Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip


Tell me something, if you can. In your experience with him, how
many times did he bring you up short as if you'd completely missed
the obvious and then
take the time to "straighten" you out?

That's two questions.

LOL
Schoolin' me are you!
Pretty good.

How many times did he bring me up short like
that? Maybe a half-dozen. Take the time to straighten me out? Never.
I was on my own to figure it out.

We were discussing Oil prices and Paul Krugman a while back and I
mentioned
what I'd seen at first hand.
A professional recounting is he


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-business


So, "The Buyout Boys Reload (Their New Killer Deals: Leveraged
Purchases Of Their Own Debt)." It sounds like they're making a new
round of money on their own crap, with the banks holding the bedpan.
Are the banks that desperate for cash? To an outsider, it looks
absolutely insane.

If I understand correctly, the banks made the loans to the buyout
boys for the original LBOs; the credit crunch caught the banks in
need of cash just to keep doing business; the buyout targets lost
value;

Maybe. Maybe not. Nobody really knows the underlying values of these deals.
They might be UNDER valued.
The money is owed to the banks by the managers that did the LBO's at this
point. When the transactions were complete, the PE firms shopped the paper
to the highest bidder and recovered their liquidity. Three years ago, banks
were commiting financing to future or proposed deals in a big way. Hundreds
of millions of dollars at a time.
An offer to fund 20 million dollars was seen as an indication of a lack of
testosterone and any bank offering such was laughed at and/or ridiculed.

the banks are now holding paper that's worth less money while
the buyout boys lost nothing; and the banks are salvaging what they
can by selling the debt at a discount to the original borrowers (the
buyout boys). Is that really right?

The banks want questionable paper off of their books and they'd like to be
able to put a number to their loss.
By offering their debt holdings they clear their exposure to the original
paper. You could say they are willing to take a known lump now rather than
continue on with assets of uncertain value and suffer the loss of confidence
that results.



If so, I need a couple of Advils.

Do they make a "Super Size" in that brand?
Nearly ALL of the fresh liquidity that has been force fed into the markets
is in the hands of PE Investors either through direct participation or
investment banks. Recall that the discount window was opened for the first
time to Investment Banks a couple of months ago - January I believe -
thereby filling the trough with fresh swill. The purpose was to reasure the
market that sub prime lending and the forthcoming credit swap defaults
wouldn't sink the markets. There would always be liquidity.

The real eye popper is that while the Banks may have a hard time qualifying
these debt instrument, the PE firms DON'T suffer the same problem at all.
These guys DID these deals in the first place and are intimate with the
principals involved, the fundamentals and the course of events between
closing and present day.

You might want to skip Advil all together Ed and go right for the hard
stuff.
We've just had our pockets very cleverly picked by some really smart people.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:52:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

George,
See my response to Ed.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

You're projecting your own thoughts onto a man you don't understand. Will
is
independent-minded as hell, an iconoclast, and is always ready to call
things as he sees them. He wouldn't defend a president just because he's a
Republican.

Really, and you base that on what? You knew him. You know, you can judge
someone on personal experience or you can judge on their work, writing,
behavior, lifestyle, etc. Which one is better? Too many times I've seen
where people say they are completely surprised by people they "know". That's
why I'd rather go on other things. On Will I judge him not on personal
experience but his body of work, and his record. Going on that he's
unquestionably a doctrinaire far right conservative. You wouldn't argue with
that would you? I also think he's biased. That bias is in favor of
republicans. So would he defend a republican president? Duh!


I recognized the Jonestown reference but I couldn't believe you were
applying it to George Will. As I said, you don't know the man. And in your
20 years of reading his writings you apparently missed his position on
government involvement and aid to single mothers (he favors both), or his
earlier positions on gun control (he favored it). His conservatism comes
from a different source than that of Dubya or the blue-collar workers who
consider themselves "conservatives." He was one of that small handful of
people now referenced in political history as the "intellectual
conservatives" who popped up after Barry Goldwater lost the election. Will
was in England, at Oxford University, when he turned his opinion away from
liberalism and toward conservatism. It isn't your grandfather's kind of
conservatism.

The worst kind are the ones who used to be true believers of one thing and
then switch allegence. David Horowitz and Michael Savage are the same. They
started out as left wingers and crossed over to the dark side. Will isn't
all that different. Those guys are all intellectuals but got lost somewhere
and fell for the right wing agenda. They should have seen by now it doesn't
work but they are all wearing blinders. Folks on the right are known for
thinking inside the box. Will, to me, is just one of the gang of wingers.
Maybe you see a distinction but to me it's a distinction without a
difference. All the right wingers are somewhat different in their views but
they all are rowers in the same boat. I think you give Will too much credit
because of personal bias. Look at him completely objectively and he's easy
to identify. Try it.

Here is where your analysis goes wrong. Tell me of some right wing or
conservative detractors of Reagan. You can't do it. There aren't any.
Reagan
has assumed a mantle of divinity among republicans. That leaves only
"leftists", your word, to bring up his weaknesses.

Hawke, that's the *point*. Opinions on Reagan are divided along
liberal/conservative lines. Thus, I don't trust them, because I never
trust
political opinions of people who take sharply ideological political
positions. I wouldn't put my faith in either side. I'll put some faith in
people I know to be honestly critical, but even then, I want to see more
for
myself.

So you can find no "truth" because there are two distinct sides to the
question? To me, you're not looking very hard. Me, I throw out the views of
the extremists on both sides and then look for people who are objective.
There are some people who can be objective about Reagan aren't there? Why
would he be any different from any other public figure. In fact, for anyone
like him it's the same, they have attackers and defenders. It's up to us to
find the truth. In Reagans's case I lived in his state for years as well as
having studied him as a politician so I think I have a pretty good handle on
him. Despite my political views I think I am able to look at facts even
handedly. Sadly, when it comes to Reagan lots of people can't though.


As I said, Reagan has always been an enigma to me, and maybe he always
will
be. But I'm not interested in the opinions of people who didn't know him
personally. We've heard enough of those.

Reagan was an enigma to everyone so don't feel lonesome. He was a cold guy
but he could act. That allowed him to be what people wanted him to be.
Everyone thought he was just like them, which was one of his strengths, and
that they knew him. Little did they know they knew nothing of the real man.


I hate to tell you this,
but people who don't see Reagan as a god aren't all leftists. But you
could
ask Ron Reagan, his son about him if you want to know the truth about
him.
Would you believe him if he said his dad was cold, distant, aloof, and
didn't know that much about a lot of things? The problem is that there
is
this group that adores Reagan so much that they make him a god and
accuse
anyone finding his weaknesses as biased against him, which makes drawing
a
true picture difficult. Just trust me on this, Reagan was a good
politician
but not all that smart. That's a true picture not a biased one. If it
was
the other way around I would have no problem saying that either.

I'll put that in the same place that I put all other opinions about Reagan
that come from people who didn't know him, or who are sharply ideological.
As for his coldness, aloofness, or the things he didn't know about, I
don't
consider any of them relevant. I want to know what thinking went on when
the
man established political opinions and made decisions.

I think you'd be disappointed if you knew the truth. Do you think a lot of
high powered intellectual effort goes into a George W. Bush decision? People
in power don't make a lot of their decisions through a long rational
process. Most of the time it's emotional. Reagan was more like Bush than you
would like to believe. He based his decisions on views he formed when he was
a young man and he didn't deviate much later in life. Actually, that is
normal for most men. Political thinking in adulthood is usually the same as
it was when in youth for most people. Not me of course. But then I'm an
exception to most things. Why do you think you think I'm a left winger but
other people I know think I'm a conservative? When you hold views that both
parties have it puts you in different category. That's me, a different
category. Okay, not smart ass retorts!



One of his biographers, I forget which, said that Reagan projected a
simple
pattern of thought to casual observers but that he was dogged and intense,
extremely focused on a few big issues, and read incessently from the
political canon, including the Greeks and the Enlightenment thinkers. My
impression of *their* impression (hardly anything I'd hang my hat on, but
a
working hypothesis) is that he was one of those semi-bright people who
could
penetrate an idea as well as the whip-crackers; it just took him a bit
longer.

All I can say is that Mike Tyson was reading Nietszche when in prison.
Somehow I don't think it made much difference in him. I think the same is
true for Reagan. He was a simplistic thinker. You can impute high level and
deep thinking to him but I don't see any evidence for it. I know he took a
lot of advice from Nancy, not exactly a political genius. Reagan's main
virtue was his looks. He used them to succeed in acting and to parlay that
into political career. The reason you don't see Reagan clearly is because
the right wing Reagan lovers have made such a big deal out of him it tends
to obscure the truth. When you have tons of people saying someone is a god
all the time it makes it hard to believe someone else who says he was pretty
ordinary even when that is much closer to the truth.


Those people have always interested me. John Kennedy was another one: IQ
of
119, as measured on a test when he entered Choate. Hardly a genius, but
relentless and insightful. They impress me more than some people who have
much higher native IQs. Most people with IQs in the sub-120 range are
limited in how *deeply* they penetrate relationships, as well as how
quickly. These presidents appear to be of another kind.


Will is different from Reagan but also similar. Both were true believers
in
conservative ideology but Will is very smart, and well educated. That
sets
him apart from Reagan and it's not hard to see that Will is the smart
one
of
the two. By the way, Reagan was the good looking one. I give Will his
due
where it's warranted. My problem with him is his predictability. He's
like
clockwork. You can always count him to have a very conservative opinion
on
everything.

Nonsense. See my references above.

I saw them but they were not convincing. Will is what he is, a far right,
ultra conservative. For Christsakes Ed, the man wears a bow tie. If that
doesn't convince you I don't know what would.



