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 |
1638.5 |
2.3 |
0.14% |
|
Eurostoxx Index |
2765.3 |
17.5 |
0.64% |
|
Oil (WTI) |
93.19 |
-0.3 |
-0.28% |
|
LIBOR |
0.274 |
0.001 |
0.26% |
|
US Dollar Index (DXY) |
82.81 |
0.149 |
0.18% |
|
10 Year Govt Bond Yield |
2.13% |
0.01% |
|
|
Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA |
101.9 |
-0.2 |
|
|
Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA |
100.4 |
-0.1 |
|
|
RPX Composite Real Estate Index |
201.5 |
0.6 |
|
|
BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage |
4.11 |
Markets are up small after a 2% rally in Japan’s Nikkei 225 index last night. Bonds and MBS are down small.
Yesterday’s ISM report showed the manufacturing sector contracted slightly in May. New Orders and Production fell, while inventories rose. Employment was flat. The index level of 49 corresponds to a GDP growth rate of just about 2%.
The Senate is close to establishing a plan to abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and replace them with a government re-insurer that would backstop private mortgage insurance. F&F would be wound down and the US Treasury would assume responsibility for existing conforming loans. A new entity – the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation (FMIC) would provide re-insurance, which means they would only step in if the private mortgage insurer was unable to cover the losses. For holders of the junior preferreds, which includes a lot of big hedge funds, this doesn’t look like anything good for them.
And for those keeping track at home, here is Fannie Mae’s recent chart:
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
I’m trying to figure out who Ben Bernanke really is.
The concept of success leads me to consider so-called meritocracies and their implications. We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumerate–these are the folks who reap the largest rewards. The only way for even a putative meritocracy to hope to pass ethical muster, to be considered fair, is if those who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to share their luck with others. As the Gospel of Luke says (and I am sure my rabbi will forgive me for quoting the New Testament in a good cause): “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.”
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/footnote-day-ben-bernanke-plays-press
LikeLike
So, in Teh Bernak’s world, The Pursuit of Happiness is no longer operational?
LikeLike
So, to Bernake, its all just the luck of the draw, and you might as well tax accordingly so that everything is “fair.” Meh…
LikeLike
Maybe he thought no one was listening…………..it was a college graduation after all. Or maybe I need to read the entire speech. I though it was so weird coming from him. It sounds like a speech Obama would give.
LikeLike
The President from GA Tech gave the speech at our daughter’s graduation last month from the CO School of Mines. I don’t know about GA Tech but Mines is a pretty conservative school, mostly engineers and oil industry funding for petroleum geologists. There are some environmentalists and rock guys but not nearly as many as the “good ole boys from TX” (hope it’s okay to say that) students.
Anyway the speech was all about your story and where you came from and what you do with your life that is separate from how you make your money. In other words, don’t forget to give back. I thought it was nice but weird considering the school.
LikeLike
Given that the effect of QE is to just randomly hand out free money, it could be that Bernanke feels guilty.
Krugman took Bernnake’s comments, traced them back to the source and ran further.
Krugman may be right that the logical conclusion from the “life is a lottery” argument is redistribution, but that doesn’t matter because the “life is a lottery” argument is crap, even at or especially at a Princeton graduation.
The graduates weren’t selected in a lottery and just handed a degree with no effort, and if I had been there I would have been insulted that Bernanke (or more precisely Krugman) was reducing the results of four years of relatively rigorous college work to blind luck. He might as well have told them that they don’t deserve their degrees any more than those who dropped out or didn’t finish and they should rip them up now.
Lottery means you are just handed something with no work. Regardless of your “genetic endowment” for the vast majority of people they aren’t just handed money with no effort.
Choices, not luck matter more in life.
LikeLike
David Brooks also had a nice counterpoint:
See also
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E1D8103FF930A3575BC0A9609C8B63
LikeLike
Led Zeppelin’s Immigrant Song sucks.
