Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1351.2 | 0.5 | 0.04% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2220.9 | 13.5 | 0.61% |
| Oil (WTI) | 80.75 | -0.7 | -0.86% |
| LIBOR | 0.468 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 81.6 | 0.012 | 0.01% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.65% | -0.01% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 180.7 | 0.2 |
Markets are flattish after a mixed Spanish bond auction and disappointing jobless claims numbers. Spain auctioned off 2.2 billion euros of 5 year debt, with a bid / cover ratio of 3:1, however it paid 6.07%. Sovereign yields across Europe are lower, as are Treasuries with the 10 year down a basis point. MBS are up slightly.
Yesterday, the Fed maintained low interest rates and committed to extend Operation Twist through the end of the year. Notably, the Fed took down its projections for GDP growth and bumped up its estimates for unemployment. Here is a “marked up” version of the statement, showing the changes from the April release. Note that the Fed took down its numbers in spite of a massive rally in the 10-year and mortgages courtesy of Europe.
Initial Jobless Claims came int at 387k, down from a revised 389k the prior week and more or less in line with expectations. Philly Fed was a disappointment as the Business Outlook Survey indicated weaker business conditions in its area. Rounding out the day’s economic data, May existing home sales came in at a 4.55 million annual rate, a drop of 1.5% MOM.
The FHFA House Price index was up .8% in April, while March was revised downward from + 1.8% to +1.6%. The FHFA House Price Index only considers Fannie and Freddie loans, so it acts as somewhat of a “center tendency” of the market, ignoring the high price and low price extremes. It certainly appears like the trend has shifted. See chart below:
Software Provider Ellie Mae released its May Origination Insight Report which provides data on mortgages originated though its Encompass system. The typical closed loan had a FICO of 744, a LTV of 81, and a DTI score of 24/35. A typical denied application had a FICO of 702, a LTV of 88, and a DTI of 28/43. The mix of refis vs purchase dropped to 54/46 from 56/44 in April and 61/39 in March, which is surprising given the drop in mortgage rates over the past 3 months. Closing times continue to increase, with the time to close up to 46 days from 42 in March. Overall, it shows a tight mortgage market with great rates for those who qualify.
On opposite ends of the economic spectrum, Octomom is getting foreclosed upon, while Larry Ellison is buying a Hawaiian Island.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
God has abandoned us in the markets today!
LikeLike
Now why would Russia suddenly show an interest in Syria? Most likely because they were invited by Netanyahu. He has made two trips to Moscow in the last three years, and Putin is coming to Israel for a state visit this summer.
Netanyahu does NOT want another Arab Spring turned Islamic fundamentalist democracy on his northern border like he is facing on his southern. He can’t go to Obama, because even IF they had a good relationship, Obama can’t openly work for Assad’s retention.
Putin on the other hand, has no disadvantages for Netanyahu.
Ah what is the quid pro quo you might ask for giving Putin an opening in Syria?
You are possibly aware that Netanyahu’s BFF is the world’s biggest casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.
Look what I learned recently:
“Russia’s state-owned Nash Dom Primorye is set to announce at the Global Gaming Expo in Macau on Wednesday that it is seeking private investors and/or companies to build casino resorts in a six square kilometre area near Vladivostok.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/russia-casinos-idUSL4E8GM8BB20120523
Don’t be surprised when Adelson’s company gets invited in to play.
One hand washes the other as they say.
LikeLike
That is tenuous, but worth filing for reference. I think it far more likely that this is a confirmation of Russia’s protection of its MEDITERRANEAN PORT.
LikeLike
Jimmy Rogers claiming oil is dropping because the Saudis are flooding the market in order to get obama re-elected.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/monetary-fiscal-policies-last-4-years-failed-jim-132126005.html
LikeLike
Rogers says a lot of funny things. While I like him, I think of him more as Paul Allen to Soros’s Bill Gates.
The Saudis hate the Iranians and are doing it to make sure that there’s room for the sanctions and or air strikes to work.
LikeLike
mark:
How is it otherwised threatened?
LikeLike
To Russia, Assad has been a long time ally, and those who oppose him cannot be trusted to maintain the special relationship regarding Tartus, which has become more important again since 2005 or ’06 when Russia became Assad’s armourer in exchange for greater use of Tartus. I think in recent months Tartus has become quite active with Russian Naval visits.
But see: http://www.economist.com/node/21557378
LikeLike
Banned, do you think the Israeli’s have anything to fear from an “Arab spring turned Islamic fundamentalist democracy on their southern and/or northern border?
LikeLike
george:
yes absolutely it’s their worst nightmare and they’re halfway there
LikeLike
mark:
Thanks, but I’m not sure how you think that might be threatened unless you are anticipating a fundamenlist government in Syria turning theri back on this?
LikeLike
Don, it does not matter what you think or what I think. Assad is Russia’s client. They will abandon him when they must, but until then, they will supply him. When the time comes they will not only turn on him, but will work actively to keep a friendly face in Damascus.
