Nobel literature head: US too insular to compete - Yahoo! News
I have not read extensively on the reaction to this comment, but I would suggest that the Nobel Prize in Literature's overwhelming European focus tends to indicate that the Europeans are too insular.
Without researching, I would hazard a guess that the winners are nearly uniformly Socialist in character and not supportive of the American Dream and related ideals of Enlightenment notions of liberty. They are not likely friendly to notions of struggle and tempering (in the truest sense) of character from the struggles. Too Christian for an atheist Socialist.
If the award gave balance to different political persuasions and religious notions, I would have a greater faith that the European Socialist world-view filter was not being applied.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Mortgage fix: conservatism in a liberal-created world
In the last post, I allude to that mortgage problem was created over 30 years by two Democrat administrations lead to many cases of bank fraud were encouraged and abetted by Democrats in the White House and Congress. For details.
The problem I noted means there is good money and bad money in the system from this problem.
I would assert without much explanation that good money loaned out should not have a significant change. If the loan was properly done, the banks should not receive a windfall and the homeowner who goes bankrupt has other issues that handing out money will not likely solve.
If the problem is bad money loaned out due to bank fraud with the banker's complicity, we need to focus on that. We need to create a method that simply and easily creates a tracking mechanism. The problem was created by Democrats at the cost of the Treasury and we need to be able to see the consequences with the cleansing effect of sunlight. Failure to expose this to sunlight will guarantee that our economy will not recover for a generation or more.
I would suggest that a person who is upside down and the bank wants government assistance, would need to have a report and documentation that shows whether the debtor could not have qualified in the traditional market. If the customer would have qualified, but some new-fangled bell or whistle on the mortgage caused the debtor to go upside down, then Uncle Sam would issue a voucher to allow the issue of mortgage guarantee or a mortgage modification to remove the problem bell or whistle. Through the voucher, Uncle Sam would provide the additional money to provide consideration to underwrite the modification (in non-lawyer terms, Uncle Sam would pay a premium to pay the bank to adjust the terms of the mortgage). The bank would then collect its stack of voucher to Uncle Sam for redemption.
If the banker and the customer could show that the house was appraised at too high a price at the time or that the neighborhood's home values were artificially inflated in this bubble, Uncle Sam could issue a voucher for additional consideration to modify the mortgage.
If the debtor has back payments due that meet these criteria, he could apply for voucher and stay foreclosure proceedings and any collection efforts up to the voucher application up to the applied amount. If the applicant does not receive the amount on the application and the stay reached non-foreclosure matters, the applicant could be charged non-dischargeable interest on the debt of 12% plus $1000 penalty. This would favor likely successful applicants to apply and only seek stays where likely to have intended consequences.
Neighborhoods could be certified as artificially inflated if confirmed by one appraiser and reviewed by an independent appraiser. The neighbors could split the cost. They could receive a voucher for the costs of the appraisal.
This process would cause money to come into banks to pay off the screwed up mortgages and quickly get the mortgages' true values adjusted on their balance sheets. Healthy banks will stand out for struggling banks. Struggling banks will be bought up quickly for their true value. Good practices will have been rewarded.
Persons who were cheated by this Democrat-sponsored fraud will be able to get relief that improves their personal credit ratings. Homeowners have a way to reduce their property taxes where the fair market values are adjusted.
The US government can limit the amount of money spent out of the Treasury.
The remaining problem is what do we do with the bad-money loans that the homeowner committed bank fraud? Those persons need to have some result other than bankruptcy. They need to have a limited, non-dischargeable (for, say, 5-7 years) civl penalty, of $5,000 or 50% of the overage (whichever is higher) per incident. Serial offenders would pay more than single-time offenders. This would prevent the person from easily re-entering the market without paying some money back to the Treasury. It would also force the person into a cheaper property to avoid repeats. Being civil, the fine should be easy to impose, but small to avoid long-term punitive effects for single occurrence.
One of the results of this system, I suspect would be that it would capture many people who are buying and selling houses for investment purposes. I don't know that that serves the purposes for which Fannie Mae was built. Those should be squeezed out of the system. The voucher system would allow accountability for that.
Instead of injecting cash, a system that creates a standardized document and problem assessment will give us feedback on what happened in this situation. This will provide information for future economic historians to account for this problem.
The problem I noted means there is good money and bad money in the system from this problem.
I would assert without much explanation that good money loaned out should not have a significant change. If the loan was properly done, the banks should not receive a windfall and the homeowner who goes bankrupt has other issues that handing out money will not likely solve.
