March 10, 2010

Bits Bucket For March 10, 2010

Post off-topic ideas, links and Craigslist finds here. Please visit the HBB Forum.




RSS feed | Trackback URI

389 Comments »

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 06:31:18

Flees Newport Beach…to India…he probably already has a customer Service job with AT&T… ;-)

Family charged in $16 million real estate fraud:
March 9th, 2010, by Marilyn Kalfus, real estate reporter OC Register

Lohia, Soni, and Suniti Shah were arrested. An arrest warrant has been issued for Dinesh Shah, who is believed to be in India.

Four members of an Orange County family — including a mother and two daughters — have been charged in a conspiracy to commit more than $16 million in real estate fraud by forging documents and buying homes using “straw buyers,” the Orange County District Attorney’s office says.

The defendants:

* Sushama Devi Lohia, 71, Newport Beach. Felony charges include 13 counts of conspiracy to commit a crime, 19 counts of forgery, 6 counts of identity theft and 4 counts of recording false and forged instrument and other charges. She is the mother of defendants Supriti Soni and Suniti Shah.
* Supriti Soni, 49, Corona del Mar. Felony charges include eight counts of conspiracy to commit a crime, 10 counts of forgery and other charges. In addition, prosecutors are seeking a stiffer sentence for her, if she’s convicted, because she was imprisoned in 2003 for perjury.
* Suniti Shah, 48, Newport Beach. Felony charges include five counts of conspiracy to commit a crime, nine counts of forgery, six felony counts of identity theft, four counts of recording a false and forged instrument and other charges.
* Dinesh Valjeebhai Shah, 60, Newport Beach. Felony charges include two counts of conspiracy to commit a crime, four counts of forgery, four counts of identity theft, four counts of recording a false and forged instrument and other charges. He is Suniti Shah’s husband.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 06:47:53

“Dinesh Shah, who is believed to be in India.”

Sounds like Dinesh successfully absconded, leaving family members holding the bag.

 
Comment by shelby
2010-03-10 07:14:51

Tons of this going on in NoVa

Or they simply HELOC’D the hell out of the house & now heading back to Mumbai….with all the cash…..;)

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 07:29:58

I guess the lender is the bagholder in the case of foreign low-doc / no-doc borrowers who HELOCked then absconded?

BTW, we predicted this outcome would be a major problem several years ago during the height of the no-doc lending mania…

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 07:54:32

Ask your MSM retailer where you can get a pair of HBB binoculars today!

Wide field of view- check
Optimal hyperfocal distance - check
Image Stability - check
Shock Proof - check

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 08:50:05

Wide field of view- check
Optimal hyperfocal distance - check
Image Stability - check
Shock Proof - check

Rectal optimal lens adapter = check
;

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 18:16:01

IFR Joshua Tree Illumination - check

 
 
 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-03-10 10:34:55

Unpossible! NoVa and Maryland are “different” - here, decent housing needs to cost 5x your income or the local eCONomy will fail… or so we’re all told… hahahaha!

 
 
Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 07:36:55

Yeah…he’s split and on the run.

Definitely not the family that “preys together stays together.”

:)

 
Comment by SV guy
2010-03-10 07:39:55

Are you suggesting there are foreign carpetbaggers
amongst us? Say it isn’t so.

There are many here who are just here for the loot
and couldn’t care less about the good ol’ USA.

Somewhat unrelated anecdotal evidence. I attended an
equipment auction yesterday. This particular auction house
has a real-time Internet audience in addition to the onsite
participants. Many of the large ticket items were sold to
offshore bidders. Mainly the UAE and Saudi Arabia. A few
went to South Korea. Hell, even the Mexicans were players.
Suffice it to say I wasn’t going to get
into a bidding war with somebody sitting on a pile of our
petro dollars. I noticed a distinc abscense of middle east bidders
when it came to Ag. equipment. Surprising to me since I would thought their vast ‘fruited plains’ would yield a bountiful harvest.
Oh wait, now I remember, they live in the desert. Anybody remember
the old Sam Kinison skit?

Anyway, I found it disheartening on some level to see the tools &
equipment of prosperity & productivity being taken from our shores.

Hope & change you can believe in.

Vote Libertarian.

Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 09:06:29

“Hope & change you can believe in.

Vote Libertarian”

IMHO, a Libertarian is just another “hard-core” Republican that merely changed their name and identity because they can’t face their prior mistakes.

In any event, please DON’T be so damned presumptuous as to attempt to ADVISE me who to vote for on Ben’s HBB.

Thank you.

:)

Comment by SV guy
2010-03-10 12:38:39

Mikey,

While we disagree about the definition of Libertarianism, we can agree on not politicizing the HBB. My bad.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 14:30:18

It’s okay SV…I just poked you with my little pointy stick for fun. That’s not my real definition of a Libertairan because they seem that they are quite diversified group of people.

That was a great answer though and a lot more thoughtful than my statement. I appreciate both you and your passion.

thanks.

:)

 
Comment by varelse
2010-03-10 16:02:02

Are you kidding me? This place isn’t as non political as it used to be, not since Ben made ahansen a major contributor.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2010-03-10 16:05:32

Speaking of which, where has she been lately? I don’t agree with her politically, but she says it ways that I don’t find too annoying. There are other posters that I can’t say the same for.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 18:14:01

“That was a great answer though and a lot more thoughtful than my statement. I appreciate both you and your passion.”

Your Sir,… are a gentleman…Cheers! :-)

 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 18:11:11

“…In any event, please DON’T be so damned presumptuous as to attempt to ADVISE me who to vote for on Ben’s HBB.” :-)

No worries mate, they have their yo-yo’s wound so tight…most of ‘em think ol’ Hwy is a Democrapt…

BWAHAHAHicHAHAHicHAHAHAHAHicHAHAHic* (DennisN™)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-10 09:43:46

There are many here who are just here for the loot
and couldn’t care less about the good ol’ USA.

I see this every day in Arizona. And, sorry to say, a lot of them come from that country that’s directly south of ours.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 14:09:39

Hey, if it’s good enough for the bankstas…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by james
2010-03-10 09:56:12

On another Libertarian note: got pulled over in a check point in Hawthorne California. Basically these guys just decided to set up a drivers license check point.

So, random searches for all now.

 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-03-10 10:44:07

But we need to get rid of those productive industries or we might end up with a healthy middle class for the long term… and all that money could have instead been given to MegaBank.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 13:44:13

“…Suffice it to say I wasn’t going to get
into a bidding war with somebody sitting on a pile of our
petro dollars.”

Good for you…

As regards the equiptment going overseas…let’em have ‘em, the new equiptment & machines I seen lately, don’t need “Truemachinist” with 25 years solid experience, just someone with basic math & computer programming skills…i.e., “machine operators”

Comment by Va Beyatch in Virginia Beach
2010-03-10 14:14:22

Mmmm… CNC

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-03-10 06:44:43

German Exports Unexpectedly Slumped in January, Bloomberg March 10, 2010,

German exports unexpectedly slumped in January, erasing December’s jump and ending a four-month streak of gains.

With rising unemployment damping consumer spending, Germany is relying on exports to drive a recovery from its worst recession since World War II. While Bundesbank President Axel Weber yesterday warned that the coldest winter in 14 years may cause the economy to contract this quarter, he said robust factory orders and industrial production show the upswing is “essentially” intact.

“Today’s data does not fit at all with the other industrial data we’ve been getting out of Germany, so the decline must be driven by one-off factors and a backlash from December,”… “It doesn’t change the overall trend that exports are going to be the growth driver.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-10/german-january-exports-unexpectedly-slump-after-december-jump.html

U.K. Industrial Production Drops Unexpectedly In January 3/10/10 rttnews

Industrial production in the U.K. registered an unexpected decline at the start of the year, showing the first monthly fall since August 2009…”Today’s data mark an inauspicious start to 2010,”…Total production fared a little better than manufacturing as energy extraction and supply increased in January, the economist noted.

…it is possible that the weakness in January was due to disruptions in production caused by bad weather. Also, decline in output may reflect temporary factors and reverse in February. Still, production will be on course to post modest positive rise in the first quarter of this year as a whole, the economist said…Elsewhere today, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the economic recovery is still in early stages and it remains very fragile.
http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1235839&SMap=1

Australia home loans unexpectedly fall to decade low
2010-03-10 (Forex Pros)

The number of home loans approved in Australia unexpectedly tumbled to a decade low in January, official data showed on Wednesday…Economists had in fact expected a 2% rise in January.

The decline followed a series of interest rate hikes by Australia’s central bank and the phasing out of a first-home buyers’ grant boost, both of which sapped demand.
http://www.forexpros.com/news/forex-news/australia-home-loans-unexpectedly-fall-to-decade-low-124783


Czech February Inflation Unexpectedly Slowed on Fuel Prices
Bloomberg
March 09, 2010,

Czech inflation unexpectedly slowed in February as growth in fuel prices was capped, outweighing the higher costs in beverages and housing prices…

The central bank said last month risks in its new 12- to 18-month forecasts were “balanced overall” and that it expects the inflation rate to rise above its 2 percent target in the fourth quarter, while still staying within the tolerance band of plus or minus 1 percentage point. It should fall back toward the targeted level in the first quarter of 2011, it said.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-09/czech-february-inflation-unexpectedly-slowed-on-fuel-prices.html


Plan Now For Unexpected Early Retirement
3/8/10 Murfreesboro post

Just how big a problem is this? Consider the following statistics from the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s 2009 Retirement Confidence Survey:

• Forty-seven percent of retirees left the work force earlier than planned.
• Of that total, 42 percent did so because of health problems or disability, 34 percent left due to their employers’ downsizing or closure, and 18 percent left to care for a spouse or another family member.

So here’s the bottom line: Even if you think you’re going to work until, say, 65, and you want to work until 65, you may be forced to quit at 62, 60 — or even younger. And during those years you won’t be working, you’re not just losing out on earned income — you’re also not contributing to your 401(k) or other employer-sponsored retirement plan, and you might lose your ability to contribute to your IRA as well. At the same time, your retirement lifestyle expenses have begun earlier than you anticipated — and many people find that these costs aren’t much, if any, lower than the expenses they incurred while working.
http://www.murfreesboropost.com/plan-now-for-unexpected-early-retirement-cms-22323

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 14:11:43

“Plan for Unexpected?”

I think we just found this years “Unclear on the Concept” winner. :lol:

 
Comment by polly
2010-03-10 15:37:05

Yay, Rio! You did it. Thank you.

 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-03-10 06:53:33

Well I’ll be darned. This was unexpected. Will it happen? Could it happen in the USA?

Public sector pay freeze expected (In the UK) 3/10/10 Press Association

Thousands of top-earning public sector workers are bracing themselves for a pay freeze as the recommendations of (an) independent salary review body are published.

Senior civil servants, the judiciary and senior NHS managers are among those covered by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) report to be released on Wednesday morning.

Mr Darling even signalled recently that generous public sector pay and bonus packages might have to be reduced.

The SSRB report is expected to look at the issue of performance-related bonuses and the practice of linking the pay of top public executives with their private sector equivalents…The SSRB is independent of the Government but its recommendations are not binding and ministers will have the final word.

http://money-news.dailyfinance.co.uk/article/2010/03/10/public_sector_pay_freeze_expected

 
Comment by Will
2010-03-10 06:57:57

Chilling food for thought from Urban Land Instutute via the Sarasota Herald Tribune.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100215/COLUMNIST/2151011/2305/BUSINESS?Title=A-look-at-the-housing-market-that-may-induce-some-chills

“People in their mid-60s will be stuck in their homes because the values have fallen below what is owed on the property.

“Job prospects will dim for younger baby boomers who cannot sell these “underwater” homes to move up to a better career in a different town.

“Because the real median household income has not increased since 2000, people in their late 30s and mid-40s will not be able to move up into bigger homes as their families grow.

“When 20-somethings finally move out, it will most likely be to a rental unit to avoid the underwater situation that they see is now stressing out their parents.

“Those projections for the next decade come from a new report by the Urban Land Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that works to promote responsible use of land and to create thriving communities.

“Florida’s case is particularly dramatic,” …. “It has moved from being the state with the most net domestic migration from July 2001 to July 2005 down to 45th with a loss of 37,179 people to other states from July 2008 to July 2009.

“In terms of its total growth rate, with foreign arrivals included, Florida now ranks 32nd, down from third in 2002,” McIlwain said.

“Those projections for the next decade come from a new report by the Urban Land Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that works to promote responsible use of land and to create thriving communities

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 08:45:07

“Because the real median household income has not increased since 2000, people in their late 30s and mid-40s will not be able to move up into bigger homes as their families grow.

An incorrect leap. Each and every middle-aged person’s income can increase beyond inflation without the median income going beyond inflation. This is due to the retirement of higher-paid senior workers being replaced with low-paid junior workers out of school.

I can’t believe how often this obvious flaw in logic is made.

Comment by polly
2010-03-10 09:44:53

I saw that too. Umm…as you get older, your pay generally goes up even if the median income doesn’t go up. The median income is for a population, and as you get older you end up in the better paid part of that population. This might not work in all jobs, but it does in many of them.

That being said, the 30’s to mid-40’s folks won’t be moving either. They were all encouraged to buy as much house as they could possibly afford (so the appreciation would be larger) and they are also stuck in their current houses because they are either underwater or have almost no equity.

My cousin (closer to 50, but wife is a bit younger) is a prime example. They bought in Rhode Island because they couldn’t afford a place in MA. Now that prices in our home town have come down a bit, they would like to move there. But they can’t sell the current place for what they need to get to buy in the better location. They are making more money (he is a teacher and she is a speech therapist) and could afford the payments in the new area. They just can’t afford to take what they would get for the old place. By the way, this is with no HELOCs at all. It would be worse if you had played any equity liberation games.

Comment by Al
2010-03-10 10:36:00

The other flaw with that quote is the assumption that incomes will have to raise to buy larger houses. The price of houses can and will come down. We’re heading into a crazy era where house prices will be determined by what people can afford.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by varelse
2010-03-10 16:08:27

“We’re heading into a crazy era where house prices will be determined by what people can afford.”

I keep hearing that, and I even let myself believe it for a while, but so far reality has been extremely resistant to your premise.

 
Comment by potential buyer
2010-03-10 18:02:19

But I thought that the FBs had already bought large homes during the boom, no? So why would they need to move into larger………………lol

 
 
Comment by ProperBostonian
2010-03-10 11:37:41

Polly–just curious, what’s your home town in MA?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by polly
2010-03-10 13:21:06

Sharon - stop over point when it was a two day stage coach ride from Boston to Providence.

 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2010-03-10 13:52:51

I always wonder if we may have passed in the aisle of the Stoughton grocery store. I used to live there from 1985-1987.

 
Comment by polly
2010-03-10 15:48:27

I lived over by the border with Foxboro. Most of the parts of Sharon that bumped up against Stoughton were…um…a lot wealthier than my family ever aspired to. We were in the quarter acre zoning area (3/2 house, no garage, unfinished basement), not the 1 1/2 to 2 acre area. Stoughton, of course, basically had no zoning.

As for grocery stores, we used the chains. Stop & Shop was probably in Stoughton, wasn’t it?

And I remember the Stoughton Diner. And wasn’t Town Spa (pizza) in Stoughton?

 
 
 
 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-03-10 09:01:17

“People in their mid-60s will be stuck in their homes because the values have fallen below what is owed on the property. Below what is owed, but in many cases, especially in CA, not below what the property was purchased for. So they’re stuck because they put their property up as security to borrow money that the can’t afford to repay.

 
Comment by WHYoung
2010-03-10 09:49:27

“people in their late 30s and mid-40s will not be able to move up into bigger homes as their families grow.”

if i remember correctly, fertility rates dropped during the Great Depression… I would think that our current situation would also incline people towards smaller families.

Seems like that would make “moving up” to larger houses even less needed.

Comment by SDGreg
2010-03-10 10:43:02

“if i remember correctly, fertility rates dropped during the Great Depression… I would think that our current situation would also incline people towards smaller families.”

+1

If you don’t have the means, why expand the family size?

Comment by Jim A.
2010-03-10 11:12:37

Well, it was a time before television and when birth control was often illegal. People weren’t so much choosing not to have children, but choosing to not get married in the first place, or the husbund was away from the family trying to find work.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by varelse
2010-03-10 16:10:13

The people without the means tend to be the people who have the biggest families.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2010-03-10 13:54:53

Also, I don’t see many buying “starter” homes. Most couples I see in this less inflated area just plain start w/the 2500 sq footer. They could have a few children and it wouldn’t be a crisis.

 
 
Comment by james
2010-03-10 09:54:52

Yahoo! I’m still mobile!

 
Comment by Mugsy
2010-03-10 10:23:51

“People in their mid-60s will be stuck in their homes because the values have fallen below what is owed on the property.”

Did I miss something in the bill of rights that guarantees the right to mobility? 32nd amendment maybe?

Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 10:47:10

There’s something odd about people in their mid-60s not having PAID OFF the mortgage.

Comment by JohnDanger
2010-03-10 12:41:34

It’s not odd, it’s the new “hip” reality!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 14:25:26

Noting odd about that at all.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 14:46:48

Starts printing mo money with “In the Taxpayer We Trust” on the backs and scrambles to load them one of uncle Ben’s black helicopters.

Double checks the flight manifests to make sure all of the banks, corporations, politicans and speculators are on my Midnight Run.

Cranks up Wagner’s “Flight Of The Valkyries” to scare the hell out of the little working people.

:)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by varelse
2010-03-10 16:11:53

Don’t you know? Once you get your house paid off, you’re supposed to trade up!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Carl Morris
2010-03-10 16:16:37

Only losers wait until it’s paid off to trade up. With that kind of thinking you’ll never get anywhere.

 
 
 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-03-10 10:47:40

I think the problem comes in when there are no local jobs (so they can’t stay) and they can’t sell (so they can’t move.)

Comment by Mugsy
2010-03-10 10:59:07

So if there are no local jobs then who do they think would buy their house? (Just playing dev.adv. here)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by SUGuy
2010-03-10 13:50:39

Cash rich smart prudent Hbber’s like me? We will be calling the shots. Say hello to kiss the buyers a$$ and hope the buyer will make the offer and relieve the sellers of their misery.

 
 
 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2010-03-10 10:32:15

““Florida’s case is particularly dramatic,” …. “It has moved from being the state with the most net domestic migration from July 2001 to July 2005 down to 45th with a loss of 37,179 people to other states from July 2008 to July 2009.”

I don’t know how they’re compiling these statistics, but it sure smells like they are counting out of state house flippers as new residents.

 
Comment by SDGreg
2010-03-10 10:41:38

“Because the real median household income has not increased since 2000, people in their late 30s and mid-40s will not be able to move up into bigger homes as their families grow.”

If you’re in this age group and have lived in the wrong locations, you’ve been chasing the bubble most of your working life which means you never bought and still won’t be able to buy for years because of the job market/wages and the artificially elevated prices, or bought at the wrong time and are in even worse shape as a result.

If nothing’s available at entry level because of artificially high prices, move up is irrelevant.

Comment by eudemon
2010-03-10 20:44:09

Ahh….somebody else here actually gets it. Adding to what you said, consider that after-inflation incomes for that same age group have perenially averaged 20-25% less per annum than those a mere 10-15 years older.

Thanks - you must be someone of that age group yourself.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 07:01:23

The line between jobless benefits and welfare. ~ MSNBC 3-9-10
Government faces question of how long should temporary payments go on.

Millions of Americans have been forced to rely on unemployment payments for extended periods as the nation struggles through its longest period of high joblessness in a generation, and critics are taking aim, saying that the Depression-era program created as a temporary bridge for laid-off workers is turning into an expensive entitlement.

About 11.4 million out-of-work people now collect unemployment compensation, at a cost of $10 billion a month. Half of them have been receiving payments for more than six months, the usual insurance limit.

