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 | 1794.3 | -5.4 | -0.30% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 3033.9 | -43.3 | -1.41% |
| Oil (WTI) | 93.81 | 0.0 | -0.01% |
| LIBOR | 0.241 | 0.002 | 1.03% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 80.62 | -0.302 | -0.37% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.77% | -0.03% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 105 | 0.1 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 104.1 | 0.1 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 200.7 | -0.2 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 4.43 |
Weaker overseas markets mean US stocks are soggy this morning. Bonds and MBS are rallying small. Later on this morning, we will get the ISM New York and IBD / TIPP economic optimism.
Corelogic reported that home prices were up 12.5% year over year and up .2% in October. Home prices remain 17.3% below their April 2006 peak. The .2% month-over-month gain shows that real estate price growth is moderating, which was more or less to be expected. Almost half the states in the US are within 10% of their respective historical price peaks.
Yesterday’s bond sell-off was triggered by a better-than-expected ISM report, which showed that manufacturing is improving in the US and is approaching two year highs. If you look at the historical relationship between the ISM and GDP growth, the November number of 57.3 corresponds to a 4.7% increase in real GDP. The 2013 average corresponds to a 3.6% increase. Manufacturing isn’t as large of a component of the US economy as it used to be, but it does show that at least one major sector in the US is picking up steam.
The other sector that really matters is housing / construction, and there we still have relatively moribund numbers, although they are steadily building back off the lows. Construction spending increased .8% month over month in October after falling .3% in September. We still have yet to get housing starts data since August, but building permits topped a 1 million pace in October. Part of the reason why this recovery has been so weak is that housing is usually the first industry to rebound after a recession and we are still at very depressed levels historically. Part of that has to do with the excesses of the bubble and low household formation numbers due to the lousy job market. The excesses of the bubble are more or less reversed and if anything, we have a deficit. The low household formation numbers have been driven by a lousy job market, not fertility rates 25 years ago, and therefore represents pent-up demand. This state of affairs cannot last (and won’t).
So maybe the holidays won’t be so bad after all. It looks like Cyber Monday sales were record-breaking after Black Friday sales were disappointing. Even still, it looks like the retailers are being highly promotional, which doesn’t exactly speak to a healthy consumer environment. Many noted that using a deal as “bait” fell flat on its face as customers got in line to purchase one specific item, and bought it without buying anything else. Back-to-School was lousy, so it is hard to get over-optimistic about the holiday shopping season. One other thing to note – we can now look forward to the FAA regulating internet sales.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
First…for the first time ever.
LikeLike
Scott? Did you ever get a TV. I think we were discussing it … jeez, maybe a year ago?
I’m thinking of upgrading just for a bigger screen size.
LikeLike
Nova:
I got the 51″ Samsung Plasma Smart TV. Love it. Allows me to connect direct to Netflix and Amazon without the extra Roku box. It also has 3d, but I never actually use it. The day I got the TV I checked out a basketball game in 3d and that was the last time I tried. I don’t think I could even find the 3D glasses that came with the TV. (Undoubtedly Mrs. ScottC knows exactly where they are, as she knows the location of virtually everything else in the house that I can’t find when I need it.)
LikeLike
I’m thinking of getting the Sony Ultra 4K.
LikeLike
why? [edit: on the ultra]
edit two: Scott, I’m torn between the smart TV or the roku/external box and dumb tv.
LikeLike
My friends Chris and Dick swear by their Rokus.
It was always obvious to me that the biggest problem with ACA was expanding Medicaid. We argued here about other stuff, but to me the biggie was pouring more money into a black hole while doing NOTHING about the supply of health care available [e.g.; # of doctors]. Analogous to QE, if you ask me. I would have been happy with a much smaller government program that just produced more docs and nurses by letting them pay off their educations with a few years of public health/military/VA/clinic service.