They are in a tough spot having armed Assad for so long – many of the non-Alawi now must count Russia an enemy, and even a modernist revolution might leave Russia without its only Med port. There is also the matter of Russia’s relationship with Iran, itself a player in Syria.
It is always tempting to make things more complex than they are. I think it is a situation readily attributable to Syria being Russia’s client state, as it was previously the USSR’s.
LikeLike
Wow, check out the WTI price — $79 and dropping. Brent crude at $90.
LikeLike
So the Israeli’s, if what you’re writing is true, are acting in their rational self-interest?
LikeLike
Marc Fisher nailed it last week 65 or 110.
LikeLike
george:
did I imply other wise?
LikeLike
Looks like $65 and not $110 …
LikeLike
Your favorite muckraker is back with a new one:
“The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia
How America’s biggest banks took part in a nationwide bid-rigging conspiracy – until they were caught on tape
By Matt Taibbi
June 21, 2012 11:20 AM ET”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620
LikeLike
jnc:
Your favorite muckraker is back with a new one:
I’ve waded my way through page one, nearly 1,300 words, and quite literally he has said not one single substantive thing.
LikeLike
jnc:
I know you and I disagree on this one, but I still think he needs a better platform for his work.
LikeLike
mark:
The consensus is that Russia hasn’t been that kind of player in Syria in 20+ years.
LikeLike
From 2007 to 2010, the value of Russian arms deals with Syria more than doubled — to $4.7 billion from $2.1 billion — compared with 2003 to 2006, according to an annual report by Richard F. Grimmett, a veteran international security specialist at the Congressional Research Service in Washington.
…
During the same period, the value of Russia’s weapons deals with Iran fell to $300 million from $2.1 billion.
Russian officials have forcefully pushed back against any suggestion of an arms embargo against Syria, which they say would handcuff Mr. Assad’s government while allowing the opposition to continue acquiring weapons.
While Mr. Davidenko, the spokesman for Russia’s weapons company, acknowledged the longstanding ties between Moscow and Damascus, he said that some analysts were exaggerating the importance of Syria as an arms customer, noting that India, now the world’s overall largest importer of weapons, had also become Russia’s biggest customer these days.
Still, Mr. Davidenko conceded that Russia had lost billions of dollars in potential arms business as a result of sanctions against Iran and the change of power in Libya. In Libya alone, he said, the new government has suspended about $4 billion in previously agreed-upon contracts.
The Libya experience weighed heavily in Russia’s Security Council veto. Mr. Putin, for one, was furious at the NATO-led airstrikes against Colonel Qaddafi after Russia and China agreed not to veto a resolution creating a no-fly zone over the nation.
NYT 2-19-12
Russia’s main naval port in the Mediterranean is in Syria. Russia supplies the Syrian government with arms and has close intelligence links. This gives Russia’s leaders leverage if they can be persuaded to use it; they could ease out the Assads and create a transitional administration. The international community must recognise, however, that Russia is not about to abandon its political interests in that country any more than the US would abandon its vital interests and military bases in south-east Asia, Diego Garcia and Guantánamo, to name but three areas.
– David Owen [former Brit Foreign Secretary – Brit negotiator on Kosovo]in The Guardian, June 8.
See also: http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_syria/index.htm
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on June 21, 2012 at 12:35 pm said:
jnc:
I know you and I disagree on this one, but I still think he needs a better platform for his work.”
Rolling Stone fits him perfectly. Anywhere else he would have to clean up the vulgarity that makes Taibbi such a fun read and also probably have to shorten the pieces.
Besides, with the Internet, “platform” doesn’t really matter the way it used to. It’s just links and clicks. With all the cross media appearances his brand is more “Matt Taibbi” than “Rolling Stone”.
LikeLike
Banned, it’s just that your scenario is rather elaborate, and conspiracy sounding. Obviously, the Russians would want to protect their interest, and I doubt there are only a very few companies willing to pay Putin his “mordida.” Based on that, it seems to me your really streeeedetttttccchhhhing facts to reach a conclusion which is more readily explained by other countries self-interest.
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on June 21, 2012 at 12:12 pm said:
Marc Fisher nailed it last week 65 or 110.”
I believe you said previously that oil below 85 was bad for President Obama as it was a key indicator of economic weakness going into the third quarter.
Is that still your current assessment?
LikeLike
Corked by Mark.
LikeLike
george
I’m not sure how I gave you the impression that I believed this isn’t in their self interest. Of course it does imply that our relationship with Israel is less “special” than Congress publicly portrays it to be.
I give everyone credit for acting in thier own self interest, especially the Iranians. I don’t think you go that far however.
LikeLike
oh I don’t think that the casino was exclusively conditional, and I see that what I wrote leads in that direction. It will just be a happy coincidence when Netanyahu’s friend, becomes Putin’s friend too.
