are you smarter than a second grader.

[JohnRoberts]

I like to joke that life is an ongoing IQ test but it seems from observation that many are failing.

#1- If some old religious leader talks you into dying for his cause, while he sips tea and watches, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

#2- If you believe a low single digit reduction in rate of growth for a government agency budget, justifies laying off thousands of workers in key operational positions, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

#3- If you believe Iran has purely peaceful intentions and is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

#4- if you think government needs to be expanded into more areas of the private economy, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

=====
The Boston bombers, that some are still not calling radical islamic terrorists, have some unexplained circumstances. One unemployed, the other a student, how did one pay for a several month trip Russia? Maybe federal and state (welfare) assistance pays better than I thought. It appears the elder brother had caught the attention of security agencies but they dropped the ball. Maybe they didn't do such a good job.

While we bend over backwards to avoid stereotypes and profiling, a liberal talking head in TV made an interesting observation. Something like 15,000 of the 75,000 islamic students here using student visas, didn't show up to the schools for study. I haven't confirmed the statistic, but even if a fraction of that, that is thousands too many, to be allowed to run around unchecked.     

======
The government sequester, is being manipulated to impact the public as painfully as possible. Do these pin heads think, that will get them more money to mismanage? From where I sit, it looks clearly like the FAA needs to be taken away from government and privatized. Reagan was right to fire the striking controllers years ago, and we need to fire some of their upper management now. How dumb do they think we are? This is just another cut, in the death by a thousand cuts they are suffering on our still fragile economy.  Put the airlines in charge of the FAA. They will be motivated to make the planes fly on time, and get the job done efficiently.

=====

Iran, N korea, Syria (the latest to join the gas their own citizens club), does anybody believe these pukes have honorable intentions?

arghhh.

JR

 

[dmp]

#4- if you think government needs to be expanded into more areas of the private economy, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

Do these pin heads think,

John, you seem to be insulting people who have beliefs different than your anti-government beliefs. I'd appreciate it if you avoided insults and stuck to intelligent ranting.

From where I sit, it looks clearly like the FAA needs to be taken away from government and privatized. Reagan was right to fire the striking controllers years ago, and we need to fire some of their upper management now. How dumb do they think we are? This is just another cut, in the death by a thousand cuts they are suffering on our still fragile economy.  Put the airlines in charge of the FAA. They will be motivated to make the planes fly on time, and get the job done efficiently.

Except that private business has a stronger motivation to cut costs and increase profitability, than maintain safety standards.
This has been shown time and time again with examples of pollution and destruction.
Most recently with the fertilizer explosion in Texas. Not only did the business not maintain a safe situation for itself and the town it leveled, but avoided reporting on the amount of dangerous chemicals that were on hand with the limited government oversight that was in place.
And when the airlines get themselves into a world of trouble, then they need a bailout... More expensive in the long run? Opinions vary I know

Having watched the debt ceiling argument last year, I wonder how dumb do they think we are? The house republicans took a scorch-earth, our-way-or-the-highway stand on refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Bear in mind raising the debt ceiling was to pay for already legislated spending, not to stop new spending. The whole process was taken hostage by a minority of republicans in the house in a way that had never been done before by a minority party. Not only was the final result a compromise bill with the sequester, but caused the world and a credit agency to really notice the dysfunction in US government had gone to a new level.

 

[JohnRoberts]

#4- if you think government needs to be expanded into more areas of the private economy, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

Do these pin heads think,

John, you seem to be insulting people who have beliefs different than your anti-government beliefs. I'd appreciate it if you avoided insults and stuck to intelligent ranting.

Sorry,,, the recent years have made me angry and a little cranky.

From where I sit, it looks clearly like the FAA needs to be taken away from government and privatized. Reagan was right to fire the striking controllers years ago, and we need to fire some of their upper management now. How dumb do they think we are? This is just another cut, in the death by a thousand cuts they are suffering on our still fragile economy.  Put the airlines in charge of the FAA. They will be motivated to make the planes fly on time, and get the job done efficiently.

Except that private business has a stronger motivation to cut costs and increase profitability, than maintain safety standards.
This has been shown time and time again with examples of pollution and destruction.

If airplanes crash, people will be reluctant to fly. Airlines have a strong incentive to be safety conscious.

