patrick.net

That's true, that's why I see no reason to have American workers competing with Chinese and other foreign workers who are one level up from being slaves. How is that free trade or even right? We had a nice run where prices stayed level and fell as wages were propped up by various bubbles. My opinion is that it has run its course and it is time to shore things up here.

I recently received a balance txfr offer:

0% for 12 months then X%
no balance txfr fee with this offer

But it was the first one I've seen in months...

Also, credit card arbitrage in my opinion is kind of high risk for the reward...
if you screw up you can get dinged pretty badly! But it may be good for someone with credit card debt...

NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE

Peter,

I did notice the PPT. The old dump n' pump. It was so obvious they were going to intervene. There is even an index out there tracking the likelihood of their intervention. Pretty soon the market will get used to it and render them useless.

The manufacturing of everything getting sent to China is also starting to piss me off Malcolm. Everytime we come up with something good, some slick American fuck decides he'll be able to make more money by sending his manufacturing to China. Little does he realize the long term consequence of this. We keep transferring our skills over there. At some point, they will start making their own discoveries.

The consumer is fucked. And our companies are even more fucked. We can't even compete with the monster we've created.

oh it holds. I get 5 emails a day from IT firms in India who want to write code for me for $10/hour.

globalization is retarded when there is only one country that consumes.

I get 5 emails a day from IT firms in India who want to write code for me for $10/hour.

Do they write bugs or features?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMXzD7tQQGdY&refer=home

so the dickwad who just socialized the entire financial system now calls for free markets?

I'm just about done with this fucking place.

Indian programmers are crap. Some of the eastern european countries might be better than the US, but India is junk.

Most of the manufacturing I have seen come from China is also junk. Until "headquarters" has spent several million dollars flying miserable Americans back and forth between here and there to fix the problems.

I have met some very brilliant Indian developers.

However, I am bearish on the outsourcing crap.

FuzzyMath Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
"so the dickwad who just socialized the entire financial system now calls for free markets?
I’m just about done with this fucking place."

I know, and it pisses me off to then have to explain to people that I am neither a liberal or a soc1list. I'm sick of warding off single labels for what is a more complicated belief system than what some clown wears on his sleeve. I'm pretty much done with the whole thing too, but God I am so hopeful. I am admitedly caught up in the whole, Obama is the second coming stuff. I have high hopes for that guy.

To clarify, I blame liberals for chasing manufacturing away. I hate them for trying to micromanage people's lives, and I believe they are parasites verses contributors.
While I believe in government being a mechanism to help free markets reach levels they couldn't on their own, I am not a soc1alist for the mere fact that I believe in free markets, free movements of prices, and certainly want minimal government ownership of infrastructure.

Fuzzy, I was watching this speech live in disbelief, which is why I posed the question.

Lost Cause Says:
Try to get a student loan from one of the banks. Just try.

Uh... as several posters above mentioned, Paulson is now planning on throwing a goodly portion of the remaining $350 billion in approved TARP borrowings at student and consumer loans.

And for the record, the whole "non one's getting student loans" meme is pure bunk. I have several nieces & nephews of college age all borrowing quite well, thank you. I strongly suspect student loan borrowing will be the very *last* bastions of easy credit to collapse, for this reason:

YOU CANNOT DISCHARGE STUDENT LOANS IN BANKRUPTCY
(i.e., Uncle Sam has Sallie Mae's back 100%)
http://bankruptcy.lawyers.com/Debts-You-Cannot-Discharge-in-Bankruptcy.html

The BK laws were amended under Bush I in 1991 to limit BK discharges to "severe hardship" or cases where the debtor is permanently disabled or otherwise has extrememly bleak future earnings potential. Nothing shorrt of that will do. This is true even for Chapter 13 (repayment plan BK). SLs are in a legally unique category of debts, along with child support/alimony and federal taxes.

Legal precedents established in civil court cases since 1991 have invariably placed the burden of proof squarely on the debtor, and BKs are very rarely granted for SLs. IANAL, but faced some rather 'bleak prospects' myself during the early 1990s, so I am well versed on the matter.

Bottom line: DO NOT OBTAIN ANY STUDENT LOAN YOU CANNOT EASILY REPAY ON THE MINIMUM SALARY YOU CAN EXPECT DURING HARD TIMES.