LikeLike
jnc
I wouldn’t call that Taibbi piece a fun read, more like a disgusting one. Ever since high school, which was quite a long time ago, I have a real loathing for cheaters. Obviously, considering the minor consequences, the old adage “cheaters never prosper” is long dead.
LikeLike
Banned,
I don’t think the Iranians are pursuing their rational self interst by attempting to build/acquire nukes. First, the
attempt is resulting in sanctions that are impacting their population in a negative way. That further distances the regime from their population (as if slaughtering their own citizens peacefully protesting corrupt elections doesn’t distance them enough already.). Second, it seems obvious that if the Israeli’s think they get close enough, they will launch a devastating and exceedingly damaging attack (possibly including nukes) that will set back, further impoverish their population. How can that possibly be construed as acting in their rational self interest?
LikeLike
george
Are the Israelis more likely to attack Iran before or after they get a nuclear weapon?
LikeLike
george:
Try thinking like an Iranian governmnet official rather than the nice American that you are. seriously
LikeLike
then there’s this aspect
for what it’s worth now, Ahmed Chalabi devious and evil but insightful ba__tard that he is, says Saddam found himself caught in a vice over the WMDs
No matter what he showed the inspectors, they always believed he was hiding something, there was no upside to cooperating with the inspections, on the other hand, he was scared to let the Shiites know that he DIDN’T have them, because in the Arab world to be weak is to be dead.
the Iranians are in a similar spot right now. there is no upside to cooperation and much downside to NOT having nuclear wepaons.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on June 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm said:
I’ve waded my way through page one, nearly 1,300 words, and quite literally he has said not one single substantive thing.”
Correct. All of his stories follow the same basic format.
Page 1 = Entertaining invective to capture the target audience and convince them to keep reading (“Hey a good mob story just like “Goodfellas” crossed with “Wall Street! Michael Douglas meets Joe Pesci!”)
Page 2 = Basic explanation of the key terms as the target audience is likely unaware of how the municipal bond market works
Page 3 – 6 = Actual information on the case with Taibbi’s slant, but enough detail to form your own independent opinion of the facts if you have the appropriate background.
Page 7 = Summation with Taibbi’s take on how this validates his cynical attitude on all that is wrong with the world, especially Wall Street.
As I am a consummate cynic myself, I find these to be good reads. Also, he does report on topics overlooked in other press outlets and does so in long form.
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on June 21, 2012 at 1:13 pm said:
jnc
I wouldn’t call that Taibbi piece a fun read, more like a disgusting one. Ever since high school, which was quite a long time ago, I have a real loathing for cheaters. Obviously, considering the minor consequences, the old adage “cheaters never prosper” is long dead.””
You can laugh or cry
SueLu Lu. I’m the former, preferably with an alcoholic beverage in hand. Regardless, the republic has faced worse than what’s happening today (I believe you are old enough to remember 1968) and survived.LikeLike
Banned, by pursuing nukes, has the Iranian regime strengthened or weakened their hold on the reins of power. I wager it’s been significantly weakened. If you agree, then you would have to agree theey were not pursuing their rational self interest.
I believe that the Israeli’s will attack before Iranians acquire a nuke and keep attacking, even if the Iranians acquire a nuke because they believe that an Iranian nuke would inevitably be used against them.
LikeLike
Do I remind you of Sue? And yes, I sure do remember 1968, the year I graduated from high school. Maybe your cynicism is rubbing off on me or I need to read a good romance novel or something…………….wait, is there such a thing? I haven’t been this cynical since the health care debate in 2009, so maybe it’s anticipation of the SC ruling that’s got me on edge.
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on June 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm said:
Do I remind you of Sue? And yes, I sure do remember 1968, the year I graduated from high school. Maybe your cynicism is rubbing off on me or I need to read a good romance novel or something…………….wait, is there such a thing? I haven’t been this cynical since the health care debate in 2009, so maybe it’s anticipation of the SC ruling that’s got me on edge.”
Opps. Meant to say Lu Lu.
LikeLike
mark:
We are quibbling around the edges I think on things we agree about and that may be more my fault than yours.
LikeLike
george:
Perhaps you have better info, but I have not seen any estimate that Iran could be stopped from getting nuclear weapons, only delayed.
Could you give me any creidble scenario where Iran might actually USE a nuclear weapon?
Finally, can you name me any country that has ever been invaded AFTER they possessed a nuclear weapon?
LikeLike
“Could you give me any creidble scenario where Iran might actually USE a nuclear weapon?”
It’s hard for me to predict the behavior of, what I think, is an irrational actor due to the fact that they are, er, irrational. As I wrote before, I do not believe that the Iranian regime is acting in their rational self interest.To me, it’s more a matter of what the Israeli’s think the Iranians would do with a nuke, and that, again my opinion, is to use it against the Israeli’s.
“Finally, can you name me any country that has ever been invaded AFTER they possessed a nuclear weapon?”
Not off hand, but given Israel’s history, and given Iran’s irrational behavior, we may yet see.
