patrick.net

Margin calls.

Yen shot up really high overnight.

BTW, Duke:

Don't know if I mentioned it here before, but we have a friend in Monaco who has been watching the Russians coming there for the last few years each with suitcases and steamer trunks full of cold hard cash -- billions. They buy a mega yacht apiece, and have a new twelve-year-old virgin delivered every night.

"Capital Flight" indeed

MST,

>>I would be truly interested in seeing an example or two of your
ever-changing-coalition multiparty system that lasted more than an
election cycle. (or even a year.)

Ok, You moved the goalpost again by changing what you asked to be proved,
but this time I will indulge you because the data is very easy to find:

http://rulers.org

Some excerpts that ought to satisfy you:

Federal Republic of Germany:

Presidents
7 Sep 1949 - 12 Sep 1949 Karl Arnold (acting) CDU (b. 1901 - d. 1958)
12 Sep 1949 - 12 Sep 1959 Theodor Heuss FDP (b. 1884 - d. 1963)
13 Sep 1959 - 30 Jun 1969 Heinrich Lübke CDU (b. 1894 - d. 1972)
1 Jul 1969 - 30 Jun 1974 Gustav Heinemann SPD (b. 1899 - d. 1976)
1 Jul 1974 - 30 Jun 1979 Walter Scheel FDP (b. 1919)
1 Jul 1979 - 30 Jun 1984 Karl Carstens CDU (b. 1914 - d. 1992)
1 Jul 1984 - 30 Jun 1994 Richard von Weizsäcker CDU (b. 1920)
1 Jul 1994 - 30 Jun 1999 Roman Herzog CDU (b. 1934)
1 Jul 1999 - 30 Jun 2004 Johannes Rau SPD (b. 1931 - d. 2006)
1 Jul 2004 - Horst Köhler CDU (b. 1943)
Chancellors
16 Sep 1949 - 16 Oct 1963 Konrad Adenauer CDU (b. 1876 - d. 1967)
16 Oct 1963 - 1 Dec 1966 Ludwig Erhard CDU (b. 1897 - d. 1977)
1 Dec 1966 - 21 Oct 1969 Kurt Georg Kiesinger CDU (b. 1904 - d. 1988)
21 Oct 1969 - 7 May 1974 Willy Brandt SPD (b. 1913 - d. 1992)
7 May 1974 - 16 May 1974 Walter Scheel (acting) FDP (s.a.)
16 May 1974 - 1 Oct 1982 Helmut Schmidt SPD (b. 1918)
1 Oct 1982 - 27 Oct 1998 Helmut Kohl CDU (b. 1930)
27 Oct 1998 - 22 Nov 2005 Gerhard Schröder SPD (b. 1944)
22 Nov 2005 - Angela Merkel (f) CDU (b. 1954)

Netherlands, Prime Minister

24 Jun 1945 - 3 Jul 1946 Willem Schermerhorn VDB;
9 Feb 1946: PvdA (b. 1894 - d. 1977)
3 Jul 1946 - 7 Aug 1948 Louis Beel (1st time) KVP (b. 1902 - d. 1977)
7 Aug 1948 - 22 Dec 1958 Willem Drees PvdA (b. 1886 - d. 1988)
22 Dec 1958 - 19 May 1959 Louis Beel (2nd time) KVP (s.a.)
19 May 1959 - 24 Jul 1963 Jan Eduard de Quay KVP (b. 1901 - d. 1985)
24 Jul 1963 - 14 Apr 1965 Victor Marijnen KVP (b. 1917 - d. 1975)
14 Apr 1965 - 22 Nov 1966 Jo Cals KVP (b. 1914 - d. 1971)
22 Nov 1966 - 5 Apr 1967 Jelle Zijlstra ARP (b. 1918 - d. 2001)
5 Apr 1967 - 6 Jul 1971 Piet de Jong KVP (b. 1915)
6 Jul 1971 - 11 May 1973 Barend Biesheuvel ARP (b. 1920 - d. 2001)
11 May 1973 - 19 Dec 1977 Joop den Uyl PvdA (b. 1919 - d. 1987)
19 Dec 1977 - 4 Nov 1982 Andreas van Agt KVP;
11 Oct 1980: CDA (b. 1931)
4 Nov 1982 - 22 Aug 1994 Ruud Lubbers CDA (b. 1939)
22 Aug 1994 - 22 Jul 2002 Wim Kok PvdA (b. 1938)
22 Jul 2002 - Jan Peter Balkenende CDA (b. 1956)

I could post a whole slew more of these, but you get the idea. Go to the
site yourself and look the countries up. Start with Germany, France,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, Netherlands etc etc.

