tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.comments2023-10-30T08:55:00.064-04:00Kodiak PyramidDK Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15803726073588442881noreply@blogger.comBlogger361125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-50715980647890218802009-07-29T11:45:47.999-04:002009-07-29T11:45:47.999-04:00Need an extra $100,000? Oh, but keep in mind that...Need an extra <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105271" rel="nofollow">$100,000</a>? Oh, but keep in mind that no conventional birth records or newspaper references will satisfy the guy issuing the challenge; you will need to produce an eyewitness and compelling forensic evidence that B. Hussein was born in that Honolulu hospital. Because otherwise, all signs point to Mombasa. You know. Step-grandmother and all that.LPJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09345642655775072297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-52363563727284368122009-07-23T06:44:14.471-04:002009-07-23T06:44:14.471-04:00Give Goldman credit. They are smart. Loot the Tre...Give Goldman credit. They are smart. Loot the Treasury to the tune of $11B through the AIG conduit. Loot it some more by getting the U.S. government to guarantee your debt for free. Then overpay by about $500M to buy back your warrants. A great trade. It would make the Gambino family proud.GammaBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724627174828507827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-33013262916372061562009-05-05T07:59:00.000-04:002009-05-05T07:59:00.000-04:00Gams, you know I love you, but I have to admit I a...Gams, you know I love you, but I have to admit I am sure that the conversation beginnning with "Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with" happened. I am sure it did. I also do love 'Pubs finding themselves shocked at this kind of rhetoric coming out of the White House. Very un-ladylike. The difference between this White House and the last is not in the tone or the tenor but in the counter-party and the issue. Bush & Co twised arms as well as LBJ and probably Geo. Washington. This is not new. The Prima Ballerina is a tough SOB and the people he is turning the screws on for the reason which said screws are being turned, for me, simply don't elicit any kind of "oh dear" response.<br /><br />Fascism? Come on. Really. Bondholders rights v. everyone's freedom to have a phone conversation not listened to by the NSA. Or have thier library card (quaint) be reviewed?<br /><br />If we are a fascist state we have Cheney and Rummy to thank via W. <br /><br />I think contract law is very important and I don't think, in normal circumstances, that bondholders should have to take a haircut. Liquidate the company normally and let everyone queue up for their share. Notwithstanding, we are not in Kansas anymore. sweetheart, and things are going to get a bit yucky down in the trenches.Restless Nativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02706411308856326216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-41875247320220292332009-04-13T19:35:00.000-04:002009-04-13T19:35:00.000-04:00Maybe I'm out of touch, but what was Obama's "erro...Maybe I'm out of touch, but what was Obama's "error." He shouldn't have bowed? Has it really come to that? JC on a popsicle stick, I laughed when Bush kissed the Saudi king, but I didn't really care, and I disliked Bush...its a sign of respect and/or friendship from a needed ally (who may or may not be a great ally depending upon your view, but is a much needed one). <br /><br />The bow/kiss is diplomacy 101; should he have punched him in the face to show we are tough and can't be pushed around?<br /><br /> Oh yeah, and don't forget, we are the Saudi's bitch, and with their oil, they could have probably have gotten a BJ from Cheney, so from a reality standpoint, its certainly not an error to these guys as equals. Is that what galls us; what if he bowed to the Kenyan leader, would we really care?<br /><br />I so don't get this that I think I missed something...(I've been a bit tied up with kids' illnesses), but someone post to let me know what the 'error' is....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-68937598963570197872009-04-13T10:59:00.000-04:002009-04-13T10:59:00.000-04:00Incidentally, Aztec, I 100% agree with you on the ...Incidentally, Aztec, I 100% agree with you on the unfairness of the 15% cap gains rates for hedge funds. I would love to see that eliminated, as it is ridiculous for one type of money manager to be taxed at one rate and an "elite" hedge fund manager to pay a lower rate.<BR/><BR/>But unlike you I don't think you can fix the tax code. As soon you close one loophole, lobbyists will spend whatever money is necessary to drill another dozen. As long as money buys influence, the true rich will never feel much of a tax bite.GammaBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724627174828507827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-78153540293807887982009-04-12T23:57:00.000-04:002009-04-12T23:57:00.000-04:00I really shouldn't pour fuel on this fire, since K...I really shouldn't pour fuel on this fire, since KP will fall apart if it devolves to ultrapartisan rants, but I'm going to be self-indulgent...