JayB

Should provide quite the slide/collision highlight reel on the news this evening. Will Seattlites armed with camcorders document anything that tops the Portland footage from a couple of years ago? That's the real question.... zMzeiMJQrvk

FWIW I'm not entirely sure that FNMA/GNMA will emerge from this episode unscathed, either, and they are rather more fettered than other players in the market. It's hard to make definitive statements, since it's been a while since at least one of them has issued any financial statements that folks could use to evaluate where they stand. The fact that the spectrum of retards that fostered and participated in this speculative mania - from the folks who were taking out the neg-AM, I/O, stated-income option ARMS for homes they could never afford, to the appraisers who "hit the number" necessary for the loan to go through, to the folks who were selling and approving the loans, to the folks who repackaged and sold them, to the investors who loaded up on them are all collectively getting their asses handed to them on a platter is actually a vindication of the market economy. When the numbers don't add up - eventually it's impossible to hide. When losses can be obscured and subsidized indefinitely within a government program - it's much less likely that the problem will ever be detected, much less corrected. Are boom-bust cycles in any given asset class preventable? I'm not sure that any regulatory regime exists that can both permit the efficient interplay of supply and demand and entirely prevent booms and busts. What regulations do you think would have prevented the worst of the excesses?

If I were Porter I'd carve a secret door into the foundation of the unsold McMansion next door so that I could seek shelter within its copious and tastefully appointed interior spaces when the depression fueled mobs start roaming the streets...

Smoot-Hawley.

I haven't been arguing that our actions don't inspire terrorists. Clearly they do. I have been arguing that we shouldn't tailor our policies to suit their preferences for a number of reasons. One of which (although by no means the most important), is that it's unlikely that it would work. Even if we collectively became craven and shameless enough to capitulate before the demands of one group of Muslim fanatics at one point in history, it's far from certain that this would insulate us from attacks from another set of Muslim fanatics inspired by another set of grievances at another point in time, even if we held up our end of whatever bargain we'd struck before. Seeing as you take the opposite view - what actions would you like to see the US take to redress the grievances cited by Muslim terrorists? Which group(s) would you consult when defining them? What mechanism would you use to insure mutual compliance? Would this be a one-time negotiation or an ongoing process?

