The Housing Bubble

This was in Colorado. I have no idea if that’s common or if it was just his Bishop (pastor).

Facebook doesn’t need a huge amount of traffic to make money. It is the quality of the traffic that counts. As long as they know a woman is engaged or pregnant before her second best friend (and only a few minutes after her mother and her best friend), Facebook can make money. Not as much as some people seemed to think they could make, but money.

I don’t think I would include Google in that mix (of companies that will lose revenue when the economy picks up).

Bingo. That’s the holy grail right there. Target has a group working on just that demographic as well (as assuredly do many others).

Facebook is the ultimate evil stepchild of social networking and ad revenue. That’s why they want to partner with content like movies and TV, be your communications portal, and your personal ad aggregator.

Facebook has always been based on the idea of selling your data - the very feature that got it popular, the search algorythms that find your long lost friends from high school, are the same ones that create the databases companies are going to pay top dollar for. They admit it as such in their presentations, and during the last keynote I saw with Zuckerberg, he was giddy at how he was going to be able to sell our “stories” to an exciting array of people.

Their arrogance with the hated timeline, bs privacy rules and their recent e-mail fiasco don’t help either. Much like their CEO, Facebook is a dick.

ultimate ponzi scheme, fleecing of gullable investors, aka muppets.

You’re underwater and sinking.

(I’m not really going out on a limb on that am I?”) ??

You bet will be confirmed shortly when we hear from Big Ben…If he knows something that we don’t yet, you will be right…expect Q3..

“look what they did in 2008
they look flat to me but I only did a quick look”

Yeah, they perfectly paralleled the BDI in the last half of ‘08, but recovered quickly and completely, like fuel prices.

I want less of that I have not seen any indications by the democrats that they are going to stop the printing. All I see is cherry picking of dates by them. The deficit for the first year does not belong to them but the recovery in the stock market and the decline in jobless claims does belong to them despite both occuring during the claimed Bush II budget. Now, they did make changes to the budget but to claim credit for the “recovery” you need to own the deficit.

The recession ended according to the National Bureau of Economic Research in June 2009. Virtually all of the stimulus money was spent after that date but they want to claim that we would have still gone done after that date despite the cyclical upturn which is a natural result of cutting inventory too much and then having to restock.

Of course, the recovery has been so weak it is hard to distinguish it from a recession. I honestly do not see that Obama did anything to improve the economy but things like his health care program and other regulations have certainly created uncertainly which kills a recovery.

This might help:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

As Reagan would say here you go again. Turkey you are have to exclude the Bush fiscal year of 2009 to make that claim. Thus, Bush has to be given credit for ending the recession since it was his budget according to your logic that ended the recession. You also have to exclude the stock market rally from March to October 1, 2012 since that too occurred under the Bush budget. You also have to stop claiming that the decline in new jobless claims from 700,000 to around 400,000 was due to Obama since that also occurred under the Bush budget.

You have just proved my post Obama just loves taking credit for things he did not do but wants all the blame for thing that have and are going wrong on Bush. When he took office the stock market was 8300 at the start of the day, but closed down over 300, and the price of oil was $38.74. So any nominal rise in the stock market is more than made up by the rise in oil which is a good substitute for determining real value. If you don’t like that gold was at $855. So anything less than around 16,000 on the dow is just due to the printing of fiat money by the Fed.

Exclude rally from March to Oct. 1, 2009.

“Thus, Bush has to be given credit for ending the recession since it was his budget according to your logic that ended the recession.”

It was his budget that CAUSED the recession.

The official beginning of the recession was 2007. It wasn’t “officially” over until last year. (and we both know it isn’t really over just yet)

Obama took office in 2009. The worst part of the current recession. DOW was 6600 that year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Those pesky facts

You also have to exclude the stock market rally from March to October 1, 2012 since that too occurred under the Bush budget…

By ‘occurred’, you mean ’started’. Which of course have very different meanings. The point of the article stands: if you concede that the first year budget of a president’s incoming term is essentially ‘owned’ by the previous admin (which they are, having already been implemented by them), then Obama is the smallest gov spender of the last 30 years. And Clinton is second smallest spender.

So much for all that bunk about the fiscal conservatism of the GOP, which even some of our Canadian posters seem to have fallen for.