<BR/><BR/>Hoss, that was fantastic.GammaBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724627174828507827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-85253131337840376282009-04-09T12:34:00.000-04:002009-04-09T12:34:00.000-04:00First off, why are we paying any attention to a cr...First off, why are we paying any attention to a crusty Soviet economist from the 1920s? Seriously, can a person who would likely be frightened by my Roomba hold all the answers? And it's hard to be concerned about a 15-year depression when none of us will survive that long. I'm pretty sure the Mayan calendar had it right when they predicted the apocalypse coming via the Conficker worm and/or the Large Hadron Collider. We have until 2012, gentlemen, then the galactic clock resets and we exit the stage to allow for the new dominant species, which I'm pretty sure will be some kind of cuttlefish or poison dart frog. <BR/><BR/>GammaBoy, I am grateful that you don't broadcast your relentlessly bleak forecast to a larger audience. We'd have riots in Cairo.LPJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09345642655775072297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-79986559978112834472009-04-09T00:01:00.000-04:002009-04-09T00:01:00.000-04:00You ain't shit GG. You better have a rural hideaw...You ain't shit GG. You better have a rural hideaway in case I come up there to show you some real invective. Mark Stanford may be Obama's bitch, but you're mine, wifey.Aztec Tombnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-7062138135546780652009-04-08T23:43:00.000-04:002009-04-08T23:43:00.000-04:00Nice comparison of Obama to Hitler AND Stalin. Ma...Nice comparison of Obama to Hitler AND Stalin. Man, GG you win that round. Who can counter that argument?<BR/><BR/>RP deserves that criticism and so does Stanford. Despite the articulation of high minded economic principles in the pages of the WSJ and despite his drawing a line in the sand with the SC legislature, he sold out his principles, his economics, and SC's unemployed, all at the same time.<BR/><BR/>You see, the great state of SC has the second highest rate of unemployment in the US; however, the only portion of the stimulus funds that Standford reject were, you guessed it, funds for the extension of unemployment benefits.<BR/><BR/>But get this: not only is SC tied for 5th for the highest percentage of taxpayers applying for the EITC, but SC also receives an average of $1.35 in federal spending for every dollar in federal income tax its citizens pay. So SC taxpayers were never going to to be on the hook for their share; rather, they were looking at a 35% return on investment.<BR/><BR/>In summary, Stanford is a craven blowhard who sold out, but sold out in such a way that not only deprived SC citizens of federal dollars that they would never have to pay back, but he also sold out in such a way that is calculated at both screwing his most needy constituents and and mitigating the actual stimulative effects of the stimulus. <BR/><BR/>So there you have it: craven, dumb, and heartless. No wonder people are talking about Standford as a GOP nominee in 2012.Aztec Tombnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-71949089501767727492009-04-08T23:03:00.000-04:002009-04-08T23:03:00.000-04:00Okay, let's get some perspective.Credit default sw...Okay, let's get some perspective.<BR/><BR/>Credit default swap prices on US Government debt indicate that the markets are handicapping the likelihood of a Federal Government default at around 6%. That's a multiple of historical trends and would, my friends, be the very definition of violent collapse. <BR/><BR/>But compare the odds of that scenario with the following: Had GG gotten her wish and McCain been elected president, there would have been a 15% chance that Palin would have been President by the end of the term. Therefore, had GG gotten her election day wish, a Palin presidency would have been over twice as likely as the violent collapse over which GG now frets. <BR/><BR/>Now, to bring it home. Palin placed third in the recent CPAC presidential nominee straw poll. Who cares you say? Well, please take into consideration the fact that McCain placed a whopping fifth in the same straw poll in 2007. This means Palin is still politically relevant and could be in the running for 2012.<BR/><BR/>So the importance of the story is as follows: 1) the Tomb is always right, 2) you were an idiot to support this person for VP, 3) in no way should any of you ever consider a ticket that includes the fair Governor from the State of Alaska, and 4) KP will continue to get posts like this until all former Palin supporters within KNET provide their solemn vow not to support her presidential or vice presidential candidacy in 2012. Until then, bite me.