March 29, 2011

Bits Bucket for March 29, 2011

Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.




RSS feed | Trackback URI

407 Comments »

Comment by albuquerquedan
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 05:57:55

The report of my death was an exaggeration.

- Mark Twain

Comment by lint
2011-03-29 11:38:18

Stefan Molyneux, a well-known anarchist, gave a great talk last year where he pointed out that, “The enforcement of the state does not come from the state. It comes horizontally, from the mass of the people who have been cultured to believe the storyline of vertical state control.” He calls this “the genius of the state.” He calls these enforcers slaves, enforcing their own slavery.

The genius of the state is that it gets us to voluntarily, without pay, to stand up for it, and to deter, damn, and defriend not just the people who challenge its presumed authority, but to heartily reject both ideas and factual information that challenge the state’s façade of moral certitude, and its the mask of justness.

http://tinyurl.com/6xymsap

Btw, I have been “defriended” by 90% of my Christian friends when it is learned that I do not worship the federal government or its thugs known as US soldiers.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 11:43:55

Interesting post lint. It is not hard to imagine that you defriends are pretty insecure without their authority figures. Kind of makes you look like a wolf if you are not following along.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by lint
2011-03-29 15:00:40

“I would never want you to worship either one. I find your lack of empathy for soldiers disturbing, though. ”

Respect is earned in my world not freely given. Why should I respect or have sympathy for American military men and women that do not respect the law of the land(constitution) or the law of common decency toward humanity?

Said US soldiers operate independently of the laws of the USA thus are my enemy as an American citizen. Said soldiers kill for sport and for a paycheck not at all because Americans need to be defended. In fact, US soldiers have put the lives of Americans in increasingly greater danger.

Thanks to US soldiers refusing to fight domestic enemies as they agreed to do via their enlistment oath, we Americans no longer enjoy the freedoms as expressed by the 4th amendment. Oh and lets not forget the Patriot Act.

Does it disturb you that soldiers legally murder people that pose no threat whatsoever to said soldier or to Americans?

Does it disturb you that soldiers will do as commanded(some exceptions, far too few)? Such immoral and unlawful commands that US soldiers follow: mass murder of entire societies in the middle east without the lawfully required congressional declaration of war, torture of human beings, use of depleted uranium munitions.

US soldiers are liable for their actions as are all human beings. There is no magic exempting US soldiers from the atrocity they routinely commit.

It disturbs me that you are just hunky dory with the flagrant violations of both American law, international law and human decency that US soldiers commit daily.

If the US soldier can mass murder American people(civil war), mass murder brown people round the world, participate in undeclared wars, refuse to honor his oath, follow the most immoral orders then what, pray-tell, brings you to the point of having empathy or even respect for these criminals?

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 15:12:05

Such immoral and unlawful commands that US soldiers follow: mass murder of entire societies in the middle east without the lawfully required congressional declaration of war, torture of human beings, use of depleted uranium munitions.

Come on. Lighten up. Democracy is messy.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 16:25:18

Does it disturb you that soldiers legally murder people that pose no threat whatsoever to said soldier or to Americans?

Yes, although I believe that’s relatively rare.

Does it disturb you that soldiers will do as commanded(some exceptions, far too few)?

No, that’s what soldiers do. I would like to see them think through the lawfulness of orders more often than they do, but you can’t expect them to all be Constitutional scholars.

It disturbs me that you are just hunky dory with the flagrant violations of both American law, international law and human decency that US soldiers commit daily.

You assume a lot about what I’m hunky dory with.

If the US soldier can mass murder American people(civil war), mass murder brown people round the world, participate in undeclared wars, refuse to honor his oath, follow the most immoral orders then what, pray-tell, brings you to the point of having empathy or even respect for these criminals?

Empathy != sympathy or respect or admiration. I know what they’re going through and what has led them to this point in their life. You don’t seem to have any interest in that. There are many soldiers that I don’t respect, but it’s due to their individual actions, not a blanket condemnation.

 
Comment by lint
2011-03-29 16:58:57

All US soldiers directly involved in any war anywhere are breaking American law and their oaths of enlistment. Said soldiers are providing the blanket act and I am making a statement about the blanket.

Us forces have murdered 100’s of thousands of brown people around the world including children and you refer to such carnage as “rare”.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 17:59:49

See below…no point in repeating ourselves.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 18:05:39

Us forces have murdered 100’s of thousands of brown people around the world including children

They did not. Look. Let’s get real. War has murders but war is not murder. It’s called war. Do you think the USA made up the concept of war?

You’re talking high concepts that don’t well apply to thousands of years of human behavior.

“Only dead have seen the end of war” Plato

Now Plato said this and he was pretty smart about stuff.

Assuming Plato was right, (which I do) we have to look at the USA relative to our competition and the way we roll compared to the way they would have rolled.

In the past 100 years maybe 4 countries could have dominated the entire world. The USA, USSR, Nazi Germany and maybe Japan.

The world is damn lucky that it was the USA that came out on top.

 
Comment by Neuromance
2011-03-29 18:21:13

Does it disturb you that soldiers legally murder people that pose no threat whatsoever to said soldier or to Americans?

I saw the Rolling Stone article too, with the pics and video. But remember - those soldiers are being prosecuted - heck one has been convicted and is going to spend several decades in jail.

Remember to KEEP SOME PERSPECTIVE. Think about what the anti-Western forces have done. Think about those man and woman who held hands before jumping out of the World Trade Center. Think about Nick Berg getting his head sawed off. It’s too bad Ogrish dot com went away, or I’d point you there for some videos of what the enemy forces do. And they’re applauded for it.

THAT’s what most of our soldiers are fighting against.

Yeah, you can talk about the US going places it shouldn’t. But, with 9/11 and the resulting wars, remember one thing - they came here, they attacked us first.

 
Comment by SV guy
2011-03-29 18:26:43

I recently met a Marine who got out of the service about 4-5 years ago. I asked him what his most intense missions were. He listed two. The first was repelling from a helicopter to the US embassy roof in Somalia. Bullets flying everywhere. The second was Fallujah. He said the US military had let it be known via leaflets that the Marines would be coming in and kicking ass in a few days. If I understood him correctly it meant to be gone or risk getting your head blown off. He recounted to me of how he went from house to house, opening the front door and lobbing in a flash grenade. Then they would storm the house blasting anything that moved. He specifically remembered on home where 9 guys were sitting at a table eating. According to him they were armed. I asked him what they did upon seeing the diners. He said “we popped ‘em”. Like he was talking about a ball game. Me, being somewhat older, tried to explain the lunacy of invading a foreign country and killing it’s inhabitants. I pointed out the obvious concept of protecting your home soil, that I would do the same if the US was invaded. I don’t think I was successful in penetrating his thick skull. Don’t get me wrong, he seemed like a decent enough fellow, just dead from the neck up.

I am all for kicking’ a$$ when it’s warranted. Fighting for oil & corporate interests around the world isn’t warranted, imo.

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 18:26:56

they came here, they attacked us first.

agreed, but that doesn’t change the oath the soldiers took, which (I believe) is Lint’s point.

The soldiers took an oath to the constitution first and foremost (as did our elected representatives, btw). As such, regardless of what other people do, they should abide by that oath. And to honor it they should refuse any direct command that is unconstitutional, including engaging in an undeclared war.

I’ve thought a lot about this issue - I mentioned here quite a while ago a conversation I had with a Naval officer I was dating regarding questioning the constitutionality of orders, and what percentage of folks are likely to do that. And what things would look like if people did do that.

Honestly, I’m not sure it’s workable. I don’t know where the line is, and what the process for challenging such an order should be, but I do think Lint has a good point - our soldiers SHOULD be considering such things, enlisted and officers alike, and at some point should be personally responsible for violating the Constitution and their oath to uphold it.

 
Comment by Dale
2011-03-29 18:50:20

“Don’t get me wrong, he seemed like a decent enough fellow, just dead from the neck up.”

I think one of the biggest parts of a soldier’s training is to obey orders without thinking. Do you really want a low level soldier second guessing strategy in the heat of battle? The “thinking ” is left to the commanders, the soldiers are “to do and die”. They are the equipment.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 19:30:49

“I think one of the biggest parts of a soldier’s training is to obey orders without thinking.”

Yup. If you don’t get that far, you will be declared unfit for service (but meanwhile you will get your ass kicked).

 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars
2011-03-29 20:35:58

And what Lint isn’t saying and I think you’re missing is war is *organized violence*. That’s right. Violence. The UK perfected it and the US has taken to a sanitized detached level.

Whether you’re a believer or not, violence is evil. Your God, my God, Our God doesn’t not endorse it but there are many fools pretending to be Christians who are so downright ignorant and arrogant to believe that God somehow champions the US and endorse use of organized violence. He doesn’t give a crap about the US or any other nation, INCLUDING Israel.

If you believe in, endorse or apologize for violence, organized or not, bad karma will follow you. Day and night, until you’re in your grave. When you personally renounce violence, perspective becomes clear, vagueness wanes and you’re freed from all bad karma that accompanies it.

 
 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 12:08:32

Nice post.

Btw, I have been “defriended” by 90% of my Christian friends when it is learned that I do not worship the federal government or its thugs known as US soldiers.

I would never want you to worship either one. I find your lack of empathy for soldiers disturbing, though. Maybe I’d be the same way if I’d never been a soldier?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by aNYCdj
2011-03-29 12:37:35

Carl:

why should we have empathy for soldiers unless they were drafted against their will. If you volunteer you know the risks.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 13:10:28

If you volunteer you know the risks.

No you don’t. At 18 years old most people just know they need more than what they’ve got, and the military seems like (and is heavily marketed as) a possible solution to that problem. Only a tiny fraction anticipate (or look forward to) being thugs. Some can then go most or all of their careers without ever being asked to personally do anything “thuggish”. Most of them aren’t the deep thinker types that might analyze whether simply by being there they might be enabling thuggish behavior from others. At least not for the first few years.

 
Comment by lint
2011-03-29 15:03:40

Being drafted does not require you to do anything immoral. One can always refuse to deploy or to carry a gun or to engage in mass murder/intimidation.

In the end a person has the final say on what they do. One is liable for their actions at all times.

Plenty of noble Americans refused to serve in every war. Far too few unfortunately.

 
Comment by lint
2011-03-29 15:11:14

There is an email going around for years now that expresses verbatim:

“And remember only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American soldier.

and …one died for your soul and one died for your freedom. ”

Attendant within this email are pictures of US soldiers armed to the max, and a picture of the alleged Jesus holding a lamb and also flag draped coffins.

Verification Poll:
1.Has anyone experienced an American soldier offering to die for them? Details?

2.Anyone know of a soldier that died for freedom? Details?

Discuss amongst yourselves and post comments.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 16:33:41

1.Has anyone experienced an American soldier offering to die for them? Details?

Not in words. But just standing there next to me ready to go was sufficient. We were ready to take care of each other as best we could. And we were willing to do our part for you, as well.

2.Anyone know of a soldier that died for freedom? Details?

Know personally? No. Historically I have a particularly high regard for the soldiers of the American Revolution, though. I can’t think of any reason why they shouldn’t fit in that category. The Union soldiers during the civil war seem like good candidates, too, as well as the WWII soldiers. Heck, the Confederacy soldiers probably did, too…except obviously it wasn’t for the freedom of the slaves.

 
Comment by lint
2011-03-29 17:16:59

‘Not in words. But just standing there next to me ready to go was sufficient.”

Any other reasons why the soldier standing there might be standing there? Needed a job? Adventure? Jail or military? Liked to kill people? Liked to impose his will violently upon others? Of all these possible reasons that this(not a constitutional scholar) could choose from said soldier chose to enlist so that he could die for you?

Your response says more about then the soldier which makes my point. In your case a soldier most certainly did not offer to die for you but you would like to think he would. Kind of narcissistic dontcha think?

“I have a particularly high regard for the soldiers of the American Revolution, though.”

Sure they fought for their freedom and modern day soldiers have given back what the early American insurgents established for themselves. Know any modern day US soldiers fighting for the 4th amendment? Know any US soldiers that know what the 4th amendment actually means? Know any soldiers that realize that there is a fourth amendment? In fact said soldiers daily fight against the constitution via participating in undeclared thus unlawful thus unconstitutional wars.

The Union soldiers during the civil war seem like good candidates,”

The Union soldiers committed treason as did Lincoln and not one soldier was fighting to free slaves my state schooled buddy. The states were a voluntary confederation which meant each had the right to un-volunteer. Said right to secede was infringed by the federal US soldiers.

“WWII soldiers.” No. US soldiers were clearly fighting for the international bankers in WW2.

Heck, the Confederacy soldiers probably did, too…except obviously it wasn’t for the freedom of the slaves.”

Confederates were fighting invaders and occupiers as do all nations molested by the federal US soldier.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 18:10:44

‘Not in words. But just standing there next to me ready to go was sufficient.”

Any other reasons why the soldier standing there might be standing there? Needed a job? Adventure? Jail or military?

Could be some combination of those. Doesn’t mean we didn’t care about each other, though.

Liked to kill people? Liked to impose his will violently upon others?

I stayed far away from those types. I don’t like them any more than you do. Yet you seem to feel that they all fall into that category.

Of all these possible reasons that this(not a constitutional scholar) could choose from said soldier chose to enlist so that he could die for you?

Of course he didn’t join to die for me any more than I joined to die for him. But that doesn’t change the fact that we would have if necessary. Not because we were any more noble than anyone else, but because we were humans and humans have some good qualities to go with the bad ones.

Your response says more about then the soldier which makes my point. In your case a soldier most certainly did not offer to die for you but you would like to think he would. Kind of narcissistic dontcha think?

Do you have any friends? Do they actually care about you or are you just a narcissist for thinking they do?

“I have a particularly high regard for the soldiers of the American Revolution, though.”

Sure they fought for their freedom and modern day soldiers have given back what the early American insurgents established for themselves.

You asked for examples. I take it you accept that one.

Know any modern day US soldiers fighting for the 4th amendment? Know any US soldiers that know what the 4th amendment actually means? Know any soldiers that realize that there is a fourth amendment? In fact said soldiers daily fight against the constitution via participating in undeclared thus unlawful thus unconstitutional wars.

So what’s your point? Young soldiers are mostly ignorant and undeclared wars bypass the constitution in dangerous ways. I don’t disagree with you. But that doesn’t make ignorant young soldiers evil. Once in a while they are, but mostly they’re just ignorant youngsters doing their best to make their way in the world. I think you know that, yet you want to heap the sins of the general population onto their shoulders.

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 18:14:44

he Union soldiers during the civil war seem like good candidates, too

I’d argue the confederate soldiers fought for freedom. Yes, slavery was an issue in the war, but my take is the north wasn’t primarily fighting to free them nor the south to keep them (of course I could be wrong on this point, and make no claims to any individual’s motivation). Given that assumption, the confederate soldiers were fighting for states rights and freedom from a large, centralized government. Arguably fighting to defend the constitution.

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 18:18:48

Kind of narcissistic dontcha think?

Lint, I get your point - soldiers (and police officers, and fireman) aren’t heroes simply for choosing a particular job. And, arguably, our military is not currently engaged in any conflict that is actually defending our freedom.

However, I think you’re stepping over the line here with your attacks.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 20:06:56

I’d argue the confederate soldiers fought for freedom.

Ignorance is strength.

 
 
Comment by ahansen
2011-03-29 23:26:14

Lint,
Thank you for having the courage to say what needs to be said. There is nothing noble or honorable in killing people for a paycheck.

Nothing.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 19:26:45

The aim is to make Fannie-and-Freddie-backed mortgages a lot more expensive? Wow! Marketplace has gone all-propaganda!!

Isn’t the word out yet that the reason housing prices went stratospheric was because of the GSEs’ easy-money loans, that put millions of Americans on the hook for debt they will never be able to repay? “More expensive” mortgages would result in “more affordable” housing, and a LOT fewer foreclosures — d’oh!

GOP unveils eight Fannie and Freddie reform bills
By Nancy Marshall Genzer Marketplace, Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The overall aim is to make Fannie- and Freddie-backed mortgages a lot more expensive to bring private firms back into the market.
Signs at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac buildings

Signs at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac buildings (Getty Images / Marketplace)

Kai Ryssdal: Reports of a rebound in the housing market turn out to have been greatly exaggerated. According to a key housing indicator out this morning — the S&P/Case-Shiller Index — Washington D.C. was the only top 20 market in the country to see a rise in home prices last month, and even then, only a .10 percent increase.

 
 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 06:49:12

I think it could just be spin to get you to get your 30yr NOW or be priced-out forever. Any chance to rob from the future will not go unexploited by the MSM marketing machine. The 30 year gov guaranteed mortgage is as entrenched in the “rights” of Americans as apple pie and crappy souperbowl hype.

Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 07:54:38

“Any chance to rob from the future will not go unexploited by the MSM marketing machine.”

+1

 
Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 09:36:06

Larry Kudlow covered this story last week on CNBC. When I saw him screaming COULD THIS BE THE END OF THE 30 YEAR MORTGAGE!???!?!! OMG OMG OMG !!! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!!!1!!! on squawk on the street, I knew it was all hat and no cattle.

 
Comment by Bronco
2011-03-29 09:52:58

“…crappy souperbowl hype”

that is why Championship Sunday is a far better event.

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2011-03-29 13:30:57

Today, there are 30-year fixed loans that are not backed by the GSEs (jumbo).

And they require 20-25% down
720+ FICO
Significant post-close liquidity (6-12+ months of payments in the bank)
<30-35% of income going to debt payments
And the rate is still sub 5.5%

If enough people want to borrow the money with 30-years fixed, it will continue to be offered at some rate. The question is what the premium will be over floaters, and if the public will continue to find that attractive.

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 03:54:21

Home Prices, Consumer Confidence in U.S. Probably Decreased
- Mar 29, 2011 (Bloomberg)

Residential real estate prices probably dropped in January by the most in more than a year, raising the risk that home sales will keep slowing, economists said before a report today.

The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values in 20 cities fell 3.2 percent from January 2010, the biggest 12-month decrease since November 2009, according to the median forecast of 29 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. Another report may show consumer confidence declined in March as gasoline prices climbed.

Rising foreclosures are swelling the number of houses on the market, which may lower prices further in coming months. Falling home values, in turn, may keep potential buyers on the sidelines waiting for better deals, hurting construction and consumer spending as owners’ equity evaporates.

“The more home prices fall, the easier it is for people to wait to buy, and that can reinforce the downward cycle,” said Steven Blitz, a senior economist at ITG Investment Research, Inc. in New York. “The flip side is people still need to sell because you’ve got a lot of people who have stressed budgets.”

The S&P/Case-Shiller index, based on a three-month average, is due at 9 a.m. New York time. Survey estimates ranged from declines of 3.7 percent to 2.4 percent, after a 2.4 percent drop in December.

The New York-based Conference Board’s consumer confidence gauge, due at 10 a.m., fell to 65 from 70.4 in March, according to the survey median. Estimates ranged from 59 to 72.

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-29 05:34:32

“The more home prices fall, the easier it is for people to wait to buy, and that can reinforce the downward cycle,” said Steven Blitz, a senior economist at ITG Investment Research, Inc. in New York. “The flip side is people still need to sell because you’ve got a lot of people who have stressed budgets.”
——————–

Correction: The more prices fall, the more affordable they will be. Once we get truly affordable housing (via low prices, not gimmicky mortgage), the sooner we will see a healthy economy.

Why can’t anyone in the MSM tell the truth? (I know, it’s because our banking masters would be harmed by the truth, so we’ll continue to be bombarded with nonsense about how high prices somehow benefit us.)

Comment by CarrieAnn
2011-03-29 05:42:34

Also for owners taking a loss, they forget that as the downward spiral accelerates they’ll soon be able to get back in and with much lower carrying costs. It’s just a pain in the petutie moving around so much to make it happen. In the long run the spiral will help US workers compete in a global marketplace when our costs of living and setting up a business get more in line w/other countries. Why get trapped in the crumbling current equilibrium?

Comment by timmy
2011-03-29 08:56:50

“It’s just a pain in the petutie moving around so much to make it happen.”

It’s much less of a pain if u make it a habit of living “light”….. meaning not acquiring so much “stuff”….

Just have your laptop & bed… & be ready to go in an instant!!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by CA renter
2011-03-30 01:51:47

In the long run the spiral will help US workers compete in a global marketplace when our costs of living and setting up a business get more in line w/other countries. Why get trapped in the crumbling current equilibrium?
—————–

Spot on, CarrieAnn; which is why they should try to accelerate the falling prices rather than stall them.

The sooner we get to the bottom of things, the sooner we can build an economy from a solid foundation. We are so far from there, IMHO.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 05:59:33

Got me convinced: The key to affordable housing is waiting.

Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 07:09:07

Well, while you are patiently waiting some FB has been living in his million dollar granite palace rent-free for the past three years and far into the foreseeable future. His housing has been downright affordable and has allowed him to continue living beyond his means while prudent people cut back on spending and patiently pay their bills.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by polly
2011-03-29 08:56:57

So?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 09:19:03

“Well, while you are patiently waiting some FB has been living in his million dollar granite palace rent-free for the past three years and far into the foreseeable future.”

I can’t single-handedly stop an outlaw banking establishment from doing what they do.

 
Comment by cactus
2011-03-29 11:26:35

Home prices falling in most major US cities AP

“San Diego was the only city besides Washington to show year-over-year gains in home prices, although prices there rose only a scant 0.1 percent.’

what’s up with that ? Washington I understand they have better access to the printing press.

San Diego ?

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 12:10:26

San Diego ?

That’s the place where if somebody from there says “Everybody wants to live here” I’m the least likely to laugh in their face. That’s gotta be worth something.

 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 19:25:40

So, HiS bad behavior has been rewarded at the expense of the patient, prudent people. I say f*ck that guy and the tbtf banks who are in on the scam.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 19:36:46

“His housing has been downright affordable and has allowed him to continue living beyond his means while prudent people cut back on spending and patiently pay their bills.”

The banksters reward those who play the game by their rules (including cessation of mortgage payments in order to qualify for a modification), RIGHT UP UNTIL FORECLOSURE DAY!

 
 
Comment by hd74man
2011-03-29 12:40:58

Sounds like affordability is “now” in Spain.

Better git before the Euro shats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/residents-trapped-spanish-ghost-towns

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 19:38:08

“Nightmare for residents trapped in Spanish ghost towns

Half-finished developments languishing amid dust and weeds reveal the scale of a burst property bubble Spain will take years to recover from”

Sounds like the American sand states! Where did Spain get the dust and the weeds?

 
 
 
Comment by Awaiting
2011-03-29 06:14:26

Why can’t anyone in the MSM tell the truth?Corporate owned media, like GE, who owns NBC,MSNBC, and so forth. I read something like, 6 corporations own our media. Scary.

Comment by lint
2011-03-29 06:54:13

…and one bank owns these six corporations. They all use company store money called the USD.

The bankers own all of us.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Greg Hunter
2011-03-29 13:37:51

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Corporations, DC and their Media - Seems to be a pretty good definition of the BEAST from Revelation :)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Dale
2011-03-29 19:03:10

The “beast” was Rome. The jews were worried about being assimilated by their occupiers so they wrote “revelations’” to keep the faithful from falling for the “better life” and being integrated. The heads and horns and stuff describe the Roman state.

I read an interesting book on this. I think it was called something like “the history of the end of the world” or something.

 
 
 
Comment by WaitingForREO
2011-03-29 21:29:57

“Why can’t anyone in the MSM tell the truth? (I know, it’s because our banking masters would be harmed ”

I’ve given this question quite a lot of thought. Ultimately - it is indeed because they serve their banking masters but of course they disagree - claiming they are free from editorial coercion. The real answer is that they practice voluntary censorship - no one holds a gun to their heads.

The first filter is that any journalists having a well developed critical facility which questions or challenges power are filtered from the occupation by the institutions themselves. If they want to they can write books - that few will publish (for similar reasons.) next, it is extremely important that journalists develop and keep their “sources” - “reliable” sources are a stable of government and industry insiders and elites who dictate both what is news and how the public dialectic on that news is formed. Conversely, they know what sources are “irresponsible” and therefore are not good sources - that is, simply the ones challenging what “reliable” sources say. Then there are object lessons available for those journalists that somehow get off the ideological reservation by questioning the framework of discussion. it’s simply not a good career move to reveal inconvenient facts, challenge state or corporate power or cover stories that are not sanctioned by elites. That is the first rule to be internalized if one wishes to survive as a journalist.

 
 
Comment by rms
2011-03-29 07:00:04

“The more home prices fall, the easier it is for people to wait to buy, and that can reinforce the downward cycle,” said Steven Blitz, a senior economist at ITG Investment Research, Inc. in New York.

So Herr Blitz would prefer Communism over free markets?

 
Comment by scdave
2011-03-29 08:06:31

“The flip side is people still need to sell because you’ve got a lot of people who have stressed budgets.” ??

That is what I see…It be residential or commercial, I see more properties coming on the market that “are not” distressed sales but are due to “stressed budgets”…In other words, plenty of equity in the asset but stressed cash flow do to any number of reasons thereby making it difficult to service even the reasonable amount of debt that there is…

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:17:38

Again, another article with “probably” in it.

Completely useless propaganda.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 03:58:06

U.S. Treasury to Grade Mortgage Servicers on Loan Modifications
- Mar 29, 2011 (Bloomberg)

The U.S. Treasury Department plans to publicly grade mortgage servicers on how well they respond to homeowners seeking reductions in payments as the government encourages loan modifications to stem foreclosures.

Timothy G. Massad, acting assistant secretary at the U.S. Treasury Department, said the agency will publicize servicer compliance beginning next month, according to the text of a speech prepared for delivery today at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He said companies will be graded on how they evaluate homeowners’ eligibility for aid and how quickly they respond to customers.

“This is a voluntary program based on a contract,” Massad said in his prepared remarks. “We do not regulate the servicers and we cannot fine them.” Transparency, he said, is the best way to improve servicer behavior.

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote tonight on a bill to eliminate the two-year-old Home Affordable Modification Program, which pays banks to modify borrowers’ monthly mortgage payments. HAMP is an Obama administration’s programs intended to reduce foreclosure filings, which fell last month to 225,101, the lowest in three years.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 05:44:56

US Treasury: Loan sharks good, precious metals as money bad.

 
Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 09:27:31

“This is a voluntary… ”

In other words, the public will never see a single public grade of any mortgage servicer.

Comment by polly
2011-03-29 10:15:10

I think voluntary refers to the participating in HAMP at all, not the grade Treasury will give the banks for how well they do it.

Of course, if they all get failing grades, what difference does the transparency get you. It was fairly obvious from the start of the program that while the banks eventually gave in and said they would do it, they weren’t ever going to hire enough staff to do it well.

 
 
Comment by Kim
2011-03-29 11:17:02

I wonder if they’ll be graded on a curve.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 04:16:23

Trailer trash? Not at the Californian park where a plot will cost you $2.5m ~ By Daily Mail Reporter

Oscar-winning actress Hilary Swank famously conquered Tinseltown after being raised on a trailer park in Washington State.

Associated with rednecks, teenage pregnancies and ‘trailer trash’, parks are synonymous with life on the breadline in the U.S.

But it seems that, in California at least, a mobile home is now a sign of upward social mobility rather than poverty.
From trash to cash: This trailer at the Paradise Cove trailer park sold for $2.5million

For a single plot at the Paradise Cove trailer park in swanky Malibu recently sold for a jaw-dropping $2.5million (£1.56million).

Branded ‘the hippest neighbourhood in Malibu’, the park is home to 265 trailers, which are now being snapped up by some of Hollywood’s biggest stars.

Location, location, location: Paradise Cove hugs California’s Pacific coastline

Actors Matthew McConaughey, Minnie Driver and Pamela Anderson all own trailers at the site, as does British model Liberty Ross.

With such upmarket neighbours, it’s not surprising that many of the park’s trailers have undergone impressive revamps recently.

The buyer who forked out $2.5million for his three-bedroom caravan has since spent millions more converting it into a hi-tech home of glass cubes.

According to the Times, another trailer contains floors of Peruvian marble and doors imported from India.

So why are Hollywood’s elite choosing to shun Berverly Hills and slum it in a trailer park? Well, as any estate agent will tell you, a good location is a priceless asset.

Cradled by lush hillsides, Paradise Grove is perched on the Pacific coast, offering stunning views and the perfect climate.

And while $2.5million for a caravan might seem steep, the price tag for a Malibu address can run into the tens of millions of dollars.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370852/Trailer-trash-Not-park-plot-costs-2-5m.html#ixzz1HzCgpkY9

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-29 05:37:34

This is the same “trailer park” we read about during the bubble. Sounds like prices have gone even higher there since the bubble burst.

I remember when regular surfers were able to buy/rent a trailer in Paradise Cove. Not so much these days, I guess.

 
Comment by Michael Viking
2011-03-29 07:02:10

Next thing you know all these celebrities will be banding together to try to kick out Jim Rockford.

Comment by Steve J
2011-03-29 09:22:44

What ever happened to plaid sports jackets anyhow??

 
 
Comment by rms
2011-03-29 07:09:20

A sun baked trailer perched on concrete blocks with sheets for curtains and trashy talking Pamela Anderson inside sounds like a great idea for a generic beer commercial fantasy.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 08:36:08

Luckily for me in Boulder they haven’t caught on with the hipsters yet. Plus you can’t actually buy the lots here. I should start referring to myself as a “Trailer Park Gentrification Specialist”.

 
Comment by Montana
2011-03-29 09:55:10

Wow, that sure brings back memories. That was my favorite spot on the coast.

I maintain that if people weren’t so snooty about mobiles, there would be a lot more affordable housing. They’re being totally zoned out everywhere here, so that only the worst old parks survive. A couple of the newer parks that were “allowed* I would move to in a minute.

No matter what nicey-nice stickbuilt “workforce housing” the social services put up in town, the true poor will always gravitate to the mobiles out on the periphery.

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-30 01:58:02

Yep. My dad lived in a MH in a retirement park during his last few years. His living room was bigger than ours (in our 2,000+ sf SFH). He had great neighbors, and a nice facilities.

Personally, I’d live there in an instant, too. But the nice parks are mostly for seniors. We have a family, so have to wait for now.

 
 
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars
2011-03-29 04:17:30

Realtors Are Liars

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 09:22:42

Says who?

Comment by Ol'Bubba
2011-03-29 17:46:44

Exeter

Comment by Realtors Are Liars
2011-03-29 18:11:32

Ol’Bubba….

Realtors Are Liars

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by robin
2011-03-29 23:32:00

Says him (her); I was once a realtor (legally for 12 years), and can confirm from experience that the majority of other realtors I dealt with were, indeed, liars. I only sold one house to a close friend and rebated him half of my $390 pre-tax commission. Yes, I was a greedy bastard on that $29,900 transaction.

While in the boiler room I paid to occupy, many discussions revolved around how to best avoid discussing known defects with prospective buyers. Small things like leaky roofs. Cracked foundations.

Disgusting. Kept the license active for 12 years but was so repulsed by the industry norm that I only hung my license with that agency for 6 months. Never hung it elsewhere. Familiarity bred contempt.

Thereafter I kept up the education requirements but never wanted to swim again among the sharks.

So yes, most of the realtors I have known are liars, but I current know and will deal with a select few who are golden. Be careful out there! - :)

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 04:23:00

New Rules Would Label Millions of American Workers as Disabled
~ FoxNews.com

New regulations from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offer fresh guidelines on the issue of how to define “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Millions of Americans may be disabled and not even know it, according to some legal experts.

That’s because sweeping new regulations from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offer new guidelines on the issue of how to define “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The ADA, originally passed in 1990 and updated by Congress in 2008, originally defined disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.”

When a worker satisfies the definition, employers must provide reasonable accommodations. For years, employers and employees have clashed over who truly qualifies for the sometimes-costly modifications to workplace duties and schedules. Attorney Condon McGlothlen says the new regulations could have a profound impact on that debate.

“Before, perhaps 40 million people were covered by the ADA. That number will increase significantly,” McGlothlen told Fox News. “Some people might even say that a majority of Americans are covered as disabled under the law.”

EEOC Commissioner Chai Felblum said the agency worked hard to find compromise between the business and disability communities, and she’s optimistic the new regulations provide the right balance. “These are workable guidelines that will help people with disabilities, and it will be workable for employers,” Feldblum said.

Although the new regulations cannot classify any condition as a disability per se, there is a list of maladies that will be viewed that way “in virtually all cases.” The list includes: autism, diabetes, epilepsy and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Overall, lawyers for employers say the regulations shift the burden of proof in disability claims.

They say that employers will now have to show why a worker doesn’t require special accommodations, rather than employees proving that the measures are merited.

“It’s going to be very difficult for employers to argue in just about any case that an employee is exaggerating their disability or that the person isn’t genuinely disabled,” McGlothlen said.

While both sides acknowledge it is only a matter of time until a legal challenge to the regulations is filed, Feldblum believes they will provide courts with plenty of clarity. She’s also urging employers to stop focusing on defining disability, and spend more time on accommodations.

“I am hopeful that employers will now move to the next question which is, ‘How do we make sure our workplace is welcoming to people with a range of health conditions?’” she told Fox News.

Barring congressional intervention, the new regulations will take effect May 24.

Comment by aNYCdj
2011-03-29 05:23:55

They left out the really big one today: being “overqualified” ….. but that really means we want to hire a moron.

—-there is a list of maladies that will be viewed that way “in virtually all cases.”

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 06:46:43

HA! Is there anyone alive that does not have PTSD? Just put that at the bottom of your resume. Jobs guaranteed only for those who cannot do them.

Excuse me Mr. Employer, I need a stress free work environment.

Comment by aNYCdj
2011-03-29 07:01:00

Oh Oh Oh OMG i just got 3 calls in at one time and i told 2 to get lost…can i still keep my job?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:01:36

Unemployable Disabled

Comment by michael
2011-03-29 06:13:35

+1

 
Comment by Montana
2011-03-29 09:58:29

This is about “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA, not SSD thank God.

 
 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 07:13:21

This could be a sneaky attempt for the new UE-benefits replacement program. The disabled would not count as jobless and make the country’s numbers look bad, meanwhile these people would be looked-after by the government. Everybody wins.

Comment by polly
2011-03-29 09:09:37

The whole point of the ADA is get people who are disabled the “reasonable accomodations” they need to be able to work. So, pretty much the opposite of your reaction. Under the ADA, you get to have a job even if you are disabled as long as your employer gets you a desk that can adjust to the height needed by your wheelchair or gets you an attachment that makes your telephone work with your hearing aid or something like that.

Comment by GH
2011-03-29 09:22:52

Luckily for many of the biggest employers they don’t have to bother with these and other rules such as minimum wage, OSHA rules etc. They simply move their jobs overseas to places where wages are very depressed and rules favor them.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Montana
2011-03-29 09:59:31

Ha, Polly beat me to it. But SSD is next..

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by polly
2011-03-29 10:23:30

One of my former colleagues got an appointment to be an SSD administrative law judge. You aren’t going to be able to fool her anytime soon. Retired as a colonel, US army reserves.

 
Comment by Montana
2011-03-29 14:32:37

Just kidding..but they could conceivably add to the listed impairments.

 
 
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 08:01:36

Business will get around this the way they always have gotten around employees they don’t want: “We’re sorry, but your position, through no fault of your own, has been eliminated. Have a nice day.”

Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:25:15

We have a winner.

And don’t forget, “We’ve already hired someone for that position.”

 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 04:29:54

NY Times begins charging for digital access
All the news that’s fit to print … for $195 a year

NEW YORK(AP) — The New York Times began charging Monday for full access to its website and mobile services.

The third-largest U.S. newspaper is charging $15 every four weeks, or $195 a year, to read more than 20 articles a month on its website. That fee also covers a subscription on the newspaper’s software for smartphones. The new fees kicked in at about 2 p.m. EDT.

Readers who want unlimited access on the website and the Times’ software for Apple Inc.’s iPad tablet computer have to pay $20 every four weeks, or $260 annually. A digital subscription covering the website and both mobile options costs $35 every four weeks, or $455 annually.

The New York Times Co. is charging for digital access because online advertising revenue hasn’t grown fast enough to offset losses in print ads.

Print subscribers will keep free online access. The Times is hoping to bring in more digital revenue while giving print readers more reason to keep their subscriptions.

Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 05:16:05

The articles aren’t that good. Nobody is going to pay to read them.

