patrick.net

FRIFY Says:

62% of Americans, 90% of home owners

Yes, I saw this too. Also from this report:

"Among respondents whose household incomes exceed $100,000, 39 percent favored higher rates, while 52 percent were opposed; for those making $40,000 to $60,000, it was 13 percent in favor of higher rates and 76 percent opposed"

Bottom line: FB's want to avoid getting whacked with ARM resets. Just another piece of evidence showing how damned financially irresponsible this country has become.

>>Please could those who have an understanding recommend a decent reading list of books on economic theory?

Despite being called "the dismal science," there're some pretty enjoyable economics books that are, at the same time, good ways to learn to think like an economist. "Freakonomics" is the typical recommendation here, but I would recommend "The Undercover Economist" as well.

Anything about behavioral economics is a good way of learning about current economic theory. Here's a review of a good one:

http://buythenumbers.blogspot.com/2006/06/review-why-smart-people-make-big-money.html

Your ultimate goal should be to read everything Fischer Black wrote. You may lose interest before that, like a English major deciding to change majors after reading a quarter way through "Finnegan's Wake."

Now, if you want to read about finance instead of economics, I have a ton of recommendations.

>>This is the attitude that I find troubling. This notion that we can do whatever the fuck we want and the consequences be damned because we are the US of A.

No, no, no. You completely missed my point. I hope not deliberately.

My point is that all countries are striving to get ahead. We're the big, successful, fast-growing guy, so it's in their interest to slow us down. My point is it's not surprising that they all do the same thing. It's in their interest to come to the conclusion they came to. It's in their interest to have solidarity with each other. They aren't a bunch of eggheads cooly evaluating the situation. They are bastards just like we are. And China is. And India is. They shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

In other words, they are just as selfish as we are. They are doing what's easiest for them.

Robert Cote'

"careful analysis and financial accumen" LOL!

Excellent point! Especially the "other" 99.99999% that don't participate in this type of format and weren't aware there was a "bubble" until what, late 2005? I mean what's not to like? Btw Robert are you in the "if it has to be 50 bps. hike let's get it over with crowd"? Or are you in the "25 bps. and let's see how the summer goes" crowd? Just curious. Me? As long as you "keep squirming" you're still a man! I say be done with it!

The problem isn’t that there is global climate change, the problem is that there’s a social change cadre that is successfully conflating the fact of global climate change with the dubious theory of anthropogenic climate change. For instance, the global human CO2 ouput is about 0.8% of the total atmospheric annual total. Well below the measuremnt error.

But Robert, how do you reconcile that with this:
(thanks alien!) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

Even though our ANNUAL OUTPUT may only be 0.8% of total atmosphere, isn't it possible this is having a much larger cumulative effect over time?

Crap, alien beat me to the punch :-(

>>finance recs. would be appreciated also.. thanks

OK. I'm moving from one rental to another. (yuck) This is going to have to wait a few days until I get my act back together.

>>So, you believe that these countries could care less about the environment or the future of the planet, but instead are merely ganging up to “pass” global legislation (or global sentiment) to limit our ability to grow and expand?

I believe that people tend toward beliefs that align with their own interest. Absolutely. Usually without realizing it. People selectively grab evidence and ignore what doesn't fit into their prior beliefs. You can see that every day with realtor's statements, can't you?

That's my whole problem with global warming. Everyone has a dog in the fight. You think the scientists don't, but they do. How do they get funding? They pick a side. They make a big claim.

I also see a lot of the attitude, "Those Europeans are smart--they think what I think." This cracks me up.

Michael Anderson,

We moved from one rental to another and there IS a silver lining! All of the crap that somehow survived your "bubble bail" will be painfully exposed during your second move. This is a good thing. I found (amongst many others) a wrought iron umbrella stand (for which we no longer had the umbrella) and get this, a Super 8 Projector for which we no longer had movies and a Cresent reel to reel recorder with a tape of Christmas Favorites! All of this "stuff" (along with several pick-up loads of clothes and shoes found it's way to Goodwill and netted a nice little deduction. Painful yes, but necessary.

We are trying to develop an accurate description of a birthday cake using only a micrscope, bomb calorimeter and mass spectrometer.

Good analogy!

"anything the FED finds worth doing is worth overdoing"

My father used to say that "enough is enough (but TOO much is not enough) but I'm pretty sure he was talking about drinking?

Your laddered maturities speak volumes. Isn't it just incredible the lengths we have to go to for a couple of bps?

Bill Ford says "bankruptcy is not an option". Don't be ridiculous William Clay Ford the 3rd! (BK is always an option!) What say ya'll?

Oh, please. So you’re giving up just because some of the bloggers disagree with you? Tsk, tsk… This is beyond the straw man –this is just sour grapes.