Government workers seem unresponsive to customer needs and wants, there are numerous examples of this even when they aren't actively trying to cause delays. Finally something they are good at, annoying customers. 

Most recently with the fertilizer explosion in Texas. Not only did the business not maintain a safe situation for itself and the town it leveled, but avoided reporting on the amount of dangerous chemicals that were on hand with the limited government oversight that was in place.

The fertilizer plant explosion appears to be a screw up on several levels. In the clarity of hindsight the small town local volunteer fire department was severely under qualified to deal with that situation. One experienced fire fighter from dallas who was in the area visiting, sent his friends miles away before he approached the fire on foot. He died in the explosion. RIP

It is human nature to become blase about risk if not constantly reminded. No business would knowingly put itself and community in such a position. I suspect there are already regulations covering hazardous materials, if the company owner ignored regulations that is an enforcement issue, while a little late now.  I would rather see government agents checking explosive materials to maintain human safety, than raiding Gibson guitars over the wood they use for fret boards.

And when the airlines get themselves into a world of trouble, then they need a bailout... More expensive in the long run? Opinions vary I know

The mostly unreported elephant in the room about airlines is that in recent years the government has looked the other way, as airlines have consolidated to eliminate competition. In many markets ticket prices have gone up significantly where competition has been eliminated. Airline stocks which have been a bad bet for years, are doing a lot better these days as they gain pricing power. 

One of the actual jobs of government wrt business is to prevent reduction of competition by mergers.

Having watched the debt ceiling argument last year, I wonder how dumb do they think we are? The house republicans took a scorch-earth, our-way-or-the-highway stand on refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Bear in mind raising the debt ceiling was to pay for already legislated spending, not to stop new spending. The whole process was taken hostage by a minority of republicans in the house in a way that had never been done before by a minority party. Not only was the final result a compromise bill with the sequester, but caused the world and a credit agency to really notice the dysfunction in US government had gone to a new level.

Welcome to split government. The other day I made a post about the apparent truth, and the real truth. The republicans have been tasked by the people that elected then to not increase taxes and reduce spending so government will live within it's means. The alternate position is increase borrowing and spending with no concern for long term debt ratios.

I am inclined to agree that the debt celling is a flawed vehicle to manage spending. It is clearly after the fact, and nobody expects the USA to default on our debt obligations. It is just another pressure point used to argue about the "real truth" behind the apparent truth. This administration appear a little too happy to go from crisis to crisis (sequester is a self inflicted crisis), as it maneuvers to score political points for the 2014 mid term election.  Does anybody think removing that last vestige of spending discipline (the house) will do anything but speed our debt accumulation and economic decline. 

I am somewhat encouraged to see Obama finally submit a budget for the first time since he has been in office, even though he went out of turn (last instead of first)  and has floated a few new unpopular trial balloons about more tax increases and even going after retirement accounts. (I converted my IRA to Roth years ago to get away from future taxation, while they can still get me with a sales tax.)

I have tried to put this in perspective, so one more time for the cheap seats. Deficit spending in federal budgets are tolerable as long as we deficits are modest and we experience GDP growth in mid single digit or higher average rates. That much growth will drive higher tax revenue in future years to maintain stable debt ratios over time.  But... we have not only experienced <5% average growth, but have dramatically ramped up deficit spending by trillions of dollars in just a few years so our ratios are way out of whack. Worse than that we have serious future funding shortfalls for entitlement programs that keep getting expanded and nobody in power is willing to embrace.

The "real truth" as I see it is we need to starve the beast of unfettered spending, until adults take over. The populist we'll just take all the money we need from wealthy will not grow the economy at the 5%+ we need to create jobs and tax revenue to pay for the spending we need to do. let alone want to do.

Economic growth will not come from throwing more tax dollars at Fisker, or Tesla, or 123 Battery... Get out of the way and let real business do what they do. If you want to regulate something, regulate Fannie and Freddie out of dominating the mortgage business (not even addressed in Dodd-Frank). Break up the super banks the government created to supposedly fix the banking system. 

There is a place for government and regulation, but there is also a place for private entrepreneurism and capitalism. Government growth is an economic negative, not a positive.

Something  else the government can regulate is the high speed stock trading. While it may not be apparent with all the liquidity that Bernaqke is pumping into the system trying to create a wealth effect in the stock market and housing, but high speed traders are skimming off lots of wealth, that would otherwise go into businesses to fund actual growth.

