patrick.net

Bush's approval rating -->> 25%

Congress's approval rating -->> 10%

NADER/GONZALES '08

Jimbo Says:

> What caused the mortgage meltdown?
> Republican refusal to regulate the markets,
> plain and simple.

It is not that plain and simple…

There is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats these days and they will all (with a few exceptions) do what they need to do to get money and stay in office. Both parties were paid off by the banking and real estate lobby and did not regulate the markets.

P.S. I read something a while back about a super liberal that was big in to deficit spending and pouring tons of money in to programs to help recent immigrants, poor people and Africans with AIDS. The same article talked about a right winger that was a multi-millionaire who entertained rich business executives at her mansions in some of the most exclusive areas of the country while fighting to stop the workers at her restraint chain and vineyard from organizing. The article ended with the names of the liberal “George W. Bush” and the big business conservative “Nancy Pelosi”…

Or more accurately: Brazil, Argentina drop US dollar as intermediary in their bi-lateral trade.

If that gaming steps up: fake divorces, wllingly halting payments, asigning titles to family members, we will see a huge reposnse. For now, the FBI does not have the resources to pursue fraud. But $1.4t (the amount the Fed is dumping into this mess so far) can fund a lot of anti-fraud agents. And there are a TON of people who would just love to play tough love on their gamester neighbors.
I am recalling something Perma stated a while back. Since MOST peple refi homes as the price goes down, and since ALL refis are recourse (as opposed to nonrecourse) loans, a new fraud agency can start taking a lot of assets from a lot of people. So while Perma has never seen banks go after assets, yet, they will.
Play Peter Schiff's game at your peril.
The powers that be are rightly understanding the scope of fraud in the current debacle. If crushing fraud prevents this from getting worse, then crushing fraud we will have.

FAB,

I agree with Jimbo that it REALLY IS that plain and simple. Without the republicans having lawmaking and executive power for 20 of the last 28 years, this whole crisis would never have happened.

The whole argument that there is little difference between R and D these days, so you might as well vote R is just plain bogus.

I could agree that any republican might consider to vote against his own party because their own grand leader GWB ran up the biggest budget deficit in history. Now THAT is substantial, Some anecdote about a small local labor strife in San Franscisco non-withstanding.

Bao33,

"This dollar disaster was brought to you by, Super Liberal !!!, and his trusty sidekick, Greedy Bastard !!!”

Which one of these is George Bush? I have a hard time telling. Or maybe both of them are?

Bap33,

Why don't you instead worry about who some republican is sleeping with? For example Hanky Paulson? You sound like a bad repeater for Rush Limbaugh radio show.

Herb Moses was a director of something-or-other at FNM. He was not even a C-level executive. You are assigning way too much importance to him. Not that I am surprised. You have your blinders fastened on as usual.

But good luck with the lowball offer, I wish you well on that one.

"The whole argument that there is little difference between R and D these days, so you might as well vote R is just plain bogus."

Actually, I believe the argument is that there is no difference between R and D, so vote for Ron Paul :)

Duke,

I disagree with you on the fraud. Every step the banks have taken the last 9 years could pass as fraud in a court of law. I don't think they'll push it very hard in fear of a backfire.

Also, they are facing a PR crisis right now. There is palpable anger over the bailout, and in manifests in people's minds as the banker from Deal Or No Deal that fucked them over.

If they started pushing fraud on the people who are merely taking the routes legally available to them, they might start seeing angry mobs attacking their branches.

If the Fed and the Treasury really want banks to trade loans and credit with each other, is it not counterproductive to create ever new facilities for trading loans with government entities instead?

Just sayin'....

Fuzzy, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the Republicans, until they fix the election system.

I'm never going to buy into that bullshit argument, that by voting for my favorite candidate, I am in fact voting for someone else.

Especially when the 2 main candidates both believe the same thing. I could care less which one of them wins. I'm voting for who I want.

I applaud the Fed's decision to bail out CP with printing. This bailout effort probably helps out the J6Ps the most, because if the CP market is as locked up as it was, we ain't gonna get any payroll soon.

I know there are people arguing that only financial CP is locked up, but fear easily spreads. Unless you are rich and retired, a locked-up CP market is good for none. I would rather deal with inflation tax, which one can avert if properly positioned in investment, than seeing employment opportunities dry up.

My only complaint is Fed has been printing a bit too slow too late, they should just speed it up from now on and really get the helicopter going.

I was reading a number of economists views on alternate plans to the current TARP.
One struckme as particularly funny. An economist that teaches at Harvard stated that the best thing the governement could do would be to start making loans out of Fannie and Freddie at 5.25%. It would put a floor under housing, and bla blah blah.
I amost peed laughing.
I think this guy was formerly part of Carter or Clinton's panel on something or rather too.