For Choco: 1. " Stimulus plan may lead to higher mortgage rates. EW YORK (Reuters) - A key element of the stimulus package aimed at jump-starting the ailing U.S. housing market may have the unintended consequence of raising mortgage rates, said analysts studying the plan. ADVERTISEMENT A federal proposal to increase the size limit on loans eligible for purchase by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has unsettled traders in the $4.5 trillion market for bonds backed by the "conforming" mortgages. Increasing the eligible loans to $729,750 from $417,000 would change the characteristics of mortgage-backed securities, leading traders to exact a premium for increased interest-rate risk. Borrowers with large, jumbo loans are more likely to refinance since their savings are greater for each incremental drop in rates than for a smaller loan. The loans will taint the bonds since traders don't initially know the make-up of the securities known as "agency" MBS. Higher mortgage rates would make it even harder to unload already high housing inventories and existing homes on the market, delaying any housing recovery and potentially extending the U.S. economic slowdown. Potential damage to the "to-be-delivered" (TBA) market -- the most actively traded agency mortgage market where investors can buy bonds before they are actually created -- prompted Wall Street dealers to call a special meeting with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association at 3:30 p.m. Friday, market sources said. A SIFMA spokeswoman would only say the group is in ongoing discussions with its members. "The amount of money that investors are willing to pay for agency mortgages (bonds) could be lower if these loans are TBA deliverable and so mortgage spreads could widen," said Ajay Rajadhyaksha, co-head of U.S. fixed income strategy at Barclays Capital in New York, who will listen to the SIFMA meeting by phone. Mortgage rates would rise for the "vast majority" of agency-eligible borrowers, he said. When falling rates prompt refinancing of loans in mortgage bonds, investors can be hurt since principal may be returned to them at a price below market value. The investor is also faced with reinvesting principal in bonds paying lower rates. MBS paying low interest rates have been hurt in recent days amid expectations the addition of many jumbo loans will boost supply in those coupons, analysts said. As much as $500 billion in jumbo loans could qualify, according to Barclays research. Wall Street MBS traders last beat down SIFMA's door in October when the advent of the Federal Housing Administration's FHA Secure program threatened to taint TBA pools of Ginnie Mae securities. The dealers got their way -- Ginnie Mae created new "specified" pools outside of their TBA issues for FHA Secure. "The street is on high alert," one mortgage trader at a New York-based primary dealer said in an e-mail. Rajadhyaksha and other analysts, including RBS Greenwich Capital's Noah Estrin, expect the TBA market will be protected if Congress and President George W. Bush approve the stimulus plan as written. "When you start throwing a lot of jumbos into a pool you spoil the fungibility of the collateral," said Linda Lowell, a mortgage market veteran and principal of Offstreet Research LLC. "That has made the market as liquid as it is. Home owners have benefited from lower mortgage rates." The stimulus bill is expected to move ahead despite the U.S. Treasury's opposition to raising loan limits without legislation tightening controls of the government-sponsored enterprises. It also "flies in the face" of the GSE's chartered purpose of creating affordable housing for Americans, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on Thursday. Brian Faith, a Fannie Mae spokesman, declined to comment about the plan's impact on its mortgage bond program. A Freddie Mac spokesman had no immediate comment. Macroeconomic reasons for increasing the size of loans eligible for purchase by the GSEs are many. Home owners in high-cost areas where home prices exceed the current $417,000 cap have been unable to capitalize on the drop in rates on conforming mortgages because investors have been less willing to buy bonds without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantees. As the credit crunch deepened in mid-2007, a jumbo borrower had to pay about 1 percentage point more in rate than one with a smaller loan, compared with a 0.15 percentage point premium during the housing boom. Today, jumbo borrowers pay about 0.75 percentage point more. "To the extent that it is (available) in areas that are stressed, I think that it will help at the margin," said Lewis Alexander, managing director and chief economist at Citigroup Global Markets at a conference on Thursday." 2. Jingle Mail for the 21st Century... "I am one of these people. My condo has dropped in value from $520K in 5/06 when I bought it to $350K now. My ARM payment will probably go up $900 per month in June. "Despite all this, I would be willing to stay if the bank would refi the loans to a 30 year fixed, but since I'm not a 'hardship' case they'd apparently rather foreclose. I guess the only way I could qualify for loan mitigation is to get my boss to fire me, stop making payments, and wreck my credit. In fact, my bank won't even talk to me until I miss a couple of payments. "I have purchased a cheaper place in a nearby area now, while my credit is good, and will stop making payments on house #1 after house #2 closes. I know the foreclosure will be on my credit for 7 years, but I will have saved a lot of money. "I realize I agreed to the deal when I signed the mortgage papers, but I am within my rights to walk away from a bad deal and suffer the consequences, just as many corporations write down billions of dollars of debt, lose money for their shareholders, and lay off people as a result of their bad decisions. "I don't really understand why people view a business decision by a homeowner as a terrible moral lapse. However, when large lending institutions, with access to more sophisticated information than any consumer could imagine, make mistakes affecting thousands of people worldwide, they are not excoriated and vilified with the same righteous zeal."

That available in Seattle yet?

Alas, there is hope. Behold: http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/human_rights_gone_awry.html

