Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

AUSTRIANS UNDERSTAND THE ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURS:  For capitalism to work requires catalysts.

REVIEW OF A BOOK ABOUT THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN LIBERALISM AND PROGRESSIVISM:  This sounds like a most interesting read.


AND SO HOW DOES EVERYTHING SEEM TO 'KEEP ON TRUCKIN'?  Good question.  My friend Jim was predicting the system's collapse for 20 years or more before his death in 2008, based on his extensive research (he was for years the Director of Research of a leading NYSE brokerage firm.  He was also acquainted with Alan Greenspan, whom he hired as a consultant to his firm long before Greenspan became the FRS Chairman.  One has to wonder what's going on in a financial world in which speculators (George Soros, et al) can make millions, billion on various "bets" on currency movement and the like  Do they know something the rest of us don't?  The answer to that question is undoubtedly, yes, but what but what that is not many seem to know.

The Death of Money

Wednesday, April 9, 2014
The prospect of the dollar failing, and the international monetary system with it, looks increasingly inevitable. The dollar nearly ceased to function as the world’s reserve currency in 1978, and similar symptoms can be seen today.

Few Americans in our time recall that the dollar nearly ceased to function as the world’s reserve currency in 1978. That year the Federal Reserve dollar index declined to a distressingly low level, and the U.S. Treasury was forced to issue government bonds denominated in Swiss francs. Foreign creditors no longer trusted the U.S. dollar as a store of value. The dollar was losing purchasing power, dropping by half from 1977 to 1981; U.S. inflation was over 50 percent during those five years. Starting in 1979, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had little choice but to mobilize its resources to issue world money (special drawing rights, or SDRs). It flooded the market with 12.1 billion SDRs to provide liquidity as global confidence in the dollar declined.
We would do well to recall those dark days. The price of gold rose 500 percent from 1977 to 1980. What began as a managed dollar devaluation in 1971, with President Richard Nixon’s abandonment of gold convertibility, became a full-scale rout by the decade’s end.
The efforts of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and the newly elected Ronald Reagan would save the dollar. The dollar did not disappear as the world’s reserve currency after 1978, but it was a near run thing.
Now the world is back to the future.
The parallels between 1978 and recent events are eerie but imperfect.
A similar constellation of symptoms to those of 1978 can be seen in the world economy today. In July 2011 the Federal Reserve dollar index hit an all-time low, over 4 percent below the October 1978 panic level. In August 2009 the IMF once again acted as a monetary first responder and rode to the rescue with a new issuance of SDRs, equivalent to $310 billion, increasing the SDRs in circulation by 850 percent. In early September gold prices reached an all-time high, near $1,900 per ounce, up more than 200 percent from the average price in 2006, just before the new depression began.
The parallels between 1978 and recent events are eerie but imperfect. There was an element ravaging the world then that is not apparent today. It is the dog that didn’t bark: inflation. But the fact that we aren’t hearing the dog doesn’t mean it poses no danger. And from the Federal Reserve’s perspective, inflation is not a threat; indeed, higher inflation is both the Fed’s answer to the debt crisis and a policy objective.
The Death of MoneyThis pro-inflation policy is an invitation to disaster, even as baffled Fed critics scratch their heads at the apparent absence of inflation in the face of unprecedented money printing by the Federal Reserve and other major central banks. Many ponder how it is that the Fed has increased the base money supply 400 percent since 2008 with practically no inflation. But two explanations are very much at hand — and they foretell the potential for collapse. The first is that the U.S. economy is structurally damaged, so the easy money cannot be put to good use. The second is that the inflation is coming. Both explanations are true — the economy is broken, and inflation is on its way.