Once again turkey you are wrong the recession was “officially” over in June 2009 by group that officially decides these things the National Bureau of Economic Research, you merely have to google it.

Yes it was 6600 at the bottom in March, but if his budget was not in place, why should he get credit for the recovery from March to October 1st?

Look Obama is the worse president since Carter. I remember democrats excited over Reagan winning because they thought the economy was beyond hope. Contrast that with, Obama’s election when people like Howard Dean expected the economy to come roaring back. History would show that instead of electing Obama the democrats would have been better off losing since Obama clearly was not up to a job. McCain probably would have only done marginally better so the democrats would have maintained their margins in the house and senate.

My god, are you for real?

I just laid out the timeline and facts and you have completely ignored them.

Thanks for showing us all.

When did the stimulus pass? How does that compare with the beginning of the rally?

You do not show any facts even the Washington Post fact checker has said that graph is completely phony. You have not dealt with the fact that the recession was called over in June 2009, contrary to your assertion and Obama has increased the debt as a percentage of the GDP more than any modern president including Reagan by a factor of 2. An increase in a small debt may lead to higher percentage increase but the way it should be looked at is percentage of the GDP. It is just like you tried to turn Germany’s 4% dependence on solar energy into 50% due to one fluke day without stating that you were talking about one mild saturday. I deal in facts not ideology.

My tool bar is not working but if you google the washington post fact checker and debt you will see that this moveon.org chart was discredited over a year ago.

Link please.

Google “A bogus chart on Obama and the debt gets a new lease on life” and you will easily find it and find that Obama is off the charts for accumulating debt.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

So Market Watch is wrong as well? That liberal bastion, the Wall St Journal?

Furhtermore:

Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

“Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year.”

This is the part the Washington Post is deliberately ignoring and misrepresenting and the Forbes/Market Watch chart does not.

Read the Washington Post fact checker: “But this chart, originally created by the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Polosi, is as phony as a three dollar bill.”

Turkey show me that congress did not alter the budget proposed by Bush in 2009 after Obama took office.

If you google the history the 2009 budget was passed on March 10, 2009, six months late because the democratic congress knew it could get more spending than in the Bush budget. Sorry the Democrats own the 2009 fiscal year.

I’ve provided more than enough proof from multiple sources.

You have provided only one and I just proved it was wrong.

You’re done.

The chart that is supposedly refuted is not the chart that’s in turkey’s link.

You have not shown me wrong. The facts speak for themselves. He has added more trillions to the debt than practically all the presidents put together and the Washington Post article destroys the graph and just because one WSJ reporter was dumb enough to repeat the lie does not make it correct.

Besides you still ignore the basic point that if Bush owns the 2009 deficit, he owns the 2009 recovery. Obama cannot cherry pick his record. He can make a claim he should be judged on his entire record from when he was sworn in including the deficit or he can be judged on his entire record for Oct1,2009 either way he has been a disaster.

Also when the banks paid back tarp it was counted as income so Obama actually had his deficit numbers artificially lowered and Bush has his increased since the loan was treated as an expenditure and the payback was treated as tax income.

Where are you getting your never-ending stream of talking points, dubious factoids, and excuses? As soon as one is responded to, you produce yet another.

Sounds like one of the right wing websites has worked overtime on this one. This must have them really worried.

Both parties spend too much. It’s like watching a debate on which party’s arsonist starts less fires when you’re surrounded by ashes.

Turkey posts a discredited Polosi talking point and then you accuse me of giving Republican talking points when I show how false it is. LOL

Pelosi, talking points as facts, I thought we had independent thinkers on this blog.

Pelosi’s chart wasn’t the chart in turkey’s link.

No It was the second Pelosi chart after she was caught fabricating the first one but it is just as easy to discredit and still is a Pelosi talking point. the truth is Obama will have raised the real debt level more in 4 years as Bush did in 8 and raised the debt level almost twice as much as Reagan, all using the debt to GDP ratio. The way Pelosi wants to count it is like this. The debt is 1 dollar when a person takes office and he borrows another dollar so he doubled the debt. Obama takes office at 11 billion and raises it to 16 billion and she wants to say that he is more frugal because he hasn’t doubled the debt. It is nonsense unless you use the GDP measure as a yardstick.

