patrick.net

I am astounded daily at the absolute cluelessness of folks on these matters.

It may not be "those folks" who are clueless. The gov right now may be working on ways to take the sting out of reckless debt. All at the expense of savers, of course. After all, who would have predicted the "tax rebates" and the lack of M3 data?

Save the Nation with Inflation

Pay the Chinese with Inflation ease

Cure the Mess with the Printing Press

Despite any such efforts, I hope Mish is correct and deflation vindicates savers and creates affordable housing for future generations.

Last year, 34 percent of borrowers said they used their home equity lines to pay off other [improvidently-acquired] debt and 29 percent used them for [pergranitile] home renovation, according to a survey of lenders by BenchMark Consulting International. Another 31 percent used them to pay for other things, such as medical bills, [unneccesarily-ostentatious] weddings or [unnecessarily lavish] vacations.

That story was missing a few details so I took it upon myself to add in a few details. Is this hubris? No, let me tell you what's hubris - a quote from the same story.

"I thought I was too smart to have something like this happen to me."

This is the first mention I've seen of this particular bailout plan. It would seem to have just enough common sense in it to pull through our political diligence process. For my money, I'd bet you this is what the first phase of our government bailout plan looks like. It's interesting and entertaining that our financial leadership is inviting anyone with "ideas" at this point also. Good stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/business/23housing.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

partial excerpt

The House Financial Services Committee is working on various options, including a government buyout. The Bush administration may be softening its hostility to a rescue as well. Top officials at the Treasury Department are hoping to meet with industry executives next week to discuss options, according to two executives.

“There are a lot of ideas out there,” said Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for President Bush, when asked at a White House press briefing on Friday about a possible buyout program. “There are many different ways in which we can address this problem and we continue to look at ways in which we can do that.”

Supporters contend that a government rescue could be the fastest and cleanest way to force banks and investors to book their losses from bad mortgages — a painful but essential first step toward stabilizing the housing market.

The government would buy the mortgages at their true current value, perhaps through an auction, at what would probably be a big discount from the original loan amount. The mortgage lenders, or the investors who bought mortgage-backed securities, would be free of the bad loans but would still have to book their losses.

If the government took control of the bad mortgages, supporters of a rescue contend, it could restructure the loans on terms that borrowers could meet, keep most of them from losing their homes and avoid an even more catastrophic plunge in housing prices.

“Every citizen has a dog in this hunt,” said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a community advocacy group that has developed its own mortgage buyout plan. “The cost of spending our way out of a recession is something that everybody would have to bear for a very long time.”

Mr. Taylor estimated the government might end up buying $80 billion to $100 billion in mortgages. But he said the government could recoup its money if it was able to buy the mortgages at a proper discount, repackage them and sell them on the open market.

Treasury officials confirmed that several senior officials invited Mr. Taylor to present his ideas to them on Feb. 15. Mr. Taylor said he had also received calls from officials at the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is part of the Treasury Department.

But even supporters acknowledge that a government rescue poses risks to taxpayers, who could be left holding a very expensive bag.

Ellen Seidman, a former director of the Office of Thrift Supervision and now a senior fellow at the moderate-to-liberal New America Foundation, said the government’s first challenge is to buy mortgages at their true current value. If the government overpaid or became caught by an even further decline in the market value of its mortgages, taxpayers would indeed be bailing out both the industry and imprudent home buyers.

“It’s not easy, but it’s not impossible,” Ms. Seidman said. “There are various auction mechanisms, both inside and outside government.”

A second challenge would be to start a program quickly enough to prevent the housing and credit markets from spiraling further downward. Industry executives and policy analysts said it would take too long to create an entirely new agency, as Bank of America suggested. But they expressed hope that the government could begin a program from inside an existing agency.

But even if the government did buy up millions of mortgages and force mortgage holders to take losses, the biggest problem could still lie ahead: deciding which struggling homeowners should receive breaks on their mortgages.