I'm going to trim this because I'm not up for getting into another one of
these arguments with you. FWIW, you look at things very differently from
me.
Maybe it's our backgrounds. My work experience has taught me not to trust
other peoples' judgments, especially on judgmental issues. There are few
people whose opinions matter much to me on anything as complex as
politics.
At best, they provide me with a list of things that might be worth
checking
into.

Discussion, not argument. But I know what you mean. I too trust my judgment
more than others but then I'm almost as old and curmudgeonly as you. I agree
with you that most people can't be trusted but politics is my gig and I've
been analyzing and observing politics since the 60s. I'm also not an
idealogue. I am real good at observation and criticism and I don't care much
what party someone belongs to. I find their faults not matter what they call
themselves. I guess that is why I trust my judgment more than most. But
there are some people that I do think know what is going on as well as I do.
Some maybe even more. Maybe not though.

I just watched you go 'way off base with a minor character, who you know
only through a collection of opinion columns, while I knew the man
personally, and had almost daily contact with him for a couple of years.
So
I've just seen how you fill in the blanks with your assumptions and
projections. g You're a quick study and you have a very analytical mind,
Hawke, but you try to do too much with inadequate material. It's good for
college bull sessions but I've spent most of my career writing for
publication. If I speculated, I got my butt handed to me by one or more of
my 100,000 subscribers. So I learned not to speculate.

I'm only talking about Will in a political sense which is why I say I know
him. As a person that is a different matter but I never said anything about
him personally. Speculation can be a good thing. Sometimes it's all you have
to go on so doing it well can be an advantage. It may not be good in
publishing though. You have to know when it's appropriate. Lucky for me I'm
not in that business. In politics filling in blanks, making projections, and
speculating are positives. Maybe we're just looking at things through our
own perspective. I like to combine the different points of view so that with
more than my own perspective I get a truer picture of reality. At least that
is what I am intending. I like to hear your thoughts on a topic because
although I know it probably won't be completely congruent with mine, I know
you are going to have a rational thought process behind your position. Even
when you are wrong. Which is too often the case. g

Believe me, you're a mile off base about George Will. And I won't argue
your
positions on Reagan. I will, however, form my own opinions about him.

It's good to form your own opinions. It's bad when they are shown to be
wrong by facts. Look at it this way though. Will and Reagan are both
unarguably right wing republicans. You tend to lean to the right. How far I
can't say for sure. You have favorable opinions toward them. I say you are
biased and I don't have favorable opinions of them. One of us is more right
than the other. You are clearly mistaken if you think my view is incorrect
just because I am a liberal and not due to the facts. But that makes a good
excuse for holding on to your opinion and reject mine. Which you formed all
by yourself. Which is good, right? But not if you're wrong. Like in this
case. Right?

Hawke

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...

snip


I suggest a large bottle of advil rather than just 2 caplets, [or
even better a large bottle generic ibuprofen -- same stuff but
cheaper].

The confusion headache here is unreal. Tell me something, George. With all
of this phunny money disappearing, why is the stock market not collapsing?
Now I see some predictions that we'll escape a real recession and that the
economy will recover next year.

After the last couple of "collapses" I've grown weary of trying to make
heads or tails of the predictions. Economics is one thing; this financial
stuff is something entirely different. I don't get it and I don't think I
want to. But, fer chrissake, it would be nice to be able to make some sense
of it.

Do you feel you have a sense of it? I think John knows what's really going
on, but I'm not getting it. When I heard the $30 trillion, and then $70
trillion numbers, I knew something wasn't being explained right. It doesn't
even look to me like the financial press is keeping up.

Or maybe I'm just reading the wrong parts. Whatever, it's making me want to
go live in the woods. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...

snip


I suggest a large bottle of advil rather than just 2 caplets, [or
even better a large bottle generic ibuprofen -- same stuff but
cheaper].

The confusion headache here is unreal. Tell me something, George.
With all of this phunny money disappearing, why is the stock market
not collapsing? Now I see some predictions that we'll escape a real
recession and that the economy will recover next year.

2009 will be the year of the Alt-A panic Ed.
Sub prime lending pales in comparison.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip


Tell me something, if you can. In your experience with him, how
many times did he bring you up short as if you'd completely missed
the obvious and then
take the time to "straighten" you out?

That's two questions.

LOL
Schoolin' me are you!
Pretty good.

How many times did he bring me up short like
that? Maybe a half-dozen. Take the time to straighten me out? Never.
I was on my own to figure it out.

We were discussing Oil prices and Paul Krugman a while back and I
mentioned
what I'd seen at first hand.
A professional recounting is he


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-business


So, "The Buyout Boys Reload (Their New Killer Deals: Leveraged
Purchases Of Their Own Debt)." It sounds like they're making a new
round of money on their own crap, with the banks holding the bedpan.
Are the banks that desperate for cash? To an outsider, it looks
absolutely insane.

If I understand correctly, the banks made the loans to the buyout
boys for the original LBOs; the credit crunch caught the banks in
need of cash just to keep doing business; the buyout targets lost
value;

Maybe. Maybe not. Nobody really knows the underlying values of these
deals.
They might be UNDER valued.

OK, I'm probably going to be asking obvious questions here, but I'm not
counting on my own interpretations anymore. If the targets of these deals,
the companies that were bought out in the LBOs, haven't lost value, why are
the banks having to discount the loans back to the original borrowers? Is it
just because they need cash that badly, or what?

The money is owed to the banks by the managers that did the LBO's at this
point. When the transactions were complete, the PE firms shopped the paper
to the highest bidder and recovered their liquidity.

I'm losing track of which paper is which. Is this debt that was incurred by
the newly bought-out companies?

Three years ago, banks
were commiting financing to future or proposed deals in a big way.
Hundreds
of millions of dollars at a time.
An offer to fund 20 million dollars was seen as an indication of a lack of
testosterone and any bank offering such was laughed at and/or ridiculed.

the banks are now holding paper that's worth less money while
the buyout boys lost nothing; and the banks are salvaging what they
can by selling the debt at a discount to the original borrowers (the
buyout boys). Is that really right?

The banks want questionable paper off of their books and they'd like to be
able to put a number to their loss.
By offering their debt holdings they clear their exposure to the original
paper. You could say they are willing to take a known lump now rather than
continue on with assets of uncertain value and suffer the loss of
confidence
that results.



If so, I need a couple of Advils.

Do they make a "Super Size" in that brand?
Nearly ALL of the fresh liquidity that has been force fed into the markets
is in the hands of PE Investors either through direct participation or
investment banks. Recall that the discount window was opened for the first
time to Investment Banks a couple of months ago - January I believe -
thereby filling the trough with fresh swill. The purpose was to reasure
the
market that sub prime lending and the forthcoming credit swap defaults
wouldn't sink the markets. There would always be liquidity.

The real eye popper is that while the Banks may have a hard time
qualifying
these debt instrument, the PE firms DON'T suffer the same problem at all.
These guys DID these deals in the first place and are intimate with the
principals involved, the fundamentals and the course of events between
closing and present day.

You might want to skip Advil all together Ed and go right for the hard
stuff.
We've just had our pockets very cleverly picked by some really smart
people.

I'm listening to a story on the news as I write this, about "creepy
bloodsuckers." They're talking about bedbugs but it sounds like they could
be talking about private equity firms. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

You're projecting your own thoughts onto a man you don't understand. Will
is
independent-minded as hell, an iconoclast, and is always ready to call
things as he sees them. He wouldn't defend a president just because he's
a
Republican.

Really, and you base that on what? You knew him.

Uh, yeah. g

You know, you can judge
someone on personal experience or you can judge on their work, writing,
behavior, lifestyle, etc. Which one is better? Too many times I've seen
where people say they are completely surprised by people they "know".
That's
why I'd rather go on other things. On Will I judge him not on personal
experience but his body of work, and his record.

Yeah, I've read that too -- including one of his books on baseball. I can do
without his thoughts on baseball.

Going on that he's
unquestionably a doctrinaire far right conservative. You wouldn't argue
with
that would you?

Yeah, I would. How many far-right conservatives would describe themselves as
"the last Whig"? g

"Far right conservative" is a stereotype to the left, as "far left liberal"
is a stereotype to the right, and it's hard to imagine many real people who
fit either of those stereotypes. "Conservative" and "liberal" both cover
very diverse types of thinking and groups of people in this country. I don't
think you could fit Will anywhere close to the conservative stereotype.
Putting aside the tongue-in-cheek label of "Whig," I believe it's more
accurate to think of him as a libertarian-leaning republican, small "r."

I also think he's biased. That bias is in favor of
republicans. So would he defend a republican president? Duh!

I would expect a conservative to be biased in favor of Republicans (watch
the case of your "r's"). He doesn't hide the fact that he's a conservative,
and a conservative who was biased in favor of Democrats would be a real
freak of nature.



I recognized the Jonestown reference but I couldn't believe you were
applying it to George Will. As I said, you don't know the man. And in
your
20 years of reading his writings you apparently missed his position on
government involvement and aid to single mothers (he favors both), or his
earlier positions on gun control (he favored it). His conservatism comes
from a different source than that of Dubya or the blue-collar workers who
consider themselves "conservatives." He was one of that small handful of
people now referenced in political history as the "intellectual
conservatives" who popped up after Barry Goldwater lost the election.
Will
was in England, at Oxford University, when he turned his opinion away
from
liberalism and toward conservatism. It isn't your grandfather's kind of
conservatism.

