patrick.net

tsusiat,

Thanks for the logic 101 refresher. There's no reason to go ballistic on me; I was just talking about my opinion, which I clearly demarcated as such, regarding whether China will be able to maintain their currency peg long enough to engineer a soft landing.

If you have issues with neoclassical macroeconomic theory then so be it; many do. Picking away at the specific semantic structure with ad hominem attacks of your own isn't very productive.

Randy, you make some sense some of the time, but when you overgeneralize, do yourself a favour and admit it, denial doesn’t confirm your point of view…

Please provide an example of someone on this board, myself included, who isn't guilty of that charge, please. If you cannot, then lay off the redundant non sequiturs. This isn't an academic peer reviewed journal. It is a blog.

I was just pointing out the irrelevance of the particular attached argument supporting that conclusion.

Comparatively, China did show some strategic discipline. Even the Cultural Revolution did not tear it apart. That means something.

Perhaps because the Chinese anticipates and accomodates changes, due to the influence of I Ching, they are able to remain still in a changing environment?

Randy,

for a guy who likes to haul out the facts post after post, it's kind of funny you now want to be cut some slack, by saying you were just giving your opinion.

We know it was your opinion Randy, I wasn't saying anything about your "opinion" on the currency peg, I was saying your tacked on argument was completely wrong and disconnected from supporting that opinion.

Dude, all you had to say was, yeah, I overgeneralized.

I pointed out a lazy ill-thought out overgeneralization, I suppose that made you unhappy, but I would hardly call it "going ballistic" by the standards of this board.

Let's see, I wrote:

"when you overgeneralize, do yourself a favour and admit it, denial doesn’t confirm your point of view…"

and you replied

"Please provide an example of someone on this board, myself included, who isn’t guilty of that charge, please. If you cannot, then lay off the redundant non sequiturs."

Dude, why do I need to do that? You didn't answer the question, you asked a question that is irrelevant to the original point!

You still haven't stepped up and admitted you were overdoing it.

What's the matter dude, that's so much simpler, don't you think?

Perhaps because the Chinese anticipates and accomodates changes, due to the influence of I Ching, they are able to remain still in a changing environment?

Thanks Peter. I wasn't aware that I needed to republish the macro analysis from my masters thesis on the economies of China/US/Vietnam/Mauritius every time I suggest (as opinion) that China is relatively more strategic in many historical matters.

Wow, you wrote a masters thesis?

I guess that means your opinions, are, like, more well thought out than us non-intellectuals..

Randal H, never underestimate the importance of Mauritius. It's all Mauritius nowadays.

tannenbaum,

That's what I'm talkin' about!

Did you see the data in the left hand column? Unreal! Mind you all of these figures of 100/150/195% "appreciation" is just from the first quarter of 2000! It shoots holes in the theory (firstly) that there is No National Market! Price increases were pretty uniform (meaning equally ridiculous) across the board. Secondly that the housing bubble is "strictly" a post stock market crash/9/11 driven event! True, those (along with free money) were major catalysts but the NASDAQ was STILL RISING through the first quarter of 2000! 9/11 was still another 1 3/4 years in the making.

I'm not saying this is the "smoking gun" but it tends to lend credibility to the notion that things were getting off kilter before other external influences took place! My advice to the gal in this article? Find another boyfriend.

insert image of kettle boiling...

re-lurk

More gems from tannenbaum's USAToday article:

In San Diego, biotech companies don't bother to recruit employees from outside California, because the cost of buying a home is simply too shocking, says Elizabeth Morris, CEO of the San Diego Housing Commission. Her agency helps 12,500 low-income families pay their rent each month, and there's a waiting list of 30,000.

...Julaine Anton, an 80-year-old widow, was forced out of her downtown apartment because the owner converted it to a condo. Now, she's facing that same threat in her new apartment. She needs her savings to live on, not to buy real estate. "My medical insurance, after Medicare, has gone up so much since I retired," Anton says. The $1,250 monthly rent for her two-bedroom apartment takes up all but $150 of her Social Security check.

Shit, Bob, I thought Prop. 13, UGBs and rent control were these government MAGIC BULLETS destined to "save" poor f--king grandmas from being evicted ever again! California is the PROMISED LAND of Smart Growth, High-Density, Green-Belt, urban social engineering, right? What's the deal here --didn't San Diego get the memo ???

"weekly blame sessions"

Well I don't think I've ever worked the cube farm but I am well familiar with the blame session thing. When working an IPO it becomes a DAILY blame session! Not fun.

tsusiat,

Wow, you wrote a masters thesis?

I guess that means your opinions, are, like, more well thought out than us non-intellectuals..

lol. It means nothing of the sort. My thesis, like most, was just a giant pile of busy work. All I meant by invoking it was that there is an assload of data, all cited and referenced. The conclusions are worth what you pay for them, but the data is all nicely organized for someone with no life and lots of spare time.