It can be argued that the Pakistani’s via Kashmir as well as openly sponsoring terrorist who slaughter legislators in their neighbor’s parliament, that they are invading a nuclear armed country.
LikeLike
To me, it’s more a matter of what the Israeli’s think the Iranians would do with a nuke, and that, again my opinion, is to use it against the Israeli’s.
Again sorry to be insistent, but how?
LikeLike
banned:
Finally, can you name me any country that has ever been invaded AFTER they possessed a nuclear weapon?
Israel, 1973.
LikeLike
Jonathan Bernstein has jumped the shark today:
“Democrats might complain that it’s unfair that Romney has apparently cleared a basic threshold of competence on the economy; after all, he doesn’t exactly have detailed plans to respond to where we are now, and his private-business experience isn’t really especially relevant to the job of president. And it’s true that the Obama campaign might nudge the dial just a bit by attacking him on Bain and his record in Massachusetts.”
LikeLike
mike;
That’s a good one, You will get different answers and of course nothing definitive about exactly when Israel had functional nuclear weapons, not just the program to produce them.
If you say they did, i can’t argue.
LikeLike
If I had to guess a scenario, a detonation near Jeruselum or or close to/withen the port at Haifa.
LikeLike
george;
Followed by an israeli counter stirke killing millions in Iran. Do you really see that?
LikeLike
I don’t know what they’re going to talk about over at the PL. If the economy improves, Obama wins. If it doesn’t, he loses. immigration, health care, war and terror just won’t factor in. it’s a long time until Nov. that’s a lot of posts about the outrage du jour
LikeLike
“Followed by an israeli counter stirke killing millions in Iran. Do you really see that?”
I don’t think the Iranian regime is a rational actor. More importantly, the Israeli’s don’t believe they are rational actors. If they were, why would the Israeli ‘s be concerned about an Iranian nuke?
LikeLike
banned:
I guess only the Israelis know for sure when they acquired functional nuclear weapons. But I seem to remember reading something that the CIA thought Israel had nuclear weapons capacity in the mid- to late-1960s.
LikeLike
“If they were, why would the Israeli ‘s be concerned about an Iranian nuke”
You would have to ask them. Whose military has been in every neighboring Middle eastern country in the last 40 years and whose has never left their own?
Was Israel acting rationally? in their own minds, sure. Do you think that everybody else feels the same way? maybe not so much.
You as an American believe Iran is irrational but they have acted much more rationally than we have in the last decade.
LikeLike
jnc:
All of sudden, I found myself in the middle of a bar fight again. Why does this keep happening to me? LOL
LikeLike
Well, are the Israeli’s behaving like a country fearful of a perceived enemy acquiring a nuclear weapon? If not, what other reason(s) could there be to explain their actions?
LikeLike
Well, are the Israeli’s behaving like a country fearful of a perceived enemy acquiring a nuclear weapon?
how’d that work out for us in Iraq?
LikeLike
mike I know they started Dimona in the 60s but again whther they had them in 73 and even more importantly whether the Arabs knew they had them i don’t know.
LikeLike
John, bernie called you a liar? That place just gets weirder every day. I try occasionally to go back as you know, but it just doesn’t seem worth it. I left because of many reasons, tech difficulties one of the main ones, but I also got tired of being criticized for not carrying water for the “party”. Why do you put up with it?
LikeLike
Is that an agreement? Do you think the Israeli’s behaving like a country fearful of a perceived enemy acquiring a nuclear weapon?
LikeLike
george yes they are. I have never thought that their belief was insincere or even inaccurate However I cannot accept that Iran is willing to engage in mass suicide because they are somehow irrational.
LikeLike
lms:
You know bernie. there can be only one pontificator. the town isn’t big enough for two!
I didn’t take it personally.
LikeLike
John
You’ve been around long enough for him to know you’re not a liar, just opinionated like everyone else. I’ve never known so many liberals in one place who demanded such conformity from everyone. It’s not normally what I think of as a liberal trait. You’re more forgiving than I am. Liam called me a liar and a phony and that was it for me, especially considering I’d been around since almost the beginning of whorunsgov with him. The PL brings to mind the old saying, with friends like that, who needs enemies.
LikeLike
Banned, the Israeli’s believe differently than you. Their interest in it is therefore heightened and their fear must be based something. I’m inclined to believe that they have better intelligence than we do in regard to what Iranians would do with a nuke. The only other explanation for that belief would be, in my opinion, racism and or religious bigotry on the part of the Israelis.
LikeLike
george
you see that I can’t say that you’re wrong about the iranians wanting a nuclear weapon, whether or not they actually are buidling one. I just think it’s a very rational action if they do so.
LikeLike
banned:
I just think it’s a very rational action if they do so.
It’s rational to want a nuclear weapon. It’s rational to possess a nuclear weapon. But it is not necessarily rational to seek one, though, if the very act of building it is likely to precipitate your destruction. The relevant question is not whether Iran is safer with or without a nuke. The right question is whether or not Iran is safer without nukes or safer trying to get them. Given that Israel has never threatened Iran in the past, the rational answer seems to me obvious.
