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 | 1433.8 | -3.4 | -0.24% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2512.3 | -56.2 | -2.19% |
| Oil (WTI) | 89.94 | -1.4 | -1.57% |
| LIBOR | 0.362 | -0.001 | -0.34% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 79.93 | 0.376 | 0.47% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.64% | -0.03% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 194.5 | 0.0 |
Markets are weaker this morning as Europe sells off and commodities weaken. Spanish bond yields are back above 6%. Perhaps the late summer lull in European news is over and it will take center stage again. If so, the markets didn’t have much time to bask in the glow of QE infinity. This is pushing yields down on the 10 year, and MBS are up slightly. Volumes should be light today for the Jewish holiday.
The FHFA House Price index increased 3.7% annually in July. This index focuses on Fan and Fred conforming loans, so it is more of a “core” index than Radar Logic or Case-Schiller which are affected by sales at the extremes of valuation. This index is much more stable – the peak to trough drop for the FHFA index was only 20%, vs. something like 33% for the other indices.
Unsurprisingly, Philly Fed President Charles Plosser doesn’t think much of QE Infinity. Plosser hits at the Fed’s credibility in an unusual way – “Conveying the idea that such action will have a substantive impact on labor markets and the speed of the recovery risks the Fed’s credibility.” It is unusual in that we typically mean “inflation fighting” when we mention credibility. Plosser is one of the most hawkish members of the Fed. He forecasts the economy will expand by 3% in 2013 and 2014, which is an aggressive forecast, to say the least.
If noted that actual borrowing rates have not been affected by GE Infinity, even though MBS have moved, you would not be alone. This has been a continuing theme in the press, which brings with it the predictable questions of price gouging. Part of the problem is that so much capacity has been taken out of the banking sector in the last 5 years that they cannot handle the volume. Since most of these loans are refis, the banks view this boomlet as temporary and are reluctant to hire for fear that they will end up being overstaffed when rates start rising.
Real “inside baseball” stuff, but University of Chicago professor Casey Mulligan discusses how our redistributive social safety net is skewing incentives to work, and also challenges Paul Krugman’s “Its the demand, stupid” argument.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Worth a read:
“Barack Obama Floating Like A Butterfly: Countdown Day 43
Howard Fineman
Editorial Director, Huffington Post Media Group”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fineman/barack-obama-floating-like-a-butterfly_b_1911017.html
Related:
“Obama Without Romney
By ROSS DOUTHAT
September 25, 2012, 10:52 pm”
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/douthat-obama-without-romney/?ref=opinion
LikeLike
Nice thorough debunking of the claim that “Bush’s policies” are the cause of the deficits during President Obama’s term.
LikeLike
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
LikeLike
Commerce reporting the median new home price is up 17% YOY. That number does not jive with what the homebuilders are reporting.
Is commerce putting out nice numbers to get the boss re-elected with the plan to quietly revise them downward in their November release?
Of course the median price does not correct for square footage, so it could be that we are building bigger houses. Lumber prices are flat, so it isn’t that either.
If it is true, that is an incredibly bullish sign for the economy – 17% price increases is going to attract a lot of construction activity and that has been the achilles heel for the recovery.
LikeLike
Nova, that argument almost worked on me, but not quite. And now I’ve made up my mind so it’s too late.
LikeLike
Nova, I received and put up my Gary Johnson yard sign last weekend.
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on September 26, 2012 at 11:09 am said:
Nova, that argument almost worked on me, but now quite. And now I’ve made up my mind so it’s too late.”
Would you say that you are casting a vote against Mitt Romney or for President Obama?
LikeLike
Against Mitt Romney and for healthcare reform.
LikeLike
I’ve got my Gadsden flag out. I’m tempted to get a sign — but I think I have to make a donation to get one. Problem is i’ll have to file a lobbying disclosure report — and I purposely keep that thing clean off donations.
LikeLike
It is interesting out here in NY / CT – zero lawn signs, and a tiny smattering of bumper stickers. Certainly not the enthusiasm of 2008.
LikeLike
I can’t put an Obama sign in my yard because of my neighbor but I put a school board sign on my fence.
LikeLike
You can buy the Johnson sign at CafePress directly without making a “donation”. I bought the sign separately from the donation I made on Johnson’s web site where I had to fill out the employment information.
http://shop.cafepress.com/gary-johnson
LikeLike
loophole! love it. thanks for the tip.
LikeLike
lmsinca, on September 26, 2012 at 11:13 am said:
Against Mitt Romney and for healthcare reform.”
A quibble:
I’d change this to
“Against Mitt Romney and for expanding healthcare coverage.”
The existing system wasn’t reformed. It was expanded to cover more people. If increasing coverage was your top priority, then this is a perfectly legitimate reason to support President Obama.