I apologize if some of my language was offensive, i still think it is lame for young people to let older people convince them to do the dying for them. I see many other illogical arguments being bought hook line and sinker.

But who knows, opinions vary. I am certainly not in the majority. I might even be wrong...  8) but I don't think so.


JR

 

[ruffrecords]

=====
The Boston bombers, that some are still not calling radical islamic terrorists, have some unexplained circumstances. One unemployed, the other a student, how did one pay for a several month trip Russia?

JR

Whilst I agree with just about all you have said John, there are sometimes simple explanations. In this case he went home to see his family who are now living in Russia. US TV may have missed it but the BBC had an interview with his mother. It explains how he afforded it but not what happened whilst he was there.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

=====
The Boston bombers, that some are still not calling radical islamic terrorists, have some unexplained circumstances. One unemployed, the other a student, how did one pay for a several month trip Russia?

JR

Whilst I agree with just about all you have said John, there are sometimes simple explanations. In this case he went home to see his family who are now living in Russia. US TV may have missed it but the BBC had an interview with his mother. It explains how he afforded it but not what happened whilst he was there.

Cheers

Ian

There are more questions than answers as each day goes by. He reportedly remodeled an apartment his father bought and visited with some relatives. The region of Russia he visited is known for extreme religion and terrorism. Supposedly his father sent him back to America because of danger there. He reportedly applied for a Russian passport but didn't pick it up. 

His mother denies he was even involved in the bombing and claims he was framed by the US. Different opinions about the two from other US relatives, some not so loving. 

The younger brother was still being interrogated by the FBI when the justice department interrupted and mirandized him, he then lawyered up and stopped talking. Interesting that the FBI works for the justice department but they were blind sided by this.

There is an exception to immediate mirandizing of suspects when there are issues of public safety, something like 48 hours or so that they can be questioned and then mirandized. They were only 16 hours into this 48 hour window when the justice department interrupted them. Prior to being stopped the FBI had uncovered plans to explode additional bombs in Times Square, NYC. 

Excuse me if I don't find his mother a credible witness. I saw a clip of her in TV at a family press conference and she is denying the compelling evidence and apparent reality about her two sons. 

The intra and inter agency government behavior is bordering on bizarre too, not the one big happy family working together, the post 9/11 reorganization was supposed to accomplish.

There are other interesting rumors floating around that contradict some aspects of this case but I won't go there. I can be patient and wait for the facts to come out, while I'm still waiting for some facts about other recent past events.

JR

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I like to joke that life is an ongoing IQ test but it seems from observation that many are failing.

#1- If some old religious leader talks you into dying for his cause, while he sips tea and watches, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

#2- If you believe a low single digit reduction in rate of growth for a government agency budget, justifies laying off thousands of workers in key operational positions, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

#3- If you believe Iran has purely peaceful intentions and is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

#4- if you think government needs to be expanded into more areas of the private economy, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

John, most of the times I would not answer your ravings about gov't vs. individual, because I know nothing can change your mind.
My point here is to mention that you use (deliberately or not) a rhetoric abuse called induction.
Basically it consists in advancing several uncorrelated premises, some of them being almost unquestionable, in order to persuade the reader that the others are also true.
Regarding point #1, I agree, though some second-graders may be much more alert than you surmise. 
I also tend to agree with points #2 and 3, although they are specialist's points; I'm no expert, so it's a gut feeling.
Now point #4; it's your pet-peeve.
It is utterly uncorrelated with points # 1 & 3, slightly connected with point #2.
You have your opinion, I have mine.
The raison d'être (mission) of a private enterprise is to make profit. In order to make profit, they must charge a premium when passing services to their customers, which a gov't agency doesn't do.
Indeed, there is a lot of inertia and waste of resources in gov't agencies; this has been studied in Europe and the conclusion was that the resulting cost was about 4% (that includes fraud and absenteism).
OTOH, private companies make about 30% margin; what's worth, they spend a lot of resources fighting against their customers, in the name of fraud-hunting. In the end, more cost, less service.
Pension funds all over the world invest in these private companies that do what the agencies were supposed to do in health care, security, public transportation, and so on, so that retired workers can get a few hundred dollars, rubles, euros, shekel that they will spend on ever more expensive treatments, protection, commuting,... whilst these funds CEO's rake in a few million zloty.
Now, going back to induction
F=B.L.i
This proves all I say is right, innit? 