The worst kind are the ones who used to be true believers of one thing and
then switch allegence. David Horowitz and Michael Savage are the same.
They
started out as left wingers and crossed over to the dark side. Will isn't
all that different. Those guys are all intellectuals but got lost
somewhere
and fell for the right wing agenda. They should have seen by now it
doesn't
work but they are all wearing blinders. Folks on the right are known for
thinking inside the box. Will, to me, is just one of the gang of wingers.
Maybe you see a distinction but to me it's a distinction without a
difference.

I see a distinction because I know he's an extraordinary thinker and hardly
a "winger." With all due respect, I don't think that your level of analysis
or mine is in the same league with his. You may disagree with him, but don't
try to psychoanalyze him. He's 'way beyond what you or I could handle. If
you were to challenge him, the way you jump to conclusions and diminish
opposing ideas and people so off-handedly, you would be the before-lunch
appetizer. I've been there and done that...fortunately, at age 20. d8-)

All the right wingers are somewhat different in their views but
they all are rowers in the same boat. I think you give Will too much
credit
because of personal bias. Look at him completely objectively and he's easy
to identify. Try it.

Sure, it's easy to delude oneself that way, and it's quite common. That's
how debates, elections, and wars are lost.

snip mucho

(Too much, with too little possibility of resolving it with facts.)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 19 May 2008 21:53:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Do you feel you have a sense of it? I think John knows what's really going
on, but I'm not getting it. When I heard the $30 trillion, and then $70
trillion numbers, I knew something wasn't being explained right. It doesn't
even look to me like the financial press is keeping up.

Or maybe I'm just reading the wrong parts. Whatever, it's making me want to
go live in the woods. g

--
Ed Huntress
=========
I feel I have a sense of it, and it feels like Astrology and/or
Numerology on steroids.

==Apparently what the Fed has just proven is that you can make
even a dead elephant fly if you can just blow enough helium up
its a**.==

Most of the current business models and economic assumptions do
not appear to reflect even approximations of reality, for example
the use of phrases such as "assuming perfect knowledge,"
"assuming costless transfers," and my favorite "assuming rational
behavior," where there is no agrement or discussion about the
meaning of rational. Kayne's observation "the market can remain
irrational far longer than you can remain solvent," is
particularly appropriate.
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Annal...anagement_(NLY)


While the arguments may be constructed with impeccable logic and
the utmost rigor, so were the Alice in Wonderland stories...

Even the minimally educated grasp that there is no such thing as
"perpetual motion," but the same people devoutly believe that an
"investment" will generate "income" for ever.

The rapidly changing numbers for "money at risk," from 30$ to 70$
(and I have just seen 90$ trillion mentioned) indicates that no
one knows the totals because no on knows what's out there.
Again to put this in perspective, the US GDP is slightly more
than 13$ trillion.

While I don't agree with the elitist positions of George Soros on
many items, he is still a very smart man with a profound
understanding of and feel for the "free market," and he is not
optimistic.
for background from Nov 07 see
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2819069.ece
and for his current views [18 May 08] see
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2819069.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7408620.stm

While it is only my personal opinion, it appears we are at
another cusp or inflection point. The last time we saw these
types and degrees of changes was the reorganization of society by
nation-state, and the close of the medieval period, including the
"Reformation."

It appears to me that the two basic and foundational changes are
the rise of the transnational corporations, many of which are far
more powerful and influential than the majority of nation states,
and the creation and enormous growth of a mainly unregulated
financial international free [for all/melle] market.

Some of the change drivers for the rise of the nation state were
"gun powder" and the printing press," this time it appears to be
the WWW/internet and electronic funds transfer, amplified by the
ever increasing ability to spin straw into gold, faster than you
can say "Rumpelstiltskin."

The rapidly increasing socio-economic/financial problems are
*GREATLY* exacerbated and amplified by a totally clueless
regulatory environment and a doctrinaire ideologically driven
administration that is still living in the never-was land of
"Leave It To Beaver," or even the antebellum south of Rhett and
Scarlet.

In this context, I suggest that in many ways the current economic
contraction is a public [mental] health problem, and the tools
used to prevent/contain pandemics are applicable. Be reminded
that the huge decreases in mortality and morbidity we have seen
over the last 100-150 years have resulted far more from
prevention through the implementation of public health laws such
as "pure food and drug laws," "potable water safety standards,"
"mandatory immunizations," and "restaurant inspections," than the
relatively minor contributions of sulfa drugs and antibiotics.
An ounce of prevention is worth not a pound, but a ton of cure.
Why should corporations be allowed to generate and sell "toxic"
financial products, but are generally forbidden to release
harmful materials into the environment, even if this costs them
large sums of money? Another example is the prohibition on
"hydraulic mining" in California which allowed efficient recover
of gold, but displaced huge quantities of dirt and debris,
clogging rivers, and streams, ruining large amounts of farm land,
and destroying productive fisheries. True enough, the mining
companies were deprived of considerable revenues, but the
revenues from agriculture and fisheries they were destroying was
much greater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_mining
http://www.jstor.org/pss/783056

I can only suggest two items for our "leadership":
(1) Don't spit in the soup -- we all gotta' eat.
(2) Learn what "apres moi le deluge" means, and what occurred to
the people/institutions involved.
http://www3.telus.net/jennybr/lasto.html


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip
Maybe. Maybe not. Nobody really knows the underlying values of these
deals.
They might be UNDER valued.

OK, I'm probably going to be asking obvious questions here, but I'm
not counting on my own interpretations anymore. If the targets of
these deals, the companies that were bought out in the LBOs, haven't
lost value, why are the banks having to discount the loans back to
the original borrowers? Is it just because they need cash that badly,
or what?

A crisis of confidence, mainly by their share holders and the general public
on the one hand and the desire to be the next guy with a silver bullet to
roll out on the other.
This really is a "clubby" environment Ed.



The money is owed to the banks by the managers that did the LBO's at
this point. When the transactions were complete, the PE firms
shopped the paper to the highest bidder and recovered their
liquidity.

I'm losing track of which paper is which. Is this debt that was
incurred by the newly bought-out companies?

Exactly.

When someone publishes "buying back their own debt" you hear or percieve
somethiing akin to a corporation retiring debt early or going out into the
market and buying back shares. This isn't like that and is why the practice
is known as "double capping" or more crudely as "double tapping".

In the "Old Days", LOL - old days, KKR for example, would gobble up a
company like Beatrice. The would have done this with what is known as a
bridge fund or bridge financing. Bridges are just that in finance, they are
not meant to be permanent and God help the poor ******* that can't "take
out" a bridge.

Junk bonds were once the take out and sometimes still are but when they fell
out of favor. The KKR's of the world had done well when the could access
money and the banks took a real interest in participating. We've been
through the changes in the banking laws ad nauseum and I won't patronize you
or George. The banks found a way into this very lucrative market when banks
could be Investment Banks and Investment Banks could be banks and PE firms
had a much better way to take out bridge financing. It's also something that
had previously been against the law and called self dealing. I know guys
that went to federal prison twenty years ago for what is a legal practice
today.

A commitment from a bank beats a "Highly Confident" letter any day of the
week so LBO's were done with the foreknoweledge that permanent financing
would be forthcoming and this financing relied on the representations of the
IB/PE community, which was now legally intermingled with actual banks,
rather than any fundamental understanding or valuation of the deals being
done. Banks first competed to get a look at a deal by making financing
commitments and they would then duke it out in a battle of rates and fees to
structure the final, permanent funding solution.

The banks were, and still are, betting on the track record of the players,
not the values or fundamentals. They had a HUGE amount of 401K and other
pension related inflows of CASH to dispose of. Banks HATE cash. It is their
enemy. Nobody wants to have to explain a big wad of unproductive cash to the
share holders. Also, there isn't any compensatory upside for the CEO or
other officers of a bank. Their bank may have a stronger reserve position
and be more liquid but that doesn't get anyone a big bonus. It gets them
yelled at, maybe in court.

Anyway, they bought everything in site and let me make it clear that when a
bank makes a loan it's a purchase.
They create a revenue producing asset. They also bought huge bundles of
mortgage backed securities and other instruments. High yield stuff long
term - every bit of it. They "hedged" with what I've taken to calling
"uninsurance".
Like the "UnCola" you know.
They bought a lot of UnCola. Unlike Seven-Up "uninsurance" hasn't any real
value but they bought it.
"Uninsurance" really is insurance and it's sold by big RE but it isn't
called insurance because that industry and those products are regulated and
reasonably transparent. We are watvhing the end of that movie right now.

The ongoing mortgage backed securities and credit swap fiasco brought the
"quality" of their entire investing process to light and into question. "How
stupid can a guy be" became a genuine question.
They couldn't figure out what their mortgage backed loan portfolios were
worth because the were tied to credit default swaps that were looking
increasingly dubious. Why on earth would anyone think they had done any
better with LBO placements?

That is their problem. Shareholders and the markets have lost faith in the
stated value of the banks assets. There are a few excepted products, but not
many. There hav also been real and measurable losses and more than a few are
really PO'd.

OK, Houston - Bear Sterns has a problem. The reaction of the US Dept. of the
Treasury is to get together with the other central banks and FLOOD the
markets with liquidity rather than allow a rational corrective action and if
that weren't enough, the added sop of opening the discount window and
extending, and in the end eliminating, the repayment term added fuel to a
fire that was already pretty hot. This new credit facility was also
extended, and for the first time ever, to the Investment Banking community.
THAT bunch is controlled by the PE folks. It's incest at it's finest
especially considering the end game and Bear Stearns.