There, I said it.
LikeLike
Fascinating example if How would I feel if the president of Aetna said this.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/06/04/sebelius-i-cant-step-into-girls-transplant-case/
LikeLike
JNC
but that doesn’t matter because the “life is a lottery” argument is crap, even at or especially at a Princeton graduation
I actually agree with that for the most part. And choices do matter. But for some reason there are always good, smart, well intentioned and hard working people who fall through the cracks. I don’t agree with Bernanke and I do agree a Princeton graduation isn’t the place to tell them all how lucky they are and pretend it’s the most dynamic reason why they need “to share their luck with others”.
But I still feel for those of us who have been more fortunate, through a combination of hard work and a little luck, should try to make sure that not so many are falling through the cracks.
Scott and I were having a discussion on a previous thread about health care and he said something that surprised me.
I also agree with him that a community that endeavors to help people who have been disadvantaged by chance or unfortunate circumstances is better than one that does not.
And so I can only assume that our definition and the size of our community is different and our definition of disadvantaged doesn’t apply to something like health care. And of course who pays for the equalization is probably the defining issue.
So we’re just as far apart as ever regardless of his sentiment. And yet I’m not on board with BB either.
LikeLike
jnc
rich people work longer hours than middle class or poor people
Of course that begs the question of why the poor things don’t just give their workers more hours………….I’ve heard that a lot of people would prefer to work full time than part time and are looking for full time jobs with benefits of course.
LikeLike
” And of course who pays for the equalization is probably the defining issue.”
Speaking for myself (and probably Scott), it’s the use of force by the government in the name of compassion that’s the defining issue.
All things that the government does are at gunpoint. If you disagree and try to opt out, men with guns come and put you in jail.
To put it more concisely, coercion and compassion are incompatible.
LikeLike
jnc:
Speaking for myself (and probably Scott), it’s the use of force by the government in the name of compassion that’s the defining issue.
Bingo.
LikeLike
I only cited the Brooks piece as part of the argument against “Life is a lottery, work effort is irrelevant”. Once you reject that premise, all the reasoning that flows from it collapses.
Everyone instinctively knows this from attending their high school reunions. You can usually find counter examples in your age group of similar socioeconomic and demographic status who either did better or worse than you did, and in the majority of the cases it was about the choices they made along the way, not luck.
LikeLike
jnc, yeah I left coercion out didn’t I? You’re right of course. I feel weird imagining that I’m somewhere between you and Scott and Ben Bernanke.
LikeLike
Worth a read:
“Hubbard: ‘Both parties are playing the game rationally. But as a country we’re not winning.’
By Neil Irwin, Published: June 4, 2013 at 2:24 pm”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/hubbard-both-parties-are-playing-the-game-rationally-but-as-a-country-were-not-winning/
LikeLike
Re: the transplant case … is there a medical reason why 12 is the line?
either way .. if she gets a lung, it just means someone without PR savvy parents doesn’t.
LikeLike
Nova,
Re: the transplant case
The age limit was designed because of the size of an adult lung and the size of children.
However, in this particular case, the child is just a little over 1 year too young… BUT, she is also bigger than most her age. And in addition, age shouldn’t matter anyway because you don’t have to transplant an entire lung, you can transplant only a portion… meaning 1 lung can be used for more than one patient.
ALSO, based on just how close she is to death now, IF she were 12, she would be at the very top of the list. The ONLY thing keeping her from being at the top of the list to get the lung she needs, is her age.
I for one wish they would get off their asses and put her at the top of the list. There is absolutely no reason not to, and the policy needs to change so that the one who needs MOST, gets. This little girl NEEDS or she will die. The adult currently at the top of the list has much more time to go before they are as gravely ill as this child.
LikeLike
I’ve bolded the most interesting (for me) part of the paragraph.