 

[living sounds]

If you want to get smarter about the motivations of and reasons for terrorism, and how it relates to the reaction of people to it, and how and why this overreaction is hurting the US specifically, you could listen to this interview with arguably the leading scientist on the matter:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/scott_atran_what_makes_a_terrorist/

No partisan stuff in there, just a very measured, rational, constructive discussion.

 

[sahib]

While I am no expert in any of these, neverheless I would like to comment on the following.

#1- If some old religious leader talks you into dying for his cause, while he sips tea and watches, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

Equally, when you are getting blown up in Irak or Afghanistan, somehow thinking that you are there for freedom and democracy, while the politician who sold you that horse sh*t sipping his champagne and banging on some hooker in a five star hotel room, you may not have been smarter...

#3- If you believe Iran has purely peaceful intentions and is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

Are you telling me there is no other country in that region without peaceful intention?

Also on the nuclear weapon. Why not? US has nuclear weapons? UK has nuclear weapons? Russia who actually supplies nuclear technology and knowhow to Iran, and next to it has not considered that danger but somehow you worked it all out. Bravo!

What is the correlation between the nuclear wepons and not having peaceful intention? Religion? Islam? have a look round which belief is looking for salvation in armageddon? Have you heard of guys called "the end timers"?  Have you heard of guys who believe that they were promised "that land"?

I am not religious at all but I know few things about that belief. And I can assure you that it does not preach to end the world. Yes it mentions the end of the world but it does not preach to get involved in it. In contrary if you just go beyond superficial  horse sh*t that is thrown around buy some with their own agenda, and read more about it you'll find that it strongly orders not to"wish" it. "You don't want to go there" it says. Stay away.

Now I'd like to bring this part into the discussion.

The Boston bombers, that some are still not calling radical islamic terrorists, have some unexplained circumstances.

While we bend over backwards to avoid stereotypes and profiling

 


You answered your own question.

Yes. Those "some" turns out to know better than you do. They know well that it will serve "other some's" agenda to stereotype. But you seem to be happy with that.  As I said I am not religious. My wife is a Roman Catholic and the great majority of my friends are all from other beliefs including Jewish by the way. And all my life I fought against stereotyping.

Those who do not want to call them terrorists are not doing that, because they take a lot of factors into account. A lot of social, cultural and historical factors which you seem to lack terribly. Life is not all about making money. And don't tell me that US and its allies are there because of "peace and democracy". That is a load of horse sh*t. That's all about money. That's all about self interest. Have you heard of Crimean war where Brits fought next to Ottomans against Russian? The same Brits later fought against Ottomans to break them up. Please do me a favour and go and read some history.

I'll leave it here because I fear I may offend you. But I take great offence from the horse sh*t such as this as it insults my intelligence.

 

[JohnRoberts]

If you want to get smarter about the motivations of and reasons for terrorism, and how it relates to the reaction of people to it, and how and why this overreaction is hurting the US specifically, you could listen to this interview with arguably the leading scientist on the matter:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/scott_atran_what_makes_a_terrorist/

No partisan stuff in there, just a very measured, rational, constructive discussion.

I am not a fan of calls to authority, but there were far too many good point made in that discussion to paraphrase.

Thanks for the link. I actually listened to the whole thing...

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

While I am no expert in any of these, neverheless I would like to comment on the following.

#1- If some old religious leader talks you into dying for his cause, while he sips tea and watches, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

Equally, when you are getting blown up in Irak or Afghanistan, somehow thinking that you are there for freedom and democracy, while the politician who sold you that horse sh*t sipping his champagne and banging on some hooker in a five star hotel room, you may not have been smarter...

Good counter point, while I don't equate Iraq to Afghanistan. I have posted at length about the differences over the last several years. Only time will tell if the seeds of democracy planted in Iraq prosper or die off.

Afghanistan is destined tio return to chaos, when the west cuts off support, again.

#3- If you believe Iran has purely peaceful intentions and is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, you may not be smarter than a second grader.

Are you telling me there is no other country in that region without peaceful intention?

no, but the Iranian revolution is getting a little long in the tooth. The government there seems to be acting in only their own narrow interest, not the in interest of the people.