If the problem is bad money loaned out due to bank fraud with the banker's complicity, we need to focus on that. We need to create a method that simply and easily creates a tracking mechanism. The problem was created by Democrats at the cost of the Treasury and we need to be able to see the consequences with the cleansing effect of sunlight. Failure to expose this to sunlight will guarantee that our economy will not recover for a generation or more.
I would suggest that a person who is upside down and the bank wants government assistance, would need to have a report and documentation that shows whether the debtor could not have qualified in the traditional market. If the customer would have qualified, but some new-fangled bell or whistle on the mortgage caused the debtor to go upside down, then Uncle Sam would issue a voucher to allow the issue of mortgage guarantee or a mortgage modification to remove the problem bell or whistle. Through the voucher, Uncle Sam would provide the additional money to provide consideration to underwrite the modification (in non-lawyer terms, Uncle Sam would pay a premium to pay the bank to adjust the terms of the mortgage). The bank would then collect its stack of voucher to Uncle Sam for redemption.
If the banker and the customer could show that the house was appraised at too high a price at the time or that the neighborhood's home values were artificially inflated in this bubble, Uncle Sam could issue a voucher for additional consideration to modify the mortgage.
If the debtor has back payments due that meet these criteria, he could apply for voucher and stay foreclosure proceedings and any collection efforts up to the voucher application up to the applied amount. If the applicant does not receive the amount on the application and the stay reached non-foreclosure matters, the applicant could be charged non-dischargeable interest on the debt of 12% plus $1000 penalty. This would favor likely successful applicants to apply and only seek stays where likely to have intended consequences.
Neighborhoods could be certified as artificially inflated if confirmed by one appraiser and reviewed by an independent appraiser. The neighbors could split the cost. They could receive a voucher for the costs of the appraisal.
This process would cause money to come into banks to pay off the screwed up mortgages and quickly get the mortgages' true values adjusted on their balance sheets. Healthy banks will stand out for struggling banks. Struggling banks will be bought up quickly for their true value. Good practices will have been rewarded.
Persons who were cheated by this Democrat-sponsored fraud will be able to get relief that improves their personal credit ratings. Homeowners have a way to reduce their property taxes where the fair market values are adjusted.
The US government can limit the amount of money spent out of the Treasury.
The remaining problem is what do we do with the bad-money loans that the homeowner committed bank fraud? Those persons need to have some result other than bankruptcy. They need to have a limited, non-dischargeable (for, say, 5-7 years) civl penalty, of $5,000 or 50% of the overage (whichever is higher) per incident. Serial offenders would pay more than single-time offenders. This would prevent the person from easily re-entering the market without paying some money back to the Treasury. It would also force the person into a cheaper property to avoid repeats. Being civil, the fine should be easy to impose, but small to avoid long-term punitive effects for single occurrence.
One of the results of this system, I suspect would be that it would capture many people who are buying and selling houses for investment purposes. I don't know that that serves the purposes for which Fannie Mae was built. Those should be squeezed out of the system. The voucher system would allow accountability for that.
Instead of injecting cash, a system that creates a standardized document and problem assessment will give us feedback on what happened in this situation. This will provide information for future economic historians to account for this problem.
The mortgage problem: how do we solve failed liberal policies with conservatism?
As everyone knows, this current problem with Fannie Mae, etc., blowing up is bad. Not everyone knows that Fannie Mae became a liberal play toy to follow their racist agenda: more money to the Democrat constituency of "the poor" and "black neighborhoods" that "have been discriminated against for years."
Facts have been proven that a poor family is not a good place to place mortgage. There are better means to develop home ownership.
In essence, we need to solve a problem created by failed liberalism. Conservatism is the solution to failed liberalism. The problem is that sudden changes in economic systems create many additional problems. For example, the changes in real estate taxation practices in the 1986 tax reform act decimated the commercial real estate world. The change was rather sudden. It was difficult.
No matter what the solution, it must be over a period of time. The biggest drawback to this is that the persons hurt by the change have chance to constantly encourage changing the rules of the game. For example Sen. Lugar Farm bill. It is as if it never happened. A five-year turnaround meant short-term changes and long-term stagnation in bad ideas.
What we need to do is balance the need for sudden changes with a natural blocker against the riff-raff who caused the problem regaining its facade of credibility and trying to undo the reform.