LikeLike
“novahockey, on September 26, 2012 at 11:18 am said:
loophole! love it. thanks for the tip.”
I believe that the payment system is done through Amazon, and some portion of the profits go to Johnson’s campaign and/or the Libertarian Party.
One of the ways that was described to get around the individual contribution limit was to max out the contribution then purchase a bunch of merchandise.
LikeLike
New CBO estimates out on coverage expansion: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43628
about 30 million uninsured after the reforms kick in.
LikeLike
/start rant/
These lobbying disclosure things are annoying as hell. the “in-kind contribution” and gift stuff is absolutely insane. i can hold and event in my office and not disclose it if the food is passed Hors d’oeuvre. but a place setting triggers the law. so i can put prime rib on a stick and not problem. but pull a chair for rubber chicken and it’s reportable. also, extends to congressional staff. So, I have a birthday party for my son — 3 year olds. cake and some favors. but i can’t invite the neighbor kid who’s dad staffs a committee. one that I don’t even have business with. talk to my general counsel. he advises not to. could run afoul of the gift rules because I don’t have real personal relationship with the parents.
/end rant/
LikeLike
jnc
The existing system wasn’t reformed
I believe it was reformed. If my niece hadn’t gotten sick when she did (pre ACA) she may have lived a long life. The insurance companies will no longer be allowed to do what they did to her. I call that reform. Everyone knows I’m not thrilled with what we got, I’d much prefer a single payer system with the insurance companies only being able to offer and sell secondary insurance, but I’ll take the reforms we got and vote accordingly. Expanding coverage is also a goal of mine so you’re right there.
Update: **There are other reforms such as medical loss ratio in the bill also.**
LikeLike
Fair enough on pre-existing conditions and the like. I tend to use the term “reform” in the context of cost reduction but yours is a legitimate argument. What the ACA is not going to do though is save money.
LikeLike
What the ACA is not going to do though is save money.
Probably not, but maybe it will lead to cost savings. That’s my hope. Doing nothing wouldn’t have lead to saving money either.
LikeLike
Reform vs. expand misses the mark a bit. There were reforms, such as banning lifetime caps and requirements that a certain percentage of premiums be dedicated to coverage. A bit of an odd one that. I’m a dedicated user of Apple products (my first Mac was an SE), even with the knowledge that they have the highest margins of any hardware manufacturer.
It was not, however, an overhaul of the system.
BB
LikeLike
Because just like Karl Rove, they have the real numbers.
Yeah, right. Because facts have that nasty little well-known liberal bias.
LikeLike
Mich:
Yeah, right. Because facts have that nasty little well-known liberal bias.
Do you know how polls work?
LikeLike
Yeah, right. Because facts have that nasty little well-known liberal bias.
Well, the polls have been sampling Ds and Rs based on 2008 numbers, which were all-time highs for Ds and lows for Rs that haven’t been seen since the 1960s. So, if you believe those numbers will remain the same, then those polls are probably correct. Though you kind of have to ignore 2010…
LikeLike
FWIW, we’re discounting those polls at office. Because the models would indicate the House switches and the Senate gets more heavily D. And we don’t think that’s happening.
LikeLike
The polls will either be borne out by the actual election results or not.
And the amusing PL quote of the day:
“sargegreg
2:10 PM EDT
I’m getting reports of serious trollery in here. We are looking into the situation, and we will ban any offenders immediately.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romney-blunders-again-on-taxes/2012/09/26/a362b576-07f6-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html
LikeLike
Nate Silver, that statistician par excellence has President Obama with a 79.7% chance of winning on 11/6 with 312.3 EV votes.
ElectoralVote.com has Obama with 328 EVs, and RealClearPolitics has him with 265.
Intrade has him with a 75.8% chance of winning, up 3.6% today.
The Romney camp is whistling past the graveyard. . .
LikeLike
IMO obama is basking in the glow of QEIII – it is a temporary thing.
LikeLike
A good example of the mutual respect that characterizes the professional relationships between the press and spokesmen for the administration.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/hillary-clinton-aide-tells-reporter-to-fuck-off
LikeLike
“Brent Nyitray, on September 26, 2012 at 1:22 pm said:
IMO obama is basking in the glow of QEIII – it is a temporary thing.”
I agree with that in terms of President Obama’s approval rating on the economy, however, he is also benefiting from two other things:
1. The current economic situation has now been internalized as the “new normal”. Among other anecdotal examples, people I know who kept their jobs during the downturn have been buying and selling homes again and successfully switching jobs. However those who were unemployed have remained unemployed. I believe that a lingering effect of the recession will be the bifurcation of the workforce into the long term unemployed and everyone else. People who ran out their unemployment while looking for a comparable job to the one that they lost rather than taking the first thing they could find made a mistake in my opinion.
