Ask the Next Question Q---
it didn't matter that much what government policies were, eventually we were going to come to this bubble burst one way or the other. Why this death spiral was not being discussed years ago is beyond me. Perhaps it is similar to an economic singularity. No one could see what was on the other side, and so averted their gaze. some people saw where we were headed, but as long as there was some regulation we were safe from the sort of excess that led to the current crisis. history will show that the bush/cheney policies, especially in the second term, were the primary reason for the impending the collapse. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I would have liked to see an example of Bush's deregulation. Unfortunately, Bush was largely responsible for increasing government spending and government interference. I forgot where I heard it, but the joke is that Bush entered office as a social conservative, and is leaving office as a conservative socialist. The problem isn't just deregulation, it is a failure to regulate, although there has been plenty of deregulation since the 1980s, led by those who cling to the same arguments you present here, that government is never the solution. That's the thinking that gave us the SL collapses, the Keating Five, the sub-prime crisis, etc. This administration and Congress looked the other way, if they didn't actually cheer on, the insanity of predatory practices in the mortgage industry. They caved to lobbyists from the the banking industry, lobbyists who were championing the same hands-off policies that you have praised here. They ignored warning after warning that the sub-prime market was a house of cards. They failed to notice, or perhaps only failed to care, that a catastrophe was brewing. A sub-prime loan is little more than a way to trick home buyers into assuming far more risk than they can understand. When the government failed to act on this con game, it wasn't doing us any libertarian favors, it was failing in its fundamental responsibility to legislate and enforce laws that protect the citizenry. Con games are crimes, not economics. We do not, in this nation, respect a freedom to trick people. When we warn, If it seems to be too good to be true, it probably isn't, we are not excusing the con man, no matter how much responsibility we assign to the victim. We prosecute con artists. Perhaps the Bush administration saw every bit of this and consciously decided that a catastrophe would not really be a problem, since it is how free markets correct themselves. By doing so, they permitted the world economy to enter a recession that is causing incalculable grief. Surely their inaction is unjustified, given the enormity of the resulting crisis and the effects that ripple out from it. The fellow who shot and killed three people about a mile from my house yesterday did so just after being laid off, which is not to say that government is to blame for the murders he committed, but to point out that an environment of economic uncertainly affects much more than just our wallets. Before sticking the blame on people who shouldn't have chosen to sign their loans, consider that a large but as-yet uncounted number of them ended up in foreclosure because they couldn't pay their medical bills. Only the hardest-hearted would argue that people choose to have medical problems. Thus, failure to address the mess that is health insurance is also clearly related to the mortgage crisis. Sub-prime and predatory mortgages. No medical safety net. If addressing these practices via regulation is socialism, bring it on. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
At 10:51 AM Saturday 11/15/2008, Nick Arnett wrote: Only the hardest-hearted would argue that people choose to have medical problems. Or those doctors who when they can't find a clear answer in five minutes* announce that the problem is all in the patient's head and hand out anti-depressants. _ *Thirty seconds if the patient is a woman. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or those doctors who when they can't find a clear answer in five minutes* announce that the problem is all in the patient's head ... Yeah, that's what they said about Dave Land's brain tumor -- it was all in his head. He gave the surgeons a piece of his mind. He needed brain surgery like he needed a hole in the head. Ah, tumor humor. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the thinking that gave us the SL collapses, the Keating Five, the sub-prime crisis, etc. Actually, bad government regulation contributed to all of those, Dems and Reps both. And no one has consistently predicted such things. You can't preempt what you can't predict. They failed to notice, or perhaps only failed to care, that a catastrophe was brewing. Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? Did you suggest a way to preempt it? You seem like a clever guy. If you didn't, why do you think the politicians could? And even if they could, why would they? Their incentives are to try to please people who can get them reelected, and to not make any decisions that displease those people or that can prove to be decisively wrong come election time. A sub-prime loan is little more than a way to trick home buyers into assuming far more risk than they can understand. It is a good thing we have you (and politicians) to look out for the all those people who can't understand a mortgage. Thus, failure to address the mess that is health insurance is also clearly related to the mortgage crisis. The government has certainly made a mess of health insurance. The best thing the government could do would be to remove the laws that make it difficult for health insurance providers to serve customers in different states, and especially to remove the subsidy for employer provided health care which makes health-care more expensive for the self-employed and unemployed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction! what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial thbush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Actually, bad government regulation contributed to all of those, Dems and Reps both. And no one has consistently predicted such things. You can't preempt what you can't predict. There have been many warnings and predictions; consistency in predictions is not a precondition for learning and acting. Consistency in predictions is a pipe dream. Your comments about both parties being involved are irrelevant. Both parties are involved in every act of Congress, even when they vote present or choose not to vote. The clearest recent