So you agree with me now? Yes or no?

MST,

>>I would be very interested in knowing what your criteria are for judging one governmental system “better” than another.

Very simple: A structure of government is superior well IF

1. Each law enacted or rejected is the most likely to have a majority of voters supporting the decision made.

2. That the executive branch cannot easily perform unilateral actions that are against the will of the majority of the people.

Can we agree on the criteria?

MST,

>>Europeans were able to move quickly because a great deal more power is vested in their President’s/Chancellor’s/PM’s hands than in the US President’s.

This is also false. Most any European PM or equivalent has LESS intrinsic power than POTUS. However, when they have the support of the legislature, on a case-by-case baisis, they can indeed act swiftly and decisively.

MST,

>>“Mini-party” is not meant to be perjorative: simply a way of talking about parties that fall below the, say, 25% threshold of stated support. Most times these days, neither Republican nor Democrat self-identification rises much beyond 35% in the US.

I hardly think that a party with support from 25% of the voter is a mini-party. 25% is a very significant number. The fact us parties can only get 35%2=-70% of the electorate to vote is simply a further indication that the election system is deply flawed.

If so, I wonder where they put the cash? Not gold, it seems.
Oh, you just couldn't resist... Hedge fund selling... Margin calls I tell ya... Hey, look, its up for the day :-)
For the record, my PM disaster portfolio is still ahead of my mutual fund portfolio -- which really isn't saying much. When they cross, I will admit defeat and sell.
I think StuckInBA got it right... lost decade. I probably would have fared better with a coffee can full of cash buried in the back yard.

>>Proportional representation, eh? And that is better why? Because that is the only way your out-of-the-mainstream views could possibly get into Congress perhaps?

As I explained above in the "what are the criteria for a good structure of government", Democracy is about maximimizing the likelihood that each law passed has the support of the majority of the people.

If you cannot get elected unless you can get 50% of the voters, then the test fails.

>>Proportional representation, eh? And that is better why? Because that is the only way your out-of-the-mainstream views could possibly get into Congress perhaps?

I also find it troubling that you want to exclude all minority views.

I also find it troubling that you want to exclude all dismiss minority views. Each party will have many minority views. Toegther the parties will form majorities to pass or reject each law. This is a fundamentally good way to govern.

Duke,

Agree Russia debacle is a big worry from a world economic standpoint. The leadership is much too intelligent to start a war over this, but they may squeeze energy prices to recover, especially the captive audience along the gas pipelines.

I think gold PM will do well. But not until the deleveraging is about complete. At that point we are going to look at the super scary debts of the 'rich' world and the inflation race will be on. Gold PM will hold its own as a store of value in that environment. For now, gold is being treated as any other commoditiy, subject to demand destruction of price.
How long will that be? I would say the triggering event for a serious rise in gold will be a significant failure of a Treasury auction. As long as the US succeeds in funding its debt the world is voting that it has confidence we can and will pay off that debt.
But wow. All of the rules are being rewritten. The arguments against the gold standard made sense when we abonded it. Why limit growth to how fast we can pull a good conductor out of the ground? Why do nations rich in other resources have to lose transaction fees to buy a monetary base only becasue their dirt does not have enough gold? Etc.
If Sarcozy success in a new financial world order, gold could go really sour.
Who the heck knows at this point?

I would say the triggering event for a serious rise in gold will be a significant failure of a Treasury auction.
Since we are on this topic, the Treasury shoveled $30 billion into the Fed last week.

Yea - Russia has already cut gas to the Ukraine, but it isn't tipping them into buying - its making them move for the winter.
Fast tracking nuclear power is interesting. In theory it s something GE could do really well. But Immelt is such an idiot I see the French reactors being sold around the world. It will be intersting to see if Canada and Australia (almost 50% or world production) can supply enough uranium to power Eastern Europe.
Of course, eastern Europe would need to change over o electrical heating. . .
Sigh.

PM = Physical Money ?

Sorry - to me PM means Physical Metal. I am probably wrong. I am trying to state that stock in gold, or certificates of claims on gold are not worthwhile in a gold as reborn reserve currency.

Back to housing.