<BR/><BR/>Now, it's nice to see that GG is concerned about civil servants' pensions because she doesn't give a shit about the pensions of union members. And I really hope all of the traders really do take to the streets in full scale tax revolt. Surely the general public will understand the OUTRAGE of having to pay an additional 4% of income tax on ever single dollar earned above $375,000. How will Obama sleep at night knowing that poor hedge fund managers will be forced to liquidate their Hampton beach houses because soon they will be taxed not at the capital gains rate, but at normal income tax rates? Yes, please let them REVOLT at the mere thought of being treated just like everyone else.Aztec Tombnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-68350155535347808582009-04-07T23:37:00.000-04:002009-04-07T23:37:00.000-04:00Do you seriously get off on this kind of shit, Azt...Do you seriously get off on this kind of shit, Aztec? Our political differences aside, you are a thoughtful guy, yet even as the economy is teetering on complete and likely violent collapse, you are celebrating nonsense like this. Please remind me of the importance of this kind of story when policemen are striking over non-existent pensions and full-scale tax revolts begin.GammaBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724627174828507827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-33516753326491832652009-04-07T23:30:00.000-04:002009-04-07T23:30:00.000-04:00I'm not sure what exactly you are celebrating, Azt...I'm not sure what exactly you are celebrating, Aztec. All this proves is that states have lost virtually all autonomy since they are beholden to the federal government for so many types of funds. <BR/><BR/>It also reminds me of criticism RP took for putting earmarks in federal legislation, although he claimed to be against earmarks on principle. His response seemed pretty sound to me - I am against earmarks, but as long as the federal government insists on taking taxpayer dollars and distributing them for silly projects, I have a responsibility to insure that my constituents get back their share of contributions.<BR/><BR/>Sanford seemed to strike a similar chord. If the Feds are spend willy-nilly and SC taxpayers are on the hook for their share, he needs to take the money even if the whole sordid process sickens him,<BR/><BR/>So congrats on labeling Sanford "Obama's bitch". You should be proud. Reminiscent of great political moments like Czechoslovakia becoming "Hitler's bitch" and Ukraine becoming "Stalin's bitch".GammaBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724627174828507827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-4031341256308183792009-03-31T22:49:00.000-04:002009-03-31T22:49:00.000-04:00Aztec, with your snarky preface, I was prepared fo...Aztec, with your snarky preface, I was prepared for a horror show, but I actually thought that was pretty good. Unfortunately, RP is not a particularly compelling TV presence - he tends to come off as a batty old man - but any thinking person ought to be able to separate his ideas from his lack of telegenics. And as far as that goes, I am pretty much in complete agreement with his drug policy.<BR/><BR/>Even that part about driving under marijuana wasn't completely off (http://www.fcda.org/driving.htm). Unlike alcohol where people feel invincible, while stoned, people know they are out of it and tend to be very cautious (otherwise known as paranoid). Not condoning driving while baked, but I am guessing stoners are generally much safer drivers than drunks.<BR/><BR/>The worst thing about RP from a TV perspective is that he is completely out of touch with anything remotely pop culture. When Baldwin mentioned the stoner movies, RP clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Ditto with the Phelps photo. I've seen other interviews where he glazes over just like that. Frankly, I like that about him, but it makes him a tough sell for hip Obamaniacs.GammaBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724627174828507827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-20116954461067172012009-03-31T22:48:00.000-04:002009-03-31T22:48:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.GammaBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724627174828507827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-18731136756790764562009-03-30T14:59:00.000-04:002009-03-30T14:59:00.000-04:00Ouch, Aztec. I love RP b/c he tells it like he be...Ouch, Aztec. <BR/><BR/>I love RP b/c he tells it like he believes it is, and doesn't pussyfoot around. Therefore, it is scary when he says he's never heard of anyone driving under the influence of marijuana or getting in a wreck from such. I understand he doesn't watch the NBA, but doesn't he read the memos his staff prepares before voting on these things. <BR/><BR/>For the record, I think RP's position on pot is 100% correct, and I do wish everyone else had his balls.<BR/><BR/>Also, when did Baldwin become coherent?Yo Gabba Gabbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00058351202348039913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-85575030462152116392009-03-23T12:14:00.000-04:002009-03-23T12:14:00.000-04:00TALF sucks for the taxpayers. Burn-Baby-Burn or T...TALF sucks for the taxpayers. Burn-Baby-Burn or The Swedish model appear to the only ways out. What we're doing now is more akin to Japan in the 90's, and we all know how well that went.