The world economy is not yet in the “new normal.” Instead, the world is on a journey from old to new with no compass or chart. Turbulence is now the norm.
Danger comes from within and without. We have a misplaced confidence that central banks can save the day; in fact, they are ruining our markets. The value-at-risk models used by Wall Street and regulators to measure the dangers that derivatives pose are risible; they mask overleveraging, which is shamelessly transformed into grotesque compensation that is throwing our society out of balance. When the hidden costs come home to roost and taxpayers are once again stuck with the bill, the bankers will be comfortably ensconced inside their mansions and aboard their yachts. The titans will explain to credulous reporters and bought-off politicians that the new collapse was nothing they could have foreseen.
While we refuse to face truths about debts and deficits, dozens of countries all over the globe are putting pressure on the dollar. We think the gold standard is a historical relic, but there’s a contemporary scramble for gold around the world, and it may signify a move to return to the gold standard. We greatly underestimate the dangers from a cyberfinancial attack and the risks of a financial world war.
Regression analysis and correlations, so beloved by finance quants and economists, are ineffective for navigating the risks ahead. These analyses assume that the future resembles the past to an extent. History is a great teacher, but the quants’ suppositions contain fatal flaws. The first is that in looking back, they do not look far enough. The second flaw involves the quants’ failures to understand scaling dynamics that place certain risk measurements outside history. Since potential risk is an exponential function of system scale, and since the scale of financial systems measured by derivatives is unprecedented, it follows that the risk too is unprecedented.
The economy is broken, and inflation is on its way.
While the word collapse as applied to the dollar sounds apocalyptic, it has an entirely pragmatic meaning. Collapse is simply the loss of confidence by citizens and central banks in the future purchasing power of the dollar. The result is that holders dump dollars, either through faster spending or through the purchase of hard assets. This rapid behavioral shift leads initially to higher interest rates, higher inflation, and the destruction of capital formation. The end result can be deflation (reminiscent of the 1930s) or inflation (reminiscent of the 1970s), or both.
The coming collapse of the dollar and the international monetary system is entirely foreseeable. This is not a provocative conclusion. The international monetary system has collapsed three times in the past century — in 1914, 1939, and 1971. Each collapse was followed by a tumultuous period. The coming collapse, like those before, may involve war, gold, or chaos, or it could involve all three. The most imminent threats to the dollar, likely to play out in the next few years, are financial warfare, deflation, hyperinflation, and market collapse. Only nations and individuals who make provision today will survive the maelstrom to come.
In place of fallacious, if popular, methods, complexity theory is the best lens for viewing present risks and likely outcomes. Capital markets are complex systems nonpareil. Complexity theory is relatively new in the history of science, but in its 60 years it has been extensively applied to weather, earthquakes, social networks, and other densely connected systems. The application of complexity theory to capital markets is still in its infancy, but it has already yielded insights into risk metrics and price dynamics that possess greater predictive power than conventional methods.
The next financial collapse will resemble nothing in history. But a more cleared-eyed view of opaque financial happenings in our world can help investors think through the best strategies.
This article is adapted from “The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System” by James Rickards, in agreement with Portfolio, an imprint of Penguin Random House. Copyright James Rickards, 2014.