Instead of propping up mom and pop's mortgage, all that happened was that PE
firms got another huge influx of cash.
All of that money has to go somewhere you know and the actual banks were
desperate to clean up their balance sheets of any class of asset that was
perceived, notice carefully my use of the word "perceived here, as dubious,
so they hooked up with their brothers and cut a deal that made them appear
prudent and hard headed pragmatists. In fact, they are throwing away
significant value as fast as they can shovel loans out the door and when
they do, they fund the discount with money that the worlds various central
banks have so thoughtfully provided and that hit shows up in a loss in the
value of shareholder equity. Not only that, these same shareholders - the
ones that were screaming for blood - are now standing on their chairs
applauding this behavior because they have managed to monetize their
possible future loss on the original assets involved. This is really crazy
because all they have really done is pay a substantial fee to put someone
elses name on a loan document. Crazy becomes insanity and irrational because
unlike the original creditor - a business with some underlying value - they
now have little more than a promise to pay that probably isn't higher
quality and might be lower.
It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these guys look
back at their new lons and realize they know less about thier quality than
they did about the original instruments.

I'm listening to a story on the news as I write this, about "creepy
bloodsuckers." They're talking about bedbugs but it sounds like they
could be talking about private equity firms. g

A better analogy would be a truly ugly/nerdy guy walking up to the hottest
woman in the place and telling her he didn't want a relationship, just sex
and having her take his hand, smile and head off with him. His reaction
would be utter and absolute disbelief. Life just doesn't work that way, but
he'd be laughng his ass of at his audacity and good fortune for the rest of
his life even if he never saw his "date" again. And listen. What would the
down side have been? That she'd have blown him off, IOW - nothing.

It's just like that.
Speed dating on steroids.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

You're projecting your own thoughts onto a man you don't understand.
Will
is
independent-minded as hell, an iconoclast, and is always ready to call
things as he sees them. He wouldn't defend a president just because
he's
a
Republican.

Really, and you base that on what? You knew him.

Uh, yeah. g

But didn't you say you were a student of his when you were in your 20s?
Didn't you just turn 60? I don't know about you, but 40 years is plenty of
time for people to change, if they are going to that is. I'm just saying
that actually knowing someone isn't always as good as knowing everything
about someone. Like if a historian or biographer was to compare what they
knew about a person to someone who was a personal friend. I think a lot of
times the person with no personal connection actually has a better feel for
the subject than a friend does. I have no idea how well or long you actually
knew Will. I'm just saying I know a lot about his politics and public views
of issues. After all, I have heard him giving his views for over 20 years on
"This Week". I'm old enough to even have seen Chet Huntley.

Yeah, I've read that too -- including one of his books on baseball. I can
do
without his thoughts on baseball.

See, that is another reason I don't like him. He loves baseball, and the
more boring statistics about it the more he likes it. I quit playing
baseball when I was eighteen and switched to basketball and later tennis. I
now despise baseball because it's the dumbest game in the world except for
possibly cricket. Eighteen guys to play the game and most of the time 90% of
them do nothing but stand around. People that like baseball irritate me.

Going on that he's
unquestionably a doctrinaire far right conservative. You wouldn't argue
with
that would you?

Yeah, I would. How many far-right conservatives would describe themselves
as
"the last Whig"? g

I guess the ones who don't want to admit they are far right wingers. But if
you know what a Whig is that should tell you how much of a throwback that
person is. I find it amusing really how conservatives are always dreaming
about the good old days of yore when the world was such a great place and
how much they wish they can get back there. Change for the better is not
high on their priority list.

"Far right conservative" is a stereotype to the left, as "far left
liberal"
is a stereotype to the right, and it's hard to imagine many real people
who
fit either of those stereotypes. "Conservative" and "liberal" both cover
very diverse types of thinking and groups of people in this country. I
don't
think you could fit Will anywhere close to the conservative stereotype.
Putting aside the tongue-in-cheek label of "Whig," I believe it's more
accurate to think of him as a libertarian-leaning republican, small "r."

I think far right and far left are legitimate categories for certain people.
The people in both of these groups don't realize they are members though.
They think they are mainstream. I do agree that the term conservative and
liberal are way too general and are not very useful because they don't
actually describe anything. Too often they are just used as epithets against
each other. I have to disagree with you on where to put Will on the
political spectrum. Others with far better academic credentials than me have
no problem placing him and his positions far to the right of the middle. I
think you are just giving him too much credit for moderation when in reality
he's way to the right of center. One day we can actually discuss where he
stands on the major issues and can agree where he lands. I still maintain
he's way to the right.



I also think he's biased. That bias is in favor of
republicans. So would he defend a republican president? Duh!

I would expect a conservative to be biased in favor of Republicans (watch
the case of your "r's"). He doesn't hide the fact that he's a
conservative,
and a conservative who was biased in favor of Democrats would be a real
freak of nature.

Kudos. You are the first person to actually notice my use of the lower case
any time I write the word republican. How editorial of you. I would
capitalize it when appropriate but the party deserves so little respect in
my opinion that capitalizing the word is to me simply unseemly. You know, in
the olden days there used to be conservative Democrats and liberal
republicans. Not no more though. I don't think there are any republicans who
aren't conservative and there are darn few Democrats that are conservative.
John Tester and Jim Webb are two that do come to mind though.



I recognized the Jonestown reference but I couldn't believe you were
applying it to George Will. As I said, you don't know the man. And in
your
20 years of reading his writings you apparently missed his position on
government involvement and aid to single mothers (he favors both), or
his
earlier positions on gun control (he favored it). His conservatism
comes
from a different source than that of Dubya or the blue-collar workers
who
consider themselves "conservatives." He was one of that small handful
of
people now referenced in political history as the "intellectual
conservatives" who popped up after Barry Goldwater lost the election.
Will
was in England, at Oxford University, when he turned his opinion away
from
liberalism and toward conservatism. It isn't your grandfather's kind of
conservatism.

I grew up in a conservative family so I understand it very well. Which is
probably why I have a certain level of contempt for it. It's true that not
all conservatives are the same. Country club republicans are not
evangelicals, that's for sure. Libertarianism really muddles the definition
of who's really a conservative. Moderate republicans, a dying if not dead
breed, were the kind I could see some agreement with. Too bad they are going
the way of the Dodo. When I analyze Will I don't really see anything setting
him apart from the mainstream of conservative thought. Can you enlighten me
on that?


The worst kind are the ones who used to be true believers of one thing
and
then switch allegence. David Horowitz and Michael Savage are the same.
They
started out as left wingers and crossed over to the dark side. Will
isn't
all that different. Those guys are all intellectuals but got lost
somewhere
and fell for the right wing agenda. They should have seen by now it
doesn't
work but they are all wearing blinders. Folks on the right are known for
thinking inside the box. Will, to me, is just one of the gang of
wingers.
Maybe you see a distinction but to me it's a distinction without a
difference.

I see a distinction because I know he's an extraordinary thinker and
hardly
a "winger." With all due respect, I don't think that your level of
analysis
or mine is in the same league with his. You may disagree with him, but
don't
try to psychoanalyze him. He's 'way beyond what you or I could handle. If
you were to challenge him, the way you jump to conclusions and diminish
opposing ideas and people so off-handedly, you would be the before-lunch
appetizer. I've been there and done that...fortunately, at age 20. d8-)

I'm an armchair psychoanalyst too, by the way. Before I went into political
science I tried my hand at history and then psychology so I do have a more
than rudimentary understanding of it. I do know enough about Will though not
to try to go head to head with him in his areas of expertese. Like I said, I
do respect his intellect, just not his conclusions. I have to take away
points from him for one big reason. For all his education and intellect his
positions come out pretty much in line with Sean Hannity's. That's a big red
flag for me. When you and Hannity find yourself in agreement 90% of the time
I think it's time to wake up and smell the coffee, because everyone knows
he's anything but a Mensa member.

All the right wingers are somewhat different in their views but
they all are rowers in the same boat. I think you give Will too much
credit
because of personal bias. Look at him completely objectively and he's
easy
to identify. Try it.

Sure, it's easy to delude oneself that way, and it's quite common. That's
how debates, elections, and wars are lost.

Delusions aside, I think if you were to take a look at Will's core positions
on the main political issues you would find him simpatico with most other
conservatives. I've found that to be the case and that is why I don't see
him as being all that different. When you can expound on what makes him
different from the run of the mill right wing conservative I'll be all ears.


snip mucho

(Too much, with too little possibility of resolving it with facts.)

Then don't waste your time trying.


Hawke

John R. Carroll wrote:
(an intresting lecture)

" John Carroll for chairman of the Fed "
:-)
Thanks John.
...lew...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


You're projecting your own thoughts onto a man you don't understand.
Will
is
independent-minded as hell, an iconoclast, and is always ready to call
things as he sees them. He wouldn't defend a president just because
he's
a
Republican.

Really, and you base that on what? You knew him.

Uh, yeah. g

But didn't you say you were a student of his when you were in your 20s?
Didn't you just turn 60? I don't know about you, but 40 years is plenty of
time for people to change, if they are going to that is.

Sure, but he's still the last Whig. g Are you suggesting that he got
dumber or more ideological? The opposite is true of most people.

I'm just saying
that actually knowing someone isn't always as good as knowing everything
about someone.

That sounds like an idea without a referrent. Actually knowing someone
is...actually knowing someone.

Like if a historian or biographer was to compare what they
knew about a person to someone who was a personal friend. I think a lot of
times the person with no personal connection actually has a better feel
for
the subject than a friend does.

He was never my friend. I never knew him that personally. What I *did* know
is of far more complexity and accuracy than anything you could learn about
someone from reading what they write. I write, too. And I have several
personnas for my writing, depending on what and who it's all about. I always
ghostwrite because it pays so much better; you'll never know it's me.

