It's just my opinion, I could be wrong

NPR had an interesting analysis of the possible motivation for the bailout proposal (sorry, can't find the link), which was based on what happened in the money market space when Lehman went under. I know I'll do a poor job summarizing, so if you want more info, google around a bit. Basically, when Lehman went under, there was a minor run on money market accounts; something like $80 billion was pulled out in one day. Now, money markets buy short term commercial paper, like what companies issue to fund daily operations until they can liquidate their assets to cover it. When Lehman went under, some money market funds "broke the buck", and that caused a massive withdraw. Now, if you're a financial institution running a money market fund, and you get massive redemptions, your money isn't liquid (it's in short term commercial paper, or bonds, or other lending), so you need to borrow in the same manner. However, on that day there was no money to borrow, so basica...

As everyone who reads any semblance of news (even really biased "news" like Newsweek, for example) knows, the government is currently hashing out the details of the inevitable bailout program. Although, in all fairness it should be phrased as 'another' bailout program, since there have been several already and will be more in the future, but this one is the largest and most public to date. As I'm rarely short of opinions, I have some on this... First, the people pitching the bailout could use a good solid bitch-slap about calling things what they are and not hiding behind spin and double-talk. First, Paulson and Bernanke were careful not to use the term 'bailout', even though it was blatantly obvious their plan was one (judges would have also accepted 'crony payout' or 'taxpayer anal rape' as alternatives). Then, there was the BS about the government might not lose too much money, even though the explicit point of the bailout (in their wor...

This post about price vs rental price makes basically the same point I was making, but with an interesting observation/speculation as an addendum. Following the logic that the market will drop until there is parity between the numbers, it stands to reason that you can work out exactly how much "loss" (as opposed to equity) is in each property, based on the sales price and rental value. If you buy that as a concept, if the owner cannot make the payments for at least the next 5ish years, then someone needs to eat that loss (ie: lose that much money) in the next few years. It can either be the original owner entirely, or it could be shared with a bank (in the case of foreclosure or short sale), and/or with a knife catcher. Nothing can decrease the loss amount, it's just the owner's decision on how the total loss is distributed, based on how they act now. An interesting perspective, I thought.

In case your on the fence about McCain/Obama, here's another cheery bit to help influence your decision: Obama might pursue criminal charges against Bush administration I know when I woke up this morning, I thought, "Gee, what could the next administration do to best help the country? I know: they could start an enormous partisan political fight which will consume billions of taxpayer dollars in legal fees, divide the country, exasperate the citizens, and at the very best accomplish nothing, while having the outside chance of crippling the ability of our government to function effectively. Yeah, that's a great idea!" Dear god, what a horrible disaster Obama would be. I'm sorry: if you are aware of this and you still vote for Obama, you're either an enemy of the country, a partisan fanatic, or a blithering idiot; there's really no other way I can see it. This is quite possibly the stupidest partisan political plan ever, and that's a pretty high bar.

Just a quick funny, from the Washington Post : Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday dismissed the ongoing Republican National Convention as a substance-free spectacle... At least Obama's weaving some levity into his substance-free rhetoric. :)