Having student loans on a limited (or no) income is the 21st century equivalent of debtor's prison. I do not recommend it. Far better: take advantage of the many excellent state and community colleges, and pay as you go.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"
--Bill Shakespeare, Hamlet

Hi Harm, I was recently thinking it had been a while since I saw you here.

And having student loans in a deflationary environment is downright depressing.

HARM, we should have a NorCal blog party with Randy and others. :)

Malcolm,

also incredibly ironic was a clear PPT move in the middle of the day... not even 2 hours after the fucker's speech.

I wouldn't be surprised if the PPT takes the winnings from their orchestrated short covering rallies, and then leverages off them to loan more money to the banks. They could have easily made a couple hundred billion today with that move.

If I stop posting for a week, you can all righfully assume that I was dragged off in a black SUV in the middle of the night for this post.

LOL!

That "PPT" could be the Invisible Hand (as opposed to the Black Hand).

Hi, guys,

Yes, it's been a long time. My new job has been keeping me *very* busy, but I do continue to lurk here and there. NorCal blog party sounds like a good plan --let's consider a place & time.

There is always the Larkspur Brewing Company. :)

http://patrick.net/wp/?p=161

Perhaps not this week though.

Peter P,

Can you be in downtown S.F. tomorrow around 5pm?

Can you be in downtown S.F. tomorrow around 5pm?

Maybe. I work in the city now.

But I probably need to be on the train by 6pm though.

Re: Student loans.

I work in higher education.

If you are intelligent, work hard and apply yourself, then college will either be cheap or free if you are of need. Whether you choose public or private school. Princeton and Stanford covered 100% of student fees for students of need this year. In general, the rule is that the less industrious students subsidize the better ones (which is as it should be in my opinion).

If you are a bad student, you are better off not going to college rather than getting yourself up to your ears in debt. Join the Army, learn a trade or get a 2-year associates degree.

There are way, way too many people in college that simply should not be there. I always feel sad when I encounter someone that is 30, just got out of school with a PhD and 100k of student loan debt and can't find a job.

I dropped out when I was 20, have no debt, 15 years of experience and a great job, salary, pension and benefits. A degree isn't everything. And it certainly isn't worth mortgaging your future for.

Peter P,

I'll ping you via email (don't want to hijack the thread). You still have the same gmail address as last year?

Yes.

kewp,

Point taken on the part about not everyone *should* insist on obtaining a degree. However, I take exception to the "everyone not receiving 100% grants/scholarships is an idiot" generalization. It's simply not true.

I was:
--an A/honor roll student
--worked my ass off before, during and after college
--took mostly AP & honors classes (at a time --80's-- before they even offered AP track for many subjects)
--National Merit Scholar
--received Cal grants & a private scholarship

And it *still* wasn't enough to cover the majority of costs. Granted, pursuing an M.A. at age 22 was not the best decision, but how was I to know the U.S. was about to go into recession (1990)?

Besides, if there's anything in the world *worth* borrowing money for, shouldn't higher education be near the top of that list? Oh, right, I forgot --it's A-ok to borrow millions to flip RE and live it up like the Donald then default without recourse, but NOT for education, no sir. Odd priorities we have.

I thought it seemed harsh too but then again I went to JCs then to SDSU so my cost was small. I graduated in 1998 with a BS and $16,000 of student loans. $12,000 of which I used as a down payment on my first house. Hey, they said housing was a proper use of the money :)

I paid it all off in 2003, and in 2004 I went to grad school. $1,200 per semester hardly seemed noticeable and I think it was a good investment.

Off-topic: I just received 3 (count 'em) spam emails from Barbara Boxer that she had received my various opinions on the bailout.

It seems like ages ago that I sent them ....

I still have her letter from some time ago saying there were no bailout plans. LOL

If you are a bad student, you are better off not going to college rather than getting yourself up to your ears in debt. Join the Army, learn a trade or get a 2-year associates degree.

There are way, way too many people in college that simply should not be there.

I can mostly agree with this, though I don't believe not graduating at the top of your class automatically makes you a "bad"student. And for the record there are plenty of truly "bad"/unqualified legacy students who get there solely due to connections and money (our current President *cough*, *cough*).

In this country, you are looked down upon if you learn a trade vs. going to college, which does many people a disservice.

just got those same emails

I was a B- student in high school, and did much better in college. There is a difference to some of us between being forced to do something verses achieving something as a personal goal.

Me persoanlly, I think most people need to at least pursue an associate's degree. There is just too much stuff that people need to know to live as an adult that high school educations on their own don't provide.