example of failing to regulate at the behest of the industry is the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, which, in its original version, would have addressed many of the issues. However, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the American Banking Association lobbyists convinced the House majority to permit lenders to continue the insidious practice of giving larger fees to brokers for putting borrowers into higher cost sub-prime mortgages. It also bars borrowers whose predatory loans have been sold from suing investors for relief until they are facing foreclosure. This forces borrowers into foreclosure as a condition for asserting their rights, which is outrageous. The industry persuaded government to leave them alone and look what happened. You keep saying that bad government contributed to all these things. I have no doubt that you can demonstrate some such contributions, but you have failed to offer any argument that would show that the net impact of regulation was to bring these problems about. You can't prove something simply by asserting it over and over. Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? Irrational argument. It is not all up to me, of course. It is a good thing we have you (and politicians) to look out for the all those people who can't understand a mortgage. The fact that people are responsible for their choices does not grant legitimacy to those who would fleece them, does it? Shall we excuse con artists by blaming their victims, in the name of free markets? If so, then how can economics becomes anything more than figuring out the best ways to cheat? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction! what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial thbush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? That seems like a reasonable denial to me. It goes back to the early 1980s. But that doesn't excuse the failure to act, which is crystal clear in hindsight. That is what is so sad about those who continue to endorse the same policies, or more extreme versions of the same. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial the bush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? That seems like a reasonable denial to me. It goes back to the early 1980s. But that doesn't excuse the failure to act, which is crystal clear in hindsight. That is what is so sad about those who continue to endorse the same policies, or more extreme versions of the same. Nick i am not denying reagan started it, but he backed down after the mid-term elections. it was under bush II that the economy went completely out of control. it still could have been contained after 9/11, but when he started insanely spending to finance the war in iraq, national bankruptcy became a distinct possibility. in the process, he turned most of the world against an america that had lost its way. his solution was... shop til you drop! well, we're dropping, all right... the extremes of the last eight years have come home to roost, and the consequences are only beginning to be felt. even obama can't stop what is to come. he can only try to lessen the pain and take america in a new direction... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 11:55:20 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I don't recall having posted about this onlist, but it has been on my mind for a few years as being a serious problem w/consequences. What got me thinking about it in the first place was news about housing prices in California and New York City. I found it astounding that home prices in those places could be at such variance with what I saw in the local market. I understood the demand arguments, but didn't find them too convincing. Then, I discussed the situation with people who had moved here from California. They were selling Cal. homes and moving here into homes well beyond their means (and then bitching about property taxes). Frex: One guys dad had bought a Cal. home for 70K back in the 70's and sold it in 2003 for over 1.5M. To me, that was a sign of an unsupportable bubble, and led me into further thinking about the local market. The home I grew up in cost my parents 11K in 1958. In 1977 my Mom sold it for 33K even though the neighborhood was already in a downward slide (becoming a poor persons neighborhood). Now I would guess you couldn't touch the house for less than 60K(I just looked up some homes in the 'hood and its more like 85K) even though it is basically a slum. This tells me that there is something seriously wrong with the housing market. And the market here is quite favorable compared to many other areas of the country. (I think Dan could speak about this with more authority off the top of his head.) My current thinking is that the whole real estate market is basically a pyramid scam where players make profit in the long term off of boom and bust cycles, and in the short term off of speculation. (I'm not positing grand conspiracies, just greed greed gred) I'm not much of a proponent for regulation in this case, but I don't see any market forces that are strong enough to offset or even oppose the greed function. At the least, for decades we have been hammered with the idea that real estate prices will *always* increase. But why should they when the intrinsic value of a property has decreased? Now the bubble has burst, and in some places prices are decreasing. But it isn't because the homes are deteriorating, or gangs infest the local parks, or the schools are failing, or city services have been diminished, it is because the credit market is suffering. And that tells me the entire system is broken. (Note: Locally, home prices are holding steady or increasing. Correct me if I am wrong here) xponent Intentional Non-Homeowner Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction! what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial thbush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? LOL. How about one example of Bush deregulation that was responsible, as you claimed? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: There have been many warnings and predictions; That is a problem! consistency in predictions is not a precondition for learning and acting. Of course it is! All sorts of people predict all sorts of things. The only ones worth listening to are the ones who have a track record of being consistently right. Consistency in predictions is a pipe dream. If it is, then government regulation of markets is hopeless. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/15/2008 11:55:20 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I don't recall having posted about this onlist, but it has been on my mind for a few years as being a serious problem w/consequences. I hazard a guess that the reason you did not post is one of these: 1) You were not certain enough of your prediction to risk that other people might act on it 2) You did not care enough to help others with your insight Or perhaps none of the above. But whatever the reason, it is a good example of the difficulty of regulating markets. If the government were good at predicting these things, then I think what should be done is to convey the predictions and warnings to the public, and let people act on them as they see fit. This has the great advantage (compared to regulation) that people are not forcing their will on others, encroaching on liberty and freedom. But this approach is rarely used. I claim it is because the government is no better, and probably worse, at predicting these things than the markets. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