<BR/><BR/>What I can't figure out is why the Obama Administration is so against temporary bank nationalization. I actually don't think it's political partisanship. Both Alan Greenspan and Richard Shelby have both weighed in favorably on the idea. Is it because, as Bernanke said, they don't have the "legal tools" in place to take over such large institutions? So get to work creating whatever tools you need! <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the MSM is almost totally out to lunch. The stock market's up! This must be a good idea!DK Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15803726073588442881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-57435033278875318472009-03-22T20:49:00.000-04:002009-03-22T20:49:00.000-04:00Wow. That's unbelievable. What the governor is p...Wow. That's unbelievable. What the governor is proposing is the type of longer-term thinking that's been missing from most of our policymaking (both Rep and Dem).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-49028151021928002842009-03-22T11:10:00.000-04:002009-03-22T11:10:00.000-04:00Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the plan either. K...Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the plan either. Krugman is correct in saying that we need to nationalize some of the more troubled institutions like Reagan and Bush did during the S&L crisis (another example of unintended consequences of deregulation). <BR/><BR/>Is there any doubt that the Swedish Model is the appropriate course here? Wouldn't it be economic waste to allow a large portion of the county's financial infrastructure to simple evaporate?<BR/><BR/>Of course political partisanship is the Obama's Administration's main impediment to its implementation of an effective solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-14705917174811281122009-03-17T18:41:00.000-04:002009-03-17T18:41:00.000-04:00I stand corrected, Friedmanite. I thought all sta...I stand corrected, Friedmanite. I thought all states were non-recourse.GammaBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724627174828507827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-42274349790757689832009-03-17T12:25:00.000-04:002009-03-17T12:25:00.000-04:00I believe the homeowners options to just mail in t...I believe the homeowners options to just mail in the keys and walk away is based on state law. AZ and CA both have anti-deficiency laws, which allow homeowners to walk away. In other states, the mortgage company can come after you for the remaining balance you owe. <BR/><BR/>In states with an anti-deficiency law, homebuyers are 2-3 times more likely to walk away from their mortgages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-16385095679358259522009-03-17T12:19:00.000-04:002009-03-17T12:19:00.000-04:00Ok RN, I'll let Wikipedia settle it:"Moral hazard ...Ok RN, I'll let Wikipedia settle it:<BR/><BR/>"Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions."<BR/><BR/>What you describe might be considered shady deal making, but its not moral hazard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-67157277916826778822009-03-17T01:31:00.000-04:002009-03-17T01:31:00.000-04:00I got to sentence #4. "Yet there is now the feeli...I got to sentence #4. "Yet there is now the feeling that without an appeal to minorities, conservatism is at risk of marginalization. The recent election revealed a Republican Party -- largely white, male and Southern -- seemingly on its way to becoming a "regional" party."<BR/><BR/>Are you fucking kidding me? I won't, as a matter of principle, read the rest. <BR/><BR/>"You", and I am never sure who you people are, shifty "soap in the bathtub whities", are f-ing nutters.<BR/><BR/>You're surprised by this turn of events????<BR/><BR/>Thank you for reminding me that people in fly-over country should be disenfranchised post-haste. Muppets.Restless Nativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02706411308856326216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-67201393935672583382009-03-17T01:26:00.000-04:002009-03-17T01:26:00.000-04:00Hello? Hell-oooo? I know I am the only feminine ...Hello? Hell-oooo? I know I am the only feminine hygiene product that works in that industry, but I have been hotting and hollering (perhaps not in this forum, I am remiss) but these pieces of garbage should feel the burn,Restless Nativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02706411308856326216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-83438041594656139702009-03-17T01:13:00.000-04:002009-03-17T01:13:00.000-04:00Howd on, dere, Friedie. The moral hazard when rea...Howd on, dere, Friedie. The moral hazard when real estate booms is to write someone a loan you know he's good for for a couple of months and NO MORE. You collect his monthly payments until such time as he skee-daddles for greener pastures. You keep the payments, the property and the capital gain, again, assuming that real estate, like every other asset class, can only go up.