The ranks of the unemployed include Jerome Boyd, 48, a father of four who lives in Arlington. He was laid off in August from his job as a sous chef at Gaylord National Hotel at National Harbor.

He receives $1,200 a month in unemployment benefits, less than half the $3,000 a month he brought home from his job. Now he is often behind paying about $1,500 in rent, a car payment and other expenses. “I’m stealing from Peter to pay Paul,” he said, adding: “There’s the cable, the phone bill. I owe the bank overdraft fees and the insurance is lapsing a little bit. I can’t take my kids shopping for school clothes because I don’t have enough to do that.”

The checks may be meager, but Boyd does not know what he would do without them. “I depend on this money,” he said. “I’m wondering every other week if it is going to keep coming in or not. It’s stressful, and especially when you’re trying to look for a job, too.”

“I can’t take something that’s minimum wage because I just won’t be able to pay my bills,” he said. “I’d have to work three jobs to pay the bills, and that doesn’t make sense.”

Comment by Jeffers
2010-03-10 07:09:21

It never ceases to amaze me how the unemployed can continue to conceive of the cable bill as a necessary expense.

Comment by palmetto
2010-03-10 07:27:15

I worked briefly in a satellite TV sales operation. What a trip! An entire subcontracting, “sales partner” industry has grown up around the TV, phone and internet services. You’d be surprised how desperate people are for TV. A lot of folks have gotten screwed by the digital changeover, too. We lost our CBS affiliate and I’m too cheap to go out and get a stronger antenna. It’s kind of like being a renter, people look at you like you grew an extra head when you mention you don’t have cable or satellite. Not to mention the wars between the carriers and the broadcasters/programmers. Anyhoo, if the people have kids, TV is a must-have. If a person doesn’t have good credit, they pay through the nose in up-front fees (”activation fees”). Not to mention (and here’s the real kicker), the carriers make people pay extra to get their local channels. Really sucks.

Comment by octal77
2010-03-10 10:12:25


…people look at you like you grew an extra head when you mention you don’t have cable or satellite. …

No kidding! Some people I have talked to don’t even
know that free OTA (Over The Air) reception is possible!

Here in the O.C. I get fine digital OTA reception with a
pair of old rabbit ears that someone gave me.

(I am about 25 line of sight miles from Mt. Wilson,
Los Angeles xmitter site).

Granted, every part of the country is very different from
a OTA signal strength point of view, but my understanding
is that most metro areas are served very
well with digital signals

Also, some stations are now petitioning the FCC (the commish)
for a bump in xmitter power and/or channel change
to compensate for unantcipated technical issues with
the digital changeover.

In any event, free OTA is a great way to save some
serious monthly $$$.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by james
2010-03-10 14:53:08

I get the OTA digital and what I get off my DSL connection. So, can watch HD off the DSL from Netflicks and most shows on the interent.

There are so many local stations here and when they went digital only, so many substations that they don’t know what to do with them.

Fox broadcasts in HD and SD on their two channels for some reason. We get all forms of PBS you could imagine. Plenty of childrens programing. All your major networks and weather.

 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 16:53:32

Here in Boise the transmitting towers

 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 16:57:41

are on a mountain about 4,000 ft. above the valley floor. I have direct LOS to them. I stuck a $35 rooftop antenna up in garage crawlspace, and wired it into my whole-house cable installation. All the free TV I can stomach.

 
 
Comment by terry
2010-03-10 11:46:10

In my neck of the woods, most of the residents have satellite tv. i thought about it, when they switched to digital. i called Direct tv and asked them for a copy of their contract. All I could get out of the sales person was well, right now its $29.95 for one year and then it goes to a regular rate. Ok, whats the regular rate. Answer,I can’t tell you at this time, cause next year rates will change. How longs the contract? Two years.
Ok, do you do monthly billing. Well, yes we do, just give us a credit card number and we will charge you for each month, after the first month , cause we charge a month in advance. Well, I don’t use credit cards. Ok, than we cant give you the $29.95 rate. Ok, than where can I get to read a contract before I sign? Well, you get a copy when you sign up.
Ok, so you want to sell me direct tv. I can’t get the special price, because I pay cash. I have to sign a 2 year open ended contract. I can’t even see or read the contract, till I sign an order to install. Ya know what? Stick your direct tv.
I spent 75.00 at radio Shack on an antenna and now get 12 stations for free.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by oxide
2010-03-10 17:47:42

Amen Terry. I spent $40 and got more than that.

Do you really need cable if you have kids? PBS has a whole TV channel of kids stuff, and it plays kids stuff during the daytime. That and DVD’s should be enough. It was when I was a kitten. Unless, I guess the kids need to talk Hannah Montana on their Blackberries at school.

 
 
 
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 07:29:21

Internet - yes; very useful for job search. TV - not so much. Problem is it’s so ingrained in our culture. FWIW - cable would be well worth it for someone who’s unemployed and has young kids. Not having TV means tons more time you’d have to spend with the kids vs. looking for a job (depending on the situation). In my case when I was job-hunting a couple of years ago - having TV was nice - it was indeed more time I could spend in the office job-searching while the kids were watching TV. Though in my case I had no problem affording it.

Comment by rusty
2010-03-10 07:45:54

When my mom wanted some free time, she just threw us outside for the afternoon. Of Course for the rainy days that didn’t work so well.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Ol'Bubba
2010-03-10 08:35:15

Is that how you came to be known as rusty? :)

 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2010-03-10 10:39:31

When I was growing up, we had one small, crappy black and white TV. We were only allowed to watch it at certain times, for certain programs. I don’t think we got a color television until I was in high school. I spent my youth outdoors, not cooped up in the house. It’s no wonder many kids of today are built like freight trains.

 
Comment by ProperBostonian
2010-03-10 11:43:16

“It’s no wonder many kids of today are built like freight trains.”

Grizz, I helped a friend of mine move. We moved the boxes and light stuff and she hired two teenagers to help later with the heavy things. The next day I asked her how it went. She said they were completely worthless. They had no muscles due to spending all their free time at video games.

 
Comment by varelse
2010-03-10 16:51:31

I think it’s against the law to let your kids outside nowadays, unless it’s to drive them to an organized activity.

 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 07:12:39

“I’d have to work three jobs to pay the bills, and that doesn’t make sense.”

Funny how the mentality has changed over the years. One of my grandfathers worked multiple jobs during the great depression and beyond. Worked full time for the railroad, work part time jobs that included night shift at a cracker factory, worked weekends repairing shoes and roofing. While my grandmother raised chickens, sold eggs took in laundry etc… All 5 of his children turned out just fine.

Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 09:19:44

My 1st time full paying job was during the summer at a turkey farm when I was 14 yrs old. It was long hours and nasty work but it was great money for a kid.

I also learned that both people and turkey’s had a real serious pecking order.
:)

 
 
Comment by octal77
2010-03-10 07:14:55

…Jerome Boyd, 48, a father of four…
…There’s the cable, the phone bill…

Since when has “cable” become a critical life-support necessity?

Ditto for his phone bill. Kids probably all have cell phones..

I wonder how much other monthly junk he has signed up for.

Remember, above all else, you’ve got to impress everyone
with all your stuff, and who knows what the neighbors
are thinking….

Dude, you need to re-prioritize…

 
Comment by shelby
2010-03-10 07:17:16

“I can’t take something that’s minimum wage because I just won’t be able to pay my bills,” he said. “I’d have to work three jobs to pay the bills, and that doesn’t make sense.”

Looks like Mr. Boyd has never been hungry in his life….

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 07:36:49

We have a friend does mission work in rural Argentina. When she was over for dinner the other night she showed us a slide show of the place. It’s incredible, and sad, the difference in standard of living there. Only the wealthiest actually had showers for instance, and the shower generally consisted of a system with a bucket and a plug-in heater - you’d turn on the water to fill the bucket, plug it in to heat the water until you though it was hot enough, and then take the shower, with the showing being nothing more than just water running out of an open pipe.

Less than half had electricity in their homes. No computers, video games, or anything like that; and certainly no cable TV.

I’ve seen lots of other similar things from other missionaries we know, including my wife’s uncle who’s been in Africa for 20 years. People here who consider themselves “poor” have no idea what it’s like in many (most really) other countries.

Comment by SouthFL
2010-03-10 08:22:44

There are plenty of middle class, upper middle class and super wealthy in Argentina. Although their poor live far below what is considered “acceptable” by U.S. standards. The “wealthy” you state in Argentina that barely have showers is not a true reflection of that country so I felt compelled to correct you. Perhaps your missionary friend meant the “wealthiest of the poor” in the rural areas.

Middle and upper middle class Argentinians have very similar existences that we do here in the U.S. It just bothers me when people in the U.S. assume that everywhere but here is the 3rd world.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 08:39:08

Agree. I was referring to relative wealth (or lack thereof) in the rural poor areas, not of the country as a whole.

 
Comment by basura
2010-03-10 08:41:28

Yup. Even in a typical third world let’s say Bangladesh, the upper middle class and rich people live very luxurious lives. I would say Argentina is 2nd world not 3rd world.

 
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 08:48:35

It’s the nature of a corrupt political and economic system - an increasing divide between the upper and lower classes.

Sound familiar?

Often this divide is actually achieved under the guise of removing the divide.

 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-03-10 10:53:10

Good thing this can never happen here!

*Watches as zillions of dollars disappear into the maws of bankers to pay their bonuses and keep prices on things high and wages low.”

Oh, crud…

 
Comment by measton
2010-03-10 12:11:22

Good thing this can never happen here!

*Watches as zillions of dollars disappear into the maws of bankers to pay their bonuses and keep prices on things high and wages low.”

We are on the fast track to 3rd world wealth distribution.
Small elite class
Small middle class
Many poor.

The total effective tax rate for people making 350mil a year is much less than someone making 300,000 a year while those making 300,000 pay a much higher rate than those making 30k. AMT kills the upper middle class. States are increasing sales tax and talking of soda and pizza taxes which hit the poor and middle class. Unemployment is up for middle class, services down, fees up. The elite get bail outs with tax dollars. The middle class pension system is on the road to collapse. Social Security and Medicare will be cut. We have had massive deflation in housing which was where many of the middle and upper middle class had their wealth, the banks get bailed out. When inflation eventually hits the working class will take another hit.

I suspect that the elite now figure that they will gain more by monopolizing production and natural resource extraction vs investing in the working class. Similar to Saudi Arabia or most oil rich states. Work can be done anywhere now and has been devalued. Democracy will be the next to fall, it’s pretty much gone now with our bought and paid for representatives going against the will of the people to serve their Wall Street lords.

 
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 13:29:46

measton -

It’s interesting how you and I have nearly the exact same view of the problem - your post sounds like it could have come from my keyboard, but (from recollections of your various postings) nearly polar opposite views of what the solution should be.

I think the core of it is this -

- We both view generally corporate control of the economy as being the crux of the problem.

- I view the main cause of the problem as being corporate control of government; with the government representing big corporations, and therefore the solution is to lessen the size of the government, taking away corporate’s key tool and allowing more control in the hands of the public.

- You view the main cause of the problem as being corporate control of everything, with the government being a counteracting watchdog representing the public, and therefore the solution to decreasing corporate control is to increase the size of government.

Fair assessment?

 
Comment by measton
2010-03-10 14:30:34

Fair assessment?

Yep, I posted a long time back that the right and the left really fear the same thing control by oligarchs. The right in general views the gov as the oligarchs and the left views corporations as the oligarchs. I think if you follow the money you know where control eminates from. I agree 100% with the assesment that Wall STreet uses gov to screw us. The problem is Wall STreet and corporations have become progressively more powerfull via globilization and consolidation. Gov is being put more and more under their thumb.

Solution - probably is none, but two listed.

1. Limit gov - Many different ways to limit gov. If rolling back regulation is the solution I think we will see people putting there money under the mattress and investing in livestock and canned goods. Just because you limit regulation doesn’t mean that corporations won’t control the rules. If weakening the gov by starving the beast is the solution you only increase the advantage of corporate America. As noted I think we should have socialize or highly regulate many things.
1. Power lines - Anyone who meets quality standards can sell onto lines, thus you increase competition. Put solar panels on your house and you too can sell power.
2. Telephone lines - Anyone can start a phone company.
3. Cable - Open bidding from content providers for channel access then people pay one fee for cable line and purchase what ever content they want. No cable company control. The Internet is an excellent example - Any one can be an interente provider or offer content. Just like utilities profits on these types of conduits should be highly regulated and access guaranteed. This model has worked well (which is why corporations are trying to chip away at it), it should be applied to other areas.
5. Basic health care as noted muliple times, but w private insurance for bells and whistles.
6. I do away with unemployement, well fare, and replace it with jobs programs to prevent scams, and keep people in practice for waking up and going to work. Employed people who arent’ starving commit less crime. That’s what I want. 2 days a week you can look for work.
7. I agree with social security as an insurance program not a retirement program. I’d do away with pensions and just have IRA type retirement accounts.
8. Military obviously should not be pirvatized.
9. Highways
10. Obviously I think banks should be regulated, and should not own hedge funds, and should not be allowed to use massive leverage, or keep bad debt off the books. There should be no such thing as too big to fail. I think the FDIC guarantee helps with stability people just can’t know exactly what there bank is upto and a federal guarantee helps. If you have a million dollars you probably don’t have to go to work and can spend more time scrutinizing your bank so I agree with limits.

These are the big things gov spens money on.

2. Change gov - This is in my view our best option, but probably slim at best given corporate control of media, and ability to spend unlimited amounts of cash on their favorite politician. Gov is theoretically elected by the people and what it does can be examined by the press via freedom of information requests. It is less opaque than Wall STreet, grey vs black when you throw in the FED but still better than corporate America. It can be changed on a semi regular basis by the people. It is the only entity that has the power to shrink corporations and regulate there activities. Think of standard oil. Where would be if the gov had done nothing about the standard oil monopoly. The company would have eventually owned most of the US oil production (already owned 80+%) and eventually food and factory activity. Why did gov break up the monopoly because many many other business interests were suffering from it and complained. Now with consolidation there is less of this counter force , which worries me. The middle class is being destroyed as well, bad for democracy. Still I see better gov, not less gov as the solution. Note there are areas where we could definitely shrink gov.

Word soup is now complete.

 
Comment by measton
2010-03-10 14:38:23

I posted a long diatribe that probably won’t show up but we agree on the problem. The main doing away with regulation or weakening gov does not put more control into the hands of the people. I wouldn’t say I advocate more gov, just better more open gov. In any game you need a ref and rules, you take those away and no one is going to play.

 
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 14:57:55

Thanks much for the well thought out response. I’ll have to read it more in depth and digest later (like maybe tomorrow) - no time now unfortunately. At initial glance - I think our views end up diverging when it comes to the theory of the ability of government to limit its level of corruption - whether its below or above the tendency of corporations to corruption; and also of course the age-old conflict of government provision of welfare.

 
 
 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 07:20:52

If he signed up for year-long contracts, he can’t just dump the phone and cable overnight.

Comment by Kim
2010-03-10 07:29:07

I’ve heard some companies will let you out of the contract if you show proof, and others will suspend service for a period of time. Mr. Boyd will never know until he asks.

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-03-10 13:44:36

I would consider phone to be a necessary expense while job hunting. And I don’t think it is fair to assume that he has cell phones for all of the kids.

I am fortunate enough to live in an area where I can get to the internet at the local library, but not everyone can and hours are limited (2 hours per day here). If I were looking for work, I would be doing a fair amount of research using the internet and at least meeting the unemployment job search requirements by applying online. Cable does not necessarily mean TV.

 
 
Comment by rms
2010-03-10 07:43:28

“About 11.4 million out-of-work people now collect unemployment compensation, at a cost of $10 billion a month.”

And how much do we spend on the middle east each month?

Comment by rusty
2010-03-10 07:48:32

or bailing out banks and car companies and fannie and freddie?

 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-03-10 08:09:26

Ah, but this is something that should have been considered in 2002, not 2010. Maybe when the war drums are beating again, this current guns and butter predicament will be remembered?

 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-03-10 07:52:14

Look guys…here is the real problem in the future:

When this economy turns around and jobs are created who will they hire first?

Someone collecting 99 weeks of unemployment

Jerome who worked 3 survival jobs in retail and a car wash

Or me actually working for less then min. wage as an “Intern” in a job that fits in perfectly with all my paying jobs in radio and tv?

I am hoping is me first.

—————————-
“I’d have to work three jobs to pay the bills, and that doesn’t make sense.”

Comment by ProperBostonian
2010-03-10 11:46:16

“I am hoping is me first.”

I am hoping it’s you, too.

 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-03-10 13:46:14

I would bet on you.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 14:34:49

They’ll hire as many illegals and kids as they can as cheap as they can.

That’s who will get hired first.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 07:54:43

“I’d have to work three jobs to pay the bills, and that doesn’t make sense.”

Peoples mentality has sure changed over time. One of my grandfathers worked 3+ jobs during the G.D. He worked full time for the railroad, part time at a cracker factory, worked repairing shoes and roofs on the weekends. While my grandmother raised chickens sold eggs, took in laundry etc… Their 5 kids grew up just fine.

Comment by aNYCdj
2010-03-10 10:18:05

Wmbz see above…..Back in those days it was acceptable to Employers that you will do all types of jobs. But if you ever want to be hired today you need to be creative enough to find a job even an intern job, that is in your field and not to take survival jobs.

Don’t blame me…its just what i am encountering everyday.

Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-03-10 13:49:40

I agree with aNYCdj. Take anything, even volunteer work, in the field you want to be in. If you have to take a 2nd job to make ends meet, don’t let it interfere with your long term objective.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by VegasBob
2010-03-10 23:28:40

One thing I learned in Corporate America: Never admit to having skills the employer isn’t specifically looking for.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 14:37:11

I’ve worked 3 jobs and 60+ hour weeks. The most important thing I learned is that it’s quick trip to early… death.

 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2010-03-10 14:04:14

I work w/kids that are already doing this because they’ve got overwhelming school loans and have not gotten the diploma linked income as quickly as they’d hoped. They’re also going to be living w/Mom & Dad for a while longer than planned too.
*******************************

“I’d have to work three jobs to pay the bills, and that doesn’t make sense.”

 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 07:09:40

“…saying that the Depression-era program created as a temporary bridge for laid-off workers is turning into an expensive entitlement”

Wells you has tah be “quick on your feet” & helps if your “former” company sent you traveling around so you could charge flights & hotels…like this guy:

Homeless man lives off hotel points from former life
By PEGGY LOWE THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

“I’m not going to claim I was cheated out of my house,” Kennedy says several times. “I didn’t pay my mortgage.”

Comment by Jim A.
2010-03-10 11:16:37

IMHO frequent flyer miles are just a form of graft, pure and simple.

 
 
Comment by Will
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-03-10 13:56:46

“Home prices are stabilizing in many parts of the country but overwhelming challenges remain; national housing prices will fall another 10 percent this year until they stabilize in the second half of the year or in early 2011. This assumes that job losses come to an end in the next few months and unemployment begins to decline this
year.”

Safe assumption?

Comment by CarrieAnn
2010-03-10 15:04:30

Safe assumption?

I was chatting with someone trying to pick up a 2 year old used car from dealerships. She’s paying cash. She said she was surprised to learn several cars she’d zeroed in on as potentials were sold over the weekend. I’m not shopping for cars but I’m shopping for tri race bikes. The store was pretty darn busy in February. As you mentioned above, Happy, I’ve thought for a bit that since new layoffs are dwindling downward anyone who’s still employed is breathing a sigh of relief and returning to their previous spending patterns. Some people believe the danger is over. They’re true believers in a V-shaped recovery.

 
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-03-10 14:49:13

“The Boomers are really two cohorts; the older group from 55 to 64, and the younger group, from 46 to 54, now in or entering what should be their prime earning years. Between these two, the younger group is larger, comprising two thirds of the cohort; only the older one third are approaching retirement this decade.

