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 | 1838.2 | 3.5 | 0.19% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 3109.0 | 8.1 | 0.26% |
| Oil (WTI) | 98.32 | -1.0 | -0.98% |
| LIBOR | 0.246 | -0.001 | -0.20% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 80.06 | 0.056 | 0.07% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.99% | 0.02% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 104 | -0.1 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 103.1 | 0.0 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 200.7 | -0.2 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 4.54 |
Markets are slightly higher on the last day of the year. Bonds and MBS are down.
Short day, with stocks and bonds closing at 1:00 pm. Expect low liquidity
The Case-Shiller index rose 13.6% year over year in October. This was slightly higher than the Street estimate of +13.5%. This is the biggest gain since Feb 2006. Same old story – a restricted inventory of foreclosed properties keeps supply tight and offsets the cooling demand from increasing mortgage rates. Of course the first time homebuyer is the one who suffers the most in this situation – competing for a limited supply of low-end homes with professional cash buyers who don’t care what mortgage rates are.
Short sales may be more difficult in the new year – the tax break on principal forgiveness ends. It appears that there is some sort of desire to extend this through 2014 – it may get bolted on to an extended unemployment bill. I wonder if Mel Watt was planning some sort of new HAMP initiative. Given the acceleration we have been seeing in Case-Shiller, by the time any sort of new government program finally gets ready for launch, home price appreciation may make the whole thing moot anyway.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill in suburban Virginia is drawing fire for its no firearms policy.
What a bunch of hypocrites. I’ve seen Virginians open carry their weapons into burger joints. What could go wrong bringing pistols into a redneck country bar?
LikeLike
yello:
What a bunch of hypocrites.
I don’t understand why anyone wants to turn it into a big public issue either way. If TK’s wants to prohibit people from bringing in guns, who cares? Don’t like it, don’t go there. Simple as that. If another place wants to allow guns, again, who cares? Don’t like it, don’t go there. Same is true for smoking/no smoking, or dress codes, or any number of other choices the owner of a business might make regarding how the business is run.
I just don’t get why some people think that the way they would run a business if it was theirs is the way it must be run by the actual owners, and if it isn’t then those owners should somehow be publicly vilified or stigmatized in one way or another.
LikeLike
Yellow, don’t you think it happens everyday? I certainly do. Does it scare you? How do we correct it if it’s a problem?
LikeLike
I stay out of redneck bars. I would stay out of NoVa burger joints if I knew which ones allowed people with guns.
LikeLike
You should assume someone’s carrying if there are more than 10 people gathered together.
When was the last shooting at a redneck bar? In all sincerity I don’t know if it’s a problem.
LikeLike
Five days ago?
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201312260008
Admittedly in West-by-God Virginia and perhaps technically outside the bar.
LikeLike
Brent, my OCD is being overcome and I’m going to have to edit your title. . . forgive me!
LikeLike
Another very recent redneck bar shooting:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/showbiz/wayne-mills-death/
The victim was an actual country music singer.
LikeLike
What would be a good solution? I had no idea of the scale.
LikeLike
Scott?
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/12/30/Man-Arrested-Running-Through-Bingo-Hall-With-Pants-Down-Yelling-Bingo
LikeLike
McWing:
Scott?
Wasn’t me, I swear. I’ve never won at bingo, ever.
LikeLike
What did I originally write?
LikeLike
I just don’t get why some people think that the way they would run a business if it was theirs is the way it must be run by the actual owners, and if it isn’t then those owners should somehow be publicly vilified or stigmatized in one way or another.
Amen. I don’t smoke, but I see no reason why that cannot be up to the bar owner. Especially with the new smokeless cigarettes. Same with salt shakers. Some things just are not the business of the government.
LikeLike
Brent:
Some things just are not the business of the government.
