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 | 1581.5 | 5.0 | 0.32% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2697.4 | 13.9 | 0.52% |
| Oil (WTI) | 93.36 | 0.4 | 0.39% |
| LIBOR | 0.274 | -0.002 | -0.54% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 82.12 | -0.387 | -0.47% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.65% | -0.01% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 106.3 | 0.1 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 104.6 | 0.1 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 191 | 0.5 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 3.43 |
Markets are higher this morning after better-than-expected consumer spending data. Personal Income data was lower than expected. Bonds and MBS are up small
Personal Spending was projected to be flat, but actually rose .2%. The Bureau of Economic Analysis is claiming that it was primarily due to weather – a cooler than normal spring brought higher utility spending. Personal Income was forecast to rise .4%, and ended up at .2%. The PCE deflator showed inflation remains subdued.
Pending Home Sales increased 1.5% in March, according to the National Association of Realtors. Economists had forecast a 1% increase. Pending home sales are up 5.8% year-over-year.
Lender Processing Services reported that home prices increased 1% in February and rose 7.3% year-over-year. The West is experiencing the biggest gains, while the Northeast and Mid Atlantic continue to languish. This has been borne out by the earnings reports of the homebuilders as well – the ones primarily focused on California have knocked the cover off the ball, while those with an East-Coast / Midwest focus have reported gains, but nowhere near what the West Coast builders are reporting.
Lots of data this week, but the big driver will be the FOMC meeting. We will get the rate announcement on Wed. Investors will be looking for information concerning the end of QE. We will get the jobs report on Friday, which will have the biggest potential to move interest rates.
Lots of homebuilders reported earnings last week – pretty much everyone except NVR beat estimates. Anyone with exposure to the West Coast did well and backlog is up nicely at all of the builders. We will hear from Standard Pacific and Beazer Homes this week. The Homebuilder ETF (XHB) is on a tear and sitting right at resistance.
U.S. News and World Report has a good piece on the state of the first time homebuyer.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Just bringing this up from the weekend thread:
A really interesting look at Gandhi. I got the link from Ace’s Sunday book thread. It’s a long read but fascinating.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-gandhi-nobody-knows/
LikeLike
That Ghandi was a nutball in many respects is hardly news. Most of this article (which to call it long is a severe understatement) seems to focus on the “Martin Luther King Jr. was a serial philanderer.” aspects.
LikeLike
YJ, On the previous thread I wrote to George that I was generally aware of most of this before I saw the movie, and the movie thus made me question much of what I thought I knew. The fictionalization in the movie, I recall, did not stand even modest scrutiny. I mentioned that I thought MG was raised by his mother as a Jain and that his profession of Hindu faith was for political convenience, but I do not know if that is true, although I read it as far back as the 60s.
I agree with the author on the stark difference between Hinduism and any modern western religion. Hinduism is the amalgam of ancient native nature worship – pantheism – and the religion imposed by Alexander The Great – polytheism. Hindus invent new gods as necessary. Really. By 1970 they had over 4000. They had one you could pray to if you wanted a washing machine. There is no ethical imperative in the sense that western religion demands, and which Confucius demanded as a philosopher. It is a bunch of racist superstition. That Ghandi attempted at times to somewhat reform Hinduism around the edges was, I thought, attributed to his having been raised a Jain.
Jainism is related to Hinduism, and I think Ahimsa comes from the Jains. Also, naked old gurus. But they affirmatively believe in “right conduct” and oppose the caste system. Most civil and military leadershp in India comes now from Sikhs, who are completely unrelated to Hindus in belief. Sikhism is more like western faith: ethical monotheism with a dollop of stoicism, all humans as the children/creations of God, etc.
I have taught comparative religion and have always invited practitioners of other faiths to class discussions. For a westerner to discuss Hinduism with a Hindu is a complete mind boggle. And I am judging. I think a religion without an ethical core of teachings that emphasize self respect, respect for our species, and stewardship of the planet is dangerous claptrap.
LikeLike
It is a bunch of racist superstition.