Government wont buy bad loans at discount - it will probably be at 100% of loan amount. Thats what a fannie refi is right? thus the increased limit allowing these big loans to be insured by taxpayer. Also fannie can buy 'old' loans from 1-2 years ago right?....I wonder what the criteria is....if they buy delinquent loans lookout below taxpayerss....

In other news Nader is running for president! I think he is the opposite of Ron Paul. If they shake hands they will combust like matter/anti-matter reaction.

When buying a home, be wary of `creampuffs’

A perfectly groomed home could be irresistible — but acting on emotion might be risky.

They were a couple in their early 30s, out for a day of house-hunting when they happened upon a ranch-style place they found irresistible — first for its lovely gardens and later for its exquisite interior furnishings.

”Coming up the walkway, they bought that house before setting foot inside,” recalls Sid Davis, the real estate broker who listed the property.

After more than 25 years of selling homes, Davis knows which upgrades most enhance the salability of a place. And in this case the owners, following his advice, used all the hot buttons that excite buyer interest.

”The man of the house was an electrician who was exceptionally handy and could make a house look really sharp. He did a superb job of painting inside and out. His wife, a nursery school teacher, used her amazing green thumb to nurture the flower beds and lawn. When they were ready to sell, the place oozed with curb appeal,” says Davis, author of Home Makeovers That Sell.

LOOK CHANGED

But the property proved a disappointing choice for the purchasers, a civil engineer and his homemaker wife.

”Like most people, they had neither the skills nor inclination to maintain the gorgeous gardens and perfect lawn,” Davis says. ‘Also, the worn furniture they hauled in from their apartment didn’t look nearly as good as the sellers’ furniture. After moving in, they were shocked that the house had lost a lot of its ‘wow’ feeling.”

Realtors refer to a home that’s perfectly groomed for sale as a ”creampuff.” They caution buyers against making a snap decision on such a property without further analysis. The risks of buying solely on emotion are that you’ll buy the wrong home, overpay or both.

Here are three tips for prospective homebuyers:

• Look for signs of ‘’staging.” In recent years, an increasing number of home sellers have begun hiring a ”home stager,” someone with a flair for making a property look enticing to potential buyers.

Staging, which typically includes the removal of excess furniture and the rearrangement of remaining items, is widely recommended as a savvy step for home sellers. But advocates for purchasers say they should be careful not to let good staging lure them into buying an unsuitable home.

TELLTALE SIGNS

Merrill Ottwein, a past president of the National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents, says there are several telltale signs buyers can use to determine if a property has been staged to evoke positive emotional reactions.

”Many times stagers move out much of the kind of furniture real families use — just to make the rooms seem larger than they really are,” he says. “For example, they’ll take out a sofa or loveseat from the living room and replace it with a small armchair.”

• Realize that many ”For Sale” properties are presented free of clutter.

Listing agents are at war with the kind of clutter people routinely accumulate — whether this involves mountains of shoes in a bedroom closet, dozens of bowling trophies in the den, or countertops crowded with gadgets. They know a cluttered home usually sells more slowly and for less money.

There’s nothing wrong with buying a home that’s been de-cluttered. But don’t let the clean, sleek quality of such a property dissuade you from your larger purpose of selecting a property that meets your family’s needs.

• Be realistic about your ability to maintain lush landscaping. First-time buyers, like the civil engineer and his homemaker wife, are the ones most easily swayed by blooming flower beds, carefully clipped bushes and well-pruned trees. That’s because most first-timers live in apartments with little greenery of their own. Novice buyers are also the least likely to appreciate the time demands that yard maintenance can make, according to Davis.

”Beautiful curb appeal is a high-effort endeavor, and few are willing or skilled enough to do all the work involved,” he says.

Of course, those who can’t uphold the standards of the property’s former owners can hire a landscaping firm to do the work. Still, he says anyone expecting to rely on a landscaping service should make sure they can afford it before buying a property with elaborate upkeep requirements.

