Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Anyone get this in their email. I assume it is B.S. because there is not actual specific cite for the information but I was just curious.


Please read Warning

Police officers working with the DARE program have issued this
warning: If you are driving after dark and see an on-coming car with no headlights on, DO NOT FLASH YOUR LIGHTS AT THEM! This is a common Bloods gang member "initiation game" that goes like this: The new gang member under initiation drives along with no headlights,and the first car to flash their headlights at him is now his "target".He is now required to turn around and chase that car, then shoot and kill every individual in the vehicle in order to complete his initiationrequirements.

Police Depts across the nation are being warned that September
23rd and 24th is the "blood" initiation weekend. Their intent is to have all thenew bloods nationwide drive around on Friday and Saturday nights with their headlights off. In order to be accepted into the gang, they have to shoot and kill all individuals in the first auto that does a courtesyflash to warn them that their lights are off. Make sure you share this information with all the drivers in your family!

Please Forward this message to all your friends and family members toinform them about this initiation ritual. You can save someone's life ifyou heed to this warning.

Its an internet scam, but as a precaution, nightly when I drive through the hood, sts, I make a point to flash all of the other cars, whether their headlights are on or off.

People need to take on the criminals and not appease their lawlessness. Of course, I am madd-packing with my Nine, so those shorties don't want be frontin' on me.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Again. You make these ridiculous comments. It was like when you were questioning whether Roosevelt wanted to get us into WWII, or was misleading the American public about his intentions about WWII. It is conventional wisdom. You kept asking for a cite but everyone ignored you because it is like you were questioning whether or not the sky is blue. I am not going to look for a cite teling you the sky is blue.

You questioned the buses and wanted a cite from a reputable news source. Of course I didn't go looking for one because you were being ridiculous again. When I picked up the economist that week and read the lead story, what did this London based newspaper talk about in their lead story? the buses.

Now you are asking for a cite to support the fact that the bond markets care which party is in congress and what they are up to. Why should anyone look for a cite for something that is so patently obvious. Bond traders are always trying to predict future federal budgets. Why would they not factor in what party controlled congress and what they are up to. It is so absurd it is not even worth replying to.

2. I love Ty like a wayward friend from college who remained drunk and drugged out long after that behaviour was age-appropriate, platonically, but someone needs to say this to him. I hope late at night when he alone with his thoughts, after the wife and kids have gone to sleep and left him to pursue his internet bloggery, that he can think beyond the intoxicating affects of his Zinfandel or Pinot and realise that we have his best interest at heart in trying to get him to see the light of day here.

I pray it be so. please babyjesuschristsuperstar, smile on Ty.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not really. If the redesign means their property is under water, that's not a taking, that's your own bad luck. If we decided to abandon new orleans, as I've been saying we should for the most part, it's not a taking.

Got to disagree with you here. I have kept saying, and no one has ever been able to show me that I am wrong, that the Feds were responsible for the levees. The levees broke so the Feds are responsible for the damage. If someone's house is under water the Feds have to cough up for it.

Am I missing something? Why am I wrong?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
Anyone get this in their email. I assume it is B.S. because there is not actual specific cite for the information but I was just curious.


Please read Warning

Police officers working with the DARE program have issued this
warning: If you are driving after dark and see an on-coming car with no headlights on, DO NOT FLASH YOUR LIGHTS AT THEM! This is a common Bloods gang member "initiation game" that goes like this: The new gang member under initiation drives along with no headlights,and the first car to flash their headlights at him is now his "target".He is now required to turn around and chase that car, then shoot and kill every individual in the vehicle in order to complete his initiationrequirements.

Police Depts across the nation are being warned that September
23rd and 24th is the "blood" initiation weekend. Their intent is to have all thenew bloods nationwide drive around on Friday and Saturday nights with their headlights off. In order to be accepted into the gang, they have to shoot and kill all individuals in the first auto that does a courtesyflash to warn them that their lights are off. Make sure you share this information with all the drivers in your family!

Please Forward this message to all your friends and family members toinform them about this initiation ritual. You can save someone's life ifyou heed to this warning.

This was common knowledge in LA - I had a friend in the DAs office that confirmed it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
These long term mortgage rates are set by people (not by Greenspan). The rates reflect what the mortgage traders (the market) think the future federal deficits will be. For some reason they are optimistic about future US budgets. I am no longer in these circles so I have no idea why they think that. All I can assume is that they know something we don't.

I should also point out that during the Reagan era that the markets had no confidence in the Dem congress balancing the budget or in Reagan being able to get them to pass anything close to balanced budgets. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure they were really high in the 80s (higher than 8).

I think this simplifies things somewhat and looks slightly to the wrong place. Bond traders look to what the likely rate of inflation will be, which is influenced by a host of factors, including both monetary and fiscal policy. In the 70s, monetary policy was inflationary. Reversal in the early 80s caused a predictable recession. Until Greenspan came in, monetary policy had generally been loose for quite some time. And until he made clear that a tight monetary policy (or a reasonable one--expanding money supply in close relationship to growth) was here to stay, we had higher bond rates because people were worried about more inflation.

