About Me

Name: Contrarian Guitarist
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

LUC

I have to say I really love the Law of Unintended Consequences (LUC). It will, for me, be the most enjoyable thing about being governed by Obama, Reid and Pelosi. One predicted unintended consequence I can see coming: shift in democratic thinking when the Fed's investment starts to pay back. Big! Suddenly, in spite of lower tax revenues from individual payers due to the looming recession, the gov'ment money bags will swell as their investments in banks and financial and insurance companies, bought for pennies on the dollar become worth real dollars, in spite of Fed management. Suddenly they'll notice that pro-business policies will result in better return on their investments. More money to give to the poor. Wait, where did the poor go? What, the pro-business policies resulted in more jobs?!?! What LUC!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Social Security is Now Privatized

With the collapse of the stock market there are literally hundreds of articles and blogs trumpeting how bad it would've been had Bush been able to privatize a portion of social security. Imagine the losses! A couple thoughts, first, if Bush had some managed to get congress to pass changes that would allow future retirees the ability to invest a third of their "savings" in the stock market, it wouldn't have gone into affect until next year anyway. There would've been some good deals out there. And second, didn't the federal government essentially privatize all of social security by so heavily tying the future of the government to banking, financial and insurance stocks?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bowling for Banks

I get the impression from this Washington Post article about many banks refusing federal monies that most banks, particularly community banks, did the right thing: only loan to those who can pay you back and only loan that which you have. This paragraph from the article I found socialistic...

"Participating banks cannot increase the dividends they pay to shareholders without federal permission, they must accept some limitations on compensation for their executives, and Paulson said the government would press companies to limit mortgage foreclosures."

The government will always get theirs first. Except when they are giving it out to get your vote and their power.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Blame Game

Speaker Pelosi, when asked if the Democrat congress bore any responsibility in banking troubles we find ourselves in said, "No". It was Bush's "mismanagement" that resulted in the current problems. From the Hill article...
“John McCain said that this is a result of overregulation by the Democrats in Congress,” she added. “Either he doesn’t know what he's talking about or he’s misrepresenting the facts as he knows them. But it’s simply not true.”
McCain "doesn't know what he's talking about"? Hmmm, that's rich seeing that it's Congress that regulates banking. Apparently she's the one who doesn't know what she's talking about. However I would hardly put the blame on the current congress. I would put most, if not all, of the blame on Democratic policies embraced by Republicans to use Fannie Mae an Freddie Mac to artificially boost minority home ownership. The Democrats can't have it both ways. If minorities are unfairly left behind in economic booms, as they say, then they shouldn't be given loans they can't afford during those times. Which is it? They are poor? Or they are homeowners?



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Inflation vs. Deflation

I recently was reminded of a gag David Letterman did on his show back in his NBC days, that of an actual face-to-face duel between a humidifier and a de-humidifier. Clever bit. I'm afraid I can't recall which won.

OK. I believe we will see some softening of commodity prices. Oil, precious metals, grains, pork bellies (whatever those are). I agree with George Soros (first time for everything) that we are experiencing a commodities bubble. Bubbles burst.

It seems though in the meantime that everything is up. The cost of living is way up. Right? Or is it? What are most households largest expense? Their monthly rent/mortgage payment. A lot of emphasis has been placed on homeowners in trouble, what about renters who are going to buy in this buyers market. But houses are cheaper this year than they were last year. About 14%. If you can get into a $300,000 house at a 14% discount, you are saving around 42,000 smackeroos. That'll buy a lot of gas, gold, milk, eggs, tortillas, wood for the deck, metal for the shed, and still have some left over for the kids college education. Some areas have seen a much greater drop in prices, in other words "deflation". We are in a the midst of inflation-deflation duel.

Factor into that much lower interest rates (heck the Fed rate is down 60% in a year) and the savings is much greater!

If you add new home sales of about 1.2 million to existing home sales of about 6.1 million, that's 7.3 million projected in the next 12 months. What percentage of those are first time buyers? Don't know.

I imagine if we ran the numbers, over all, spread out over everyone, costs are down. This is why we don't have a technical recession. Banking turmoil rarely results in recession. Not in my lifetime anyway.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »