Weekend Topic Suggestions
Please post topic ideas here!
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
April 2025 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
Muppets never learn.
In April, Zynga conducted a “secondary stock offering” in which insiders dumped 43 million shares of stock at $12 a share, raking in about $516 million.
Yesterday, four months later, Zynga reported a horrible quarter, and the stock plunged to $3.
Zynga’s April stock offering was managed by Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and other premiere Wall Street underwriters. All of the stock sold in the offering was sold by Zynga insiders. None of the cash raised in the offering went to the company.
Marc Pincus, Zynga’s CEO, sold 16.5 million shares for $200 million
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/zynga-insiders-cashed-just-stock-crashed-144334658.html
First you shear them then you skin them.
Then you roast them, then you eat them.
In April, Zynga conducted a “secondary stock offering” in which insiders dumped 43 million shares of stock at $12 a share, raking in about $516 million.”
My company did the same thing last year secondary offering at about 20 bucks we are currently around 10
Stay away from IPO’s
Evidently Slate ran a “contest” recently about what changes readers think would appropriate for the Constitution. Sounds like an interesting discussion.
The Winners of Constitution Smackdown
Slate readers’ best ideas for fixing the Constitution.
http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-we-fix-constitution/article/the-winners-of-constitution-smackdown
And here are a few of their winners:
“Telecommute, Congress!”
“Elect the President and V.P. by Direct Vote—No More Electoral College”
“Supermajority To Overturn Laws”
“Congressional Districts to Cross State Lines”
“Corporeal Rights Primacy” (this is corporations are not people)
You really need to click though to read the article.
Have state legislatures elect senators, like it used to be. No more billionaire senators.
I really can’t see in this day and age of electronic information, that we can’t reform the federal government back into a true federalism, and simply interact as voters with our state legislators, who then elect their own representatives to the House and Senate. The House and Senate can then do the Prime Minister game and arrive at a President. Hierarchical. Heck, we could even skip the Congress game and just use an electronic Hyper-Congress, with all the state legislatures standing as members, but not physically. We’d see some real political parties form, then.
Naturally, this all requires amending the U.S. Constitution. That’s an extraordinarily difficult proposition. Amendments have been proposed at the Congressional starting level about 11 thousand times in the last two centuries. The result is less than 30 Amendments, and much of of those were early on.
Require all Congressmen and Senators to do their own taxes, without the assistance of a third party or software. They can use a calculator.
Love this idea. It would lead to a dramatically-simpler tax code.
What’s the rationale behind this, Ben?
Although my (very simple) reading of the Constitution is that the House was intended to represent the people’s interest and the Senate the money’s, the Seventeenth Amendment was passed specifically to curb the untoward influence of the era’s billionaires, the robber barons, on the inner workings of the US Senate. How would having our notoriously corrupt/rapacious State Assemblies appoint our Senators be a forward step for our democracy?
(If you dislike Boxer and Feinstein, you’ll surely hate Senators Nunez and Willie Brown….)
‘The framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress primarily as a compromise between those who felt that each state, since it was sovereign, should be equally represented, and those who felt the legislature must directly represent the people, as the House of Commons did in Britain. There was also a desire to have two Houses that could act as an internal check on each other. One was intended to be a “People’s House” directly elected by the people, and with short terms obliging the representatives to remain close to their constituents. The other was intended to represent the states to such extent as they retained their sovereignty except for the powers expressly delegated to the national government.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate
Bye bye states rights, hello imperial DC.
So it’s okay for Kansas State public schools to mandate that kids be taught creationism is a valid alternative to scientific method? For West Virginia to imprison homosexuals? For Idaho to lease it’s share of Yellowstone to corporate sponsors? For California to offer unrestricted citizenship to Mexicans? For Oregon to refuse to allow the military onto its coastline? How about when New Jersey joins up with Pennsylvania to launch an armed incursion into Delaware? (Could be fun, actually….)
That States be allowed to pick and choose which Federal mandates they will and will not accept for themselves sounds like an invitation to civil war to me.
Wouldn’t this essentially Balkinize the nation and render the union meaningless? Collective bargaining does have its benefits on the world stage. How would State’s Rights make us a stronger country? Or are you arguing that it’s time to dissolve the union and start over?