For me it goes beyond even that. I think some things, indeed almost all things, are not proper subjects for public disapproval campaigns even if the law isn’t involved. I don’t think pro-gun advocates ought to be mounting a public pressure campaign against TK’s for prohibiting guns on its property just as I don’t think GLAAD ought to be mounting a public pressure campaign against A&E or Phil Robertson over Robertson’s disapproval of gay sex.
Increasingly it seems that any cultural disagreement at all must be met with some kind of public vilification campaign. Despite all the happy-talk talk about “tolerance”, in many ways we live in a political atmosphere that is more intolerant of disagreement than ever.
LikeLike
Devil’s advocate re smoking. You’re subjecting employees to second smoke.
LikeLike
McWing:
You’re subjecting employees to second smoke.
Presumably they knew when they took the job that smoking was allowed. If they are concerned or bothered by second hand smoke, don’t apply for the job.
LikeLike
What did I originally write?
12/13/13
LikeLike
I don’t smoke, but I see no reason why that cannot be up to the bar owner.
You may be just barely too young, but I well remember the days when it was essentially impossible to find a place to go eat dinner or have a drink without having to inhale smoke the whole time you were there, then strip off your clothes outside your house and throw them in the laundry (or send them to the dry cleaner’s) immediately or else your entire closet smelled like cigarette smoke.
I also remember the angst in three different states where I was living when smoking bans went into effect: doom and gloom and every bar was going to go under when their patrons couldn’t smoke. Didn’t happen.
Smoking is a good example of a minority being able to materially affect the majority in a negative way–hence regulation.
LikeLike
Mich:
Smoking is a good example of a minority being able to materially affect the majority in a negative way–hence regulation.
Nope. The issue is a property rights issue, not a smokers vs non-smokers issue.
LikeLike
A purely arbitrary decision.
What’s the constitutional difference between upholding a ban on a 30 round or 15 round magazine and striking down a ban on an 8 or 10 round magazine?
LikeLike
Scott, I agree.
LikeLike
Interesting story about Hedgefund founder who killed himself.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/exclusive-emails-reveal-deceased-hedge-fund-manager-refused?s=mobile
LikeLike
Michi, I understand, but you don’t have to go there… If you don’t like the smoke, don’t go.
LikeLike
How should we understand this?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/31/white-house-adviser-claims-administration-never-had-obamacare-enrollment-goal/
LikeLike
Wishing everyone a Happy New Year! I hope to be around a little more soon and will try to spend some time getting caught up on all the news, if that’s even possible….LOL
LikeLike
If you don’t like the smoke, don’t go.
The problem (like with credit card companies) is that when you cater to the lowest common denominator–in this case, smokers because they’re the minority–everyone eventually goes there. Which leaves no alternative for the majority but to either abstain from ever going out for a nice smokeless dinner or drink or put up with a noxious habit.
Like I said, I think you may be a little too young to remember those days. It truly was only those two choices.
LikeLike
Mich:
Like I said, I think you may be a little too young to remember those days.
I’m not, and I still agree with Brent.
These laws are just another example of the authoritarian nature of the progresse/liberal mindset that values personal preferences over other people’s rights.
LikeLike
These laws are just another example of the authoritarian nature of the progresse/liberal mindset that values personal preferences over other people’s rights.
I’ll take my right to breathe clean air over someone’s right to smoke in a public restaurant right next to me any day.
LikeLike
Mich:
I’ll take my right to breathe clean air over someone’s right to smoke in a public restaurant right next to me any day.
As I said, the issue is one of property rights. It has nothing to do with smokers rights or non-smokers rights. The decision of whether to allow smoking or not properly belongs with the owner of the bar/restaurant, just as the decision of whether or not to have a dress code, or whether or not to serve hamburgers, or whether or not to stock Tanqueray properly belongs with the owner.