2. The Obama campaign has successfully executed their strategy to negatively define Mitt Romney, aided and abetted by his own mis-steps and the media. They are following the Bush 2004 playbook successfully.
At this point, barring any significant external events I expect President Obama will be reelected.
LikeLike
There is also this sort of speculation, focusing on housing prices and swing state employment numbers.
I also think that jnc’s two points are probably true.
Romney’s campaign spokespeople, collectively, have taken on a bit of a Baghdad Bob feel to them with their relentless optimism. And given that campaign’s record on separating fact from fiction I don’t think that I’d believe their internal numbers any more than I’d believe that Mitt Romney’s tax plan will balance the budget.
LikeLike
A funny riff on a shot from the 2008 campaign (when we were all young and hopeful):
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/607/large/mittchillout1.jpg?1342200689
LikeLike
Presidential campaigns are “sit and kick” races. I’ll take 4:1 odds on Romney all day…
LikeLike
A possible explanation for why Romney is losing in Ohio.
Mitt Romney kicked himself in the balls when he opposed the auto bailout, and it’s killing him in Ohio. That probably explains something that is puzzling Nate Silver. Why is Obama performing better in Ohio than he is nationally, when that never happens for a Democrat? It’s because one in eight jobs in Ohio are tied to the auto industry. It doesn’t help that the Republican governor of Ohio picked a high-profile fight with the labor unions and lost. If you think white working class guys in Ohio are lining up to vote for the “plutocrat married to a known equestrian,” you are quite mistaken. Ask them who is better on the economy and they will tell you ‘Obama.’ This is evidence that the GOP is no longer a national party. Ohio is supposed to be a right-leaning state that Democrats can occasionally win. But, right now, it is a left-leaning state. And it will probably stay that way, just like Michigan and Pennsylvania.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/9/26/14322/6881
No need to click on the link, I quoted it in full, just wanted to provide it.
LikeLike
I think turnout will be off 2008 — because it has nowhere else to go. I’ve no idea how that plays in OH. but that seems to be the root dispute over the polling. assuming 2008 turnout vs. something else.
LikeLike
@lmsinca: “Mitt Romney kicked himself in the balls when he opposed the auto bailout, and it’s killing him in Ohio.”
Could be. I’m dubious. I think that’s the presumption of people who automatically believe the auto bailout was a self-evident good. I think Roney is losing in Ohio because he was born, ala Dan Quayle, with as silver foot in his mouth, doesn’t radiate the warm charisma of a Ronald Reagan or the take-no-prisoners attitude of a Chris Christie. Also, he’s waffled more than John Kerry, who the right pilloried mercilessly for his flip-flops in 2004.
I think the Ohio governor (both in picking the fight and losing) might be more impactful. I think the idea that people are choosing a candidate based on the fact that he didn’t approve of a piece of legislation he had no role in crafting or voting on is a stretch.
” it is a left-leaning state. And it will probably stay that way, just like Michigan and Pennsylvania”
I bet Ohio can’t wait to be the next Michigan.
LikeLike
@Michigoose: “Romney’s campaign spokespeople, collectively, have taken on a bit of a Baghdad Bob feel to them with their relentless optimism.”
That’s exactly right. I concur. “Mitt Romney will not only defy history and the odds and be the next president of the United States, I’m here to tell you he will simultaneous win the lottery and be struck twice by lightning while he does so. After which, he will have super powers. Who do you want for president? The guy with lightning-based super powers or the normal guy who can’t fly and shoot lightning from his fingers?”
LikeLike
Mich:
Romney’s campaign spokespeople, collectively, have taken on a bit of a Baghdad Bob feel to them with their relentless optimism.
Is this supposed to be a criticism? Or a sage observation? I am trying to remember the last candidate whose campaign put forward a public face of pessimism in the months leading up to an election. I’m coming up blank.
LikeLike
President Obama’s crackdown on marijuana continues:
” Feds Hit LA In Medical Marijuana Crackdown
By GREG RISLING 09/26/12 03:18 AM ET EDT AP”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/medical-marijuana-la-feds_n_1916191.html
LikeLike
Worth a note:
“Lawyers Get $35,000 an Hour — and Shareholders Foot the Bill
Robert Shapiro
Posted: 09/26/2012 12:53 pm”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-shapiro/southern-copper-grupo-lawsuit_b_1916480.html
LikeLike
Scott:
Optimism is one thing. Living in an alternative reality is another.
LikeLike
Mich:
And how can you tell the difference?
It is foolish to expect the Romney campaign to express anything but optimism. It’s like criticizing a coach for trying to convince his underdog team that they really can beat the reigning champions. Why would he do anything else? Why would you expect him to do anything else?