The Boomers have redefined every age they have entered and the older ones will do so again. They do not yet see themselves as aging; instead, “60 is the new 50.” Some have begun to retire
but most will push full retirement back for years both because they are working at jobs they enjoy and because they need to rebuild their retirement funds.”

I did not know that those in the older years of the Boomer generation were outnumbered 2-1 by those in the younger years.

We may see another bubble as the younger group try to maximize growth in retirement funds. The younger group is also more likely to have defined contribution retirements than defined benefit.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-10 16:20:26

“The Boomers are really two cohorts; the older group from 55 to 64, and the younger group, from 46 to 54, now in or entering what should be their prime earning years. Between these two, the younger group is larger, comprising two thirds of the cohort; only the older one third are approaching retirement this decade.

The younger cohort is sometimes referred to as Generation Jones. According to Wikipedia:

“The name “Generation Jones” has several connotations, including a large anonymous generation, a “keeping up with the Joneses” competitiveness and the slang word “jones” or “jonesing”, meaning a yearning or craving. It is said that Jonesers were given huge expectations as children in the 1960s, and then confronted with a different reality as they came of age in the 1970s, leaving them with a certain unrequited, jonesing quality.”

 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2010-03-10 17:33:17

The peak number of boomers were born in 1957 or 1958. That would make them 52 or 53 years old and fits in line. We were not the hippies. We were not war protesters. Some of us (not me) were into the dope scene but morphing into the Reagan generation of conservatives. I went down the libertarian path because I was diametrically opposed to the so-called “Moral Majority.”

Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-03-10 17:56:59

I am not necessarily surprised that late boomers outnumber early ones, but 2-1 surprised me.

And I have always maintained that someone born in 1964 grew up in a much different time than someone born in 1945. Heck, I was born in 52 and missed the 60s. Whereas my husband, who was born in 48, ended up smack in the middle of them. Someone born in 64 really missed all of the 70s. I have always thought that the timeframe is much too broad.

I graduated college into the middle of the inflationary 70s. It was difficult to save faster than inflation. It made sense to buy cheap goods today because they would be more expensive tomorrow. I think that influenced the mindset of a lot of folks in that cohort and contributes to our country’s low savings rate today.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-03-10 17:35:14

“a disproportionately large numbers of blacks and Latinos were
victims of predatory lending practices”

Two groups that have historically had lower home ownership rates, less experience with the process and rules of thumb, and fewer relatives and acquaintances that might have known enough to warn them about trouble with the contracts.

I think a significant number of Latinos were led astray by fellow Latinos. People that they would have trusted more than white bankers. I wonder how many of the contracts were written in Spanish?

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 07:13:49

Just in time for the red hot spring sales season: A brand new killer app to help you with your real estate investing decisions!

* The Wall Street Journal
* TECH JOURNAL
* MARCH 9, 2010

Home Buyers Check Out Apps
Smart-Phone Tools Use GPS Technology to Provide Local Housing

By JAMES R. HAGERTY

Just in time for the spring house-hunting season, smart-phone applications that provide information to home buyers are proliferating.

Real-estate firms have long vied to have the most engaging Web site to attract people searching for homes. Now they also feel compelled to have an “app” for Apple Inc.’s iPhone and other smart phones. Rather than being moneymakers—brokers tend to offer their apps for free—the apps are seen as a tool to make the home-buying process easier.

“I don’t think it’s driving revenue for us, but it’s making customers happier,” says Glenn Kelman, chief executive of Redfin Corp., a Seattle-based broker that operates in nine states.

Many of the apps’ functions—such as listing which nearby homes are for sale and which have sold recently, then fetching pricing and other data—have long been available via traditional Web sites. But the apps combine those functions with smart phones’ global-positioning technology, so that users can get information on their immediate surroundings without having to type the address or zip code.

“It’s like having your laptop with you on the ride,” says Rachel Ashby, a marketing manager in Seattle who is using Redfin’s app in her search for a house.

Comment by ACH
2010-03-10 08:00:41

That sounds like a great idea! Now all I need is a $300 iPod and a $100/mo plan so I can get the app. I’m set.

“I’m rich, Bick. I’m a rich ‘un. I’m a rich boy. Me, I’m gonna have more money than you ever *thought* you could have — you and all the rest of you stinkin’ sons of …”

Man, real estate is where I’m going to be. I’ll be famous! We’ve hit the bottom and swatted it good. The rebound is on!

Now, were did I put that old refi commercial? The one with the guy on the lawnmower? I know it’s here somewhere.

Roidy

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-10 08:31:06

Since I’m a bit hard of hearing, I can’t use cell phones except for very brief calls.

Reason: It’s very difficult to hear what is being said on the other end of the call. The iPhone is especially problematic because of its flat design. Just doesn’t cradle the ear.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 08:53:32

“Since I’m a bit hard of hearing, …”

Is it safe to assume this killer app is targeted for savvy under-30 real estate investors?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-03-10 10:55:27

Somebody needs to “snap up!” all those properties… and since real estate “only goes up!” it’ll work out great!

 
Comment by Bad Chile
2010-03-10 11:51:44

I’m working with Redfin, and this app is for the lazy.

Why?

I work all week. I only look at houses on the weekend. And there isn’t a single agent that will list a house on Saturday or Sunday. Most new listings are posted on Monday or Thursday.

So Saturday morning I select all the houses that have come on the market in the past week, decide if I want to see any of them, and then put those addresses in the old el-cheapo Tom Tom GPS unit.

Part of the decision process is researching comps, knowing what has sold in the area, and looking at the land records to see how far underwater the seller happens to be. If someone is $5k underwater from asking I don’t bother because I know my lowball will get rejected.

A little planning is all it takes to save $300 on an iPone and $100 a month for the data plan.

 
 
Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 15:09:32

“Since I’m a bit hard of hearing, I can’t use cell phones except for very brief calls”

…and she’s riding a rickety old bicycle at 45 MPH in traffic.

Slim, don’t forget to put mikey in your Will because he really loves you, unlike the rest of these hard-hearted and fickle people here.

beep — beep

;)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Carl Morris
2010-03-10 16:03:15

The iPhone is especially problematic because of its flat design.

I think the iPhone is just a computer that happens to take phone calls. I only talk on it while holding it up to my head if absolutely necessary. I much prefer using earbuds or bluetooth, and consider them mandatory for long conversations.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-03-10 08:04:07

I wonder if there’s a distressed sale app? Forget the foreclosure bus tours!

 
 
Comment by peter a
2010-03-10 07:15:32

I agree cable is a waste of money. The question is has the internet become a basic utility? Maybe he is talking about the internet bill.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 14:41:03

It is if you want to apply for a job.

About the only places that don’t use the Internet for hiring are very small mom & pop places.

 
Comment by Va Beyatch in Virginia Beach
2010-03-10 15:21:09

Internet = $40. From there you can get television content if you wish. You can also get phone service that will run you about $3/month depending on usage and how much international you call. http://Www.viop.ms and http://www.flowroute.com come to mind.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 07:15:40

U.S. Concrete warns future is in doubt.

LONDON (MarketWatch) — U.S. Concrete Inc. on Wednesday reported a narrower fourth-quarter net loss, but warned that without a successful restructuring there’s “substantial doubt about our ability to continue to operate as a going concern.”

Comment by pressboardbox
2010-03-10 07:43:34

Gotta be too big to fail. Any business with US in its name is TBTF - it is written. Not to worry here.

 
Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 08:35:36

Just as well.

If they poured anymore concrete in LA or NYC, the earth probably would tilt 4 degrees anyway.
;)

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 07:17:21

Economy ‘Far too Close’ to Double Dip: Roubini
Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010 ~ CNBC.com

Poor economic data in the US coupled with Europe’s debt crisis are contributing to an increase of the risk of the US economy going through a double-dip recession, Nouriel Roubini, who predicted the 2007 financial crisis, wrote in a research paper.

At best, the US economy is headed for a U-shaped recovery this year, Roubini said. That has been his prediction in recent months.

The US faces challenges in the second half, especially as fiscal stimulus measures fade, and “appears far too close to the tipping point of a double-dip recession,” he said.

Comment by arizonadude
2010-03-10 07:58:59

What is going on with gas prices again.I feel we are in for round two with goldman sachs.they are looking for another chance to screw you over.

Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-03-10 10:58:45

We need to get gas prices back up! Too many people can still afford to drive and heat their homes. That money rightfully belongs to Gollum Sacks, and they’ll get it, by hook or by crook!

Once they’ve begun that looting, they’ll lure folks into the market (energy in particular) and get everyone to think that “energy and stocks only go up!” Then, the rug gets pulled out from under those stocks, but “strangely” gas won’t go down as far as it did before.

Repeat until gas is $5 a gallon on a good day and everyone but the bankers is broke.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 14:55:38

March and April is the month the refiners suspend operations to service the refineries and then switch to the summer blend gasoline.

 
 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-03-10 08:43:14

Gee was that too little stimulus, being pulled away too quickly leading to a second decline, or too much stimulus, applied to early, attempting to arrest the decline at a still unsupportable level? I know what the majority vote here would be.

 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 07:18:04

A developer here in Boise has finally thrown in the towel on a planned-community development, and sold the property to the City of Boise.

The city’s $4.1 million deal to secure Hammer Flat means The Cliffs, a proposed 707-acre development, will become a permanent winter home for pronghorn, elk and one of the largest mule deer herds in the state….

Several years ago, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game partnered with the city and the Land Trust of the Treasure Valley to try to purchase Hammer Flat. They couldn’t raise enough money, and the land eventually was sold to the Johnson family in 2004 for $9.12 million. In late 2005, the Johnsons announced plans to build a planned community.

So Skyline lost $5 million on the failed development.

 
Comment by In Montana
2010-03-10 07:38:01

poof!

 
Comment by ACH
2010-03-10 07:49:28

Wow, they paid $6000/acre. I wonder how much they could have gotten it for without the sweetheart deal with the developer? Looks like he lost money, but they essentially saved his bacon. I would think that land could be had for $3000 or less.

Roidy

 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 08:27:07

One of these days my link to The Statesman may show up….

 
Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 08:41:21

Get ready for a lot more of these city/county “dirt bond” joint developement land ventures to go belly up and be foreclosed or sold for pennies on the dollar.

Thar’s gonna be a Flood !
:)

 
Comment by Elanor
2010-03-10 12:10:57

This is good news. Wildlife wins!

 
Comment by technovelist
2010-03-11 08:33:47

I can’t believe that no one has pointed out the obvious: who gets to be hammered flat?

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 07:18:41

Where did all of California’s vast riches go?
State university students left holding the bag want to know.

You can be sure that when throngs of students are gathering at the Sather Gate, the winds of political change are gathering speed.

The Wall Street Journal
California’s College Dreamers
When will students figure out the politicians have sold them out?

Hundreds of University of California students rallied against a 32% tuition hike last week. Let’s hope their future employers get a better work product. With just a little research, the students could have discovered that compensation packages won from the state by unions were a big reason for the hike.

Last year, the state cut funding to the 10-campus system to $2.6 billion from $3.25 billion. To make up for the reduction in state funding, the UC Board of Regents increased tuition to $10,300, about triple 1999’s cost.

Understandably, students have gone wild. The UC system is supposed to offer low- and middle-income students a cheaper alternative to a private college education. Now a year at a UC school can cost students as much as at many private schools.

Students block Sather Gate on the University of California at Berkeley campus Thursday, March 4, 2010.

Who’s to blame? UC President Mark Yudof rightly notes he had no other means of closing the university’s budget gap. The university used $300 million in reserves last year and cut staff salaries by furloughing them between 11 and 26 days this year. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says “we’ve done everything we could, but the bottom line is it’s not enough. We need to put pressure on the legislature not only this year in a year of crisis, but in the future.”

The California legislature? Good luck with that. In 1999, the Democratic legislature ran a reckless gamble that makes Wall Street’s bankers look cautious. At the top of a bull market, they assumed their investment returns would grow at a 8.25% rate in perpetuity—equivalent to assuming that the Dow would reach 25,000 by 2009—and enacted a huge pension boon for public-safety and industrial unions.

The bill refigured the compensation formula for pension benefits of all public-safety employees who retired on or after January 1, 2000. It let firefighters retire at age 50 and receive 3% of their final year’s compensation times the number of years they worked. If a firefighter started working at the age of 20, he could retire at 50 and earn 90% of his final salary, in perpetuity. One San Ramon Valley fire chief’s yearly pension amounted to $284,000—more than his $221,000 annual salary.

In 2002, the state legislature further extended benefits to many nonsafety classifications, such as milk and billboard inspectors. More than 15,000 public employees have retired with annual pensions greater than $100,000. Who needs college when you can get a state job and make out like that?

In the last decade, government worker pension costs (not including health care) have risen to $3 billion from $150 million, a 2,000% jump, while state revenues have increased by 24%. Because the stock market didn’t grow the way the legislature predicted in 1999, the only way to cover the skyrocketing costs of these defined-benefit pension plans has been to cut other programs (and increase taxes).

This year alone $3 billion was diverted from other programs to fund pensions, including more than $800 million from the UC system. It is becoming clear that in the most strapped liberal states there’s a pecking order: Unions get the lifeboats, and everyone else gets thrown over the side. Sorry, kids.

Get ready for more. The governor’s office projects that over the next decade the annual taxpayer contributions to retiree pensions and health care will grow to $15 billion from $5.5 billion, and that’s assuming the stock market doubles every 10 years. With unfunded pension and health-care liabilities totaling more than $122 billion, California will continue chopping at higher-ed.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has routinely called for pension reform, but the Democratic legislature has tossed aside the Terminator like a paper doll.

Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 07:35:38

So maybe the student protestors should go to police stations to protest, pelting the cops with rocks and bottles like in the “good old days” 1960s. Or maybe they could set a few firehouses on fire like the B of A branch at UC Santa Barbara circa 1970.

Comment by polly
2010-03-10 10:27:57

Maybe those students should all go back to their home towns and run against those democratic state legislators in their primary races (or the regular ones if they prefer to be republicans). There are things to do with facebook and twitter other than posting status updates about how drunk you are at a party.

 
 
Comment by combotechie
2010-03-10 07:36:55

“At the top of a bull market they, they assumed their investment returns would grow at a 8.25% rate in perpetuity - equivalent to assuming the dow would reach 25,000 by 2009 - and enacted a huge pension boon for public safety and industrial unions.”

Don’t blame the unions for this fiasco, blame the quants.

The average twelve-year-old boy (or a fourteen-year-old girl) has enough sense to realize this just isn’t possible. But four years of attending Groupthink University makes them think it is.

Comment by WT Economist
2010-03-10 08:38:27

In New York, the unions paid the actuaries who reported all the pension enhancements would cost zero, which is just what the state legislators wanted to hear.

 
Comment by Spokaneman
2010-03-10 13:45:58

As Simon and Garfunkel sang in the Boxer, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”. The CA legislature was pandering to the Public Employees Union so they promised lavish retirement plans. To do so they assume the expected rate of return to be 8.25%. You can bet anyone that argued against it was roundly ignored, or worse. And remember in 1999, it was widely accepted that the Dow would hit 30,000. I’m not making excuses for the decision makers, but this is how these thing happen.

The old saying about Assume is very true.

 
 
Comment by palmetto
2010-03-10 07:41:42

LOL, these days students protest tuition hikes and having their cheese stolen. They used to protest wars of empire, torture, stuff like that.

Is our children learning?

Comment by Ol'Bubba
2010-03-10 08:45:29

They am. They am.

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-03-10 08:49:38

Well…I was talking to a guy who was in the National Guard in the late 60s. He was also in college at the time and he pointed out that the BIG, campus closing demonstrations were almost always at finals time. I’m sure that there was a small number of people that where trying to have demonstrations every week. But they didn’t get traction with a large percentage of the student population until finals. It was kind of like being able to MAKE it snow to get out of finals.

 
 
Comment by rms
2010-03-10 07:51:29

“New UC president Yudof is part of a dynamic duo”

Comment by Captain Credit Crunch
2010-03-10 08:02:41

Yudof was brought in in part because he had worked well with the Texas legislature to get what UT needed.

 
 
2010-03-10 08:01:28

$10K / year for a UC education is still an outstanding value, in my opinion, and nowhere close to the riches demanded by private schools. I paid $5k per year ten years ago.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-10 08:32:36

There was a time when UC was free.

Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 09:10:46

IIRC UC was never exactly “free” but they played a game where there was no “tuition” charged, just “student fees”. The student fees were tuition called by another name. Students from out of state were charged out-of-state tuition.

I paid $229.50 per quarter at UCSC back during my undergrad years 1971-1975. Roughly $700/year.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Ol'Bubba
2010-03-10 09:42:05

IIRC my SUNY tuition (New York State) was about $500/semester in ‘79-80.

 
Comment by Muggy
2010-03-10 09:52:24

Bubba, you kicked around in Pinellas and you graduated from the SUNY system. Hmm, what lies ahead in my future?

 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 11:39:08

I paid $229.50 per quarter at UCSC back during my undergrad years 1971-1975. Roughly $700/year.

You went to Uncle Charlie’s Summer Camp? Cool!

Were they using their “alternative” grading system back them?

“DennisN did OK in calculus II, he had some trouble with integration by parts (who doesn’t?), but otherwise was a fair student.”

I understand that UCSCeventualy returned to the letter grading system.

 
Comment by Spokaneman
2010-03-10 13:49:26

If I remember right, back in the late 60’s $150 would pay a semester’s tuition, books, fees and a twelve pack of Texas Pride beer at good old NTSU (nee UNT).

 
Comment by Ol'Bubba
2010-03-10 14:47:48

Bubba, you kicked around in Pinellas and you graduated from the SUNY system. Hmm, what lies ahead in my future?

I don’t know what lies in your future, Muggy. If you have a decent paying job, Pinellas is a nice place to live. Or at least it was a nice place to live before the real estate boom and bust.

 
Comment by Ol'Bubba
2010-03-10 14:56:23

How does one close italics? Thanks in advance.

 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 15:22:44

InCo: all they had was “narrative evaluation” grading back then. I graduated with honors in physics, determined by polling the faculty. This was good enough to get me into physics PhD programs at UCLA and UCSD, and 20 years later into law school at SCU and UC-Hastings.

 
 
Comment by Mugsy
2010-03-10 10:35:02

Anybody ever think that the nearly “free” education at the UC system has been a contributor to the financial disaster the state is in now?

It’s not just welfare recipients who feel they are entitled to something from the state.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 09:36:09

According to the UCSD website “fees” (UC does not charge “tuition”) are $11,400 per year. Non resident tuition is an extra 20 grand.

I briefly attended UCSD in the early 80’s as a non resident. The total annual fees and tuition was about $5000. It was about $1200 if you were a resident. Because all majors were impacted at the time (making it impossible to graduate in 4 years) I transferred to private USD (University of San Diego, they gave me a free ride).

Back then USD tuition was $200 a unit, making it $6000 per year. USD tuition now costs $36,000 per year. For the life of me I cannot fathom how anyone can afford these rates. Where is the ROI? Starting salaries for graduates have not grown by a factor of six since then (its 2x at best). Even with a 50% scholarship its still $72,000 out of pockt (plus student housing).

My daughter is attending the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley. Tuition is 5K and she has a 50% percent scholarship there (room and board is a ripoff, but she’ll be commuting next year). And you know what? It still seems expensive.

Comment by Jim A.
2010-03-10 11:27:40

Well, several things have happened. There has been a great expansion in student loans so that people can borrow more, even if they can’t in the end service that debt. And there are fewer and fewer good paying industrial jobs that you can get with just a HS education. Education is a bit of a red queen race in this country, it’s not that graduates are making 5 times more than they used to, but non-graduates are having a much harder time getting by, especially if you factor in the likelyhood of longer periods of unemployment.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 14:13:24

But why borrow 70 grand (plus more for housing), when you could attend a Cal State school for a fraction of the cost? And the funny thing about USD is that its become fairly selective now, so its not like its an expensive school that rich people can send their dopey kids to.