Yes teach them that JC was a test tube baby and the holy ghost was g-ds doctor who performed the artificial insemination of mary….i’ll go for that.
So it’s okay for Kansas State public schools to mandate that kids be taught creationism is a valid alternative to scientific method?
‘That States be allowed to pick and choose which Federal mandates they will and will not accept’
Who said the Feds are always right? Are they right in building a system that allows them to collect every ones communications? To attempt to void medical marijuana laws?
You’re missing the point; it’s about checks and balances. States still have the rights, they just get bulldozed by the Feds. Note that it wasn’t long after this stuff started that all the states were strong armed into incorporating. Why was that? Why did they need to be corporations? Hint; look into who owns those corporations. That would not have happened if states elected senators. Neither would a whole bunch of other bad things that came down the pike.
And why should we accept what the senate has turned into; a private club for super rich. One that is almost always re-elected.
But yeah, some will always pull out some issue about schools, when these unaccountable, ‘elite’ politicians have become too powerful to challenge.
We “pull out some issue” because it is valid.
The religious fundies and the Taliban have more in common with each other than they do with me.
The problem is, they are filling the state legislatures with fundies, and you end up with defacto abortion bans, dinosaurs and cavemen running the plains together, Christian Fundamentalists handing down Fundie Sharia. It is well underway here in Kansas.
What these bumchits don’t understand is that they are opening the door for Balkanization. If Christian Fundamentalist law is okay in Flyover, Muslim Sharia in Dearborn should be okay there too.
Aztec ritual sacrifices? Why the hell not? Put some of those freeloaders to some good use…..
There was a reason they put in the “seperation between church and state” stuff.
I don’t believe they are too powerful to challenge, it just would take more than a casual effort.
“…Note that it wasn’t long after this stuff started that all the states were strong armed into incorporating. Why was that?…”
So States couldn’t be held jointly or severally liable and the Bill of Rights could be enforced equally throughout the nation?
I think most everyone on this blog is on board with changing corporate “business as usual” in DC in favor of a more populist representation. (And that means ALL voices be given a proportionate vote.) But I’m not convinced that changing the culture is best achieved by changing the actual structure.
The law of unintended consequences is already at play in the 17th Amendment. Replacing the goons with the loons (who, let’s face it, are mostly fed wannabes in training) seems like an open invitation to add another level of graft and corporate cronyism to the republic. At least direct-elected Senators are accountable to the electorate.
If anything, I think we should change to weighted elections of ALL public officials — with “no confidence” and “none of the above” options thrown in there for good measure.
‘Aztec ritual sacrifices’
Yeah, this is why nothing ever gets fixed. These power people have us all so afraid of each other that we gladly give them anything they want, and more every year.
So by all means let’s keep the billionaires in the senate. Sorry I mentioned it.
I’m GLAD you mentioned it, Ben. Disproportionate representation is probably the most significant issue affecting our republic since the Civil War, and if we don’t resolve it we risk devolving into aristocracy.
Fundamental electoral change is indicated, and the times (and technology) are certainly calling for it. Where better to discuss the process of bringing it about than here in a public forum? It’s what Tom Paine would have wanted.
Thank you for providing this board. In my book, you are a patriot of the highest order– one who thinks and isn’t afraid to invite others to do the same.
“and if we don’t resolve it we risk devolving into aristocracy.”
But if it weren’t for the rich folk, we’d all sit around all day long waiting for a handout, wondering how it is that things get done…
No boot licking here folks but this is the absolute truth
“So it’s okay for Kansas State public schools to mandate that kids be taught creationism is a valid alternative to scientific method?”
Naw, it’s well established in the courts that creationism is not science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
It violates the establishment clause. Teachers can believe anything they want, but cannot convey that via curriculum in a public school.
I can’t wait for Arabic charter schools to start popping up — we’ll see how the fundie-crypto-religious charter school movement deals with that.
Actually, they didn’t say the Creationism wasn’t science. They just decided, by the arguments of the ACLU and those opposed to religion that anything that suggested some “intelligent design” was religious in nature. Most moral codes, under which our laws were written were taken from religious texts. “Thou shalt not Murder”.