It makes sense for partisans who want to demoralize the opposition as a political strategy to ridicule Romney optimism. But as a legitimate criticism of his campaign, it’s just silly.
LikeLike
Scott:
We’re talking about a campaign that has demonstrated time and time again that they don’t care whether or not they’re telling the truth–even when they’re called on it
Why should anybody believe that they’ve got different poll numbers all their own that are somehow so different from everybody else’s that it shows them winning?
There are a lot of ways to express optimism that don’t have to be couched in terms that are so laughable.
LikeLike
Mich:
There are a lot of ways to express optimism that don’t have to be couched in terms that are so laughable.
My guess is that the degree to which you find it “laughable” is directly proportional to the degree to which you disagree with him politically. As I pointed out earlier, the optimism Romney’s campaign is trying to portray is no different to what every campaign always does.
LikeLike
There is a guy named Kierkegaard speaking on The News Hour. Works at the Petersen Institute.
Scott, Most of us have agreed with one or another of the WMR personnas, but not all of them. You must recognize the difficulty of agreeing with all WMR’s positions, as they go racing off into the sunset.
LikeLike
Mark:
Scott, Most of us have agreed with one or another of the WMR personnas, but not all of them. You must recognize the difficulty of agreeing with all WMR’s positions, as they go racing off into the sunset.
I confess that I haven’t the slightest idea what Romney’s “personas” have to do with Mich’s critique of the Romney campaign’s public claims of optimism about the election.
LikeLike
It’s a joke, Scott, that plays off your assertion that Michi’s criticism was in relation to her disagreement with WMR.
LikeLike
mark:
It’s a joke, Scott
Oh.
LikeLike
Scott:
One last note, then I’m moving on. During a short little stand-up interview with an NBC News reporter in Ohio yesterday, Romney made a statement that ran something like, “I’m going to be the next President of the United States. I’m going to win Ohio and win this election.”
That’s your traditional campaign optimism that goes back time immemorial.
Claiming to have special poll numbers that only you know that will prove all other polls wrong is Rovian and laughable.
LikeLike
Mich:
Claiming to have special poll numbers that only you know that will prove all other polls wrong is Rovian and laughable.
Again, Mich, it appears to me that you don’t understand how polls work, and hence how different people can indeed have different polling numbers. Since they are not, as you seem to believe, a function of strictly “facts”, but rather of judgments, estimations, and guesses about the demographic makeup of a future event, it is entirely plausible that different people making different estimations will have different results.
I don’t know what will turn out to be correct come November, but I find the notion that many current polls are overly skewed in favor of Obama to be plausible, not laughable. And in any event it seems perfectly natural to me that the candidate on the short end of those polls would dismiss them as inaccurate. Again, I have never heard any candidate publicly proclaim his cause lost because of poll numbers before the actual election.
LikeLike
Nova
Here’s a response from Crooked Timber to the Atlantic piece you linked to yesterday.
The last of these seems weaker to me than the first two (I was, and still am, against the Libya intervention, but don’t think that the War Powers Resolution question is a moral one). But the first two are pretty damn awful. On key foreign policy and human rights issues, Obama hasn’t been a disappointment. He’s been a disaster. You can make a good case, obviously, that his main opponent, Mitt Romney, would be even worse. But it isn’t at all clear that the consequences of voting 1 for Romney over the longer term, would be any worse than the consequences of voting for the guy who was supposed to be better on these issues, and was not. Indeed, the unwillingness of American left-liberals to criticize the opprobrious foreign policy of a Democratic president (and the consequent lack of real public debate over this policy, since most of the right tacitly agrees with the bad stuff) weighs the balance in favor of voting against Democrats who you know are going to sell out. Personally, I’m on the fence, if only because the current Republican party is so extraordinarily horrible. But I think that there is a very strong case to be made for not voting for Obama, and I wish that there were more publicly prominent lefties making it.
It’s certainly something I’ve struggled with and I think a big decision for voters who actually think about their votes rather than just voting along party lines no matter what. Am I being immoral by voting for him though? I don’t think so but I’m sure Republicans and Libertarians would like to convince me that I am.
I would love to see a question raised on this issue in one of the debates. It would probably result in a famous “Obama tap dance” but I’d still like to hear if there’s a legitimate argument for his actions coming from the President.
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on September 27, 2012 at 6:26 am said:
…
I would love to see a question raised on this issue in one of the debates.”
There’s only one way for that to happen, and that’s for Gary Johnson to poll high enough that he has to be included. Otherwise, there will be no serious critique of current U.S. foreign policy.
LikeLike
I would love to see Johnson in the debates. I do like his statements on foreign policy. it’s just that my issues are more domestic. I hate that we don’t really have a viable third party in this country because I think it allows the “two” candidates to be not only dishonest but non-specific.
LikeLike