what facts? after all this back and forth are you still in denial the bush administration was largely responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? LOL so you admit you don't have any facts, AND that the bush administration played a role in the subprime mortgage crisis... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so you admit you don't have any facts, AND that the bush administration played a role in the subprime mortgage crisis... Surely you can give a single example to support your claim that Bush deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Of course it is! All sorts of people predict all sorts of things. The only ones worth listening to are the ones who have a track record of being consistently right. If that were true, no market research company would be in business. I'd imagine that no long-term forecaster of any kind would be in business. I know a little bit about forecasting... I co-founded and ran a successful market research firm and I have patents for methods of forecasting markets. Do you have any credentials or examples to cite that would support your notion that we should only listen to people who are right all the time? I have a little trouble imagining that you do, since following that advice, you might as well put in earplugs, since there's nobody who is consistently right about long-term forecasting or predicting much of anything interesting. The value in long-term forecasting is not so much the forecast as the thinking behind it. As regards the current economic situation, there's an old truism that good weather predictions are far more accurate than bad weather predictions. The people whose predictions are accurate during stable conditions are far less likely to be accurate when things become more chaotic. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Of course it is! All sorts of people predict all sorts of things. The only ones worth listening to are the ones who have a track record of being consistently right. If that were true, no market research company would be in business. The market research that I have seen has never had a good record. I would certainly not spend any of my money on it, unless it was just a way of keeping track of what is trendy. I'd imagine that no long-term forecaster of any kind would be in business. Depending on what you mean by long-term (10 years or more?), then I would probably agree that there are no long-term forecasters with a good record. I know a little bit about forecasting... I co-founded and ran a successful market research firm and I have patents for methods of forecasting markets. Do you have any credentials or examples to cite that would support your notion that we should only listen to people who are right all the time? LOL. I certainly wouldn't pay for your forecasts! You didn't even forecast your own house price decline. You want a pissing contest, do you? Since I don't register my predictions, and I doubt you have either, the only thing I can think of is how good we have been at predicting the financial markets, based on our investment returns. How would you like to compare investment returns? I think I am much younger than you, so I only have 6 years of returns, but I have outperformed the major indices by a statistically significant amount over that time. I'm even positive YTD, which puts me well above the 90th percentile this year. If you are interested, feel free to post your investment returns during the last 6 years, and I will do the same. The value in long-term forecasting is not so much the forecast as the thinking behind it. In little-league, they always used to tell us that winning wasn't important, just having fun. We didn't win much. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You want a pissing contest, do you? Hardly. That's not an accurate description of my invitation to you. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
John Williams wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I did. Unfortunately, I can't find the post where I predicted it. But I always predict disasters, so it's not surprising that sometimes I'm right. Cassandra Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I did. Unfortunately, I can't find the post where I predicted it. But I always predict disasters, so it's not surprising that sometimes I'm right. Cassandra Monteiro Cassandra's beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so no one would believe her predictions. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
You want a pissing contest, do you? Hardly. That's not an accurate description of my invitation. Nick in other words, he knows he would lose if he accepted your challenge. so, any good stock tips? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You want a pissing contest, do you? Hardly. That's not an accurate description of my invitation to you. I know, you wanted to compete on credentials rather than putting your money where your mouth (or other parts of your anatomy) is. I realize it is much easier to put other people's money on the line with one's predictions than one's own. I don't blame you for not risking your own money on your predictions. I wouldn't risk my money on your predictions either! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
so you admit you don't have any facts, AND that the bush administration played a role in the subprime mortgage crisis... Surely you can give a single example to support your claim that Bush deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. tch, tch, there you go again, putting words in my mouth and twisting the context of what i did say... anyway you have tacitly admitted the bush administration is largely responsible for the current economic meltdown. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