Not the high caliber of debate I’ve come to expect from Sir Randall. I’m rather disappointed :-(

You are right. I should spend all of my waning free time constructing thoughtful answers just so someone can pick out the last line of my many paragraph argument, put italics around it, and say "why is that a bad thing?" or "what's wrong with the market deciding". Sorry, that's not debate. Half the time I hear "let the market decide" the commentor probably couldn't even define the relevant market and explain the mechanism by which it "decides", let alone tell me "what's wrong or right with letting it decide". Invoking free-market doctrine when convenient is nothing more than ideology, and does a disservice to those who truly favor free market solutions.

...but there I go again, just setting up more text to be quoted with a clever "challenge" or open-ended, generalized "refutation" tacked on the end.

…but there I go again, just setting up more text to be quoted with a clever “challenge” or open-ended, generalized “refutation” tacked on the end.

italics :)

My main feelings about global warming are similar to those with urban-sprawl.

Wow. I may have to re-think my stand on anthropogenic global warming. ;-)

Mainly, both require a complete lack of consideration for the future. Why must we as a society focus so much on ourselves? Can’t we take others (our children) into consideration?

Huh? How did we get from A to B here? Not "fighting" urban sprawl (by supporting more NIMBY anti-development regulations, I suppose) means I don't care about children? What about the role of massive illegal immigration & population growth in "sprawl"? What if I consider "caring about my children" to mean I want them to be able to afford a house here someday?

I just find it beyond amazing that California has allowed unrestricted construction to wipe out farming communities for the all mighty dollar. The fact that these farms feed us is completely ignored as everyone focuses on making every extra penny possible. I don’t have a problem with growth, but it should be controlled otherwise we end up with massive sprawling cities that cover the landscape.

I don't even know where to start with the logic disconnects here. "Controlled growth", meaning controlled housing supply, but NOT controlled demand (population/immigration).
Yeah... that's been working out REAL well for California over the last 30 years or so. :lol:

While considering moving to Portland, I have been reading about Measure 37. Essentially, Portland’s reputation as an environmentally friendly city is about to end as all land building restrictions that were imposed in the 1970’s are removed. What the hell is wrong with people today? Is there attitude essentially, “how dare my parents protect the environment?” While reading an article about the changes, a developer who worked hard to get the measure passed commented, “It is the American way.”

Thank God! I hope this thing passes with flying colors. Maybe the "spirit of 37" will spill over into CA if it does.

Randy writes:

You are right. ... let the market decide

Just kidding.

Relax Randy. We all love you and and most of us are thankful for your thoughtful responses and insights. If everyone here would ignore the ad hominen arguments and unsupported statements and respond thoughfully when they felt motivated, the overall dialog would definitely be better.

Cutting down on the personal insults would help too folks, not that I haven't been guilty from time to time (where's my buddy Vince?).

@Randy,

Don't like seeing your words quoted back in italics, eh? Tell you what --I'll quote MYSELF this time:

BTW, I never said we need to completely abolish ALL functions that a “Central Bank” typically performs. I just said that most of the USEFUL and NECESSARY functions (such as printing currency/coinage, protecting it from counterfeiters, etc.) is already being performed by the U.S. Treasury Dept.

I see no reason why they cannot simply absorb what (few) useful functions the Fed now performs exclusively, such as setting reserve requirements and regulating lenders. As far as counter-party risk oversight, and nominal interest rate setting, I’m pretty sure the open market has been able to do this effectively for centuries.

Points:
1. I STILL haven't gotten a response from you on this one.
2. Insulting/generalizing/dismissing the other side (no matter how weak/feeble you believe their arguments are) does not make for constructive debate.

1/4 pt. Waaaaah!

Relax Randy. We all love you and and most of us are thankful for your thoughtful responses and insights. If everyone here would ignore the ad hominen arguments and unsupported statements and respond thoughfully when they felt motivated, the overall dialog would definitely be better.

I agree. Let's keep insults, unproven assumptions about "the other side", and unsupported generalizations out of discussion.

I have always valued your input, Randy, and consider you to be one of the smartest, most articulate and logical people here. I immensely enjoy debating you, and more often than not am completely on your side of the argument. However, I think you are starting to take some of the Fed criticisms a tad too personally.

How long until "flip that house" gets replaced with "fuck that house".

Key sign the shit has truly hit the fan is the laying off of realtwhores. When they start getting hit their advice will be along the lines of, "sell for whatever you can, were there to help".

I have always valued your input, Randy, and consider you to be one of the smartest, most articulate and logical people here.

But Randy is our Caesar. He gives us wisdom and salad.

Hey, X,

It's getting close to the 4th. What do you think --have the BBQ on the weekend or the 4th itself?

Btw, just got Mrs. HARM's glasses from Mr. Schmoe --thanks.

El HARM-o how about the 3rd? I have to work on Wednesday, well if you call doing nothing all day, ok, so maybe I surf the net a bit.

Sir Randall is Viceroy of the Fat Stacks.

Global warming is not just about CO2 emissions. The reason the atmospheric concentrations are increasing so much is due to the massive deforestation over the past centuries as much as rising emissions. Urbanisation also creates hot spots - all that concrete etc.