This is from wikepedia: The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105, Pub.L. 111-8) is an Act for the United States government that combines bills funding the operations of each of the Cabinet departments, except Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs into a single appropriation bill. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 11, 2009.[1]

As you can see the 2009 budget was not Bush’s budget. Go to wikepedia and see how Obama had spending soar in 2009 not even counting what stimulus spending did occur in 2009. It would be like a landlord doubling your rent one year and then bragging that he raised your rent less than the inflation rate for the next three. Obama/Pelosi numbers are just as bogus.

The facts speak for themselves.

These facts?

From Politifact:

[U]sing raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.

using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase — in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Robespierre 2012!

NPR discussed gun laws and the gun lobby in the wake of the CO shooting incident. The libtard from the anti-gun think tank kept calling 2nd Amendment supporters “Crazies who think the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to shoot elected officials if they perceive a threat to their liberty”.

As comedian Ron White says “You can’t fix stupid”. The fathers of this nation fought a war against the established power of England to be able to determine their own destiny. For some, history is just something you read in a book. For those who truly understand, history unfolds before us…

Northeastern, I think that it’s possible to support gun rights while placing limits on the ability of mentally unbalanced people to mow down others who were just out for a night at the movies.

Slim, there is no law in the world you can pass to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things. It’s fantasy to think you can.

“Objection”
“Overruled”
“No, I strenuously Object”

Maybe we need some strenuous laws against murdering people. The one we have isn’t strong enough.

Here’s how the gun permit process works in MA, arguably one of the strictest gun law states in the country:
1. Take an approved gun safety course.
2. Fill out application with personal references and pay $125 fee.
3. Be subjected to a background check by the State Police, to include criminal and mental health records. Local PD follow up with references.

This all works fine. Where I get annoyed is with the AWB and limits on high-capacity magazines, not to mention the “AG approved weapon list”. Basically if a rifle or shotgun has more than 2 of the following features, it is considered an assault weapon and is illegal for sale or possession in MA:
* pistol grip
* adjustable or folding stock
* accepts high-capacity magazines
* flash suppressor
* bayonet lug

I have an AK and an AR. Both are assault weapons, but they don’t have more than 2 of the above features, so they are legal. How does any of that make sense? It doesn’t. Do people need cars that can drive 180MPH when the speed limit is 65? No, but nobody is lobbying to limit car manufacturers from selling those products or lobbying to make them illegal. How are guns any different? Answer: They’re not…

Typical anti-gun liberal response: Cars aren’t designed to kill, guns are.

My response: Intent is not transferable. Guns are used for hunting, sport, training, etc. Millions of gun owners use guns responsibly while thousands use them in criminal activity. Why should millions suffer because thousands break the law? Because that is how liberals think…

“Crazies who think the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to shoot elected officials if they perceive a threat to their liberty”.

Instead we have crazies that shoot people in movie theaters. Maybe it’s because the elected officials are too hard to get to, now that they aren’t hanging out in front of grocery stores.

If crazies had better access to their elected officials, perhaps the tragedy in Colorado could have been averted. What good is the right to own a gun without the ability to shoot your alien overlords? We need an amendment 2.5 that requires all elected officials to present themselves as easy targets for a certain period of time each day, and to remove their disguises and reveal themselves as the lizard people they truly are.

Have you been watching reruns of “V”?

Some municipalities seem to be able to build reserves, but then most people don’t pay attention to municipal finances until bankruptcy looms.

It’s hard to even to conceive of the idea of a government with a relatively balanced budget and a financial strategic reserve given the state of things today. But I believe after a worldwide wave of gov defaults it could be worth a try.

A tax break isn’t giving back it is merely taking less.

Colorado, there is nothing factual about excluding the huge jump in spending that occurred during the first year of the Obama presidency. He had a democratic congress and he could and did change spending to raise it to record peacetime highs as a pecentate of the GDP and the budget deficit alone with it.

Clinton had three things going for him (1) the dot.com bubble which increased the governments tax collections but was hardly a sound economy (2) the cold war which was won by Reagan so defense spending could safely be cut (3) After 1994 a republican congress that forced him to restrain spending.

Of course, his move to the center after 1994 so he could cut deals should be praised. Obama’s decision to move to the left after 2010 has just made thing worse. A President needs to know how to compromise and he does not.