Comment by CharlieTango
2011-03-29 05:46:28

nyt will have to learn to program a pay wall, their current wall takes 4 lines of javascript to penetrate.

Comment by aNYCdj
2011-03-29 06:40:39

Charlie most Americans have no clue what you just said. Those are the NYT customers.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Steve J
2011-03-29 09:28:06

Interestingly enough, I got an offer for four weeks online for free.

Comment by polly
2011-03-29 10:19:52

Peon. I got the rest of the year free.

8)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by LehighValleyGuy
2011-03-29 07:00:49

I can’t imagine wanting to read more than 20 NYT articles per month. It’s more like one article every other month that I’d be interested in.

 
Comment by Doug in Boone, NC
2011-03-29 07:55:47

If you really must have a MSM propaganda fix, I would suggest the local library. It’s still free there.

Comment by polly
2011-03-29 12:47:24

Until the library has to cut hours way back for lack of funds.

Comment by X-GSfixr
2011-03-29 13:10:34

Like public services, “news/information” will eventually be pay-per view.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by GH
2011-03-29 09:24:41

I guess I will have to get my news at the drudgereport :-)

 
 
Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 04:47:17

I’d like to repeat a comment from GH yesterday:

The “American dream” turned into a nightmare when prices of a basic need became an investors plaything and EZ credit caused prices to more than double, leaving millions unable to afford any home.

This applies to far more than housing. Prices of basic needs make the best investors’ playthings — because they know that people have to buy the stuff constantly. Guaranteed demand. Notice that big boyz are speculating in things like gasoline (oil), food (commodities), some health care, and houses in areas with jobs. They are clearly taking advantage of human decency to make a buck. These b*st*rds would even speculate in vital water and electricity if they were allowed — oh wait, THEY DID! Remember how Enron employees joked about burning Grandma Millie? Or companies who exploit foreign countries water distribution?

If investors speculated in something like cars, then people would simply stop buying cars for a while, or turn to an underground market, long enough to wait out the speculators. You can’t say the same for filling the gas tank every two weeks, or getting a root canal.

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-29 04:58:33

You are exactly right, oxide, which is why I support “socialism” (ownership, control, or strict regulation by a fully transparent govt that is run by, and for, the people) for needs, and “capitalism” for wants.

We cannot expect for-profit institutions to do what’s right for society where our basic needs are concerned. There is far too much risk that they will monopolize basic resources in order to enrich themselves at society’s expense. We cannot afford that any longer.

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2011-03-29 05:05:39

Funny you should say that when at the current time many local pols are in a headlong rush to sell off public assets. And they’re selling off the good stuff - the revenue producing stuff. It’s like a widget maker selling the widget factory but still intending to meet payroll.

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-29 05:39:42

Of course. That’s been the plan all along. :(

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 05:15:57

Sounds nice CA, but you should consider that socialized production and distribution of food usually results in hunger, death and violence for the many and opulence for the few.

It would be a way to totally eliminate the middle class, whose hero you were just a few weeks ago. Freedoms and responsibilities go hand in hand.

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-29 05:45:31

Why do you think everyone would be impoverished if we regulated/controlled/owned basic resources?

When the govt regulated airlines, were we all banned from flying? When the govt owned roads, were we all prevented from driving on them? When the govt regulated phone companies, were we all unable to make phone calls? When the govt regulates food, have we all starved?

There is ample evidence that public ownership/control/regulation works for the benefit of society.

Do you honestly believe they corporatists are going to put our well-being ahead of profits?

Where is this utopia where private interests control everything, and there is a thriving middle class?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by CA renter
2011-03-29 05:52:12

Wish we still had the “edit” button. ;)

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 06:02:32

Socialized and regulated are not the same thing. Consider one of the most basic necessities, food. Regulating health standards in food production is not the same as government taking ownership of the land, and the produce, and distributing that produce according to the whim of the elite. Socialism does not relieve us of the elite, quite the contrary, it enables them. The elite in any system will not be looking out for “our well-being”. Personal freedoms limit the power of the elite.

The US is a utopia where farms are privately held and there is a (shrinking) middle class. Root out the corruption and we would have a more perfect utopia.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 06:27:15

The elite in any system will not be looking out for “our well-being”.

In one sentence you wiped out a good portion of the Bill & Melinda Gates charitable foundation work. ;-)

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 06:37:04

Skye’s ideas are not intended to be rules without exceptions. Carnegie gave PA some nice libraries.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 08:53:50

Skye’s ideas are not intended to be rules without exceptions.

Your venn diagram display of my-truth is getting rather crowded. ;-)

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 09:02:12

Good point. Time to get off my lazy butt and go fishing.

 
Comment by Steve J
2011-03-29 09:32:36

Gates was in India last week and met with several local billionaires. He told the they should give some of thier money away.

I think they thought he was nuts.

 
Comment by GH
2011-03-29 09:37:31

I have to say, despite all the trash talk about socialized medicine, I don’t see many seniors demanding a end to Medicare or Medicaid.

IMO, Food, Water, Housing, Clothing, Transportation, Medical Care, Energy (Heat, Electricity, Cooling etc) and access to Internet are pretty much essentials in todays world. If you run a business Banking is also essential. Look at ANY of the aforementioned ant tell me these are “healthy” markets today.

I did NOT say folks are entitled to a mansion, a Rolls, the fastest Internet or the finest medical care money can buy, but at some point a basic need must be met or we fall apart as a society.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 09:52:24

Time to get off my lazy butt and go fishing.

Hook ‘em & cook ‘em!,…I’m headed to the school garden, today’s planting: gourds for the 2012 art class. Meet ya at the HBB firepit later on… ;-)

 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 10:43:49

“I have to say, despite all the trash talk about socialized medicine, I don’t see many seniors demanding a end to Medicare or Medicaid.”

That’s because in their minds it isn’t socialized medicine. J6P has been taught that “socialized medicine == free medicine == junky medicine”. And since he paid into Medicare his entire career, its not “free”.

 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 06:03:37

Freedoms and responsibilities go hand in hand. ;-)

Ideas & words…do not equal…actions.

How many son’s & daughters of the “we’re-the-special-1%” are…serving…in a ditch in Afghanistan?

Do they hire someone to hoist the US flag to half-mast?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 06:40:42

Two of mine have. I took the Obama’s promise that it would not be so. Now it is more so.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 07:15:51

I took the Obama’s promise that it would not be so. Now it is more so.

Good thing “the current I’m decider”, like our Nations constitution, is constrained from adapting to changing situations.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2011-03-29 08:23:54

“Good thing “the current I’m decider”, like our Nations constitution, is constrained from adapting to changing situations.”

You mean something has changed in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Do tell…

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 08:28:27

“we’re-the-special-1%” = Blue Skye’s circle of Society

 
Comment by scdave
2011-03-29 08:29:08

Two of mine have ??

But, like Hwy asked, are you in that “special 1%” ??

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 08:58:09

Hard to know what HWY’s 1% reference is to. Skye’s circle is surely less than 1%, but it’s on the fringe rather than at the top of anything.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 09:00:45

You mean something has changed in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Do tell…

Why sure, The militant-terrorist-gang “we-represent-Islam” called their cousins in Yemen & Jordan & Egypt & Libya & Lebanon and said: “Look, America citizen’s have peacefully elected a Muslim president, it can be done!, let’s go!” :-)

 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 10:46:16

“Hard to know what HWY’s 1% reference is to.”

Oh please. It’s perfectly obvious.

“Skye’s circle is surely less than 1%, but it’s on the fringe rather than at the top of anything.”

Ah, so you were just being disinegenous.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 11:50:12

So you think I was correct in guessing the top 1% rich people? It’s not just their kids in Afganistan, so….?

 
 
Comment by whyoung
2011-03-29 06:48:37

“Freedoms and responsibilities go hand in hand.”

Wouldn’t regulation and transparency would help make sure the a-moral for-profit institutions and corporations behave responsibly and create that “level playing field” that allows many to prosper (or at least not get scr@wed so easily)?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by lint
2011-03-29 07:04:59

“Do you honestly believe they corporatists are going to put our well-being ahead of profits? ”

CArenter, the government is oftentimes a corporation as well. Is it your opinion that a corporation such as the government can be made to serve the people better than the people can serve themselves? How can that be?

So far we are not in possession of any evidence to support your idea that government is anything other than a gang of looters and thugs.

Also note that government is specifically immoral in that in can legally do things that are illegal for the proles to do. I cannot murder and tax my fellow citizens legally while the government can for example.

Do you teach your children that murder is magically permissible as is theft only when one is part of the government?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 09:43:41

“you should consider that socialized CURRUPT production and distribution of food usually results in hunger, death and violence for the many and opulence for the few.”

Fixed it for you. Quit blaming this on socialism and/or capitalism. If everybody in the private sector was happy with only some profit instead of gobs of profit, then private sector could run the food system just fine. If everybody in government was satisfied with only some power and didn’t need to be dictator or didn’t need to be bought off to make re-election, then government could run the food system just fine.

It’s the corruption and greed in either system that causes the problems. That’s why there is a constant battle between regulation and competition.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by michael
2011-03-29 06:17:20

“ownership, control, or strict regulation by a fully transparent govt that is run by, and for, the people”

impossible…because human beings are speculators…and human beings are government officials…and human beings generally suck.

Comment by LehighValleyGuy
2011-03-29 07:09:15

Well, I don’t think we totally suck, but we certainly do when compared against the ideal that CA Renter is promoting here. If he/she has any historical examples of such a concept actually working over the long term, I’d like to hear about them.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 08:18:21

No, we really do suck. There is not a species on this planet that is more responsible for its personal undoing than the human who repeatedly will succumb to his own greed, envy, lust, etc. all while enjoying the benefit of fully comprehending the consequences and disasterous outcome. We will always be our own worst enemy.

 
Comment by aragonzo
2011-03-29 08:22:51

Denmark has been working with a similar system for at least fify years. The difference is that the country is homogeneous and small enough that there is social accountability for official actions. There is an inherent sense of fairness in Danish law and life. I doubt this system would work in the USA.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 08:41:37

the country is was homogeneous

Things change.

 
Comment by Steve J
2011-03-29 09:36:52

Unless you publish cartoons about Mohammed.

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 10:37:22

There is not a species on this planet that is more responsible for its personal undoing than the human who repeatedly will succumb to his own greed, envy, lust, etc. all while enjoying the benefit of fully comprehending the consequences and disasterous outcome.

You make the (IMO flawed) assumption that this is our condition as a species. It is not.

All species have members of their population that engage in behaviors/activities that are not conducive to its long-term survival. These behaviors/traits get selected against when the time comes.

There are many different ways of life for humans. Unfortunately, our way (western civilization/agriculturists) has pretty much wiped out the populations that have practiced other ways of living. Our way is not intrinsic, and if it is unsustainable, there is no doubt it will be selected against.

But that doesn’t mean that humans are fundamentally flawed, or can’t co-exist on earth.

 
Comment by Max Power
2011-03-29 11:44:10

Agreed that other species select against behaviors that don’t contribute to the long term survival of the species. If they don’t, they end up extinct. Are humans selecting against these types of behaviors? In this country, it appears that the humans that are least able to provide for themselves and their offspring are doing the most reproducing. IMO, this is a bad sign for the long term sustainability of the species.

I’m not cultured enough to know whether this phenomenon is limited to the USA or can be observed elsewhere. But something tells me that in the most populous countries (China, India, etc), survival of the fittest is alive and well.

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 12:02:56

Are humans selecting against these types of behaviors?

It’s not the species themselves that do the selecting, but nature/the environment. My point is that at any given time, there can exist behaviors that aren’t sustainable, but 1) that doesn’t mean the species as a whole isn’t fit to exist, and 2) that those unsustainable behaviors will be selected against at some point.

If it’s not sustainable for a collection of humans to have a very small number of providers with many parasitic members, then eventually that structure will fail. Sadly it doesn’t happen overnight, and won’t necessarily happen in my lifetime. But it’s existence doesn’t mean it can continue.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 12:15:18

If it’s not sustainable for a collection of humans to have a very small number of providers with many parasitic members, then eventually that structure will fail.

Ahhh, but you forgot about the printing press! Once you can print money the old rules no longer apply :-).

 
Comment by michael
2011-03-29 12:25:04

one could argue the “haves” are best for long-term survival of the species and “have nots” are expendable…at least most of them anyway. you would have to enslave a few to maintain the status quo.

oh wait…

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-03-29 15:19:52

By ‘parasitic members’, you mean banksters, right?

 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 16:24:35

Humans are basically flawed by nature and are indeed doomed to fail as a species. Cursed with a brain that is too powerful to fully utilize and control yet not quite smart enough to figure out the very basics of long-term societal survial. Tortured by incessant emotional needs and easily distracted by our poorly-rationalized desires, we struggle through our short meaningless lives. But hey, life’s a party - Is Idol on tonight or are we going to watch dancing with the stars?

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 18:22:08

Cursed with a brain that is too powerful to fully utilize and control yet not quite smart enough to figure out the very basics of long-term societal survial.

You assume it’s an intellectual exercise, and again you confuse western “civilization” with all human beings.

There are many problems with our culture - the values we espouse or aspire to, the wars we wage against each other as well as other species. The way we seek to control our environment.

None of these are intrinsic to humans as a whole. Not all humans do this. Perhaps we can’t choose to be different (I personally feel we can), but that just means that our culture and it’s adherents will die off, probably quite painfully.

Saying we’re inherently flawed is a cop out from taking responsibility for our own decisions and actions, though.

 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 18:58:30

The rev Jim Bakker pretty well summed it up: “Forgive me, because I have sinned”. Religion aside (really just a made-up excuse to rationalize and control our behavior), we all have a tendency to do things we know we shouldn’t be doing. (To deny inclusion in this category is a cop-out) Other animals usually pay dearly for bad decision-making and through natural selection develop instincts that are as close to perfect as any response can be. Humans can lie to themselves and others freely which clouds any possibility of true learning. Have you ever wondered why societal planning is seldom more than a few years into the future? A societly of truly evolved beings would plan thousands of years ahead. Also, we watch “Jersey Shore”.

 
 
 
Comment by whyoung
2011-03-29 06:42:01

“I support “socialism” (ownership, control, or strict regulation by a fully transparent govt that is run by, and for, the people) for needs, and “capitalism” for wants.”

Well said.

Comment by 2banana
2011-03-29 08:00:42

For todays citizens:

NEEDS now include:
Cable
Iphone
Ipad
FIOS
a/c
high end car
pre-package foods (like frozen pizza)
Coke
Diet Coke
Illegal lawn service
etc.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 08:05:01

FWIW I know plenty of people who don’t have or consume any of those things.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 08:11:41

You need to get out of Beverly Hills more often.

 
Comment by scdave
2011-03-29 08:34:52

I know plenty of people who don’t have or consume any of those things ??

I went over the list of 10 a couple of times and I don’t consume any of those items although I am stumped on what FIOS is…

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 08:59:44

me 2.

 
Comment by polly
2011-03-29 09:16:53

Isn’t Fios Verizon’s version of Comcast’s triple play?

Which brings us to the next question: why would you need cable and Fios?

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 10:05:57

I think that Deux Gros Michel is just making things up again to preserve his ideological alignment.

For the record, I do have one of those items listed, but it remains firmly in the want column…

 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 11:06:20

And I have 4:
Cable
A/c
Frozen food
Soda Pop

As for the others:

Iphone - yeah right
Ipad - Why would I even want one?
FIOS - ditto
high end car - No European cars here, thank you. Last new car was a $12,000 four banger purchased in 2009.
Illegal lawn service - is it really that hard to mow your own lawn? Even if you’re a land whale? Even the cheapest mowers are self propelled these days, you don’t even have to push, just walk behind it.

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 12:20:46

“is it really that hard to mow your own lawn?”

What kind of fool would have a lawn in the first place? You can’t eat it, it takes time and energy and water (and maybe fertilizer) to make it grow, mowing is usually noisy, etc.

“Oh, but we need somewhere for the kids to play! What about the children!??”

Get started on the garden. Kids love that stuff (until it’s bean picking time — every day!) and our produce is junk. We did a taste comparison between conventional store bought and our tonda di parigi. The store bought had a vague carrot-ness while ours… Well, you should try this variety for yourself, even if you aren’t a carrot lover!

MrBubble

 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 13:49:43

“What kind of fool would have a lawn in the first place? ”

A lot of CC&Rs require that you have one in front of the house.

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 14:49:51

Yeah, I figured that. was the case in many instances. But it’s this very type of a priori, non-thinking that we need to get away from if we’re going to ever get out of this mess.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-03-29 17:31:37

If you have four seasons and plenty of rain, it’s hard to find a ground-cover that can ‘fill in’ for grass year-round, especially one that is native. The native plants here would be hardwood forest or cane, which are difficult in an urban or suburban setting, and neither allow you to really use the land. You can’t play badminton or volleyball or croquet in the woods.

Vegetable gardening is a great and rewarding hobby, I’m into it big-time, but gardening an entire quarter-acre or bigger yard would be a nearly full-time job.

God knows, I’ve tried to minimize my grass- it is a pain to mow, but it fills a niche that no other plant really does- a perennial groundcover that you can walk, play, park, party etc on.

If you have neighbors that aren’t uptight about dandelions and the like, then you don’t have to worry about spraying your yard with pesticides, or watering during a drought (grass just goes dormant, and you don’t have to mow in the heat).

If you live in a desert, then it’s a different story.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 17:39:18

If you have four seasons and plenty of rain, it’s hard to find a ground-cover that can ‘fill in’ for grass year-round,

Whenever I get homesick I go and walk in the small patch of grass they have by this certain gas station in Copacabana.

The first time I saw it I was like, “wow, this is grass”.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-03-29 18:14:32

“wow, this is grass”

Yeah, I’ve had that experience, too. :wink:

Here’s a fellow grass-lover you might want to emulate, Rio:

http://ourtownlive.com/ourtownsantiam/?p=512

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 21:35:39

“but gardening an entire quarter-acre or bigger yard would be a nearly full-time job.”

I wish that I had the land to try!! But seriously, not all of the 1/4 acre would need to be in production. There’s other uses too…

 
 
Comment by lint
2011-03-29 09:40:17

so in other words a government(force, coercion, fraud) is not required. Agreed.

For those of positions asserting that government is required because people are bad: how then are bad people kept out of government?

