Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1365.3 | 2.4 | 0.18% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2519.3 | 11.2 | 0.45% |
| Oil (WTI) | 108.3 | 0.5 | 0.44% |
| LIBOR | 0.4906 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 78.505 | -0.130 | -0.17% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.98% | -0.02% |
Slow news day. Stock futures are up slightly as bonds and oil continue to rally. No economic data this morning until 10:00 when we get Michigan Consumer Confidence and New Home Sales.
Radar Logic released its December Monthly Housing Report yesterday. The report notes that prices declined 6.8% while transaction count increased 19.6%. While the transaction count was boosted by technical factors relating to the homebuyer tax credit expiration, there is a sense that sellers are becoming more realistic and are willing to hit bids from bargain-hunters. Is this is the beginning of the Great Capitulation? The report notes that the recently-listed RPX futures are indicating the bottom is here and that prices should start rising in summer of 2013.
A tiff between Bank of America and Fannie Mae? The bank will no longer send new originations to Fannie Mae and will either send them to Freddie Mac or retain them on their own balance sheet. Fannie Mae’s lawsuit regarding shoddy origination at Countrywide presumably drove this decision. Does this mean we are finally going to have a national discussion over the American Dream Commitment?
A slew of important economic data will be released next week with Durable Goods, Case-Schiller, Consumer Confidence, GDP, Personal Income, Personal Spending, Construction Spending, ISM and more.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Elliot Spitzer making sense on the most recent Real Time with Bill Maher :
“Friday on HBO during “Real Time with Bill Maher,” former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer broke with liberal tradition, saying the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was the right call.
Spitzer explained, as he has before, that the Court’s decision is consistent with with the First Amendment.
“Now, having said that, Bill, we rarely disagree. I am with the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] on this one. I think as a First Amendment principle, Citizens United was correct.”
He told Maher that there is no distinction between some shows on the airwaves — all owned by corporations — and a company’s participation in politics through paid advertising.
“Your show is owned by a corporation,” Spitzer said to Maher. “You have a First Amendment right. And so I don’t know how you distinguish between the New York Times editorial page, The Rachel Maddow Show, George [Stephanopoulos]‘s show — all owned by corporations.”
“The First Amendment,” he reminded Maher, says government “shall pass no law abridging the right of speech.”
“Doesn’t say by anybody. It says speech. I don’t care whose speech it is. The ACLU agrees with me, and Larry Lessig, great academic, on this. So this is a more textured issue. It has done horrific things to politics. But as a First Amendment issue, it’s a much more complicated issue.”
Spitzer explained that while there could be some restrictions, freedom of speech would ultimately make democracy better.
“We can limit contributions to candidates, and we should be able to do that. We should mandate absolute disclosure. But as a First Amendment principle, people should be able to say what they want, how they want with their own money. I don’t care if it’s [Sheldon] Adelson or somebody who is of my political views on the left. Let speech breed speech.
“‘You never defeat speech by limiting speech’ is the First Amendment principle by which I live. I just think we’ll be a healthier democracy for it.””
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/18/eliot-spitzer-bucks-liberal-orthodoxy-citizens-united-was-correct/
LikeLike
oil going vertical.
LikeLike
Spitzer explained, as he has before, that the Court’s decision is consistent with with the First Amendment.
I feel so too. But with the brutal Republican primary going on it’s also a case of unintended consequences. Be careful what you wish for.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on February 24, 2012 at 12:46 pm said:
Spitzer explained, as he has before, that the Court’s decision is consistent with with the First Amendment.
I feel so too. But with the brutal Republican primary going on it’s also a case of unintended consequences. Be careful what you wish for.”
I’d just repeal all the campaign contribution limits. The net effect of Citizens United has been to allow candidates who probably would have had to drop out earlier due to lack of fundraising stay in the race longer. I don’t view this as a bad outcome. In the end, you can’t “buy” an election. If the voters don’t like the message, all the money in the world won’t make a difference.
LikeLike
FT article on natural gas:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7d298f50-5c85-11e1-8f1f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1nLTpvqhS
I think you can sign up for 8 freebies a month, and FT requested me not to copy-paste, and to respect its ©.
LikeLike
I don’t have any problem with campaign spending limits, which is not what CU was about. The perpetual campaign is not good for getting work done. No campaign limits would fuel more campaigning and less work, if that is possible.
Soft money is a free speech issue, ultimately.
In either case, full and frequent disclosure and a handy website listing donors and amounts would be healthy.
LikeLike
“In the end, you can’t “buy” an election.”
Perhaps not. But it is not at all clear that you cannot buy a politician.
There is inherent tension between money as free speech and clean government that SCOTUS ignored with their decision in Citizens United.
The free speech argument is very compelling; but I am skeptical that disclosure is an adequate prophylactic against corruption.
LikeLike
bsimon:
but I am skeptical that disclosure is an adequate prophylactic against corruption.
The only adequate prophylactic against corruption is placing severe limits on the legitimate exercise of government power.
LikeLike
Of course, the flood of money can buy off government. That is the threat. Big or small, corrupt government stinks. I am not making this up. Jersey City after WW2, Chicago under the senior Daley, that little town in CA last year; it doesn’t matter how small government is, it can stink.
Historically, if TX is an example, local government was cleaner than state government, because the towns and counties did not have enough fat targets to make them magnets for bribery. The Lege was sometimes clean, sometimes clown, and sometimes cesspool. Look up the Sharpstown scandal.
The feds have been cleaner than TX in my adult life.
Mexico has a weak federal government and it is rife with corruption. It has a culture of corruption. So does much of Louisiana.
When we saw the movie “The Candidate” we got a glimpse of the everyday bending of a decent man who runs for office. When all the candidates from every party are totally dependent on big fundraising, the danger is great that the bending will become breaking.
It’s an old story. I do not have an answer. I am guessing that a shorter campaign season and tighter spending limits on candidates would help. But not very much.
And there are individual character issues that we voters overlook. We ran Spitzer off, but not Vitter. I don’t care about the sex, but in my experience men who frequent high priced hookers are easily bought and sold.
LikeLike
mark:
Mexico has a weak federal government and it is rife with corruption.
Imagine how bad it would be for everyone subject to that corruption if the federal government was stronger.
LikeLike
” The only adequate prophylactic against corruption is placing severe limits on the legitimate exercise of government power.”
I don’t understand. There is no apparent correlation between size of gov’t & amount of corruption within gov’t. I will concede that if the level of corruption is constant, a larger gov’t will have more corruption. Which implies that the correct focus is on corruption, not size of gov’t.
LikeLike
bsimon:
There is no apparent correlation between size of gov’t & amount of corruption within gov’t.
Corruption is an abuse of power. The more power the government is able and willing to exercise over the people it governs, the more attractive it becomes to corrupting influences. The less power the government is able and willing to exercise over the people it governs, the less attractive (and, indeed, the less useful) it becomes to corrupting influences. And, of course, the less damage it can do when its power does get corrupted.
LikeLike