Perhaps you missed this part of the article, AQDan.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Why don’t you post the entire article instead of cherry picking? You know the part where Obama instead of being the most frugal he is the worse, with his debt being twice of Reagan?

Some municipalities seem to be able to build reserves

Our does. The library expansion was done without any borrowing.

You know the part where Obama instead of being the most frugal he is the worse, with his debt being twice of Reagan?

Umm, because if you exclude the first year budgets- which is only logical- then Reagan ran the biggest deficits, and W the next biggest.

Not logical when the budget Omnibus budget was not passed until March 10, 2009, he hardly was just living with the Bush budget.

Also you missed the part where the graph was caused in part of a math error and does not figure the debt as a percentage of GDP. While Reagan was increasing the debt he was also causing a sizable increase in GDP so he was not causing the type of debt/GDP disaster that Obama is causing.

Obama on the basis of gdp to debt is the worse president by a wide margin.

But money = speech, somehow.

Worst.

Decision.

Ever.

(ok, not actually worse than Dred Scott. But it’s up there in the top five at least)

They certainly have no problem with Corporate Communist Capitalism.

You’re presuming he was anti-war/death/violence. Do you know in fact he wasn’t a neo-con himself? A pro Israeli govt hack?

You’re presuming he was anti-war/death/violence ??

Educate yourself before you run your keyboard RAL…Just makes you appear ignorant…Check Wiki…

Ralph Nader on War & Peace
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ralph_Nader_War_+_Peace.htmOct 1, 2008 – A: On Iraq, Ralph Nader supports the rapid and responsible withdrawal of US military … Impeach Bush & Cheney for 5 falsehoods on Iraq war …

Isn’t Ralph Nader’s family from Lebanon? Not sure how many generations back.

He is.

Isn’t Ralph Nader’s family from Lebanon? Not sure how many generations back.

He is indeed of Lebanese descent. And how do I know this? Firsthand experience.

Right after I graduated from college, I shot Ralph Nader. Oh, yes I did. I was the photographer for my employer’s annual conference. My shot of his press conference was on the org’s magazine cover.

A few hours after the press conference, he was our evening keynote speaker. Before his speech, we had dinner with him.

His contract said that Nader had to have Middle Eastern food. Since Ann Arbor didn’t have a good enough restaurant for this sort of thing, the food had to be brought into the Michigan Union (on the University of Michigan campus) from the Detroit area.

Fun facts about Nader at dinner: He’s a very fast eater. And not one for chit-chatting at the table. He saved the talking for the Michigan Theater. Where he gave a very good keynote.

How do you know ??

Well, we don’t now do we…Including you…

Full disclosure, I voted for Nader ??

And, in return, you got Bush…

If Gore had won, the inevitable pendulum swing would have likely put McCain/Palin in power now.

Be careful what you wish for.

Be careful what you wish for ??

I wish we did not have Bush & Cheney thats for sure….We would not be in the mess that we are in if not for them…

I heard Dukakis say

“If I’d beaten the old man, none of this would’ve happened.”

I wish we did not have Bush & Cheney thats for sure

+1 I think even McCain/Palin would have been better, as long as McCain didn’t die.

McCain wouldn’t have picked Palin if he had been running against Gore.

How about Gingrich/Bachman?

Who would he have picked, polly?

Someone older and safer. Palin was an attempt to liven up a campaign that was having trouble with a young and way more interesting opponent. I think he still would have picked a conservative governor, just not one with only two years of even remotely relevant experience.

Except for the rich ones.

In Austin, that’s the children of politicians and lobbyists and well connect bureaucrats and CXOs.

The new issue of The Baffler has an interesting article about the Richard Florida-style ideal of the “vibrant city”. The creative class and all that. And how it is a pile of b.s.

The influx of “creative class” types with rich parents and trust funds is what ruined Austin, and this piece does a good job of addressing why:

http://thebaffler.com/past/dead_end_on_shakin_street

“An artist who keeps to herself, who works in her room all day, who wears unremarkable clothes and goes without tattoos— by definition she brings almost nothing to this project, adds little to the economic prospects of a given area. She inspires no one. She offers no lessons in creativity. She is not vibrant, not remunerative, not investment-grade.”