Also on the nuclear weapon. Why not? US has nuclear weapons? UK has nuclear weapons? Russia who actually supplies nuclear technology and knowhow to Iran, and next to it has not considered that danger but somehow you worked it all out. Bravo!

this was discussed long ago,, Russia has several motivations. 1- dislike for israel, so enemies of my enemy are my friend. 2- access to Caspian sea energy reserves.  3- Dislike for US, and anything that makes the US weaker, makes Russia relatively stronger.

What is the correlation between the nuclear wepons and not having peaceful intention? Religion? Islam? have a look round which belief is looking for salvation in armageddon? Have you heard of guys called "the end timers"?  Have you heard of guys who believe that they were promised "that land"?

It's all about power and regional influence. There are games within the games going on there, and we react to short term moves, while lomg term game plans play out. Look at demographics of the region, etc.

I am not religious at all but I know few things about that belief. And I can assure you that it does not preach to end the world. Yes it mentions the end of the world but it does not preach to get involved in it. In contrary if you just go beyond superficial  horse sh*t that is thrown around buy some with their own agenda, and read more about it you'll find that it strongly orders not to"wish" it. "You don't want to go there" it says. Stay away.

Are you talking about Salafism? or something else. It's been a while but there are pretty significance differences ion messaging from Iran toward the west, and messaging for internal consumption.

Reportedly the elder boston brother visited a mosque during his months in Russia that preached Salafism, while I agree with the link that we are making too big of deal about these disaffected youth. It is human nature to want simple neat answers for complex issues. As usual this is complicated.

Now I'd like to bring this part into the discussion.

The Boston bombers, that some are still not calling radical islamic terrorists, have some unexplained circumstances.

While we bend over backwards to avoid stereotypes and profiling

 


You answered your own question.

From the above link some 7% (100M people) are sympathetic to the theme that the west is persecuting Islam. I don't believe we are, but There are narrow segments within the religion that promote Jihad. I find it hard to ignore them.

Yes. Those "some" turns out to know better than you do. They know well that it will serve "other some's" agenda to stereotype. But you seem to be happy with that.  As I said I am not religious. My wife is a Roman Catholic and the great majority of my friends are all from other beliefs including Jewish by the way. And all my life I fought against stereotyping.

I do not promote stereotyping, but likewise i do not promote ignoring warnings from other security agencies.

Those who do not want to call them terrorists are not doing that, because they take a lot of factors into account. A lot of social, cultural and historical factors which you seem to lack terribly. Life is not all about making money. And don't tell me that US and its allies are there because of "peace and democracy". That is a load of horse sh*t. That's all about money. That's all about self interest. Have you heard of Crimean war where Brits fought next to Ottomans against Russian? The same Brits later fought against Ottomans to break them up. Please do me a favour and go and read some history.

While they may be disaffected kids, what they are doing is clearly classic asymmetrical warfare, AKA terrorism.  While hyperbolic media and government reaction, plays into the terrorist game plan to promote the power to disrupt the public.  I repeat my original theme, they may just be the convenient idiots nudged toward ruining their lives and future to prosecute someone else's agenda.

I'll leave it here because I fear I may offend you. But I take great offence from the horse sh*t such as this as it insults my intelligence.

It's pretty hard to offend me... 8) I recall thinking at the time of the boston bombing "only three people dead", what's the big deal, but we have a press that gets rewarded for fear mongering. I have already observed about how many innocents were killed by bombings in the middle east that week. I didn't say what I was thinking before because I didn't want to offend. Glad to hear that my initial reaction was reinforced by the experts (Boston was an over-reaction) .

JR

PS: In hindsight I will soften my criticism of Obama for soft pedaling the Islamic connection because such public messages often get taken out of context and treated hyperbolically. That said we all need to isolate and diminish the radical extreme factions.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I appreciate your several attempts to keep me honest and informed. I do not want to deliver a soliloquy. I can talk to myself by myself, without all this typing.

After finishing a few hours touring my yard on my riding mower I can observe that my freshly sharpened blade is better than when it was dull.  8)

We are all familiar with government's big lie #1 "We are from the government and here to help you.", (the recent FAA slowdown suggests where their respect for public service falls in their priorities. )

I have a second big lie to propose, after digesting recent posts. Big lie #2 is that " We are the government, so all knowing and all seeing". The all seeing part may depend in us giving them more resources and forgoing more of our personal privacy, but the all knowing part remains questionable.  Nobody is all knowing (not even me  ;D ). The contract or transaction between big government and we the people is give then everything they ask for and they'll keep us safe, and fed, and healthy, and ?