Okay, Mr Harvard, here is a news flash. The days of how-mucha-month are over. Everyone now knows that buying today means you will lose your 20% down payment AND be stuck for a very long time since you will not be able to sell. Given the risk in the employment, taking on a house now is folly.
The only people who should be buying now are people with large reserves to weather pro-longed unemplyment and/or those that can handle the near-term loss and long-term malaise. And even then it should really only be done to get into those you-can-never-buy-here properties since waiting is still and obviousy the best buying policy.

Duke:
From that perspective, it's not the interest rate, it's the multiple of income, right? i.e. a median house should be 3.5 times the median income in the area, then 20% down, and terms as are appropriate to the economic climate (3% above inflation expectations)?

Although this now begs the questions of: 1) are median incomes going down or up over the next few year (inflation scenario says up, but slower than actual CPI, deflation says down, but how fast... yes?) and 2) How much are RE prices going to overshoot the bottom in any particular area?

And it is also a given that if you get it through the heads of the Hahvahd set that "it's the Price/Income ratio, Dummies!" then they'll want to wave a magic wand and raise everyone's income to support the current prices.

BTW, be aware that over in Cambridge and other Boston burbs, where Harvard Braniac Economists live and buy RE, the P/I ratio has been running 7 X to 10 X. At least. D'Oh!

MST (Boston)

Liberalism fails again.

Yep. Nazi Germany was ultra-liberal and it failed too. Liberalism and fascism share similar roots.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

Fuzzy, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the Republicans, until they fix the election system.

Yes. Ron Paul _is_ a Republican. Bush is not a true conservative.

Just do the math. Since the democrats have a majority among the incumbents, you are in effect voting Republican

I agree with FAB and Fuzzy, there is little difference between D and R. Both supported giving W the power to take us to war, both supported the recent bailouts, Clinton was the one who got NAFTA and GANT passed, and Rebublicans raised the min wage time before last. Both trip over themselves showing support for Israel. Neither party will tackle the immigration issue.

If incumbents are kicked out, that will send an unmistakable message to those who get elected in thier place, regardless of party. Even better if third party wins some seats.

I do not know why you are so enamored with Democrats. They overwhelmingly supported the bailout.

I guess it is fashionable to be democrats. But then it was fashionable to buy homes in 2005 too.

Yep, it's cool to be Democrat/Leftish. Always has been.

We Conservative/Libertarians know that when you put a $2T honey pot on the Potomac, it will atract all manner of creepy-crawly things, and it will also corrupt nearly any incumbent, just by simple human nature. The longer they're there, the more likely they are to fall prey to "everybody does it" with a brief case full of "contributions", and "you're such a powerful man." (Usually said to Teddy, Bill, Larry, Barney, et al from a kneeling position.)

The very few who aren't corrupted are hard to spot. "No" on the bailout is only one possible indicator, and that could simply be cowardice in the face of constituent fury. At least they're manipulable, but that goes both ways.

Throw the bums out. Right, Left, Center. Presidents one term (with the threat of a second?), House "members" maybe three, Senators maybe two, then out with the scoundrels. Which they will be, by that time. I feel a Constitutional Amendment coming on.

Liberals seek to change human nature.

Conservatives put human nature to work.

Whose work is futile?

Fuzzy, It is a free country, you can vote for whoever you care to vote for.

Just know that when you vote for a 3d party, you are really voting for someone else, and that someone else is quite often not the one you would otherwise have as your 2nd choice.

Can we at least agree that the election structure in the US is flawed, and should be fixed so that more than 2 parties could get represented?

MST Says:

> The very few who aren’t corrupted are hard to spot.
> “No” on the bailout is only one possible indicator

Voting does not tell you anything. Once the “Replubocrats” had the votes they needed to pass the bailout of the rich bankers they let a large number of people in both parties (who had a large number of voters back home against the bill) vote against it. If the “powers that be” needed the votes they could get just about everyone to vote they way they want…

MST,

The problems with "throwing the bums out" every 4 years is that you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Besides, those of our representatives that make it as far as an election for congress have long since been corrupted (or never will be). Throwing out the bums every 4 years just means that we have a bunch of amateur choirboys running the country. Not good.

Not directed at MST, but in general: (I don't know how many times I have brought this point up in the last 3 years, it must be a dozen)

The problem of corruption in congress is a STRUCTURAL one, it has to do with how our election system is organized. If we have >2 parties that are electable then the parties will have to compete and stand their ground on GUIDING PRINCIPLES, not on "ISSUES", or else people will vote for another party. But as long as there is only 2 parties that can win representatives there is nowhere else to go.