Good link, Bub Diddley. I especially liked this part of The Baffler article:

“Vibrancy is a sort of performance that artists or musicians are expected to put on, either directly or indirectly, for the corporate class. These are the ones we aim to reassure of our city’s vibrancy, so that they never choose to move their millions (of dollars) to some more vibrant burg.”

Also this part:

“A while ago I was talking about rural depopulation with an officer of a Kansas farmers’ organization; as it happened, he had thought about the problem a great deal. Using arts festivals to make small towns appear ‘vibrant’ was not one of his suggestions, however. Instead, he proposed universal health coverage, since independent farmers find it difficult to get insurance nowadays and are often driven to seek corporate employment by this brute fact of rural life.”

Which is why I keep saying that when this country actually gets universal health coverage, the National Anthem will temporarily become “Take This Job And Shove It.” I’m especially fond of the Johnny Paycheck version.

Wow, they’ve quite quite the vibrant cargo cult scene going there…

Gah…spare me from Vibrancy.

Every burg in Montana has at least one “festival” these days. Oldtime events like Creamery Picnic and Railroad Days with local talent just don’t cut it anymore, got to bring in old graybeard Boomer bands and banjo-plucking “Americana” artistes.

Must be quite a vibrant circuit for those acts now.

Interesting summary Ben…I suspect that Austin is the most liberal town in the entire State of Texas…Which, also makes it interesting that it has the hotest real estate market in the state..

It’s one the edge of the nicest part ??

Where is the nicest part ?? San Antonio ??

Oh god no! San Antonio is horrible!

Ben is referring, I think, to the Texas hill country. Austin is in the borderline of that, but it’s still very nice

Okay…The area outside Austin is relatively nice…Got it…

San Antonio is just as hot and humid, and a little bigger to boot. I lived there for 6 months in 1980. I would never live there again.

‘I hate this part of California.’

Was just there a few months ago. Yes, this is exactly the feel I got.

And yes I remember Austin from 20 years ago and 30 years ago. I went SXSW when it first started. I visit Austin about once every 5 years. There is now a Four Seasons where the warehouse ghetto district used to be. I hurt my jaw from it hitting the ground so hard.

I even remember Oats Willie. ‘Onward through the fog.”

The Hill Country is to the west of Austin, and extends north and south for a good distance. The developers are trying to ruin that too. I hardly recognize Blanco, Lampasas, Fredricksburg, Marble Falls, anymore.

Anyway, Austin has almost grown together with San Antonio and that part in between, Hays county, has become awful compared to 20 years ago. There’s probably no place that has been spoiled as badly by the housing bubble than central Texas.

Where is the nicest part? Funny thing about Texans; they all claim to live in the nicest part. At least for a while, then some will start to grumble. But I have relatives who live in West Texas and would never dream of living anywhere else. I also once knew a guy around 30 YO who had a PHD and had never been outside the Austin City limits.

‘Oats Willie’

I think it was Oat Willie’s, down on San Antonio street. Yeah, it was stuff like SXSW that started the down turn, IMO. The camping ban on Guadalupe, the restriction on taking bottles in and out of clubs on 6th street. The curfews on 6th.

Seriously? A 4 Seasons hotel in the ghetto?

And they have condos!

‘Near Austin’s Town Lake, the Four Seasons Residences Austin provides the ultimate in service at a landmark location. You’ll discover a downtown living experience beyond compare, with an impressive 26 stories of high-rise homes and access to all hotel services.’

http://www.realtyaustin.com/downtown/four-seasons-residences.php?gclid=CNHL4qvdwbECFcYBRQodiiYAUg

It WAS a ghetto. 5th, 4th and 3rd St were nothing but abandoned or soon to be abandoned old warehouses back in the 1990s. The last 2 (previous to my last trip) times I was in Austin I wasn’t even near downtown.

Shocker.

There is also a Hilton, Courtyard Marriot, Hampton Inn and Fogo de Chao and PF Chang’s in the same area.

I’ll second Ben’s comment on the Hill Country. We used to spend our summer in New Braunfels 30+ years ago. I went last year for a funeral and danged if NB didn’t look like Austin!

Turkey…. A 4 Seasons stands alone from all the rest.

I used to think East Texas was pretty….east of Dallas. But that was 30 years ago.