The suggestion that government can prevent all future terrorist events is as unlikely as proposed gun legislation would prevent all future crazy wing-nuts shooting up a theater or school. That proposed gun legislation isn't even digging in the right place (mental health). To connect another couple dots, there is some common ground between our Boston two-some, and the CO theater shooter, and the CT school shooting. Young men on a mission from some dark inner place. It appears we are closer to our violent cave man ancestors than we want to admit.

Since all of these actions are already illegal, maybe legislators should honestly (for a change) admit that they can not fix this one. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that much honesty. The Boston situation could have been handled with a lot less drama and less cost. If the cold war was ultimately about money, then terrorism is too. The London approach of wall to wall video cameras to make them easier to catch after the fact is more practical, than trying to catch 100% of the miscreants before they go off the reservation (a topic for good science fiction, like Minority report).

JR

PS On one level I can see the merit to treat terrorism as petty crime and suck some oxygen out of that fire, but I get mixed signals from the administration as being somehow that sophisticated in their perspective. The call for a public (show) trial in NYC for the 9/11 hijackers would have provided them more publicity not less. Our court system would have provided them a platform to take a victory lap while promoting their viewpoints to encourage more of the same, not diminish their agenda.

 

[sahib]

no, but the Iranian revolution is getting a little long in the tooth. The government there seems to be acting in only their own narrow interest, not the in interest of the people.

I would not like to give the impression that I am pro Iranian government but US and UK governments have been acting in their own narrow interest and not the interest of the people too. What makes Iranian government different?

this was discussed long ago,, Russia has several motivations. 1- dislike for israel, so enemies of my enemy are my friend. 2- access to Caspian sea energy reserves.  3- Dislike for US, and anything that makes the US weaker, makes Russia relatively stronger.

Again the impression I am getting from this is that this is all against the interest of US. What makes US interest prettier than Russian interest?

Are you talking about Salafism? or something else. It's been a while but there are pretty significance differences ion messaging from Iran toward the west, and messaging for internal consumption.

Reportedly the elder boston brother visited a mosque during his months in Russia that preached Salafism, while I agree with the link that we are making too big of deal about these disaffected youth. It is human nature to want simple neat answers for complex issues. As usual this is complicated.

While there are so many "isms" in the Islamic world the fundamental of the subject matter remains the same. Just don't get involved in wanting the end of the world. It is not something you would like to see. There is no salvation in it.

That guy's visit to a mosque is a red herring. However, the simple, neat answer to this complex subject is a social backlash.  Don't get me wrong. I am not symphatising with him. In contrary if any of the dead in that blast was a member of my family I would want him dead. Equally I do not symphatise with the living brother either. He will face the consequence of the law in full, even if that means death. But I am still questioning what makes a young guys like these to throw away all those priviliges and take that action to the stage that they are prepared to get killed in a shoot out. Let alone for two boys from Dagistan (I believe) it is a privilege to live in US for many Western persons. What makes these guys to go to that extent. Did US foreign policy have no role in this?

From the above link some 7% (100M people) are sympathetic to the theme that the west is persecuting Islam. I don't believe we are, but There are narrow segments within the religion that promote Jihad. I find it hard to ignore them.

I don't believe the West is persecuting Islam either. But sure West is giving the excuse to that minority to continue to promote it by collaborating with the corrupt in power in the islamic part of the world.

It's pretty hard to offend me...

I won't try. 8)

 

[JohnRoberts]

I didn't want to start a new thread just to make this new(well not so new) observation.