HARM,

Isn't it just possible that GSE's "could" have had a positive impact had it not been for the "kid gloves" preferential tax treatment RE gets? I mean I'm asking that in an open ended fashion. Fannie and Freddie were supposed to make RE MORE affordable to an ever broader audience and yet here we are. Would specuvestors be converting apts. to condos (soon to be "repartments") if SFH's were sanely priced?

Randy H

on the thesis:

fair enough and good answer, that makes total sense.

Peace.

not to nitpick, but:

[...] you wrote a masters thesis [...]
[therefore]
[you must think] that means your opinions, are, like, more well thought out than us non-intellectuals..

Is the same sort of fallacious logic. But I'll let it slide as it's probably just your opinion of my opinion.

I meant a sly ;) in the above.

Peace. And I do apologize if I was coming off sounding authoritative. I despise arguments from authority as much as I suspect you do.

Man, this article is so studded with precious quotes, it's destined for the Patrick.net Hall of Fame:

[L.A. Mayor Antonio] Villaraigosa says: "Cities haven't been aggressive enough about addressing the crisis, and neither has the state or the federal government. ... (The solution) has to be an unprecedented public-private partnership that involves all levels of government and business."

Yes, Antonio, that's just what the housing unaffordability problem needs --MORE government "solutions". To address all the imbalances created by government "solutions" in the first place.

He notes that he was the first mayor to fully fund the city's housing trust fund at $100 million. Since the program was launched in 2003, it has helped raise $1 billion to build 4,900 low-income apartment units.

When it's pointed out that that amounts to about $204,000 a unit, and less than 1% of Los Angeles' rental stock, Villaraigosa shoots back, "Well, you got a better idea?"

Ooh, ooh, ooh --I got one!: Abolish the Fed & GSEs, allow much more housing (of all types) to be built, slash the local/state red tape and close the f--king border for a couple of years.

Don't worry Randy,

I've forgotten more about grammar than most people remember, if you catch my drift.

I don't bother even rereading what I type before I transmit it, because, really, what's the point? This medium is kind of like a long crazed Kerouac novel, that needs to breathe, if you catch my drift.

I don't bother presenting any facts with any arguments either, as my usual method is to argue by analogy, and type in a URL as supporting evidence.

It's much more entertaining and ten times faster than real research.

If I ever go back to school I will have to change my sloppy ways.....

But like the needle to the housing bubble, if I detect a simple logical bubble to pop, well, that's kind of irresistable...

HARM,

Uh, that's what I thought. O.K now in a never ending quest for understanding;

Are there ANY circumstances under which GSE's would have had a "positive" net end effect?

Personally, I recommend an immediate 40% collapse in housing prices throughout North America.

That would be so excellent.

@DinOR,

Almost forgot about those cap gains/tax deductions for RE specuvestors --abolish those too.

As far as the GSEs "helping" to make housing more "affordable", consider the explosion of GSE-issued MBS paper in the last 10 years, which oddly enough cooincides almost perfectly with the explosion in housing PRICES and LACK of affordability over the same period. Personally, I see no reason why the GSEs need to exist, and two very good reasons why they should NOT: (1) "too big to fail" implicit taxpayer bail-out guarantee (see LTCM & FSLIC history), (2) artificially low MBS risk premiums thanks to Fed's liquidity pump and #(1).

IMHO, the private capital markets are quite capable of providing sufficient mortgage liquidity with sane risk premiums without the so-called "help" of the GSEs or the Fed

This article has given me a bold idea for the capital markets:

What we really need is a way to securitize human bodies. Thus, eggs, sperm, kidneys and liver chunks could all be borrowed against. The resultant injection of cash into the market would allow many people who couldn't have previously borrowed for a house to be able to qualify by promising a pound of flesh should they default. Heart and lung notes would truly give a new meaning to the term "Suicide Loan."

Abolish the Fed

I hope that is a joke. I'm trying to imagine a global economy without Central Banks, or a global economy in which one country unilaterally dissolves its Central Bank.

*shiver*

tsusiat,

Not entirely sure if you're being completely up front but as painful as it might be for some (and uncomfortable for most) we finally have to weigh what will be in the best interests of the majority long term. Obviously 195% appreciation in a little over six years is not a sustainable model.

I hope that is a joke. I’m trying to imagine a global economy without Central Banks, or a global economy in which one country unilaterally dissolves its Central Bank.

*shiver*

Explain to me in plain English exactly HOW the Fed's mission has anything to do with "helping" the public (non bankers) and how they've actually succeeded in that role, and perhaps I'll consider retracting that statement.

girls in college these days are complete and utter whores.

Unless they are getting jiggy-jiggidy by themselves there is a dude involved also. Remember these are the boomers kids and what do boomers enjoy most? Getting high and getting freaky. The doobie doesn't fall far from the bong my friend.

What we really need is a way to securitize human bodies. Thus, eggs, sperm, kidneys and liver chunks could all be borrowed against. The resultant injection of cash into the market would allow many people who couldn’t have previously borrowed for a house to be able to qualify by promising a pound of flesh should they default.