”Call in a couple of landscapers for estimates on what they’d charge,” Davis says. “Then just assume this cost would be tacked on to your regular monthly house payment. If you can’t manage the upkeep costs on the property, you should back away.”

Ralph Nader is an Arab terrorist. He's the very opposite of Ru Paul.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319781/ Sorry HK, I didn't at first believe you until I looked it up myself.

Nader is the nadir of American politics.

Nader is massively massively powerful. Or was. He took Gore's 'ez win' and gave it to bush in 2000. My republican friends used to love him for that. As if Nadar was on GOP payroll. Imagine the alternate history we coulda woulda shoulda had!

I'm waiting for McCain to announce at a press conference that he's making a $100 contribution to the Nader campaign. ;)

off topic:
check out how Obama voted
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=40&go.x=13&go.y=13

Please notice the church he has attended for 20 years, the Trinity Church of Christ (Google), its pastor, Jeremiah Wright and the relationship to Louis Farrakhan. Is this even close to the man we want as the leader of the free world? In the “Capital Contacts”, the directory of our elected officials in D. C. there is a question asked of all elected officials; what is your religious denomination? Instead of stating his religious denomination; Mr. B lists his church “United Church of Christ”; food for thought

In other news Nader is running for president!

Excellent! :)

Again, congrats to President McCain.

Imagine the alternate history we coulda woulda shoulda had!

Gore would have put us through that Kyoto Protocol nonsense using convenient fiction.

How about McCain-Romney?

off topic: http://politicalnighttrain.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/is-farrakhan-influencing-obama-through-jeremiah-wright/
Obama ‘repudiates’ Farrakhan?Ed Lasky
The New York Sun is reporting that Barack Obama repudiated the views of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that were discussed in Richard Cohen’s Washington Post column. Cohen’s criticism regarding Obama’s ties to the Church and the Pastor that gave an award to Farrakhan were reaching a large audience that included potential Democrat voters who might be swayed to withdraw support from Obama. This statement by Obama is a political maneuver that should be given little credence. Obama is very actively involved in his church; he knew of this award long before Richard Cohen publicized its grant to Farrakhan. Furthermore, Pastor Wright has had a long relationship and alliance with Louis Farrakhan. Obama did not object to these ties between Pastor Wright and Farrakhan before; nor has Obama rejected the anti-Israel diatribes of Wright. Regardless, Obama adheres to a church and a minister that have long espoused positions inimical to the American-Israel relationship, let alone the trumpeting of black values and racial exclusiveness. This follows a pattern for Obama: he shows extreme loyalty to a church and pastor whose controversial views eventually become publicized. Then Obama “disappears” the Minister and Obama’s campaign (not Obama himself) issues a statement that Obama does not agree with everything that Wright espouses. He solicits and gains support from the controversial George Soros, a man whose anti-Israel passions and allegations regarding America’s Jewish community and Congress are well-known. When these ties become publicized, Obama’s campaign (not Obama himself) issues a statement that Obama does not agree with Soros on this topic. When Obama articulates anti-Israel positions in off-the cuff remarks, his campaign (not Obama himself-stop me if you have heard this before) issues clarifications that attempt to explain away the plain English import of Obama’s (the supreme orator) expressed views. In other words, Obama only disavows when it is politically opportune to do so. He seems to have never objected to these views before they become publicized and create a political firestorm because they belie his image of peace, compassion, unity. Obama is not a profile in courage and his disavowals are political pabulum.

DennisN,

I don't think Nader will be able to do any damage this time. Obama is the anti-Nader, in the sense that I think people who are susceptible to voting for Nader will vote for Obama this time. Of course Obama cannot ignore Nader and has to be vigilant about the threat.

If Clinton wins the nomination, things could go wrong for the Democrats with respect to Nader.

My take is that Hillary will fight dirty to get the delegates from MI and FL seated for her. Disaffected Dems will then vote Nader in protest.

DennisN,

I don't straight-thinking democrat will risk the chance of getting McCain as president, protest or not. The last 8 years have shown with total clarity the risks of having a war-hawk/republican in the white house, and people will vote to ensure it does not happen again.