the reason you did not post is one of these: 1) You were not certain enough of your prediction to risk that other people might act on it. 2) You did not care enough to help others with your insight. Or perhaps none of the above. you ain't no nice guy, john williams. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
I know, you wanted to compete on credentials rather than putting your money where your mouth (or other parts of your anatomy) is. I realize it is much easier to put other people's money on the line with one's predictions than one's own. I don't blame you for not risking your own money on your predictions. I wouldn't risk my money on your predictions either! i would, and how do you know he hasn't put his own money on the line? so, i guess you're admitting you have no credentials? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 2:40:44 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/15/2008 11:55:20 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I don't recall having posted about this onlist, but it has been on my mind for a few years as being a serious problem w/consequences. I hazard a guess that the reason you did not post is one of these: 1) You were not certain enough of your prediction to risk that other people might act on it 2) You did not care enough to help others with your insight It is such cynical and sarcastic statements that makes you appear to run Asshole as a native app. Not trying to be insulting, just an observation on why you catch so much flak. You remarks here were uncalled for and if you are trying to draw my ire..try harder. Or perhaps none of the above. Probably. It is not like this mailing list is a compendium of my every thought or belief. I've been here for 10 years or so, and have discussed many things. I even started all that Maru stuff a few years ago. There is no master Brin-L list of everything in the universe that we tic once a conversation gets underway. Then, one must also consider that I have no expertise in this subject, just some observations based on what I know from the news and the experiences of people I know. I try not to start such a conversation, laden with ignorance or potential ignorance on my part. I tend towards pragmatism in that respect.G But whatever the reason, it is a good example of the difficulty of regulating markets. Regulation is always a balancing act, but then so is running a business. If the government were good at predicting these things, then I think what should be done is to convey the predictions and warnings to the public, and let people act on them as they see fit. [snip] By the same token, if business were good at predicting things (without constantly lying about it), they should be spreading the word in order to self-regulate. You know there is nothing keeping them from taking their data back to the regulators in order to get change when conditions warrant. And then it would be a matter of public record rather than self-serving polemics. Of course, this never happens because business gets it's pool of experts from the same place government does. And business does not embrace the concept of enlightened self-interest to a degree that would allow it to be self-regulating, thereby making a need for government regulation superfluous. xponent The Invisible Hand Has No Brain Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then, one must also consider that I have no expertise in this subject, just some observations based on what I know from the news and the experiences of people I know. I try not to start such a conversation, laden with ignorance or potential ignorance on my part. I tend towards pragmatism in that respect.G So, the reason you didn't post your prediction is because you didn't consider it reliable enough to share. Which was my number 1 guess, by the way. That is part of the point I was making. There are those like you, then there are others who share their predictions even though they are no good (either they know that and do it anyway, or they think their predictions are better than they are). The number of people who consistently make good predictions is very small, and they rarely share their predictions. By the same token, if business were good at predicting things (without constantly lying about it), they should be spreading the word in order to self-regulate. And they do. Businesses set prices and make deals in markets. You know there is nothing keeping them from taking their data back to the regulators in order to get change when conditions warrant. And they do, although rarely by data...rather by influence and bribes. And not for the good of all, but for the good of themselves. They usually want a subsidy for themselves, but not their competitors. Or a rule that makes it easier for themselves, or harder on their competitors. When the government starts playing those games, the playing field is far from level. If their were no government favors to go after, then that sort of rent-seeking behavior would be lessened. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
At 06:54 PM Saturday 11/15/2008, Rceeberger wrote: It is such cynical and sarcastic statements that makes you appear to run Asshole as a native app. I've told people that in the same way Micro$oft claimed IE is an integral part of Windows that cannot be removed or disabled without rendering the OS [even more] inoperable [than it already is], my somewhat, um, unique and sometimes annoying sense of humor is an integral part of the package that cannot be removed or disabled either . . . xponent The Invisible Hand Has No Brain Maru If It Had I'd Think Someone Flunked Anatomy 101 Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
At 06:03 PM Saturday 11/15/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: the bush administration is largely responsible for the current economic meltdown. Things that happened under the Bush administration may have served the function of the straw that broke the camel's back wrt the current situation, but it has been developing for decades and politicians in both parties and on both sides of the aisle in Congress as well as people in the financial and business sector and others have been responsible. No Shortage Of Blame To Go Around Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