Edit: by Iran I mean the Iranian regime.
LikeLike
Do you think the Iranians are attempting to build and or acquire nuclear weapons?
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on June 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm said:
John
You’ve been around long enough for him to know you’re not a liar, just opinionated like everyone else. I’ve never known so many liberals in one place who demanded such conformity from everyone. It’s not normally what I think of as a liberal trait. You’re more forgiving than I am. Liam called me a liar and a phony and that was it for me, especially considering I’d been around since almost the beginning of whorunsgov with him. The PL brings to mind the old saying, with friends like that, who needs enemies.”
You know that secretly you want to be a libertarian (and perhaps a libertine as well).
LikeLike
You know that secretly you want to be a libertarian (and perhaps a libertine as well).
libertine (noun): a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained
Yep, my secret’s out damn you. According to our scores on the political test I’m more libertarian than scott, so there’s a little truth there. Not enough though.
LikeLike
the libertine requires a partner but all libertarians are loners by inclination.
LikeLike
george:
I would if I was an iranian mostly because I know that the more you try to stop me, the more you rally the country to my cause.
LikeLike
“I would if I was an iranian mostly because I know that the more you try to stop me, the more you rally the country to my cause.”
I understand what you would do. Do you think the Iranians are building and/or trying to acquire nuclear weapons?
Also, are the Iranian people more or less closely aligned with the Iranian regime over, say, the last five years? In my opinion, particularly after the elections two years ago and the ensuing slaugher, I’d say less aligned.
LikeLike
george:
if those are my only two choices then I say yes they are going to build one.
“In my opinion, particularly after the elections two years ago and the ensuing slaugher, I’d say less aligned”
then why would you want to rally support for the governmnet by bombing the country?
LikeLike
then why would you want to rally support for the governmnet by bombing the country?
I don’t want to do that and I guess George doesn’t and you don’t.
The question may be why John Bolton wants to unify Iran and why WMR listens to him.
Another question might be why Bibi would want to do that. Or why he would want the USA to do it. Or why WMR actually says he would ask Israel what to do.
It is possible that WMR on FP is more stupid than BHO is on finance.
LikeLike
Mark:
It is possible that WMR on FP is more stupid than BHO is on finance.
If i knew nothing about Romney whatsoever, I would still doubt that such a thing is possible.
LikeLike
“if those are my only two choices then I say yes they are going to build one.”
Are there other choices?
“then why would you want to rally support for the governmnet by bombing the country?”
Well, if you think that the Iranians are trying to build and or acquire a nuclear weapon, and further, you think that once they get one they will use it against your population, why would it matter to you if the population rallies around the leadership?
That being said, do you think the Iranian population is more closely aligned with the regime now versus 5 years ago? Do you think the sanctions, for example, are driving the population closer to or farther away from the regime?
LikeLike
Because most leading Israeli security experts think bombing Iran is a stupid idea, now or later, it seems to me that Bibi is posturing to look tough and call attention away from his domestic problems.
LikeLike
“That being said, do you think the Iranian population is more closely aligned with the regime now versus 5 years ago? Do you think the sanctions, for example, are driving the population closer to or farther away from the regime?”
If you really believe that, why on earth would you conduct air strikes instead of just letting the sanctions work?
LikeLike
” it seems to me that Bibi is posturing to look tough and call attention away from his domestic problems.”
I don’t think that explains the current unity government. That leaves only two other possibilities. 1. The current unity government is helping Bibi knowingly bluff, or, 2, the current unity government is planning to in fact attack because they all believe that Iran will use a nuke against them.
LikeLike
“It is possible that WMR on FP is more stupid than BHO is on finance”
but not neccesarily more stupid than his own foreign polcy advisors
LikeLike
“But it is not necessarily rational to seek one, though, if the very act of building it is likely to precipitate your destruction”
but it really isn’t from what I’ve been reading. absent using nukes, the Israelis can temporarily delay any such building activity, but nothing short of a ground invasion can stop it
LikeLike
“If you really believe that, why on earth would you conduct air strikes instead of just letting the sanctions work?”
First, the regime doesn’t care what it’s population thinks. Second, why would the Israelis care what the Iranian population thinks if they think 1 is true and they think the Iranians would use a nuke against them?
LikeLike
” but nothing short of a ground invasion can stop it”
I’ve written in before, what is the Israeli’s use nukes? I think that would end their program and stop any other neighbor from building one. I’m also inclined to believe that the Israeli’s believe they could survive the inevitable European embargo that would follow.
LikeLike
george
now my turn, do you really believe that is possible?
(it wouldn’t just be the Europeans either)
LikeLike
“First, the regime doesn’t care what it’s population thinks”
then why do you keep bringing it up?