People are bad and good. Government enables the bad part…big time.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by CA renter
2011-03-30 02:20:30

Ideally, government is accountable to the public, whereas the private sector is not.

Right now, we have a government that has been taken over by monied interests (which tends to happen all throughout history), and it no longer serves the public.

More than anything, we need to re-establish the kind of transparency and accountability that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the govt to be bought by these financial interests. We need to set up firewalls so that people in public office (and their family members) cannot ever work in a private business if they were in charge of regulating that particular sector. We also need to eliminate this ridiculous campaign finance bribery, and move to publicly-funded election campaigns.

 
 
Comment by measton
2011-03-29 14:20:51

I support socialism or heavy regulation (like utilities) of conduits

1. Roads
2. Cable Lines
3. Phone Lines
4. Airwaves
5. Rail Lines

and capitalism of content,production, and transportation with oversight to prevent monopoly power or oligopolies (See AT and T merger) See developing oligopoly of banking/Too Big to fail.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by CA renter
2011-03-30 02:21:35

Agree with this, measton.

 
 
 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2011-03-29 05:00:40

It gets messy, however, when one realizes that at least some of this speculating money belongs to ordinary folks in the form of pension funds and retirement accounts. One could say that they’re using our own money (in the form of OPM + leverage of course) to strangle us. And, one could even say that to some degree everyone looking to innocently build up their retirement accounts is part of the problem.
Not all that speculating money is quarantined by some sinister hedge fund in CT, they’re money is thoroughly mixed with our own.

What to do, what to do?

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-29 05:46:38

Very true, edgewaterjohn.

 
Comment by Kirisdad
2011-03-29 06:33:38

“…looking to build up their retirement accounts is part of the problem.

One could even say that retirement uncertainty contributed to the dotcom and RE bubbles. Ben, said yesterday, that bubbles are manias. You can’t have a mania without a good portion of the populace getting involved. IMO, the dissolution of guaranteed pensions, and creation of the 401K, drove people to speculation. Fear and greed, are strong psychological forces, that make people lose their common sense.

Comment by whyoung
2011-03-29 06:52:42

“IMO, the dissolution of guaranteed pensions, and creation of the 401K, drove people to speculation.”

And created a lot of profitable customers for wall street…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2011-03-29 07:22:44

Oh yeah! When the boyz found a way into the figurative coin jars of American households it was off to the races. Ah, but they promised so much and they perverted long held social attitudes towards saving to do it. This was more than evident by the 1980s.

 
Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 09:47:43

Can’t wait to see what happens when they finally succeed in privatizing Social Security. Talk about OPM…

 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 10:51:39

“Can’t wait to see what happens when they finally succeed in privatizing Social Security.”

They (the vampire squids) are positively slobbering at that prospect.

Once they pull that off there will be the mother of all stock market bubbles, which will be a good time to rebuild that 401K. The only trick will be knowing when to get off the bus. Wait too long and you find yourself on the wrong side of the tracks.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 19:46:18

“Wait too long and you find yourself on the wrong side of the tracks.”

Wait too long and you will find yourself stuck to the tracks, after the train runs you over.

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:37:51

Retirement uncertainty was probably THE main driving force of the bubbles due to offshoring of jobs and the systematic dismantling of pensions along with hyper-inflating costs of medicine over the last 30 years.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Realtors Are Liars
2011-03-29 05:00:53

The corporatist thugs and their GOP enablers posing as innnocent vicitims are the enemy.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 05:21:02

Is our CIF a corporatist?

Comment by aNYCdj
2011-03-29 05:30:58

The CIF is defiantly a Wussie spending $100 million a day in Libya to protect the oil fields and no money for the 99′ers and job training.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 06:04:33

At least he is against testing in our schools. He does care about the common kid.

 
Comment by Xenos
2011-03-29 07:01:53

the school testing is a racket. Like most things created by the collusion of Republicans, businessmen, and libertarian fellow travelers.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 08:50:23

Political change begins in the elementary schools. If we promote students based on seniority rather than merit, the next generation will have no Republicans, businessmen, or other political miscreants. Good Riddance!

 
Comment by Rancher
2011-03-29 09:51:21

Blue, I haven’t laughed this hard in a long
time…..you made my day. Thanks

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:43:24

Uh Blue, we already do that.

Want to know why? Because parents sue the hell out schools that punish or in any other ways try to discipline their problem students.

 
Comment by CA renter
2011-03-30 02:23:38

Very true, eco.

 
 
 
 
Comment by combotechie
2011-03-29 05:34:55

If you can’t beat them, join them.

My favorite stocks are of those companies where there exists a steady demand for whatever it is that they produce. My favorites within these favorites are the ones that have a lock on the market of whatever it is that they produce.

Generally (but not always) the consumers of whatever it is that these companies produce are much better off because these companies exist and flourish than they would be if they didn’t exist and didn’t flourish.

Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 06:04:25

Sounds like big pharma and banks.

 
Comment by combotechie
2011-03-29 06:06:47

There is so much and so many products and services available to us Americans that we sometimes forget just how these products and service have gotten to where they are now.

Does anyone here hate the drug companies? If so, then help put them out of business by stop buying whatever drugs that they sell. If you cannot do this then you should be happy they are there to take your business.

Comment by whyoung
2011-03-29 07:00:06

“Does anyone here hate the drug companies? If so, then help put them out of business by stop buying whatever drugs that they sell. If you cannot do this then you should be happy they are there to take your business.”

Huh???

So you should be happy to buy their products when they do things like this?

“Progesterone is an injected hormone given to women with high risk pregnancies. These days, you might call it liquid gold. The price has gone up, not just a little, but exponentially, 150 times the price, from $10 a shot to $1500 a shot.”
http://www.kens5.com/news/health/Pregnancy-drug-price-soars-parents-worry-118798399.html

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by combotechie
2011-03-29 07:10:50

And these women would be better off if they CHOSE not to pay $1500 a shot?

Today they have a choice, before this drug was invented they did not.

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 09:13:06

I guess some folks on this blog have never played “Monopoly”. ;-)

 
Comment by whyoung
2011-03-29 13:15:52

“Today they have a choice, before this drug was invented they did not.”

SO, they should CHOOSE not to use a drug that can prevent premature births (and possibly prevent the expensive short and long term consequences of same)?

So you choose not to treat all your medical conditions? Get diagnosed with a serious illness and then we’ll see if you really don’t want modern pharmaceuticals.

And how do you justify a drug that was $10 now going for $1500?

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 18:28:29

Get diagnosed with a serious illness and then we’ll see if you really don’t want modern pharmaceuticals.

You’re completely missing the point here

 
Comment by combotechie
2011-03-29 18:37:59

“And how do you justify a drug that was $10 now going for $1500.”

I don’t need to justify anything, I am not in the market to buy such a drug.

But if I were in the market then I would do a quick cost/benifit analysis. If it were worth it to me to buy the drug then I would by it; If it wasn’t worth it to me to buy it then I wouldn’t buy it.

The existence of the drug offers a potential buyer a choice to buy or it not to buy it. If the drug did not exist then no choice would be given to the buyer at all.

 
Comment by combotechie
2011-03-29 19:06:51

“Get diagnosed with a serious medical illness and we’ll see if you really don’t want modern pharmaceuticals.”

Who said anything about me not wanting modern pharmaceuticals? I LOVE modern pharmeceuticals. Life is much more enjoyable and longer lasting with them than without them.

And I LOVE investing in them because the successful ones are soooo profitable. I like the idea that they can charge $1500 for a shot of progesterone and people will pay it.

And the drug competitors also like the idea of people forking over $1500 for a shot so they will - guess what? - they will spend a lot of money to come up with a version of their own so they can get in on the action. At that point the choice I talked about before begins to broaden a bit.

So what does this mean? It means that where before there was NO CHOICE at all eventually will morph into MANY CHOICES. And with many choices the prices will come down as each drug company competes for market share.

And then - lurking somewhere over the horizon - is that pesky term “generic”.

 
Comment by CA renter
2011-03-30 03:04:38

In the meantime…lives are lost.

Not to mention the fact that the funding for most basic research comes from the govt, so taxpayers are already paying for these drugs. Then, they get ripped off a second time when the pharmaceutical companies patent the drug (that was made possible by the govt-funded basic research), and charge “whatever the market will bear” for it.

The problem with that, is that they have a captive buyer. They know that anyone who has a chance of getting a lifesaving drug will give everything they have to gain access to it.

This is why we need socialized medicine. Healthcare should be concerned, first and foremost, with people’s health. I do not believe profits should be involved in life-or-death matters.

And don’t even think of saying that we wouldn’t have good medicine or healthcare without a for-profit model. Countries with socialized medicine are kicking our tails. Look at where the rich are going for their healthcare — even Steve Jobs has gone to Europe for care.

 
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:46:59

“If you can’t beat them, join them.”

Seriously? :roll:

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:03:26

“Notice that big boyz are speculating in things like gasoline (oil), food (commodities), some health care, and houses in areas with jobs.”

Everyone needs to live somewhere, eat, drive, go to the doctor, etc etc etc.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:15:43

I forgot one. My wife and I attended a local high school theater production of this musical a couple of weekends back:

Urinetown
Music by Mark Hollmann
Lyrics by Mark Hollmann and Greg Kotis
Book by Greg Kotis

Two Acts, Book Musical, Rated PG
Original Off-Broadway

One of the most uproariously funny musicals in recent years, URINETOWN is a hilarious tale of greed, corruption, love, and revolution in a time when water is worth its weight in gold. In a Gotham-like city, a terrible water shortage, caused by a 20-year drought, has led to a government-enforced ban on private toilets. The citizens must use public amenities, regulated by a single malevolent company that profits by charging admission for one of humanity’s most basic needs. Amid the people, a hero decides he’s had enough, and plans a revolution to lead them all to freedom!

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 09:09:11

In a Gotham-like city, a terrible water shortage, caused by a 20-year drought, has led… to the re-population & re-birth of a foreboded American City: Buffalo, NY

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by roger
2011-03-29 11:09:19

Since 1942, in the northern part of the United States and Canada, farms devoted to the collection of female horse urine still exist. Progesterone (part of mares urine) one of the sought after drug ingredients is necessary for it’s economical manufacture. Horse racing is on the decline and some are pissed off.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:48:48

Sometimes they just write themselves, don’t they? :lol:

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2011-03-29 13:17:53

Do they put in catheters? Or do they just have a bunch of guys in rainsuits, walking around behind the horses with buckets?

And what do they put on their 1040s? “Equine Urine Recovery Technician”?

 
Comment by roger
2011-03-29 16:49:42

In horse racing parlance their is a job called a uboy. Whose responsibility is to collect a urine sample after each race, required by law.

 
Comment by Dale
2011-03-29 19:45:47

All the “pregnant mare’s urine” pmu farms are being/have been shut down since hormonal replacement therapy for women after menopause is no longer recomended. Lots of “unwanted” horses because of it.

 
 
 
 
Comment by michael
2011-03-29 06:22:34

“Notice that big boyz are speculating in things like gasoline (oil), food (commodities), some health care, and houses in areas with jobs.”

how do you connect speculators and QE?

if just speculators were causing the prices to rise…shouldn’t there be huge amounts of inventory laying around?

Comment by Kirisdad
2011-03-29 07:12:52

Hence, the Goldman owned aluminum storage facilities and the Morgan Stanley owned floating oil tankers.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 08:47:38

the Goldman owned aluminum storage facilities and the Morgan Stanley owned floating oil tankers.

“Financial Services Inc.” is a rather large “concern”, tain’t it? ;-)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by michael
2011-03-29 11:38:33

i don’t know…that’s alot of storage for them to own to account for all the significant commodity price increases.

where are they storing all the cotton for example?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:52:13

“…shouldn’t there be huge amounts of inventory laying around?”

You mean like full oil tankers sitting idle? Shadow RE inventory? Strategic oil reserves with huge inventory, but oil prices still rising? The recent food speculation causing the latest rise in grocery prices?

That kind of inventory laying around?

 
 
 
Comment by CA renter
2011-03-29 04:55:12

Responding to GH’s comment the other day:

Comment by GH
2011-03-25 08:54:18
Yup as far as I can tell he went in with the original agenda planned for him long before the crash. All that political capital wasted on a health law that will either collapse under its own weight or be rescinded after the next election.

Would it have REALLY been that hard to put the economic issues first and worry about that when things were better for everyone?
———————–

GH,

That was done intentionally, IMHO.

Our financial masters were getting very worried about the Tea Party, back when they were angrily protesting against bailouts for banks and FBs. The original Tea Party (not the one co-opted by the Republicans) was growing steadily in numbers and in power, and the common enemy of this non-partisan Tea Party group was the financial sector and all those attached to it.

Remember how they were looking into “domestic terrorism” and how to handle it? Remember the video cameras at the original TP events (as though being watched by the PTB, not the media)?

All of a sudden, completely out of left field, the Dems brought out “healthcare reform” (in the middle of a financial crisis, when they should have been focusing on going after those who caused the crisis, and reforming the sytem), and the Republicans co-opted the Tea Party and changed the focus from being anti-bailout/banker to being anti-healthcare, anti-taxes, anti-labor. All, “coincidentally,” at the same time. Divide and conquer — it’s the oldest trick in the book. People who think this was an odd coinicidence aren’t paying attention to what’s really going on.

The “two parties” are two sides of the same coin. They serve the corporations and the financial elite.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 05:37:16

Never assume massive conspiracy when simple stupidity will explain.

“coincidentally, at the same time” is redundant.

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-29 05:50:39

Meant to stress that “redundant” point. :)

I suscribe to the conspiracy theory. There was no reason for Obama to shove that “healthcare bill” down our throats when the economy was melting down. It made no sense, whatsoever. Not only that, but the biggest beneficiaries of the healthcare bill are the insurance companies — members of the FIRE sector.

Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 06:24:19

The healthcare thing was a pipedream with momentum. Healthcare for everyone was to be our crowning achievement as a society no longer constrained by financial limits. The fact that it went through while the economy was crumbling speaks to a disconnect from reality among our elite.

In the Great Depression it was “a chicken in every pot”. This time it’s “a doctors hand up everyone’s azz”.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 08:37:42

This time it’s “a doctors hand up everyone’s azz”

“An ounce of inspection is worth a pound of cancer”

“For-profit$-Hospital-with-nonetolittle-profit$” mission statement. ;-)

 
Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 09:54:35

Healthcare for everyone was to be our crowning achievement as a society

Oh gimme a break from the hyperbolic nationalism. There rest of the free first world has healthcare for everyone and they aren’t crowing about “crowning achievement as a society.” They just did it because it was the right thing to do. And health care DIDN’T bring them down as a country. Other things might have, but not healthcare.

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 10:39:39

They just did it because it was the right thing to do.

You say this like it’s a given. A more appropriate statement might be “they did it because they felt/believed it was the right thing to do”.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2011-03-29 13:29:16

And since they are as healthy as we are, at half the cost, maybe the “right thing to do” WAS the right thing to do.

Anyone ever consider that maybe one of the big reasons why jobs are being outsourced is that everyone else has a “Socialist” health care system, while the US system is “make the employers pay”?

At least that’s been what they’ve been telling everyone for 20 years. Nobody gets a raise, because “health care costs” are going up 20% a year.

Don’t think of it as “Socialist”. Think of it as “the most efficient provider ran everyone else out of business”. Nothing more free-enterprise than that.

It just happens that maybe the most efficient provider is the US Government. Call it “Freddie Doc” or “Fannie Nurse”, if it makes you feel better.

 
Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 13:46:13

Very well; *I* think it was the right thing to do. I just don’t like the idea of people of any economic status walking around in pain without treatment, and I am willing to give up a reasonable amount of my income for that.* I think that being relatively free of pain (if possible) is a basic human right. Simply fulfilling a basic human right is not my idea of a crowning achievement of society.

————
*I refer to public option/single payer system, not the smart remarks like “no one is stopping you from making a donation.”

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 13:53:13

I just don’t like the idea of people of any economic status walking around in pain without treatment, and I am willing to give up a reasonable amount of my income for that.*

I think that’s fair and respect that.

Of course, I think it’s a basic human right to own the fruits of your own labor. Legislating “free health care for all” paid for by taxpayers puts those two rights at odds with each other, assuming you believe in them both.

But you already know my position :)

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 14:18:38

You say this like it’s a given. A more appropriate statement might be “they did it because they felt/believed it was the right thing to do”.

No. It is a given.

Every industrialized country in the world except “exceptional” America implemented universal health-care because it was the right thing to do morally, socially, economically and for the health of their people and they hold those truths to be self-evident.

 
Comment by Montana
2011-03-29 14:40:51

I thought China didn’t have a national healthcare system.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 14:49:56

Of course, I think it’s a basic human right to own the fruits of your own labor. Legislating “free health care for all” paid for by taxpayers puts those two rights at odds with each other, assuming you believe in them both.

That sounds like a disingenuous FOX talking point designed to brainwash somebody dumb.

There is so much wrong there. Where to start? OK…..

If it’s a basic human right to “own the fruits of one’s own labor” would not universal health-care insure this right to those who get sick and need care better than US health-care insures this right when one is not insured? If you’re sick and under-treated it’s hard to “enjoy the fruit of your own labor”. I’ve seen it.

If a self-employed person could be covered by a public policy by paying taxes totaling half the cost of private insurance would he then not “enjoy the fruits of his labor” more than he is when he has to pay double the price for private insurance?

If a rich person’s private company is paying a million dollars a year on private health insurance, would he not be better off without this expense even if his taxes rose by half a million dollars to pay for a “free” public health-care system?

If a company was relieved of paying for its employee’s health-care it could pay its workers more thus enabling the workers to enjoy the fruits of their labor more.

If a company was relieved of paying for its employee’s healthcare it might better stay in business thus allowing its employees to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

The bottom line is that socialized medicine would cost a lot less money thus enabling Americans to more “enjoy the fruits of their own labor.”

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 14:59:45

I thought China didn’t have a national healthcare system.

Thanks. I feel better about the US system now.

But I meant to say “Western” Industrialized countries but in fact even China is moving towards a universal “public-option” type system available to everyone.