At 05:48 PM Saturday 11/15/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say, 2004? I did. Unfortunately, I can't find the post where I predicted it. But I always predict disasters, so it's not surprising that sometimes I'm right. Cassandra Monteiro Cassandra's beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so no one would believe her predictions. History and myth also show that the one thing which is much worse than a prognosticator whose predictions are unreliable is one whose predictions are 100% accurate. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: History and myth also show that the one thing which is much worse than a prognosticator whose predictions are unreliable is one whose predictions are 100% accurate. A member of Congress once pointed that out to me, as we talked about political polls and such. She said that whenever somebody comes up with a truly accurate polling system, people get excited, praise it... and fairly soon, stop paying for it in favor of polls that tell them what they wanted to hear. Human nature being what it is, at least among politicians, people ultimately want to hear confirmation, not reality. This came as I was doing a startup that was showing very good predictive capabilities. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
Surely you can give a single example to support your claim that Bush deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. It's fairly obvious it all began with private investment banks going public in the 1980's and shifting liabilities onto shareholders. Since then it's been a steadily increasing land slide of increased risk in an environment of decreasing regulation as apparent wealth creation has been trumpeted widely while the increasing fragility of ever leveraged debt remained hidden. Both Republican and Democrat administrations were blinded by the proclaimed profits, and everyone (and there were quite a few) who warned of the dangers was simply ignored because the big players pooh poohed them. What most failed to notice was the incentives the big players had to ignore reality - it not being their wealth they were risking. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 7:50:42 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then, one must also consider that I have no expertise in this subject, just some observations based on what I know from the news and the experiences of people I know. I try not to start such a conversation, laden with ignorance or potential ignorance on my part. I tend towards pragmatism in that respect.G So, the reason you didn't post your prediction is because you didn't consider it reliable enough to share. Which was my number 1 guess, by the way. Off the mark. You said: 1) You were not certain enough of your prediction to risk that other people might act on it I don't really care that anyone would act on *my* understanding of a situation. Not my problem. It is that subjects where the volume of knowledge is large and my own understanding is limited are not subjects where I pretend to have an opinion that can be taken as fact, and would prefer to listen and learn rather than speak out. It has nothing to do with making predictions.that is for blowhards and other idiots who think Christmas tree lights have smart DC transformers built in. Dig? That is part of the point I was making. There are those like you, then there are others who share their predictions even though they are no good (either they know that and do it anyway, or they think their predictions are better than they are). The number of people who consistently make good predictions is very small, and they rarely share their predictions. In any predictive setting there will be uncertainty based on the quality of data and the lack of necessary data. No one can judge the need for data if they do not have it and don't know that they need it, or even know it exists. It is what you don't know that hurts you. By the same token, if business were good at predicting things (without constantly lying about it), they should be spreading the word in order to self-regulate. And they do. Businesses set prices and make deals in markets. So.you are saying that the market *intentionally* caused this burst bubble? That they intentionally lost a trillion in stock value? If so, your polemic places you squarely in the drown it in the bathtub set. xponent In Reference To Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is that subjects where the volume of knowledge is large and my own understanding is limited are not subjects where I pretend to have an opinion that can be taken as fact, As I said, I got it in number 1. So.you are saying that the market *intentionally* caused this burst bubble? Intentionally? No. That would require everyone to act together on the same bad information. The sort of thing that government interference tends to cause. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 10:35:11 PM, Euan Ritchie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Surely you can give a single example to support your claim that Bush deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. It's fairly obvious it all began with private investment banks going public in the 1980's and shifting liabilities onto shareholders. Since then it's been a steadily increasing land slide of increased risk in an environment of decreasing regulation as apparent wealth creation has been trumpeted widely while the increasing fragility of ever leveraged debt remained hidden. Both Republican and Democrat administrations were blinded by the proclaimed profits, and everyone (and there were quite a few) who warned of the dangers was simply ignored because the big players pooh poohed them. What most failed to notice was the incentives the big players had to ignore reality - it not being their wealth they were risking. I'm sure that is all quite true, but I think it begins earlier. (Please correct me if I get the facts wrong here) About 50 years ago a home would cost 10-15K, you put 40% down and paid it off in 10 years. The idea that real estate would *always* increase in value set in and land and home prices increased at a rate that allowed people to think of their property as an investment. Over the intervening period wages did not keep pace with the rising land values. So soon, lenders were forced to change their practices. At first 20% down and 20 years to pay and so on til you have 0% down and 30 or more years to pay. In light of rising property values, lenders had little choice but to give more liberal loans if they wanted to keep lending money for homes and land. Buyers had to accept longer term loans if they wanted to buy a home. So basically, it didn't matter all that much what government policies were, eventually we were going to come