So in case you haven't been following the recent pronouncements of the emperor sans clothes, Greenspan's latest opinion on how the government should address the mortgage crisis (which of course, as a side note, Greenspan created) is fairly straightforward. Phrased as simply as possible, it was: the government should take the money from people who are financially responsible and give it to people who are financially irresponsible.*
Now I'm not saying that's an unpopular opinion; in fact, most democrats share that philosophy in all their fiscal policies. I just happen to disagree with it. I tend to think the government should not interfere at all, or if they must interfere, try to reward the people who are responsible and discourage the people who are irresponsible. But that's just my opinion; and in a sea of idiots, I might be a very small minority.
* Alan phrased his opinion as: the government should print money and give it to people who bought houses they knew they could not afford. In essence, this means creating inflation to pay off their bad debts. Inflation, of course, only hurts people who saved their money instead of taking out loans they couldn't pay back to buy things they couldn't afford. So basically, penalize people doing what should be encouraged, and reward people doing what should be discouraged. Maybe he's angling for a position in Hillary's cabinet or something... or he could just be a moron.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Making money on the bailout
So, just some random current thoughts:
I wonder how someone could make money on a government bailout (other than, of course, being one of the idiots being bailed out)? I mean, if you know there's going to be a huge movement of money, there should be a way to profit on it, right? And you'd have to be pretty dumb not to foresee the government spending billions, if not trillions, of taxpayer dollars to bail out all the morons who bought houses they had no business stepping foot into, much less owning, at the expense of everyone else who was dumb enough to be financially responsible.
Is there a mutual fund which tracks government idiocy? What about a credit default swap for Americans who save money? An option to get a matching percentage of any bailout within the next 2 years? Credit default swap for the social security fund, maturing in about 40 years? Common...
I wonder how someone could make money on a government bailout (other than, of course, being one of the idiots being bailed out)? I mean, if you know there's going to be a huge movement of money, there should be a way to profit on it, right? And you'd have to be pretty dumb not to foresee the government spending billions, if not trillions, of taxpayer dollars to bail out all the morons who bought houses they had no business stepping foot into, much less owning, at the expense of everyone else who was dumb enough to be financially responsible.
Is there a mutual fund which tracks government idiocy? What about a credit default swap for Americans who save money? An option to get a matching percentage of any bailout within the next 2 years? Credit default swap for the social security fund, maturing in about 40 years? Common...
Thursday, December 13, 2007
UN, emissions treaties, and our idiotic media
Wanted: news source which accurately and concisely spells out exactly why the US did not sign the Kyoto agreement, did not agree to the same basic idea in Bali, but still wants to reduce global emissions. If any news producers read this, the above is why most people think the news is no longer informing, but typically just left-wing fluff.
Ok, now that I've said that, I'll tell you the reason, but 1st, a quick question:
What would you think about a global emissions reduction treaty which imposed specific percentage reduction requirements on all signatory parties except the #1 producer of CO2 emissions in the entire world, who not only gets a free pass, but get to have the rest of the world pay them if they happen to reduce their emissions at all?
Yeah, that's what the US said too: f that.
How about you morons writing for the mainstream news organizations start reporting the story like it is, ie: "US reject idiotic treaty which would give #1 producer of CO2 emissions a complete pass while requiring less polluting countries to reduce emissions", instead of: "Bush ignores global warming". kthks
Ok, now that I've said that, I'll tell you the reason, but 1st, a quick question:
What would you think about a global emissions reduction treaty which imposed specific percentage reduction requirements on all signatory parties except the #1 producer of CO2 emissions in the entire world, who not only gets a free pass, but get to have the rest of the world pay them if they happen to reduce their emissions at all?
Yeah, that's what the US said too: f that.
How about you morons writing for the mainstream news organizations start reporting the story like it is, ie: "US reject idiotic treaty which would give #1 producer of CO2 emissions a complete pass while requiring less polluting countries to reduce emissions", instead of: "Bush ignores global warming". kthks
Monday, December 10, 2007
"Strike a Deal" people should "Get a Clue"
So the auxiliary Hollywood people (caterers, line producers, stage hands, etc.) had a march to urge the writers and studios to start negotiating again. I would say don't waste your time, although given that you're probably not working, it's probably not that much of a hardship. But let's review why your march is pointless:
1. Writers have proven they don't give a rats-ass about anyone but themselves; witness their shutting down streets and preventing unrelated people from getting to work. They could care less if you starve, as long as they preserve their $200,000 average a year.
2. Studios are all about business; the less people they have to pay, the better the bottom line. Since you're probably not making $200,000 average like the writers, you're more expendable and/or replaceable.
3. Here's the important point: Neither side is going to negotiate for another couple months; they just don't have the incentive. Studios won't negotiate in good faith until they are out of shows to show. Writers won't negotiate in good faith until their members (not you) are running out of money. It's pointless to negotiate now; neither party will be negotiating in good faith.
Give it 2 more months, at least. Yes, it's dumb that they can't possibly negotiate anything before then. But that's just the way the big, grown-up world works.
1. Writers have proven they don't give a rats-ass about anyone but themselves; witness their shutting down streets and preventing unrelated people from getting to work. They could care less if you starve, as long as they preserve their $200,000 average a year.