Besides, on the very odd chance that Hillary gets the nomination, I would wager that Obama will get behind her and talk the Nader swing/protest voters down from the ledge, so to speak. That would require real statesmanship on Obama's part, but if anyone has got it, it is him.

Corerection:

I don't THINK straight-thinking democrats ....

If the government took control of the bad mortgages, supporters of a rescue contend, it could restructure the loans on terms that borrowers could meet, keep most of them from losing their homes and avoid an even more catastrophic plunge in housing prices.

A further plunge in house prices is what is needed. Where was the demand for policies to prevent rapid price increases when the bubble was inflating? Now that we are on the back side of the bubble, I hear the politicos and newspaper columnist claim that the problem we must butts to fix is falling house prices.

>> Again, congrats to President McCain.

I am voting for him. I can not imagine voting for Democrats (supporters of Illegal Immigration and massive bailout)

I will be voting for McCain because he will screw up the US further much faster. I also like a Republican in the seat when all the shit hits the fan so that Bush will have no one else to blame for all the great setup job he did.

I'd like to see this country crash hard FAST, and then we can bounce back faster from the bottom. I hate slow motion landing that takes years, I like crash landing.

With a war-hungry, Alzheimer patient-to-be in charge, a crash landing is sealed. It will be more interesting to watch who will run in 4 years, because whoever is gonna be in white house from 2008-2012 will certainly be an one-term President.

So I am voting for McCain, but for a set of entirely different reasons.

Hi OO,
I have to say that I hate the concept of trying to plunge this country into complete chaos for our amusement but then on the other hand, the rampant stupidity that seems to be escalating is so discouraging that I have to end up agreeing with you.
I'm going to vote for Obama simply because I like the chance to at least be part of a very progressive step in history. Who wants to tell their kids one day that they voted against the first black President? Apart from that, I don't really give a crap. The current disaster is on the verge of exceeding our worst expectations. I don't even know if I care about that, but now people I know and somewhat care about are starting to get hurt in all of this chaos. I'm still really pissed off about how the bank bailout is being marketed as a consumer assistance plan.

Malcolm,

I don't think anyone short of FDR has a chance of fixing the problem, but even FDR needed a Hoover to f*ck it up further so that he could rally all the country behind his "new deal" to wipe out all stupidity.

I am doing Obama a favor for noting voting him into office when things are CERTAIN to go very very bad in the next 4 years. He doesn't want to go down in history as the first black President who screwed things up.

The best person to be put in office is an idiot that we don't care about, because he will become a scapegoat. I dislike McCain, and I'd like to see him go down in history as the President who STARTED the Great Depression Episode II.

Credit and lending is about to finally seriously contract.
Here, here NoVARenter! I don't mean to table pound on this point as I already mentioned it last week, but I really think this is what's going on behind the scenes of the HELOC freeze. From Socketsite, via Julian Hebron at RPM Mortgage:
Be advised that most banks and lenders nationwide have begun freezing Home Equity Line of Credit 2nd mortgages. Even borrowers with significant equity and perfect credit have been receiving HELOC freeze letters. In many cases, it's not about borrower creditworthiness but rather the institutions shoring up their balance sheets. The banks need for open lines of credit are significant, and with mass losses reported by nearly all major financial institutions over the past 2 quarters, the strategy to freeze HELOCs is a quick way for them to gain some footing.

Take two! From Socketsite, via Julian Hebron at RPM Mortgage:
Be advised that most banks and lenders nationwide have begun freezing Home Equity Line of Credit 2nd mortgages. Even borrowers with significant equity and perfect credit have been receiving HELOC freeze letters. In many cases, it's not about borrower creditworthiness but rather the institutions shoring up their balance sheets. The reserve requirements banks need for open lines of credit are significant, and with mass losses reported by nearly all major financial institutions over the past 2 quarters, the strategy to freeze HELOCs is a quick way for them to gain some footing.

