JayB

Where did you get the idea that the Liberal tradition postulates a clear separation between political and economic power, between political and economic liberty, etc? One of the central claims of this school of thought has always been that political and economic liberty are inseparable from one another. In your second sentence, for example, you are basically paraphrasing one of Locke's central contentions, which makes your argument that these insights of yours have hitherto escaped the attention of Libertarians and/or (classical) Liberals especially humorous.* *"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property." -John Locke *"Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society." -John Locke

So you agree with libertarianism's view of the state...but what you take exception to are the restraints which private property and economic freedom impose on the power of the state. "I'm all for chastity, it's just the abstinence that I take issue with."

"But Thiel is more than just a clever and avaricious capitalist. He is a futurist philosopher and neocon activist. A philosophy graduate from Stanford, in 1998 he co-wrote a book called The Diversity Myth, which is a detailed attack on liberalism and the multiculturalist ideology that dominated Stanford. He claimed that the "multiculture" led to a lessening of individual freedoms. While a student at Stanford, Thiel founded a rightwing journal, still up and running, called The Stanford Review - motto: Fiat Lux ("Let there be light"). Thiel is a member of TheVanguard.Org, an internet-based neoconservative pressure group that was set up to attack MoveOn.org, a liberal pressure group that works on the web. Thiel calls himself "way libertarian". TheVanguard is run by one Rod D Martin, a philosopher-capitalist whom Thiel greatly admires. On the site, Thiel says: "Rod is one of our nation's leading minds in the creation of new and needed ideas for public policy. He possesses a more complete understanding of America than most executives have of their own businesses." This little taster from their website will give you an idea of their vision for the world: "TheVanguard.Org is an online community of Americans who believe in conservative values, the free market and limited government as the best means to bring hope and ever-increasing opportunity to everyone, especially the poorest among us." "The internet is immensely appealing to neocons such as Thiel because it promises a certain sort of freedom in human relations and in business, freedom from pesky national laws, national boundaries and suchlike. The internet opens up a world of free trade and laissez-faire expansion. Thiel also seems to approve of offshore tax havens, and claims that 40% of the world's wealth resides in places such as Vanuatu, the Cayman Islands, Monaco and Barbados. I think it's fair to say that Thiel, like Rupert Murdoch, is against tax. He also likes the globalisation of digital culture because it makes the banking overlords hard to attack: "You can't have a workers' revolution to take over a bank if the bank is in Vanuatu," he says." "Here at last is the Enlightenment state longed for since the Puritans of the 17th century sailed away to North America, a world where everyone is free to express themselves as they please, according to who is watching. National boundaries are a thing of the past and everyone cavorts together in freewheeling virtual space."

Should shorten up the liftlines around here on Sunday. That's a bonus.

There'll be a spot available for you back here in June. I can assure that there is no shortage of people here who will oblige you with a volley of fuck-you's at the slightest provocation. Your paradise awaits....

None for sale in the US that I know of. Toyota Hilux is available in Canada, I think.

95 4x4 Toyota extra-cab pickup with fiberglass canopy. Manual. 3.0VZE V6 Engine. Highway = 16-18mpg average, 19 on flat roads with a tailwind. ~190,000 Miles at this point. The only in-town driving I do is to and from the highway exits. I'd guess it's at least 1-3 mpg worse in-town.

Hmmm. I'd posit that virtually nothing is a relative term. I'm working ~50-60 hours a week in a basic research lab that's engaged in enhancing our understanding of the basic mechanisms of viral replication and pathology, and personally engaged in developing a novel high-throughput assay to discover new therapeutics to inhibit the said virus, amongst other efforts. What is it that you do with your time these days?

True. None of the technology that was either developed or improved in the space program was ever put to use in military applications...

Chiming in again to note that the bunnies and rainbows are all the more humorous considering the origins of many of the scientists and technology used in the program... V2--->ICBM----->Saturn Rockets

I wasn't denigrating the achievement, I was denigrating your profound misunderstanding of and utter obliviousness to the strategic imperatives that gave rise to it. Keep pretending that the space program was all about the bunnies and the rainbows, and that Kennedy was a McGovern clone with a tan and good hair if it that's what it takes to keep the boomer naricisso-onano-amnesia going, though.