LikeLike
Yes, I beleive the Israeli’s believe that. I’m unsure if they would survive an embargo if we did not participate, given the state of all of Europe’s Navy. There are plenty of nations that will happily trade with a pariah. What’s important to consider however, is what the Israelis believe.
LikeLike
We should never allow conservatives on the SCOTUS.
We should certainly never allow a conservative who signed the order for Japanese internment on the Supreme Court.
We should certainly never allow a former Republican governor of Califronia on the Superme Court
For God’s sake we can’t let a man who ran for VP on the Republican ticket on the Supreme Court!
(except if all of those men are named Earl Warren, then we’ll make an exception)
LikeLike
george
My guess is that in such a case Pakistan would sell one to someone who would use it againt Israel. There’s a whole lot of Muslim countries in the world See how crazy it will get for Israel? .
LikeLike
“then why do you keep bringing it up?”
For two reasons. First, you introduced it first:
“bannedagain5446, on June 21, 2012 at 4:58 pm said: Edit Comment
george:
I would if I was an iranian mostly because I know that the more you try to stop me, the more you rally the country to my cause”
I suspect because you think it strengthens your case that it makes the Iranian regime a rational actor.
The second reason is that I don’t necessarily agree with it. If anything, each escalation seems to drive the population further away from the regime.
Ultimately I don’t think it will have any influence in either Israeli or Iranian action.
LikeLike
george:
“First, the
attempt is resulting in sanctions that are impacting their population in a negative way. That further distances the regime from their population (as if slaughtering their own citizens peacefully protesting corrupt elections doesn’t distance them enough already.).”
1:25
LikeLike
“My guess is that in such a case Pakistan would sell one to someone who would use it againt Israel. There’s a whole lot of Muslim countries in the world See how crazy it will get for Israel? ”
Possibly, but if I were Israel, I’d tell the Pakistani’s that if a nuke goes off, they’ll be annihilated because they could only come from two sources, Pakistan or North Korea. I’m not sure if that would stop the Pakistani’s however. I suspect that if the Israeli’s do it, and are embargoed, they would expell the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, forcibly, and create a “buffer” at least to protect from a smuggled nuke. Also, I doubt they’d let any unknown, uninspected water craft within 50 miles of their shore either.
LikeLike
Banned, you’re right that I introduced it. My apologies for saying otherwise, I was wrong. I was referenceing them in terms of what I think demonstrates that the Iranian regime is not acting in their self interest. As in, the regime is engaging in behavior that weakens their grip on power, not strengthens it.
LikeLike
Gotta be away for a while.
LikeLike
no problem
on the other part I think you should read what you’ve written as a scenario and ask yourself this
In light of you ideas, how much control will still exist among nations all over the world on air strike day plus one. is this really the type of appropriate risk commensurate with speculation on what the Iran nuclear program is doing or going to do?
LikeLike
In the context of the historical Jewish experience, I think that the Israelis will act pre-emptively with nukes if the think their is at least a 40% chance that the Iranians would use a nuke against them if they had one. In that scenario, given the size of the country, a single nuke would essentially result in their own annihilation. A preemptive strike would really be the only way forward wouldn’t it?
LikeLike
jnc:
I thought I posted this earlier, but it appears it never got through.
I finished the Taibbi piece. I am – or rather was – actually acquainted with a peripheral character, an unindicted co-conspirator, in the whole bid-rigging saga. I worked with him when I first started my career, many years before he went to BOA and got himself in trouble. Haven’t seen him in about 20 years.
Anyway, I think Taibbi actually directs his typically over-the-top wrath largely at the wrong people. It is not the bankers’ responsibility to protect the interest of the municipalities. Their job is to get the best deal for the bank, which they did. It was CDR, the broker, who was hired explicitly to act on behalf of, and in the interests of, the municipality. CDR did not do it’s job, and is the true villain in this story.
I do agree with Taibbi’s assessment on one thing. It is rather inexplicable that the defendants thought taking this to trial was a better idea than cutting some kind of deal.
LikeLike
Unfortunately behind the firewall, but today in the WSJ C. Boyden Gray and Jim Purcell explain why Dodd/Frank is unconstitutional.
LikeLike
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/report-bolton-is-a-leading-candidate-for-secretary-of-state/
LikeLike
Mark:
Can you remind me again why Bolton inspires such reactions?
LikeLike
Can you remind me again why Bolton inspires such reactions?
Scott – in short because he is an avowed unilateralist and a loudmouth who is not a team player. He was a wild card in GWB’s State Department who undermined Powell and had to have his wings clipped by Condi.
Historically, he has championed recognition of Taiwan as an independent nation, apparently to force a confrontation with China, and the American attack of Iraq, Syria, NK, and Iran, in turn.
He thinks verbal diplomacy is for weaklings and views the world as an American colonial enterprise dependent on massive military supremacy.
I think he has been correct a couple of times. Out of dozens.
I can find his words on each of these matters, as well as the critiques of him by those who worked – tried to work – with him, but I don’t have time now.
