Archive for April, 2009

What the Tea Parties are about

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

I see a lot of discussion about what the “Tea Party” activists are concerned about. It isn’t really taxes. As others, including David Frum, have pointed out, taxes are not the issue right now. The rates are still fairly low by historical standards. This is what we are concerned about:

There are lots of complaints about Bush’s spending and I was unhappy with it. Still, the graph shows the difference. We have never seen anything like this before in our history. There is no way this debt can be repaid without either huge tax hikes or runaway inflation. We were already worried about paying for the Boomer generation retirement benefits in Social Security and Medicare. This will make that impossible. Obama said he wanted to change the country. That is certain unless he is stopped. That is what the tea parties are about.

Rush Limbaugh Channels Thomas Jefferson

Friday, April 10th, 2009

By Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.

Thoughtful Tom is often quoted as saying he would rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers. But he later on was much more critical of the media’s sloppiness and inaccuracy — much like a latter-day media observer:

Thomas Jefferson:

“Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2nd, Probabilities. 3rd, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The second would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The third and fourth should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.”

Rush Limbaugh:

“So now you’ve got a front page advertisement that’s made to look like a story, and it’s probably pretty accurate about what the TV show is about.  There’s probably more accuracy in the fake story than there is in your average LA Times front-page story, or any other newspaper. The obituaries are probably the most dependable, honest things in newspapers.  But even there the jury is still out.  Classified ads, I’d say second.  Crossword puzzle, you can pretty much count on that.  The sports pages used to be fairly honest.  Now the libs have totally taken over the sports pages.  That’s deteriorating into a touchy-feely section with political overtones in most newspapers as well.”

This piece by Bradley J. Fikes is his personal opinion, and not necessarily that of his employer, the North County Times.

The fruits of education

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

The Rasmussen Report today shows us how the education industry has affected the minds of this generation of children with ceaseless political propaganda instead of knowledge.

The survey question was whether socialism or capitalism is a better economic system. One would think that the failure of undiluted socialism in the Soviet Union and China would influence the opinion. China is now adopting a sort of capitalist system although it continues to call itself “communist.” The Soviet Union collapsed, a fact that may not be known to all college graduates extrapolating from my personal recent experience with college curriculum. The evidence suggests there is doubt:

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The key to understanding the results is the age factor.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

So, the closer you are to your school years and the less exposed to real life, the more likely it is that you prefer socialism. This is no surprise:

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

I still contend that those who plan to work for someone else and have no thought of starting or running their own business are far more likely to vote for Democrats. They are also more likely to prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans – by an 11-to-1 margin – favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

Note that independents still prefer the capitalist system by over 2 to 1. The Democrats are becoming the socialist party of America. Well, look who we just elected.

The worse news is that the socialist propaganda that the youth is inundated with in school is working.

Progress from Craig Venter

Monday, April 6th, 2009

I have previously posted on Venter’s work using bio-engineering to create new energy sources. Now he has some results. This will be a huge development when it becomes practical and that is coming closer.

He displayed a black-and-white image of a piece of coal that appeared to be carpeted with a mossy substance, saying it’s an organism that eats coal and makes a cleaner-burning fuel. “We and BP think we can scale this up substantially,” Venter said, referring to the global energy giant that became a development partner and investor in Synthetic Genomics two years ago. “We’re not too far away from making an announcement to scale this up.”

It isn’t just energy research that is being made.

Venter explained that the samples collected by the expedition so far represent enormous genomic diversity. “There were less than 1 million genes in the public databases when we started,” Venter said. Now there are more than 20 million. And by using what he called “combinatorial genomics” to screen that database, Venter said it’s possible to identify and select genes to create new chromosomes.

Algae came in for some big talk, as well.

“All of our petroleum today came from algae, it’s just old algae,” Briggs said, referring to crude oil created from dense blankets of algae that lived 400 million years ago. Now, by using genetic engineering, Briggs said Sapphire and other companies are optimizing algae to directly produce gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Briggs said such biofuels technologies appear capable of someday producing 200,000 barrels of jet fuel a day—enough to supply the needs of the U.S. Air Force—from algae grown on less than 800,000 acres. “It’s not crazy to imagine that by the year 2050 we (the United States) could become an oil exporter again,” Briggs said.