China is undertaking reform of its health-care system. The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) is a 2005 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor . Under the NRCMCS, the annual cost of medical coverage is 50 yuan (US$7) per person . Of that, 20 yuan is paid in by the central government, 20 yuan by the provincial government and a contribution of 10 yuan is made by the patient . As of September 2007, around 80% of the rural population of China had signed up wiki

 
Comment by seen it all
2011-03-29 16:51:52

No.
Oxy got it right the first time.

People shouldn’t be doing the math in their head when deciding whether or not to get in the ambulance.

A couple more years of 20% annual premium increases and we will have a lot more believers in true universal coverage.

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 18:31:14

And since they are as healthy as we are, at half the cost, maybe the “right thing to do” WAS the right thing to do.

If you think level of health is the sole measure of “right” vs “wrong”, then that’s fair. This would appear to come from a point of view of the “Greater good” rather than individual rights. That’s a reasonable belief to hold.

Personally, I don’t think that’s the principle this country was founded on, nor that our Constitution supports it. But the Constitution is a living document and can be amended. I’d much rather folks go this route than simply trying to legislate around it…

 
 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 06:12:21

“coincidentally, at the same time” is redundant.

Tankxs for pointing that out,…her idea below was nearly completely lost as my mind was struggling for an acceptable grammatical translation. ;-)

the Republicans co-opted the Tea Party and changed the focus from being anti-bailout/banker to being: anti-healthcare, anti-taxes, anti-labor.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:05:31

“All that political capital wasted on a health law that will either collapse under its own weight or be rescinded after the next election.”

I’m not NEARLY that optimistic. I have to assume it is here to stay for seventy years or so; how else will Democratic candidates get campaign contributions out of health insurers?

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 06:21:20

National Highway System: check
National Healthcare: “evil”

Comment by scdave
2011-03-29 08:41:51

+1 Hwy……

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Bronco
2011-03-29 12:16:39

If we didn’t already have the National Highway System in place, we would not be able to afford that right now either.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-03-29 20:03:11

But universal health care is cheaper, see? At least, it is everywhere else in the world.

That seems to be the key issue some can’t grasp.

 
Comment by robin
2011-03-30 01:41:29

++

 
 
 
 
Comment by Dave
2011-03-29 09:18:31

I watched the exact same thing happen with the illegal immigration movement. When we started the latest batch of groups, they were truly grass roots. After a while, the Republican plants started appearing.

Those same people (the ones that didn’t land in elected positions), have moved on from the now shattered Illegal immigration groups….into the Tea Party.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:56:05

Again, I’d almost buy into this “no difference between the 2″ except for the fact that it was the Repubs that defeated a bill by the Dems to end tax breaks for offshoring jobs.

Tax breaks that were then to be used to promote hiring here.

Don’t buy into the “no difference” bullcrap. That’s part the new GOP strategy.

Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 13:16:32

Good point as always. By the same token it’s the D’s that make noises (and even laws) every so often about taking away (or at least restricting future purchases of) guns from law abiding citizens. There’s a real difference between the parties that hurts the D’s ability to create any sort of useful majority. What would you call that strategy?

Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 15:10:00

By the same token it’s the D’s that make noises (and even laws) every so often about taking away (or at least restricting future purchases of) guns from law abiding citizens.

Who cares? It’s hard to buy a gun in the USA?

I like guns, have owned a bunch and competed and I never felt that restricted with any of those laws. There has to be some.

But wait. Come to think of it, in California I could only buy one pistol per month, no 30 round magazines and no AK-47’s and that really did cramp my style.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 16:42:02

Who cares?

The people you wish would vote more like you.

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 16:19:51

I like guns. Where I live is gun country. It’s easy to buy and own one.

But ease of buying guns versus job security? Hmmm, tough choice.

Not.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 16:44:12

Not for you. For others it is. Do you want their vote or not? Or would you rather just make fun of them and then complain when you can’t get anything done in Washington?

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 18:34:33

Or would you rather just make fun of them and then complain when you can’t get anything done in Washington?

Good point. I think this answer to this question for many of the Dems on this board is obvious given the discourse here (or lack of it)

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-03-29 20:10:53

I think there are very few potential progressives who are held back from voting that way because they fear losing their ability to buy unlimited assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets. Very, very few.

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-03-29 20:26:24

The Scotch-Irish aren’t coming back to the democratic party. They never do what’s in their own best interest. It’s one of their traditions.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 20:54:06

Perhaps it would make more sense to build a big tent than insist that they must all be “true believer” progressives. If you really want to take on TPTB you’ll need all the help you can get.

 
 
 
Comment by CA renter
2011-03-30 03:16:02

Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:56:05
Again, I’d almost buy into this “no difference between the 2″ except for the fact that it was the Repubs that defeated a bill by the Dems to end tax breaks for offshoring jobs.

Tax breaks that were then to be used to promote hiring here.

Don’t buy into the “no difference” bullcrap. That’s part the new GOP strategy.
———————–

Tin foil hat moment:

Perhaps the PTB pass the “Republican” bills when the Rs have a majority, and the PTB passes the “Democratic” bills when the Ds have a majority. The minority can safely “protest” when they are the minority.

You have to admit, it was Clinton who signed off on NAFTA (and the exclusion on cap gains for housing profits), among other things. And Obama has handed over more money to the financial sector than Bush did.

I have to believe they are two sides of the same coin, though if I had to choose only one, I would choose Dem, but under no circumstances are their hands clean.

 
 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2011-03-29 05:03:38

3/25/2011 1:36 PM ET.
By Bill Fleckenstein, MSN Money

Caution: More housing woes ahead

Banks and the Fed helped paper them over, but deep problems remain for the real estate market. And they could soon trigger even more financial turmoil.

On a clear day, you can sell forever

Last week’s existing home sales data corroborated that view: Supply increased, prices fell, and about 40% of transactions were from distressed sales. Having said that, and noting that there has already been a tremendous decline in prices, in many cases the real estate market still has not “cleared” — i.e., prices have not fallen enough to bring out buyers at the margin.

Part of the reason is that banks have been pursuing an “extend-and-pretend” strategy and have not yet forced out many delinquent home “owners,” for two reasons. One is the pressure the banks are under from a documentation standpoint. The other is the fact that they don’t want to recognize the losses on their books as they continue to present themselves as healthy, bolstered as they have been by free money from the Federal Reserve.

Nevertheless, at some point the banks will have to foreclose on people who are not making payments and will then be forced to sell those foreclosed properties. That will increase supply and create another round of lower prices, forcing lenders to take even more real estate back onto their balance sheets.

http://money.msn.com/currency/caution-more-housing-woes-ahead-fleckenstein.aspx - 120k -

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:06:38

“Caution: More housing woes ahead”

Good ole Fleck! Thanks for posting — I can’t recall anyone putting up one of his articles here in some time.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 06:31:35

How many “Eeyore Award” winners can the HBB feed support?

 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2011-03-29 07:11:26

That’s because he’s been a broken record with the inflation thing. He’s at his best when he’s a roaring bear.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:12:13

“…at some point the banks will have to foreclose on people who are not making payments and will then be forced to sell those foreclosed properties.”

There is the part I don’t get. I may have even made statements to this effect myself at points in the past, but at this stage, I don’t see what would compel banks to foreclose and sell distressed properties; why can’t they just extend-and-pretend forever if they choose to do so?

I used to be under the impression that banks were under some kind of legal requirement to foreclose on mortgage loan borrowers who had stopped paying their mortgages, if for no other reason then out of responsibility to bank shareholders, who would presumably lose money if the bank’s balance sheet was riddled with unpaid, uncollected debt. Nowadays I am increasingly convinced that laws were made to be broken.

Comment by michael
2011-03-29 06:25:11

“I don’t see what would compel banks to foreclose and sell distressed properties”

higher interest rates.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:35:55

I don’t see what would compel the Fed to allow interest rates to go higher, either.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by michael
2011-03-29 06:39:08

inflation?

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2011-03-29 06:56:31

“inflation?”

From the article

Singer sees the likely trigger for the next crisis as monetary policy, which he deems “extremely risky . . . the risk being massive inflation.” He also worries that folks could finally lose confidence in the dollar due to money-printing. When asked what that would look like, he answered, “Gold going absolutely nuts.”

In addition, he expects that if we have raging inflation, it will hurt the big financial institutions, which he thinks will be at the epicenter of the next crisis. Singer notes that the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill “has made the system more brittle and has shaped the next crisis in a very negative way.”

 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 07:01:34

Circumstances beyond their control (I know that is a hard concept to grasp).

 
 
 
Comment by Al
2011-03-29 12:24:02

“…I don’t see what would compel banks to foreclose and sell distressed properties; why can’t they just extend-and-pretend forever if they choose to do so?”

The question becomes, how long can a bank pretend a non-performing asset is performing? Does it get to the point where cash flow is a problem?

Or maybe only a little of the inventory we’re talking about is actually owned by the banks. They may just be sitting back waiting for the MBS investors to start demanding that they, as servicers, start foreclosing. Or maybe it’s most Freddie, Fannie and Central Bank owned.

Too much mud in the waters, just the way THEY like it.

 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2011-03-29 06:12:14

I believe that other markets are floating on free money and regulatory forebearnce:

1) Commercial real estate.
2) Private equity holdings with deep debts.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 08:26:48

regulatory forebearnce = “Indemnified”

 
 
Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 07:00:07

” at some point the banks will have to foreclose on people who are not making payments”

Thus causing further economic slowdown-effect by forcing these sorry FBs to actually pay rent for the first time in years, forcing an abrupt halt to expenditures on other purchases. There goes the “recovery”.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 08:08:24

” at some point the banks will have to foreclose on people who are not making payments”

Judging from the number of empty houses in my neighborhood its been happening for a while.

 
Comment by rms
2011-03-29 11:15:50

“On a clear day, you can sell forever”

This quote deserves to be etched in granite.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 12:58:35

They can foreclose all they want, as soon they can prove they actually own the property, but who are they going to sell to?

 
 
Comment by Awaiting
2011-03-29 06:07:43

The new tax havens 60 MINUTES
March 27, 2011 4:15 PM

American companies are finding new overseas tax havens to legally protect some of their profits from the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent, among the highest in the world. Lesley Stahl reports.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360932n&tag=contentBody;housing#ixzz1HzWbz4LQ
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360932n&tag=contentBody;housing

Comment by michael
2011-03-29 06:31:19

thats why the IRS has changed the LMSB (large and mid sized business) division to just LB&I (large Business and Internatinal).

They have also built an “elite” international transfer pricing group.

i read another stat that transfer pricing audits have increased by 80%.

Comment by Xenos
2011-03-29 07:04:16

Not just the IRS. Foreign governments are looking closely into tightening TP regs severely, and this is an area that may change a lot in the near future.

Comment by michael
2011-03-29 07:46:45

the service and foriegn jurisdictions are cooperating alot more…even performing more joint audits.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by aNYCdj
2011-03-29 06:57:52

As usual we always have better ideas then those in DC…….

Hey corp exec……ya waana get some tax free money….well spend it in America creating jobs….Yeah Steve Jobs ya got $35 billion overseas…how about makin those ipads in kansas???

Or at least bring your customer service phone centers back to Mizzizzippi? Spend the loot on paychecks health insurance for your American workers and no 35% tax…cool

Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:02:22

The DEMOCRATS tried EXACTLY that back in Sept.

It was defeated by the Repubs.

So Americans gave them (the repubs) more power because the Dems weren’t providing more jobs.

Now do you see how bad it’s going to get before it gets better?

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:04:17

Except that in any given year, about half of all the large corporations pay NO taxes.

This year’s poster child is GE, skating on a $3 BILLION tax bill and managing to get a $3 MILLION tax refund instead.

Poor, poor oppressed corporations!

 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2011-03-29 06:10:24

A rising share of housing being purchased for cash:

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTXRYALvkbzQ&pos=6

“A record 33 percent of existing-home sales were made to cash buyers in February, when an annualized 4.88 million properties changed hands, the National Association of Realtors reported March 21. That compares with 15 percent of the 4.82 million annualized sales when the Chicago-based trade group started monthly tracking of such purchases in October 2008.”

Started tracking in 2008? Back in the day when people paid off their mortgages rather than maximizing them, I’ll be a much higher share of purchases were in cash — using the proceeds from selling the previous home. For example, the only way I would move would be to downsize, and that purchase would be in cash.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:20:27

I frankly find it quite amazing that so many American households have large cash hordes available to purchase so many houses with cash, more than three years after the onset of the Great Recession. Why didn’t I think of stuffing hundreds of thousands of dollars under the mattress back then?

Comment by Kirisdad
2011-03-29 06:40:55

Are you forgetting about all those that sold their RE and made huge(untaxed) profits during the boom?

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 07:33:52

How many actually did it? I’m sure it’s a significant number, but remember, “No one could have seen it coming.”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Steve J
2011-03-29 09:41:08

Well, everyone that bought an alligator had to buy ut from someone.

 
 
 
Comment by hobo in mass
2011-03-29 06:47:23

We did it, sort of. We wanted to buy in 2005 and had no clue about a bubble. When we went to look a places prices were insane. The first place we looked at was a 3BR 1 1/2B, 1150 sqft with a price of 510K. It was a dump, needed rewiring, new drywall. It sold for 490K (426/sqft). So we went down the road and rented an apartment for 1500/month and have been stashing the money that would have been used for a mortgage into a savings account, about 1200/month. So six years later (72 months) we have a huge down payment saved up and the median price/sqft in the area is down to about 325. If I didn’t want to buy in an expensive area of the Boston suburbs, I could pay cash and I’m sure I’m not the only person who did this.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 07:34:52

“We wanted to buy in 2005 and had no clue about a bubble. When we went to look a places prices were insane.”

We had a similar experience, except that my bubble self-education started in earnest back in fall 2004.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 08:24:44

except that my bubble self-education started in earnest back in fall 2004 1990 (Hwy50)

We all gotta start somewhere.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 09:22:52

“1990 (Hwy50)”

Good timing!

 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 09:42:39

Good timing!

Back then it was just: “Your stucco price is too damn high!” ;-)

(Then when I started repeatedly muttering the same thing again around 2002, I wasa fearin’ I was living a “Groundhog Day” remake without Bill around to humor me.)

 
 
 
Comment by Awaiting
2011-03-29 06:56:04

PB-example
We sold our home just as the bubble was really taking off, and due to our logical decsion matrix, got priced out until now. We have house proceeds. We never fiddled w/ our home financing.

Some of the cash transactions are UHS LLP’s. I’ve sat in on that insanity. Glaucoma necessitates careful planning.

Comment by Awaiting
2011-03-29 07:25:40

“decision” oops-fast typing

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 09:23:57

It’s OK - yu cn lv ot mst of th vwls nd stl cmmncat yr msg.

 
 
 
Comment by measton
2011-03-29 11:03:31

People with money who are buying homes look at their bank accounts earning 0, minimal returns on treasuries and the risk associated with that, the crack addicted markets.

Buying a house for cash seems safe.

They look at the likely hood of the mortgage interest rate deduction going away and they think might be good to pay in cash.

I just paid off the last 3rd of my in laws house. It’s like buying a 5.5% 5 yr bond, he’s X military and has as solid a retirement plan as any. They live very conservatively.

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-30 03:24:53

Exactly right, measton.

Nice job on the in-laws’ house, BTW.

The only way to retire is if you have a paid-off house. I can’t imagine how some people are still taking out HELOCs and cash-out refis in their 50s and 60s.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:06:33

They don’t PB. These are new specufesters who think they are buying it at the bottom.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:31:49

“…the only way I would move would be to downsize, and that purchase would be in cash.”

I suppose this could work, so long as you are not either among the hapless 11.1 million underwater borrowers out there, or at a LTV ration anywhere near 1. But the 23.1% of all mortgages that are underwater does not identify the only group of borrowers who could not downsize and pay cash, as anyone who is remotely close to being underwater (which I have to assume is a lot of borrowers) would not be able to raise much of a down payment by selling, much less sufficient cash to make an outright home purchase.

Note that the “0.1″ in “11.1 million underwater borrowers” translates into 100,000. After only handing reduced home-loan balances to only 110 more groups of “100,000 borrowers”, the problem will be fixed:

“Yet mortgage companies already have reduced home-loan balances for more than 100,000 borrowers.”

HOMES
MARCH 28, 2011

Mortgage Faceoff Looms for Lenders
By RUTH SIMON And NICK TIMIRAOS

U.S. banks are resisting efforts by state attorneys general to force them to cut the amounts owed by some borrowers facing foreclosure. Yet mortgage companies already have reduced home-loan balances for more than 100,000 borrowers.

How much larger the number will grow is likely to be at the center of negotiations this week aimed at reaching a settlement to the nationwide investigation of mortgage-servicing practices.

At the end of 2010, nearly 11.1 million borrowers, or 23.1% of those with mortgages, were underwater, according to CoreLogic Inc. The tepid nature of the housing recovery suggests many borrowers could remain underwater for years.

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2011-03-29 07:18:14

“…suggests many borrowers could remain underwater for years.”

And how many personal/household plans will be ripped to shreds by this reality? Those FBs didn’t leverage up for the long haul, it was supposed to be in and out. Here’s where the real damage will occur.

Comment by CA renter
2011-03-30 03:26:18

Yep. Duration, duration, duration…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2011-03-29 08:31:06

from the article:

“Short sales, where the bank accepts less than the principal on a loan, and foreclosures accounted for 59 percent of last year’s cash sales, up from 10 percent in 2004, Morgan Stanley reported.”

Apparently the Realtors are including foreclosures in their con-numbers of houses sold. I suppose that when the bank sells the foreclosed property that is counted as another sale. 4mil houses sold, 2 mil foreclosures. How many “arms-length” sales are there really?

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2011-03-29 08:37:23

So…distressed sales count towards sales volume, but distressed sale prices are not supposed to set comps?

Talk about cherry picking!

Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:08:18

If it’s good enough for the banks… (Level 3 assets anyone?)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 06:18:10

Earthquake fears on the west coast
Fingers crossed
A row over a rickety viaduct
Mar 24th 2011 | SEATTLE | from the print edition

AFTERSHOCKS from Japan rattled America’s west coast last week, as consumers in California rushed to buy iodine tablets they do not need and politicians in Seattle bickered about a quake-damaged highway many want to demolish.

Scientists say there is no chance that dangerous radiation will cross the Pacific. So the run on potassium iodide pills, which can block the absorption of radioactive iodine, made little sense. Californian health authorities warned residents not to compound their anxiety by eating the pills, which can cause intestinal distress and severe rashes.