Fiscal policy plays only a secondary role, especially on the long bonds (such as mortgages, which generally are treated about like 10 year bonds). The main concern is that if we run continuing deficits we will have inflation, either because there's too much money chasing too few goods or because eventually we'll have to inflate our way out of the deficit. Greenspan has, through long-term work, convinced bond investors that the latter will not happen. Until the deficit (and, more important) the debt becomes too large to make continuing that approach infeasible, people believe it, or at least think the risk of a diferent approach is quite low.

So, don't tie it to Congress any more, other than to thank them for confirming repeatedly Reagan's pick for Chairman of the Fed.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
These long term mortgage rates are set by people (not by Greenspan). The rates reflect what the mortgage traders (the market) think the future federal deficits will be. For some reason they are optimistic about future US budgets. I am no longer in these circles so I have no idea why they think that. All I can assume is that they know something we don't.

I should also point out that during the Reagan era that the markets had no confidence in the Dem congress balancing the budget or in Reagan being able to get them to pass anything close to balanced budgets. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure they were really high in the 80s (higher than 8).

That all may be well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the previously assumption (big deficits = higher interest rates) has not held up in the 21st Century.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Got to disagree with you here. I have kept saying, and no one has ever been able to show me that I am wrong, that the Feds were responsible for the levees. The levees broke so the Feds are responsible for the damage. If someone's house is under water the Feds have to cough up for it.

Am I missing something? Why am I wrong?

1) Soveriegn immunity/Fed. Tort Claims limit
2) Practical limits . . .

If your proposition is correct, any time any person suffered a loss of property that could have been prevented through more/greater/better government action, they would have a taking claim.

Your proposition is doubly dubious given that the levees were not designed to withstand a storm of this strength. So you don't have what in the tort world might be a product liability claim that the levees didn't do as promised. They did, but they never promised to stop everything.

So, I don't know if it counts as showing you that you are wrong, but many articles, including some I'm sure in the Economist, will explain that (construction defects aside) the levees were not designed to stop Katrina. And they didn't.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This was common knowledge in LA - I had a friend in the DAs office that confirmed it.

Club, if you believe this then certainly you believe that the Clintons killed Vince Foster, yes?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Club, if you believe this then certainly you believe that the Clintons killed Vince Foster, yes?

Clintons? Do you have any evidence Bill even knew she was going to do it?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That all may be well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the previously assumption (big deficits = higher interest rates) has not held up in the 21st Century.

Ah, we're five years into the new century. Let's not throw away the economics texts and subscribe to the dogma of Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney just yet.

There are some who have attributed at least part of this phenomena to external factors. One example I remember in WaPo by Sebastian Mallaby:

• But the most remarkable aspect of Bush's good fortune is the way he's repeatedly avoided the retribution of markets.
  
  When Bush passed his tax cuts and followed them up by including prescription drugs in Medicare and increasing the Pentagon's budget, some kind of market reckoning seemed inevitable. After all, extra government borrowing means less available capital and therefore higher interest rates; and if bond rates are attractive, investors will avoid the risk of buying equities and so deflate the stock market. At the same time, extra government borrowing stokes consumption, including consumption of imports. Those imports have to be paid for with capital from foreigners; to entice foreigners to provide it, the dollar may have to fall enough to make U.S. assets a bargain.
  
  But almost none of this has happened. Yes, the trade deficit is at an all-time high, and last year -- conveniently, after the election -- the dollar fell enough to get people nervous. But this year, the trade deficit notwithstanding, the dollar has bounced back again. Meanwhile, long-term interest rates are actually lower now than they were one year ago. The stock market has been amiably docile.
  
  What gives? Certainly not something that Bush could have predicted. Foreigners have decided to shower the United States with savings, so the pain from his guns -- and prescription drugs -- and butter policy has been magically anesthetized. The more Bush pushed up the government's borrowing, the more foreigners eagerly opened their wallets. Hence no shortage of capital, no higher long-term interest rates and no falling dollar.
  
  To appreciate the extraordinary extent of this good fortune, consider what one means by "foreigners." It's not merely that one country, or even one group of countries, has decided to litter the United States with cash. For Bush's winning streak to hold, it's taken one lucky break after another -- three, to be precise.
  
  First came Asia's central banks. In 2003 and 2004 they decided to keep their currencies cheap by selling them and buying dollars. The Japanese, for example, increased their holdings of U.S. Treasurys by an astonishing $312 billion, a sum equivalent to three-quarters of the 2004 Bush deficit, according to Brad Setser of Roubini Global Economics, a consultancy in New York.
  
  There was nothing inevitable or predictable about this. The Bank of Japan could perfectly well have chosen not to buy dollars or amass Treasurys; in fact, in the spring of 2004 it did stop buying dollars, and its accumulation of Treasurys stopped in the fall. But in 2003 and most of 2004, when the Bush budget deficits were exploding, American voters were spared the usual consequences. Indeed, the housing market, one of the most interest-rate-sensitive sectors of the economy, boomed instead of succumbing to the expected tailspin. Low interest rates fueled a refinancing binge, delivering the growth that Bush needed for his reelection drive.
  