Again, please show that the effects are:

1. global, and
2. mostly attributed to human activities

So far I have only heard attempted explanation of some warming effects as being attributed to human activities. Also, I have heard that many glaciers are shrinking, although the fact that some glaciers are growing is conveniently omitted.

X,

The 3rd is out for me --operating on a skeleton crew already, which means I'm "it" at the office. Sunday's spoken for, so that just leaves Sat & the 4th itself.

El HARM-O, yeah this weekend booked up amazingly well. How's about mid july or labor day?

How’s about mid July or Labor Day?

Either's ok for me --whatever fits into your plans better. We'll talk offline.

Surfer X,

You know I think a lot of those shows are already losing steam. The other night I couldn't get to sleep (9:30pm is late for us) and was flipping through the channels and couldn't find but ONE! Normally there are at least 4 or 5 going 24/7!

Is there a way to just send Patrick a check for the year? Setting up a Pay Pal acct. is probably beyond my technical expertise. Just wondering.

Is there a way to just send Patrick a check for the year? Setting up a Pay Pal acct. is probably beyond my technical expertise. Just wondering.

Sure, just drop him a line, p at patrick.net

So, if the Greenland ice is melting doesn't that disprove they "aren't making land" anymore? How about trailers that float?

If humans are not responsible - what major natural events are you positing as responsible?

Yes, us humans are so great that everything big is caused by us.

Global warming is about global MEAN temperatures increasing. The fact that they drop in some geographical locales simply means that they increase more in others. Like here.

Of course, median price is not going down, there is no bubble.

doesn’t that disprove they “aren’t making land” anymore

Anyone watched the new Superman movie yet?

While a few scientists speak of global warming as a fact, many more—especially those who are directly involved in climate science—say the data do not support it. To date, 19,700 scientists, including 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists, have signed a petition sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that discounts global warming. Its accompanying report concludes:

A competing, pro-global-warming petition circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997 garnered only 1,559 signatures of scientists.

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.show/CT/PW/k/737

Just to be clear, what do you favor? Free market? Let builders do as they please. Or something else?

I would favor free market. Just let the builders do as they please and our children will have a good environment. Otherwise, they will only have an environment that we thought they would like.

Ok Peter, so they know more at bibletools than at the UK Met Office

Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that…

Sure. Just keep in mind that "global warming" is a powerful political tool, especially in foreign affairs.

Glad I didn’t do any shorting. The market roaring today.

Same. I have almost finished entering the ticket. Glad I did not execute the trade.

Will this rally peter out to give us some shorting opportunities or is this the start of a new upward trend?

Something does not smell right. Expect a surprise soon.

As long as that is to septic/well code to protect water, building code to protect inhabitants, and some sort of zoning code I am for it.

Of course we need these guidelines. :)

And why did the Japanese leader with the cool hairdo seem way smarter than Bush today?

One word: sushi.

I'm at a loss to explain this as well. So had the Fed raised 50 bps we would have had twice the rally?

@Returning to Bay Area,

To clarify, I am a socially moderate-to-liberal, fiscally conservative Libertarian (with a small "l", I suppose). Meaning that I support limited government and maxmimum personal freedoms, and this includes free enterprise.

I do believe that a "level playing field" (maxmizing opportunity for everyone) is a good thing, but NOT imposing "equality" by dictat. I do see a benefit to a reasonable level of government regulations and public oversight to protect consumers from fraud/theft, the environment from excessive pollution, small businesses from being stomped on by large ones, etc.

As Randy H often points out, "free market" does not equal "zero regulation", and completely unregulated markets tend to evolve over time into monopolies and cartels, which is hardly a desirable outcome for consumer choice. But I do NOT see centrally planned economies as the "solution" to the tragedy of the commons. Unfortunately, many of the so-called "cures" to problems observed in capitalist markets, no matter how well intentioned, often end up being worse than the disease. This is what economists term "moral hazards", aka negative unintended consequences.

Urban Growth Boundaries (such as the one Portland has adopted) are a good example of this principle. UBLs tend to be exclusively supply-centric (focusing entirely on restricting new housing stock), while completely ignoring demand (population growth). As a result, they inevitably fail to produce the utopian results desired ("Urban Renewal", "Smart growth", etc.) but DO result in the price of housing going up significantly long-term --even in the absence of other factors, such as the Fed's recent liquidity bubble.

I think that a reasonable thought process into expansion would be to curtail growth unless it is population driven.

What "growth" isn't population-driven?

Essentially, we study current cities ratios of population size to geographical size, then place limits for the future that force similar patterns. I believe this is what Portland has been doing.

And who determines what constitutes the "correct" population density in a given region? And how are Portland City planners better at determining this than the free market (consumers)?

As the population rises, they move zoning restrictions outward by an amount determined by the amount of new land required to keep the population density the same.

Again, if higher population density is so great, why does government have to use UBLs for "force" this on consumers? Why shouldn't consumers get to choose whether they want high, medium or low density housing?