My daughter has several out of state classmates at UNC-Greeley who go there because its actually cheaper to attend UNC as an out of state student than to attend State U back at home. This is because of the UNC is in the WUE program. It also waives non resident tuition for kids with 3.5 GPAs.

I can dig that kids are getting a college degree, because that’s what’s needed to get a mediocre job these days. But why get yourself 100K+ into the hole for a 40-50K job, when you can do it for a lot less at State? Especially in California where you can take the first 4 semesters at a CC, which are virtually free in California.

 
 
 
Comment by waiting_in_la
2010-03-10 09:42:54

YES! Agreed!

 
Comment by REhobbyist
2010-03-10 19:48:36

Except that tuition will go up to $13,000 this fall at UC. And median incomes in California have not gone up in the past ten years.

 
 
Comment by Spokaneman
2010-03-10 09:27:45

At some point in the not too distant future, someone with some cajones is going to say to the California retirees: “ya know, it seemed like a good idea in 1999, but it turned out not to be”, and reduce the pensions to something in line with reality. It will probably take CA defaulting on its debt obligations to get there though.

Comment by polly
2010-03-10 10:40:36

Yup. Won’t be the only state either.

 
Comment by Jim A.
2010-03-10 11:31:48

Well stiffing retirees IS defaulting on debt. Quite probably a necessary thing, but default nontheless.

Comment by Spokaneman
2010-03-10 13:51:27

Yeah, but the default will occur on other things first, bond obligatons probably and filter down to the retiree benefits.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Spokaneman
2010-03-10 13:54:24

There was an interesting piece on Patrick.net this morning which stated that States, unlike municipalities, cannot actually file bankruptcy. According to the article, a state in default nwould come under Federal receivership. I would like to find a more thorough discussion of that premis.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Ol'Bubba
2010-03-10 14:43:53

If that’s true, then we’re really screwed. I can only imagine things will be much, much worse if California somehow latches on to the Federal teat.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 15:08:41

There is no way CA is EVER going to fix their problems without intervention from outside.

They simply haven’t the will or the guts to do so.

 
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 14:23:20

someone with some cajones

As Iñigo Montoya would say “That word does not mean what you think it means.”

A “cajon” is a drawer, like in a desk.

The word you meant to use is “cojones”.

However, that slang word is not used in Mexico (or its branch office, California). They word they use is “huevos” (which literally means eggs).

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 15:04:55

$3 billion to $150 billion?!

While I’m all for the working stiffs getting their pensions, there is something VERY wrong with that increase.

And 100k a year? NO public employee should be getting that kind of money for retirment.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 07:24:05

This piece brings to mind the mob’s request when Jesus was dying on the cross: “Give us Barabas.”

* The Wall Street Journal
* OPINION: WONDER LAND
* MARCH 3, 2010, 9:33 P.M. ET

Bring Back the Robber Barons
There’s a big difference between entrepreneurs who make a fortune in the market, and those who do so by gaming the government.

* By DANIEL HENNINGER

Faced with high, painful unemployment as far as the eye can see, the government naturally is here to help.

The Senate passed a $15 billion “jobs bill.” Its proudest piece is a tax credit for employers who hire a person out of work at least 60 days. The employer won’t have to pay the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax for what remains of this year. If the worker stays on the job at least a year, the government will give the employer $1,000.

As to the earlier $787 billion stimulus bill, Vice President Joe Biden praised it in Orlando this week as an engine of job creation, while he stood before a pile of broken concrete and asphalt. The subject was highways.

Finally, Barack Obama’s government now may force companies to raise wages and benefits by squeezing their federal contracts if they don’t.

Maybe there’s a better way.
***
Let’s bring back the robber barons.

“Robber baron” became a term of derision to generations of American students after many earnest teachers made them read Matthew Josephson’s long tome of the same name about the men whose enterprise drove the American industrial age from 1861 to 1901.

Josephson’s cast of pillaging villains was comprehensive: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor, Jay Gould, James J. Hill. His table of contents alone shaped impressions of those times: “Carnegie as ‘business pirate’.” “Henry Frick, baron of coke.” “Terrorism in Oil.” “The sack of California.”

I say, bring ‘em back, and the sooner the better. What we need, a lot more than a $1,000 tax credit, are industries no one has thought of before. We need vision, vitality and commercial moxie. This government is draining it away.

Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 09:04:54

I’m reading the book cited in that article right now: “The Myth of the Robber Barons” by Burton Folsom. It’s an interesting read. Folsom segregates the good from the bad robber barons. An example of a modern-day good robber baron is Bill Gates, who took a tiny company and made it a big business with no government handouts.

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 09:46:18

Interesting. I’m curious about his criteria for separating the good from the bad - perhaps based on their level of political influence (i.e. pushing through policy changes that worked in their favor, but not necessarily for the good of the public)?

What’s his opinion of the railroad land grants?

Just wondering.

Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 14:38:24

He didn’t like any of the railroad guys except for the guy who did the Great Northern RR - James Hill. Hill built the GN RR out of his own money, and did a superior job. All the others took huge land-grant graft in exchange for shoddy, poorly planned work.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 15:02:26

That’s my impression.

You can still see the results today of the land grant craziness; alternating 1-mile checkerboard pattern of national forests, with corresponding alternating patterns of logged vs. non-logged areas in the Sierras.

 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 15:01:27

Folsom calls the bad guys “political entrepreneurs” who did shoddy work and only made profits from government subsidies. He called the good guys “market entrepreneurs” who made profits through quality work and efficiency of production.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2010-03-10 10:50:17

Bill Gates is not a “good” robber baron. He’s been lobbying Congress for years to expand H1B visas so that he can feast upon cheap Indian labor while putting educated Americans out of work, driving down wages and contributing to unemployment in the process. He’s a greedy pig just like the rest of them.

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 11:57:40

Does he perhaps have some Indian relatives that he’s doing a favor for?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 13:28:33

“An example of a modern-day good robber baron is Bill Gates, who took a tiny company and made it a big business with no government handouts.”

Who paid for the R&D that led to that tiny company’s wild success?

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 14:07:19

IIRC - mostly his Dad and IBM, right?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 14:45:51

The point being that it wasn’t the GOVERNMENT that paid. If IBM was too stupid to protect the PC’s IP, that wasn’t Bill Gate’s fault. IBM’s short-sighted subcontracting of the H/W and S/W of the PC was a tremendous boost to Intel and MS.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Va Beyatch in Virginia Beach
2010-03-10 15:28:53

Uhm I think Bill Gate’s parents were friends with the IBM people, and that’s how the hook up came along.

There is quite a bit of anti-competitive action that has come out of Microsoft. The consolidation of the tech world, from DEC to Sun is kind of sad though. Less big behemoths.

 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 17:04:07

IBM went to Digital Research first, but DR stonewalled them. Stupidest business decision ever. IBM then called Gates who jumped at the chance.

 
 
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 09:44:47

FWIW, “Give us Barabas” was before Jesus was taken to Golgotha to be crucified. It was supposed to be a holiday (Passover) where it was traditional to pardon a condemned man. Pilate offered to forgive Jesus, who he considered a harmless kook. Instead the crowd demanded that Barabbas, a revolutionary, be pardoned instead. Pilate acceded and “Washed his hands” of the decision, which he placed in the mobs hands.

 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-10 09:46:44

Wasn’t “Give us Barabus!” what the crowd demanded when Jesus was before Pontius Pilate?

 
Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-03-10 11:01:46

We have them: they are called “banksters.”

And, according to them, they are “doing the Lord’s work.”

Barabas, indeed…

 
Comment by 2banana
2010-03-10 12:11:10

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty
may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but
those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for
they do so with the approval of their consciences.”

– C.S Lewis

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 14:24:59

Robber barons are never satiated. That’s why they’re robber barons.

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 15:14:38

Someone should tell DANIEL HENNINGER what an “oxymoron” is.

There was NOTHING good about robber barons or the Gilded Age. That author is a complete moron.

 
 
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 07:25:19

Chart of the day - worldwide currency reserves.

Something to be aware of when people talk about the US$ being “the world’s reserve currency”. It is the majority, but it’s still only a percentage, and that percentage is shrinking lately. Now 61.65% as of latest data (Q3 2009), down from peak of 72.57% in 2001.

Euro is second, and was rising, though I’m guessing it’s taken a big hit the past couple of months. All other currencies are a very distant third+.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 08:51:01

It almost looks as though the US dollar’s loss translated into a directly commensurate gain for the Euro in market share of international currency reserves.

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 09:08:16

Yes, pretty much so.

For completeness sake - here’s an update including others.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 09:35:59

Nice graph! I’m going to steal that idea for an unrelated project I am working on…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 09:49:36

Thanks. Feel free - it’s public data.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 13:27:31

I actually just was referring to the simple but powerful graphic display of market shares as time series — directly applicable to what I am trying to show.

 
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 13:32:53

Oh - well that kind of thing is in the WSJ all the time, dontcha know. Maybe not as pretty as I make it perhaps. :)

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 07:27:49

Beware ye the handwriting on the wall, profligate sovereigns!

I suppose we could continue debating about to what extent the housing bubble was cause versus effect of the broader financial crisis over the next several decades…

* The Wall Street Journal
* MARCH 10, 2010

Irish Take Bitter Medicine To Survive Age of Red Ink

By NEIL SHAH

DUBLIN—Debt-laden Ireland is winning applause from financial markets for quickly taking the kind of harsh economic medicine that countries around the world are putting off. But in this newly austere country, people like 35-year-old Robert Peelo are finding little cause for cheer.

Mr. Peelo, a police officer, expected the government to give him a 6% raise a year ago and build a new station at his post in Dundalk, not far from a town across the border in Northern Ireland where a car bomb exploded in February. Instead, Ireland has cut his take-home pay by 18% and mothballed the new facilities, leaving him and other Irish police, or Gardai, in temporary offices he calls “porta-cabins.”

Mr. Peelo says he’s paying his 30-year mortgage by cutting out vacations, skimping on paid child care for his two young children and working police shifts on Sundays. Adding to the challenge, an old Irish code prohibits him and other police from taking outside jobs.

“We know that there’s an international crisis and that our pay will be affected,” says Mr. Peelo, whose work vehicle has more than 180,000 miles on it. “But there has to be some sense in it.”

The hard choices forced upon Ireland are confronting governments around the world. The U.S. and Britain have huge budget deficits that are potent political issues. Cash-strapped cities and states in the U.S. are slashing services. The pressures are acute in the smaller members of the 16-nation euro zone, where fears of a debt default by Greece have shaken the Continent.

Late last year, Ireland looked a lot like Greece. The financial crisis coincided with a housing bust that left Ireland’s banks in terrible shape, requiring a government rescue. Ireland’s fiscal deficit rose to almost 12% of gross domestic product—a shade under Greece’s 12.7%.

But unlike Greece—where protests and strikes are expected to escalate this week after the government unveiled new spending cuts and tax increases after months of foot-dragging—Ireland took swift measures to snuff out fears of a default.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 11:14:48

I guess Irish cops don’t have unions as good as American cops.

 
Comment by measton
2010-03-10 12:25:44

So let’s recap

To fight deflation states should
1. Lower interest rates and stimulate speculative investment
2. Bail out banks and Wall STreet CEO’s who will sit on the money, or speculate with it.
3. Increase taxes on the middle class, slash benefits.
4. Slash gov spending on infrastructure
5. Cut gov workers salaries, and benefits

All money goes to the top.

It should be noted that the fiscal deficit of Greece was probably worse than the official 12.7% via Goldman Sachs accounting. Not sure if Ireland did this or not.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 14:15:01

“…Adding to the challenge, an old Irish code prohibits him and other police from taking outside jobs.”

(Hwy wonders how loud the voices would be… if they had that rule for “The O.C.” firemen) ;-)

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 14:26:28

Again, it pays to have a good union.

 
 
Comment by CarrieAnn
2010-03-10 14:49:22

” But in this newly austere country…”

Kidding right? Ireland only got a bit of a break from a history of austerity.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 15:17:33

As I’ve said before, many economic journalists are morons.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 17:44:50

Prosperity in Ireland is as lasting as a really fast moving lightning storm, then again just ’bout everywhere you look …it’s all green, the elbows, the drool, the tourist… ;-)

 
 
 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 07:30:52

No one could’ve seen this coming: Chicago’s condo market continues to suffer from one-time condomaniacs turned into second-guessers, backpedal artists, or Johnny-come-lately rationalists.

Foreclosure suit tarnishes Silver Tower condo project
By: Alby Gallun March 10, 2010

(Crain’s) — Bank of America has filed a $40-million foreclosure lawsuit on a 225-unit River North condominium project in what could be a preview for other slow-selling downtown high-rises.

The developer of the 38-story Silver Tower didn’t pay back B of A’s loan by its Dec. 29 due date, according to the suit, filed in January in Cook County Circuit Court. The developer, an affiliate of Oak Brook-based Metropolitan Real Estate Co., has closed on sales of just 76, or 33%, of the condos in the project at 303 W. Ohio St., property records show. Buyers began moving in last August.

Silver Tower is the biggest completed downtown condo project to be hit with a foreclosure suit in the current downturn, but others may follow this year as more construction loans mature and more lenders run out of patience. So far, banks have preferred to modify loans, giving developers more time to sell their condos.

Housing consultant Tracy Cross blames Silver Tower’s woes on the high number of buyers who signed contracts for their condos when times were good but don’t show up when it comes time to close on their units. Some can’t get a loan, while others have soured on the investment as condo prices have fallen.

“The culprit is the walk-away rate,” says Mr. Cross, president of Schaumburg-based Tracy Cross & Associates.

Comment by Left LA
2010-03-10 11:18:49

I live next door. It’s a great looking building, but I wouldn’t pay $450,000 + $600/mo HOA + $6000/yr taxes for a similar unit that costs me $1,800 all-in to rent.

Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 13:53:40

It is a pretty good-looking building. It makes one wonder what the walk-away rate is on send- and third-class condo highrises, however.

Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 14:25:50

send- and third-class condo highrises,

Er, second- and third-class …

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 07:36:27

Hope springs eternal …

Hines puts 300 N. LaSalle on the block
By: Thomas A. Corfman March 10, 2010

(Crain’s) — Despite the dormant market for mega-deals, developer Hines Interest L.P. is putting up for sale a new skyscraper anchored by Kirkland & Ellis LLP that could fetch a blockbuster price of $620 million.

The 1.3-million-square-foot tower opened early last year and is 95% leased, with Kirkland accounting for more than half the building …

Mr. McDermott declines to comment on the potential sales price. Some sources say bids could range from $570 million to $620 million. Houston-based Hines prefers an outright sale, but would consider selling a joint venture stake, Mr. McDermott adds.

The development firm, which a year ago was forced by the credit crisis to kill plans for a 1.1-million-square-foot tower on the west bank of the Chicago River, is now hoping the real estate finance markets are about to turn.

“Capital markets come and go, and move more quickly than anyone expects them to,” Mr. McDermott says.

Last year, just a single major office building was sold in downtown Chicago, for just $60.3 million.

Comment by Jim A.
2010-03-10 08:56:08

The not so “impossible choice” has been becomming ever more popular since 2008. — “Her lawyer, Gary Nagle of Juno Beach, said Ram has given Cifarelli an impossible choice: ‘Lose $200,000 at closing, or walk away from your $80,000 deposit.’”

 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-03-10 11:19:03

Didya see where Oak Park wants to give a developer $9MM to build a 20 story hotel/condo/retail tower? Man, these people don’t know when to stop.

When Oak Park residents questioned their pols’ decision - the response was that the economic recovery was well underway and without this new tower Oak Park would be left behind!

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 07:45:28

Gov. Pat Quinn budget proposal: Borrow $4.7 billion
Ballooning debt, cuts in education, services could be opening gambit in bid to raise taxes.

SPRINGFIELD — - Gov. Pat Quinn on Tuesday unveiled a caustic budget plan that would borrow billions of dollars to stay afloat and push even more debt down the road, hoping to persuade leery lawmakers to instead raise taxes in an election year.

Quinn aides warned the plan would cost some 13,000 teachers and staff their jobs, cut off poor seniors from help in paying for costly prescriptions and shut down some health care programs for the indigent. But even after about $2 billion in cuts, the state would still be $11 billion in the hole.

The administration’s warnings served as the precursor for the Democratic governor’s Wednesday budget address before a joint session of lawmakers who want to wrap up their business in two months so they can focus on their re-election.

Quinn is expected to restate the unsuccessful call he made last year for higher taxes. But the political dynamics for a tax increase have grown only worse as the election-seeking Democratic governor confronts campaigning legislators who fear a voter backlash in the Nov. 2 general election.

Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 09:36:19

Gov. Pat Quinn on Tuesday unveiled a caustic budget plan that would borrow billions of dollars to stay afloat and push even more debt down the road, hoping to persuade leery lawmakers to instead raise taxes in an election year … even after about $2 billion in cuts, the state would still be $11 billion in the hole.

Pushing more debt down the road seems to be the Illinois State Motto.

Even with tweaked numbers, our debt burden is California-sized — throw out the rosy projections and it’s downright frighening. But Quinn seems more willing to tackle the issue than the majority of our state lawmakers, I have to give him credit for that.

Comment by VegasBob
2010-03-10 23:51:46

I think Illinois is in much worse shape than California…

 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-03-10 11:16:29

It’s crunch time! It would appear that to pave the way for the 50% increase in the state income tax here, they are first going to administer some pain. This is really getting interesting on the local level, I lost count on how many people have told me that the state is way behind on bills - to contractors, even for employees’ health insurance claims.

It amazes me how long everyone can pretend things (states, countries, households) are solvent when they are clearly not. The line between optimism and denial has disappeared in the sand.

Comment by measton
2010-03-10 12:30:57

How will states massive cuts in spending and increased taxation affect housing, house hold spending and the stock market??? It’s a conundrum.

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-03-10 13:37:18

And it is something future housebuyers must take into account. While there’s no way for me to quantify it, the looming state and local financial crises should be reason enough for prices to undershoot the mean. By exactly how much depends on how screwed that locality is.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 08:33:59

Not sure if rising pessimism at small businesses is a recovery sign or a double-dip recession warning? I suppose this news might be interpreted from a contrarian perspective as suggesting that the business community is collectively working through the recovery from irrational exuberance.

Pessimism up at small businesses
Survey shows jitters persist about economy

By Dean Calbreath, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Lori Weisberg, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 at 9:08 p.m.

Small-business owners remain skittish about the economy, with pessimism increasing slightly over the past month, according to a survey released Tuesday by the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

The fallback in confidence is occurring even as the economy seems to have bottomed out, with retail sales picking up nationwide and an increasing number of small businesses preparing to add workers.

“News about the economy is for the most part improving and therefore is an unlikely source of small-business uncertainty and declining optimism,” said William Dunkelberg, the federation’s chief economist. Instead, he said, small businesses are more skeptical of how politicians are handling the economy.

Yesterday’s survey showed that confidence among small businesses dipped 1.3 percent in February, back to December’s level.

But the poll also found that over the next six months, 13 percent of small businesses plan to create new jobs, up three points from January, and 8 percent plan to lay off workers, down two points from the previous month.

A similar poll, conducted by the Manpower temporary worker firm, showed that 15 percent of employers in San Diego County plan to hire new workers in the next quarter, compared with 11 percent who plan to lay off workers. Both numbers are a 1 percentage point improvement over last quarter.

Nevertheless, consumer confidence in the county slid between January to February, based on telephone surveys conducted by The San Diego Union-Tribune, mostly because of concerns that the business conditions will remain stagnant instead of improving.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 15:21:14

My business and others I to talk say thing are either slow or dead.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 15:26:45

“…I talk TO…”

Apparently yes, I’m dyslexic.