As for trying to interpret the man from his writing style, which is often
stuffy and pedantic, that's just his idea of a style that reflects
himself -- like the bowties. g

I have no idea how well or long you actually
knew Will. I'm just saying I know a lot about his politics and public
views
of issues. After all, I have heard him giving his views for over 20 years
on
"This Week". I'm old enough to even have seen Chet Huntley.

Yeah, I've read that too -- including one of his books on baseball. I can
do
without his thoughts on baseball.

See, that is another reason I don't like him. He loves baseball, and the
more boring statistics about it the more he likes it. I quit playing
baseball when I was eighteen and switched to basketball and later tennis.
I
now despise baseball because it's the dumbest game in the world except for
possibly cricket. Eighteen guys to play the game and most of the time 90%
of
them do nothing but stand around. People that like baseball irritate me.

I coach. I teach kids up to around age 16 how to pitch. My son was on a high
school All State team, a county All Star pitcher, and so on:

http://ws.gmnews.com/news/2006/0426/Sports/066.html

I watch maybe 60 - 80 Yankees games on TV and see two or three at Yankee
Stadium. I also follow two minor-league teams and see three or four of their
games. When I'm not around a TV, I listen on the radio. I have a pocket
radio with me all the time during baseball season, even when I'm fishing out
in the ocean at night.

So there. That's what the lower-case "d" is all about in my favorite
emoticon. I'm wearing a Kane County Cougars hat as I type this. I must
irritate the hell out of you. d8-)

snip

I grew up in a conservative family so I understand it very well. Which is
probably why I have a certain level of contempt for it. It's true that not
all conservatives are the same. Country club republicans are not
evangelicals, that's for sure. Libertarianism really muddles the
definition
of who's really a conservative. Moderate republicans, a dying if not dead
breed, were the kind I could see some agreement with. Too bad they are
going
the way of the Dodo. When I analyze Will I don't really see anything
setting
him apart from the mainstream of conservative thought. Can you enlighten
me
on that?

If you want to reach back into the archives, you'll find Will favoring
things I mentioned before, such as aid to single mothers, gun control, and
several others. They make clear that he's not a knee-jerk righty of the type
that has become so prevalent today.

He is very subtle -- too much so for many people to follow. Conservatives as
well as liberals blast him from time to time in the sophomoric political
blogs. As I said, he heeds an intellectual form of conservatism that often
is at odds with the populist verstion that most people would consider "the
mainstream of conservative thought."

To give an example, here's a quote from a column he wrote just a couple of
weeks ago:

"Because contemporary conservatism was born partly in reaction against two
liberal presidents -- against FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society --
conservatives, who used to fear concentrations of unchecked power, valued
Congress as a bridle on strong chief executives. But, disoriented by their
reverence for Reagan, and sedated by Republican victories in seven of the
last 10 presidential elections, many conservatives have not just become
comfortable with the idea of a strong president, they have embraced the
theory of the 'unitary executive.'"

Hmm. "Disoriented by their reverence for Reagan"? Does that sound like an
uncritical right-winger to you? Such subleties of doctrine and critical
views of conservatism -- the populist kind -- can be found throughout his
writing. If you're looking for evidence that he's a winger, you'll skip
right over them. If you remove ideological blinders and your tendency to
build stereotypes, they'll hit you right in the face.

snip

Delusions aside, I think if you were to take a look at Will's core
positions
on the main political issues you would find him simpatico with most other
conservatives. I've found that to be the case and that is why I don't see
him as being all that different. When you can expound on what makes him
different from the run of the mill right wing conservative I'll be all
ears.

OK, there are a few examples above. If you look, you'll find them peppered
throughout his writings. Even his writings about baseball. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 19 May 2008 22:39:48 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
Very good overview!

snip
"Uninsurance" really is insurance and it's sold by big RE but it isn't
called insurance because that industry and those products are regulated and
reasonably transparent. We are watvhing the end of that movie right now.
I know how the movie will end, the only question is in what order
will the actors "get the chop," and how will the final scene
open. Will it be a CDS that can't be covered? Will it be a 72
and 84 month Automobile loan backed CDO that defaults when the
vehicle owners walk away after they can't sell their SUV and gas
hits 6.00/gal?

My bet is on a CDS default resulting from a major municipal or
IDB default, possibly in California. Most likely not as a direct
result, but the consequence of the municipal bond insurer
attempting to exercise the CDS they have which "insured" the
bond, which exposes how "bare the cupboards are" and triggers a
mass stampede for the exits.

The ongoing mortgage backed securities and credit swap fiasco brought the
"quality" of their entire investing process to light and into question. "How
stupid can a guy be" became a genuine question.
They couldn't figure out what their mortgage backed loan portfolios were
worth because the were tied to credit default swaps that were looking
increasingly dubious. Why on earth would anyone think they had done any
better with LBO placements?
Because "things are different this time," and it wasn't their
money. The bankers/brokers got a share of the [short term]
profits when things went right, and walked away from any losses
when it didn't.

Humans are the only animals known that you can skin more than
once....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 22:39:48 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
Very good overview!

snip
"Uninsurance" really is insurance and it's sold by big RE but it
isn't called insurance because that industry and those products are
regulated and reasonably transparent. We are watvhing the end of
that movie right now.
I know how the movie will end, the only question is in what order
will the actors "get the chop," and how will the final scene
open. Will it be a CDS that can't be covered? Will it be a 72
and 84 month Automobile loan backed CDO that defaults when the
vehicle owners walk away after they can't sell their SUV and gas
hits 6.00/gal?

My bet is on a CDS default resulting from a major municipal or
IDB default, possibly in California. Most likely not as a direct
result, but the consequence of the municipal bond insurer
attempting to exercise the CDS they have which "insured" the
bond, which exposes how "bare the cupboards are" and triggers a
mass stampede for the exits.

That's a possibility but the next round of mortgage defaults on mortgages
known as Alt-A's is where I'd place my money.
Sub primes were a small fraction of the entire mortgage market. Alt-A's,
mortgages and refi's by qualified buyers, are derive their names from a
couple of their characteristics. The first is that the buyer is financially
qualified. The second is that the deals were done without investigating or
verification of income. Third, and you'll love this George, is that they
were very flexible as well as being franked by Fannie and Freddie.
Many of these things had payments that didn't even cover the interest.

Finally, they begin to reset in the first quarter of 2009.
There are an order of magnitude more of these out there than there are sub
primes. Ten times more of them IOW.
All Federally insured........

Just as an aside, the latest quality adjusted median price data just came in
for California. California real estate, on average and adjusted for the
quality of the sale, continues for the ninth month to be declining at a rate
of 25 percent per year.
Real estate and mortgage industry professionals are coalescing around a
bottom in early 2010 at the soonest at a loss of 50 or 60 percent. San
Francisco and West Los Angeles are two notable exceptions. The South Bay
area where I am is another. There are only three more like that for a total
of six areas not in free fall.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:29:21 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Finally, they begin to reset in the first quarter of 2009.
There are an order of magnitude more of these out there than there are sub
primes. Ten times more of them IOW.
All Federally insured........
snip
===========
Stick around folks -- you ain't seen nothin' yet....

Not twice as big, not three times as big, but 10 times as big!!!!
and that's just the alt-As.....

I am becoming far more concerned about McCain being Hoover II
than Bush III.

And the band plays on....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:29:21 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Finally, they begin to reset in the first quarter of 2009.
There are an order of magnitude more of these out there than there
are sub primes. Ten times more of them IOW.
All Federally insured........
snip
===========
Stick around folks -- you ain't seen nothin' yet....

Not twice as big, not three times as big, but 10 times as big!!!!
and that's just the alt-As.....

I am becoming far more concerned about McCain being Hoover II
than Bush III.

OK but you might want to expand that to include this.
Barak Obama will likely be the next President of the United States and his
election will need to be seen as legitimate for him to do what he'll have to
as the reincarnation of FDR. Running against whoever the Republicans can
quickly enlist to replace McCain and beating that guy is a much more
troubling and certain reality. Who do you think they'll find in September to
replace McCain?


And the band plays on....

Are you sure? What tune are they playing George?
You know, as the prosperity Americans have professed to want for the rest of
the world takes hold it's entirely possible that the band will be composed
of people other than Americans. It's safe and even prudent these days to
ignore the US in the same way you'd ignore a three year old having a temper
tantrum - as long as your deterent is adequate.

--

John R. Carroll
* The second mouse gets the cheese.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:22:46 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

And the band plays on....

Are you sure? What tune are they playing George?
You know, as the prosperity Americans have professed to want for the rest of
the world takes hold it's entirely possible that the band will be composed
of people other than Americans. It's safe and even prudent these days to
ignore the US in the same way you'd ignore a three year old having a temper
tantrum - as long as your deterent is adequate.
========
It sounds a lot like "I did it my way"

As far as the candidates go, if anyone *WANTS* to be president,
this shows they don't fully understand the situation, and
therefore aren't qualified....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Lew Hartswick wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
(an intresting lecture)

" John Carroll for chairman of the Fed "
:-)

LOL
I nearly mised this.
I polished off two pounds of crispy bacon stuffed into a loaf of French
cheese bread for breakfast this morning Lew.
My life isn't a bowl of cherries by any means but when I finished breakfast,
I'd done something pleasurable and satisfying that neither Ben Bernanke or
even George W. Bush have done.

I appreciate the sentiment but those guys can have their lives and I'll keep
eatin' bacon.