“In Soderbergh’s view, the reason you can’t see Behind the Candelabra in American theaters has as much to do with financially—though not politically—conservative executives as it does with the palate of the American movie-going public. “It’s all economics,” he says. “The point I was trying to make was not that anyone in Hollywood is anti-gay. It was that economic forces make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to think outside of the box…If audiences were going in great numbers to see stuff that was not down the middle, then everyone would be doing that…[Hollywood is] merely responding to what people are telling them they want to see!””
Beyond the interesting bolded portion, why does Soderbergh think all movies have to appeal to all audiences? Did he really think anyone under 30 would be interested in Liberace? Really? He though a fan of the Fast and Furious franchise would be equally likely to see this one?
About the bolded part, Soderbergh obviously still wants to make movies in the US. You can call studio executives money focused, but not politically conservative, that is a blacklisting act.
Now that is interesting.
http://m.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/steven-soderbergh-interview-hollywood-gay
LikeLike
I assume this has been debunked by Juiceboxer and Cohn already and is old news.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/implementing-obamacare?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/the_rate_shock_danger
LikeLike
Anyone see “Behind the Candelabra” besides me (and my husband)? It was more explicit than I thought it would be, which didn’t really bother me but knowing that Matt Damon’s character was so young in comparison to Liberace made me just as uncomfortable as if Matt Damon had been a girl instead. Liberace seemed like a dirty old man to me. Otherwise I thought it was interesting even while I couldn’t get past Matt Damon being gay. I always thought he was kind of cute and sexy (not as much as Brad Pitt though) in a different way and so it bugged me, I have to admit, even though I know he was acting. I didn’t really buy it I guess.
I remember doing a piece on a campus gay club for our college paper when I was at school in LA and it bothered me then that all those cute guys were gay, so I guess it was sort of the same thing………………..hahaha
LikeLike
“Matt Damon being gay. I always thought he was kind of cute and sexy ”
FWIW, i get a lot of “you look like matt damon.”
I don’t see it. but there you go.
LikeLike
Well that’s interesting Nova. People always tell me I look like an older (probably much older) and taller version of Mika on Morning Joe, who I can’t stand, all those church lady faces, so I hate that. But I wouldn’t mind looking like Matt Damon, all things considered……………….hahaha
Update: by that I mean if I were you
LikeLike
This State Senate gun safety guy in CO, who was instrumental in pushing their new laws through, is facing a lot of backlash from the NRA and gun lovers in the state. It’s a recall. This could actually be interesting, depending which way it goes for some of my friends in AZ and other Western Mountain states.
In the face of the recall, Morse is standing firm, saying that pro-gun groups across the country are hoping to see him fall as a way of intimidating other lawmakers against standing up to gun manufacturers, lobbyists and activists.
“This turns into a national race,” he said. He also said that even if he is driven from office, after the year of national gun massacres, including the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, it will have been worth it to stand up for what he believes is right.
“Keeping Coloradans safe from gun violence is very worth your political career,” Morse said to reporters.
While the National Rifle Association has sent out fundraising appeals naming Morse as an enemy of gun freedom, local activists claim their movement is home grown.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/04/recall-petition-for-colorado-gun-safety-democrat-gets-twice-the-signatures-it-needed/
LikeLike
Ross Douthat channels some recent debates here:
“Libertarian Populism and Its Limits
June 4, 2013, 12:53 pm”
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/libertarian-populism-and-its-limits/
LikeLike
That was interesting jnc, but I especially thought the last three paragraphs were important. And I’m sorry but I have trouble believing Rand Paul would be the standard bearer for the new libertarian populism.
LikeLike
Geanie, you’re largely right, but. . .
CF patients need to have both lungs transplanted. They are also worse risks overall for transplant than most other transplant recipients.
This is gut wrenching, but transplant rules are transplant rules for reasons that have been determined empirically over the years of doing transplants. Transplant doctors often have a very good idea of what’s going to happen.
I, personally, wish that they’d base transplant lists on body size and weight rather than age, but that’s a whole nother issue.