The Biosphere is getting some attention. I have previously written about the Third Kingdom, the world of extremophiles and the biosphere. Here it is getting some deserved attention.

A better explanation

Monday, April 6th, 2009

A better explanation of what happened is now published in the WSJ today. It may not be the last word but it makes sense.

Why does one large asset bubble — like our dot-com bubble — do no damage to the financial system while another one leads to its collapse? Key characteristics of housing markets — momentum trading, liquidity, price-tier movements, and high-margin purchases — combine to provide a fairly complete, simple description of the housing bubble collapse, and how it engulfed the financial system and then the wider economy.

They believe that the housing bubble was unique because it involved heavy leverage and a low income segment of the population who could not service their debt once property appreciation ended. They were betting that trees grow to the sky. I have lived through other housing bubbles.

In just the past 40 years there were two other housing bubbles, with peaks in 1979 and 1989, but the largest one in U.S. history started in 1997, probably sparked by rising household income that began in 1992 combined with the elimination in 1997 of taxes on residential capital gains up to $500,000. Rising values in an asset market draw investor attention; the early stages of the housing bubble had this usual, self-reinforcing feature.

The 1979 bubble ended with inflation and high interest rates. In those days, however, the down payments and income requirements kept some level of sanity. In 1979, my partner built a custom home in a new gated section of Mission Viejo that was located on a lake. His neighbors on either side also built custom homes but, when the time came to convert from construction financing to permanent home loans, the interest rates were 21% and neither could qualify for the loan in spite of excellent incomes.

The 2001 recession might have ended the bubble, but the Federal Reserve decided to pursue an unusually expansionary monetary policy in order to counteract the downturn. When the Fed increased liquidity, money naturally flowed to the fastest expanding sector. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations aggressively pursued the goal of expanding homeownership, so credit standards eroded. Lenders and the investment banks that securitized mortgages used rising home prices to justify loans to buyers with limited assets and income.

There are You Tube videos of Franklin Raines explaining to Congress in 2004 that single family home values could never decline.

But they did decline and we have seen the consequences. Why did this bubble take down the financial sector of the economy ?

In the equities-market downturn early in this decade, declining assets were held by institutional and individual investors that either owned the assets outright, or held only a small fraction on margin, so losses were absorbed by their owners. In the current crisis, declining housing assets were often, in effect, purchased between 90% and 100% on margin. In some of the cities hit hardest, borrowers who purchased in the low-price tier at the peak of the bubble have seen their home value decline 50% or more. Over the past 18 months as housing prices have fallen, millions of homes became worth less than the loans on them, huge losses have been transmitted to lending institutions, investment banks, investors in mortgage-backed securities, sellers of credit default swaps, and the insurer of last resort, the U.S. Treasury.

I think this is as close as we will get to an explanation for a while. Now, we have to worry about efforts to reinflate the bubble, which is what seems to be going on now. Here is another data point. Home equity withdrawals have gone negative, meaning people are paying down mortgages instead of drawing cash out.

And we don’t need this.

The same banks that offered warehouse lines of credit often turned around and bought the finished product — the mortgage-backed securities. Tom Lindmark, a former banker with a background in real estate, says, “In the boom years the banks looked to the third-party originators to be their sales force.” The big commercial banks like Bank of America and Wells Fargo provided the financing on the front end and bought the securities on the back end, but the independent mortgage banks actually made the loans. The problem with this business model was that it outsourced due diligence to third parties that didn’t have skin in the game. They were under enormous pressure to keep making loans with other people’s money, so many let their standards slide.

The mortgage originators lived on fees and had no risk with default. This must be left behind as a relic of the bad practices during the bubble.