  When the Japanese stopped financing the Bush deficit, a combination of China and assorted oil states came to the rescue. Because of its growing trade surplus, China is awash in dollars; because of high energy prices, oil exporters such as Russia are drowning in dollars, too. So the Russians and the Chinese, not exactly the coziest of U.S. allies, are now financing the Bush deficit, including that part of the deficit that's driven by the Pentagon's determination to contain China.
  
  Again, there's nothing inevitable about the Russian or Chinese decisions. They could take their oil earnings and export earnings and park them entirely in euros. But, to complete Bush's lucky sequence, the Europeans have done their best to drive loose savings elsewhere. Their sclerotic economies offer few opportunities for investors, and the Franco-Dutch rejection of the European constitution has shaken business confidence in the euro.
  
  So thanks to Asian central bankers, cash-rich oil states and testy European voters, Bush has escaped the consequences of his profligacy -- and now, because the economy is growing, the budget deficit is coming down. In the long term, to be sure, Bush has put the federal government on an unsustainable financial glide path, and one day the foreigners will refuse to keep us airborne. But there's no justice in politics. The comedown may not happen on Bush's presidential watch.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think this simplifies things somewhat and looks slightly to the wrong place. Bond traders look to what the likely rate of inflation will be, which is influenced by a host of factors, including both monetary and fiscal policy. In the 70s, monetary policy was inflationary. Reversal in the early 80s caused a predictable recession. Until Greenspan came in, monetary policy had generally been loose for quite some time. And until he made clear that a tight monetary policy (or a reasonable one--expanding money supply in close relationship to growth) was here to stay, we had higher bond rates because people were worried about more inflation.

Fiscal policy plays only a secondary role, especially on the long bonds (such as mortgages, which generally are treated about like 10 year bonds). The main concern is that if we run continuing deficits we will have inflation, either because there's too much money chasing too few goods or because eventually we'll have to inflate our way out of the deficit. Greenspan has, through long-term work, convinced bond investors that the latter will not happen. Until the deficit (and, more important) the debt becomes too large to make continuing that approach infeasible, people believe it, or at least think the risk of a diferent approach is quite low.

So, don't tie it to Congress any more, other than to thank them for confirming repeatedly Reagan's pick for Chairman of the Fed.

The way I understand it, with the long term rates the budget deficit is a big factor. If you have high deficits then everyone assumes there will be inflationary pressure. So for the long term the deficit is a big deal. Greenspan can fight inflation but if the deficits remain high, he has to raise interest rates to combat inflation. The higher the deficit the higher he has to raise interest rates, and the short term rates push up the long term rates. Or, ino ther words, if your bank has sold your long term rates to low and then the short terms rates go up later you take a bath.

When I was in the bond trading circles from 92-96 everyone talked about the deficit. Every stupid lunch or dinner I went to everyone was talking about Rubin, Ways and Mean, or after 94 Gingrish and how much discipline he will impose. Because they were clients I had to suck it up and listen to it instead of screaming at these guys to get a life and talk about something else. But man they were obsessed with the federal deficit.

But maybe now that has changed and that is why long term rates are low even though the deficit is high.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Club, if you believe this then certainly you believe that the Clintons killed Vince Foster, yes?

Not Clintons plural - just Hillary.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ah, we're five years into the new century. Let's not throw away the economics texts and subscribe to the dogma of Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney just yet.

There are some who have attributed at least part of this phenomena to external factors. One example I remember in WaPo by Sebastian Mallaby:
[list]But the most remarkable aspect of Bush's good fortune is the way he's repeatedly avoided the retribution of markets.

What I don't get is why don't the long term bond traders see through this? They have to know the perfect storm can't last forever and if they set their long term rates too low they will be caught with their pants down.

Does anyone know any long term bond traders? After reading this article it really seems to me that they should be freaking out and raising their rates.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not Clintons plural - just Hillary.

happy to stand next to you Club. It's important our side show reasonableness in contrast to the libs. i love Penske, but at times he's prone to hyperbole, and I don't think that helps our cases here.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) Soveriegn immunity/Fed. Tort Claims limit
2) Practical limits . . .

If your proposition is correct, any time any person suffered a loss of property that could have been prevented through more/greater/better government action, they would have a taking claim.

Your proposition is doubly dubious given that the levees were not designed to withstand a storm of this strength. So you don't have what in the tort world might be a product liability claim that the levees didn't do as promised. They did, but they never promised to stop everything.

So, I don't know if it counts as showing you that you are wrong, but many articles, including some I'm sure in the Economist, will explain that (construction defects aside) the levees were not designed to stop Katrina. And they didn't.

OK legally I may have my head up my derrier. But morally, don't you think the Feds should cover this (in other words the American tax payer should cover this). The Feds should have forseen this type of storm coming and strengthened the levee. I just think if people houses got flooded because of a weak levee they should get compensated.

Did I turn into a bleeding heart liberal and not realize it?

Just my opinion.