James Rickards is the author of the national bestseller Currency Wars. He is a portfolio manager at West Shore Group and an adviser on international economics and financial threats to the Department of Defense and the U.S. intelligence community.
FURTHER READINGSteve Conover adds “Money Printing Isn't Always Inflationary” and Kenneth Gould explains “Sound Money vs. Stable Money.” John Steele Gordon asks “Good as Gold?” and John H. Makin offers “All That Glitters: A Primer on the Gold Standard.”


Monday, April 7, 2014

Monday, April 7, 2014

THE RECENT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE "TAKEOVER" BY FASCISTIC STUDENTS IS ONE MORE MANIFESTATION OF THIS GROUP THINK TOTALITARIANISM:

ROOTS OF TOTALITARIAN LIBERALISM

With the cashiering of Brandon Eich as Mozilla’s chief executive officer last week, we are struggling to understand what we have just seen. There is an important book that remains to be written about the totalitarian imperative at the heart of liberalism, and the insight into the nature of the larger forces at work is one of the many reasons Eich’s forced departure strikes a nerve. It is a revealing moment. This is where we are headed.
Former New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein took a stab at documenting the phenomenon in its manifestation as multiculturalism. In Dictatorship of Virtue, Bernstein writes that “the multiculturalist rhetoric has the rest of us on the run, on the run for fear of being branded…racist” and so on. “In such a way does multiculturalism limit discussion: it makes people feel afraid to say what they think and feel; it presents dubious and cranky interpretations as self-evident, indisputable truths.”
Benstein’s book was published in the glorious dawn of the Clinton administration, and yet it resonates. Its analysis extends beyond the operation of the articles of multicultural faith. Bernstein continues, describing the doctrine: “It often operates, not through the usual means of civil discourse and persuasion, but via intimidation and intellectual decree. It rewrites history.”
And not just that! “It sanctions a cultivation of aggrievemnt, a constant claim of victimization, an excessive, fussy self-pitying sort of wariness that induces others to spout pieties. And that, in turn, covers public discussion of crucial issues with a layer of fear, so that we can no longer speak forthrightly and honestly about matters such as crime, race poverty, AIDS, the failure of schools, single- parenthood, affirmative action, racial preferences, welfare, college admissions, merit, the breakup of the family, and the disintegration of urban life.” The latter is of course a phenomenon of one-party, left-wing rule in our big cities.
Bernstein was on to something. In the thesis he offered in his underdeveloped prologue, he traced the phenomenon back to the French Revolution. Yuval Levin explores the terrain most recently in greater depth in his new book on the birth of right and left in the argument between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine over the French Revolution.
Whether or not the impulse runs back to the French Revolution, or to the Marxist tropism of left liberalism, the tendency is totalitarian. It is not just dissent that must be stifled, it is “incorrect” thought, for incorrect thought may lead to incorrect speech and incorrect speech may lead to incorrect action. The book on the roots of totalitarian liberalism that remains to be written would be an important book.
The Progressive faith of the modern American left is devoted to rule by experts, to unlimited government, to repeal of the distinction between public and private. Thus the constant erosion of the structures intended to protect us from the manipulation and control of the state. Government without end, Amen. It is, dear readers, un-American.
Kevin Williamson usefully assimilates the Mozilla moment into a larger pattern in “The Liberal Gulag.” Williamson doesn’t address Mozilla’s statement explaining itself. It is an important document in its own right, for it supports Williamson’s thesis, suggesting that we are entering the world that George Orwell wrote about in 1984, i.e., the world of the Gulag.

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Sunday, April 6, 2014

DEMOCRAT PARTY ATTACKS ON THE KOCK BROTHERS, THEIR COMPANIES, AND THEM PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN OFF THE PAGE.  HERE'S A MODEST PUSH BACK.

Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society

Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.

  • By Charles G. Koch
  • Updated April 2, 2014 7:47 p.m. ET
    I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.
    Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.
    A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.
    More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.
    Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.
    Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:
    Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.
    Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies."
    Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.
    Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
    Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.
    Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.
    If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too.
    Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.


    Saturday, April 5, 2014

    Saturday, April 5, 2014

    CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST:

    In Mozilla Case, The Left's Intolerance Is Out Of The Closet

    73 Comments
     Posted 
    Eich: Lynched by lemmings. AP
    Eich: Lynched by lemmings. AP View Enlarged Image
    Intolerance: The left hounded a CEO from his job over a 2008 donation in favor of a California measure opposing gay marriage. So much for free speech and job performance. This is a descent into mob tyranny and mediocrity.
    The dirty work of the left was achieved after Brendan Eich, recently appointed CEO of Mozilla, a software company based in Silicon Valley, was forced out of the company he helped found, all to feed the maw of political correctness.
    Eich's "crime" had nothing to do with his job performance, let alone the inclusive work atmosphere he fostered at Mozilla. All it involved was free speech, through a $1,000 donation he made to express support of 2008's Proposition 8 ballot measure.
    That triggered grandstanding and resignations from staff at Mozilla, a 70,000-strong petition from another group, and the dating website OKCupid blocking access by Mozilla's Firefox browser.
    It was sickeningly out of proportion to what after all is a mainstream point of view held by millions of Americans — including President Obama, at least until last year — and has nothing to do with whether one likes or respects gay people.
    No, it's all about the lemminglike groupthink agenda of certain gay lobbies and the ideological intolerance inculcated into the young by academic elites.
    Moves like this serve to create fear and silence, and with it a court of artifice and hypocrisy — not openness, persuasion and dialogue. Did the baying mobs who chased Eich out change any minds? Nope.
    All they did was get word out that dialogue is out of the question and that political correctness trumps merit, a very bad sign for a merit-oriented community like Silicon Valley, where nonconformity, wild ideas and hostility to formalities until now have fueled its dynamism.
    With Mozilla's leadership now decapitated, the company, including its gay employees, will suffer.
    And with political correctness ascendant, it's inevitable that Mozilla's gray, Soviet-style bureaucrats, mouthing the party line by heart and producing nothing of value, will become the stagnant norm there.


    Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040414-696059-in-mozilla-case-leftwing-intolerance-over-gay-marriage-on-display.htm#ixzz2y2CMOMPW
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

    Friday, April 4, 2014

    Friday, April 4, 2014

    ADMIXTURE OF POLITICS AND BUSINESS.  Such conjoining of interests has been going on forever, however it always ends badly for consumers and the taxpayer.