Left wing /right wing nomenclature has a certain arbitrary simplicity to it, George. Fascism as an economic construct has private groups of interests like what TR would have called trusts, and trade associations, and unions, and guilds, and local governments which all have some say in their economic lives, but beholden to the central government or the military. Mussolini, Hitler, China today, Egypt – these are more or less fascist regimes whatever they call themselves. They are not capitalist in the Smithian sense and they are not socialist in either the Marxist or Fabian sense. They are fascist. The central authority can be the Army [Egypt] or the strong man [Franco, Hitler, Mussolini] or the Communist Party and the Red Army [China].
Before capitalism created the modern world there were two competing economic systems, Feudalism and Mercantilism, which could only coexist if the aristocracy did not strangle the commercial class and the commercial class did not strangle the aristocracy, or they were one and the same. China tires to be both neo-feudal and neo mercantilist at the same time. American liberals think China is “state capitalism”, an oxymoron. American conservatives think China is Marxist, because it pays lip service to Marx.
Fascism must by definition be authoritarian. Socialism and capitalism can exist in non-authoritarian regimes. Capitalism lends it self especially well [better than socialism, I think] to non-authoritarian regimes. Welfare state principles can be applied to capitalist countries without making them socialist countries, IMO. A Marxist country could not coexist with capitalism. In China, it evolved into a Fascist state, whatever they call themselves.
The hatred actual Marxists and actual Fascists had for each other was so strong and so deeply visceral that it led to everyone else calling them what they called each other: “leftists” and “rightists”. Thus the arbitrary simplicity of it all. We would do better classifying stuff as “feudal”, “mercantilist”, “capitalist”, “socialist”, “fascist”, “communist”, “welfare statist”, “libertarian”, “authoritarian”, “representative”, etc., and understanding the history and meaning of the words then labeling “left” and “right”, but how could we ever do headlines or blogs if we really had to deal with distinctions?
Nobody broadcasts in ultra hi-def, and nobody will, too much bandwidth. But there will be DVDs cut in it. They use it in theaters now instead of film, I read.
LikeLike
Mark:
Socialism and capitalism can exist in non-authoritarian regimes.
That may be true, but only to the extent that non-authoritarian regimes can be defined as such despite their use of authoritarian tactics. Authoritarianism is defined in contrast to individual freedom. So is socialism. Socialism is not compatible with freedom. The implementation of socialist policies requires the use of authoritarian tactics, even if the “regime” that employs them does so in a manner that avoids the authoritarian label.
LikeLike
nova:
I’m torn between the smart TV or the roku/external box and dumb tv.
I had no problem with the box. I just like the convenience of all-in-one, no extra remote, one less thing plugged in. I figured since I was ponying up for the TV, I might as well consolidate at the same time. Plus you get internet on the Smart TV, too. Although navigating it is a bit cumbersome.
LikeLike
Supposed to be super high def. count the hais on a gnat’s ass at a thousand yards type of thing.
LikeLike
I’m thinking the other direction. maybe a huge (60-65 inch) plasma with a couple of HDMI ports and call it a day.
LikeLike
Juicebox is panicking.
Wonkbook: After Obamacare, will Americans ever trust the government again?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/03/wonkbook-after-obamacare-will-americans-ever-trust-the-government-again/
LikeLike
http://dcist.com/2013/12/stormtroopers_star_wars_science_fiction_museum.php#photo-1
LikeLike
I picked up a roku last weekend have been enjoying it. i dropped netflix down to streaming only and picked up hulu+
LikeLike
Mark,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. The thing that all those governing “isms” have in common is central control. How is that not leftism?
LikeLike
The thing that all those governing “isms” have in common is central control. How is that not leftism?
If you define “libertarian” as “right” and “authoritarian” as “left” then you can have it your way, but that just is not how others have done so for a hundred fifty years or more.
On the political side of this, when you look at representative government, do you think pure democracy is to the left or to the right of a representative republic? Like Burke, I think it is to the left and I favor a republic over a democracy for anything bigger than a Boy Scout Troop. But I believe in balancing democratic principles of majority rule with republican principles of protecting the minority. Probably we all do, and just argue over the balance point.