EBGuy,

Do you know where I can dig up the balance sheet of Federal Reserve? Hopefully historical B/S info too. I can't locate this info on the internet.

I wonder how powerful a voice the blog communities might be in organizing an effort to influence any bailout plan.

I'm having serious issue with talk of the government buying up below market mortgage debt and subsequently forgiving loanowners balance above a new "current" market value. NY Times is reporting this is what countrywide BOA is after. Keeps people paying mortgages and keeps them in houses. Prevents mass upsidedown jinglemail. Puts a serious brake on declining values.

Wow, talk about moral hazard. This would truly make the savers and responsible spenders the chumps. No, I'm really not happy about this proposal at all.

I don't believe we are going to make it to the election before it hits the fan in a very noticeable way. IMHO whoever is sitting in the oval office will have zero ability to influence the velocity of the fall in any way that is beyond trivial and temporary. It’s really a matter of the timing of massive inflationary policy, this is the only uncertainty.

The deflationistas are smoking crack. Just this past week, my favorite unrecognized secret Mexican restaurant raised its pricing 10%, my cheap haircuts rose from $17 to $24, my dry cleaner raised shirts from $0.99 to $1.49, and my private monthly trash service raised from $30 to $38 monthly. This is not trivial, nor isolated. Those who are able to raise prices are doing so.

Maybe votes should go to the candidate who has the best skills at coalition building and whose values speak to the greater good. The misery will be so deep that it will be a term where substantive change has an opportunity to occur. Who will be the most effective at bringing bipartisanship policy together? Hillary? Yikes.

I hate the big spending republicans BUT - I like the theory that you should have a diffrent party in congress vs white house so that you get as little done as possible - Government Gridlock = awsome.

Look at all the bailouts, Obama/Hillary will sign all of them and think up new ones. I do not hear McAmnesty thinking up ways to reflate house prices. He is too busy re-fighting Vietnam war.

oh what horrifying choices we have. and I dont believe the Dems will pull outta Iraq either - they are real quiet about what to do there huh. They must be glad the economy sux so they can talk about that and not iraq.

Sure Joe Lents is a sleazebag. At least the SEC thinks so? After they froze his assets, he couldn't continue to make the payments (but stuck around anyway)

So now we have a hangover from the LAST bubble (CEO of voice rec. s/w firm) bleeding over into the CURRENT bubble! That is just... too much.

Whom exactly are we supposed to be cheering for here? WaMu is as f@cked up as the day is long, obviously they couldn't be bothered to check on critical doc's and Joe is only too willing to take advantage of the situation. (Notice the process started in 2002!)

NVR,

>>The deflationistas are smoking crack.

Of course you know this already, but it is worth pointing out that the deflation scarecrows are not worried about consumer price deflation, they only care about ASSET DEFLATION, including real property, stocks, bonds and other investables (new word analogous to consumables). So when they whine about deflation they conveniently ignored food prices.

Asset deflation is bad for the wealthy. Given the choice between asset DEflation and consumer INflation, they will choose the latter if at all possible.

Inflation/Deflation is relative. People spend too much time worrying about the cost of a gallon of gas or a tomato when they should be more worried about things that really make an impact like taxes, interest, and housing. For the most part, the rest to me seem pretty insignificant.

Permarenter,

I ask you please to reconsider your view of democrats as being sloppy on immigration. They are not. It is the (republican) establishment that wants cheap labor. They allow illegal immigrants to take jobs without imposing citizenship checks on the employers, and that is the real problem of unchecked immigration. No jobs, no immigration.

You don't seriously think McCain is going to put all the illegal immigrants in a lockbox(TM) and ship them back out, do you?

Immigration is being used by the Republicans to create a false "wedge issue", designed to make people who feel passionately about immigration reform to vote Republican at any cost. This is how they "won" the 2000 and 2004 elections, by setting up strawmen (abortion, generic holiness, national security, gay marriage) that they would claim only they could knock down. And with good help from the media, they made enough people believe it that in they end they were close enough to 50% to steal the election. Please do not let this happen again.