    Ready to Smirk

    How Comcast bought the Democratic Party

    Barack Obama, David Cohen
    Barack Obama, David Cohen / AP
    BY: 
    The communications giant Comcast announced in February that it would buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion, creating the largest cable provider in America,with more than 33 million customers. That is about one third of the U.S. cable and satellite television market. FCC approval is required for the merger to go into effect. Critics of the deal say it would lessen competition and lead to even shoddier customer service. They are probably right, as all of us will soon find out, because there is little chance the merger will be stopped. Comcast, Time Warner, and their political fixers have spent years preparing for this moment—by buying off the Democratic Party.
    Comcast, which employs more than 100 lobbyists, spent almost $19 million last year on lobbying activities. Its president and CEO, Brian L. Roberts, is a golf buddy of President Obama’s, and a Democratic donor who has contributed thousands of dollars not only to the president’s campaigns, butalso to the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the DNC Services Corporation, and to Steny Hoyer, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Bob Casey. Roberts’ executive vice president, David Cohen, is a former aide to Democratic bigwig Ed Rendell. Cohen skirts lobbying regulations through loopholes, has raised more than $2 million for Obama since 2007, and in 2011 hosted a DNC fundraiser at which the president called him “friend.” Cohen has visited the White House 14 times since 2010, including two visits to the Oval Office. He attended the recent dinner for President Hollande of France.
    Cohen plays a major role in the Comcast Foundation, which has disbursed more than $3 billion since 2001, primarily to “groups that serve African-Americans, Latinos, and Asians” and other segments of the Democratic coalition. You will be surprised to learn that many of the groups to whom the Comcast Foundation has donated now support the proposed merger. Of the $33 million Comcast has spent on political campaigns since 1989, more than half, or some $18 million, has gone to Democrats. Barack Obama is number one on the list of the top ten recipients of Comcast’s largesse. There are four Republicans on the list.
    Comcast’s in-kind contributions to the Democratic Party are more difficult to calculate. In a media environment that already tilts leftward, the NBC networks, which Comcast owns, distinguish themselves as especially pro-Obama. Comcast has one channel, MSNBC, which is almost entirely devoted to furthering the president’s agenda and the broader priorities of the American progressive movement. How do you put a price on the contributions of the invaluable Ed, Al, Chris, Chris, Rachel, and Lawrence? Where would the Democratic Party be today without The Reid Report? They give so much.
    MSNBC shares staff and resources with NBC News, whose chief foreign affairs correspondent is a personal friend and tireless advocate of Hillary Clinton’s. NBC Sports, which during its recent Olympics coverage bent over backwards to apologize for Russia, has on its payroll the liberal pink eye victim Bob Costas, famous for advocating gun control during a sporting event. President Obama and Michelle Obama are regulars on the Jimmy Fallon show, and Joe Biden was the first guest on Seth Myers’s Late Night. Biden is always good for laughs.
    The company Comcast wants to absorb shares its partisan leaning. Since 1989, Time Warner has given $29 million to political campaigns, and morethan half of that money went to Democrats. The top three recipients of contributions from Time Warner’s employees, their family members, and PACs are Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry. President Obama comes first, with more than $1 million. Hillary Clinton comes next, with some $400,000. (Sexism?) Time Warner’s PAC has given lavishly to the DNC Services Corporation, the DCC, and the DSCC.
    Time Warner’s CEO, Robert Marcus, has donated $8,500 to Democrats since 2010. His giving also favors Democrats over Republicans. So far this cycle Time Warner and its employees have lavished support on Alison Grimes, Cory Booker, Kay Hagan, Mark Takano, and Henry Waxman. They are all—well, you know what they are. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who has received donations from both companies, had to recuse himself from Senate business with the merger when it was revealed that his brother, Robert, wasrepresenting Time WarnerComcast and Time Warner are on the list of companies subject to an ongoing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Investigation. Will Reid and Schumer return the money donated by companies under investigation for shady business practices overseas?
    The chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, is a venture capitalist and former lobbyist for telecom interests. Obama appointed him in 2013. “Comcast Lobbyist Cohen Meets His Match in FCC’s Wheeler,” read a recent headline from Reuters, but the adversarial relationship implied therein seems to me to be vastly overstated. In fact “match” is a good word to describe the similarities between these two men. Both are influence brokers that have successfully navigated the highly complex and highly lucrative maze of telecom politics. Both are Obama campaign bundlers. Wheeler raised somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000 for Obama’s first presidential race, personally maxing out to the campaign and to the DNC, and bundled at least $500,000 for the president’s reelection. Fortunately, we can rest assured that none of this, not Wheeler’s ties to his industry, nor the specter of regulatory capture, nor the shared political agenda of regulator and “industry partner,” nor the prospect of future employment, will affect Wheeler’s decision in any way.
    It is something of a political irony that Republicans, who for ideological reasons are pro-business, have not raised questions about, or objections to, the conjoining of two Democratic institutions into a media trust. If Republicans had any sense, they would wage war against Comcast and its Democratic enablers and turn the merger into a live issue. Needless to say they have not done so, perhaps in the wrongheaded and futile hope of scraps from the table of the Comcast cable beast, perhaps in the foolish and selfish notion that David Cohen may one day add another man to his company of lobbyists.
    “I have been struck by the absence of rational, knowledgeable voices in this space coming out in opposition or even raising serious questions about the transaction,” Cohen said in a recent C-SPAN interview. I am struck by the same absence, but I am not surprised by it. At this writing opposition to the merger seems to be limited to the Writers Guild of America, Washington Postcolumnist Catherine Rampell, and Senator Al Franken of Minnesota. This is what happens when you buy one political party and disarm the other.
    Imagine the noises from MSNBC if the merger involved Rupert Murdoch or Glenn Beck or Sheldon Adelson or the K-O-C-H brothers. Criticism would lead the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Costas would interrupt aSunday Night Football game to decry corporate consolidation, Fallon would crack wise in his monologue. And who are the opponents of high prices, horrible customer service, and sub-standard Xfinity packages left with instead? Stuart Smalley.