Imagine that we are dealing with a flooded house. How do you drain it and start cleaning it? Do you try to pump high-pressure air into the house in order to force the water out of the small openings into which the water had originally flowed? No. You open all doors and windows under water and let gravity take its course. Then you set up siphons and wet-dry vacuums to get to work. You pump as little as you can and let nature do as much of the work as possible. Obviously this system is most effective where doorways are at the lowest level of the house -- floor level and not above basement level. The lesson here is find places where finances can help to naturally clean up the situation.
Where the forces of economics cannot clean out the mortgage-version of a basement, we need to force a financial fix into the system.
Nationalizing all mortgages is the equivalent of closing the ground level doors and to turn on the air pump to force the ground-level water out. It takes too much work and is likely to cause windows to be blown out from air pressure than the water caused. Forcing more money into the system does not help us allow the bad money to flow out as efficiently as possible.
We need a method that tracks what is good money and what is bad money. Then we need to set up a system that pushes out bad money without pulling significant amounts of good money out.
If we can do this, more banks will fail. More people will face foreclosure. However, some banks and people deserve it. Imagine you go into your bank and they offer you a mortgage for $50,000 and you don't have to prove how much money you make. Then the banker tells you that you just need to tell the bank you make more than $80,000 per year. No documents. No follow up. Just your word.
What would you do? How much money would you be tempted to tell the banker you make? If you honesty make more than $80,000, it's a no-brainer. You tell the banker the truth. You get the loan. You can likely repay it. No problem.
If you don't make that much, would you be tempted to lie and tell him, "Funny that you should mention $80,000. That's how much I make!"? Now you get your new-found money! That was easy!
Later you find out that you can't make your monthly payments. You end up in a financial mess. It is your fault or the banker's fault that you are in this situation? The rules of psychology say that if you are the debtor, you blame the banker for suckering you into the loan. You ignore that you had to lie to get the loan.
Is your ill-gotten money, good money or bad money?
I would suggest that it is bad money. You had to commit bank fraud to get it.
Is that a situation that we want to give you Uncle Sam's/the taxpayers' money to fix the situation and keep the liar in his house? Do we want Uncle Sam to reward the banker for not assessing whether the loan was likely to repaid? What if Uncle Sam threatened the banker with sanctions if the banker asked you to prove you had the income to repay the loan?
But here lies the problem: the bankers were encouraged by two Democratic administrations over 30 years with Department of Justice investigations if they asked for basic information about the debtor's financial situation. This Republican administration tried repeatedly to require bankers to ask more questions. Congressional Democrats prevented the fixes from coming to the floor of the US Senate.
Now what do we do to solve it?
Facts have been proven that a poor family is not a good place to place mortgage. There are better means to develop home ownership.
In essence, we need to solve a problem created by failed liberalism. Conservatism is the solution to failed liberalism. The problem is that sudden changes in economic systems create many additional problems. For example, the changes in real estate taxation practices in the 1986 tax reform act decimated the commercial real estate world. The change was rather sudden. It was difficult.
No matter what the solution, it must be over a period of time. The biggest drawback to this is that the persons hurt by the change have chance to constantly encourage changing the rules of the game. For example Sen. Lugar Farm bill. It is as if it never happened. A five-year turnaround meant short-term changes and long-term stagnation in bad ideas.
What we need to do is balance the need for sudden changes with a natural blocker against the riff-raff who caused the problem regaining its facade of credibility and trying to undo the reform.
Imagine that we are dealing with a flooded house. How do you drain it and start cleaning it? Do you try to pump high-pressure air into the house in order to force the water out of the small openings into which the water had originally flowed? No. You open all doors and windows under water and let gravity take its course. Then you set up siphons and wet-dry vacuums to get to work. You pump as little as you can and let nature do as much of the work as possible. Obviously this system is most effective where doorways are at the lowest level of the house -- floor level and not above basement level. The lesson here is find places where finances can help to naturally clean up the situation.
Where the forces of economics cannot clean out the mortgage-version of a basement, we need to force a financial fix into the system.
Nationalizing all mortgages is the equivalent of closing the ground level doors and to turn on the air pump to force the ground-level water out. It takes too much work and is likely to cause windows to be blown out from air pressure than the water caused. Forcing more money into the system does not help us allow the bad money to flow out as efficiently as possible.
We need a method that tracks what is good money and what is bad money. Then we need to set up a system that pushes out bad money without pulling significant amounts of good money out.