Not knowing much about Hinduism, I am going to have to take your word on it. My son’s high school was VERY multi-cultural and he had several Hindi friends but they all seemed rather secular. I do remember being at the school once while a Hindu group was having a conclave. Except that the individual statues were much more garish, I’m not sure it approaches Catholicism for random-seeming ceremony.
My mother-in-law is an extremely devout Buddhist (which is itself an offshoot of Hinduism) and most of what she does is inexplicable to me. She is completely vegan and spent several weeks recently in extremely remote parts of Burma on a retreat. And she is in her 70s.
I have never seen the movie Ghandi having it on good authority that the tediousness and length of it make it narcolepsy inducing. However, the point of the article (which wasn’t much shorter than the movie itself) seemed to emphasize his odd dietary and sexual practices (again, let’s not make comparisons to the Catholic faith) as if that somehow negated his teachings on non-violent confrontation.
As a final note, non-violence only seems to work against opponents with a conscience. I read a science fiction counterfactual where Germany had won World War II and Ghandi was machine-gunned down almost immediately.
LikeLike
Yello,
The article was from ’83 and was written shortly after the movie came out. I think the context was to deconstruct Gandhi much as the new Reagan movie (w/Jane Fonda as Nancy) probably will deconstruct him. I thought we were supposed to kill our heroes?
LikeLike
I know I said I wasn’t going to bug all of you with updates and a bunch of links from the research I’m doing but I couldn’t help but share this one tidbit of polling that bodes well for my trip to AZ next week.
From Public Policy Polling:
-After just 3 months in office Jeff Flake has already become one of the most unpopular Senators in the country. Just 32% of voters approve of him to 51% who disapprove and that -19 net approval rating makes him the most unpopular sitting Senator we’ve polled on, taking that label from Mitch McConnell.
70% of Arizona voters support background checks to only 26% who are opposed to them. That includes 92/6 favor from Democrats, 71/24 from independents, and 50/44 from Republicans. 52% of voters say they’re less likely to support Flake in a future election because of this vote, compared to only 19% who say they’re more likely to. Additionally voters say by a 21 point margin, 45/24, that they trust senior colleague John McCain more than Flake when it comes to gun issues.
I think our biggest challenge will be to keep the issue alive long enough to get another vote. Not sure that will ever happen.
LikeLike
lms (from the poll):
70% of Arizona voters support background checks to only 26% who are opposed to them.
According to this site, Arizona already does background checks.
LikeLike
Are you encouraged by Manchin’s new effort, Lulu?
LikeLike
Scott, thanks for that link but I think that is typical of many states and the law would expand by closing the “gun show loophole” for AZ and many other states plus will prevent carrying guns across borders of states with less stringent background check laws. That’s why making it a federal law carries more weight even for states like CA who already have decent laws regarding background checks.
This is from an AZ site.
That measure would expand the requirement to firearms sales between private individuals, such as those that occur at gun shows. Currently, the checks are required only for sales by federally licensed firearms dealers.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20130312gun-background-check-bill-senate-panel.html
AZ is one of the states that allows this as far as I’ve been able to discover so far.
Known as the “gun show loophole,” most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals — federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
Above link has a map of which states have “gun show loopholes”.
Back to work for me. I just wanted to share the info on Jeff Flake because he’s the one we’re approaching for now.
LikeLike
lms:
To be honest I have not followed the recent debate over more gun control closely at all. So is it the case that the only thing that the recently defeated legislation would have added would be to require a private individuals (as opposed to a licensed dealer) to conduct a background check before selling his gun at a gun show?
Any idea on how many such sales take place at gun shows? Or what percentage of total gun sales take place under this “loophole”? I also wonder how it can possibly be effectively enforced.
LikeLike
Mark, yes absolutely. That’s why we’re working as quickly as possible trying to influence a few Senators to change their minds. We found a contact from Flake’s office willing to meet with us next week. I won’t be there that day but will be there the day before and hope to help influence their plan of attack, which won’t be an attack but hopefully more of a “persuasion” with facts backing us up.
I’ll leave y’all to your own devices again. Thanks for the input.
LikeLike
Scott, here’s a pretty decent run down, with links to both Manchin and Toomey’s sites for further explanation of what the bill will and won’t do. I haven’t looked into the enforcement angle yet or the percentages you’re questioning. I’m still trying to uncover “fact” from “fiction”.