    HAVE FOLLOWED  this blog OFF AND ON FOR YEARS.  IT NOW RESTS IN THE BOSOM OF THE LEFT, WHICH JUST MIGHT BLOW A FEW MINDS

    Tuesday, April 1, 2014

    Tuesday, April 1, 2014

    STATE OF RACE RELATIONS IN AMERICA:  it's safe to say race relations have never been worse in the US since, well, perhaps since blacks were freed from the curse of slavery in 1863.  This sad state of affairs, and its cause, are detailed in this article from the Jewish Review for all to read and weep.  Clearly the Democrat Party has used race as its primary tool for winning election for many years.  Clinton's claim he was the first "black" President is but one of many examples of the Democrat Party's basic strategy since the 1960's of divide and conquer.  Anyone who thought and voted for Obama because his election would put race to bed in this country was sadly mistaken.  Obama's choice of AG alone put the lie to this thought.  The current epidemic of what was called "wilding" in the '60s, is the latest manifestation of dismal status of race relations in this country.  It is doubtful this state of affairs will ever improve as long as the Democrat Party pursues its election strategy of identity politics which includes setting race against race.

    FINANCIAL CRISES II?  One has to wonder whether the current interest rate environment can continue, given the distortions artificially induced depressed interest rates produce.  It seems like Japan has had decades of  depressed interest rates and the performance of its economy has been dismal, to put it mildly.  In the meantime life is good for homebuyers:
    Here are words that would warm the cockles of any financial reporter's heart: "It's easier to get a loan these days for a new home or new car than it's been in five years."
    I mean, the financial crisis may have been hell on the rest of y'all, but for business journalists, it was the Full Employment for Reporters Program.
    OK, so maybe we're not headed into "Financial Crisis II: The Legend Returns." But given all the damage done by loose loan standards, I think this is worth some heavy eyebrow-knitting.
    It's also worth thinking about the secondary effects.
    The obvious one is on house prices. As the U.S. housing market has slowly inched toward recovery (with a bit of a rocket boost in some areas), there's been one fly in the ointment: interest rates. Right now, they're near rock-bottom. What happens to home prices when interest rates finally, inevitably, start to rise? Any asset that is financed largely on credit is bound to have a little setback when the price of credit goes up.
    On the other hand, right now credit has another "price": credit standards for loan issuance. If you can get a mortgage, credit is very, very cheap right now. But only people with very good credit scores can get loans at the moment. For the rest of the market, the price of credit is effectively infinite.
    As those less-than-perfect buyers come back into the market, they'll increase demand somewhat. This may be enough to offset the downward pressure on prices from rising interest rates -- especially if higher interest rates make banks more willing to lend to those less-than-perfect prospects. After all, as real interest rates rise, there's more room in your profit margin to lose a few defaults.
    For a while now, I've been watching my local housing market the way I watch a horror movie: with only one eye open, ready to shut them both tight when the mayhem starts. But if loosening credit standards go along with rising interest rates, we may have a few more reels before things get gory.
    To contact the author of this post:
    Megan McArdle at mmcardle3@bloomberg.net.