You wouldn't like what I'd do very much anyway. You might grin and bear it
as an investment in America's future but you wouldn't like it at all.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

On May 20, 12:29 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Just as an aside, the latest quality adjusted median price data just came in
for California. California real estate, on average and adjusted for the
quality of the sale, continues for the ninth month to be declining at a rate
of 25 percent per year.
Real estate and mortgage industry professionals are coalescing around a
bottom in early 2010 at the soonest at a loss of 50 or 60 percent. San
Francisco and West Los Angeles are two notable exceptions. The South Bay
area where I am is another. There are only three more like that for a total
of six areas not in free fall.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

I am not sure where you got your data. I just used Zillow and it
shows California as having declined 16% in the last year and about 15%
in the last 9 months. So that would be about a rate of 20 percent per
year for the last 9 months. But over the last 5 years it has gained
30%.

Dan

On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:57:09 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

You wouldn't like what I'd do very much anyway. You might grin and bear it
as an investment in America's future but you wouldn't like it at all.
---------
I am sure we would like it more than what we are about to get,
and at least there would *BE* a future....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:04:16 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 20, 12:29 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Just as an aside, the latest quality adjusted median price data just came in
for California. California real estate, on average and adjusted for the
quality of the sale, continues for the ninth month to be declining at a rate
of 25 percent per year.
Real estate and mortgage industry professionals are coalescing around a
bottom in early 2010 at the soonest at a loss of 50 or 60 percent. San
Francisco and West Los Angeles are two notable exceptions. The South Bay
area where I am is another. There are only three more like that for a total
of six areas not in free fall.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

I am not sure where you got your data. I just used Zillow and it
shows California as having declined 16% in the last year and about 15%
in the last 9 months. So that would be about a rate of 20 percent per
year for the last 9 months. But over the last 5 years it has gained
30%.

Dan
==========
If California real estate prices/trends are of interest see
http://www.sacbee.com/845/story/937216.html
http://www.sacbee.com/142/story/191391.html
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/460851.html
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs...es/012452.html
http://www.sacbee.com/142/story/945949.html


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

wrote:
On May 20, 12:29 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Just as an aside, the latest quality adjusted median price data just
came in for California. California real estate, on average and
adjusted for the quality of the sale, continues for the ninth month
to be declining at a rate of 25 percent per year.
Real estate and mortgage industry professionals are coalescing
around a bottom in early 2010 at the soonest at a loss of 50 or 60
percent. San Francisco and West Los Angeles are two notable
exceptions. The South Bay area where I am is another. There are only
three more like that for a total of six areas not in free fall.

--

I am not sure where you got your data.

From the two best rating sources in North America.
One qualifies or "rates" sales and one doesn't.
Zillow is an internet sales tool.


I just used Zillow
Sorry but I have to say - HAHAHAHAHAH.


and it
shows California as having declined 16% in the last year and about 15%
in the last 9 months. So that would be about a rate of 20 percent per
year for the last 9 months.

OK. eye roll

But over the last 5 years it has gained
30%.

As has my Sister in Law's ass.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:57:09 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

You wouldn't like what I'd do very much anyway. You might grin and
bear it as an investment in America's future but you wouldn't like
it at all.
---------
I am sure we would like it more than what we are about to get,
and at least there would *BE* a future....

Yeah but you got all uppity when I layed it out the last time George.
I'll admit I was to blunt but we are both grown ups.
What has changed your mind?
LOL

Could this be more of "I'm Shocked"?
I'm still shocked that you all are shocked!


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:29:21 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Finally, they begin to reset in the first quarter of 2009.
There are an order of magnitude more of these out there than there
are sub primes. Ten times more of them IOW.
All Federally insured........
snip
===========
Stick around folks -- you ain't seen nothin' yet....

Not twice as big, not three times as big, but 10 times as big!!!!
and that's just the alt-As.....

I am becoming far more concerned about McCain being Hoover II
than Bush III.

OK but you might want to expand that to include this.
Barak Obama will likely be the next President of the United States and his
election will need to be seen as legitimate for him to do what he'll have
to
as the reincarnation of FDR. Running against whoever the Republicans can
quickly enlist to replace McCain and beating that guy is a much more
troubling and certain reality. Who do you think they'll find in September
to
replace McCain?


And the band plays on....

Are you sure? What tune are they playing George?
You know, as the prosperity Americans have professed to want for the rest
of
the world takes hold it's entirely possible that the band will be composed
of people other than Americans. It's safe and even prudent these days to
ignore the US in the same way you'd ignore a three year old having a
temper
tantrum - as long as your deterent is adequate.


Yes, continuing prosperity formerly an American expectation, may well be
fleeting in the new century. All hail free markets. We loved them when we
were dominating. It looks like we're not going to think it's so great when
we aren't the winners in a global game of winner takes all Capitalism. When
after the 2nd world war the US was so far ahead of the rest of the world in
every category free market capitalism seemed like the cat's meow. With a new
century and equal or superior competitors on the horizon we may soon find
out exactly what the downside of Capitalism is. It's great when you are a
strong competitor and are consistently beating the competition for profits.
When it turns around, like it did for Britain and Spain, and you are
overtaken by bigger, tougher, competitors then you begin to see the problem
with Capitalism and free markets. Namely, there are a few big winners and a
whole bunch of losers. We used to win all the time and never dreamed we
would be replaced any more than we foresaw the end of the oil supply. Now
we're looking like a declining power and the future doesn't look like we're
going to be a world beater any more. Maybe Capitalism isn't so great for
most people on the planet. Maybe not for Americans either. We are going to
find out pretty quick. Right now there are about 1,100 billionaires in the
world whose wealth is about equal to that of 2 or three billion people. With
a distribution like that it's hard to see how the majority would be happy
with such a system. I'm sure the 1,100 are loving it though.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:29:21 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Finally, they begin to reset in the first quarter of 2009.
There are an order of magnitude more of these out there than there
are sub primes. Ten times more of them IOW.
All Federally insured........
snip
===========
Stick around folks -- you ain't seen nothin' yet....



Crap snipped.
Get with the program......

Hawke

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

" wrote:

I am not sure where you got your data. I just used Zillow and it
shows California as having declined 16% in the last year and about 15%
in the last 9 months. So that would be about a rate of 20 percent per
year for the last 9 months. But over the last 5 years it has gained
30%.


I just check my home. It went from $67 K last Novemebr to $74 K.
That's twice what I paid for it nine years ago.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

But didn't you say you were a student of his when you were in your 20s?
Didn't you just turn 60? I don't know about you, but 40 years is plenty
of
time for people to change, if they are going to that is.

Sure, but he's still the last Whig. g Are you suggesting that he got
dumber or more ideological? The opposite is true of most people.

No, he's not dumber and that's not a word I would use to characterize him.
Ideological, that's one I would use. Is he more than he used to be? I don't
really know but once you go all the way on one philosophy there isn't
anywhere else to go, right? He's sure a dyed in the wool conservative
though.




I'm just saying
that actually knowing someone isn't always as good as knowing everything
about someone.

That sounds like an idea without a referrent. Actually knowing someone
is...actually knowing someone.

Like something is what it is?


Like if a historian or biographer was to compare what they
knew about a person to someone who was a personal friend. I think a lot
of
times the person with no personal connection actually has a better feel
for
the subject than a friend does.

He was never my friend. I never knew him that personally. What I *did*
know
is of far more complexity and accuracy than anything you could learn about
someone from reading what they write. I write, too. And I have several
personnas for my writing, depending on what and who it's all about. I
always
ghostwrite because it pays so much better; you'll never know it's me.

I get what you're saying. The voice you use as a writer can be anything you
want. It's a little different in the political world though because a
commentator is giving his opinion and his voice is supposedly his real one.
But as for who would know someone better, a professional biographer or
someone who knew the person personally, I think it depends. In some cases a
close friend knows someone far better than any student of the person ever
could. In other cases a dedicated expert could know more about someone than
all but their closest confidants. So I guess it could go either way
depending on the circumstances.


As for trying to interpret the man from his writing style, which is often
stuffy and pedantic, that's just his idea of a style that reflects
himself -- like the bowties. g

Yeah, I can't say I go for the stuffy and pedantic style. It makes me wonder
who's he writing for. What audience likes that? Bow ties, how can a grown
man wear such a thing? In a woman's hair, sure. On a man's neck, you have
got to be kidding?

I have no idea how well or long you actually
knew Will. I'm just saying I know a lot about his politics and public
views
of issues. After all, I have heard him giving his views for over 20
years
on
"This Week". I'm old enough to even have seen Chet Huntley.

Yeah, I've read that too -- including one of his books on baseball. I
can
do
without his thoughts on baseball.

See, that is another reason I don't like him. He loves baseball, and the
more boring statistics about it the more he likes it. I quit playing
baseball when I was eighteen and switched to basketball and later
tennis.
I
now despise baseball because it's the dumbest game in the world except
for
possibly cricket. Eighteen guys to play the game and most of the time
90%
of
them do nothing but stand around. People that like baseball irritate me.

I coach. I teach kids up to around age 16 how to pitch. My son was on a
high
school All State team, a county All Star pitcher, and so on:

http://ws.gmnews.com/news/2006/0426/Sports/066.html

I watch maybe 60 - 80 Yankees games on TV and see two or three at Yankee
Stadium. I also follow two minor-league teams and see three or four of
their
games. When I'm not around a TV, I listen on the radio. I have a pocket
radio with me all the time during baseball season, even when I'm fishing
out
in the ocean at night.

So there. That's what the lower-case "d" is all about in my favorite
emoticon. I'm wearing a Kane County Cougars hat as I type this. I must
irritate the hell out of you. d8-)

Oh no, say it ain't so, and yes, you're irritating the hell out of me. A
baseball fan. I should have sensed it. Why someone with a brain likes
baseball is beyond my ken. I played Little League, Sr. League, and then Pony
League baseball from the age of 12 until I was eighteen. My last game I was
playing left field, a fly ball was hit in my direction. I misjudged it and
it went over my head. I think that was the only ball hit in my direction the
whole game. I didn't get any hits in my three at bats. The time involved in
the game was somewhere around four hours. That day I took off my uniform,
turned it in, and never played again. After taking up basketball and tennis,
games where I actually did something during the game besides spectate, I
thought, how could I have ever liked baseball. I realize now that I did it
because my Dad got me into it. When you grow up and try some other sports
you too will figure out what a waste of time baseball is. There is hope for
you yet.