He confronted the commies and forced Khrushchyov to back down, for one. He also lowered taxes - pretty damn sweet for a Dem. -Bay of Pigs. Also... "In May 1961, President Kennedy sent 500 more American advisers to Vietnam, bringing American forces to 1,400 men. The military wanted more men saying that with 13,000 troops they could wipe out the Vietcong. Kennedy didn't know what to do; as men he trusted argued both sides of the issue. Kennedy was not deciding the fate of Vietnam with a worry free head. Cuba, Berlin, Laos, and the Soviet Union all weighed on the President. Kennedy believed that the real issue in Vietnam was the effectiveness of the South Vietnamese government but whether the US would allow Communist aggression to stand in Vietnam. Apparently, Vietnam had turned into a test of American resolve; Kennedy hated the idea of failing the test. Slowly, over the next year, Kennedy escalated American involvement in the war. By the end of 1962, the military had received what they wanted. The US had 11,300 officers operating in South Vietnam. Kennedy was told in early 1963 that the war was fast being won and that he could begin withdrawing troops by the end of the year. The war was far from being won. South Vietnam was a mess. The Diem regime had become a nightmare. Either by the stealing of American aid and military supplies, it's refusal to implement land reform programs, or the continued attack on the Buddhist community; Diem had to go it the war was to be won. Kennedy agreed for the CIA to assist in a South Vietnamese army coup against Diem. On November 2, 1963, Diem was assassinated. Kennedy still did not know was policy to pursue in Vietnam. He had already begun to speak to his advisers about pulling out. He had announced that he was pulling out 1,000 men from Vietnam at the end of the year. Kennedy, however, left no doubt that he will see the war through until he won reelection in 1964. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. The only thing certain about Kennedy's role in Vietnam before he died was that he had escalated America's military, political, and maybe psychological commitment to Vietnam."

He inspired an entire generation by starting our first and only human journey to another planet. As for the secret service comment, congratulations: you've won the Drama Queen of the Week award. Yes, it was all about the wonder of discovery and rainbows and bunnies. Nothing to do with the Cold War.

Certainly not by any governments...

Edit. From the source.. http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_012808.html

Tee-hee... "“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings. “And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever. “This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’” So over the top that it's hard to believe it's real, but I was able to find a band-AID like post on the national organization's website, so who knows...

Depends on the methodology, doesn't it? I'd venture 3-5%. Easy to see a case where prediction A and prediction B don't square up if you plug in a given range or ranges of inflation values. Was that the point of the bold text? Are we still on for the 11/1/07-11/1/08 bet?