Universities are massively overcharging right now.

Part of me agrees with kewp. Seems like everywhere you turn there is some "essential" service or asset that is supposedly worth mortgaging 20 years of your life.

If the kids bit on all of these (higher education, house, car), they will have mortgaged away the rest of their life. Heading into what could be a decade or longer of economic stagnation, it could be a massive mistake.

I agree but a JC here in San Diego is still $100 per semester full-time.

Universities are massively overcharging right now.

No arguments here. I have zero doubt that the very *reason why* private colleges and universities can get away with charging so much is that they know they have an iron-clad government backstop.

Take away taxpayer "insurance" on SLs and remove that bankruptcy exception, and we'd see prices dropping like a stone in no time.

Unfortunately, when I was 18, I was naive and did not have older, wiser people advising me and warning me about the dangers of leverage. My parents took graduating from college as the equivalent of winning the lotto --a "no-brainer". Of course, back when they went to college, it was far cheaper and mainly financed with grants and scholarships, not nondischaregeable loans.

Exactly Malcolm. Clearly education is worth something. But how much is the question?

At a $100 a semester its a no brainer. At $20K a semester, it's a ripoff.

Yup, studies show the extra money doesn't translate to much more earning power over a lifetime.

credit crunch n [Latincreditum krisis] 1: general situation where grant of monetary loans are withheld from persons without the income based ability to repay 2: period of re-instated prudent lending policies following period of prosmiscuous loan grants; esp : loans formerly granted based on presumed perpetual appreciation of mortgaged asset, and the ability of the lender to divest collection responsibility through favorable sale of receivables

@Headset,

:lol: Worthy of additon to the HB Glossary --well done!

Welcome back, Harm!

Bank forum addresses housing bubble

The housing mess, as some may assume, is not simply a product of stock market failure and greed.

“The government helped stoke the mania,” Northwoods Bank CEO Mark Hewitt explained to a group gathered for a forum on the issue.

“A housing bubble is not unusual,” Hewitt said. “But this is the first time it’s occurred on a national level.”

Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of loans going to low and moderate-income borrowers, he said.

In 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) required 12 percent of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie to be “special affordable loans,” he explained. These loans are typically granted to borrowers with income less than 60 percent of their area’s median income.

That goal increased to 20 percent in 2000, 22 percent in 2005 and 28 percent in 2008.

Fannie and Freddie, which are Government- Sponsored Enterprises (GSE), met the goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars in loans. Many were sub-prime loans (to borrowers with low credit scores) and adjustable rate loans, and made to borrowers putting down less than 10 percent, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, to which Hewitt referred.

“Demanding that Fannie and Freddie do more to increase home ownership among poor people allowed Congress and the White House to subsidize low-income housing outside of the budget, at least in the short run,” the Wall Street Journal asserts. “It was political free lunch.”

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was “strengthened” in 1995, causing an 80 percent increase in loans going to low and moderate-income families, Hewitt said. The CRA encouraged traditional banks to serve both the bottom line and the common good.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 increased demand for real estate by expanding the availability and size of capital gains exclusion from $125,000 to $500,000, Hewitt said. “There was no age limit and it was no longer a one-time exclusion.”

The Federal Reserve - or Fed - created easy and cheap money to combat the recession after the tech bubble. U.S. Central Banking System funds hit a 40-year low of 1.25 percent.

“Investment banks and mortgage brokers entered the market in a big way,” Hewitt said. “Mortgages originated, were pooled, packaged and sold on Wall Street.

“These factors dramatically increased the demand for housing,” he said. “Between 1997 and 2005, the average price of a home more than doubled in the U.S.

“With ever rising housing prices creating a speculative bubble and the government’s push to increase home-ownership rates to historic highs, the sub-prime market took off,” Hewitt said.

“There was a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for sub-prime loans,” he said. “Securitization passed the risk from the originator to the investor.

“Lenders over-lent, builders overbuilt and buyers overpaid,” Hewitt said.

“The hidden cost has been hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the housing market, instead of more productive assets,” the Wall Street Journal notes.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has stated once the “crisis at hand” has been dealt with, a “stronger, more resilient and better regulated financial system” must be developed.

It’s a sentiment echoed by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson.

Community banks, like Northwoods, are mostly funded by local deposits and make loans locally, Hewitt explained. “We hold our own portfolio and don’t lend to the outside market.”