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 08:42:55

Good thing the stock market is rallying, to take Wall Street’s attention away from the never-ending real estate crash underway behind the curtain of the MarketWatch and U.S. News & World Report financial headlines.

* The Wall Street Journal
* MARCH 10, 2010, 9:34 A.M. ET

Commercial Real Estate Owners Beginning To Walk Away From Properties

By Prabha Natarajan
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Commercial real estate owners are walking away from properties that have become untenable as investments, just as homeowners have walked away from houses they can no longer afford to pay off or sell.

The latest commercial property owner to do this is Vornado Realty Trust (VNO), the $13 billion real estate investment trust, which warned last week that it would walk away from two loans totaling $235 million.

The trend is likely to escalate in coming months as more loans mature and refinancing remains difficult and costly. As with residential properties, there is less incentive for owners to hold on to properties when the buildings are worth less than what is owed on their mortgages.

“Frankly, I am surprised that we have not seen a lot more,” said Rob Little, chief investment officer of Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers LLC, with $32 billion under his management.

Commercial mortgages are in the throes of a painful correction. Delinquency rates are up, property values are nearly 40% off from their peak valuations, occupancy rates and rents are down. Further, as loans mature, many find it difficult to obtain fresh capital, and so they seek extensions on current loans.

However, of late, some commercial property owners find that it makes more economic sense for them to stop making payments and servicing the debt, and walk away from a property. Since most of these commercial loans are non-recourse, there is no direct obligation or claim on the owners’ assets.

In the residential market, the phenomenon is referred to as “jingle mail,” a reference to homeowners who surrender their property by mailing the keys to the lender rather than go through a formal foreclosure process.

An added factor is that in this recent credit cycle the stigma attached to commercial real estate developers who walk away–which previously meant investors would boycott the companies–has faded. Investors have little recourse but to wait to see if protections built into the bond offer a cushion from losses.

Little said that owners of properties that are well underwater have been able to keep them afloat by taking advantage of low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve to try to revive the economy. But when it comes time to refinance, the numbers often don’t work anymore.

“Current valuation (on property) lurks out there when loans mature,” Little said.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 08:47:32

The Fed bosses seemed to have seriously overestimated the potential for
low interest rates to mitigate the collective weight of unrepayable debt burdens on both residential and commercial property. So far as I am aware, the Japanese had low interest rates for the past two decades, which proved insufficient to prevent a long term decline in real estate market values after their property bubble collapsed circa 1990. Why would it be any different here?

Comment by Steamed Bean
2010-03-10 09:09:56

It won’t be, so we will have a zombie banking system as bank capital is tied up in non/sub-performing assets. Banks are unable to take the losses, they would be insolvent if they did, so extend and pretend until the borrowers quit paying. Banks will make coupon rates 2%, 1%, 0% to keep borrowers paying so they don’t have to impair the loan and take a loss. Banks still have to hold capital against those loans, so can’t make new loans.

Comment by ACH
2010-03-10 12:03:26

Where is Woody Harrelson when you need him?

Roidy

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-03-10 12:34:58

So far as I am aware, the Japanese had low interest rates for the past two decades, which proved insufficient to prevent a long term decline in real estate

The key is “long term” They want to draw this out vs a complete system collapse which is probably what would happen with no intervention.

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 13:56:00

They have indeed had very low rates since 1995, after starting to lower them in 1990.

If we were to only take that tack, we probably would indeed get exactly what Japan has gotten - continual long-term decline in housing prices - drawing out the pain. Downside to that solution is you get what Japan now has - the highest government debt level by far of any country, in GDP terms.

However we’re doing something different - quantitative easing - which Japan didn’t do significantly until 10 years after their recession started, and at a much smaller scale than the U.S. has done. Also in the U.S. much of that QE has been directed squarely at housing, which is really what’s made the price plunge pause the past few months.

I fear for our future. Our bubble was every bit as large as Japan’s, and our government debt level as large when it popped. Problem is we have less headroom I believe, since we have a much higher personal debt level than Japan did - I think at least (I don’t know the details of Japan’s data). Thus we have much less “headroom” in the form of assets that can be directed towards buying all the new government debt. That’s probably why we’ve taken the QE approach, and also why we’ll end up having some inflation coming out the backside vs. Japan’s zero inflation. Problem is that US$ inflation is going to really piss off some other countries - like Japan and China - that hold our debt.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-10 09:00:51
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 09:05:29

Well d’oh…

Comment by pressboardbox
2010-03-10 09:58:22

Yes, the guy who does this analysis for JPM probably makes $40million annual salary plus bonus. Top talent you know.

 
Comment by james
2010-03-10 10:17:14

Well. That ole time frame of mine keeps on slipping into the future.

I seem to remember that Neil was calling for 2009 to be the bottom.

I had different time frames from 2010 and as late as 2013.

Had to adjust things based on how slow forclosures were bleeding in. Slow as hell. Mentioned a few bits ago about a sample of the modifications. Guys had principle defered for 15 years on the loan mods. Got a reduced interest rate. However, they are esentially renting from the bank now.

Could bleed this stuff in for years.

In normal times housing is such a large portion of the economy and became a monster sized chunk. We over built so much though. Now it will be a long long time before the market can absorb the inventory at any price. So many people with damaged credit and not enough cash. That and household formation rates are dropping.

That and we are heading into the step part of the demographic curve for retirements. Perfect time to have a pension crisis and high unemployment. Going to be a fricking mess.

Comment by Left LA
2010-03-10 11:42:28

There used to be a guy on here with the pseudonym “Auction Heaven 2007″. I thought that was a wee optimistic, but I did not ever expect the kind of extend-and-pretend we have seen come into play.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 09:03:31

We have discussed at length here how the female nesting instinct is often a key factor in the decision to buy a home. At least some families have suddenly seen the light: Buying an expensive home with a monthly mortgage payment at over 28 percent of household income can eat away a huge slice of the family budget which might otherwise be allocated to the considerable expense of raising children.

I am wondering how easy it will be for the young couple featured in this article to summarily slip out from under their obligations and start over in a cheap rental?

Strategic defaults on homes on the rise

Carolyn Said, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, March 8, 2010

Jose and Anna Tolentino still live in their Novato condo that is underwater, but they stopped paying the mortgage in August.

Jose and Anna Tolentino moved into their Novato condo in August 2005, two days before Jose, a Navy reservist, shipped out to Kuwait.

“I was happy to have my wife in such a nice place while I was away,” he said.

But now, with the condo worth about half the $425,000 they paid, his attitude has changed.

“I don’t want to keep on paying when the house will never go back up to its value,” he said. “It’s better to cut our losses, get out of there and go rent.”

The number of people similarly choosing to cut their losses on their homes continues to rise. Studies estimate about one-quarter of all defaults are voluntary “walkaways,” also known as strategic defaults and jingle mail (for the sound the abandoned keys make in a mailbox).

The phenomenon reflects shifting attitudes toward debt and commitment. In an era where high-profile investors have walked away from multibillion-dollar real estate projects and more than 2 million Americans have gone through foreclosure, defaulting has begun to lose its stigma.

Being underwater - owing more than a home is worth - is a big trigger for those strategic defaults. Often another problem, such as job loss, divorce or higher monthly payments, is involved. But some homeowners just don’t want to be saddled with a huge mortgage when they have no equity.

‘Want to start a family’

“We could make our payment every month by doing a little bit of overtime,” said Jose Tolentino. “But we want to start a family. We could rent for half what we’re paying and afford to have kids.

(Poll conducted alongside the article posted above:)

The Question

Should underwater homeowners who can afford their mortgages become walkaways?

- Yes, makes no sense to keep paying
- No, better to fulfill obligation and keep good credit rating
- Try to work something out with the bank first
- With rising sea levels, a lot of local homeowners will be underwater

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 09:08:25

Schadenfreude overdose alert: This SF Chronicle article about underwater homeowners is sobering. How many of the 11.3 million underwater U.S. households will stay the course with their money-losing real estate investments?


Of all U.S. mortgage holders, about one quarter, or 11.3 million households, are underwater, according to First American CoreLogic, which collects and analyzes mortgage data. In California, 35 percent of mortgage holders are underwater.

“Negative equity gives you the universe of homeowners who are vulnerable to default,” said Sam Khater, First American senior economist.

In the Bay Area, First American shows the Vallejo-Fairfield metropolitan market (essentially Solano County) with 61 percent of mortgage holders underwater. The next-highest concentration - but the biggest in numbers - is the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward metro area (Alameda and Contra Costa counties), where 35 percent of mortgage holders, or 192,726 households, have negative equity.

First American said a tipping point seems to come when homeowners have negative equity of 25 percent or more - owing $500,000 on a $400,000 house, for instance. At that point, owner-occupants default as frequently as investors.

“The reality is, if you’re 30 percent underwater, you’re effectively going to be a renter in that home while paying your mortgage for the next 1o to 15 years before you get back to break-even with your equity,” said Paul Leonard, director of the California office for the Center for Responsible Lending.

Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 09:41:26

In California, 35 percent of mortgage holders are underwater.

More than one-third of Cali’s mortgage holders underwater. Astounding. How high will that number climb, I wonder?

Comment by waiting_in_la
2010-03-10 09:46:28

over one hundred percent? … lol

Comment by waiting_in_la
2010-03-10 09:47:46

at least there’s a ceiling.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-10 10:05:37

Hey waiting in L A, so are we (well technically Thousand Oaks). We don’t plan on re-buying in T.O.
Where do you reside, and what is your target area?

 
Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-10 10:12:01

We are going from an oversized McMansion to a “Father Knows Best” ranch in a sensible neighborhood. This lady wants the white picket fence and non-pretentious neighbors. In our target market, the price per sq ft is still in the stratosphere ($225-$298-)compared to reality, which I gage to be circa 2002.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 10:39:17

I’m thinking the percent underwater is eventually destined to decline sharply, thanks to mass walkaways…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-03-10 12:38:44

Does that 35% inclued Home equity loans?

 
 
Comment by pressboardbox
2010-03-10 11:06:58

Just glad the whole crisis thingy is behind us, that’s all.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 09:14:55

Posted: March 8, 2010
Solutions aren’t easy for underwater mortgages

BY GRETA GUEST
DETROIT FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

Second of two parts. Read Part 1: Owners walk away from homes, values erode.

The underwater mortgage problem has no easy solution, particularly in places like Michigan, which has shed nearly a million manufacturing jobs in the past decade.

Some experts advocate for principal reductions. But that would be seen as “a big giveaway,” said Julia Gordon, senior policy counsel for the nonprofit Center for Responsible Lending in Washington, D.C.

“If there is anything the American public dislikes more than bailing out the bank, it’s (bailing out) their neighbor,” Gordon said.

Still, she said, the problem of underwater mortgages — where the homeowner owes a lender more than the house is worth — should concern everyone. “If your neighbor goes into foreclosure, it brings your home value down,” she said.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 09:34:37

Don’t miss the sidebar, which shows how much prices have collapsed in different Detroit neighborhoods. It seems a bit late to be discussing preventive measures against price declines in the Detroit housing market.

Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 09:56:36

From the article, a prediction of an average 65% loss in value in the metro Detroit area. I guess $1 houses, crime, decaying infrastructure, and corruption don’t help those valuations much:

In Michigan — where home prices have dropped more than 35% from their 2005 peak — home values are expected to fall another 22% statewide over the next five years.

In the same period, they’re forecast to drop 30% in metro Detroit, according to Dennis Capozza, a University of Michigan finance professor.

 
 
 
Comment by basura
2010-03-10 09:15:38

Obama and the L-Word
The president’s habit of telling untruths
Matt Welch from the April 2010 issue

Here’s how predictable the president’s slippery relationship with the truth has become: Hours before the State of the Union address, Washington Examiner reporter Timothy P. Carney posted a “pre-emptive fact check” that, among other things, prebutted any presidential claim to have “stopped the revolving door between government and corporate lobbying.” As it happened, that night Barack Obama made an even bolder (read: less truthful) claim: that “we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”

In fact, more than 40 former lobbyists work in the administration, including such policy makers as Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn (who was lobbying for Raytheon as recently as 2008), Office of the First Lady Director of Policy and Projects Jocelyn Frye (National Partnership for Women and Families), White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz (National Council of La Raza), and Treasury Secretary Chief of Staff Mark Patterson (Goldman Sachs).

When Carney confronted a White House spokeswoman with the falsehood, she conceded nothing. “As the President said,” she wrote, “we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions.” Just not all of them.

As such defiance suggests, this was no isolated slip of the tongue. The president, who promised in both word and style to usher in a “new era” of Washington “responsibility,” routinely says things that aren’t true and supports initiatives that break campaign promises. When called on it, he mostly keeps digging. And when obliged to explain why American voters are turning so sharply away from his party and his policies, Obama pins the blame not on his own deviations from verity but on his failure to “explain” things “more clearly to the American people.”

Take the issue he has explained more than any other: health care. In the State of the Union address, Obama claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had estimated that “our approach” to health care reform “would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.” This is, strictly speaking, not true. The Democrats’ “approach” to health care reform includes a permanent change to the Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, colloquially known as the “doc fix.” The CBO estimated that the doc fix, when combined with the health care reform legislative package, actually “would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law, an increment that would grow in subsequent years.” This is why House Democrats stripped out the doc fix from the health care bill, and passed it separately; it made the CBO scores look bad, making it harder for the president to present bogus claims about deficit neutrality.

That bit of mendacity only scratches the surface of how Congress and the administration gamed the system to produce nice-looking numbers. The CBO, by its own rules, has to take Congress at its word when a piece of legislation promises unspecified future “cuts” in spending, even though an overwhelming majority of promised future cuts never come to pass (a fact that the CBO itself has repeatedly warned in supplementary comments). The Senate promised more than $300 billion in such cuts. Furthermore, the CBO scores bills in 10-year windows. So the Senate delayed more than 99 percent of the reform package’s spending until 2014, thus allowing the decade of 2010–2019 to clock in under the magic $1 trillion number. Add to all that chicanery the fact that every major health care entitlement expansion in U.S. history has vastly exceeded initial cost projections, and you have ample reasons for why Americans believed, by a margin of more than 3 to 1, that health care reform would exacerbate rather than improve the deficit.

Even when addressing black-and-white examples of broken promises —such as his vow to televise each and every bit of health care legislative negotiations on C-SPAN—Obama can’t quite resist the temptation to plead gray. When confronted directly on the broken C-SPAN pledge during a January meeting with GOP lawmakers, the president said: “Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process—just over the course of the year—overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which you guys were participating.”

Presidential defiance, dissembling, and disinformation are nothing new, even if such political perennials are more disappointing coming from someone who still boasts (as he did in the State of the Union address) of “telling hard truths” to the American people and “doing what’s best for the next generation.” Voters pretty much knew that Bill Clinton was a slime ball when they sent him to the White House; Barack Obama held out the promise of being more dignified.

The difference between these two most recent Democratic presidents, substantial to begin with (especially in the crucial area of economic policy), may come into sharper relief in 2010. Clinton’s reptilian relationship with the truth, suffused as it always has been with a catch-me-if-you-can sense of personal preservation, actually turned out to have some uses for the nation when he changed course after the 1994 Republican revolution and began co-opting some of the limited-government policies proposed by his opponents. It’s easier for a chameleon to change his spots.

Obama’s dishonesty, by contrast, seems to spring from a different place. As a man who has spent most of his career wowing people with his words and very little of it converting those words into deeds, he has an activist’s gap between rhetoric and reality and a radio broadcaster’s promiscuous carelessness with cutting rhetorical corners. Sure, it’s not technically true that the administration’s day-one lobbying reforms served “to get rid of the influence of…special interests,” as he claimed in a January radio address (to the contrary: federal lobbying in 2009 set an all-time record), but it’s easy to imagine that the president feels his combination of tighter employment restrictions for ex-lobbyists and stricter disclosure requirements for current ones is, in the context of the Manichean fight between “the people” and “special interests,” good enough for government work. The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, and the critics who complain are just opportunistic literalists grasping for any club to beat back the march of progress. No need to give them an inch.

But there’s a less charitable explanation too. During the president’s nonstop gabfests before, during, and after the State of the Union speech, he kept repeating the fiction that the medical industry’s “special interests” were significantly to blame for scotching his health care legislation. In fact, the administration and Congress negotiated with those interests every step of the way, receiving crucial buy-in and millions in campaign contributions. Pro-reform lobbyists outspent anti-reform lobbyists on advertising by a factor of 5 to 1. There’s a three-letter word for blaming the defeat of his bill on health care lobbyists, and it rhymes with pie.

And yet it smacks of something worse still. When a politician cannot fathom opposition to his policies except as the manifestation of wicked manipulation by bad guys, remediable only by more thorough “explanations” from the good guys, it indicates an unseemly paternalism. And if he cannot take the hint that Bush-Obama bailout-and-spend economics are deeply and increasingly unpopular, that indicates something immovable about his core economic ideology. With those two factors as backdrop, it’s hard to say which would be worse: if the president didn’t really believe what he said, or if he did.

Matt Welch (matt.welch@reason.com) is editor in chief of reason.

Comment by Pondering the Mess
2010-03-10 11:15:06

The Prophet of Change wouldn’t know the “truth” if it got past his ego shielding and knocked him off his gravity throne. He has a mission to fulfil, and the outcome won’t be pretty…

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:10:04

“we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”

Hang on, I need to look out my window and see what color the sky is.

 
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2010-03-10 22:47:20

Such a fair and balanced article. Managed to slime both Obama and Clinton. Somehow missed Bush’s two terms. Another hack piece.

 
 
Comment by pressboardbox
2010-03-10 09:34:21

Well, its official. The next bubble is in the stock market. Let the rationalization of why fundamentals have no bearing begin
(again).

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 10:04:13

There was a good article yesterday in the WSJ about the stock market valuation - pitting the bull Siegel vs. the bears Shiller and Inker.

link

A couple of things I thought were missed by the economists, at least as presented in the article:

- Siegel uses P/E ratio for his case, but doesn’t account for the apparent fact that E itself is running high; profit margin has been 7% lately vs. historical norm of 6% (as pointed out by Inker).

- Nowhere was there a mention of the impact of inflation expectations.

The latter I think is the key. Right now the market is above fundamentals (though not incredibly so) - but I think that the main reason is inflation expectations. People are using stocks as an inflation hedge; betting that inflation will cause earnings to increase faster than normal over the next few years (and that the economy will remain stable in the process).

Comment by measton
2010-03-10 12:55:02

Some quotes

Mr. Siegel, for his part, strongly disagrees with this kind of analysis. He argues that his friend’s use of 10-year average profits works poorly in the current environment, because big financial companies took such heavy write-offs in 2008 and 2009. Such write-offs, he argues, won’t be repeated, so earnings including them shouldn’t be used for forecasting.

Comment – Sure Mr. Siegel, all the write offs are behind us. We should trust earnings estimates of CEO’s who’s paycheck and job are tied to shorterm stock performance.

In regards to pakmans post on inflation.
Mr. Siegle says We could easily see 10% to 12% stock returns with low inflation” in future years, he says.

I’d love to hear a rational story for this.

This is the money quote

Another market analyst who was correctly bearish in 2000 backs up Mr. Shiller’s views. Ben Inker, director of asset allocation at Boston money-management firm GMO LLC, crunches the data in a way that avoids the debate over 10-year averages and write-offs. He uses historical profit margins to forecast future corporate profits.
One problem in forecasting earnings, he says, is that the Internet and real-estate bubbles pushed corporate profit margins to 7%, above the historical level of 6%. The higher profitability was due to exceptional borrowing and investment by corporations and consumers. While that one-percentage-point difference seems small, it represents a 17% jump in profitability, which Mr. Inker considers unsustainable.
Using the historical 6% margin and applying it to an expected rise in corporate revenues as the economy recovers, he finds that stocks today trade at almost 19 times expected profits, making them expensive. To be reasonably priced, he calculates, the S&P 500 would have to fall 21%, to about 900 from Monday’s 1138.50

I’d add that the stock market being above fundamentals may not reflect the average investor sentiment. We know that the majority of trades are now computer driven, and that many investors have parked money in money markets and bond funds. Much of the increase in stock prices may be due to big wall street speculators with free money and possibly the FED itself. If this is the case the value of the stock market says nothing about the consensus on inflation.