If you think majoritarian democracy is to the left, that sort of puts libertarianism to the left too, doesn’t it?
Scott, I know that you come down strongly against majoritarianism, far more so than I do. If you wrote a treatise on the perfect state I think you would enshrine far more protection for the individual from the state than the founding fathers attempted. That would certainly be a worthy exercise.
LikeLike
Mark:
Scott, I know that you come down strongly against majoritarianism, far more so than I do. If you wrote a treatise on the perfect state I think you would enshrine far more protection for the individual from the state than the founding fathers attempted.
I think it is worth remembering that the Founders’ understanding of the federal government was very much different than the understanding we have of the federal government today. For them, state governments were the primary authorities to which individuals answered, while the federal government was supposed to be the representative of, and authority over, state governments. As such, the protections that the Founders envisioned were designed more to protect the sovereignty of the state governments from encroachment by the federal government than to protect individuals from state power. That is why the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, not state governments. The notion of incorporation, so common to today’s constitutional law, was alien to the Founders.
So with that in mind, while I suppose it may be true that I would want more individual protection from the state than the Founders did, I don’t think it is knowable based on the system they designed, because that system was not about governing individuals. It was about governing states, which themselves were responsible for governing the individuals under their purview. And to be honest I am all in favor of that system as designed by the Founders. As opposed to what it has become.
And, of course, having said all of that, it still remains true that socialist policies require the use of authoritarian methods, whether they are used by a government run by a “majority” or a government run by a single dictator. Socialism as a political idea is not compatible with individual freedom.
LikeLike
“Until after I’m safely re-elected then I’ll continue to go back on every promise I ever made.”
LikeLike
reason on the NP vs. Doc scope of practice wars.
http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/12/03/how-nurse-practitioners-can-make-healthc#comment
LikeLike
“Just like we did! Now, elect me President!”
LikeLike
Scott .. that promise just reached its expiration date. that’s all.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/8376/all-barack-obama-statements-come-expiration-date-all-them
LikeLike
From NoVa’s link.
California Medical Association (CMA), which poured more than $1 million into lobbying efforts in the first half of 2013 to defeat the legislation.
If all it took in liberal CA is $1 million, there is no chance it will be expanded anywhere else or Federalized.
LikeLike
This is kind of fun. check out the headlines at Kaiser Health News. It’s bad news, after bad news for the ACA. what’s fun those is the top story “hey, palliative care isn’t so bad!*”
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/
*you all know i’m on the record as being in support of palliative care.
LikeLike
I disagree Troll. It’s going to be a numbers game. They are going to have to loosen scope of practice.
http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/primary/pcwork1/index.html
LikeLike
NoVa, I’d get rid of liscensing all together. The AMA will want a payoff and they’ll get it.
LikeLike
True *and* funny!
LikeLike
You know obama is just itching to take the bankruptcy process out of the judge’s hands and to prioritize creditors based on naked politics… wonder what excuse he’ll try to use..
LikeLike
Also, to achieve the end you suggest, the power to determine scope of practice will have to be Federslized. Is that a good thing?
LikeLike
“NoVa, I’d get rid of liscensing all together.”
now we’re talking!
LikeLike
Troll .. no, i don’t think so, but that’s how I see this playing out. eventually. states have that power now. but maybe it will be some sort of incentive from the feds to get them to amend them. the nurses are up here all the time asking to “be allowed to practice to the level of my training.”
“wonder what excuse he’ll try to use..”
put me down for “fairness.”
still on the board:
“necessary and proper”
“FU that’s why” and
“I just read about this in the paper.”
LikeLike
If you define “libertarian” as “right” and “authoritarian” as “left” then you can have it your way, but that just is not how others have done so for a hundred fifty years or more.