LikeLike
I think you forgot a link.
LikeLike
Oooops…………….sorry.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/16/manchin-toomey-get-more-specific-about-gun-compromise-bill-62236
LikeLike
lms:
Not too long ago Mother Jones put together a list of the 62 mass shootings in the US since 1982. Of those, (according to MJ’s own info) 12 were committed with weapons that were obtained illegally. Out of the remaining 50, I wonder how many were not, but would have been, subject to a background check under the recently proposed (but now failed) legislation, and of those how many would have actually failed a background check. I would imagine that if it would have pre-empted any of these events, supporters of the legislation would want to be trumpeting the fact.
LikeLike
Global warming’s War on Women?
LikeLike
With the progression of my arthritis and spinal stenosis, I can’t type a lot. But I wanted to say that I cannot find anything in the Manchin-Toomey bill that would give anyone reason to not vote for it. While we all know it would in no way prevent all horrible killing events, surely it would prevent some and particularly should have an impact on the straw man purchases. All without infringing on any law abiding citizens rights.
LikeLike
Geanie:
But I wanted to say that I cannot find anything in the Manchin-Toomey bill that would give anyone reason to not vote for it.
My default position is to oppose new law unless there is a reason to support it, not to support new law unless there is a reason to oppose it.
surely it would prevent some…
Would it?
LikeLike
I would think it would. The definition, as I understand it, of a straw man purchaser is one who can legally purchase guns, and do so for the purpose of selling to those who cannot legally purchase guns. If we could cap that activity, identify those purchasers and stop them, one would think perhaps that with fewer sources, maybe fewer killings. But we won’t know since we aren’t even opting to give it a chance and see if it makes a difference. I’m not one to judge how well a law such as this would or wouldn’t work. I don’t think any of us are qualified to answer that. But I for one would liked to have at least tried.
I remember my Mother telling me that the only true failures in life are the ones in which we don’t at least try.
LikeLike
Yello,
A big part of the article was on Gandhi’s flip-flops on non-violence, the centerpiece of the movie. I think you misunderstand the articles references to bowel movements. You assume it’s for western audience titilation and the “Othering” of Gandhi, when in reality it’s more about helping a westerner understand Hinduism and how different it is from western thought, and how Gandhi’s hypocrisy is perfectly acceptable in Indian culture, in fact it’s not seen as hypocrisy.
LikeLike
“Any idea on how many such sales take place at gun shows? Or what percentage of total gun sales take place under this “loophole”? I also wonder how it can possibly be effectively enforced.”
I believe the numbers were between 10% & 20%.
There’s actually a chunk of items in there that gun control proponents aren’t particularly happy with, and that’s before you consider concealed carry reciprocity.
LikeLike
Question, if mass shootings could be reduced by curtailing, say, the 4th Amendment, would it be worth it? Or, lets say Mass Media censoring over images of violence, by a bi-partisan government panel, as a 1st Amendment encroachment, would that be acceptable? I’m a 2nd Amendment “nut” and am not trying to be (more of ) an asshole (than I already am) but it seems that 2nd Amendment encroachment has been quite significant when compared to other amendments yet I do not see what the practicle benefit has been.
LikeLike
McWing:
Question, if mass shootings could be reduced by curtailing, say, the 4th Amendment, would it be worth it?
No.
LikeLike
All sorts of crimes could be curtailed by relaxing the 4th Amendment which is why we need it. The temptation is too great.
As for Ron Paul’s hissy fit about the Boston search by literally jackbooted thugs, I can give that a pass for a clear and present danger as long as they aren’t coming back the next day for things they found probable cause for on the basis of their house to house search.
Do we have any test cases of people refusing to allow their property to be searched and then the cops using force or is all this teeth gnashing strictly hypothetical?
LikeLike
“Do we have any test cases of people refusing to allow their property to be searched and then the cops using force or is all this teeth gnashing strictly hypothetical?”
post-Katrina New Orleans?
LikeLike
post-Katrina New Orleans?
I was specifically thinking Boston. I want someone to make the pro-hiding terrorist case on 4th Amendment grounds and see how far they get.