FRIFY -

Shakespeare dealt with this well in "The Merchant of Venice".

Federal Reserve System from Wikipedia

Roles and responsibilities
The main tasks of the Federal Reserve are to:

--Supervise and regulate banks
Not doing so well on that score lately from my POV.

--Implement monetary policy by open market operations, setting the discount rate, and setting the reserve ratio
Yes, they've done a "mah-velous" job of flooding capital markets with unlimited liquidity, blowing asset bubbles and destroying the value of the USD --kudos to them!

--Maintain a strong payments system
No argument here --creditors/lenders of all kinds have enjoyed limitless cash-flow under the Fed. Debtors on the other hand...

--Control the amount of currency that is made and destroyed on a day to day basis (in conjunction with the Mint and Bureau of Engraving and Printing)
Kind of depends on what you mean by "control", doesn't it? If you mean "set the money-creation spigot permanently to 'ON' and flood asset/capital markets until you have one speculative bubble after another", then they've done a bang-up job!

Sir Rick of Bulldust,

DAMN!

That is just nasty! Just plain nasty. I don't even know what to say to that. That is so freakin' nasty_______ I just don't know what to say to that. Damn, that IS nasty!

In short, I believe the Fed has failed miserably at serving the public's interests (assuming that it ever really had anything to do with this --I doubt it) and has only succeeded in making the business cycle even more volatile/extreme than it already was. Let's not forget that the 1930s Great Depression, 1970s Stagflation and several severe recessions occurred on the Fed's watch (founded in 1913), as has the consistent destruction of the purchasing power of the USD, in the interests of fake nominal "growth" through inflation.

The Treasury handles the production of paper money and coinage just fine. What exactly do we (the public) need a Federal Reserve System for?

So, how did this thread get turned off econ/RE onto discussing college sluts & post-feminist lesbianism?

Sir Rick of Bulldust,

O.K now that is getting real nasty.

It's curious to note that when Sex and the City started it was strictly on HBO or whatever and aired only late at night. What made the show "cute?" was that these were obviously disturbed and bored women. After all this is Manhattan! I don't think the characters were ever scripted to provide mainstream role models for young women? How is it then that their ahem, "activities" have gained such mainstream acceptance?

Yes, it’s all the woman’s fault. Moving on…….

Who gave the apple to the man? ;)

X,

Today's generation of permanently-11-year-old women is yet another masterpiece created by the Boomers. It seems like the ones around age 38+ didn't seem to get hit with this stick.

Living with women of today is very similar to what single mothers have to put up with. You get home from work to the cranky whining of an entitled brat who wants dinner, and you have pick up all the crap they've spread out all over the house and shuttle their dishes to the sink, then when dinner is ready you have to pry them away from the telephone, if you even give them a little task like "make sure the electric bill gets paid" you can be sure that it will get shut off at least once a year, and then as you try to sort out the mess, you find that their financial records are all shoved under a pile of magazines or a crumpled mess in one of their their handbags, then you find all the late notices and collections agency letters from their creditors that you DIDN'T know about, etc. etc. Ugh.

Then, as they hover over the traditional male AND female chores you've done, they're so quick to find the spot under the coffee table that you didn't vacuum, etc., and quick to pull all this "a real man would do X, Y, and Z" (without a whisper about the fact that "a real woman" these days apparently has no obligations whatsoever).

Is there anything that Boomers have touched that they haven't totally trashed?

Is there anything that Boomers have touched that they haven’t totally trashed?

Bill Gates is a boomer, no?

Peter P,

Bill Gates is a boomer, yes. That's why you have to reboot your PC twice a day and tolerate 25 different glitches and incompatibilities. If boomers had invented the car, no one would ever make it to work five days in a row, and when they did, half the time the car would be running in "Safe Mode" so it would get you from A to B but without A/C, music, or fifth gear.

Bill Gates is a boomer, yes. That’s why you have to reboot your PC twice a day and tolerate 25 different glitches and incompatibilities.

I don't know. My instinct tells me that Bill Gates is one of the greatest men alive.

Regarding all this trashing of 20-30 something women:

Is this because:

a) chasing them, don't like what you're catching
b) can't catch them, happily married, just making this stuff up
c) hey, I'm older, why aren't there more girls responsive to me
d) actually, these comments are from 20 something - thirty something guys, part of the same generation
e) hey, these 20 somethings are the same age as my daughter/grand-daughter, I should know 'cause I'm very concerned with the escapades and availability of her friends

just wondering why any of the commentees care, I mean, what interest do you guys have in these women/girl toys anyways?

Besides the obvious, non-relational, non-personality related interests, that is....

Oh yeah, they're corrupting your sons with their sluttee ways...

That must be it, right?

Anyone who looks beyond the goal of immediate wealth, and puts so much effort into humanitarian aid can’t be all bad, right?

I think so. He probably realized that he has great responsibility to the world.