Malcolm,

Agreed, it is not going to kill me if gas is $6 per gallon, in fact I think it may be a good idea. But for the poorest 25% it is going to be a tremendous hardship.

I hate to sound like the media with their generic "both parties are equally guilty" in depth analysis, but on illegal immigration issue it is hard to say one party is more hypocritical than the other. Republicans are influenced by the cheap labor and further disgust me because on top of that they then turn around when it is convenient and say "these people are here illegally. They are not entitled to workers comp or disability, or fair labor laws.....etc." They then straddle the fence and court the hispanic voting block.
Democrats just seem to overtly court the same voting block and seem to go out of their way to attract these people with their constant expansion of entitlements. Then claim it is an invasion of privacy for someone to prove they are here legally in order to qualify for assistance. Worse yet, I believe they know these people actually illegally vote for them so they actually have an interest in preserving these identity thieves' presence. They are the masters of the double talk with their "no amnesty" pitch, and then all the proposals avoid the full deportation of illegal aliens. Their political correctness has even forced the media to no longer even use the term illegal aliens.

Justme,

On target post sir and agreed, and no I had not thought of framing it based on wealth class status. Yes sound understanding of the action of the specific classes, but interesting to frame all the noise in that manner. Makes absolute sense.

What is actually being "destroyed" is not so much wealth or money which never existed, but rather liquidity. There was a thread here recently about wealth destruction that I didn't entirely follow. IMHO, what is happening is simply a destruction of liquidity in certain asset classes, like bonds and housing. Stocks soon to follow.

@Malcolm

I think I disagree, though not entirely sure of your argument. If you mean that inflation deflation affects different wealth classes in different areas, this speaks directly to justme's point. For those with the "fat" housing assets, sure deflation might be a big factor. And for those at the lower rungs, which is vast majority of American's btw, the food inflation that is occurring is a HUGE deal.

I highly recommend this piece on front page NY Times today; we are exporting inflation in a massive way right now leading to significant run on effects all over the world. The article shows how we are effectively hollowing out the middle class in the Middle East right now, folks are struggling to afford food. This has the potential of becoming very destabilizing, obviously. Scary. And a nice illustration of the downside of inflation.

http://tinyurl.com/yo2o5f

It still seems relative to me because the price of gas going up makes the price of gas guzzlers (For some reason poor people love driving them which is part of the stupidity which makes them poor) go down. If they were smart, they would fix their credit, trade that piece of shit in and lease a Prius for $300/month. The net savings in gas means that you drive a pretty kick ass new car for under $200 per month (present gas dollars). Talk about deflation. When you invest in yourself like that, it them becomes fun to sit back and watch prices spike knowing that as they do, your investment is paying you back even more than you signed up for.

Not saying classes, although classes react differently to changes. I'm saying sure food and some stuff might go up, but then a laptop is cheaper now. Percentage wise, if housing drops 10% in cost (owning or renting) the proportions make it so that everyone is basically richer. I'm looking at it from the buyer's persepective, not someone who is losing value on an asset. Right? That's the measure of inflation, what things costs to buy. Admittedly, it is dynamic so no matter what happens you have winners and losers.

Just glanced over the article and it's been a long held reocurring view that a declining dollar will hurt people overseas who have dollars. It is perfectly logical. In a way we enjoy the best of both worlds by the phenomenon because if you tie that to what I'm saying, domestically your dollar buys more here (net average) but to the oil sheik who has a mountain of cash; internationally he becomes poorer because his pile of dollars is worth less than it was before.

recurring~

Maybe what I'm saying is that a dollar has different value to different people here and abroad. If you're a buyer in the market for a house, your dollar is getting more valuable. If you bought gold when gold was cheap, you did even better because now you can cash in and get more dollars that are even house stronger than before. For someone barely scraping by who doesn't do anything other than work to live their dollar is weaker when they go to fill the gas tank.