This appears to establish that Jay can't seem to fathom the possibility that there may be more than one set of motivating factors that influence different groups of actors in different locations or at different times. The fact that some may target Spain does not in any way disprove the idea that the way we are going about our War on Terror or our attempt to establish permanent bases in Iraq may motivate others. You're wasting your time arguing, Hugh. -------- Lets get back to the stimulus plan. Does anybody really think that a tax rebate is going to cure a bad economy? David Brooks said tonight that nothing like that has ever had any measurable influence on the economy (he might have said it did once back in 1950 or something). And Ron Paul last night put it this way: "they can print money and hand it out but this won't fix the fundamental problems with the economy." Paul was referring both to the interest cut AND the tax rebate. Its great that the Democrats and Republicans are falling all over each other to "get out in front" on this, but is this really anything more than pandering? Whadda you think, Jay? Will it work? My point *was* actually that different actors have different motives at different times, and this is especially true of the Islamists intentionally slaughtering as many civilians as they can around the globe in pursuit of whatever objective they deem worthy of jihad in whatever context they happen to be operating in. The men committing honor killings of their female relatives, the Chechen rebels plotting to detonate a school in Russia, the people threatening Sweden and or the artist who used the concept of Mohammad in a way that they didn't find appropriate, the fanatics on the frontier in Kashmir. Clearly they have different ends that they are pursuing for different motives, but their understanding of their religious faith is clearly a central concept around which they self-identify as a group, organize to attack whatever it is they are attacking, and find theological justification for their actions. This is not incidental. What spawns jihad and inspires plots for mass murder? The diversity of their causes, grievances, and targets is clearly quite variable. The guys who flew their planes into the World Trade Center clearly weren't upset over the notion of permanent bases in Iraq, and since the plot (like the previous attempt to blow up the towers under Clinton) was inspired by events prior the Bush presidency. What did Spain do to provoke the most recent plot? Follow the trial and perhaps you'll find your answer, but it won't be the ongoing presence of Spanish troops in Iraq. Even if they were only reacting to our moves, and had no agenda of our own inspired by factors that are rooted in their own convictions, history, and culture, the sheer variety of factors that have and will incite Islamist fanatics is such that it would be rather difficult to modify our values and policies in a manner that satisfies their demands or thwarts their anger. I have zero interest in living that way, or in living in a country where the citizenry aims to do so. This likely where we differ. Not a fan of the rebate.

India? Thailand? Seriously JayB you have no fucking clue what you are talking about here. 'Kay. 01/15/2008 10:25 THAILAND Bomb wounds 27 people in Southern Thailand The bomb strapped to a motorbike was exploded in the precinct of the crowded Yala market. Yesterday 8 soldiers were killed in an ambush on army troops, one of them beheaded. Since 2004, violence in the south has claimed over 2800 lives. Bangkok (AsiaNews/Agencies) – At least 27 people were injured in an early morning bomb attack in Southern Thailand. Islamic rebels fighting for the independence of southern provinces are believed to be behind the explosion. Police sources report that the bomb was hidden on a motorbike which was parked in the precincts of the busy Yala market. The attack comes one day after another deadly episode: in Narathiwat province, 8 soldiers were killed in an armed ambush. On of them was beheaded. The troops had been escorting home group of teachers, who are often a favourite rebel target. Over 30 people, most of them civilians, have been beheaded in the 4 years of clashed, The aim seems to be to terrorise the local Buddhist population in the area. In the Southern provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat, former Muslim sultanates, violence has increased over recent months and attacks are now a daily occurrence. The army – with a presence of over 30 thousand troops – and the police are unable to control the situation and warn Buddhists to avoid certain areas at risk. Islamists and rights groups accuse the Security forces of summary executions and the use of violence against the Muslim population. Since the beginning of 2004, the death toll has already exceeded 2,800.

Yup.

The fact that is that Islamists have been actively plotting mass-murder in France, Germany, and Canada despite their active opposition to the war in Iraq. They have continued to plot mass-murder in Spain, even after the voted in a leader who staked a large portion of his electoral campaign on getting their troops out of Iraq. This pretty well establishes that whatever they are motivated by, it's quite a bit larger than support for, or participation in the war in Iraq. Ditto for the slaughters perpetrated by Islamists in predominantly Muslim countries around the world, in India, Thailand, the Phillipines, etc, etc, etc, etc. As the events in response to the cartoons published in Denmark demonstrated quite clearly, the simple exercise of a basic liberty in a land thousands of miles away, in a language virtually none of them can speak, by a people living in as innocuous a state as one can imagine existing in any reality - was sufficient to "whack the hornets nest." Was Nasser guilty of the same? Sadat?

To answer KK: Colt-45 and lottery tickets...

Based on what I could see here at cc.com, from your wife's response to your illness, it sounds as though she is very cool, kind, and loving. If nothing else the contrast between her and the wretched hag featured in the article should make you feel pretty damned fortunate...

It's also clear that whatever his wife's faults - which appear to be staggering in both number and magnitude - he gets half the blame. If sex is a vital part of being alive for him, he should have either tried to communicate that to his wife, made an effort to cultivate their sex-life, etc - or insisted on either a divorce or openly taking a mistress. I also kind of wonder if the guy growing a pair and asserting himself wouldn't have corrected the loss of libido a bit, since doormats are seldom featured in the standard bodice ripper....