Here are some risks as I see them:
1. It seems increasingly likely that the governement may have to do away with the Mortgage Interest Deduction. If we are chosing to learn from this mess anyways.
2. Cities may be voting fairly large new property tax special fund items if the State of CA has to go on an austerity budget. Fudning Fire/Police/Schools may all become local tax issues.
3. Interest rates are up, and at the rate we are spending money on bailouts, rates can noly go up further. While this means you can get a decent rate today (by historical standards, not recent stadards), it means you lose value on your house later as you will be selling into a high mortgage rate future.
4. Housing is likely to go down further in CA. In many places, a good deal further. The macro econmic scene looks like a prolonged stagnant economy. Buying today means going upside down and then having to wait forever to get out of your house.
5. In a shrinking business world, might not some companies try to stay alive by shrinking costs, by doing things like moving to lower cost areas?
6. Will wages hold up in the face of growing unemplyment and verifiable deflation?

I think this Blog, at its core, is about risk.
People here felt that those who were buying at the incredible prices over the bubble years were mispricing risk. Since many here would not tolerate that risk it left them on the sidelines. Now, as people finally being to pay for their misunderstanding of risk, old factors are once again being considered.
1. Ability to sell if the need arises.
2. Job prospects.
3. Cash reserves to face dislocations.

Once the rest of the market prices risk the way Patrick readers have priced risk, I think many heer will breath a big sigh of relief.

justme:

We're probably boring these people silly.

First:

I actually was talking about your earlier terms which I try to paraphrase here: during any particular prime ministership, show me a situation where the various party alliances (may) change constantly on *each* vote. I think that's your thesis. Instead you give me a list of German Chancellors (Grm. Presidents are ceremonial) that flip back and forth between the CDU and SPD. Center-right, center-left, otherwise to be seen as republicans and democrats. And the Netherlands? Christian Democrats vs. Social Democrats. The names change (quite regularly), the basis of the parties remain. Might as well mention that Walter Mondale was VP of the US and belonged to the MDFLP.

As always in parliamentarian systems, The ruling coalition Vs. The opposition. When the ruling coalition breaks over an issue, the government comes down. See Italy.

Point not conceded, as you haven't demonstrated *your* thesis, (and I *am* trying to understand it.) By all means, rephrase so you can answer whatever question you want to.

MST,

>>I actually was talking about your earlier terms which I try to paraphrase here: during any particular prime ministership. (ETC).

You were "actually" talking about something else than what you were writing about?
Well, I think it is time that YOU do some work now. The burden of evidence is not just mine. How about you PROVE some of your assertions now?

You keep changing the criteria.

And you should answer my question: Do you agree with my criteria for what constitutes good governmental structure or not?

I will contemplate answering more of your questions after you answer some of mine.

justme, why don't we come back in ten years and do a Europe vs US comparison.

Facts speak for themselves. A successful system IS the perfect system.

JM:
Very simple: A structure of government is superior well IF

Can we agree on the criteria?

Nope. 1) A majority of voters can agree to robbing the minority and giving it to the Maj. They often have in democracies. or: A (large) majority of voters was in favor of the Iraq War when voted on. So by your criteria, that would be good government?

2) In (most) parliamentary systems, the executive (PM) is also legislative, holds all the ministerial offices, i.e. has all the functions of the US President, plus runs the Legislative. That's more. I have been against the imperial presidency, and it is one of the bad results of the cold war and FDR.

My definition? A government that is based on the idea that the people hold all rights (down to the smallest minority of 1) and that it (the gov.) is not the answer to everything. A government that knows that individuals are flawed, human nature-wise, and so limits their power *within that government* regardless of party or position or majority status. A government that *protects the rights of the minority.* because, God knows, you may be one sooner than you think. Therefore, a government that most often thwarts the will of the majority in its day-to-day passions is more what I'm looking for.

Can we agree to that? Nah, I didn't think so.

Now, I'll save these people any more of this: I'm going to meet my wife now. have a good weekend, everybody.

A structure of government is superior if the GDP of that country is the highest.

A government that knows that individuals are flawed, human nature-wise, and so limits their power *within that government* regardless of party or position or majority status.

Exactly. The government is one of the few things that require strong regulations.

Peter,
What about GDH (gross domestic happiness)?

What about GDH (gross domestic happiness)?

For that, we go to Bhutan. :)

Incentives to prop up demand!!!