LikeLike
RE: Transplant issue.
I understand what you’re saying Michi…. but in this particular case, the transplant doctors have stated she is a perfect candidate for this transplant and that the only thing preventing her from being a recipient is solely her age. That’s why I have a problem with her not going to the top of the list.
And IMHO, no matter how tried and true any medical process is, there should always be room for the exception, as in this particular case. The policy needs to change to allow for exceptions like this.
LikeLike
Here’s a simplified explanation of the SC decision this week in the DNA case. It’s interesting that we mostly just expect it I think.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/04/supreme-courts-dna-ruling-is-yet-another-blow-to-civil-liberties/
LikeLike
lms:
Here’s a simplified explanation of the SC decision this week in the DNA case.
I confess I do not have a strong sense of whether this was a good or atrocious decision. But I am curious about whether and how people here distinguish between the taking of DNA and the taking of finger prints. Do those who see this decision as a further erosion of civil liberties think that fingerprinting is also such an erosion? And if not, why not?
LikeLike
I linked this a couple of days ago over at the PL and I can’t stop thinking about it. It’s a big problem and I wonder if there’s some way to legislate any relief. I know that’s an unwelcome concept to most of you here but I think there should be some way to ease part of this burden without forgiving it. An awful lot of our kids are in trouble I think.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/06/02/the-true-size-of-the-student-debt-crisis/
LikeLike
I missed this last week but I think it’s good news (for a change).
In a major victory for voting rights, Virginia’s Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has announced he will automatically restore voting rights for people with nonviolent felony convictions. His decision will eliminate the two-year waiting period and petition process that currently disenfranchises thousands of nonviolent felons who have completed their sentences and satisfied all the conditions of their punishments.
This is really great news. It doesn’t, however, change Virginia’s constitution and it is based on an executive decree, which another governor can simply recind. So the title of the piece is a little misleading since it doesn’t change anyones voting rights, it simply restores the ability of a class of non-violent former felons to vote.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’d love to hear the legal experts and enthusiasts weigh in on that as well. I think I know but I don’t feel like embarrassing myself this morning, it’s too early. 🙂
And here’s another interesting case for the legal, constitution and states’ rights junkies that I was reading about this morning. I’ve become interested in CO lately, for two reason, our daughter lives there permanently now and we’re thinking of moving there in about five years. I don’t know if I can actually do it or not but we’re thinking about it.
There’s a divide in contemporary constitutional theory today: one side sees the Constitution as a tool for self-government, the other as a means of preventing it.
One skirmish in that long war is being fought out in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. It presents the question of whether a state’s voters can amend its constitution to deprive the legislature permanently of the power to tax. That we are even debating this issue teaches us something about the state of American law and politics; the way it is being debated teaches some interesting lessons about the states, their supposed “rights,” and the true scheme of the U.S. Constitution.
That’s where Kerr v. Hickenlooper comes in. It raises the question of whether a state whose government has no power to tax is a “state” at all within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The case is a challenge by a group of taxpayers and state legislators to Colorado’s so-called “Taxpayer Bill of Rights,” approved by initiative in 1992. TABOR, as it is called, bars any level of state government from raising taxes or tax rates without a referendum. Beyond that, government can’t even spend the money it collects under existing taxes if tax collections rise faster than the rate of inflation or population growth. The “excess” revenue must be returned to taxpayers, no matter how dire the state’s needs, unless a referendum approves the “tax hike.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/does-a-state-have-the-right-to-self-destruct/276430/
LikeLike
lms:
Very interesting topic on the CO issue (even if the article’s first sentence was irritatingly disingenuous).
A brief google search suggests to me that the Supremes have in the past ruled that whether or not a state government qualifies as a “republican government” is something that congress, not the courts, must decide. It will be interesting to see if the courts alter course on that.