If you want to reach back into the archives, you'll find Will favoring
things I mentioned before, such as aid to single mothers, gun control, and
several others. They make clear that he's not a knee-jerk righty of the
type
that has become so prevalent today.

He is very subtle -- too much so for many people to follow. Conservatives
as
well as liberals blast him from time to time in the sophomoric political
blogs. As I said, he heeds an intellectual form of conservatism that often
is at odds with the populist verstion that most people would consider "the
mainstream of conservative thought."

To give an example, here's a quote from a column he wrote just a couple of
weeks ago:

"Because contemporary conservatism was born partly in reaction against two
liberal presidents -- against FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society --
conservatives, who used to fear concentrations of unchecked power, valued
Congress as a bridle on strong chief executives. But, disoriented by their
reverence for Reagan, and sedated by Republican victories in seven of the
last 10 presidential elections, many conservatives have not just become
comfortable with the idea of a strong president, they have embraced the
theory of the 'unitary executive.'"

Hmm. "Disoriented by their reverence for Reagan"? Does that sound like an
uncritical right-winger to you? Such subleties of doctrine and critical
views of conservatism -- the populist kind -- can be found throughout his
writing. If you're looking for evidence that he's a winger, you'll skip
right over them. If you remove ideological blinders and your tendency to
build stereotypes, they'll hit you right in the face.

I hate to break the news but George Will is a stereotype. Nobody calls him a
moderate. He is the new standard bearer for the party. When Bill Buckley
died the mantle of most conservative guy fell on Will's shoulders, right
where it belongs. And just because he utters a word or two that is out of
step with the rest of the conservative crowd doesn't exactly set him apart.
Besides, he probably had just finished listening to Peggy Noonan blathering
on about Reagan and even he was appalled by her silliness. No, a few blips
on the radar screen doesn't take away the central theme of an ideologue.
Will is far, far to the right of the spectrum, and that's a fact, Jack.


snip

Delusions aside, I think if you were to take a look at Will's core
positions
on the main political issues you would find him simpatico with most
other
conservatives. I've found that to be the case and that is why I don't
see
him as being all that different. When you can expound on what makes him
different from the run of the mill right wing conservative I'll be all
ears.

OK, there are a few examples above. If you look, you'll find them peppered
throughout his writings. Even his writings about baseball. d8-)

Yeah Ed, their peppered like on mashed potatoes. You can see the black
specks but the plate is still covered with nice white spuds. And there's
still time for you to come to your senses and take up a real sport. Baseball
is for sissies!


Hawke

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

snip

It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these guys look
back at their new lons and realize they know less about thier quality than
they did about the original instruments.

I read that as carefully as I could and followed maybe 3/4 of it, or thought
I did, before the cluster headache started to make me blind.

John, I can truly say this is like finding out that when you come home at
night your house looks normal and everyone sits down to dinner to talk about
their day, but that one day you come home at 1:00 PM and find that it's
really a crack house and gambling den that you live in, with fold-down
gaming tables and so on, that are all neatly rolled up and put away before
you regularly get home.

I have to stew on this for a while. Thanks for taking the time to go through
it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

But didn't you say you were a student of his when you were in your 20s?
Didn't you just turn 60? I don't know about you, but 40 years is plenty
of
time for people to change, if they are going to that is.

Sure, but he's still the last Whig. g Are you suggesting that he got
dumber or more ideological? The opposite is true of most people.

No, he's not dumber and that's not a word I would use to characterize him.
Ideological, that's one I would use. Is he more than he used to be? I
don't
really know but once you go all the way on one philosophy there isn't
anywhere else to go, right?

Yeah, hopefully you move toward maturity, which is antagonistic to
ideological extremism. Barry Goldwater, a conservative who favored the right
to abortion and gays in the military, and Pay Moynihan, the liberal who
brought you "benign neglect" of inner-city ghettos, are two examples who
come to mind. Will's position on supporting single mothers is the same kind
of thing.

He's sure a dyed in the wool conservative
though.

Yes, he's a conservative.


I'm just saying
that actually knowing someone isn't always as good as knowing
everything
about someone.

That sounds like an idea without a referrent. Actually knowing someone
is...actually knowing someone.

Like something is what it is?

It's hard to argue with that one, right? g

snip


Oh no, say it ain't so, and yes, you're irritating the hell out of me. A
baseball fan. I should have sensed it. Why someone with a brain likes
baseball is beyond my ken.

Pfhhht! It's a special kind of taste. Not everyone has what it takes. d8-)

After taking up basketball and tennis,
games where I actually did something during the game besides spectate, I
thought, how could I have ever liked baseball. I realize now that I did it
because my Dad got me into it. When you grow up and try some other sports
you too will figure out what a waste of time baseball is. There is hope
for
you yet.

FWIW, until five years ago I also was a certified E-level soccer coach. And
I competed in tennis from ages 12 through 14.

snip


I hate to break the news but George Will is a stereotype.

He really wants to be Baseball Commissioner, but they turned him down. g

Nobody calls him a
moderate. He is the new standard bearer for the party. When Bill Buckley
died the mantle of most conservative guy fell on Will's shoulders, right
where it belongs. And just because he utters a word or two that is out of
step with the rest of the conservative crowd doesn't exactly set him
apart.
Besides, he probably had just finished listening to Peggy Noonan
blathering
on about Reagan and even he was appalled by her silliness. No, a few blips
on the radar screen doesn't take away the central theme of an ideologue.
Will is far, far to the right of the spectrum, and that's a fact, Jack.

It's amazing to me how many conclusions you jump to with so little
information to go on, Hawke. You have a pigeonhole for everything and
everybody.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:42:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
.. .

snip

It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these guys look
back at their new lons and realize they know less about thier quality than
they did about the original instruments.

I read that as carefully as I could and followed maybe 3/4 of it, or thought
I did, before the cluster headache started to make me blind.

John, I can truly say this is like finding out that when you come home at
night your house looks normal and everyone sits down to dinner to talk about
their day, but that one day you come home at 1:00 PM and find that it's
really a crack house and gambling den that you live in, with fold-down
gaming tables and so on, that are all neatly rolled up and put away before
you regularly get home.

I have to stew on this for a while. Thanks for taking the time to go through
it.
=========

I am shocked -- shocked....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...

snip

It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these guys
look back at their new lons and realize they know less about thier
quality than they did about the original instruments.

I read that as carefully as I could and followed maybe 3/4 of it, or
thought I did, before the cluster headache started to make me blind.

John, I can truly say this is like finding out that when you come
home at night your house looks normal and everyone sits down to
dinner to talk about their day, but that one day you come home at
1:00 PM and find that it's really a crack house and gambling den that
you live in, with fold-down gaming tables and so on, that are all
neatly rolled up and put away before you regularly get home.

That's a shame Ed.
I believe you do find all of this distressing.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:42:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
. ..

snip

It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these guys look
back at their new lons and realize they know less about thier quality
than
they did about the original instruments.

I read that as carefully as I could and followed maybe 3/4 of it, or
thought
I did, before the cluster headache started to make me blind.

John, I can truly say this is like finding out that when you come home at
night your house looks normal and everyone sits down to dinner to talk
about
their day, but that one day you come home at 1:00 PM and find that it's
really a crack house and gambling den that you live in, with fold-down
gaming tables and so on, that are all neatly rolled up and put away before
you regularly get home.

I have to stew on this for a while. Thanks for taking the time to go
through
it.
=========

I am shocked -- shocked....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

g We all have heard the broad outlines of this, and some of the specifics
have filtered into our consciousness, but the degree of mutual
back-scratching that goes on always amazes me. The other thing that's amazed
me lately is how many of these "bankers" and investors know they're really
holding an empty bag, but they keep buying more bags anyway.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:42:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...

snip

It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these
guys look back at their new lons and realize they know less about
thier quality than
they did about the original instruments.

I read that as carefully as I could and followed maybe 3/4 of it, or
thought
I did, before the cluster headache started to make me blind.

John, I can truly say this is like finding out that when you come
home at night your house looks normal and everyone sits down to
dinner to talk about
their day, but that one day you come home at 1:00 PM and find that
it's really a crack house and gambling den that you live in, with
fold-down gaming tables and so on, that are all neatly rolled up
and put away before you regularly get home.

I have to stew on this for a while. Thanks for taking the time to go
through
it.
=========

I am shocked -- shocked....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

g We all have heard the broad outlines of this, and some of the
specifics have filtered into our consciousness, but the degree of
mutual back-scratching that goes on always amazes me. The other thing
that's amazed me lately is how many of these "bankers" and investors
know they're really holding an empty bag, but they keep buying more
bags anyway.

Why would you be amazed that people continue behaviors that are rewarded?

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:42:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...

snip

It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these guys
look back at their new lons and realize they know less about thier
quality than they did about the original instruments.

I read that as carefully as I could and followed maybe 3/4 of it, or
thought I did, before the cluster headache started to make me blind.

John, I can truly say this is like finding out that when you come
home at night your house looks normal and everyone sits down to
dinner to talk about their day, but that one day you come home at
1:00 PM and find that it's really a crack house and gambling den
that you live in, with fold-down gaming tables and so on, that are
all neatly rolled up and put away before you regularly get home.