Mark, I prefer a Rep. Republic to a pure Democracy and I suppose you could argue that Libertarianism is to the left of… I don’t know because I don’t think Anarchy is a governing philosophy, it’s nihilism. My point was, when I linked the Daily Mail piece, that the left goes through incredible gyrations to argue that fascism or even Authoritarian is somehow “rightwing” when by all definitions it is undeniably left wing. I just do not understand how it could be seen as anything but considering that ever increasing control is “left” and decreasing control is “right.”
LikeLike
George, these are just words. From the 1890s to the 1920s the anarchists were considered the radical LEFT.
These names obviously have nothing to do with directions. They are labels different groups affixed to each other. The fascist parties in Europe would have been grossly insulted to have been called “left”. The commies would have bridled at being called “right”. Each used these words just to say they were opposite each other.
Some American and Euro libs flirted with commies while others did not and were never fooled. Some American and Euro conservatives flirted with fascists while others did not and were never fooled. The flirts got their parties called “left leaning” and “right leaning”. Especially in Europe, where liberal parties joined with commies to make postwar govts in Italy and FR, while conservative parties joined with fascist parties to make majorities as well.
Personally, I think the world ought to be divided into free, mainly free, somewhat free, and not free. I think Hitler had more in common with Stalin than he did with any elected leader. So I am with you on the sentiment that we should not be tarring any party that believes in free elections with the same labels we reserve for tyrants. But I don’t see any use in redefining these words which describe nothing to begin with. Using direction names to mean anything other than the parties don’t agree with each other seems to me to be an overextension.
LikeLike
Mark:
Personally, I think the world ought to be divided into free, mainly free, somewhat free, and not free. I think Hitler had more in common with Stalin than he did with any elected leader. So I am with you on the sentiment that we should not be tarring any party that believes in free elections with the same labels we reserve for tyrants.
I think you are erroneously conflating free elections with individual freedom. Voting majorities are perfectly capable of restricting or even eliminating the freedom of individuals within society. So I think it is perfectly fair to characterize even policies implemented by freely elected politicians as anti-free, or authoritarian. Like, for example, socialist policies implemented by freely elected socialists.
LikeLike
Scott: I know you think that. You should invent a system where the legal rights that you hold most dear are not subject to the will of the majority. We have tried to limit mob rule over the course of the life of this country, although not to your personal taste. In many cases [take Kelo, for example] it doesn’t suit me either. I really do understand you. I continue to think we should discuss this whenever it is germane, but I am clear as to what you think about this. And you are clear that I am talking about relative merits of societies and nations, not ideals – certainly not mine and obviously not yours.
Have you seen my new post? Comes from an Economist graphic.
LikeLike
Could our rights be repealed? If they are unalienable, the 2nd Amendment for example, could not Constitutionally be repealed right?
LikeLike
Mark:
You should invent a system where the legal rights that you hold most dear are not subject to the will of the majority.
I have talked about this before. I think the system best suited to protecting the rights of individuals is one in which legislative power is dispersed through several layers of government, with the highest levels (ie those that govern the most people and are therefore most removed from the people over which it governs) having the smallest sphere of responsibilities and the more local levels having the most. Such a system would have several beneficial effects. First, it would maximize the degree of influence that any one individual has over the laws that govern his life. Second, it makes it much easier for an individual in the minority to escape laws that he finds objectionable or intolerable, and to situate himself in a place where he can be a part of the majority. It also provides the opportunity for a wide variety of experimentation on policy, while limiting any negative impact when/if the experiment proves a failure.
Strangely enough, the US once had some measure of just such a system. But for various reasons, including perhaps the inevitable effects of human nature with regard to political power, it has become entirely perverted and is increasingly centralizing, rather than dispersing, power, with the highest levels of government gleefully taking on the responsibility to legislate over ever more areas of individual life. And this is in no small part due to the ideology of the political left, or if you prefer, progressives, socialists, Democrats, etc.
LikeLike