From the reference you cite:
On October 18, 2004, the school board voted 6–3 resolving that there were to be lectures on the subject, with Pandas as a reference book, and that the following statement was to be added to their biology curriculum:[2]
Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.
On November 19, 2004, the Dover Area School District issued a press release stating that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth-grade biology class at Dover High School:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.
—(page 1 of decision)
This seems quite reasonable to Me.
Why can’t there be a “discussion” of the problems with Darwinism, which are multitudinous? I thought that was what “education” was supposed to be about?
Well, no, we want to indoctrinate our children with ideologies and call it science. Perhaps when they are adults they can get some factual information and decide for themselves.
Wouldn’t this essentially Balkinize the nation and render the union meaningless?
Isn’t that what modern libertarianism is really all about?
“So it’s okay for Kansas State public schools to mandate that kids be taught creationism is a valid alternative to scientific method?”
The issue of religion being discussed in Kansas schools is a perfect example of the danger in a strong centralized government. Some people have a view that conforms to a religious tenant. Others are convinced that such a view is foolish, or worse, and that discussion or practice of it should be criminalized. One of these groups is going to have its freedom curtailed by the other, if a community rule is established. If you think that the wrong group likely prevails at the local level, or at the state level, do you suppose that the right group is more likely to prevail at the national level? In which case are the freedoms of more individuals more likely to be lost?
“One of these groups is going to have its freedom curtailed by the other”
Keeping religion private ensures that all school-aged children are free to practice whatever religion they choose without interference from a government agent.
I want to make sure you understand this.
I want to make sure you understand this.
He doesn’t.
And therein lies the basic problem with Federalism as re-defined under Lincoln. The South was right. Their States were sovereign and could quit the club and Institute New government if they wanted to.
The Federal Government was never meant to be as intrusive as people like you would like it to be.
All good fascists want the STATE to be able to MANDATE every little thing and make all the little people Obey.
As for your examples: Creationism vs. “evolution”, absolutely.
The Federal Government needs to get out of education and I would end the Dept. of education forthwith, or shrink it to an agency for providing “advice”.
Don’t like the sex laws in W. Va? vote to change them, while obeying them, or move to Massachusetts. You can get “married” there.
States control their domains. If the State wants to use the land for something that is in it’s interest. GO for it.
I favor National parks. However, i don’t favor the President designating “National lands” without compensation and the votes of the people in the State. If they wanted to contribute the land to the Federal Government, fine.
Instead, Feds have “mandated” the land use. The EPA is completely overboard and needs to be run out of town.
Citizenship is another issue. It is a FEDERAL issue, as anyone with a claim to citizenship has free movement throughout the States. This is a problem for the EU. They have a pseudo-federal system, without any ‘federal government’.
This is about FREEDOM. You like Control. I don’t want “gay marriage”. I think it’s a sham. If you want to move to California and go for it, fine. With FEDERAL control over every social issue, you are FORCING your rules on me, on everyone, even when the MAJORITY oppose the so-called Mandates.
With a system of Sovereign States, you can go where the rules suit you. If you like smoking pot, go to a State that allows it.
Federal laws prohibit it, now.
Quakers in Pennsylvania. Mormons in Utah. That’s how this system came into being. It allows people the FREEDOM to Choose. I am sure you are all about FREEDOM to Choose if you favor abortion.
It should NOT be a Federal Issue, nor should most of the other fascist rules that have inundated this Country the past 50 years. WAY, WAY too much National intrusion into people’s lives.
You would like there to be nowhere to run. Everyone should be banned from smoking, drinking sugared beverages, should have “free” healthcare provided by someone else, and it should all be mandated by a group of “educated elite” bureaucrats that have nothing to do with the local community.
Please move to Cuba.
The South was right. Their States were sovereign and could quit the club and Institute New government if they wanted to….
This is about FREEDOM.
But the Union’s intervention created freedom- for the slaves. The states were seceding because they wanted to continue limiting freedom for slaves.
The big, bad federal gov was on the side of freedom. The seceding states were against it.