Again, there is an authoritarian impulse, particularly notable amongst liberals, that manifests itself as a complete lack of regard for the rights of other people when recognizing those rights prevents them from realizing their own preferences and desires. These no-smoking laws are the perfect example. “I don’t like smoking, so I don’t give a shit about the rights of a bar owner and how he wants to run his bar. If I can force him through legal coercion to run it the way I like, then I will.” It really is no different than passing a law preventing a restaurant from serving hamburgers and fries because you don’t like them and think they are unhealthy. Which, BTW, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see on the progressive agenda eventually.
LikeLike
Smokers (and bar owners, should they choose to do so) can form private clubs and allow their members to do anything they damn well please. Public accommodations have to cater to the public, and since the vast majority don’t smoke well, then, sucks to be a smoker.
LikeLike
Mich:
Smokers (and bar owners, should they choose to do so) can form private clubs and allow their members to do anything they damn well please.
So can liberals who don’t like smoking. But instead of doing that, they choose to pass laws forcing others who disagree with them to conform to their preferences and desires. That is precisely the authoritarian impulse that I am talking about. As I alluded to earlier, the self-proclaimed “tolerant” crowd really is outrageously intolerant of disagreement.
Public accommodations have to cater to the public and since the vast majority don’t smoke well, then, sucks to be a smoker.
That’s just silly. The vast majority of people don’t eat $50 steaks and $80 lobsters, so does that mean no restaurant should be legally allowed to cater to people who are willing to? The vast majority of people do not drink vodka, so does that mean vodka bars should be outlawed? The vast majority of people don’t eat sushi. So should Japanese restaurants be prohibited by law?
Again, there really is no justification at all for these smoking laws. They derive strictly from a mindset that says, in essence, “I don’t like it and neither should you, so fuck you, you won’t be allowed to do it.” Nothing more than intolerance for those who disagree.
BTW, you seem to be unaware, but the legal justification for these laws, such as it is, has always revolved around employee rights, not the rights of patrons.
LikeLike
“Which leaves no alternative for the majority but to either abstain from ever going out for a nice smokeless dinner or drink or put up with a noxious habit.”
This isn’t actually what was happening in practice. Restaurants (as separate from bars) had smoking and non-smoking sections, but the do gooders aren’t happy until the things that they oppose are eliminated. No middle ground is acceptable.
LikeLike
“The problem (like with credit card companies) is that when you cater to the lowest common denominator–in this case, smokers because they’re the minority–everyone eventually goes there. Which leaves no alternative for the majority ”
Meaning you can’t win the argument voluntarily. You have to bring the government in and force everyone to comply at gun point.
If there really was a majority that opposed smoking in bars and restaurants to that extent, then you would see the bars and restaurants voluntarily go smoke free.
Whether or not people vote with their feet is a great BS test.
LikeLike
What’s not forbidden is mandatory.
LikeLike
“force everyone to comply at gun point”
maybe we should get the guns out of bars/restaurants.
LikeLike
Hi ALL, I can’t use my right arm/hand for very long (I am ONLY right handed), but wanted to say (while under the influence of pain meds and muscle relaxers before they begin to wear off), that while I have identified myself as a Liberal Democrat, I have to say not all Liberals believe the same. Like the smoking issue… I prefer separate sections in public places.. yea, I smoke… but I’ve always been a polite smoker.. and I hate having laws telling me “I’m a bad person”. I agree that instead of forcing us OUT of public places, creating separate seating areas is the SHOULD option. It’s really almost funny to me that I can’t smoke in my favorite restaurant or bar,or even in a public park, etc., but anyone can walk in carrying a gun.
Oh, and I don’t believe for one minute that Liberals, or any single party, are the only people who have pushed hard to shut smokers down, amongst other things. In Oklahoma, banning smoking was pushed mostly by the Bible Thumpers, and in Oklahoma, that’s mostly Republicans. So in summary, stop lumping everything you don’t like as being a progressive, liberal agenda. Many ‘so called’ liberals aren’t Democrats. And don’t tell me the Republicans don’t take every chance to “control” everyone else via their Bible Thunping.
Now back to being a lump in my chair. HAPPY NEW YEAR (sorry I am late on that)
LikeLike