    THERE'S MORE THAN JUST A LITTLE TRUTH IN THIS POINT:
    Ted Kennedy, the most destructive leftist in the US government between FDR and Obama, is infamous as the driving force behind the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, an act of treason that has succeeded in disastrously altering America’s demographics by importing millions of Third-Worlders who lack American values and can be counted on to vote for the sort of socialist tyrants they left behind when they came to here to climb aboard the welfare gravy train. Amnesty for illegal aliens would double down on this insanity, almost certainly pushing us past the white minority tipping point that makes any advocate of limited government unelectable, as in California and New York City.
    McCain is right that it would be appropriate to name an amnesty bill after Chappaquiddick Ted, if not Benedict Arnold. But appallingly, he means it as a compliment. McCain is fanatically in favor of amnesty, despite having insolently lied to his constituents before the last election that he hadlearned his lesson.
    As Hot Air notes, this isn’t the first time McCain has praised the Liberal Lion while trying to shove through amnesty. From HuffPo, January 2013:
    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hailed the late Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy on Monday as a bipartisan group of senators laid out new principles for comprehensive immigration reform — perhaps handing opponents a weapon.
    Kennedy and McCain led the effort for broad-based immigration reform that failed nearly six years ago, and McCain said this new push was nearly the same.
    “If we do succeed, and I think we will, it will be a testimonial to Ted Kennedy’s effort years ago that laid the groundwork for this agreement,” McCain said. “You will find that this agreement has very little difference from that of the legislation that was led by Sen. Kennedy some years go.”
    WHO YOU GOING TO BELIEVE, ME OR YOUR LYING EYES?
    President Obama is going to make a statement about Obamacare this afternoon. He’s likely to crow about that number that just magically appeared last night.
    That number is so raw and unfiltered that it’s meaningless. Supposing that it’s even a real number and not something that this dishonest cabal just made up.
    First, there are the cancellations. Fox counted up all the cancellations in each state that are directly attributable to Obamacare and came up with 6.2 million. Subtract that from the 7 million sign-ups and we’re at less than 1 million.
    Some number of those who had their insurance killed by the man who promised they could keep it would have been expected to sign-up for a new plan within Obamacare. That RAND study we reported on Monday finds that two-thirds of Obamacare’s “new”sign-ups come from Americans who previously had health insurance. By that reckoning, then, maybe two million sign-ups under Obamacare are actually from people who did not have insurance previously. Then, we have to take into account that of the final number, some unknown number of them have not paid their first premium. The White House has claimed that it doesn’t even keep track of that number — even though it’s the most important number when counting sign-ups. Customers who have not paid have not actually bought the product. They’re not really enrolled. Additionally, some of those who lost their plans because of Obamacare have not been able to buy new plans. They were insured. Now they’re uninsured. Some of those who did pay their first premium failed to pay their second. Will Obama take any of these losses against the claimed 7 million into account?
    So whichever way we go, the real number of new sign-ups is far lower than the 7 million goal that Sebelius stated and then denied, and about which the Obama administration is now crowing. President Obama, who is probably the most dishonest man to ever hold the White House, will come out this afternoon and crow about a false and deliberately falsified number. He will know that the number he is bragging about it is false. The media will know it too, but most won’t bother to do the math.
    When the Democrats passed Obamacare, they claimed that it would do two things. It would help (or force) the uninsured to get insurance. It would also reduce costs for the average American family. Obama directly promised that it would reduce premiums for American families by as much as $2500 per year.
    Judging Obamacare by its original criteria, not the sales job that Obama and his hirelings are using now, Obamacare is a failure. Costs have gone up. The number of uninsured after Obamacare will still be in the tens of millions. And the employer mandate has not even kicked in yet.
    THE ABOVE WAS WRITTEN ON APRIL FOOL'S DAY BUT IT WAS SERIOUS.  THIS ADMINISTRATION IS BUILT ON LIES BY CONSUMMATE LIARS.