Home price appreciation is up double digits in some of the worst hit markets. This looks like a real trend in home prices except for a few jokers still in the deck.  While I have been saying for some time now that I consider housing a good asset class to invest in (lots of upside, not so much down side, and low interest rates), but I already own my house, and don't feel like becoming a slum lord. The quantitative easing by central banks all around the world has put a bid under hard/real assets like land and homes. Apparently the smart money on wall street has come to a similar conclusion about relative value as an asset class, so there are hedge funds and new investment vehicles buying up under valued homes to bundle into larger sized investments that they like to deal with. If this seems vaguely familiar, it is a little like the bundling of mortgages for resale as generic not specific investments. This bundling of purchased homes is a new thing, so even I won't try to predict how it plays out, I would just advise caution about reading too much into the housing prices "apparent" recovery. Of course this seems real enough to all the underwater homeowners that get relief from every price tick upward, but I must remind all that there are multiple thumbs on the scale. 1- unnaturally low interest rates, 2- distressed properties where original buyers paid too much so must sell at reduced prices, 3- Investors buying homes in large enough numbers to have a marginal impact on market pricing,  4- a mortgage market still dominated by government entities (Fannie and Freddie) still technically in receivership, and not addressed by our political leaders with all their talk of financial reform.

For a simple "does this make sense" test, housing should follow a strong private economy recovery not lead it. The central banks are trying to create a wealth effect (boosting house and stock prices) so people feel wealthier and spend like it's 1999.  Housing should ideally be driven by household creation and strong private economy growth. Two factors depressing household formation are healthcare changes that encourage people to live at home and stay on their parent's health insurance, and over promotion of college loans that have saddled many young adults with way too much debt to even consider trying to buy a house. So poor job prospects, high college debt, and living at home does not add up to housing demand. So what we have now is pent up demand from people who were scared off by the crash and didn't buy over the last several years when they could have. 

I don't want to be a wet blanket and i still think buying a home is a smart investment for young people, there are some supply issues in some of the worst hit, and now over-heated markets, so don't get into a bidding war over scarce inventory even at these relatively low prices. I still want to see how these indirect housing investors play out. Some will try renting homes to young people who can't afford to buy, and most will flip them given the opportunity, so this flippable inventory may put an upside to home price appreciation for the next 10-20% price move, while they are still the marginal buyer/sellers in the market.

Or not... what would I know? While not another repeat of the last bubble, there is a weak foundation under these price increases, so caveat emptor.

JR 

PS: WRT my past discussions of GDP growth rates wrt deficit spending I saw a long term chart the other day, and we need to get back to a high 3 to low 4% "average" GDP growth rate to afford modest budget deficits. The current <3% rate is too low and the several year average is even lower than that so we are not in a sustainable spending pattern.  Just saying...

 

[MartyMart]

QUOTE:
"The government there seems to be acting in only their own narrow interest, not the in interest of the people."

I have never,ever once seen any government act in the interest of the people, who voted them in ( or no vote depending on where you come from )

We think we live in a democracy ... it's a dictatorship, but we are allowed a vote on which "dictator" reigns !!

The ONE time the Brits stood up to the government in 2000 when petrol prices rocketed, they just didn't like it and
got really heavy handed, BANNING any attempt to block a public highway ... amongst other things.
WE voted them in and they DON'T serve us and kick HARD when they don't like the public's challenge/ disagreement.
It's ALL about money ...TAX .... bloody window Tax back in the 17th century, everyone was bricking up their windows  !!!

Every Government is full of horseshit ....... Rant over and out for now

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Margaret T. was reelected twice and seems to be ever popular...

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is interesting to listen to complaints about western governments.  I won't bother to offer full comparisons, but many millions of people around the world would love to have our flawed governments.

I have my share of criticisms too... What I call Big Lie #2 from government, "that they are all knowing and can fix everything with a new law" often leads to disappointment (and too many laws). Look at all the drama over a modest bombing in Boston...Surely not inconsequential to the Boston citizens injured and killed, but in comparison to bombings around the world just that same week not a very big deal. Proposed gun legislation will do nothing to prevent the next isolated crazy from killing innocents, etc. but the public expects the legislators to fix stuff, and they are not honest enough to admit when they can't.

We are about to experience the train wreck of government fixing healthcare's rising cost....

I have respect for Margaret Thatcher from a distance (she was a free market leader), but appreciate there were winners and losers living under her administrations, so opinions obviously vary with life experiences. 

JR

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I have respect for Margaret Thatcher from a distance (she was a free market leader)

You have that spirit in common, is it enough to ignore the rest of her shortcomings?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have respect for Margaret Thatcher from a distance (she was a free market leader)

You have that spirit in common, is it enough to ignore the rest of her shortcomings?

MT was flogged pretty hard in another recent thread after she passed. I do not feel like defending her life right now.

JR