Rush Limbaugh and the left

Monday, April 6th, 2009

Last week, the LA Times published an item by a fellow named Andrew Klavan that dared liberals (I call them leftists as I am a liberal in the classic sense) to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Klavan accused them of inventing many of the themes they attribute to Limbaugh and wrote that few of them listen. Today, the LA Times printed an op-ed purporting to be a reply, although it is filled with misstatements and inaccuracies. I’m not sure they ever did listen. Maybe they tuned the radio to the program, but that is not necessarily listening. For example:

First, the academic; Marc Cooper Director of Annenberg Digital News at the USC Annenberg School for Communication:

The ditto-head audience relies on Limbaugh the same way that a drunk uses a lamp post or the way a fundamentalist zealot relies on Scripture: not for illumination but rather for something to lean on.

“Call Limbaugh’s rants offensive, racist, extremist or just plain intellectually insulting, if it makes you feel better. I think it’s more useful to understand him instead as a form of religious experience, one of the more dogmatic strain. He’s a completely reliable inspiration and reinforcement for those who are embittered and battered and who confuse their natural allies for their enemies.

It is very common for these people to refer to Limbaugh’s audience as “Dittoheads.” Do they know where the term comes from ? I suspect they assume that it means the audience all agree with Limbaugh, hence “ditto.” In fact, it refers to the tendency of callers, once put on the air, to waste time telling Limbaugh how much they like his show, etc., etc. “Ditto” means, “I think you’re great but assume that as stipulated.” It has nothing to do with agreement on the topic.

The professor goes on to write:

. Like the ditto-heads themselves, I also listen to Limbaugh strictly to reinforce my preconceived views. When I am feeling most powerless, most misanthropic, most suspicious of the ability of humanity to think clearly, when I’m flooded with fears that we might be living in the twilight of the bipeds, there’s absolutely no one better than Rush Limbaugh to reaffirm my views. Thanks Rush.”

I wonder what he teaches his students, if not “preconceived ideas”?

Next, the newspaper editor, Laurie Ochoa Editor in chief, LA Weekly:

Any real ditto-head can tell you that liberals have always been an important part of Rush Limbaugh’s audience. They may not get a lot of caller airtime — “Rush babies,” budding right-wingers with, as Limbaugh likes to put it, “perceptions beyond their years,” and flirty female conservatives will always get on the show before cranky lefties — but Limbaugh loves to lecture and tease his liberal listeners.

Once again, the insult then an inaccuracy. Liberal callers go to the head of the line and anyone who listens knows that. He will even keep them on for lengthy periods and hold the call past station breaks. She either doesn’t know this (most likely) or is lying. Two more misstatements:

Less interesting to me are the over-hyped skirmishes between Limbaugh and the Obama administration, which are mostly about ratings and political posturing. I listen for the subtler themes that worm their way into our national dialogue. It was morbidly fascinating to hear Limbaugh plant his father’s anti-FDR bias into the bailout debate. The contrarian idea that Franklin Roosevelt actually made the Great Depression worse found its traction on Limbaugh’s show and quickly spread to cable news’ talking heads.

First, I didn’t know that Obama was that concerned about ratings as it was he, not Limbaugh, who started the “skirmishes.”

Then we have the second lie or evidence of ignorance; “The contrarian idea that Franklin Roosevelt actually made the Great Depression worse .” Has she ever heard of Amity Schlaes’ book or about the UCLA economics professors study ?

I suspect that the only way people can be this ignorant, and supremely unaware of it, is if they read the LA Times every day.

The GM nationalization

Sunday, April 5th, 2009

UPDATE: We now have evidence of Steve Rattner’s expertise in the issues of GM’s financial crisis. He has experience with pension fraud.

A Securities and Exchange Commission complaint says a “senior executive” of Mr. Rattner’s investment firm met in 2004 with a politically connected consultant about a finder’s fee. Later, the complaint says, the firm received an investment from the state pension fund and paid $1.1 million in fees.

The “senior executive,” not named in the complaint, is Mr. Rattner, according to the person familiar with the matter. He is co-founder of the investment firm, Quadrangle Group, which he left to join the Treasury Department to oversee the auto task force earlier this year. Neither Mr. Rattner nor Quadrangle has been accused of any wrongdoing. Mr. Rattner did not return calls for comment.

Well, at least he knows the issues.

With the firing of GM CEO Waggoner, the Obama administration has embarked on a program of corporate socialism reminiscent of Mussolini in the 1920s. Obama threatens corporate executives, telling them, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” Hmmm. Were those the pitchforks forged in the House Financial Services committee ? And, who are the pitchforks aimed at, really ?