BTW, there is an article from March of 2011 in the WSJ called:

“Five Questions on the Qualified Residential Mortgage”

One part is a group of bullet points on the main pieces of the QRM:

“What standards could be required for a qualified residential mortgage?

The biggest debate has been around loan-to-value ratios. Rather than issue a single proposal for public comment, regulators are likely to seek comment on two different proposals: one calling for a minimum 20% down payment and an alternate outlining a 10% down payment and mortgage insurance. Loan-to-value ratios could be higher for refinances.
Regulators could also prescribe steps requiring originators to verify borrowers’ incomes.
Look for language for the maximum amount of a borrower’s income that can go towards mortgage payments, or what’s known as a debt-to-income ratio. One proposal is likely to recommend mortgage debt equal to 28% of income and total debt equal to 36% of income, according to people familiar with the matter. The alternate proposal could seek comment on more liberal ratios of 33% and 41%, under certain circumstances.
The rule could also clarify which types of loans will be eligible. Interest-only mortgages, which allow borrowers to defer principal payments for several years, won’t be eligible, according to people familiar with the matter. Certain adjustable-rate loans could qualify but originators will have to ensure that borrowers can make payments if interest rates rise.”

I wonder which part of this the banking industry has already been able to get thrown out or changed, but it seems like:

20% down, specified steps to verify income, mortgage debt no more than 28% of income, and ARMs/IO loans not qualified seems like a good start.

But you know we will end up at 10%, and 33% of income, with no limit on loan type or income verification procedures, taking the teeth out of this almost entirely.

I personally think that INITIALLY, regardless of QRM requirements, securitized residential mortgages will be better underwritten than during the bubble.

You hit the problematic nail on the head with that INITIALLY.

The problem is that there will be political pressures to reduce the QRM standards over time. Just like with Glass-Steagal, the QRM requirements will be weakened just in time for the next train-wreck.

Keeping the banks on the hook for some losses (and a NET loss, as Neuromance points out) is the only long-term fix.

There is political pressure to reduce the QRM requirements TODAY, and the gutless politicians will want the perceived (but short term) benefits from a rising housing market for each of their next election, so my guess is that we get a 10% down payment QRM requirement when it ultimately gets written.

In our business, it is we, the INVESTORS who demand that the person bringing the investment invest alongside us and take risk alongside us. It is too bad that the primary buyers of the the MBS are not investing their own money, but that of pensioners, etc.

If those making the investment decisions on behalf of the MBS buyers also had skin in the game, they would push better underwriting from the banks.

Banks not being directly exposed to the losses for their poor underwriting is part one of the problem.

Those making the investment decisions not being exposed to the losses that result from their poor due diligence and poor selection of well constructed MBS is part two of the problem.

And part 3 of the problem, is financial engineers who construct securities that are so complex that they are virtually impossible to evaluate. We haven’t even touched on that problem (which makes part 2 of the problem very hard to solve).

Not to mention the fact that camels smell awful. And they have this nasty spitting habit.

I see what you did there, NE.

Okay, I’m a bit slow, what did NE do?

Camel toe is a reference to something that can happen to women’s jeans if they are too tight. I’m not going to elaborate. Please feel free to google the phrase on your own.

Works even better (or worse, really) in spandex.

They’ll get something, those pension funds do have money in them. They’ll just get less than what they were expecting, which is still more than most of us will get.

If they take away the retail live human clerks and replace with self check out ,no doubt all retail will follow .

In my opinion they have really reduced how many live
humans are in retail anyway ,but this would be another
blow to jobs in retail .

Is the goal of Corporations to have no empolyees ( machines ) or just slave labor employees ,or out of Country employees ? And if you take this far enough ,they would reduce customers that had jobs that could buy their junk .

Where is this all leading to ?

My understanding is that many former employees of the City who had minimal tenure got lifetime benefits (as short as 1 month service). I further understand that the Stockton proposal is to provide different levels of ongoing healthcare for retirees depending on their duration of service. For people who put in less than a minimal amount of time (measured in years, not months) will get nothing, for people who put in a few decades might get something very similar to what they are getting today, perhaps with a slightly higher co-pay.

Its leading to a new bar being set “higher” on what would constitute a carrear path for a job… Technology is only going to get better meaning less human capital needed…That same technology is going to have us live longer…

It sucks…I don’t like what its doing to the younger generation…The opportunities are just not there like they were when I was that age…Not even close…

“Is the goal of Corporations to have no empolyees ( machines ) or just slave labor employees ,or out of Country employees ? And if you take this far enough ,they would reduce customers that had jobs that could buy their junk .