In Seattle, meanwhile, the Japanese quake reminded residents that the Pacific north-west is primed for a comparable catastrophe—and is far less prepared than Japan to cope with it. The Cascadia subduction zone, just 50 miles off the coast and stretching from northern California to southern British Columbia, is accumulating stresses that could unleash an earthquake of magnitude 9.0 and generate its own tsunami. The last “big one” off the coast of Oregon and Washington is believed to have occurred in 1700, and some recent studies suggest that the chance of another occurring within the next 50 years is about one in three.

Having seen the devastation in Japan, Seattle’s mayor, Mike McGinn, said on March 14th that the city needs to rethink. He called for the viaduct to be closed next year. He was immediately accused of fear-mongering, not to mention endangering local commerce.

Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 08:21:57

The Pacific in the West, Mt. Rainier in the East, Canada’s health care to the North…The remnants of Mt. St. Helen to the South…they’re doomed! Sell the city to Vancouver, BC, …all of it, reduce-the-Deficit-NOW!

 
 
Comment by skroodle
2011-03-29 06:24:23

To Fight Discrimination, a Long List of No-Nos

They also are cautioned to never, under any circumstances, call a home a “fisherman’s retreat.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/nyregion/29appraisal.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion

Comment by Kim
2011-03-29 14:56:00

That list gets crazy. There was some kind of discussion over at Acid…err… Active Rain a few months back whether agents should put “walking distance to X” in their listing descriptions, because some people can’t walk.

 
 
Comment by Awaiting
Comment by liz pendens
2011-03-29 06:53:22

It has already been proven that the banks that will be having “skin in the game” are TBTF, so we are really just talking taxpayer skin here. What a joke! How about we get Barney and his repulsive skin to take a hike?

 
 
Comment by jeff saturday
2011-03-29 07:15:09

Home prices falling in most major US cities

By JANNA HERRON The Associated Press
Updated: 9:51 a.m. Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Posted: 9:20 a.m. Tuesday, March 29, 2011

NEW YORK — Home prices are falling in most major U.S. cities, and the average prices in four of them are at their lowest point in 11 years.

The Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller 20-city index released Tuesday shows price declines in 19 cities from December to January. Eleven of them are at their lowest level since the housing bust, in 2006 and 2007. The index fell for the sixth straight month.

Home values in Atlanta, Las Vegas, Detroit and Cleveland are now below January 2000 levels.

The only market where prices rose was Washington, where homes prices gained 0.1 percent month over month.

“The housing market recession is not yet over, and none of the statistics are indicating any form of sustained recovery,” said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor’s.

Comment by 2banana
2011-03-29 08:03:02

The Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller 20-city index released Tuesday shows price declines in 19 cities from December to January. Eleven of them are at their lowest level since the housing bust, in 2006 and 2007. The index fell for the sixth straight month.

Here comes the double dip!

And there will be no TARP/HARM/Stimulus this time around…

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 09:26:10

“And there will be no TARP/HARM/Stimulus this time around…”

With DC policymakers fixated on squabbling over whether to shut down the federal government, you would think consideration of further housing stimulus would be on the back burner.

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:10:54

Prices are still coming down, albeit very slowly, in my area.

 
Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 13:56:02

“most” major US cities

And the “rest” of the cities are the ones with the jobs.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 07:31:24

There has never been a better time to buy…except for maybe with the next Case-Shiller/S&P data release.

Bloomberg
Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Fell 3.1% From Year Earlier
March 29, 2011, 10:07 AM EDT

Prices will continue to move downward probably for the rest of the year,” said David Semmens, a U.S. economist at Standard Chartered Bank in New York, who correctly forecast the drop. “They won’t turn around until you have consumers feel that housing is genuinely cheap and until they feel a lot more secure in their labor-market position.”

Another report showed consumer confidence dropped in March ad Americans grew more concerned about the economic outlook. The New York-based Conference Board’s sentiment index fell to 63.4 this month from 72 in February, the research group said.

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2011-03-29 07:48:19

I’d love to hear their definition of “genuinely cheap”.

Comment by Awaiting
2011-03-29 08:27:39

consumers feel that housing is “genuinely cheap…”
Our first (newly built) home cost us $138K @ $71/sf circa 1984. Volcker Interest Rate ARM at 17.5%. Then adjusted down to 12.5% w/ a cap. Had to refi to get a lower rate. Stayed 14 yrs. Sorry, but if these people think something like *$200-/sf is cheap, they need their heads examined.
*conversations in public based

Comment by polly
2011-03-29 10:56:30

“Volcker Interest Rate ARM at 17.5%.”

OK. Now I’m jealous. I just might buy in a world where having a $100K downpayment would reduce your monthly nut by almost $1500 a month.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 09:17:08

Out of twenty cities in the Case-Shiller/S&P survey, only DC’s housing prices saw an “improvement” — nothing a government shutdown wouldn’t change in a hurry.

Do you expect a government shutdown over the budget?
By AMANDA ST. AMAND
STLtoday dot com | Posted: Monday, March 28, 2011 7:39 am

Sign at Washington attraction during 1995 government shutdown

The budget bickering is going to ratchet up this week in Washington, where the Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on how to fund the government.

If the battles continue, it seems doubtful that Congress will make the April 8 deadline to fund the government and avoid a partial shutdown.

The battling over the budget — and the current temporary funding of the government — is already costing taxpayers huge amounts of money. The Washington Post reports that while the stopgap measures of the past six months have kept the lights on, it’s also kept many agencies operating in a sort of limbo.

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:12:19

“They won’t turn around until you have consumers feel that housing is genuinely cheap and until they feel a lot more secure in their labor-market position.”

Somebody has been reading this board. :lol:

 
 
Comment by bob
2011-03-29 07:40:57

Hi Denver Area folks,
Not currently in the area but there is decent chance that we will relocate during the summer (transfer + spouse preference). Any comments about the housing market? How is the condo market downtown

p.s. I just saw that Seattle was down 29% from its all time peak in mid-2007 on C-S.

Comment by Natalie
2011-03-29 11:24:07

You can get a lodo condo right now for about 30% off peak. Single family about 20% off. That is if you are patient and wait around for a short-sale or foreclosure. Most ppl that do not have to sell still stick their noses up at 10% or less off peak. That said prices are still high. For a nice lodo condo with a decent view they still are asking about $400 a sq foot which is no bargain (occasionally a short-sale or foreclosure will come on for $350 a sq foot or less and go quickly). $300 a sq foot would be considered by most agents to be a steal. I am quoting Lodo condo prices - Curtis Park, Capital Hill, Golden Triangle, etc. are a little bit cheaper, but walking isn’t as safe and/or nice in such areas. I think C/S is showing only about a 10% or so overall decline. The biggest declines are for condos above $700k and single family homes above $1m. If you want a urban feel in a walking neighborhood, Lodo and Cherry Creek have the best condo and townhouse options, but are the most expensive areas. For single family, I like Country Club, Hilltop, Crestmoor, Bonnie Brae, Observatory Park, University Park, Washington Park and Park Hill. Curtis Park, Capital Hill, and Golden Triangle have decent condos if you dont mind a more transitional neighborhood.

Comment by bob
2011-03-29 13:02:36

thanks for the insightful response

 
 
 
Comment by Awaiting
2011-03-29 08:42:35

Mortgage Reform Storm Is Brewing
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42309859?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS
Everyone have a great day!

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 10:32:16

“The QRM will likely require a 20 percent down payment on the loan, as well as other underwriting criteria, and loans sold to Fannie and Freddie (while still in conservatorship), as well as FHA loans, would be exempt. At the same time, Fannie, Freddie and the FHA are making themselves more expensive, as they try to shrink their currently overwhelming market share.”

Fastest way to get the government out of the mortgage business:

DOWN PAYMENT REQUIREMENTS

Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:17:42

While great in theory, the reality is that over 72 million people, or half of the workforce, will be priced out of the market, thus sending the banks back to begging for the government to get back in the game.

The very same reason they got so involved in the first place, because despite the fact that the rich think our 75% consumer driven economy doesn’t need consumers, reality say different.

But instead of paying decent wages, they make the rest of us taxpayers subsidize their profits.

Damn union janitors!

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 17:17:48

“…thus sending the banks back to begging for the government to get back in the game.”

Obviously if the federal government has run out of money for its own operations, it doesn’t have hundreds of billions of additional bailout funds to help keep great vampire squids on life support.

Maybe the next time Wall Street collapses due to a preponderance of fraud and blatant malfeasance, the bankers that perpetrated the mess will lose their jobs and serve prison time in cases where it is warranted. We can only hope it goes down the right way next time around.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by measton
2011-03-29 09:23:49

Classic headline

NEW YORK – Stocks edged higher in midday trading after consumer confidence fell less than some analysts had feared.

Really ??

Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 10:58:50

Its always better than expected ….

Yellowstone Erupts …. 50,000,000 perish, far less than the projected 80,000,000 that vulcanologists had predicted … DOW rallies 2% …

Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:21:23

:lol: That would be funny except that would probably be the truth.

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 09:27:37

Federal shutdown in cards

With negotiations between congressional Republicans and Democrats hitting their latest snag — and knives drawn — a federal-government shutdown is looking increasingly likely (blog).

Comment by WT Economist
2011-03-29 11:28:04

I hope it isn’t a charade like the last one. Stop the Social Security and Medicare checks.

Comment by polly
2011-03-29 11:35:17

What about the tax refunds? That is returning money that people overpaid, not a program payment.

Even when a store is selling off stuff because they are going bankrupt, they don’t keep your change from a cash transaction.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 12:30:24

Something tells me the IRS will be largely exempt from any shutdown that goes into force on or around April 8.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by polly
2011-03-29 14:32:12

Partial shut downs are about what is time sensitive, not what is actually essential. Every agency and department has some of both.

You can’t send the people who take care of the animals home from the National Zoo, but you don’t have to keep the staff at the visitor’s center or the gift shops. Similarly, I bet there will be people keeping the computers/servers that accept electronic returns going at the IRS, but do they really have to do everything else - like audits or human resources reports - this week, not next week? Some FBI agents in the middle of time sensitive investigations will get to keep working, but there must be some who are just starting on a long term issue who won’t. I’ve never been though one of these things, so I’m not even sure if the decisions are made on a department by department or person by person basis.

This is a mess and a half and word around DC is that negotiations are not going well (something about the leaks being about how awful the other side is). I thought that April 8th was too close to April 15th for it to happen, but maybe they don’t really care about that.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 15:21:27

“…the leaks being about how awful the other side is…”

Sounds like my kids fighting — truly awful!

 
 
 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 15:28:40

a federal-government shutdown is looking increasingly likely

I am not worried too much about this.

 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2011-03-29 09:31:35

OK, they merit x1 yippie-kye-aye, but their “toxic-contamination” teeter-totter record is still “unbalanced”.

Meet the 203-foot truck on its way to save Fukushima’s No. 4 reactor:
by Zach Bowman / Mar 25th 2011


Instead of directing a stream of concrete up a sky scraper, this $1 million truck that was originally on its way to a Saudi client will now be used to pump sea water over the 141-foot reactor group in order to keep everything cool. Even at that height, the truck will still be able to remain 14 meters, or about 46 feet, away. Sany says that the truck left port in China on March 20 and has safely reached Japan, though there’s no word on whether or not it has begun operations at Fukushima.

Comment by In Colorado
2011-03-29 10:55:28

A 206 foot truck? Why doesn’t Joe 6 Pack have one in his driveway?

Does that come in the 40 row, 80 door, short bed model? The Ford F-9500000? (It comes with its own refinery)

 
Comment by albuquerquedan
2011-03-29 16:36:51

Obama administration says that it will not alter its nuclear policy: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81862.html
BTW, the the article says that the plutonium levels are not considered significant. Not in the article but almost all of us born before the 1970’s have some plutonium in us from the tests of weapons.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 09:45:42

Turns out housing market wealth effects are reversible. Who’d've thunk?

Wealth Effects Revisited 1978-2009
February 2011

We re-examine the link between changes in housing wealth, financial wealth, and consumer spending. We extend a panel of U.S. states observed quarterly during the seventeen-year period, 1982 through 1999, to the thirty-one year period, 1978 through 2009. Using techniques reported previously, we impute the aggregate value of owneroccupied housing, the value of financial assets, and measures of aggregate consumption for each of the geographic units over time. We estimate regression models in levels, first differences and in error-correction form, relating per capita consumption to per capita income and wealth. We find a statistically significant and rather large effect of housing wealth upon household consumption. This effect is consistently larger than the effect of stock market wealth upon consumption. This reinforces the conclusions reported in our previous analysis.

In contrast to our previous analysis, however, we do find – based on data which include the recent volatility in asset markets – that the effects of declines in housing wealth in reducing consumption are at least as large as the effects of increases in housing wealth in increasing the course of household consumption.

Keywords: consumption, nonfinancial wealth, housing market, real estate
JEL Codes: E2, G1

Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:24:02

An great example of mistaking the map for the terrain.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 09:47:16

Economic Report

March 29, 2011, 11:16 a.m. EDT
Home prices fall for sixth straight month
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Home prices in 20 major U.S. cities fell 1% in January, the sixth straight monthly decline, according to the Case-Shiller home-price index released Tuesday by Standard & Poor’s.

Prices rose in only one of 20 cities in January on a monthly basis: Washington, D.C. Over 12 months, only Washington, D.C., and San Diego have seen prices advance.

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2011-03-29 10:19:32

Seems that our Chinese friends have been doing some of their own “Financial Innovation”

“Standard Bank says Chinese Copper Market cause for concern”

http://tinyurl.com/6dyx7u3

As I understand the plan…..

-Buy copper (or other commodities)

-When copper hits the dock in China, store in bonded warehouse, and use copper as collateral to borrow money from bank.

-Invest borrowed money in “higher yielding assets” during the 180 day period between the time copper is delivered, and payment for copper is due.

What could possibly go wrong?

Comment by X-GSfixr
2011-03-29 10:35:41

And, coincidentally, just posted on FT Alphaville (with previous links)

“Chinese ‘Copper Financing’ got even more popular this month”

“According to traders, there were ALMOST NO of copper on a cash basis for March…..”

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:25:44

Nothing new here. Wall St’s been doing this for decades.

 
 
Comment by butters
2011-03-29 10:29:16

Howard Dean: Democrats Should Be ‘Quietly Rooting’ for Shutdown

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 10:30:53

There won’t be much question about which side of the aisle to blame for undermining federal government operations, will there?

 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 13:32:33

I would love to see a damn gubmint shut down! The bastards one and all are screwing us up one side and down the other.

Comment by polly
2011-03-29 15:10:36

Seriously? National Park Rangers are screwing you up one side and down the other? That sounds like a personal problem to me.

Also, please remember, Congress is exempt from any shut down. Doesn’t effect them at all.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 17:14:37

Other “bastards” who are screwing poor wmbz:

- Letter carriers
- Military personnel
- Weather forecasters
- Astronauts
- Foreign diplomats
- Museum curators

The list goes on and on!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 18:36:00

- Letter carriers

not officially a gov’t employee, no? I thought the USPO was an ‘independent’ entity?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 19:55:41

“I thought the USPO was an ‘independent’ entity?”

Oh I see — like the Fed?

Then I guess they aren’t facing shutdown risk.

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 21:55:15

Then I guess they aren’t facing shutdown risk.

that was my point, yes. But I could be wrong…

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 16:21:15

It might be worth it if this prediction comes to pass.

Prominent Democrat says Government Shutdown ‘Best Thing in the World’ for Democrats
By JONATHAN KARL AND MATTHEW JAFFE
March 29, 2011

For months, Democrats have been accusing Republicans of pushing Congress toward a government shutdown that could be catastrophic for the economy.

But now one prominent Democrat says a government shutdown would be “the best thing in the world” for his party.

From a partisan point of view, I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown,” Sen. Howard Dean said Tuesday at a National Journal Insider Conference’s panel.

That’s because, Dean said, Republicans would be blamed for it.

If I was head of DNC, I would be quietly rooting for it,” Dean said. “I know who’s going to get blamed. We’ve been down this road before.”

 
 
 
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2011-03-29 11:04:57

“News reports first disclosed in the New York Times said that Ms. Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton helped overrule reluctant defense and military leaders in persuading Mr. Obama to launch military operations against Col. Gadhafi’s forces under the guise of protecting civilians from those forces.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/28/aide-credits-obama-for-libyans-uprising/

Dick Cheney must have a really big smile on his face these days. “Shazam-Islam-Is-Democracy” is apparently still the operative phrase in D.C. Thanks to hwy50 for that phrase.

Comment by jeff saturday
2011-03-29 14:19:21

Come on Barry, Samantha researched this.

 
 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 11:08:55

Stealth Inflation NYT article.

Comment by edgewaterjohn
2011-03-29 12:07:15

Those that cook meals at home using recipes know all about this, but it probably is news to the fast food/prepared crowd.

Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 12:39:55

Who wouldn’t cook at home? Why is this information always “unexpected”? Cooking at home is always cheaper, you can control the portions and you know what went into it. It takes a tiny bit of forethought and planning and actual cooking time.

Last night:

Saute minced garlic and onions ($0.50?) in a bit of leftover bacon fat and butter ($.10), add cheap dry vermouth ($.25) , fennel pollen (a gift), a pound of mussels ($4/lb), cover ’til they open and add a dollop of cream ($0.25). Serves two with a half baguette ($1.25). Total cost $6.35. An blitheringly easy.

An appetizer portion at Marica’s Seafood restaurant in Oakland: $10 (for two) + 9.5% tax and 20% tip = $13.

Had an arugula, goat’s cheese and beet salad to start, but I don’t need to “do the math” on that one to know that we spent for less than at a restaurant.

The whole dinner took very little time and I still had to pick up the bread on my bike ride home from work.

Bon appetit,
MrBubble

Comment by X-GSfixr
2011-03-29 13:08:00

“….pollen…..mussels…..goat cheese…..beet salad…..”

Don’t take it personal, but if I had to eat that kind of stuff every day, I’d probably shoot myself.

Can’t wait for the PTB to start running stories that mud cakes, dog turds, fried termites, and bark are the new “healthy, trendy foods”. Because stuff like chicken, steaks, rice and bread are so yesterday’s news.