I have to stew on this for a while. Thanks for taking the time to go
through it.
=========

I am shocked -- shocked....

Oppenheimer analyst Meredith Whitney, who garnered attention late last year
when she correctly predicted that Citigroup would have to cut dividends,
warned that the credit crisis would "extend well into 2009 and perhaps
beyond."
"The real harrowing days of the credit crisis are still in front of us and
will prove more widespread in effect than anything yet seen," Whitney wrote
in the report. "Just as strained liquidity pushed so many small and
mid-sized specialty finance companies to beyond the brink, we believe it
will do the same with the U.S. consumer."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-business

Not yet you aren't, but you will be.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...

snip

It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these guys
look back at their new lons and realize they know less about thier
quality than they did about the original instruments.

I read that as carefully as I could and followed maybe 3/4 of it, or
thought I did, before the cluster headache started to make me blind.

John, I can truly say this is like finding out that when you come
home at night your house looks normal and everyone sits down to
dinner to talk about their day, but that one day you come home at
1:00 PM and find that it's really a crack house and gambling den that
you live in, with fold-down gaming tables and so on, that are all
neatly rolled up and put away before you regularly get home.

That's a shame Ed.
I believe you do find all of this distressing.

The scale of it makes me angry. The feeble reaction of the Fed, Treasury,
and Congress annoys me. But it's not something I sit here and worry about.
I'm more worried that nothing will change in November.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:33:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:42:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
.. .

snip

It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these guys look
back at their new lons and realize they know less about thier quality
than
they did about the original instruments.

I read that as carefully as I could and followed maybe 3/4 of it, or
thought
I did, before the cluster headache started to make me blind.

John, I can truly say this is like finding out that when you come home at
night your house looks normal and everyone sits down to dinner to talk
about
their day, but that one day you come home at 1:00 PM and find that it's
really a crack house and gambling den that you live in, with fold-down
gaming tables and so on, that are all neatly rolled up and put away before
you regularly get home.

I have to stew on this for a while. Thanks for taking the time to go
through
it.
=========

I am shocked -- shocked....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

g We all have heard the broad outlines of this, and some of the specifics
have filtered into our consciousness, but the degree of mutual
back-scratching that goes on always amazes me. The other thing that's amazed
me lately is how many of these "bankers" and investors know they're really
holding an empty bag, but they keep buying more bags anyway.
=========

Sorta' like the trader in the early days that bought rabbit skins
for a dime, sold rabbit skins for a nickel, and made it up on the
volume...

Its not hard to make a good living as a gambler when you bet with
other peoples money, get a share (even most) of the winnings but
none of the losses.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 21 May 2008 09:42:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...

snip

It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these
guys look back at their new lons and realize they know less about
thier quality than
they did about the original instruments.

I read that as carefully as I could and followed maybe 3/4 of it, or
thought
I did, before the cluster headache started to make me blind.

John, I can truly say this is like finding out that when you come
home at night your house looks normal and everyone sits down to
dinner to talk about
their day, but that one day you come home at 1:00 PM and find that
it's really a crack house and gambling den that you live in, with
fold-down gaming tables and so on, that are all neatly rolled up
and put away before you regularly get home.

I have to stew on this for a while. Thanks for taking the time to go
through
it.
=========

I am shocked -- shocked....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

g We all have heard the broad outlines of this, and some of the
specifics have filtered into our consciousness, but the degree of
mutual back-scratching that goes on always amazes me. The other thing
that's amazed me lately is how many of these "bankers" and investors
know they're really holding an empty bag, but they keep buying more
bags anyway.

Why would you be amazed that people continue behaviors that are rewarded?

Not because they're rewarded, but because the practices themselves *work*.
Like conservative investors, I tend to believe that the fundamentals will
win out in the end.

In fact, they probably will. But the consequences of the fundamentals
winning out in the end is not pretty for the rest of us.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 19 May 2008 22:39:48 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
They bought a lot of UnCola. Unlike Seven-Up "uninsurance" hasn't any real
value but they bought it.
"Uninsurance" really is insurance and it's sold by big RE but it isn't
called insurance because that industry and those products are regulated and
reasonably transparent. We are watvhing the end of that movie right now.
smip
I just came across another exmple of this in Tuesday's [May 20]
WSJ pC1, and learned a new acronym -- BOLI or "bank owned life
insurance."
-------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121123180257104985.html
"Citigroup Hedge-Fund Loss
Weighs on Three Banks
By DAVID ENRICH
May 20, 2008; Page C1

The downward spiral of a Citigroup Inc. hedge fund has caused
steep losses for at least three large U.S. banks that hoped it
would rev up returns on a controversial type of employee life
insurance.

Besides triggering a lawsuit against an insurer and brokerage
firm that arranged the hedge-fund investment for Fifth Third
Bancorp, the losses may pressure Citigroup to give the banks some
of their money back, as it has agreed to do for individual
investors. Such a bailout would be costly, because the clobbered
banks sank more than $1.6 billion into the hedge fund, according
to the lawsuit and people familiar with the matter."
snip
----------------

Story brought tears to my eye, it did, when it disclosed that the
banks that who have been "insuring" their employees (with the
banks as the benificiaries of the policies), have suffered huge
losses when the Falcon Stratagies hedge fund collapsed [75% loss
of invested capital], and that most of the premiums they
"invested" have been lost.

Apparently the grift works like this.

(1) The bank buys a life insurance policy on an employee, with or
without their knowledge/permission, with the bank as the named
benificiary.

(2) The bank pays the life insurance premiums, and deducts these
as a "business expense." [Apparently most of these are a single
payment policy.]

(3) When the employee dies, the bank collects the face value of
the insurance policy, AND PROCEDES FROM A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO STATE OR FEDERAL TAXES.

(4) In the meantime, there is no actual "insurance policy," as
the bank is the insurace company, and "invests" the premiums in
the bank.

Note that you, I and the other suckers, er taxpayers must make up
[or do without] the taxes thus "saved," and the employees'
survivors get nothing.

Talk about a moral hazard and self-dealing!!! Cash flow down a
little this month, is it?? Let's send Charlie, Bob and Mary to
Iraq and Nigeria to check things out -- no, they won't be needing
an body armor or security escorts....

City Bank apparently grabbed all the booble bags, when their
Smith, Barnery division [Thank You Smith, Barney] and Citigroup
Alternative Investment LLC, talked a number of other banks into
investing into their BOLI "premiums" in the Citigroup
owned/controled hedge fund called Falcone Stratagies, which may
or may not have been a scam from the start, but which has now
lost 75% of its invested capital.

How can one bank defraud another bank --- is there no honor among
theives? Have they no shame?

For background see
http://www.subprimelosses.com/falcon...UNI godSCbzBw

For more on BOLI see
http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Jan/19/133690.html
http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...D&siteid=yhoof


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On May 20, 10:21 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

I am not sure where you got your data.

From the two best rating sources in North America.
One qualifies or "rates" sales and one doesn't.
Zillow is an internet sales tool.

I just used Zillow

Sorry but I have to say - HAHAHAHAHAH.

and it
shows California as having declined 16% in the last year and about 15%
in the last 9 months. So that would be about a rate of 20 percent per
year for the last 9 months.

OK. eye roll

But over the last 5 years it has gained
30%.

As has my Sister in Law's ass.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

And I still don't know where you got your data.

Dan

On Mon, 19 May 2008 22:39:48 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
It looks like progress and stability but be ready to see these guys look
back at their new lons and realize they know less about thier quality than
they did about the original instruments.
snip
======
OOPS!!! My Bad...
----------
CPDOs expose ratings flaw at Moody’s

By Sam Jones, Gillian Tett and Paul J Davies

Published: May 21 2008 08:45 | Last updated: May 21 2008 08:45

When the craze for CPDOs erupted in financial markets in late
2006, some observers quipped that these new products were like
something out of a sci-fi blockbuster.

Not only was the ingracious acronym amusingly close to C3PO, one
of the hapless robots from the Star Wars movies, but also like
the heroes of Star Trek the products seemed “to boldly go” where
no credit product had gone before.
snip
It was during this time that the bug in Moody’s model for rating
CPDOs was uncovered. By February 2007, documents seen by the FT
show that staff were discussing the issue and the impact on
ratings of fixing the error.

It was nothing more than a mathematical typo – a small glitch in
a line of computer code. The impact of the “bug” Moody’s analysts
discovered was, nevertheless, significant.

When the model was re-run it became clear that the CPDOs could no
longer achieve triple A ratings, according to documents seen by
the FT.

The results showed that early CPDOs might lose between 1.5 and
3.5 notches in the Moody’s Metric, an internal measure, which
equals up to four ratings notches.
snip
for complete article click on
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/245bf02e-2...nclick_check=1
-----------

about CDPOs ....

Leverage is key to deals’ profitable returns

Constant proportion debt obligations (CPDOs) were originally
designed to make a highly leveraged bet on the performance of
corporate debt in the US and Europe.

The standard early deals took exposure to the main
investment-grade indices of credit derivatives – the iTraxx in
Europe and the CDX in the US – which covered the 125 most
actively traded companies in each region.

They earned premium payments for the protection they sold against
default for the companies in the two indices.

The structure was designed to pay out a high fixed return over a
10-year lifespan. This was 2 percentage points annually over
Libor, or the risk-free rate, for the very first deals, but the
strength in credit markets at the end of 2006 meant that later
deals could only earn enough premium to promise 1-1.5 percentage
points over Libor.

The deals were also designed to profit from mark-to-market gains
when the indices were refreshed every six months.

==A key element of the CPDO structure was the prediction that
applying high leverage in the early years would build up a pool
of profits that would eventually cover all remaining payments
due.== [In your dreams...]


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).