It is notable that no one with auto industry experience is involved in the “task force” that took over.

In session after session in a warren of offices at the Treasury Department, the team has sat through tutorials on dealer financing, studied basic data and debated the future of U.S. car sales. They have spent days trying to understand the complexities of the hundreds of companies that supply the car companies with axles, seats and other parts.

Steven Rattner, a former journalist-turned-investment banker, was picked last month to head the team. He reports to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the chief White House economic adviser. Mr. Rattner compares the challenge to a complicated puzzle.

“It’s like a Rubik’s cube, trying to untwist it and trying to get all the colors to line up,” he said in an interview. “So we’ve learned a lot about how car dealers work, and how companies get paid when they sell a car to a dealer, and why there are a certain number of dealers more than are optimal. Have we learned everything? Of course not, but I think we are learning what we need to learn to do this job.”

Of note are Rattner’s credentials.

Mr. Rattner started his career as a financial reporter for The New York Times. He has been active in New York’s Democratic Party, holding a variety of fund-raisers for candidates; he originally backed Hillary Clinton for president. Mr. Rattner’s wife, Maureen White, was a co-chairwoman of finance for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

He previously worked at Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Lazard as a mergers and acquisitions specialist.

Certainly gives one confidence, doesn’t it ?

How about the others on the task force ?

The team’s industrial expertise comes from Ron Bloom, a scrappy Harvard Business School graduate who gave up investment banking in 1996 to work as a top adviser to the United Steelworkers union

Several team members, such as Brian Deese, a 31-year-old former Obama campaign aide, are on loan from the White House’s National Economic Council. Three others specialize in climate change. The rest come from agencies such as the Energy and Labor departments. Backing them up are about 30 accountants and advisers.

Yes, GM is in good hands.

Mark to Market has been eased

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

UPDATE # 2: The lefties don’t like the change. I suspect this is because it will interfere with Geithner’s takeover of banks.

We are trying to get banks to write down their toxic assets. The longer this takes, the longer the financial industry will be crippled by uncertainty about what lurking horrors are concealed in banks’ balance sheets. This rule really, really does not help.

The point is that many banks think those assets are of value and don’t want to give them up, especially after seeing the fools in Congress behavior.

UPDATE: Here is another view of the AIG bailout which makes the case that BK would have been better. This is all interconnected and I think history will see this as a financial panic, not a depression. I do have one correction. Greenberg blames Obama but the early stages of this were under Bush and Paulson should share the blame.

I have been concerned about the Mark-to-market rule introduced by the FASB two years ago in the wake of the Enron scandal. It has exacerbated the current banking crisis and today the FASB relaxed the ruling, keeping it for some purposes but suspending it for bank capital requirements. The result has been a big market rally. Let’s hope a few more sensible steps appear.

Changes to fair-value, or mark-to-market accounting, approved by FASB today allow companies to use “significant” judgment in gauging prices of some investments on their books, including mortgage-backed securities. Analysts say the measure may reduce banks’ writedowns and boost net income. Firms could apply the changes to first-quarter results.

It has been counter productive, as usual. It’s OK when there IS a market but there is none right now so they get marked down to zero. For some, that is appropriate but not all.

William Isaac, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from 1981 to 1985, has called fair value “a major cause” of the credit crisis. Robert Rubin, the former Citigroup senior counselor and Treasury secretary, said Jan. 27 the rule has done “a great deal of damage.”

This vote didn’t hurt either.

the Senate voted 89-8 for an amendment to the Fiscal year 2010 budget resolution (S. Con Res. 13), introduced by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), which would prohibit any future greenhouse gas cap-and-trade initiative from increasing gasoline prices and electricity rates for U.S. households and businesses.

God ! Common sense may be breaking out !

As University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. points out, “The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting sources of energy, which dominate US energy consumption. The Thune Amendment thus undercuts the entire purpose of cap and trade.” In other words, it is impossible to vote for the Thune amendment and support cap-and-trade and be consistent, candid, or straight with the American people.

Well, Duh !