LikeLike
yello:
the pro-hiding terrorist case on 4th Amendment grounds
The reason the 4th amendment is useful is that it can be asserted even when…especially when…you aren’t doing anything even remotely wrong, like hiding a terrorist.
LikeLike
and what happens in Boston if somebody said no?
LikeLike
I’m not sure why anyone would say no when the task is to locate a terrorist that just killed and maimed innocent U.S. citizens.
LikeLike
“I want someone to make the pro-hiding terrorist case on 4th Amendment grounds and see how far they get”
I don’t follow. i’m not letting a swat team come through my house without a warrant. that they’re asking really nicely and are after the bomber don’t factor in for me.
LikeLike
I don’t follow. i’m not letting a swat team come through my house without a warrant. that they’re asking really nicely and are after the bomber don’t factor in for me.
I agree with you. You shouldn’t have to. The ‘law abiders have nothing to fear’ is the slipperiest of slopes. I’m just wondering if there was one person in Boston with your moral conviction, NoVA.
LikeLike
I don’t get it. Unless you have something to hide why would anyone not allow any policing persons into their home KNOWING it is all in an effort to capture a terrorist that just attacked U.S. citizens. What is so terrible about waiving your rights for the good of our country?
LikeLike
doormat
basically – the risk of letting a bunch of angry, armed — and largely unaccountable — men into my home isn’t worth it. it’s a good way for my dog to get shot.
LikeLike
Ok. I understand that your rights are more important to you than they are to me in cases of public safety such as the Boston bombings. We can agree to disagree but I will never have issue with waiving my rights for the good of my country.
LikeLike
unlikely. there was an interview on WTOP this morning … people were calling in saying they’d be fine with the gov wiretapping their social media accounts “so we’ll be safe.” maybe that’s different, but i don’t think so.
LikeLike
I suppose it’s a trust issue. in that I don’t trust them to have either the public’s interest or mine at heart. only their own.
LikeLike
I suppose. I’m proud to say that I do trust in our police and military and I’ve never found either to only have their own interest at heart. I only find regular ‘ol individuals have their own interest at heart, and thankfully, I know very few of those.
LikeLike
For those who haven’t seen this:
LikeLike
jnc:
It seems to me that that denying him access to a lawyer despite the request for one is actually doing him a favor. I’m no lawyer so I could be wrong, but I’d guess that anything he said after having asked for a lawyer is no longer admissible as evidence. So in terms of protecting him from the legal system, not giving him a lawyer once requested gives him a far greater benefit than actually granting the request would do.
I vaguely remember having this discussion a long time ago with someone, perhaps on PL, but it seems to me that the police procedures revolving around Miranda are designed to protect evidence, not the rights of the suspect.
LikeLike
Scott… I saw this discussed on tv and the lawyers said that nothing he said while being interrogated, prior to being mirandized, is not admissable in court, whether an attorney was present or not… but that was not a concern as far as his trial goes since there was evidently enough evidence apart from the interrogation to prosecute anyway. Now if there was not already enough evidence to prosecute, I am certain the entire interrogation/miranda process would have been quite different. Also, supposedly the questions asked during the interrogation were primarily to learn if any others were involved, etc., and not the same kinds of questions that would otherwise be the kind used for trial.
LikeLike
If the police thought there was a suspect in my back yard, or hiding in the garage, I’d have no problem letting them go back there after they asked.
LikeLike
“regular ‘ol” ?
LikeLike
Sorry Nova, that’s my Okie talk. And I’m glad to hear your wife would do that LOL
And Jnc.. thank you. Waiting for Soc Sec approval. Have a dr appt tomorrow, arranged by SS… but not the normal one like my hubby got… they are sending me to an Internist as they are concerned about other issues as well. Nothing short of an open door laminectomy will fix my spine.
LikeLike
Also, sorry to hear about the health issues Geanie.
LikeLike
I should add … this is likely where my wife tell me to STFU and let the officers do their thing.
LikeLike
oops, meant that to be “nothing he said while being interrogated, prior to being mirandized, is admissable”….. NOT “not admissable”.
LikeLike