to this bubble burst one way or the other. (Though I must say that there is an implication of government complicity since rising real estate prices mean higher property tax revenues) Why this death spiral was not being discussed years ago is beyond me. Perhaps it is similar to an economic singularity. No one could see what was on the other side, and so averted their gaze. xponent Event Horizon Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 11:00:14 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is that subjects where the volume of knowledge is large and my own understanding is limited are not subjects where I pretend to have an opinion that can be taken as fact, As I said, I got it in number 1. So.you are saying that the market *intentionally* caused this burst bubble? Intentionally? No. That would require everyone to act together on the same bad information. The sort of thing that government interference tends to cause. Since market information is not filtered through the government but through the market itself, exactly how does that work? xponent Plato Says So Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since market information is not filtered through the government but through the market itself, exactly how does that work? Exactly how does what work? Government regulation? Not very well. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
I'm sure that is all quite true, but I think it begins earlier. (Please correct me if I get the facts wrong here) It's not just about home mortgages, it just happens that's the bubble that revealed the weakness - if not for that some other, all multiple, markets would have bubbled and burst at some time. The housing bubble started when prices began to outstrip the traditional 4 ~ 6 times the median annual income - that distortion is a reflection of, and pressure for more, changes in evaluations of values and risks. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
Since market information is not filtered through the government but through the market itself, exactly how does that work? Exactly how does what work? Government regulation? Not very well. But evidently better than none, or as it was - the pretence of self regulation. Investment managers didn't bother to evaluate the risks of what they were doing because their personal wealth was not at risk, nor even - ridiculously, was their re-numeration. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On 11/15/2008 11:43:53 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since market information is not filtered through the government but through the market itself, exactly how does that work? Exactly how does what work? Government regulation? Not very well. Disingenuity will get you nowhere. Try harder Roto. xponent Sock Puppet Spoor Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which minions, and what deregulation are you referring to? i told you, i'm not playing this game any more, No game to play, just a simple question to answer. The statement that Bush's deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis is apparently unsupportable, since you have been unable to supply a single example of deregulation, attributable to Bush or his minions, that led to said crisis. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
i told you, i'm not playing this game any more, No game to play, just a simple question to answer. The statement that Bush's deregulation was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis is apparently unsupportable, since you have been unable to supply a single example of deregulation, attributable to Bush or his minions,that led to said crisis. i've given you all the answer you are going to get, so pick all the nits you wish. if you can't even attempt to answer ANY of my questions, then why don't you tell me who or what you think led to the subprime mortgage crisis. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i've given you all the answer you are going to get, Okay. So we can agree that there are no examples of Bush's deregulation that were responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. I would have liked to see an example of Bush's deregulation. Unfortunately, Bush was largely responsible for increasing government spending and government interference. I forgot where I heard it, but the joke is that Bush entered office as a social conservative, and is leaving office as a conservative socialist. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
Okay. So we can agree that there are no examples of Bush's deregulation that were responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis. Nope... The only thing we agree on is that Bush was responsible for incredibly out of control deficit spending for a war that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. That alone did not cause the economic collapse. His policies of lowering taxes for the rich, and especially deregulation were to blame. In fact, I can't think of a single good thing that he did as president; history will prove he was the worse president ever... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
At 05:57 PM Friday 11/14/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i've given you all the answer you are going to get, so pick all the nits you wish. if you can't even attempt to answer ANY of my questions, then why don't you tell me who or what you think led to the subprime mortgage crisis. Greed. There are good reasons why it is one of the seven deadly sins, even if one does not necessarily believe in the Catholic church. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question Q---
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: His policies of lowering taxes for the rich, and especially deregulation were to blame. In fact, I can't think of a single ... ...act of deregulation from Bush that was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ask the Next Question Q---
Which minions, and what deregulation are you referring to? i told you, i'm not playing this game any more, until you answer my questions. you ask questions to bait and to antagonize. any answer i give only lead to another question. we are all quite familiar with your tactics to avoid, distract and obfuscate the issue. you attempt to change the topic or the context by asking irrelevant questions. i am not asking complicated interrogatives too profound to answer succinctly. or rhetorical question, or if you have stopped beating your wife. you ask questions to give the appearance that you know the answer, but know better than to say. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