2. Studios are all about business; the less people they have to pay, the better the bottom line. Since you're probably not making $200,000 average like the writers, you're more expendable and/or replaceable.
3. Here's the important point: Neither side is going to negotiate for another couple months; they just don't have the incentive. Studios won't negotiate in good faith until they are out of shows to show. Writers won't negotiate in good faith until their members (not you) are running out of money. It's pointless to negotiate now; neither party will be negotiating in good faith.
Give it 2 more months, at least. Yes, it's dumb that they can't possibly negotiate anything before then. But that's just the way the big, grown-up world works.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Followup on the mortgage bailout
It would seem I'm not alone in my feeling that the government should not be sticking its proverbial penis into the backends prison-style of the people who didn't behave financially irresponsibly during the housing boom. My sincere hope is that the backlash is so large that the democrat candidates (since the backlash will ensure a democrat wins next election) are forced to promise not to propagate any more bailout or handouts to people who don't deserve it.
...
Oh, wait... they're democrats. I guess that would be a pretty hard pledge to take; kinda like not raising taxes, or not wasting more money. Now that's an fantasy world in deed, lol.
...
Oh, wait... they're democrats. I guess that would be a pretty hard pledge to take; kinda like not raising taxes, or not wasting more money. Now that's an fantasy world in deed, lol.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Mortgage bailout and the raping of the free market
Quick economics brief:
Way back in the day, somebody came up with the idea that free markets basically regulate themselves (how's that for citing exact references). The idea is that as people do dumb things they lose money, and it's self-regulating, and people don't do really stupid things with their money and expect to keep it, because there's no parental figure which "refunds" your bad investments for no cost to you.
... until now. See, the federal government is loath to let bad things happen to the economy. Hence Greenspan, the great blower of bubbles, is praised for preventing people from taking losses by postponing them behind even bigger losses. It's reminiscent of the national debt: just keep spending and inflating the bubble, and don't think about when you run out of structural integrity, because bubbles bursting is apparently unthinkable.
It reminds me of the National Park Circus' approach to fires before they figured out controlled burns. They'd put out every fire, until there was so much dried-out finder everywhere, that when a fire started, it was impossible to stop until it burned down the entire forest. The difference between that and the national government managing the economy is that someone in the park circus actually figured out that you need to let small fires burn out to prevent huge fires from destroying everything.
The "solution" for the mortgage crisis is to let the comparatively small fire burn. I know, it's a duh to everyone not involved in bailout efforts, but somehow the people making those decisions are too stupid to see it. People who could not afford houses should lose them. Banks who made bad loans should take losses on them. Investors who bought CDO's backed by bad loans should take losses on them. If you don't punish the child for stealing a cookie, tomorrow he'll be robbing a bank, and thinking that there's no downside, because even if he's caught there will just be a bailout.
And it's not just the idiots buying houses they can't possibly afford; the smart investors who bought the CDO's are banking on the government bailing out the home-"owners". The only way to prevent people from inflating the next, even bigger bubble under the same assumptions, is to prove the assumptions wrong and not bail out the debtors; any bailout encourages more bubbles in the future.
So I ask the treasury department: are you trying to cause another, bigger housing crisis in the country, or are you too dumb to realize what you're doing? Which is it?
Way back in the day, somebody came up with the idea that free markets basically regulate themselves (how's that for citing exact references). The idea is that as people do dumb things they lose money, and it's self-regulating, and people don't do really stupid things with their money and expect to keep it, because there's no parental figure which "refunds" your bad investments for no cost to you.
... until now. See, the federal government is loath to let bad things happen to the economy. Hence Greenspan, the great blower of bubbles, is praised for preventing people from taking losses by postponing them behind even bigger losses. It's reminiscent of the national debt: just keep spending and inflating the bubble, and don't think about when you run out of structural integrity, because bubbles bursting is apparently unthinkable.
It reminds me of the National Park Circus' approach to fires before they figured out controlled burns. They'd put out every fire, until there was so much dried-out finder everywhere, that when a fire started, it was impossible to stop until it burned down the entire forest. The difference between that and the national government managing the economy is that someone in the park circus actually figured out that you need to let small fires burn out to prevent huge fires from destroying everything.
The "solution" for the mortgage crisis is to let the comparatively small fire burn. I know, it's a duh to everyone not involved in bailout efforts, but somehow the people making those decisions are too stupid to see it. People who could not afford houses should lose them. Banks who made bad loans should take losses on them. Investors who bought CDO's backed by bad loans should take losses on them. If you don't punish the child for stealing a cookie, tomorrow he'll be robbing a bank, and thinking that there's no downside, because even if he's caught there will just be a bailout.
And it's not just the idiots buying houses they can't possibly afford; the smart investors who bought the CDO's are banking on the government bailing out the home-"owners". The only way to prevent people from inflating the next, even bigger bubble under the same assumptions, is to prove the assumptions wrong and not bail out the debtors; any bailout encourages more bubbles in the future.
So I ask the treasury department: are you trying to cause another, bigger housing crisis in the country, or are you too dumb to realize what you're doing? Which is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)