that if all the fishermen playing this game apply the same logic, the price may get driven down to a level where marginal returns to effort (revenue - cost at the trip level) are negative…

In an interesting historical footnote, lobster was (rightly) considered a lower food source at the turn of the twentieth century: cheap, plentiful food for poor folks. I’ll have to find the source but at one point prisoners in a Boston-area prison rioted over being fed lobster repeatedly.

There is an important difference between fisheries and oil economics, which can be summarized into the need to add three additional zeros to the right of any monetary figures describing the oil market compared to similar figures for fisheries.

“…which can be summarized into the need to add three additional zeros to the right of any monetary figures”

Oh, more zero’s equals = TBTF