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 14:05:23

Mr. Siegel, for his part, strongly disagrees with this kind of analysis. He argues that his friend’s use of 10-year average profits works poorly in the current environment, because big financial companies took such heavy write-offs in 2008 and 2009. Such write-offs, he argues, won’t be repeated, so earnings including them shouldn’t be used for forecasting.

To add to that - aren’t the writeoffs nothing more than subtracting from the excess profits on the frontside of the bubble; profits which were realized within Shiller’s 10-year timeframe?

Shiller’s flaw actually is that he uses only a 10-year moving average for earnings. Problem with that is that back in 2007 for instance the 10-year average was grossly inflated - way above fundamentals, primarily due to the housing bubble but also including the tech bubble, with only a brief recession in the middle. Instead I think a general trendline should be used, extrapolated out beyond the scope of several business cycles, like about 30-40 years.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by pressboardbox
2010-03-10 09:44:09

Fleckenstein on inflation:

“Interestingly, the ‘devil’s food cake index,’ which notes the prices of the ingredients necessary to make a perfectly fine devil’s food cake, rose from just about 140 (again, where 2005 = 100) in early ‘09 to just above 180 in late January. In other words, inflation in food prices is, or at least was, apparent and obvious.”

Comment by measton
2010-03-10 14:53:35

And if people with fixed or declining income spend more on food

What happens to house prices?
What happens to manufactured goods?

Comment by packman
2010-03-10 15:04:32

Let them eat less cake.

:)

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:12:01

:lol:

As I’ve been saying, “What deflation?!”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by maldonash
2010-03-11 14:22:31

inflation seems to effect the day to day items that are purchased frequently including those that are purchased involuntarily such as public service pensions etc.

deflation is for sure happening if you look at real estate, general motors stock, many IRAs etc.

i suspect that the difference between the two yields a lot of deflation over the past 3 years.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by cobaltblue
2010-03-10 09:45:17

Study finds median wealth for single black women at $5.00:

Tuesday, March 09, 2010
By Tim Grant, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Women of all races bring home less income and own fewer assets, on average, than men of the same race, but for single black women the disparities are so overwhelmingly great that even in their prime working years their median wealth amounts to only $5.00.

In a groundbreaking report released Monday by a leading economic research group, social scientists turned a spotlight on the grave financial challenges facing an often overlooked group of women, many of whom could not take an unpaid sick day or repair a major appliance without going into debt.

“It’s rather shocking,” said Meizhu Lui, director of the Closing the Gap Initiative based in Oakland, Calif., who contributed to the report “Lifting as We Climb: Women of Color, Wealth and America’s Future.”

Among the most startling revelations in the wealth data is that while single white women in the prime of their working years (ages 36 to 49) have a median wealth of $42,600 (still only 61 percent of their single white male counterparts), the median wealth for single black women is only $5.00.

Comment by Muggy
2010-03-10 10:06:48

Double whammy: Herpes, black women had the highest rate of infection at 48 percent

reuters.com/article/idUSN0923528620100309

 
Comment by basura
2010-03-10 10:08:22

WOW. It is truly sad if it’s true.

Race riots, here we come…

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:15:17

A few years ago had the dubious pleasure of working in a factory with hundreds of black women.

Severe lack of education, poor diet and having kids at far too young an age seemed to be endemic.

 
 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-03-10 10:07:06

Okay, so the Obama/Democrat plan has been killed. So, time for the Republicans/Insurance/Health Care Industrial complex to put up, or shut up.

Let’s start with me.

I’m a 50 something, non-smoker, non-drinker, with a weight problem, on blood pressure meds, and on cholesterol meds at my doctor’s recommendation (not that my number is high, the good/bad numbers have always been in the normal range). I’m also covering a 19 year old female with no health problems.

The only insurance I can get is COBRA thru my old employer at $900/month. Which is about 25-30% of my current take home pay. Every other place I’ve checked has flat out rejected coverage at any price. Maybe it’s just me, but I think 25-30% of my check is totally ridiculous.

It would nice if this insurance actually paid claims, instead of having a phalanx of people looking for reasons to reject the coverage/payment. What’s the point of insurance, if you have to worry if your coverage is any good?

Sooooooo. Let’s have a few “free-market” solutions.

Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-10 10:23:44

X-GSfixr
Your post hit home. $16K a year for premiums, and co-pays, etc… for two adults who have minimal issues. We’re with Kaiser.Our income is 1/4 of what it was in 2003. Somethings gotta give.

We had BC, and had to get an Attorney to coach us on getting a claim paid for an ER trip, which wasn’t a controllable risk.

 
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 10:25:07

So Free Marketers = Republicans = Health Care Complex now? I missed the memo.

Nice baiting attempt.

Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-03-10 11:15:00

They (meaning Republicans and the Insurance companies primarily) didn’t like the Democratic plan. It would be nice if they presented an alternative fix to the problem. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

If you have affordable insurance, you don’t have a problem. Keeping the status quo doesn’t fix the problem for everyone else.

Comment by X-philly
2010-03-10 11:50:59

Here is one GOP plan

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Angus
2010-03-10 12:03:22

X-GS:

Have you checked out your state’s risk pool insurance?
http://www.healthinsurance.org/risk_pools/

As stated, some states have good programs, others abysmal. Hoping yours is an good/affordable option.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by basura
2010-03-10 10:28:09

Pubies don’t have a plan and whatever they are proposing doesn’t really fix the cost issue. They are still too protective of parties that are raking the benefits in healthcare industry.

My solution would be to open up everything. No Employer based insurance, No medicare, No malpractice, No FDA and so on. Let people shop and pay for their health care needs and government or charities provide subsidise for the people in need. I know it’s boarderline anarchy but it just may work.

Other one I was debating with a frined was to make health insurance companies charge based on age groups not based on conditions. For example in 20’s you pay 100 a month and 30’s you pay 200 a month and so on. This would mean the government will have to make buying insurance mandatory. Then again insurance companies aren’t the main problems in current crisis IMO anyway. If doctors and hospitals charge willy-nilly, what the insurance companies to do? Then again why the doctors wouldn’t charge more if it’s costlier to become doctor in this country then anywhere in the world?

We are screwed either way. The patch jobs may get us next 5 or 10 years but this system has to collapse for us to have a better system. Our only hope is to pay attention to prevention and pray to the lord at this point.

Sorry if above don’t make sense at all. I am typing as fast as I could. I have a teammate waiting to go to lunch.

Comment by measton
2010-03-10 13:01:58

My solution would be to open up everything. No Employer based insurance, No medicare, No malpractice, No FDA and so on. Let people shop and pay for their health care needs and government or charities provide subsidise for the people in need. I know it’s boarderline anarchy but it just may work.

REsult
No one over the age of 60 will have health care, excluding Wall STreet. Medicare was started because private insurance refused to insure people over this age.
No Malpractice or FDA, hell let’s do away with licensing too, anyone who wants to be a doctor just hang a shingle and hand out your snake oil. It will cut the cost of medicine because everyone who gets sick will die quickly.

The best system is
1. Gov run program that operates on cost benefit analysis and only pays for things that really work. Also include income linked copays for everything.
2. Private insurance or private pay if you want expensive things that return little benefit. See post the other day about Sutent for kidney cancer. Britain said no as the return per dollar was low. You can still get it if you want to spend the money but gov won’t pay for it.

Comment by basura
2010-03-10 13:27:24

Oh, you seem to believe that there’s such a thing as “things don’t work.” May be not to some, but to others hey it might just work. Human bodies react differently. How many times have we heard the stories of people just given 3 months to live but have gone on to live much longer and even find a cure. Then again, hope springs eternal, right? Many people may just want a patch job for 3 or 5 yrs even if it costs them arms and legs. With advances in modern science and technology 3 or 5 yrs may just be enough for some. So who is going to play god by denying certain procedure or treatment because the cost is not effective?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by measton
2010-03-10 13:38:30

“Oh, you seem to believe that there’s such a thing as “things don’t work.” May be not to some, but to others hey it might just work”

You obviously don’t have a grasp of medicine. I didn’t say anything about what a treatment might do for an individual. I discussed what the average cost vs average benefit is.

Look there is rationing that is going on right now. It’s just not efficient or effective rationing. We pay huge amounts for things that don’t work or have minimal efficacy. 10’s of thousands of dollars for drugs that extend life a couple weeks or months on average. People would still be able to get these drugs via the free market system or they could enroll in trials designed to determine efficacy. In my system drug companies would have every incentive to lower the price of their drugs to get them under budget. Your solution leads to snake oil, waste, corruption, and a collapse of medicine in general.

There are many socialized system in the developed world which deliver similar or better benefits for 50% of what we pay here. You can see your system at work in Haiti, or Somalia.

 
Comment by basura
2010-03-10 14:01:19

Oh how soon we forget.

Didn’t US have a somewhat of a system I described not long ago? While I agree with you that my plan is more fantasy than reality. And frankly so is yours.

The argument that other socialized countries provide cost half of what we pay is not relevant at all in this discussion. For example if it costs twice to become a doctor here than let’s say in Denmark, our healthcare cost is going to be higher. I hope that you are not suggesting we also apply socialistic approach to our education systems? You can’t have a socialistic healthcare without having other socialistic systems to support it.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-03-10 14:19:09

I hope that you are not suggesting we also apply socialistic approach to our education systems?

But things like grants, scholarships, state schools, public schools or investing public money in education areas that are lacking is not really socialism and we do it now.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Steamed Bean
2010-03-10 10:28:13

Self-insure, use the $900/month ($10,800/year) premium savings to buy your meds, routine doctor visits and a major medical policy (high deductible) in case you get hit by a dump truck.

Comment by james
2010-03-10 10:58:44

Don’t forget you can negotiate on prices with doctors. My insurance covers 90% of costs. However, they actually consider getting the lower price from a doctor as a payment.

They really cover 50% of costs.

And I don’t know how they figure the deductible. Something like 2000$ total out of pocket per person unless your in a family. Then it’s 2000$ per family member or 6000$.

Allegedly, if you get in an accident, you are supposed to make it to a covered hospital and make judgements on the care.

You’ve been paying into the system for a long time. You might be able to get basic recurring care from a discount provider and use medicare/medicaid as your backstop for major medical at a lower price.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-03-10 11:08:10

The meds I’m on are $600-700 a month, retail. Which is ridiculous by itself. I’m currently on COBRA (but will lose eligibility soon), but even so, my current copays are $120/month.

(Big Pharma likes to brag about all the lives they are “saving”, but their miracle drugs aren’t worth squat, if nobody can afford them.)

Only one of them is a generic. No generics available for the other two. My current med mix was developed after about a year and a half of experimentation with my doctor.

As I’ve noted before, there are a bunch of people in this country, 45 and older, who are rapidly becoming “economically unviable”.

Prediction: In the next 10 years, if the system stays the same, you are going to see Third World level mortality rates in the US. Like homes, government, and education, they have priced themselves out of the average J6Ps ability to pay.

(And I suppose that this will be okay with some people; need to get rid of all those freeloaders somehow…..)

So…….any recommendations on a “high deductible” company? Everyone I’ve talked to has had experiences similar to Arizona Slim’s; they’ll take the premium payment just fine, but getting claims actually paid is a different kettle of fish.

It could be worse…….I could be the owner of a house………

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-03-10 11:20:08

The meds I’m on are $600-700 a month, retail. Which is ridiculous by itself.

What about a trip to Canada every 8 months to buy drugs? I don’t know how it works but I hear some Americans go there to buy drugs. Can you buy in Bulk? If so it could save a lot. Mexico?

There are a lot of articles on the internet about buying drugs in Canada.

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/faqs/f/canada_drugs_why_cheap.htm

This is why killing the public option was a kick in America’s teeth.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 11:25:48

Have you checked into if those meds are available in Canada? If they are cheaper then maybe the pay out of your pocket might work. As for the high deductible policy, forget it. If you get really sick you can just stiff the hospital.

I had a former coworker who prefered to be a contractor (for the higher pay). When I asked how he paid for medical care he said he just went to the ER and when the bills arrived he threw them away.

Hey! Its the American way!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Spokaneman
2010-03-10 16:21:25

You cannot stiff the hospital if you have any assets for them to go after. Only those with no net worth can get away with that trick.

 
 
Comment by measton
2010-03-10 13:04:03

Always ask you MD if there are generics or not med options first. Drugs get pushed way to quickly for many indications. See recent Newsweek on antidepressants.

In my system the gov plan would not pay for these as the evidence for most people is they are no more effective than placebo.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by terry
2010-03-10 17:48:37

Your situation is entirely what this health care cost crisis is all about.
If you had car insurance and every month, you had a$700.00 accident claim against it, what do you think your insurance company would do. Yes, raise your rates or dump you.
this whole insurance thing is so much common sense.
I’m in my sixties, if I added up the entire costs to all of my health insurance carriers over my lifetime, it would probably come to less than $4,000.00. 4k over lets say 50 years. that amouns to about $ 80.00 a year. I never had a claim rejected,I use no prescription drugs. My insurance costs are about $150.00 per month. Why, because I have a $7,500.00 deductible. if I should have to take drugs or have minor medical expenses, I will personally pay up to that amount. I do not believe in making the rest of society pay for drugs and medicine, that is my responsibility.
Health insurance is no different than any other insurance. the more you make claims the more it costs. There is no free ride!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by neuromance
2010-03-10 20:12:53

(Big Pharma likes to brag about all the lives they are “saving”, but their miracle drugs aren’t worth squat, if nobody can afford them.)

Seems like big pharma is gouging, kind of like the people who sell water, food and gasoline at exorbitant prices after a natural disaster.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Happy2bHeard
2010-03-11 12:06:23

When I had Mega Life, it wasn’t great coverage, but they paid what they said they would and cost me about $350 per month for a family of 4. No drug coverage.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2010-03-10 10:31:48

Free market:

work for cash and get on Medicaid….do you have a choice?

 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 10:40:35

Sooooooo. Let’s have a few “free-market” solutions.

Not gonna happen.

Any real “free market” solutions would require busting up local/regional oligarchies, markedly increasing competition for all health-related goods and services, and allowing consumers to shop across both state and national lines for insurance and pharmaceuticals. (I can hear the Healthcare Industrial Complex collectively shuddering at the very idea.)

Then you still have the problem of covering poor and high-risk people for reasonable rates. I’m curious to hear whether anyone thinks that would happen in a laissez faire environment, and by what mechanism.

The bottom line is this: the Republicans/Insurance/Health Care Industrial Complex, as you group them, don’t want any governmental solutions — but they don’t want a free market solution, either. Why would they, when the status quo is sooooo profitable and consumer costs continue to escalate at an alarming rate?

Comment by measton
2010-03-10 13:11:09

You can’t have a free market when
1. Customer does not understand the ever changing policy, law, and the product medicine. My son appeared to have a deformity of the ankle. I took him to the ped, who sent me to the physical therapist, who sent me to orthotics who sold me a $1750 dollar plastic ankle support. INsurance paid. I did a lit search and found absolutely nothing about the efficacy. Requested an ref to an orthopedic surgeon who said this was a normal variant and he would likey out grow it. He recommended we do nothing. Total bill probably close to 3k. Now none of these people can point to an efficacy study. Most customers don’t have the ability to research this stuff or knowledge of who they should see or what stuff should cost or what there insurance company will or won’t pay for. How can that be a free market?? It’s not. Thus we should quite pretending and offer a dual system like many other countries where the basics are covered and if you want the bells and whistles for high priced care with marginal or unknown efficacy then you go to the private system.

Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 13:46:34

Thus we should quite pretending and offer a dual system like many other countries where the basics are covered and if you want the bells and whistles for high priced care with marginal or unknown efficacy then you go to the private system

I have no problem with that; in fact, I think it’s a great idea.

I was merely trying to point out that a real “free market” solution (as opposed to faux support-the-industry’s-current-state solutions) would face highly difficult problems in the economic, political, and practical realms. A viable free market solution is, in my opinion, as unlikely a scenario as a real single-payer system — if not more unlikely.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-03-10 10:49:37

Okay, so the Obama/Democrat plan has been killed. So, time for the Republicans/Insurance/Health Care Industrial complex to put up, or shut up.
Sooooooo. Let’s have a few “free-market” solutions.

Well, first of all it’s all about the spirit of capitalism and it’s ability to find the answers that encompass a maverick solution to the problems that big government has imposed on it’s free-market loving patriots.

Taxes have to be brought down to help Americans get the coverage that they won’t be able to get because of pre-existing conditions made worse because of higher taxes.

The founding fathers didn’t want us to ask Joe the plumber to pay for his neighbor’s Viagra unless he might really like his neighbor a lot because he’s a maverick working for a market based solution to his health problem which was caused by government interference in his jobs.

It’s not gonna be ‘Wait a minute, aren’t you going to take my money, take my earnings and give it to somebody else who maybe hadn’t worked as hard as I have worked?” It’s not going to be redistribution into a utopia by a socialist who wasn’t even born on a free-market country.

America’s future of free-market, private health-care rests in a thousand dreams inside your hearts. It rests in the message of hope in songs so many young Americans admire like New Jersey’s own Bruce Springsteen when he sings “Born in the USA”.

And helping you make those American, free-market based lower taxed business of insurance dreams of maverick thinking come true is what this job of republican’s for health-care reform is all about.

Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-03-10 21:04:43

Free Market solution . Everybody pays out of pocket for health care .
Prices immediately go down based on supply and demand falling dramatically . People stop taking junk medical drugs because of the price and their health improves .The American Medical Association goes into a uproar and demands forced Health Insurance .

 
 
Comment by polly
2010-03-10 11:05:10

Marriage of convinience. Similar to getting married in order to get a green card. The internet should make this solution easier to arrange. And I wish I were joking.

Can you daughter get insurance through her school? Isn’t she is in college?

When my COBRA ran out, I got my insurance through the university where I was geting my masters degree (as slowly as possible so the eligibility for health insurance would last as long as possible). A friend who had an individual plan asked about the coverage level of the student plan. He was thinking about doing an MBA at night since the cost of part time tuition and student insurance was about the same as an individual policy and the degree was a nice bonus.

Comment by rosie
2010-03-10 11:22:51

If you are single, marry a Canadian.

Comment by basura
2010-03-10 13:05:12

Thank you for you kind offer. Will you wait for me until I lose my job and can’t afford insurance?

:)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by rosie
2010-03-10 14:20:20

Depends. Are you really really hot, otherwise I simply won’t leave my significant other.There is a woman from California who was advertising for a hubby to solve a similar problem. Good Luck.

 
 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-10 14:31:36

I got stuck paying federal and CA income tax on about $225K when I sold my San Jose house because I’m single. :(

Believe me I thought about a marriage of convenience…..lady, I’ll get you a green card if you get me that $500K married cap gains exemption.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 11:33:10

“Okay, so the Obama/Democrat plan has been killed”.

Well, one can be sure they will pass some sort of plan at some point. No matter what it is, keep in mind that team Barry says it will take 4 to 5 years to implement. Which means it will take even longer, and will have plenty of problems.

I certainly don’t have the answer to the systems problems, and those that do have some reasonable alternatives are not going to be listened to anyway.

 
Comment by terry
2010-03-10 12:05:15

I have a friend, who owns a chain motel. Based upon what he has read about this healthcare reform bill, if it passes, he will immeadiately layoff his staff of seven. He does not provide health insurance at this point to any of his employees. His plan is to hire contract workers as his work force. Since he will have no legal employees, he won’t have to provide insiurance. He already buys his own family insurance.
I truly believe, that that if this health care reform is passed, we won’t ever see unemployment below 10%. No small business is going to hire more people with the additional cost.