so i assume your point is....? are you certain there is no history of unsustained commodity price appreciation which doesn't conform to historical trends? we are now what, 2 years along the road since that graph came out, and we have witnessed a correction to historical averages? no. we have witnessed further price appreciations in seattle and other markets, with some areas experiencing precipitous drops. nationwide, i believe the last year brought a 1% drop in prices on average? am i right in this? since you are so bearish on the housing market, i'm curious about your opinion on what the eventual outcome of this will be, let's say 5 years out nation-wide, 5 years out seattle, and let's throw in a 10 year time-frame too for kicks. changes expressed in percentages. clarification: i have no idea what the market will do, but my best guess is that certain areas of the country will get hammered for many years to come, while other areas (read, seattle) will plateau out (i think it's happened here with single family), maybe drop a few percentage points for a few years on average, then slowly appreciate again. the mortgage rate reduction would affect this.... Here's what I wrote to someone who asked this question in June of 2006: " haven't done as much research into the Seattle market as I have Boston, but it sounds to me like you've got the financial side squared away pretty well - and most of the variables that you are wrestling with have to do with lifestyle decisions. As far as the direction of house prices go, that's a tough one to predict, as this market has been driven by investor psychology rather than fundamentals for quite some time, and investor psychology is awfully tough to predict. There are quite a few metrics that you can plug-in to verify this (mortgage-to-rent ratios, etc), but clearly these aren't affecting people's decisions with respect to home buying out there. However, one of the few stats that I've come across that seems to have any predictive value is supply. Dividing raw inventory numbers by the 1-year moving average of home sales gives you a pretty good idea of where the market is heading supply-wise, but just taking a look at the raw numbers and comparing them on a month-to-month basis is a quick and easy way to gauge where things are heading. The bottom line is that supply-wise, things look awfully tight in Seattle and there's been no discernable change in market psychology out there "Houses always go up! Buy in now or be priced out forever!," etc. So if I was to take a stab at predicting where the market will go out there I'd expect to see home prices continue to increase, albeit at a more moderate pace, for at least the next year (until '07). I'd also start expecting to see inventories start to rise slowly after about a year, and some of the euphoria wearing off by then, as well as hints of mortgage related stress as 2 trillion in ARM resets start to kick in. I'd say it'll take at least a year of rising supply relative to demand to get to the point where we get to the "ball hanging in the air" phase at the top of the price-increase parabola (summer of '08), and then for prices to start trending down slowly in the year thereafter as demand wanes, market psychology continues to erode, and the price equilibrium increasingly set by people who have to sell, rather than those who are sellers of convenience, and who will do whatever they can, for as long as they can to avoid dropping their sales price. So my personal prediction is that there won't be meaningful inflation adjusted price reductions in the most desirable Seattle neighborhoods until well into the summer of 2009. Get about 40 minutes outside of Seattle and I'd expect the timeline to kick in about 9-12 months sooner." If I had to put numbers on things, by 2012 my best guess would be up to 40% real (inflation adjusted) cumulative declines in the outer-periphery of commuterland. 15-25% real-cumulative declines in all of greater Seattle. Neighborhoods which are on the fringe of the zone-O-gentrification and furthest from downtown take the greatest hit (First Hill comes to mind), and boutique neighborhoods that are close to downtown like Queen Anne see cumulative declines of less than 10%. Single-family homes retain value better than condos or townhomes in all areas. 10 years out I'd venture that nominal prices will be roughly equal to '06 prices on average. With respect to permanent changes in a given asset class - I can't think of any cases off of the top of my head, but I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand. I'd have to say that in order for this to happen, there has to be something real driving the change. In the case of homes, I think that the plateau you see emerging in the late 40's corresponds to permanent changes in mortgage lending that made it possible for the average person to borrow more money, and probably has something to do with the increases in real income that the average person realized during that time. I don't personally can't think of anything permanent or real that changed between '98 and '08, except that when the smoke clears - we'll probably find that the securitization of mortgages is here to stay (with substantial revisions), since the borrow-short/lend-long model is something that most banks involved in home lending will be reluctant to rely on exclusively . It's possible that this will sustain prices at a higher level relative to incomes than we've seen in the past, but I doubt it. It's also possible that the government will effectively assume responsibility for all or most private mortgage debt and disperse the risks and inevitable losses associated with lending money at high multiples to borrower income with little-or-no downpayment. If this occurs, then that might put a higher floor under prices as well. I'd personally be happy to forsake the possibility of capital appreciation and rent until the tax-adjusted costs of renting and owning are roughly equal to one another, but intangibles might tip my hand at some point. *Also worth remembering that: -If a $100K asset appreciates by 25% it's worth $125K. -If the $125K asset subsequently loses 25% of it's value, it's worth $93,750. Percentage changes always hurt more on the way down...

There's quite a few folks who are offering such services, but rumor has it that if you are a seller and you have availed yourself of such services - your chances of having a buyer's agent show clients your property are substantially reduced. However, if you are a builder and you are offering a premium to the standard commission, plus a bonus for closing a sale at the listed price, buyers agents will be much more enthusiastic about steering clients towards it... The nature and extent of the conflicts of interest, etc that permeate the real-estate business are staggering. The world of retail investing is a kiddy-pool by comparison...

Seems like having a real-estate attorney read through every line of any legal document associated with a home purchase or sale would be money well spent - for anyone. Can't say the same for the 6% that goes to the realtors.

Individuals acting like corporations :tup: Yup. The loan was based on a contract, not a moral commitment. The penalty for breaking the contract is the damage they've done to their credit rating. They've concluded - probably correctly - that walking away from the loan is likely to be less costly for them in the end. This is one of many reasons why anyone lending money for a home purchase used to require a substantial downpayment. Walking away from a loan and sticking someone else with a $100K loss is quite a bit easier than losing the 20-percent down-payment that you had to accumulate one paycheck at a time...