Never mind. I forgot about Andrew Zimmern

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 14:51:03

“Don’t take it personal, but if I had to eat that kind of stuff every day, I’d probably shoot myself.”

That’s just when we’re slumming!

 
Comment by X-GSfixr
2011-03-29 16:19:31

As the “single parent” of teenage daughters, I frequently found that I’d be feeding male “guests” frequently as well.

Spaghetti, baby,……with extra Italian Sausage in the sauce.

Or marinade some chicken or porkchops, grill it, slice it up, and make soft tacos.

One nice thing about male teenagers……..you can put damn near anything on a plate, and they will eat it. They even think it’s awesome if it tastes halfway decent. Unlike these finicky women……..

“Eeeeeeeewww, I don’t want to eat that……”

“If you don’t like what’s on the menu at Cafe le Dad, then drag your dead a-zz into the kitchen and make something yourself…….or have that pencil neck boyfriend run you on down to Taco Fricking Bell…

Yeah?…..that’s what I thought.” :)

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 16:39:25

We have a tendency to take it too far.

When our little one gets bigger, it might be back to the Chicken Croquettes and Fish Portions of my youth!

Really though, we picked up a food mill so that we can process the garden veggies into baby mush. Yeah, we’re those &**^% people…

 
 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 13:35:51

I don’t cook at home for the main reason that it’s not economical to cook for one.

Groceries are priced on the meal-for-4 system.

Let’s take a hamburger for example. 1 lbs ground round in my area is ~$2. Head of lettuce - $1. Tomato - $1. Jar of pickles - ~$2. Whoops, that $6 right there. I still need onions, cheese, ketchup, mustard, mayo

Jack In The Box - $3 for the Jumbo Jack with everything. No coke. No fries. Don’t want them. Fresh tea and potato chips at the house.

I hate it. I’d much rather have fresh home cooked, but grocery prices are just not geared for the single person (or couple) who isn’t a big eater.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 13:37:50

“I don’t cook at home for the main reason that it’s not economical to cook for one.”

You have to learn how to cook faster, or if your time is that valuable, just hire a chef. (Marriage might also work in some cases…)

 
Comment by drumminj
2011-03-29 13:50:11

I don’t cook at home for the main reason that it’s not economical to cook for one.

agreed. Same reason for me. For the time and cost involved, it’s just not worth it.

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 15:01:39

“I don’t cook at home for the main reason that it’s not economical to cook for one.”

That’s just not true!

We cooked Indian food Saturday night and it’s what we’ve eaten for lunch this week so far, at least six meals. It’s super cheap and tasty and (relatively) healthy (Ajanta cookbook). Sure, there’s up front cost of the spices, but this can be done with beef stew, corned beef and cabbage, posole, Hungarian goulash, sauerbraten, and the list goes on.

Get a cheap crock-pot and you’ll be crushing the store-bought competition. This is not gormet we’re talking about:

Walk/bike to market Sunday morning
Buy food
Buy donut at Donut Alley
Do not tell wife
Walk/bike home
Cut veggies
Butcher chicken (easy)
Make stock (optional but it helps to drive down food costs)
Save livers for occasional paté
Save schmaltz (chicken fat) to cook eggs in
Throw meat and veggies and spices in crock-pot.
Eat dish that night
Cook rice or potato and extend meal all week for easy work lunches.

I reckon that you could even use one of them expensive free-range chix and make it pencil out.

MrBubble

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 16:31:28

You’re right. The economics do change… if I want to eat the same thing EVERY day.

Not very healthy, that.

But I wasn’t raised on Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Louisiana poverty dishes. (Most of which I like, don’t get me wrong, just can’t eat it every day straight. Same with anything else.)

But a mono diet is a sure-fire health problem. And realistic shelf life is still only days, not a week or more.

Oh, and you mentioned “2″ people. :)

BTW, that recipe does sound yummy.

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 16:42:07

You’re right. The economics do change… if I want to eat the same thing EVERY day.

Make big stuff and freeze in good small freezer containers.

Pasta sauce, stews, chicken and rice, chili, soups etc.

Then it’s like frozen foods or tv dinners you can eat in any order you want.

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 16:52:24

Wait, I think that you’ve misunderstood some stuff.

“You’re right. The economics do change… if I want to eat the same thing EVERY day. Not very healthy, that.”

We don’t. Yes, I have had Indian three times since Saturday, but that’s the last of it. And it’s on to something else. I think that I have pesto pasta from Sunday dinner for lunch tomorrow. We never keep leftovers more than a week without freezing them long before.

“But I wasn’t raised on Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Louisiana poverty dishes. (Most of which I like, don’t get me wrong, just can’t eat it every day straight. Same with anything else.)”

Neither was I. I learned to cook cheap food that’s tasty, but we write a food blog mostly about our high-flalutin’ endeavors. We like really varied stuff.

“But a mono diet is a sure-fire health problem. And realistic shelf life is still only days, not a week or more.”

Agreed. That’s why we don’t do that. Farro and ricotta tart from Sunday lunch tonight.

“Oh, and you mentioned “2″ people. :)”

OK, I will grant you this one. I found it very hard to motivate to cook when I was single and I would graze the buffet at the food court for lunch ’cause I couldn’t deal with the depression and health effects of Chik-Fil-A every day like some co-workers. Mucho dinero!

BTW, that recipe does sound yummy.

Thanks! It was alright. Trading shallot for onion in a finer dice would have been better…

 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 15:57:41

Last Night:
Slammed 6 quick shots of cheap Brazilian Cachaça-Rum that comes in a tin can with a picture of a crab on it (40 cents)

1 pound of parboiled Haggis (gift from an ex-friend) covered with melted Limburger cheese (a dollar) Stir fried cow brain with leeks and garlic (a dollar) Raw turnip and apple salad with aged bluecheese dressing that I forgot I had in the back of the refrigerator (i forgot).

3 more shots of cheap rum (30 cents) and a cheap Brazilian beer (50 cents)

2 Halls cough drops (found in the subway)

A Brazilian really sweet desert that they make out of Avocados and fermented coconut milk. (a dollar)

6 more quick shots of Rum (70 cents) 4 aspirin, 3 alkaseltzer (from the USA)

A big snifter of French Cointreau (5 dollars) A nightcap shot of cheap rum (a dime) and a big glass of warm milk (30 cents)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2011-03-29 16:09:21

And tonight: Leftovers

 
Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 16:33:31

Dear god! Are you insanse?! :lol:

 
Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 16:54:45

I got a chuckle out of that. I have a tendency to got over-board talking about food. As does the wife.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 19:57:45

Rotsa rum!

 
Comment by alpha-sloth
2011-03-29 21:00:42

The cow brains sound good.

 
 
 
 
Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 14:27:24

This is a great article. This has been going on for a long time, now consumers are noticing it. Also please notice that the speculators are taking advantage of food, something that we all have to buy. Guaranteed demand: a speculator’s wet dream.

For Lisa Stauber (33), stretching her budget to feed her nine children in Houston often requires careful monitoring at the store. Recently, when she cooked her usual three boxes of pasta for a big family dinner, she was surprised by a smaller yield, and she began to suspect something was up. ‘Whole wheat pasta had gone from 16 ounces to 13.25 ounces. I bought three boxes and it wasn’t enough.’

The one-pound boxes are 8 servings (2 oz dry, 1/4 cup cooked, 220 calories) each. Three boxes over 11 people is 4.3 oz (470 cal) each. At 13.25 oz, three boxes is 3.6 oz (400 cal) each and that’s “not enough” for them. And those are kids likely under the age of 12.

We might be getting to the bottom of the obesity problem.

To be fair, any mom with 9 kids (at age 33!) will not be able to afford decent food for all of them. Didn’t HBB just talk about the poor reproducing too many offspring?

Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 16:34:50

“Idiocracy” It was the main point of the movie.

 
 
 
Comment by Patrick
2011-03-29 11:42:26

I have been following that on-line auction sale someone posted last week where they are selling 400 properties in NC/SC and I am amazed at how low they have been selling for.

Are these the prices that are typical in the central eastern southern area of the USA?

I am interested in purchasing a winter property in this area or in Florida.

I cannot seem to paste the address but it is Tranzon Auction Search.

Comment by Kim
2011-03-29 14:43:25

I can’t speak for other areas, but around here most of the properties that end up at those auctions seem to be REOs that didn’t sell. Either they are teardowns, require major work, are on particularly small lots (relative to the area) or they are in bad locations.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 11:55:29

Given that the U.S. housing DEPRESSION has never yet ended, I don’t believe it makes a bit of sense to talk of a double-dip housing RECESSION.

We’re headed for a double-dip housing recession, report says
By AUBREY COHEN
SEATTLEPI DOT COM STAFF

The Seattle area and the country as a whole appear to be headed into a double-dip housing recession, according to a new report.

The price of a typical home in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties declined 2.4 percent in January from December and 6.7 percent from January 2010, Standard & Poor’s S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices reported Tuesday.

That was greater than the declines of 1 percent from December and 3.1 percent from a year earlier across all 20 cities that S&P tracks. Only one area had a larger monthly drop (Minneapolis, down 3.4 percent), while seven had larger annual declines.

Seattle-area values peaked in July 2007, dropped 25.3 percent to a low in February 2010 and then started falling again last August, after a homebuyer tax credit expired. Area values are now 5.7 percent below the August low and 29.6 percent down from the 2007 peak.

“Keeping with the trends set in late 2010, January brings us weakening home prices with no real hope in sight for the near future,” David Blitzer, chairman of S&P’s Index Committee, said in the report.

“These data confirm what we have seen with recent housing starts and sales reports. The housing market recession is not yet over, and none of the statistics are indicating any form of sustained recovery,” he added. “At most, we have seen all statistics bounce along their troughs; at worst, the feared double-dip recession may be materializing.”

 
Comment by Greg Hunter
2011-03-29 13:02:55

I wonder if the reverse mortgage had anything to do with the stress in this house.

Neighbors said the couple had lived there for decades, described them as “quiet,” and said they “kept to themselves.” County records indicate the McCalls had a reverse mortgage on their home, valued at $532,000 in 2008, the same year a lien was placed on it for an $800 unpaid water bill.

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1326748

Comment by MrBubble
2011-03-29 15:43:15

And they sent him to my home town. Wicked awesome!

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 13:08:12

Have to wonder if Eddie is investing in Atlanta, given their home prices are more affordable now than they were back in 2000. Also can’t help but wonder, with the nasty winter weather in February, followed by Middle East revolutions, natural disasters, fiscal crises and $4/gal gasoline prices, might not lead to even lower home prices for February and March?

Booyah!

Case-Shiller: Real estate prices ‘dismal’ in January
Year-over-year index levels fall in 18 of 20 markets
By Inman News, Tuesday, March 29, 2011.

Only two of 20 cities showed year-over-year index gains in January: San Diego with a 0.1 percent increase, and Washington, D.C., with a 3.6 percent increase. Phoenix and Detroit saw the biggest year-over-year declines: 9.1 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively.

The same 11 cities that “double-dipped” in the previous month’s report hit new lows in January: Atlanta; Charlotte; Chicago; Detroit; Las Vegas; Miami; New York; Phoenix; Portland, Ore.; Seattle and Tampa. Four cities — Atlanta, Cleveland, Detroit, and Las Vegas — have index levels below 100, indicating that average home prices there are below January 2000 levels.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 13:18:38

Most interesting graphical comparison here; it suggests that stock market bubbles are far easier to reflate than housing bubbles.

Is real estate the “worst investment” yet, or do we still have a few more years of price declines ahead before this realization finally sinks in?

Home Prices: ‘No Real Hope In Sight’
03:02 pm
March 29, 2011

The never-ending housing bust continues today with the latest Case-Shiller report, which says home prices fell 3.1 percent in the year through January.

Prices fell in 18 out of the 20 metro areas tracked by the index (DC and San Diego were the two exceptions), and 11 areas hit new post-bubble lows.

A single, grim sentence from the report sums up the outlook:

January brings us weakening home prices with no real hope in sight for the near future.

No real hope in sight for the near future — despite the fact that it’s been five years now since the housing market peaked.

The persistence of the bust is a reminder of just how different a housing bubble is from other bubbles.

Take a look at these two graphs. The first shows the U.S. stock market (as measured by the S&P 500) since 2000. The second shows the U.S. housing market over the same time period.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 14:22:53

This explanation is beautifully simple, but it leaves out the critical role of the government in artificially propping up home prices. This is a huge factor in the difference between the rates at which the housing and stock markets corrected.

“When a stock bubble pops, there’s a lot of panic selling. Prices fall quickly. That allows the market to clear, reset and start climbing again.

Housing is a different story.

For one thing, a much bigger chunk of the housing market is funded with borrowed money. So the popping of a housing bubble is especially likely to spread through the financial system that made all the bad loans that fueled the bubble.

For another thing, when a housing bubble pops, you wind up with lots of people who live in houses that they can’t afford. Resolving that problem is a long, painful process — as we’re learning right now.”

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 13:23:58

I can’t afford the petrol to drive to work every day, so I sleep in my van: Builder’s solution to beat rising fuel prices ~~By Daily Mail Reporter

A builder is sleeping in the back of his van because he can no longer afford to drive to work due to rising diesel prices.

Dennis Stapleton, 62, saves £600 a month by sleeping in his cramped van for four nights a week instead of travelling 63 miles home.

Instead of returning to his three-bedroom detached cottage he has made a raised platform at the end of his dusty builder’s van and sleeps amongst his tools.

‘People might think I am mad sleeping in a van but it’s a huge saving,’ said Mr Stapleton, who has been in the building trade for 30 years.

‘I have just about managed to squeeze a single mattress into the back of the van and I can almost stretch out.

‘It’s very cold. I get changed as quickly as possible in the morning and jump into my sleeping bag as quickly as I can at night.’

Mr Stapleton lives in Doddington, Cambridgeshire, but is currently renovating a house in Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire - a one-and-a-half hour drive away.

Now he leaves his house on a Monday morning with a week’s worth of clothes and returns home after work on a Friday.

He showers at a nearby service station and parks his van on an industrial estate at night.

The Chancellor’s petrol tax cut has been rubbed out by greedy garages who failed to pass it on to drivers.

Some cynical retailers even raised prices by a penny prior to the announcement so they could ‘cut’ them again when the duty reduction came in the morning after.

Many more simply didn’t bother to reduce prices at all – claiming they couldn’t afford to do so.

Prime Minister David Cameron threatened a crackdown. Speaking in Brussels, he said: ‘If the market doesn’t respond, obviously there are ways for the Office of Fair Trading and others to make sure this market operates properly.

‘We will be watching like a hawk to make sure the action we take actually helps consumers and helps motorists at the pump.’

Meanwhile, the Chancellor is still pressing ahead with a ‘deferred’ rise of 3.02p on New Year’s Day, followed by another in August 2012.

‘I used to spend about £20 a day on diesel, but now it is more like £35 and I just can’t afford for that amount to come out of my pay packet,’ he said.

‘It is cramped and uncomfortable but at the moment I have to find a means to survive.

‘There is no heating or TV and sometimes I sit in the front of the van to warm up before going to bed.

‘The worst thing is if it is frosty and condensation starts dripping off the roof of the van.

‘At the weekends I love being able to go to sleep and wake up in a warm bedroom.’

Mr Stapleton has a tiny skylight in the roof of the van and has built a 3ft wide homemade bed at one end, with a shelf underneath for his tools.

He uses an army sleeping bag and a duvet cover to keep warm.

‘I just wish the price of petrol would come down because at the moment I have no other choice but to live like this,’ he said.

‘At least the building trade is now picking up a bit so I can relax a little more.

‘My work colleagues all understand and sympathise but many of them live locally so the price of petrol hasn’t hit them so much.’

Diesel now costs an average of £1.40p a litre and £1.33 for unleaded. Six months ago a litre of diesel cost less than £1.20.

Last week’s Budget unveiled a 1p cut in fuel duty with immediate effect, giving some relief to motorists, but not all garages passed on the cut.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371117/Drive-work-I-afford-petrol-I-sleep-van-Builders-solution-fuel-crisis.html#ixzz1I1QQUQ66

Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 14:23:16

Interesting story. There’s just something funny about this statement:

‘If the market doesn’t respond, obviously there are ways for the Office of Fair Trading and others to make sure this market operates properly.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 15:08:34

Not only is his birth certificate questionable, but I also have my doubts whether his hair is really his own.

Comment by X-GSfixr
2011-03-29 16:28:39

Ask for his hair’s birth certificate…….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 13:41:34

March 28, 2011
Trump fails to produce birth certificate

Donald Trump made headlines earlier today when he provided what he said was a copy of his birth certificate — but a quick check reveals it’s actually not an official document.

The paper that Trump released says “Jamaica Hospital” on top and lists the date and time of what he says was his birth to “Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Trump.” The piece of paper has a seal at the bottom.

Trump’s mother, it should be noted, was born in Scotland, which is not part of the United States. His plane is registered in the Bahamas, also a foreign country. This fact pattern — along with the wave of new questions surrounding what he claims is a birth certificate — raises serious doubts about his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

Comment by Carl Morris
2011-03-29 14:25:27

If Stewart or Colbert were doing this we’d know when to laugh. Trump’s not as good with punch lines.

 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 13:48:18

‘Catastrophic changes’ shut down Saddlebrook
Knoxville builder had been in business 24 years ~ Knoxvillebiz

One of Knoxville’s most prominent builders is closing its doors.

Bob Mohney, president of Saddlebrook Homes LLC, said in a statement that he is shutting down his 24-year-old business because of the “catastrophic changes” in the real estate market over the past four years.

“Saddlebrook expects to complete the wind-down of business operations within the next few months,” Mohney stated Monday. “It is our intent to finish and sell all homes now under construction, and we will honor our builder’s warranties to our customers.”

The move comes as demand for new homes has shrunk precipitously. According to local research firm The Market Edge, residential building permits issued in Knox County shrank from 3,405 in 2005 to only 786 in 2010.

Signs of the pressure facing Saddlebrook have been evident for months. In 2007, Mohney told the News Sentinel that rumors of a possible bankruptcy were untrue, saying that “when you’re on top of the game, lesser people want to take shots at you.”

In 2010, BB&T sued defendants including Saddlebrook and Mohney in a Knox County Chancery Court complaint that sought a judgment of nearly $5.7 million. Some of those defendants later filed a $15 million countercomplaint, alleging that BB&T had attempted or was attempting to destroy their business.