Where is this all leading to ?”

The complete and total elimination of people, period? Perhaps just a few flash traders will exist, owning the world.

Didn’t a lot of the drywall for housing in America come from China at one point during the building boom and it was toxic ?

Irrelevant. This still assumes the LIE that the American worker and company is not competitive.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/made-america-domestically-made-furniture-appliances-cost-imported/story?id=13049571

Low cost personal services - hair cuts, massages, basic dental and health care (really big expenses can be subject to medical/dental tourism if not an emergency), manicures, restaurant meals, etc.

“The argument can be made that something such as a bridge can only be built here - which is true”

“California Turns To China For New Bay Bridge:”

California is spending more than $7 billion building what it says will be an architectural marvel: the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. But the state saved a lot of money sending some of the construction work overseas.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/16/140515737/california-turns-to-china-for-new-bay-bridge

“California Turns To China For New Bay Bridge:”

California is spending more than $7 billion building what it says will be an architectural marvel: the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. But the state saved a lot of money sending some of the construction work overseas.

Doh!

I think what this means is that we need to create policies that both encourage consumption AND production here.

When you have a cost of labor/cost of production mismatch between countries, it seems what happens is that the means of production drains out of the one economy, like water, to the cheaper locale.

And what that ultimately does is damage consumption in the more expensive society. And ultimately degrades the more expensive society’s standard of living.

Even conservatives in the UK are angry with Romney’s bone headed remark, including Conservative Party PM Cameron.

The liberal MSM can only attack Romney because they know that Obama can’t run on his own record.

You mean the corporate owned MSM? Should they give “Mitt the Twit” a pass after he insulted our #1 ally?

Even conservatives in the UK are angry with Romney’s bone headed remark, including Conservative Party PM Cameron.

Speaking as one with relatives from said Conservative Party, you don’t want to annoy them. Really, you don’t. Because they have very long memories.

Not quite up there with returning the bust of Churchill unasked.

The bust story isn’t remotely as interesting as it sounds. All of the stuff that was borrowed by Bush was returned as happens at the end of every presidency. This included a bust of Churchill. There is another bust of Churchill that was owned by the White House (or the Smithsonian or some other entity). That was moved from the Oval Office to the personal quarters of the White House and was replaced with a bust of Abraham Lincoln. Wow. How inappropriate for an American president. Wake me up so I can act offended at the right time.

Could we please put these urban myths to rest?

Two busts were commissioned and cast. One was lent to GW Bush to display and “…(it) was indeed returned, along with all other art lent to him, as his presidency came to an end. The other, which remains in the White House residence, was given as a gift to President Lyndon B Johnson in 1965 by a group of Atlanticist diplomats and military officers….”

Great Britain, like the USA upholds a strict monetary limit on the value of personal (get that? “Personal?”) gifts given to its officials. In the US it’s $25. In GB it’s slightly higher. State gifts are another matter altogether and are cataloged as such.

The iPod, a PERSONAL gift from the Obamas to Queen Elizabeth was a collection of footage from her 2007 visit to Virginia commemorating the 400 year anniversary of the founding of Jamestown. Very thoughtful and entirely appropriate.

Next.

Defined by the IRS? Do you think that 2000 page bill didn’t provide a definition? It is the standard over $200K individual/over $250K married AGI based on income other than the property transaction. I read an article this morning in the Washington Post. Here is an explanatory paragraph:

Say you and your spouse have adjustable gross income (AGI) of $325,000 and you sell your home at a $525,000 profit. Assuming you qualify, $500,000 of that gain is wiped off the slate for tax purposes. The $25,000 additional gain qualifies as net investment income under the health-care law, giving you a revised AGI of $350,000. Since the law imposes the 3.8 percent surtax on the lesser of either the amount that your revised AGI exceeds the $250,000 threshold for joint filers ($100,000 in this case) or the amount of your taxable gain ($25,000), you end up owing a surtax of $950 ($25,000 times .038).

Thanks Polly,

Therefore its not that much at this point. Just another small itty bitty little tax that none of the little people will end up paying.