If we can do this, more banks will fail. More people will face foreclosure. However, some banks and people deserve it. Imagine you go into your bank and they offer you a mortgage for $50,000 and you don't have to prove how much money you make. Then the banker tells you that you just need to tell the bank you make more than $80,000 per year. No documents. No follow up. Just your word.
What would you do? How much money would you be tempted to tell the banker you make? If you honesty make more than $80,000, it's a no-brainer. You tell the banker the truth. You get the loan. You can likely repay it. No problem.
If you don't make that much, would you be tempted to lie and tell him, "Funny that you should mention $80,000. That's how much I make!"? Now you get your new-found money! That was easy!
Later you find out that you can't make your monthly payments. You end up in a financial mess. It is your fault or the banker's fault that you are in this situation? The rules of psychology say that if you are the debtor, you blame the banker for suckering you into the loan. You ignore that you had to lie to get the loan.
Is your ill-gotten money, good money or bad money?
I would suggest that it is bad money. You had to commit bank fraud to get it.
Is that a situation that we want to give you Uncle Sam's/the taxpayers' money to fix the situation and keep the liar in his house? Do we want Uncle Sam to reward the banker for not assessing whether the loan was likely to repaid? What if Uncle Sam threatened the banker with sanctions if the banker asked you to prove you had the income to repay the loan?
But here lies the problem: the bankers were encouraged by two Democratic administrations over 30 years with Department of Justice investigations if they asked for basic information about the debtor's financial situation. This Republican administration tried repeatedly to require bankers to ask more questions. Congressional Democrats prevented the fixes from coming to the floor of the US Senate.
Now what do we do to solve it?
Bloomberg.com: News
Bloomberg.com: News
Explanation of what really caused the banking troubles. Surprising source to have this tone.
Explanation of what really caused the banking troubles. Surprising source to have this tone.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Gateway Pundit: Busted!... Video of Fannie Mae CEO in 2005 Explaining the "FAMILY" Connection with Dems & Obama
Gateway Pundit: Busted!... Video of Fannie Mae CEO in 2005 Explaining the "FAMILY" Connection with Dems & Obama
So Obama and his cronies have nothing to do with Fannie Mae's mess? Watch the videos for Fannie Mae's understanding.
So Obama and his cronies have nothing to do with Fannie Mae's mess? Watch the videos for Fannie Mae's understanding.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Michelle Malkin » The fit hits the shan on Wall Street
Michelle Malkin » The fit hits the shan on Wall Street
Things look bad on Wall Street.
Secretary Paulsen had sought to get control over mortgage regulation in April, but Democrats wanted to bail out the banks.
This mess seems to indicate that the Democrats have been in deep with these folks for a while. While the mess is not the Democrats fault, the depth of the problem seems to have been made worse because the Democrats cooperated in preventing real fixes to an existing problem.
Even more interesting is the candidates' reactions. O-Bomba wants to blame Republicans for laissez-faire economics for creating the problem without regard to the history of the matter. McCain addresses the corrective action of refusing government capitalization of struggling businesses and fix the regulatory scheme that favors Congressional meddling and dawdling. I don't know what he wants to do precisely, but fewer regulatory bodies allow greater coherence in operation with fewer political interference opportunities that can be hidden from view. Those make sense to me from my personal experience in business.
Things look bad on Wall Street.
Secretary Paulsen had sought to get control over mortgage regulation in April, but Democrats wanted to bail out the banks.
(Italics added for emphasis.)The plan, produced by a lame-duck Republican administration facing a Democratic Congress, would drastically expand the authority of the Federal Reserve to oversee financial markets. It would consolidate federal agencies that regulate the nation’s securities and commodities futures markets. And it would allow insurance companies, which have long been regulated by the states, to choose instead to have a national charter and be supervised by a new federal agency under the Treasury Department.
Mr. Paulson said on Monday that he did not expect the bulk of the plan to be adopted during the current administration — and he said Congress should not even consider adopting most of it until after the current housing and credit crisis ended.
“Some may view these recommendations as a response to the circumstances of the day,” Mr. Paulson said. “That is not how they are intended.”
Senior lawmakers, while praising the administration for raising important points for further discussion, said the odds were long for a major overhaul before Congress all but shuts down for the elections in the fall.
“Since this is opening day in baseball, I might as well make a baseball metaphor,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee. “This is a wild pitch. It is not even close to the strike zone.”
Mr. Dodd and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a telephone conference call with reporters that overhauling the regulatory structure was not a high priority. Instead, they said, they were hoping to quickly move legislation that would help homeowners facing higher mortgage rates and foreclosure.