 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 13:52:55

“Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want—and their kids pay for it.”

~Richard Lamm

 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 13:54:35

Japan Appears to Have ‘Lost Race’ To Save Crippled Nuclear Reactor
(AP)

Nuclear expert says radioactive core in one of Japan’s quake-ravaged reactors appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and cannot be saved, as displaced residents continue to be tested for radiation exposure.

Comment by oxide
2011-03-29 14:40:58

A better link:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/29/workers-japan-nuke-plant-lost-race-save-reactor-expert-says/

“Richard Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling water reactors at General Electric when the company installed the units at the Japan plant, says the radioactive core in the Unit 2 reactor appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on a concrete floor.”

Not sure whether to believe him. Nobody knows much of anything at this point.

Comment by jeff saturday
2011-03-29 15:15:29

I have been feeling a little sluggish lately, I don`t think I am getting enough radiation. And the levels of radiation we have received from Japan is far below the normal amounts of radiation exposure people receive every day.

Radiation from Japan being detected in Florida

By Susan Salisbury Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 1:07 p.m. Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Trace amounts of radioactive isotopes attributed to Japan’s damaged nuclear plant are showing up around the globe, including Florida.

Extremely low levels of iodine 131 were first detected late last week at Florida Power & Light Co.’s St. Lucie plant on Hutchinson Island, its Turkey Point plant south of Miami and at Progress Energy Florida’s Crystal River plant 60 miles north of Tampa, company officials said.

Iodine 131 is a by-product of the nuclear fission process. Within eight days, scientists say, it will break down to half its size.

Environmental Protection Agency officials said the levels of radiation detected are not a threat to the public’s health and are far below the normal amounts of radiation exposure people receive every day.

Comment by X-GSfixr
2011-03-29 16:27:03

Gojira should be putting in an appearance any time now……

http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=8trsDPpA15E

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by albuquerquedan
2011-03-29 16:40:26

posted this above but fits better here. No change in Obama’s nuclear policy:

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81862.html

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by wmbz
2011-03-29 14:00:36

Waaaah… One party hack after another will be pointing their fingers and whining it’s someone else’s fault, and the simpletons that voted for them will follow dutifully in line.

~ As Gov’t Shutdown Looms, Dems Blame Tea Party - Washington

With deadline near, Dems like Sen. Charles Schumer say Tea Party lawmakers are souring budget talks.

 
Comment by jeff saturday
2011-03-29 14:33:38

All a friend can say is ain’t it a shame. Busted in Miami beach.

Police Throw Down Girl on Acid at Swedish House Mafia South Beach

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/miami-beach-police-face-angry-mob-during-arrests-1358373.html?printArticle=y - -

 
Comment by measton
2011-03-29 15:39:13

Is there any doubt our gov is run by of and for corporations

IN an attempt to get GOP to push smaller budget cuts dems are considering

But restrictions on the Environmental Protection Agency are the leading candidates for including in any agreement, according to numerous Democrats.

The House-passed measure includes provisions that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, which are blamed as a cause of global warming.

The agency would also be blocked from issuing or enforcing new regulations on the emission of mercury from cement factories, pollution into the Chesapeake Bay, surface coal mining and runoff into Florida waters.

Other elements of the House-passed bill would stop the administration from issuing new regulations on for-profit private schools and block the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing rules on the Internet that are opposed by Verizon and other Internet service providers.

Get ready for the cabilization of the internet, access to sites like HBB might be restricted or slowed dramatically or might come with a fee for non Verizon approved content.

Comment by ecofeco
2011-03-29 16:38:44

You have problem with Corporate Communist Capitalism©®™, comrade?

Again, I would like everyone to once again refresh themselves with CAFRs.

Some of the biggest players on Wall St. are…. states. And it’s their investments decisions that are sending our jobs overseas and strip mining society.

 
Comment by clark
2011-03-29 19:16:21

Global warming? Are you kidding? Haven’t you heard of Climategate? Your comment reminded me of this reply to a troll going on about global warming too.

The issue ultimately is one of control not human “pollution.” Innumerable problems can be discovered in the world today, and the power elite discovers most of them and then uses them to frighten everyone else into giving up MORE power and wealth to illegitimate globalist institutions that will discover MORE fear-based crises that need MORE global solutions until finally one family will emerge at the pinnacle of power and everyone else (the ones that are left) will live on some sort of worldwide plantation.

Bagged and tagged these individuals if that is the word for them will serve their familial masters to the best of their abilities. They will believe implicitly that their presence (no matter how many or few) is an affront to Mother Gaia and to the regnant banking family or families.

This is the reason for the irritation at people like Gary. The mechanism for totalitarianism is so obvious and evident at this point that those who continue to insist that “we” are the problem and that only more authoritarian, globalist solutions can provide the solution are literally signing their own death warrants. In the 20th century hundreds of millions died to implement such holistic solutions administered by small groups of ruthless men (mostly). Now as such solutions are continually and expanded by the Anglo-American power elite, one can see the full emergent horror rising like the bloody sun at dawn.

Soon, perhaps, millions and millions will die in puddles of their own vomit and despair as they did in the 20th century.

People like Gary may go to their early, deserved deaths with their entire families not understanding how their most sacred and wrongheaded beliefs contributed to this emergent genocide.

Again, people who have actually read history and comprehend the full horror of what is planned may well be irritated by the spectacle of someone so blithely advancing a rationale for his or her own demise. Can you really blame them?

http://thedailybell.com/1931/Anthony-Wile-Carbon-Exchange-Blossoms-in-Kenya-Say-What.html

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 15:50:12

3.5 million in current inventory seems like small potatoes compared to 6.9 million noncurrent mortgages in shadow inventory as of February 2011 (LPS report — see yesterday’s bits bucket for link).

THE WORST IS YET TO COME!

Money
House prices still falling in U.S.
Published March 29, 2011

Prices in the 20 biggest U.S. metro areas are down more than 31 percent since peaking in the third quarter of 2006.

Sales of new homes fell 16.9 percent last month compared with January and by a whopping 28 percent from the level of February 2010, the U.S. Commerce Department said last week.

While the National Association of Realtors reported the inventory of unsold existing homes rose 3.5 percent to 3.49 million in February, meaning that 8.6 months would be required to sell those properties if purchases continue at the current pace.

 
Comment by Neuromance
2011-03-29 18:44:40

FIRE sector fighting even limited improvements to loan quality:

But banks would not have to retain any risk for mortgages made to borrowers who put down at least 20 percent — making the loans relatively safer. As a result, the cost to the banks would be less, and they would be able to offer lower interest rates for these loans.

Some critics say these conditions would keep eligible borrowers from getting good terms on their loans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/housing-regulators-propose-20percent-down-payment-for-best-rates/2011/03/29/AFIRw5vB_story.html

If lenders can make profits by making bad loans, they will continue to do so. They will find a way. The ability to conjure a profitable product out of thin air - a loan - sell it, and wash your hands of any responsibility of it - is very, very enticing.

I normally wouldn’t care about what a lender and a borrower do, but it directly impacts me via zero interest rates and high house prices, and the fact that the bad debt is being forced to be borne by the rest of us, to make the lenders whole. And fabulously profitable at that.

The only way to stop another gargantuan transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to Wall Street is make sure that if a loan goes bad, no one in the chain makes a profit.

It’s really that simple.

Comment by clark
2011-03-29 19:25:19

I heard the 20 percent down story on the radio today, it’s the first time I’ve heard the phrase, housing bubble, in the mainstream media (I don’t listen often) and I was shocked at how much of what they said made sense, it was as if they were reading from this blog,… until they veered off and downplayed it some. But still, I was struck by how that was all viewed as crazy-talk five years ago,… and this is now, this is acceptance,… partially.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 20:01:11

“FIRE sector fighting even limited improvements to loan quality:”

How will the fckrs extract any more bailouts from the masses if private loan underwriting standards make a comeback?

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 20:06:54

Are Republitards really this retarded? I was thinking just now of a Republitard dream team ticket: Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Whatcha think?

The Great Depression
Blame game
Was legislation sponsored by two Republicans to blame?
Mar 24th 2011 | from the print edition

Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression. By Douglas Irwin. Princeton University Press; 256 pages; $24.95 and £16.95. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk

WHEN Herbert Hoover signed the Tariff Act of 1930 into law, he could scarcely have imagined that it would live on in the public imagination eight decades later. Yet the Smoot-Hawley act, as that infamous piece of legislation has almost universally come to be known, remains a shorthand for a counter-productive, short-sighted piece of protectionist folly—even for some less than familiar with its details. In 2009, a Minnesota Republican, Michele Bachmann, spoke of the “Hoot-Smalley act,” which “took a recession and blew it into a full-scale depression”.

Does the brainchild of Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley (both Republicans, incidentally) really deserve its fearsome reputation as the begetter of the worst economic crisis in modern history?

The often overblown rhetoric that Smoot-Hawley has inspired, seemingly from the start, also means that the book is often surprisingly amusing. (Denying that he was espousing local issues in asking for higher tariffs on potatoes, a Republican from a potato-growing state thundered that “the inadequately protected American potato is a nationwide issue.”)

Familiar, too, is the politician’s utter disdain for academic opinion and “theory”. More than 1,000 economists signed a letter asking Hoover to veto the act, pointing out the undeniable futility of trying to protect farmers’ incomes by raising duties on things they did not produce, and therefore had to buy. They were derided for being “cloistered in colleges”, and as men who had “never earned a dollar by the sweat of their brow”.

Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 23:33:06

The thought of Sarah Palin in the White House makes me squirmish.

Can anyone explain why do Republitards think stoopid people make good candidates? (Maybe I answered my own question there…)

Sarah Palin questions whether military attack was a “squirmish”
BY RICHARD ROEPER
Mar 29, 2011 10:08PM

Here’s how the ultraconservative news site NewsMax dot com described Sarah Palin’s Monday night criticism of President Obama’s address to the nation:

“Are we at war? I haven’t heard the president say that we are at war. And that’s why I too [don’t know] do we use the term intervention, do we use war, do we use skirmish?”

Problem is, that’s not quite what Ms. Palin said. What she actually said on Fox News was, “[D]o we use the term intervention, do we use war, do we use squirmish?”

Squirmish! I love it.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 21:57:13

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here!

ECONOMY
MARCH 30, 2011

Housing Market Shivers
January’s 3.1% Price Drop Stirs Fears of ‘Double Dip’; Only Two Big Cities Gain

Article
Comments

more in Business »
BY S. MITRA KALITA

Housing prices across the U.S. continued falling in January, raising fears of a double dip in the home-buying market and a longer slog toward recovery than once expected.

Average sale prices of single-family homes in 20 major metropolitan areas fell 3.1% from a year ago, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index released Tuesday.

“January brings us weakening home prices with no real hope in sight for the near future,” said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at rating firm Standard & Poor’s.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 22:01:45

HEARD ON THE STREET
MARCH 30, 2011

A 20% Down Payment Doesn’t Cure Housing
By DAVID REILLY

Housing-finance overhaul boils down to one issue: How big a backstop the government should provide, if any?

That’s important for investors to remember when considering a proposal from regulators that will tighten rules for mortgages that will be packaged and sold to investors. The proposal would require banks to keep on their own books at least 5% of any mortgage debt sold to investors if the underlying loans don’t have a 20% down payment. That, along with debt-to-income limits, is a sensible and long-overdue step. Regulators hopefully will ignore calls to water this down.

The catch is that banks won’t have to retain any portion of a loan, even if it doesn’t have 20% down, that is packaged and sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Given Fannie, Freddie and various government agencies account for more than 90% of mortgages today, the “high down-payment decision has little real practical impact” on mortgage markets, noted Jaret Seiberg, an analyst with MF Global.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 22:04:09

Financial Crisis and the Federal Reserve’s Punch Bowl — Chidem Kurdas

Why did the U.S. financial system nearly collapse last year? People blame Wall Street’s excessive greed and risk-taking. But without easy money, the massive risk-taking could not have happened.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 22:08:24

U.S. Property Taxes Fall by Most Since Housing Market Crash
By William Selway - Mar 29, 2011 7:16 AM PT

U.S. state and local property-tax collections dropped in the last three months of 2010 by the most since home prices peaked more than four years ago, slowing the overall growth in government revenue.

Real-estate-tax collections, a main source of income for cities, slid $5.3 billion, or 2.9 percent, from a year earlier to $177.1 billion, the Census Bureau reported today. The drop exceeded a 2.5 percent decline in the first quarter of 2010, the data show.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 22:09:45

The Star’s editorial | A shift in the right direction on housing-loan risks

Congress finally is taking early steps toward correcting one of the contributing causes of the credit meltdown: Many banks willingly approved mortgages regardless of risk.

Currently we have what amounts to an “underwrite and sell” system, in which banks endorse mortgages and quickly sell them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That creates more money for mortgages, but it shifts the risk of default to taxpayers.

Some lawmakers are pressing for a system now used in Europe called “covered bonds,” in which banks retain mortgages on their books and issue bonds backed by those loans.

Proceeds from the bond sales provide money for more loans while creating a new market for financing mortgages. But unlike the current system, banks would exercise more care in making loans. They would have more “skin in the game” because they would hold the mortgages on their balance sheets.

To be sure, a covered bond market can’t develop much beyond the embryonic stage until Fannie and Freddie are phased out. The Obama administration favors that goal, but hasn’t said precisely how it would be accomplished.

Even so, it’s encouraging that Congress is exploring how to shift more of the future financing for housing back to the private market, while reducing the risk borne by taxpayers.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/29/2761978/the-stars-editorial-a-shift-in.html#ixzz1I3ZDRr2D

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 22:13:28

$600,000 houses are too onerous for working-class borrowers.

Federal regulators propose 20% down payment for best home mortgages
By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Tuesday, March 29, 2:44 PM

If you want to buy a $300,000 house, you’ll need $60,000 as a down payment to get the best interest rate on your home loan, according to a proposal released Tuesday by federal regulators.

A group of federal agencies announced a high standard for home buyers to get the best mortgage rates: Only those who can make a 20 percent down payment and have not had problems paying mortgages in the recent past would be eligible.

The regulators are trying to prevent the kinds of practices that dumped so many risky mortgages into the financial system several years ago.

But the proposal has sparked concerns from some groups, which worry that a 20 percent down payment is too onerous for many working-class borrowers. Banks also oppose the heightened down-payment requirement, which regulators had considered setting as low as 10 percent.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 22:14:38

The Financial Times
Republicans lay out mortgage reform plan
By Tom Braithwaite in Washington and Suzanne Kapner in New York
Published: March 30 2011 04:19 | Last updated: March 30 2011 04:19

House Republicans laid out plans for a piecemeal privatisation of the mortgage market on Tuesday, with legislation they said should attract the support of the Obama administration and the Senate.

For three years, Republicans have railed against Democrats for failing to legislate to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises that guarantee home loans.

But, in spite of the introduction of legislation, Congress looks to be months away from passing any reforms. Richard Shelby, the senior Republican on the Senate banking committee, said on Tuesday it was “premature” to hold hearings on the future of housing finance and that more study was needed before legislation.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 22:17:48

In Congress, Bills to Speed Unwinding of 2 Giants
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
Published: March 29, 2011

WASHINGTON — House Republicans announced a package of eight bills on Tuesday that would wind down the mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more quickly than the Obama administration proposed.

The proposals would dismantle Fannie and Freddie in a most ironic manner. The mortgage giants thrived for decades by behaving like private companies at public expense. The cumulative effect of the eight bills would make the companies behave like federal agencies while stripping away the advantages.

Fannie and Freddie would be required to pay their employees according to federal wage scales. The companies would be subjected to regular oversight by an inspector general and required to ask Treasury before borrowing money.

But at the same time, the companies, which provide financing to lenders, would be required to charge the same prices as private investors. They would be prevented from serving their basic purpose as a source of cheap money for mortgage loans.

“This will allow more private-market participation in the housing finance market, which is critical for the long-term health of the housing market and the overall economy,” said Representative Randy Neugebauer, a Texas Republican who is one of the eight party leaders who are each sponsoring one piece of the legislative package.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2011-03-29 23:21:30

Can’t say the HBB didn’t warn anyone who bothered reading here!

The only part some of us missed (myself included) was how successfully Wall Street would get their minions at the Fed and the Treasury to make them whole on their bad gambling debt. I certainly couldn’t have seen that coming!

Study: 5% of populace holds 63% of U.S. wealth
Housing decline hits middle class harder than the rich
By Dean Calbreath, UNION-TRIBUNE
Originally published March 28, 2011 at 12:33 p.m., updated March 28, 2011 at 2:46 p.m.

During the depth of the recession, the top 5 percent of the nation’s population held two-thirds of its wealth, while the lower 80 percent held less than 13 percent of the wealth, according to a study released last week by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

Although there has long been a growing gap between the upper income levels and the middle and lower classes, the gap widened during the Great Recession because the decline in real estate values hit the middle-class disproportionately hard, since it had a greater proportion of its wealth tied up in housing.

“As a general rule, households with less wealth have a greater share of their wealth embedded in their homes,” wrote EPI economist Sylvia Allegretto, who authored the study. “Thus, it is not surprising that the fallout from the deflating housing bubble disproportionally affected them.”

Most income groups lost wealth during the recession. But for the lower four-fifths of the population, wealth declined by 25 percent, compared to 16 percent for the uppermost fifth.

Among other things, the study found that:

The top 1 percent of the population have 225 times the median wealth - the highest ratio on record. In comparison, the ratio was 125 in 1962, 131 in 1983 and 176 in 1992.

Because of the housing bust, home equity as a percent of home value fell from 59.5 percent in the first quarter of 2006 to 36.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009.

For the first time on record, the percentage of homes that Americans own outright dropped below 50 percent, meaning that lenders now control more of the housing stock than individuals do.

…Thomson Reuters journalist Chrystal Freeland suggested that Americans are unaware of the gap and are also prey to what she describes as “the lottery effect” - the idea that average Americans can suddenly become wealthy, just like lottery winners.

“But the problem with lotteries is that there are very few winners,” she added.

Wealth distribution

Richest 1%: 35.6% of wealth
Next 4%: 27.9%
Next 5%: 11.6%
Next 10%: 12.2%
Top 20%: 87.2%
Lower 80%: 12.8%

Source: Economic Policy Institute

 
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