LikeLike
Mark:
re Obama’s “new” immigration policy
Krauthammer forwards an interesting analogy:
Would you consider this to simply be an exercise in executive “discretion” and not an unconstitutional abuse of power?
LikeLike
“ScottC, on June 21, 2012 at 8:07 pm said:
Anyway, I think Taibbi actually directs his typically over-the-top wrath largely at the wrong people. It is not the bankers’ responsibility to protect the interest of the municipalities. Their job is to get the best deal for the bank, which they did. It was CDR, the broker, who was hired explicitly to act on behalf of, and in the interests of, the municipality. CDR did not do it’s job, and is the true villain in this story.”
It is the bankers responsibility to comply with the law and not solicit or participate in criminal conspiracies. As Taibbi notes, this sort of behavior ultimately undermines arguments for the free market itself if at the end of the day it’s all a rigged game.
“That, ultimately, is what this case was about. Capitalism is a system for determining objective value. What these Wall Street criminals have created is an opposite system of value by fiat. Prices are not objectively determined by collisions of price information from all over the market, but instead are collectively negotiated in secret, then dictated from above.”
And there’s the fact that despite being covered by consent decrees and the like, the banks just get to continue to engage it the same behavior over and over again.
“Get busted for welfare fraud even once in America, and good luck getting so much as a food stamp ever again. Get caught rigging interest rates in 50 states, and the government goes right on handing you billions of dollars in public contracts.”
LikeLike
jnc:
It is the bankers responsibility to comply with the law and not solicit or participate in criminal conspiracies.
I agree. But in the context of the taxpayer’s interests, which is how Taibbi framed the story, CDR is the real villain. They sold-out their clients. They were hired for the explicit purpose of getting the municipality the highest interest rate possible from banks whose own interests lay in offering the lowest interest rate possible. They not only failed to do so, they actively worked against that purpose.
As Taibbi notes, this sort of behavior ultimately undermines arguments for the free market itself if at the end of the day it’s all a rigged game.
But that’s absurd. That’s like saying that when a politician gets bribed, arguments for democracy are being undermined.
Arguments for free markets do not include the notion that there should be no laws prohibiting fraud, which is basically the behavior that is troublesome in this case. CDR held itself out to municipalities as a protector of the municipality’s interests. This was a lie. CDR was instead protecting the interests of the banks. Had CDR done the job it claimed to be doing, there is no problem.
Get busted for welfare fraud even once in America, and good luck getting so much as a food stamp ever again. Get caught rigging interest rates in 50 states, and the government goes right on handing you billions of dollars in public contracts.
False analogy. The proper analogue to someone busted for welfare fraud is not the institution but the individual(s) who rigged the biddings. And of course, just like the welfare fraudster who can never get food stamps again, the bid riggers will never be able to get so much as a bank teller job in the finance industry again. I think that, unfortunately, Taibbi’s irrational hatred of the finance industry makes him largely incapable of rendering any useful analysis of the subjects he writes about.
LikeLike
Isn’t taibbi’s goal here to find a villain for his readers? If that’s so, and given his venue, Rolling Stone, there is no way he could NOT paint the bankers as the villains. Even if he wanted to point his finger at the real culprits, do you think his editors would let him? I don’t.
So now the interesting question, does he really think the banks, in this story, are the villains, or just blames them as a way to feed red meat to his target audience?
LikeLike
How do you decide whether an opinion columnist believes what he is writing, George?
For me, it comes down to whether they are consistent in their general views while willing to be flexible when events prove them to have opined from bad info, or changed circumstances.
As to Taibbi, I never heard of him before I came here. But I have come to respect JNCP not only for his own views but for the diligence with which he seeks out commentary. So it matters to me that Taibbi sometimes has resonance for him and for LMS and apparently sometimes for Scott. Personally, the other guy who was mentioned in the same breath, Greenwald, I would not ever read having come to think of him as a mere polemicist from a prior “acquaintance”.
I take all these guys with a grain of salt, even the ones I like, like Brooks and Zakaria, and even the old guy who covers DoD and CIA for the WaPo, Pincus. BTW, on the facts, I think Pincus is as good as they get perhaps because he was a reporter for a long time before they ever let him write an opinion, and I don’t think I ever read an opinion of his about anything but the stuff he has reported on for fifty years, defense and intelligence. And before he was a reporter he was in Army counterintelligence. So I give Pincus a lot of respect.
I am ready to give some legal commentators [like Volokh] a whole lot of cred, on any constitutional subject.
Ezra is a smart “kid” who I think tries to understand what he is writing about and often does a good job explaining. He is refreshingly able to back off an opinion or reverse it when he had bad info.
LikeLike
McWing:
Even if he wanted to point his finger at the real culprits, do you think his editors would let him?
Actually, I don’t see why they shouldn’t. Taxpayers did get cheated, there are real villians, and the villains are rich finance guys. So all the basic elements of the presumably desired populist story line are there. But Taibbi’s agenda seems a bit more directed. His whole schtick seems to be based on delegitimizing an entire industry and the people who work in it as a class.