More from the voluntary foreclosure front.... "“Matt and Stephanie Valdez say they knew exactly what they were doing when they bought a small two-bedroom for $355,000. They…planned to refinance the mortgage before the interest rate jumped to 11 percent. But they couldn’t do it because the value of the house had fallen below what they owed on the mortgage. They say they can afford the higher payments, but see no point in making them.” “‘The house keeps going down, payments keep going up. Where’s the logic in that? And how can we fix it? I mean, that’s what this whole thing’s about for us is how can we fix this? And if we can’t fix it, then what do we do?’ Matt Valdez asks.” “‘Why pay a $3,200 payment on a 1200-square-foot home? It makes no sense,’ Stephanie Valdez adds.” “‘That’s what you agreed to do when you bought the house,’ correspondent Steve Kroft points out.” “‘Fine. If the value is going up. But we’re not going anywhere. The price or the value is going down. It makes no sense because we will never be able to refinance and get a lower payment. There’s no way,’ Stephanie Valdez replies.” “Real estate agent Kevin Moran, says it is happening every day. They were never really invested. Most of the people who lost the houses didn’t lose any money because they never put any money down.” “Though their credit is damaged, and they could face legal action in some circumstances, they got to live in a new house for a couple of years, and some of them even managed to get some money with home equity loans or by refinancing.”‘ “Nobody seems to be saying, ‘Look, I made a contract with you. I borrowed money from you. I’m gonna do everything I can to pay off that obligation.’ People just seem to be saying, ‘Look, take the house. Good-bye. I’m leaving,’ Kroft says.”

I seem to recall that pension funds, after taking a beating in the equity portion of their portfolios, were especially hungry for yield...

One more time...

Clinton initiated this mess through his National Homeownership Strategy. The Clinton administration actions include: Making It Easier to Qualify for Mortgage Loans. The FHA has eliminated unnecessary and overly strict requirements under its loan program that made it difficult for many families to qualify for mortgage loans. It has also given lenders greater flexibility to make homeownership possible for more nontraditional borrowers, and has clarified certain underwriting requirements so they are not applied in a discriminatory manner. With these improvements, thousands more families are eligible for FHA-insured home loans. It also streamlined its underwriting criteria, consolidated operations, and improved its performance. The cost savings from these improvements have resulted in cost savings to consumers. In the end it just drove up housing prices. Got any proof of your assertions? This policy required a minimum of 5% down, waived some share of points, appraisal costs, and fees, and raised the eligible share of income costs from the industry standard of 38% to 45%. Hardly earth-shaking. So what's the link to unfettered bundling and rebundling of mortgage-backed securities into unrecongnizable investments that get AAA ratings? Background on rebundling/securitization: http://www.securitization.net/pdf/content/ADC_SixDegrees_1Aug07.pdf As far as how they got AAA ratings, I've forgotten most of the details I read, but from what I remember they took the subprime loans and sliced them up into various tranches. The bottom tranches would be the first to take the hit if the loans went south. These had the lowest ratings, and promised the highest returns. The highest tranches were, at least in theory, would be the very last to get hit in the event that the loans that they were constructed from started to go bad. How "cream-of-the-crop" subprime could ever be transmuted into AAA quality paper in this manner is an open question - but I don't personally think that you can pin this one on any particular administration. I'd personally put a significant amount of responsibility for this particular aspect of the debacle on the ratings agencies. My sense is that they probably helped devise the tranches using historical loan performance stats/credit analysis. They were either unaware of the massive changes in underwriting standards, outright fraud, etc on the origination side of lending during this time, or had no incentive to ask the tough questions that might adversely affect their businesses - or both. Garbage in, garbage out. I'm kind of surprised that this hasn't become a full-blown scandal in it's own right, and that none of the ratings agencies have gone under as a result. I think the performance of these loans/tranches, while still bad, may not be as bad as the headlines would lead you to believe. I think that most of the banks/institutions got in trouble not because the AAA tranches lost all of their value, but because the held them in portfolios that were so highly leveraged, that a 10% decline in the CDO/CMO/whatever's value would completely wipe them out. The fact the market for these things is liquid, the entire origination-to-security process was structured like a game of hot-potato, and that consequently no one can put a firm value on what these things are actually worth hasn't helped in this regard. I suspect that people who figure out how to do so will buy up these assets for a fraction of their ultimate value and make quite a bit of money in the end.