LikeLike
Over at the PL, Greg opens with the gun/background check issue. I’m glad because there are a lot of us still working on it, even though if feels futile sometimes. I thought this was particularly interesting, to me anyway, as this is where the money we raised here in CA went.
There’s also the group launched by Gabriel Giffords and husband Mark Kelly, which recently announced it had raised a staggering $11 million in just a few months to push for gun control.
I’m not sure if I’m supposed to keep this as an open thread or Brent’s new MR. This is probably it from me today as we’re taking of in a few hours anyway, see y’all manana.
LikeLike
I saw ‘Behind The Candelabra’ this weekend and thought it was a decently nuanced movie that touches on a lot of issues with out moralizing. You can kind of pick and chose themes as you like, gay marriage, predatory relationships, the corossiveness of closeted living, just to name a few. Coincidentally, Soderburgh’s ‘Magic Mike’ about male strippers is on HBO this month as well. I’m not sure which movie is gayer. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I also happened to stumble on ‘But I’m A Cheerleader’ on Showtime. This obscure movie is about a conservative blond cheerleader who gets sent to a gay rehabilitation camp where she falls in love with another lesbian there. It’s very heavy-handed and over the top. RuPaul sans drag plays one of the ex-gay counselors and he is perhaps the most understated role.
LikeLike
All things that the government does are at gunpoint. If you disagree and try to opt out, men with guns come and put you in jail.
And I get mocked when I try to dupe people into saying “All taxes are theft.”
LikeLike
yello:
And I get mocked when I try to dupe people into saying “All taxes are theft.”
As well you should.
When the government takes a criminal into custody, it does so at gun point, but that doesn’t make the arrest “kidnapping”. Likewise when the government collects taxes, it does so at gun point, but that doesn’t make the taxation “theft”. In short, terms such as “theft” and “kidnapping” implicitly carry with them the notion of injustice, while sometimes coercion can be justified.
I understand why some people are reluctant to admit that the whole point of government is to use coercion against people. It detracts from the happy-talk illusion that by using government to do things “we” are simply “cooperating” with each other and doing things as a “community”. But the refusal to admit the fact doesn’t change it.
LikeLike
A friend of mine has a daughter who had one of the youngest full heart and lung transplants ever. I don’t remember how young, but 12-14 could easily be the range. The girl is now 20 and perfectly healthy. A coworker’s lifetime chain smoking mother had a lung transplant three years ago but died just recently during a routine but invasive follow-up test. Just two points on the spectrum.
LikeLike
Douthat is starting to sound like a squish:
Too many lunches in the Grey Lady cafeteria.
LikeLike
yello:
Douthat is starting to sound like a squish
I couldn’t tell whether Douthat was speaking from the point of view of political strategy, or good policy. If the latter, then I agree…too much NYT kool-aid at lunch time.
LikeLike
I assume this has been debunked by Juiceboxer and Cohn already and is old news.
Who is Juicebox? Is there a master glossary to the nicknames for pundits you don’t respect?
LikeLike
Ezra Klein
LikeLike
Maybe it’s because the R’s are the most radical, extreme, far right ever in recorded history? The nominated McCain then Romney, no? Christ, they’re both to the right of… Any Rand!
Or something. Anyway, Douhat has to look like an effing commie compared to those two flaming wingnuts!
LikeLike
I think the key thing to remember about Rand is that her family’s business was confiscated by the Bolsheviks. Apparently it left an impression.
LikeLike
“Representative Barney Frank, “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” ”
No. Government is how one group of people forces another group of people to do something they don’t want to do.
LikeLike
jnc:
Government is how one group of people forces another group of people to do something they don’t want to do.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
LikeLike
And the quintessential question is, when is that appropriate policy?
LikeLike
jnc:
And the quintessential question is, when is that appropriate policy?
Exactly. And that is what I find so attractive about libertarianism. It actually tries to answer that question in an objective, principled way. Neither conservatives nor liberals seem to do so.
LikeLike