Is the political will to end TBTF gaining force?
ft dot com
July 26, 2012 9:18 pm
Sandy Weill stages an epic conversion
Marry in haste, repent at leisure – so goes the wise aphorism. There can be few better examples of this than the merger of Citibank with Travelers Group in 1998 and the demolition of the wall that separated investment from commercial banking.
Citi has long since been trading at well below its book value and the US taxpayer lives in fear of poorly regulated behemoths. Now all of a sudden Sandy Weill, chief architect of that mega-merger and a driving force behind the abolition of the Glass-Steagall act, is calling for a return to status quo ante. “We should have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars – that’s not too big to fail,” Mr Weill told CNBC this week.
By the standards of conversion, Mr Weill’s change of mind must qualify as being up there with St Paul’s on the road to Damascus. That does not mean we should trust his judgment. If Mr Weill was wrong in 1999 – at fabled personal enrichment, it should be added – there is no reason to believe he is right about the matter now. And yet, Mr Weill finds himself in good and growing company. Among those who have repented at leisure are Mr Weill’s former colleagues Richard Parsons, Citi’s former chairman, and John Reed, its former chief executive. Both were involved in the 1998 mega-merger. All three watched Citi turn into a gigantic over-leveraged vehicle that had to be bailed out by taxpayers in 2008 (to the tune of $45bn). All three want to see a return to Glass-Steagall.
On balance they are right. In practice, the politics is against them. Having pushed furiously to consolidate disparate parts of the financial system, the Citi Three helped to create singularly effective lobbying entities. Today’s challenge is to ensure that the much weaker Volcker rule has teeth. Alas, there is little cause for optimism. The rule, which originally sought to ban publicly-insured banks from trading on their own account, has been heavily contested by the large holding companies, such as Citi and Goldman Sachs. At 298 pages, the draft proposal was already shot through with caveats. Paul Volcker has distanced himself from it. Earlier this year Carl Levin and Jeff Merkley, the two senators who fought hardest to strengthen the language, complained that the draft rule “seems focused on minimising its own impact”.
…
The so-called “bear market rally” was supposed to have recently ended, right?
July 27, 2012, 5:05 p.m. EDT
U.S. stocks end week higher; Dow tops 13,000
Analyst: Fed chief will put economy and own legacy ahead of politics
Stories You Might Like
GDP recovery gets weaker - Dow gets stronger
Stocks gain 1% to 2% for week; Dow regains 13,000
Gold settles higher on euro optimism
By Kate Gibson, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — U.S. stocks posted steep gains for a second day Friday, reclaiming a weekly advance as investors anticipated moves by the European Central Bank as well as the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Stocks hit session highs after Bloomberg News reported European Central Bank President Mario Draghi would hold talks with Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann in an attempt to remove the biggest obstacles to adopting new measures including bond purchases.
“Between Draghi’s comments and the gross domestic product numbers today, we’re bid up on prospects of monetary intervention,” said Mark Luschini, chief investment strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA +1.46% ended up 187.73 points, or 1.5%, to 13,075.66, its first close above 13,000 since May 7.
Merck & Co. Inc. (MRK +4.07%) led the gains that included all 30 components, rallying 4.1% after the pharmaceutical company’s earnings topped forecasts. Read more on Merck.
Friday’s gains marked the second session of triple-digit increases for the Dow and its third day of gains, with rallies in the past two sessions underpinned by comments from European policy makers.
Stocks started the session higher after German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande said they were committed to keeping the euro area together. French newspaper Le Monde reported the European Central Bank was readying to purchase debt. Read more on Europe Markets.
On Thursday, the Dow had jumped more than 200 points after the ECB’s Draghi suggested policy makers could step into bond markets, saying the ECB would do “whatever it takes to preserve the euro.”
…
I read a pundit basically say that the chance to reform/eliminate Fannie/Freddie was gone because the bright light that was once shining on the GSEs has dimmed with time (ie. not as much public outrage any more over the GSE losses).
My topic suggestion is this: Other than Ron Paul (who, while I haven’t seen his specific position on the matter, I’m guessing would favor shutting down the GSEs), are there politicians in anyone’s district that is campaigning in part on the shuttering of the GSEs?