<BR/><BR/>Dude, you're a lot smarter than me. How does that one escape you?Restless Nativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02706411308856326216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4748314449835758607.post-20211865574062995412009-03-16T12:03:00.000-04:002009-03-16T12:03:00.000-04:00I felt compelled to respond to this, as it seems l...I felt compelled to respond to this, as it seems lately that my head has been swimming in bankruptcy law. I'm somewhat familiar with personal bankruptcy law, not so much as with corporate. When you say "the Court may step in and create terms that would allow approval of the restructuring plan", does that mean that both parties can either approve or deny the terms? If so, that would be different than what is being proposed, as it would force lenders to accept terms set by a judge. <BR/><BR/>In general, there will always be trade-offs with deciding how to write bankruptcy law. As you make it more lenient, you increase the cost of borrowing for everyone else. For example, in Memphis, where the bankruptcy laws are very lenient, businesses will not accept out of state checks, and auto dealers require a down payment of at least the wholesale value of the car. Those are the second order effects of allowing people to escape their debt commitments too easily. On the other end of the scale, you'd have no bankruptcy protection, which would provide the cheapest borrowing rates for all of society (as lenders wouldn't have to account for the costs of bankruptcy protection), but you wouldn't have some of the benefits of bankruptcy. These include encouraging some level of risk taking, plus the moral issue of allowing people a second chance in life.<BR/><BR/>So regardless of what side you are on, you should acknowledge that there are costs and its a trade-off between the cost and the benefits. <BR/><BR/>You also have to deal with people gaming the system, which obviously happens when you look at the numbers of bankruptcy filings based on the leniency of the bankruptcy law. For example, right before a law change in 2005, half a million people filed bankruptcy in a two week period. Only 650k filed the entire following year. People who game the system are stealing from all of us, as the costs of their benefits are spread among all other consumers. <BR/><BR/>Also, there is bankruptcy protection for individuals that allows them to keep their home. Its Chapter 13 bankruptcy, where your wealth is protected, but your future income is not. So the bankruptcy agreement in Chapter 13 might include a payment plan, wage garnishments, etc. That's opposed to Chapter 7, which protects your future income, but not your current wealth. <BR/><BR/>Allowing judges to write-down the values of their mortgages will incur some costs. <BR/><BR/>First, there is a value in stability of law. When the rules of the game don't change very often, there is a high degree of certainty in how the state will act, and businesses and individuals can proceed with confidence. When the rules change all the time, everyone has to account for the possibility of change at any moment. That means businesses will have to include in their potential costs unforeseen changes in the rules, which cause higher prices. It also scares away investment. It reminds of me of looking at property to buy in Belize, where I didn't have a high confidence that the property laws would stay as-is, so I chose not to invest. Scaring away investment is not good for the economy.<BR/><BR/>Businesses and individuals expect a certain level of protection in bankruptcy. For mortgage lenders, it means that if you don't meet your obligations, they can always take your house. Now we're talking about a drastic change, where a judge can write the terms however he sees fit and the lender doesn't have the ability to take the house. <BR/><BR/>Contract law is a bedrock of a prosperous society. Courts are there to execute the terms of the contract, not change them. I'm ok with bankruptcy courts serving as a mediator, but they shouldn't be able to force changes in terms. That goes for corporate, personal, etc. If this is occurring in other forms of bankruptcy, my opinion would be that that's where the problem is, those laws should be changed to respect the terms agreed upon by both parties. Lets not spread the problem further. <BR/><BR/>Last, I don't see how lenders have "moral hazard" as you state it. Moral hazard means they are protected from risk somehow that causes them to behave differently than if they were fully exposed to their risks. How does offering better loan terms assuming a rise in house prices a moral hazard? As long as the lender has to eat the loss when the house goes down, there is no moral hazard. Its simply a bad business strategy. The only moral hazard would be if there is some third party taking some of the risk off the lender.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com