Comment by polly
2010-03-10 12:39:19

You can’t hire people as contractors if you control their work hours and place of work, provide the equipment, etc, etc, etc. There are about 17 factors that are considered and people doing work as ordered in a motel for an hourly rate are not going to qualify. He might not get caught, but you can bet that enforcement will focus on businesses that have had employees for years and then, poof, once the bill passes, they don’t have employees anymore.

Unless your friend hires “contractors” through a temp agency and then the temp agency will have to provide the insurance.

Seriously, guys, as near as I can tell, the only person here who talks a lot about being a contractor and actually qualifies to be one is Arizona Slim. She takes on a project, agrees to do it for a particular fee and then deals with getting the entire project done. If she needs help, she hires it. In the end, she could make a bundle off a particular project (if it turns out to be easier than she originally thought when putting together the bid) or lose money (if she needs to hire more help than she realized). That is the essence of actually being a contractor - you can lose money on a job or make more than you expected. It is the transfer of the risk to *you* that makes you an independent contractor.

Anyone else is an employee.

Comment by GrizzlyBear
2010-03-10 13:35:27

There has been a bastardization of the term “independent contractor” over the course of the past decade or so, such that it’s almost become synonymous with “illegal alien.”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-03-10 13:15:03

Terry you seem to have strong beliefs about what will happen if the plan is past, but you post only a straw man arguement. I hate the current plan and favor a hybrid socialized medicine/private sector plan. Post what specific measures in teh plan lead you to believe we will never see under 10% unemployment.

Comment by terry
2010-03-10 15:46:23

Don’t get me wrong, but if I was an employer faced with adding $600.00 a month to my expenses for every employee, I would be forced to re-evaluate my bottom line. If I have a small business, or a large business, its going to have one hell of an effect on the bottom line. So, let me use the motel as an example. Seven employees and I add $600.00 per month in added expense. Thats $50,400 a year. Lets say, that this amounts to the net profit for a year. The net always goes back into updates and improvements.
Now, remember, this is a tourist area and because of the number on motels, occupancy rate averages around 32%. There is no way, I can’t stay in business, with the additional cost, nor can I add any employees. I can’t increase my room rates, nor can my competitors, to compensate.
Taking it one step further, if I lay off my employees and go to temps, I could keep going, but the temp agencies are going to be charging more to cover their costs. There just wouldn’t be any profits to re-invest. What are my options?
reduce staff and quality, which will decrease my occupancy rate?
I had my own company for many years and the bottom line to any business is, to make some kind of return on the investment.
If I cant make a profit theres no sense in doing a business.
One option used here, is to solicit workers from foreign countries, under a contract for a fixed amount.
Just plain common sense tells me small business just cannot afford this forced health care cost. If you kill small business, you destroy the basis for initial employment. Maybe thats what this government wants, only the big corporations, with no competition from small business. Think it out, it makes sense to me.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by terry
2010-03-10 16:13:27

I’m adding this, because it seems my reply didn’t post.
Simply put, its common sense. My daughter has a small stone and concrete business. In todays market, she is able to keep five men employed, paying her own wages. Little or no profit, after she has to replace tools and equipment. She pays herself, the same wages as her foreman. She does not provide health insurance, but she does issue profit sharing based on net profits in the form of bonuses.
Ok, so now force her to buy health insurance for her five employees. Wheres it going to come from? If she raises prices to match the costs, the big contractors will be under bidding her.
Any way she looks at it, shes done.
Maybe thats what the government wants…no more small business’.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:25:14

No, BIG BUSINESS wants no more small businesses and constantly use the government to stifle or outright destroy competition.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-03-10 16:34:28

Any way she looks at it, shes done.
Maybe thats what the government wants…no more small business’.

I sincerely hope you are wrong and I’m not a fan of this reform but maybe this article will make you less bummed out. It looks like she’ll get 35% paid for in tax credits. Add in maybe 30% employee contribution and it’s doable I hope. I paid health insurance for my employees when I didn’t have to.

Obama healthcare reform won’t crush small business. It will help. Christian Science Monitor 3/6/10

Under Obama’s healthcare reform, subsidies, access to health exchanges, and some cost control add up to a win for most small business.

Thousands of protesters rallied against the Democrats’ healthcare reform bill on Capitol Hill in Washington last November. But arguments that reform will crush small business don’t hold up.

At the same time, very small firms (include many sole proprietorships) would be in line for an immediate, extremely generous tax credit for buying insurance. From 2010-2013, these businesses would be eligible for a credit of up to 35 percent of premiums. Starting in 2014, they could get a credit of up to 50 percent of the cost of buying insurance through a state exchange, as long as they pay at least half the premium.

It is easy for critics to pull out individual elements of this vast health plan, rip them as tax increases, and claim, as the NFIB does, that the entire package would be a disaster for small business. But considering the huge labor market disadvantages these businesses face today as a result of their high insurance costs, most of these small firms are likely to be big winners once the dust settles

http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/Tax-VOX/2010/0306/Obama-healthcare-reform-won-t-crush-small-business.-It-will-help.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-03-10 16:51:43

In the current legislation, small businesses of 50 employees or less would not be required to buy health insurance for employees, but would face potential penalties if their employees use federal subsidies to purchase health care for themselves. In exchange, businesses with fewer than 50 employees that pay for at least half of their employees’ premiums would receive a tax credit for 35 percent of their health insurance costs.

http://www.pabusinesscentral.com/2010/02/small-businesses-hold-breath-for-health-care-reform/

 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 18:42:33

No, BIG BUSINESS wants no more small businesses and constantly use the government to stifle or outright destroy competition.

+1.

Right on the money.

 
 
 
 
Comment by mathguy
2010-03-10 14:11:15

This is a tough one, GS fixer. I have sympathy for you, I really do. Not to be an ass, (iow, asking in seriousness) do you think a strict program of diet and exercise could help you reduce weight and lower cholesterol? Have you considered lap-band? In addition to getting you off meds, this in general could help improve your overall health, and pay off in major dividends over the next 20-30 years of expected life..

Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-03-10 16:22:12

Having seen both my father and grandfather slowly disintegrate due to Alzheimer’s, my current plan is to have a sudden, fatal heart attack/stroke around age 68, or thereabouts. It’s not much of a plan, but at least it’s a plan. I have no illusions that I’m going to life to a ripe old age. And, if things continue the way they are in this country, I probably don’t want to.

As far as weight loss, the reality is that it ain’t gonna happen. Too much in the way of genetics, family history, and demands on my time to do the stuff needed to lose weight. (Who the hell has time to stop and exercise two hours, and eat six tiny meals a day?).

Actually there was a local doctor that had a plan that worked, sorta. Regulated, just-above-starvation diet, basically for the rest of my life. The food so depressing, that anti-depressant drugs were part of the program. And all of it out of pocket, so it cost about $3000 to lose 20-30 pounds (which I gained back immediately, as soon as I went off the program).

The good news is that women think I’m an overweight loser, so I don’t have to spend any money dating, or impressing the ladies with fancy clothes or cars.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 19:44:05

I’ve been blessed to know some truly beautiful people who are… “over-weight” since I was a kid…my “focused” education in genetics enhanced what I already knew from personal experience growing up.

Enjoy what’s left of your tour X-GSfixr, in any way you can make possible. I’m thinking in my heart that it’ll turn out far better than you expect…

Sincerely, Hwy50

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by neuromance
2010-03-10 20:20:47

“Certain defeat has never been an excuse for a Scotsman to stop fighting.”

You just never know. Medical advances are constantly coming down the pike. If I were in your shoes, I’d suggest lose the weight (slowly lumbering around seems like sheer misery, along with the ancillary problems), and if there are no advances in Alzheimers to your satisfaction, move to a state that’s got assisted suicide, or try to build up a stash of meds that can do you in when/if the the time comes.

There’s never an excuse to stop fighting for your health.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by measton
2010-03-11 00:23:21

Certainly many can achieve lower cholesterol through diet, but there are some who just have bad genes. I have a friend who rail thin, 43yo, plays hockey, near vegetarian, sports every day. He’s had a quadruple bypass and his dad died at 52 of an MI. There are plenty of things that diet and exercise won’t fix.

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:20:10

$900 a month? That’s not insurance, that’s EXTORTION.

 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-03-10 22:07:41

From my personal observations ,after spending weeks at 4 different hospitals ,about a year ago , the system is broken . I wasn’t the patient
but I was the bystander in torture watching a broken system . A system that was more run by the concerns of money than the oath to do no harm .

Don’t totally know what the answers are ,but in short order the price of medical care will not be affordable for the middle class and small business ,and Big Business just doesn’t want to provide it anymore .

When you think about it ,at this exact juncture in history ,you have all the different monopolies in conflict with each other all trying to get more of a percentage of the monthly nut of the average worker,and that includes Uncle Sam needing more tax money . The middle and upper middle class is tapped out ,and than you think they will be able to save for retirement on top of everything else .
Something has to give . The price of everything doesn’t add up anymore if you consider wages . But what really really bugs me is the bad faith in business and the rigged games .

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 10:24:45

My niece from Chicago will close on this house next Monday,in Providence,RI. Not exactly sure what the bottom line was, but I do know they offered a good bit below asking.

http://www.projo.com/projohomes/houseoftheweek/content/RE_OLEARY_10-31-09_K8G575Q_v30.24ee83b.html

 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2010-03-10 10:54:25

Oil stored at sea could mean bigger problems and prices in future

Another Day and another demon for the market exorcists at the US commodity regulator.

By Garry White and Rowena Mason
Published: 9:47PM GMT 28 Feb 2010

“The use of temporary floating tankers became so popular that even the investment banks had begun to charter ships, leaving the market with a shortage of vessels for transporting other commodities. At one point, Citigroup’s trading arm was sitting on a huge repository of crude in the North Sea.

And now the regulators want to find out whether withdrawal of supplies from the market has contributed to the fact that oil prices are high, while demand is low, or taking capacity off the market is a natural, useful response to a glut.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/marketreport/7338826/Oil-stored-at-sea-could-mean-bigger-problems-and-prices-in-future.html

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 11:27:10

Won’t they eventualy run out of ships? Wouldn’t it be easier to just drill and pump less?

Comment by measton
2010-03-10 13:16:10

Yep that’s when they massively short oil and drive it down to 10 bucks a brl.

 
 
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 12:08:34

Is nobody questioning why these same entities - JPM, Citi, etc., that are storing up all this oil, are also the same key players in the Federal Reserve - the entity that’s grossly inflating the money supply?

Perhaps the solution is to not allow them to inflate the money supply in the first place, and therefore not be able to make huge profits on this commodity flow imbalance.

Everyone seems to think deflation is a horrible thing - well here we have an example of where it would be an awesome thing - it would prompt these entities to put these unused resources back into the real economy so they don’t lose their shirts.

Comment by measton
2010-03-10 13:41:09

The bankers control interest rate and the printing press, thus as stated by T. J. they will eventually control everything via a series of inflation and deflationary cycles that they can manipulate and time.

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:29:34

As I’ve said, the oil market, like the stock market (and any other large world markets) is manipulated and bears no resemblance to true supply and demand.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 11:13:00

Forget Toyota. Chrysler’s got the most problems.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The car company that is off to the worst start of 2010 isn’t Toyota. It’s Chrysler Group.

Industry experts say that even though Chrysler’s overall sales are down only 3% during the first two months of the year, estimates show more than half of Chrysler’s sales have been to fleet customers, such as rental car companies.

American consumers have essentially turned their backs on the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands. By some estimates, the once proud member of America’s Big Three automakers fell to No. 7 in February in terms of sales to U.S. consumers.

Chrysler’s sales to consumers have plunged more than 44% so far this year, according to estimates by industry tracker Edmunds.com.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 11:18:34

I think this is in large part because Chrysler has faiked to keep up. While Ford and GM are slowly but steadily replaced outdated and antiquated models with new offerings that are competitive, Chrysler has not.

Comment by GrizzlyBear
2010-03-10 11:37:45

I agree. With the exception of their Dodge P/U’s with the Cummins diesel, Chrysler builds garbage.

 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 13:49:03

“American consumers have essentially turned their backs on…Dodge and Jeep brands”

Them there’s fightin’ words in our American Family! :-)

 
Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:32:20

The only Chrysler product I would even consider owning is the new ‘Cuda.

Chrysler seems to have a corporate culture that is against real innovation and quality.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2010-03-10 16:32:39

Thank the Krauts and Cerebus.

-When the Mercedes Benz pukes bought/”merged” with Chrysler, Chrysler was sitting on several billion dollars of cash to fund product development, and help them ride out the next down cycle. They basically bought Chrysler’s cash at a discount, and bought the rest of the car company with Chrysler’s own money. Then they short-changed Chrysler on the next two rounds of product development.

-Cerebus then bought Chrysler from the Germans, and tried the classic Wall Street “cut costs/decontent the product/p.o. the customer” blueprint, in the hope of getting the numbers looking good for a few quarters, long enough to “flip it” during an IPO.

Unfortunately for them, the bigger economy intervened.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:43:07

Good analysis.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 11:37:09

Unemployment rises in 30 states in January

WASHINGTON (AP) - Unemployment rose in 30 states in January, the Labor Department said Wednesday, evidence that jobs remain scarce in most regions of the country.

The data is somewhat better than December, when 43 states reported higher unemployment rates, but worse than November, when rates fell in most states.

Still, five states reported record-high joblessness in January: California, at 12.5 percent; South Carolina, 12.6 percent; Florida, 11.9 percent; North Carolina, 11.1 percent; and Georgia, 10.4 percent.

Michigan’s unemployment rate is still the nation’s highest, at 14.3 percent, followed by Nevada, with 13 percent and Rhode Island at 12.7 percent. South Carolina and California round out the top five.

There were some signs of job creation. Thirty-one states added jobs in January, up from only 11 in the previous month. But the job gains weren’t enough, in many cases, to lower the unemployment rate.

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-10 12:10:43

Unemployment Unexpectedly rises in 30 states in January

All fixed!

 
Comment by polly
2010-03-10 13:57:03

Wait until the states and cities/towns/counties start laying people off in earnest. What a mess.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 14:30:33

My wife told me that the city is going to bump up the furlough day count this year.

 
 
Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2010-03-10 16:30:00

LOL. The title of this news on the CNNMoney site was “State unemployment picture brightens” due to the fact that it was down from 43 states last month. Green shoots!

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 12:30:29

* Breaking News
Unemployment on Treasure Coast at 14.4% in January

To walk away or not to walk, is that the question?

* BY PAUL OWERS Sun-Sentinel
* Posted March 6, 2010 at 7:52 a.m. , updated March 10, 2010 at 7:52 a.m.

Michael Keigans is “underwater” on his mortgage, owing $80,000 more than his Deerfield Beach house is worth.

Keigans figures it could take a decade or two to recover the lost equity, so he’s tempted to walk away, even though he has the money to pay. “Why keep putting money into a house that’s going down in value?” he asks.

It’s a question being debated in many households nationwide as the housing crunch continues. Some borrowers feel they have a moral obligation to pay the mortgage, but a growing number of homeowners and consumer advocates say walking away could be a smart business decision.

The scale of the problem is daunting: More than half of all residential mortgage holders in Broward County are underwater, California research firm First American CoreLogic said last week. In Palm Beach County, nearly half of mortgage holders fall in that category.

And there are several reason for the crisis: Homeowners who now are underwater have seen their property values plummet after they paid peak home prices from 2004 to 2006. Many of these borrowers bought with adjustable-rate mortgages, putting little or no money down. Some are underwater because they refinanced their homes at the market’s peak.

So should they walk? Hundreds of thousands of people are doing just that.

Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 13:29:29

“Some borrowers feel they have a moral obligation to pay the mortgage, but a growing number of homeowners and consumer advocates say walking away could be a smart business decision’.

“Consumer advocates”

Wonder if they are any kin to the other consumer advocates that advocated that the gubmint get in and stop foreclosures? So the poor FB’s could get on a “level” playing field.

The more that walk away the deeper the problem becomes.

A fellow I know told me his son walked on two condoz in Fla. Over a 100k upside down, going to rent a wait out the storm. I told him I hoped his boy had a damn good set of foul weather gear.

 
Comment by mikey
2010-03-10 15:51:56

I suspect that “Vinnie the Torch” from Detroit will have no problem getting work…when he gets out of the Big House.

;)

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 13:21:09

‘It’s Going to Be Inflation Everywhere:’ Deputy ‘Doom’
Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010 By: CNBC.com

The global economy is entering a next “supercycle” phase that will generate inflation necessary for recovery, a strategist and protege of noted economist Nouriel Roubini told CNBC.

Arun Motianey, director of fixed income strategy at Roubini’s RBG Capital, said the supercycles feature periods of commodity booms followed by busts, and the US economy is on the verge of an inflationary period that will generate a sharp rise in prices.

“We’re heading into a world of inflation because we are highly indebted and we are indebted here in the US economy in the household sector and in the financial sector,” said Motianey, author of the book “SuperCycles.”

Motianey said the inflation would likely drive up the prices of other US assets such as stocks. Central banks “have to start letting inflation into the system,” he added.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 14:32:14

Oh well, at least beans and rice are good for you.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 13:21:29

Housing recovery still predicted to begin one year out. For how long can the serial bottom callers maintain this stopped clock prediction without someone calling them on it?

And so far as the predicted 5% annual growth in home prices goes, I thought Shiller said the long run average real home price appreciation rate was something like 0.5% per year. Is Marple’s prediction for nominal price increases? If so, is he throwing in a prediction for 4.5% inflation on top of the long-run average appreciation rate of 0.5% per year? I’d love to see the basis for his “prediction,” as it sounds to me like he made it up on the spot.

Around the Street March 10, 2010, 2:33PM EST text size: TT
Experts Talk Budget Deficit, Wholesale Trade, Housing
What Wall Street economists and strategists had to say about key developments on Mar. 10

James Marple, TD Securities

After nearly three years of falling home sales, plummeting house prices, and moribund construction activity, 2009 saw signs of stabilization and recovery in the U.S. housing market. Key housing market variables have been so volatile in recent years that it is easy to lose track of what a recovered housing market would look like. Home prices rose by 42% between 2003 and 2006, then fell by 30% between 2006 and 2009. Housing starts peaked above 2.0 million in 2005, then fell to 550,000 in 2009. Not one of these numbers is anywhere near long-run sustainable levels.

At their current value, home prices are more likely to be modestly undervalued than significantly overvalued, and at just over 500,000, housing starts are running not only below the long-run pace of household growth, but barely enough to keep pace with depreciation.

The outlook for the housing market in 2010 will be a struggle between forces pulling the housing market back towards long run levels and those hindering this movement. Supporting growth will be renewed job creation and the improvement in housing affordability, while obstructing growth will be the unwinding of temporary stimulus and the looming supply of foreclosures. Under the weight of these countervailing forces, the housing market is likely to move sideways in 2010, before beginning a multiyear recovery in 2011.

In a recovered housing market, home price growth should return to roughly 5% annually—a pace consistent with growth in income and the cost of new construction. New housing construction should rise to 1.5 million, in line with the growth in households.

 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 14:27:44

Spend on boyz…

U.S. Posts Record Budget Deficit of $221 Billion

March 10 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. budget deficit widened to a record in February as the government boosted spending to help revive the economy.

The excess of spending over revenue increased to $221 billion last month, compared with a shortfall of $194 billion in February 2009, according to Treasury Department figures released today in Washington. The figures show the deficit this year will likely surpass the record $1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September.

Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-10 14:34:12

That’s what, $1000 per every adult in the US? In a single month. We certainly live during “interesting times”.