SP Says:
"but her explanation for the strong dollar was that due to massive amounts of deleveraging, notional “dollars” were getting destroyed, which creates upward pressure on the actual dollars that are in the system

notional dollars are only in the imaginational of investors. the only thing they can affect is investor perception. current destruction of notional dollars only underscores how inflated the US assets were. Its should put downward pressure on the confidence on US assets and on US as a country. I don't think thats the reason for strong dollar.I believe , US dollar is getting strong due to increase in financial instability in the world ( not just US).
Since most investors are US based , they are hoarding cash and bringing home the dollars from foreign lands and US financial markets as well.basically , dollars are getting pulled out of markets and put under the matress ( banks) which is causing a deflation.

Bottomline : money supply (floating) in the world markets (including US ) is shrinking at an alarming pace causing value of dollar going up.

I agree with OO that this is temporary. Fed will fill up the void by printing money like crazy and filling the void. dollar can only go down after that if there is some stability in the finacial market.

'The Fed chief's more gloomy assessment appeared to open the door wider to an interest rate cut on or before Oct. 28-29"

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081007/bernanke_economy.html

The problem of corruption in congress is a STRUCTURAL one, it has to do with how our election system is organized.

The problem of corruption in congress is a STRUCTURAL one, it has to do with the nature of human and power.

Peter P,

Bullcrap. Other countries have much less corrupt legislatures than the US, and the reason is that they have properly democratic election systems. I don't think it is because human nature is better in Europe.

Other countries have much less corrupt legislatures than the US, and the reason is that they have properly democratic election systems.

Other countries are much less powerful than the US.

Can you say that Russia and China are less corrupt and/or less scary than the US?

Europe is DOOMED.

Peter P,

What, now you are saying they are less powerful BECAUSE they have more democratic election systems?

That reveals very clearly where you stand on democracy.

they==many European countries.

They are less powerful because they regulate their markets too much.

And, they care too much about political correctness.

And, they have too much welfare.

And, they are too heavily taxed.

The common denominator in a democracy is the voter.
Voters get what they want. Pure demand and supply. Assuming demand and supply are not manipulated.
US is powerful because
1)Demand and supply is "least manipulated" compared to other countries (free speech, fear of presecution..etc)
2)Voter's have been given the right script by founding fathers on what to demand ( again relative to other countries).This includes individual liberty, free markets..etc

As soon as 1 and 2 are gone, US will go downthe tubes ( again compared to other nations )

Also, the right to property is the absolute foundation of a successful society. It should be codified as the most basic human right. Without regard to property rights, we are just animals.

Peter P, stop changing the subject. European countries are weaker because they are too democratic, yes or no?

SNMR,

That's the problem. In the US, voters do NOT get what they want,. They only have two choices, both easily corruptible.

There are scores of democracies in the world that work better and are freer than the US.

Other countries have much less corrupt legislatures than the US

Sorry. That's just really funny. Not that I defend the US Leg., but to suggest that, say, the Italian, or French, or Indian, or Brazilian, or you name it legislative bodies aren't corrupt is hilarious. Corruption comes in several forms, and one of the biggest forms is maintenance of the status quo ante for the party in power through purchasing their constituents with their own money. This is rife in modern democracies. We just have a relatively uncontrolled media which shows all our dirty laundry, and we have an enormous budget which means the problems become proportionately larger. BTW, those lovely, non-corrupt Eruo-legislators have been running a scam so they get paid $100ks for traveling to the EU Parliment. Google it.

If we have >2 parties that are electable then the parties will have to compete and stand their ground on GUIDING PRINCIPLES, not on “ISSUES”,

Yep, that has worked so well in those multi-party places like Italy since the war, which mostly hadn't kept a government going for more than a few months for the first 40 years after the War. Or Germany, where the ability to play those small "principled" (hah!) factions off against each other gave Hitler the Chancellorship. And how do you make this multiparty system happen? By Decree? You want a party? Start one. Then convince 30 million Americans to sign up, and you might get somewhere. Really, there's nobody stopping you.

Throwing out the bums every 4 years just means that we have a bunch of amateur choirboys running the country.

And God knows we're so much better off with the Professional Bloodsuckers than we would be with the Amateur Choirboys.

you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Observationally, after 4 years or so you are at a ratio of about 530 to 6 bathwater to baby. An entire congressional class of Amateur Choirboys may bring that up to 10%. "Choirboys," you see, suggests that they might be principled. Or you can keep your current gasbag pork barrel power broker, just like 98% of the rest of the country.

Justme,

Until we get that parlamentary system with a coalition based government, I say vote out anyone who voted for the bailout.

Democracy is the means, not the ends. Liberty is what we really want.

Europeans do not enjoy nearly the same level of liberty as Americans. That is the problem. They have a culture that stifles freedom. That is the problem.

Is that the result of being "too democratic?" I do not know.

(Wasn't it an European country that _voted_ Hitler into power?)

The Founding Fathers were brilliant. The Constitution protects the people not only from the tyranny of dictatorship but also from the tyranny of the majority.