The Democrats’ bill would provide an additional $200 million for counseling for homeowners in danger of foreclosure, would authorize $10 billion in bonding authority for housing finance agencies to refinance subprime loans, and provide $4 billion for local governments to purchase foreclosed properties.
The bill would also change the bankruptcy laws to allow judges to modify mortgages on primary homes — a provision opposed by Republicans who say it will only increase mortgage rates.
This mess seems to indicate that the Democrats have been in deep with these folks for a while. While the mess is not the Democrats fault, the depth of the problem seems to have been made worse because the Democrats cooperated in preventing real fixes to an existing problem.
Even more interesting is the candidates' reactions. O-Bomba wants to blame Republicans for laissez-faire economics for creating the problem without regard to the history of the matter. McCain addresses the corrective action of refusing government capitalization of struggling businesses and fix the regulatory scheme that favors Congressional meddling and dawdling. I don't know what he wants to do precisely, but fewer regulatory bodies allow greater coherence in operation with fewer political interference opportunities that can be hidden from view. Those make sense to me from my personal experience in business.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Other Thoughts on Earmarks
If an earmark is a procedural corruption of Congress, what would have the best chance of reducing the need for earmarks?
Many earmarks that get air play are research projects for strange subjects (academia), museums or special institutions of local interest (arts and humanist subjects), and questionable roadways (public works).
The first two examples are just questionable for national expenditure. Roadways are likely to be of more dubious value if paid for by the federal government rather than state or local governments. Why? Locals know local needs better. I would prefer that the federal government drastically curtail its taxation and involvement in federal highways. This is just an invitation to play legislative games. The bridge to nowhere is fine if Alaskans want it and pay for it. Why should the lower 48 contribute?
An empty highway across Arizona (which one I don't know, I am just trying to paint a mental image) from a town in New Mexico to California may make more sense for the federal government to underwrite, since Arizona gets little benefit. But if it is really that worthwhile to all but Arizona, couldn't a toll road solve the problem for Arizona's budgeting?
Earmarking this project is too much money, too poorly analyzed, and likely too expensive for the benefits obtained. Let's try a different way.
Many earmarks that get air play are research projects for strange subjects (academia), museums or special institutions of local interest (arts and humanist subjects), and questionable roadways (public works).
The first two examples are just questionable for national expenditure. Roadways are likely to be of more dubious value if paid for by the federal government rather than state or local governments. Why? Locals know local needs better. I would prefer that the federal government drastically curtail its taxation and involvement in federal highways. This is just an invitation to play legislative games. The bridge to nowhere is fine if Alaskans want it and pay for it. Why should the lower 48 contribute?
An empty highway across Arizona (which one I don't know, I am just trying to paint a mental image) from a town in New Mexico to California may make more sense for the federal government to underwrite, since Arizona gets little benefit. But if it is really that worthwhile to all but Arizona, couldn't a toll road solve the problem for Arizona's budgeting?
Earmarking this project is too much money, too poorly analyzed, and likely too expensive for the benefits obtained. Let's try a different way.
McCain and Palin castigate the earmarks she seeks - Yahoo! News
McCain and Palin castigate the earmarks she seeks - Yahoo! News
I really don't understand this logic. Governors used to have the ability to go to the legislature-appointed Senators for their states to request cooperation from Washington. Now, with popularly elected Senators, Governors mostly have to act like princeps maximus (in its original pre-Augustus meaning) - first citizen.
My problem with earmarks is not the citizen, governor, or business owner petitioning the Congress for help. My problem with earmarks is when the Senator or Representative buries the authorization for payment so no other member of Congress knows that it is there or puts it in the middle of a "must-pass" bill. These are sleazy tactics designed to do an end-run to debate and informed consent by the other legislators.
So why should governors not ask for Congress to do something for their home state again?
I really don't understand this logic. Governors used to have the ability to go to the legislature-appointed Senators for their states to request cooperation from Washington. Now, with popularly elected Senators, Governors mostly have to act like princeps maximus (in its original pre-Augustus meaning) - first citizen.
My problem with earmarks is not the citizen, governor, or business owner petitioning the Congress for help. My problem with earmarks is when the Senator or Representative buries the authorization for payment so no other member of Congress knows that it is there or puts it in the middle of a "must-pass" bill. These are sleazy tactics designed to do an end-run to debate and informed consent by the other legislators.
So why should governors not ask for Congress to do something for their home state again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)