LikeLike
(Analogy first suggested by law professor John Yoo.)
That Chuckie K is cribbing from the creator of Bush’s torture policy speaks volumes.
LikeLike
yello:
That Chuckie K is cribbing from the creator of Bush’s torture policy speaks volumes.
Really? What does it “speak” to you? Apart, that is, from an opportunity to invoke an ad hominem.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on June 23, 2012 at 5:47 am said:”
“Get busted for welfare fraud even once in America, and good luck getting so much as a food stamp ever again. Get caught rigging interest rates in 50 states, and the government goes right on handing you billions of dollars in public contracts.
False analogy. The proper analogue to someone busted for welfare fraud is not the institution but the individual(s) who rigged the biddings.”
That would be the crux of the issue. At what point do repeated patterns of behavior and violated consent decrees add up to an institutional culture problem and not just one of a few bad apples?
Follow up post from Taibbi:
“Notes on Wall Street’s Bid-Rigging Scandal
POSTED: June 22, 11:18 AM ET”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/notes-on-wall-streets-bid-rigging-scandal-20120622
It will be interesting to see what happens with the LIBOR investigation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/libor-investigation-said-to-expose-collusion-lack-of-internal-controls.html
LikeLike
jnc:
From Taibbi’s new link:
But the end result is that towns, when they borrow money, get clipped coming and going: they pay more to borrow the money in the first place, and then – thanks to rigged auctions for bond service – they earn less on the money they borrow.
This is total BS. What Taibbi doesn’t mention is that interest on municpal bonds is tax free to investors. The end result is, because of this preferential treatment that they get, municipalities actually borrow at much lower, not higher, rates to comparable corporates.
LikeLike
McWing and Scott
So now the interesting question, does he really think the banks, in this story, are the villains, or just blames them as a way to feed red meat to his target audience?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t assume Taibbi is blaming all persons at banks or even in finance, but it’s hard to deny that some persons at the banks knew they were getting peeks into the bidding. How is that just an innocent occurrence? Also there’s a link at the end of jnc’s link to Taibbi’s follow-up that comments on the number of settlements already made in civil proceedings by the banks for bid rigging.
Right off the bat, in fact, Doug Goldberg explained that while at CDR, he had routinely helped the cream of Wall Street rig bids on municipal bonds by letting them take a peek at other bids:
Q: Who were some of the providers you gave last looks to?
A: There was a whole host of them, but GE Capital, FSA, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Société Générale, Lehman Brothers, Bear. There were others.
Perhaps if some of the culprits of various frauds at some of the banks and financial institutions are actually held accountable in front of the public, through legal proceedings that lead to personal repercussions, the public (edit, and Taibbi) will be more likely to be able to distinguish the good guys from the bad. Just a thought.
LikeLike
What does it “speak” to you?
Take this quote for example:
The irony of Obama being called out for impeachment (the standard being high crimes and misdemeanors, not dereliction of duty) for selective enforcement by a person supportive of the Bush Administration’s extralegal torture policy by invoking an analogy created by the architect of the same policy is beyond Strangelovian. John Yoo’s moral standing on executive authority is suspect at best.
Apart, that is, from an opportunity to invoke an ad hominem.
Calling Krauthammer a partisan hack would be an ad hominem. ‘Chuckie K’ is a term of endearment.
LikeLike
yello:
The irony of Obama being called out for impeachment…
This makes no sense. One, the reference to impeachment was not a call for Obama’s impeachment. It was a reference to what would happen to a hypothetical Republican president who told the IRS not to enforce the law. Two, you said nothing about “irony” in your original. You said that the fact that CK “cribbed” an analogy from John Yoo “spoke volumes”. What does it “speak”? It is obvious that you were attempting to dismiss the analogy CK forwarded simply because it was originally put forward by Yoo.
John Yoo’s moral standing on executive authority is suspect at best.
It is also entirely irrelevant to the point. No one but you is introducing Yoo’s moral standing on executive authority. CK used an analaogy that happens to have been first introduced by John Yoo. It could have been introduced by anyone at all. Yoo’s moral authority on executive authority has no bearing whatsoever on whether the analogy is apt or not.
‘Chuckie K’ is a term of endearment.
That, of course, is almost certainly a lie. I put the likelihood that you find CK endearing at roughly 0%. But beyond that it wasn’t your imitation of Maureen Dowd’s sophomoric writing style that was an ad hominem. The ad hominem was the insinuation that the analogy should be dismissed because of your opinion of the person who articulated it.
LikeLike
…your imitation of Maureen Dowd’s sophomoric writing style…</b.
You flatter me in ways you can't imagine. I can only stand in the shadow of her Pulitzer.
LikeLike
yello:
You flatter me in ways you can’t imagine. I can only stand in the shadow of her Pulitzer.
You are far too impressed with the stamp of approval of authority. I prefer to make my own judgments.
LikeLike