>Maybe if we spread this idea it can get to somebody that can implement it.

>It is based on a successful implementation that they did in the 70’s.

>This deleveraging problem has three fundamental issues:

>The market has recognized that energy production and other essential materials are not going to be in expanding supply. Therefore the model for economic expansion is not going to be sustainable anymore. America will have to think about sharing the resources of the planet or follow the path of war and self destruction. The new focus has to be in sustainability.

>In USA the baby boomer generation is starting to retire and the following X and Y generation don’t have the capital to buy the asset that the previous generation has amassed. There is a generational shift happening.

>Credit creation and management has been the focus on this economy, credit has been our main product and a big part of the problem.

>So, to stabilize the markets there has to be a focus on the assets the system is based on (housing).

>Government has a key roll in propping up demand, but at the same time let some of the natural correction to continue.

>Create a tax incentive to new home buyers (Between $10,000 to $25,000) depending of the value of the home.

>Support a mortgage plan backed by the government (Fannie and Freddy). 30 yr. fixed only!! with 4% to 5% annual interest rate.

And some of the restrictions should be:

>Buyers will need a 10% to 20% down. And the more you put down the more you can move the interest rate.

>For the incentive to work the buyer should not be able to sell the house in three years.

>And finally it should have a cap in the mortgaged amount of 5 times the amount of gross income. Use tax return in 2007 for proof.

>Now, for the stock market, we should move the cap for the ROTH IRA accounts and 401K to double what they are.

MST,

>>Therefore, a government that most often thwarts the will of the majority in its day-to-day passions is more what I’m looking for.

In my book, this is an ANTI-democratic government. Basically, it is a government that is based on a constitution (handed down from some mythical figures, revolutionaries or otherwise), and whose purpose is mainly to avoid changing.

Now that we have established that you are in fact an ANTI-democrat, it is perhaps not so surprising that you are against forms of government that are most likely to enact the true will of the people. I think we need to discuss no further.

George Orwell would be proud of you, he could not have created a better parody of the concept of Democracy himself.

Something you can think about over the weekend. Happy thoughts.

In my book, this is an ANTI-democratic government.

So what? That is your book. You love for fundamentalist democracy exceeds mine for free market conservatism.

>>Facts speak for themselves. A successful system IS the perfect system.

Until reality sets in. Those pesky Romans again. And the Nazis. And the Soviets. And Khmer Rouge. And South Africa., And the British Empire. And on and on and on.

>>So what?

So nothing, if you are feudal totalitarian to begin with.

I don't know... Americans have more iPods than Europeans. That is something, isn't it. ;)

"Fundamentalist democracy"

You gotta love it,.

It would have been so much easier if MST and Peter P just came out right away and acknowledged that they are against democracy in the first place.

Then everyone could just ignore them when they would state that one system is more democratic than the other, since one would know that the truth was exactly the opposite of what they say.

Peter P, you just declared intellectual bankruptcy. I'm not going to bail you out.

I fully support democracy as the best system to protect individual liberty. That said, democracy is the means, not the ends.

LOL!

Two party / multi -party discussion make good tea time conversations.
The discussion has very little to do with current crisis unless you guys can prove that multi-party system can magically eliminate the influence of the the Rich&powerful on US politics.
A system which can prevent the powerful from gaming the system is an elusive one.

Rafael,

Why should government "prop up demand" for housing?

Why should home buyers get a tax credit (especially a large tax credit) over renters?

Why should government back up and subsidize mortgages?

A system which can prevent the powerful from gaming the system is an elusive one.

Absolutely. Any power in the human world eventually corrupts.

Propping up demand for housing will bring some trust back to the system.
And trust will eventually put a stop to the deleveraging cycle.

There are people in the sidelines that can be convinced to jump in the water.
Something has to be done in housing, and bailing out existing home owners is much more difficult.

If we cap the mortgages to 5 times the amount of gross income we make sure that new owners can sustain the debt.

Why do you want to put a end to the deleveraging cycle?

Mal-investments must be purged.

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.... That will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."

Andrew Mellon

Happy bank failure Friday!

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/alpha.html

What is it about Alpharetta, GA???

snmr,

>>A system which can prevent the powerful from gaming the system is an elusive one.

That is the overall idea of democracy, at least for those who support it,.

That is the overall idea of democracy, at least for those who support it,.

Is an idea still an idea if it is infeasible?

I am still for democracy. It just need supervision and regulation.