I think that goes for both sexes, no? We'd probably agree that there are some women out there in Hal's shoes, and that their husband's sexual neglect is profoundly painful and distressing for them. One of the basic obligations of a spouse is figuring out what kinds of things make your husband or wife feel loved and appreciated, and making an effort to do those things whether they are part of your natural inclinations or not - with the standard exceptions for things that are dangerous, criminal, degrading, etc. When a spouse refuses to make any effort to do so, that's a sign of not only selfishness, but open contempt and will pretty much kill off any love that the other partner feels for the other. In my case - having a clean house is a secondary priority at best, and gifts have never been that important to me. Neither is talking about my day. Listening to someone unpack their workday when they get home isn't natural either. And displaying affection with hugs or by saying nice things don't come naturally to me. They're important to my wife though, so I try to do all of the above every day. There are days when I'm more on top of things than others, but I recognize that I've got to make the effort, whether I feel like doing so or not. I can only imagine the response I'd get if I posted an article at ivilliage.com stating that I'd lost any interest I had in doing my share of the work required to keep the house clean, listening, showing affection, etc shortly after getting married - and expected my wife to accept this open display of contempt and persist in the relationship anyway....

In the realm of contemporary Middle Eastern history, my question was about as rudimentary as asking: 1)Who shot Lincoln? 2)What do you think inspired this person to do so. That it could seem otherwise to anyone who's chimed in on these topics frequently makes my point as well as any answer could.

No. I don't think that doing so would make such attacks less likely either, as the case of the violence that they were plotting in Spain and many other instances like it in France and other countries demonstrate quite clearly. This is because they have a positive agenda of their own that cannot be understood as simple reactions to Western foreign policy. I've answered your question, now you can answer a simple one of mine. Who attempted to assassinate Nasser in 1954, and what were there motives for doing so?

IMO the price per gallon than the net energy balance. Sounds pretty promising on that front as well.

So JayB when was the last time you actually talked to the "supporters" of terror? I did in May And you are *depriving* the State Department of the insights gleaned from the Yemeni goatherd who brought you your tea at the hotel? There's no shortage of books, speeches, documents, proclamations from Islamists available to the public. Ditto for scholarship based on all of the above. You seem to be arguing that it's impossible to understand the motivations, ideals, that motivate anyone based upon anything other than first-person interaction, which is as bizarre and illogical as the conceit behind your statement is humorous.

I've met enough supporters of islamic terror to know that white bread western boys don't know what the fuck they are talking about. You being the prime exemplar of the above?

The left's consensus diagnosis has been that Islamic terrorists are simply reacting against the contemporary foreign policies of Western powers, and that any other ideals or motivations that aren't derived from anger at these policies are either nonexistent or inconsequential. The Left's consensus prescription for eliminating Islamist terror has followed from this premise. Acknowledge the legitimacy of their grievances and modify your foreign policy to address them and thereby eliminate these "root-causes" of terrorism, and the factors that motivated them to attack you will disappear. This is consensus is profoundly mistaken, and the persistence of attacks like the one being plotted in Spain will bear this out.

The preference for dismissively reciting jokey articles of faith instead of addressing the question is quite revealing. Just what I'd expect given that the answers, were they given, would undermine many of the oft-articulated notions about the factors that inspire Islamist terror. Edited to except Jim from the above....

Yet they are still being actively targeted. Why do you think this is the case?

Another vote for spending time at a resort and practicing the downhill aspect of powder skiing there. There are quite a few resorts that have pseudo backcountry terrain which are never groomed, but are subject to avalanche control before being opened to the public. A day of lift served powder skiing will get you more practice than most people get in an entire season of backcountry skiing. Other people can speak to specific models better than I can, but you'll probably enjoy your time in the backcountry quite a bit more if you get a versatile, modern ski that's wide enough underfoot to perform well in powder. One model that does come to mind though, is the Rossignol Scratch BC. Everyone that has a pair seems to dig them, and they seem to handle everything pretty well. At your height and weight I don't think that you'd want to go lower than 180cm in terms of length with these, but other folks may think otherwise.