 
Comment by packman
2010-03-10 15:09:59

Not sure where Bloomie gets their numbers, but I don’t think they’re right. Per the U.S. treasury:

12,278,636 - debt at end of Jan
12,440,068 - debt at end of Feb
delta of $161,431B, not $221B

Debt held by the public:

7,759,490
7,936,671
delta of $177,181B

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2010-03-10 14:45:20

Wife of U.S. Rep. Conyers Gets 3 Years for Bribes ~ AP

A federal judge has denied ex-Detroit councilwoman Monica Conyers’ request to withdraw her guilty plea in a corruption case and sentenced her to three years and one month in prison.

A federal judge has denied ex-Detroit councilwoman Monica Conyers’ request to withdraw her guilty plea in a corruption case and sentenced her to three years and one month in prison.

As guards cleared the courtroom Wednesday, Conyers yelled that she planned to appeal.

Conyers suggested that she was the victim of “badgering” last summer when she acknowledged a conspiracy to take bribes for her support of a Houston company seeking a sludge contract. U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn says her plea deal was voluntary.

Conyers is the wife of Democratic U.S. Rep. John Conyers. She quit the council in June.

Prosecutors also want the judge to consider allegations that Conyers and an aide collected $69,500 from people seeking help from the city. Her lawyer denies the claims.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:35:48

Corrupt Detroit politicians?

I’m shocked.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 15:00:57

Note the family pictured in this NAHB $8K home buyer credit promotional ad. Is the program specifically targeted at luring minority families into making home purchases?

Frequently Asked Questions
About the First-Time Home Buyer Tax Credit

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 16:38:28

Nawwww. Why would they do something like that?

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 20:07:02

Assumption 1: Every American household would be better off as a home owner household.

Assumption 2: Low income Americans need extra help to become homeowners, in the form of myriad subsidies (of which the $8K credit is just one example).

Given that minorities make up an outsized share of the lowest rung of the income distribution, they will tend to be more impacted by programs designed to help low-income Americans buy homes (aka “affordable housing policy”) than non-minorities, whether or not that is the intent.

Comment by ecofeco
2010-03-10 21:10:05

Actually PB, whites make up the largest number of poor people.

(based on 15 yo data. This may have changed, but I doubt it)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 23:30:32

I know whites make up the largest number of poor people. But poor minorities are a much larger share of all minorities than poor whites are a share of all whites. And in many parts of the country, whites are now a minority (take a visit to the UC Berkeley campus some time, for example).

It is a bit confusing…

 
 
 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 19:11:46

So there’s no cornfusion Mr. Bear…

1. Not everyone in America qualifies for this right? (If Not, what percentage of 303 million Americans do qualify?)

2. What is the price range of “houses” that fit this income?

3. Singles making up to 125,000 …equal what percentage of 303 million Americans?

4. Couples (not effected by unemployment) …equal what percentage of 303 million Americans?

“For sales occurring after November 6, 2009, the Act establishes income limits of $125,000 for single taxpayers and $225,000 for married couples filing joint returns.”)

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 20:01:37

More relevant questions:

1) What percent of minorities are not current home owners versus the percent of non-minorities who not home owners?

2) What percent of minorities who might be interested in buying a home soon would be knocked off the fence by the $8K credit versus the percent of non-minority potential buyers whose mind would be changed by the credit offer?

My guesses are that (1) a higher percent of minorities are *not* current owners than the percent of non-minorities; and (2) a higher percent of minority potential buyers would be knocked off the fence by the $8K offer than the percent of nonminority buyers who would be so affected.

In short, I guess it looks to me like the program may be disproportionately targeted towards minority buyers.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 23:27:25

All I’s need to do is look at the self-portraits “hangin’” in the headquarters of Wall St./MegaBank’s Inc. 2010… to understand the breath of diversity reflected in the pure waters of Oppoortunity.;-)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by StillLooking
2010-03-10 15:36:56

Wisconsin State Journal

Foreclosure filings up sharply in February

Excerpt:

After a rare decrease in January, foreclosure filings rose sharply in February locally and throughout Wisconsin.

Foreclosure filings in Dane County were up 32 percent in February compared to a year ago, with 148 new filings compared to 112 in February 2009, according to court records compiled by DaneCountyMarket.com…

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 17:19:16

Turns out the real deadbeats were not the guys who pay off their charge card balances every month, but rather the customers who walked away from their obligations last year in droves.

Credit Card Users: Not So Responsible After All?
Are credit card users really paying down debt? Analysis finds bank write-offs caused 2009 drop
By CANDICE CHOI AP Personal Finance Writer
NEW YORK March 10, 2010 (AP)

With unemployment high and personal wealth diminished, how was it that strapped consumers were paying down their credit card debt last year? It turns out they probably weren’t.

The bulk of 2009’s drop in credit card debt instead came because banks were forced to write off loans consumers failed to pay, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data.

Loans are typically charged off by banks once they’re 180 days past due, under the assumption that the debt won’t be repaid.

In 2009, banks wrote off a record $83.27 billion in credit card debt. A study by consumer credit research site CardHub.com found that accounts for the bulk of the of $93.2 billion drop in consumer card balances reported by the Fed for last year.

“If you just look at the numbers, you think, ‘Oh my goodness, there was a big decrease in credit card debt,’” said Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO and founder of CardHub dot com.

But Papadimitriou said it didn’t add up that consumers could make such a big dent in debt while under the financial pressure Americans faced last year.

The Federal Reserve’s reports on outstanding consumer loans don’t tease out the amount charged off by banks. By that measure, credit card borrowing fell for 16 straight months through January, suggesting consumers have been chipping away at balances and spending less.

When you consider how much banks are being forced to forsake in bad loans, however, consumers’ ability to pay off balances doesn’t appear as rosy.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 18:39:43

“The bulk of 2009’s drop in credit card debt instead came because banks were forced to write off loans consumers failed to pay”

Least common denominator:

“What goes around…comes around…” :-)

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 19:52:31

Who’d've thunk indiscriminately handing out credit cards like free candy to a class of Kindergartners could have possibly backfired for Megabank, Inc?

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 19:53:46

Stupid reaps what stupid sows. Morons!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by MadBoy
2010-03-10 18:24:03

Janesville man commutes to work in Texas

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12113489

Heartwrenching story about how a local family with a man commuting from Wisconsin to Texas for his auto assembly job has finally had enough and has decided to sell the house and had to sell at a loss.


As I noted in my comments to the local television station

This is just bad reporting….

The family didn’t “decide” to stay in Janesville. It looks as though the plan all along was to sell the house and move to Texas. GM shut down December, 2008, and the house was listed for sale in March, 2009. There’s nothing wrong with the family planning this, but the reporting gave the storyy a completely different slant. Also note, technically the house is not yet sold.

As for selling the house for a loss? The house was built in 1993 and they were the only owners. I cannot believe they paid anywhere near $200,000 for that house seventeen years ago. They may owe more on the house than what they sold it for, but I’m positive they got more money than what they paid for the house.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 18:31:03

Hey, wow, he just went up several notches in my “pokes’em-in-the-eyes” category! ;-)

Reaction to comments hits Hunter hard
By BILL PLUNKETT
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

“Hunter went on to say major-league teams pursue talent in Latin America “because you can get them cheaper. It’s like, ‘Why should I get this kid from the South Side of Chicago and have Scott Boras represent him and pay him $5 million when you can get a Dominican guy for a bag of chips?’”

“I was explaining that my friends or people come to me all the time and say you’ve got a lot of black players on the team and I always say, ‘What do you mean – there’s only two or three?’” Hunter said. “And they’re, ‘I saw six or seven black guys.’ ‘They’re Dominican. They’re not us.’ Simple as that. I’m not a racist. I’m just telling you, they’re not us.”

“I know Torii well. I know he has a lot of Latin American friends too. You hate to see any division of races in baseball or in this world we live in – especially when Torii is one of the guys who brings people together. … Like everything else, this too shall pass.”

It will pass without any apology from Hunter. (Hwy gives two BIG thumbs up! :-) )

“I’m not going to sit here and plead my case and say, ‘Oh, I’m not a racist’ and beg,” Hunter said. “I’m not begging to anybody and explaining why I’m not a racist. Forget you. You can think what you want. I do great things. I’m not going to sit here like somebody who’s guilty and apologize because I’m not guilty of nothing.”

 
Comment by Muggy
2010-03-10 19:30:55

Ugh, this short sale business is a bitch!! I’m going nuts over here. It could take a while…

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 19:33:22

Hey mugster, how old are you apprx?… ;-)

(My response will vary with your age…)

Comment by Muggy
2010-03-10 19:57:37

33

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 20:08:03

The gauntlet has been cast…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 22:31:28

Well, when I was your age I made a defining personal decision:

x8 shares of Berkshire @ $6,000

or 20 acres in the Sequoias

Jack Benny: “I’m thinking…I’m thinking…”

“Herstory”:

From Warren’s 1990 letter to share holders:

“In the equity markets, Berkshire spent the year acquiring a large stake in Wells Fargo, the largest permitted without the approval of the Federal Reserve Board. Yet, Buffett notes that “the banking business is no favorite of ours. When assets are twenty times equity – a common ratio in this industry – mistakes that involve only a small portion of assets can destroy a major portion of equity. And mistakes have been the rule rather than the exception at many major banks. Most have resulted from… the tendency of executives to mindlessly imitate the behavior of their peers, no matter how foolish it may be to do so. In their lending, many bankers played follow-the-leader with lemming-like zeal; now they are experiencing a lemming-like fate.”

Given the ever-present leverage dynamic of banks, Berkshire will never be interested in merely buying cheaply, for cheap banks will ever be in endless supply. Instead, “our only interest is in buying into well-managed banks at fair prices.” Here though Berkshire hit a home run, acquiring a well-managed bank at an unusually cheap price—a 10% interest for $290 million, “less than five times after-tax earnings, and less than three times pre-tax earnings.” Of course, bank stocks were unusually depressed in 1990, as “chaotic markets” followed the weekly disclosures of continuing losses in the industry; no less than 534 banks failed in 1989.”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by waiting wipeout
2010-03-15 17:56:41

Muggy,
Can you elaborate on your short sale issues, since we might be going down that road too.
Hey, how’s littlegal and littleman?

 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 19:31:42

Researchers: Men want sex until almost dead

This proves at least 1x old theory: “Life is stranger than fiction” ;-)

By George Mathis
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 19:49:32

Further finding: Taking care of your health can add 5 years to your sex life. I am making a doctor’s appointment first thing in the morning…

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 19:46:56

Roh roh — SD unemployment has come in “much higher than expected.” So much for the incipient recovery.

I am trying to put into perspective the “encouraging” news that “only” 50,500 jobs were lost in the Jan 09-Jan 10 period. Since SD has about 3m population, about 1 percent of the overall U.S. population (about 300m), a commensurate loss of jobs for the entire U.S. if the whole country lost them as fast as San Diego did over the past year would be 5,050,000, which sounds pretty recessionary, given the recession already began way back in December 2007.

Local Breaking News
S.D. jobless rate jumps to 11.0%
By Thomas Kupper, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Originally published March 10, 2010 at 2:25 p.m., updated March 10, 2010 at 2:39 p.m.

San Diego County’s unemployment rate jumped to 11.0 percent in January, reaching its highest level since the start of the economic downturn.

The state Employment Development Department reported Wednesday that nonfarm employment fell by 17,400 jobs during the month, including big declines in the hospitality and retail sectors.

Some of the decline is seasonal, as retailers in particular let go of extra workers they hired for the holiday season. But employment remained below year-earlier levels in nearly every sector the state tracks, with the one exception being educational and health services.

The local unemployment rate for December was revised to 10.3 percent, down from the previous recent high of 10.6 percent in October.

One sign of encouragement in the data was that the the reported decline of 50,500 jobs over the past year was the smallest such decline since January 2009. The local economy lost 83,300 jobs from July 2008 to July 2009, but that figure has since been steadily shrinking.

 
Comment by neuromance
2010-03-10 20:05:38

Is there any precedent for massive government asset price manipulation, as they’ve done in the real estate market?

Geithner has stated that real estate price “stabilization” is the government’s goal. I recall reading it in a Newsweek article.

Is there any history of this kind of market manipulation by the US government?

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 23:25:00

I’ve posed that question several times here already.

No reply…

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 23:38:08

The passage into U.S. law on October 3, 2008, of the $700 billion financial-sector rescue plan is the latest in the long history of U.S. government bailouts that go back to the Panic of 1792, when… the federal government bailed out the 13 United States, which were over-burdened by their debt from the Revolutionary War

Oh, well now in2010…it’ll have to be 49 United States…(- x1…North Dakota) :-)

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 23:39:19

The passage into U.S. law on October 3, 2008, of the $700 billion financial-sector rescue plan is the latest in the long history of U.S. government bailouts that go back to the Panic of 1792, when… the federal government bailed out the 13 United States, which were over-burdened by their debt from the Revolutionary War.

Oh, well now in 2010…it’ll have to be 49 United States…(- x1…North Dakota) :-)

 
 
 
Comment by chilidoggg
2010-03-10 20:27:30

Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles, History of the World Part I, Cheech and Chong… Those movies couldn’t be made today?

Have you checked out Harold and Kumar, or Sasha Cohen aka Borat and Bruno?

“I gave my baby a traditional African name: O.J.”

Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2010-03-10 22:13:54

I liked Harold and Kumar.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 20:50:34

Marketplace
Subprime

The Federal Housing Administration is being criticized for underwriting subprime loans, which critics say could lead to another wave of loan failures. Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains subprime lending and its inherent risks.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 23:39:33

Guess what: Tightening lending standards actually reduces the number of loans made. Who’d've thunk?

The foregone silver lining: Fewer subprime loans today could have resulted in fewer foreclosures tomorrow, and fewer taxpayer-provided claims payments on defaulted federally guaranteed loans.

FHA considers down payment requirements
By Dina ElBoghdady
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 10, 2010; 8:40 PM

The Federal Housing Administration has concluded that its loan volume would have dipped by 40 percent in the next fiscal year and that 300,000 first-time home buyers would have been shut out of the housing market if it had raised its down payment requirements, as critics have pressured it to do, a top housing official plans to tell Congress on Thursday.

Borrowers who take out loans backed by the FHA are permitted to put down as little as 3.5 percent. The agency’s cash reserves have dwindled as defaults have climbed in recent years, creating concerns that taxpayers may ultimately have to come to FHA’s rescue.

The agency’s critics say that boosting the amount of upfront cash that borrowers invest in their homes would make it less attractive for them to default on their loans and walk away from their properties, thereby lessening the chances of a taxpayer bailout. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) introduced legislation last year that would have required FHA borrowers to put down at least 5 percent.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 20:52:00

Marketplace
Look out below!

Commercial real estate is giving Ben Bernanke a big headache. Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains why it’s such a threat to the economy.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 20:53:31

I see no problems here that the porcine beautician brigade cannot clean up…

PIIGS

Five little PIIGS. Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains why problems with certain European countries’ sovereign debt could blow the house down.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-10 20:58:27

Ich finde die fünf kleine Schweine nicht sehr hübsch.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Germany says ‘nein’ to rescuing Greece
Germany’s chancellor and Greece’s prime minister

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou says in the future eurozone countries would be able to act like the IMF when member states get into difficulty. But his remarks may not go over well in Germany. Stephen Beard reports.

Kai Ryssdal: When last we heard from our man in Europe, Stephen Beard, that’d be yesterday, he was in Athens, giving us the street level view of the Greek debt crisis. And how people there are none too wild about new emergency budget cuts or restrictions that might come along with a rescue package from the European Union.

Stephen is back today with the second part of the story in which we hear how Europe’s biggest and richest economy — Germany — isn’t all that crazy about a rescue either.

STEPHEN BEARD: I’m on Unter Den Linden, the wide, elegant boulevard that runs through the center of Berlin. This is more than a 1,000 miles north of Athens. And a very different world. It’s very cold here today. In fact freezing. And there’s not much warmth or affection for the Greeks either.

Kick them out of the EU. Yes, kick them out says this cab driver.

He says: My father used to say a good gardener needs a hard heart and a sharp axe. Yes, cut the Greeks out. It’s that simple. What’s the problem?

The Einstein Coffee House, a few yards further along the road. This is a famous watering hole for politicians and commentators. Here there’s also a marked lack of sympathy for the Greeks’ predicament.

HEINZ SHULTE: When they joined the euro club we thought the Greeks understood the rules and played by them. But they didn’t. They fiddled the statistics. And that is something that the Germans don’t like.

Analyst Heinz Shulte says most Germans are appalled that Greek governments covertly borrowed four times the limit allowed under those euro club rules. And they’re not happy the Greeks buckled under the monetary discipline and then harped on Germany’s Nazi past.

SHULTE: Sorry. We didn’t storm-troop them into the euro. They wanted it. And they should have read the rules.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-10 21:46:04

“Yes, kick them out says this cab driver.

He says: My father used to say a good gardener needs a hard heart and a sharp axe…”

Well, it’s true, …some people have “zero tolerance” for “weed”

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-11 00:37:05

Bringing back fond memories of helping my (German) grandma weed her garden…

 
 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2010-03-10 23:54:41

HEINZ SHULTE: When they joined the euro club we thought the Greeks understood the rules and played by them. But they didn’t. They fiddled the statistics.

I think you mean diddled, sir, they diddled the statistics!

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-11 00:40:09

Seems CA is not alone in its public school funding crisis:

* MARCH 11, 2010

School Crisis Rattles Missouri
Kansas City Board Approves Plan to Shutter Nearly Half of District’s Buildings

By DOUGLAS BELKIN

The Kansas City Missouri School Board voted Wednesday night to shutter nearly half of its schools in an effort to avoid going broke.

The action closes 28 of 58 campuses and eliminates about 700 of the district’s 3,300 jobs, including 285 teachers.

Maggie Kolen, who has worked for the district for 37 years, reacts to the board’s ruling, which she said wasn’t a surprise.

“None of us like doing this but it was necessary, it had to be done,” said board member Arthur Benson after a tense five to four vote that was interrupted several times by upset parents.

The plan comes as school districts around the country, battered by the recession and budget cutbacks, are closing facilities to save money. Detroit closed 29 schools before classes began this fall, leaving the district with 172 schools, according to the Associated Press.

The Kansas City School District, which serves 18,000 students, was twice as large a decade ago. That decrease has led to cuts in state funding. The district now runs a $12 million monthly deficit and expects to run out of money by 2011.

The plan, dubbed “Right Sizing the District,” aims to end the deficit and address poor academic performance by consolidating services and cutting under-performing staff.

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2010-03-11 06:39:44

Foreclosures: Housing defaults soar in Palm Beach County, Treasure Coast

By Jeff Ostrowski
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 12:19 a.m. Thursday, March 11, 2010

Foreclosure activity skyrocketed in Palm Beach County and the Treasure Coast in February, fanning fears that the housing market still faces strong headwinds.

About 4,490 homes in Palm Beach County received a foreclosure filing during the month, up 63 percent from January to February and 68 percent from a year ago, RealtyTrac, an information provider in Irvine, Calif., said today.

Martin County foreclosures were up 52 percent from the previous month and 13 percent from a year ago, while St. Lucie County defaults jumped 69 percent from January and 39 percent since February 2009.

Statewide, foreclosures rose 15 percent from January, while foreclosures nationally dipped 2 percent, RealtyTrac said.

For investors like Myles Minns, head of Continental Properties in West Palm Beach, the wave of defaults creates a “land of opportunity.” After snapping up five foreclosures a week, Minns said he’s taking a breather.

“We had to slow down, because we made offers not thinking people would accept them, and they accepted them,” Minns said.

He plans to fix most of the properties and resell or rent them.

Minns said he has noticed an increase in foreclosures in Palm Beach County, a trend he attributes in part to lenders growing more assertive about taking properties.

“Banks were holding off and holding off,” Minns said. “They really didn’t want to foreclose right off the bat because they wanted to wait and see what would happen with Obama.”

Mortgage banker Bill Davis, head of Private Funding Specialists in Palm Beach Gardens, said rising unemployment rates and falling home values have sent many borrowers into default.

“People were holding on, holding on, and now they’ve capitulated,” Davis said.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post