All Things in Moderation

Morning Report – Yes the 10 year is trading with a 1 handle 10/15/14

23 Responses

1. 

   jnc4p, on October 15, 2014 at 9:17 am said:

   This could be a significant development.

   “Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details
   Guy Norris
   Oct 15, 2014
   Lockheed Martin aims to develop compact reactor prototype in five years, production unit in 10”

   http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   jnc4p, on October 15, 2014 at 9:21 am said:

   Looks like there were WMD’s in Iraq.

   “In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.”

   http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Brent Nyitray, on October 15, 2014 at 9:37 am said:

   But the market can’t solve the global warming problem, only a top-down government program can do that!

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Brent Nyitray, on October 15, 2014 at 9:39 am said:

   “In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.””

   But… but…. Halliburton!

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   jnc4p, on October 15, 2014 at 9:51 am said:

   The goal posts were already moved prior to the piece’s publication:

   “The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.”

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   jnc4p, on October 15, 2014 at 9:51 am said:

   Worth a read:

   “The End of Ownership and the Obsolescence of Ayn Rand
   By Jonathan Coppage • October 13, 2014, 3:26 AM

   A 21st-century economy of service will disrupt our arguments over politics and economics alike.”

   http://www.theamericanconservative.com/coppage/the-end-of-ownership-and-the-obsolescence-of-ayn-rand/

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 15, 2014 at 9:52 am said:

   Check over at AOSHQ for a nice analysis of NYT’s incorrect central premise, namely, that Bush claimed there was an Active WMD program.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   jnc4p, on October 15, 2014 at 11:39 am said:

   I remember the statements at the time. Unfortunately, Bush also made the statements about the potential nuclear program which he’s still stuck with.

   I think the current revelations discredit most of Bush’s liberal critics, but that’s not the same thing as vindicating the administration.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   jnc4p, on October 15, 2014 at 11:59 am said:

   And this is the beginning of the end for the cable companies current business model:

   “HBO is launching a stand-alone streaming service in 2015”

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2014/10/15/hbo-is-launching-a-stand-alone-streaming-service-in-2015/?hpid=z3

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Let the mutherfuker burn!, on October 15, 2014 at 12:28 pm said:

    Coblogger of Ace’s weighs in, favors J’s take.

    http://drewmusings.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/actually-the-threat-of-an-active-weapons-program-did-make-up-a-substantial-part-of-the-rational-for-iraq-war/

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on October 15, 2014 at 2:13 pm said:

      Charles Cooke on the illiberalism of Ezra Klein.

      Indeed, this is as brazen an example of illiberalism as I have seen for a good while. And yet I’m not at all sure why we are supposed to be so taken aback by it. Even if it were the case that the average American “liberal” was a champion of individual rights and due process, it would be wholly irrelevant to this case. Why? Well, because Ezra Klein isn’t a “liberal” in any meaningful sense of that word, and because, far from agonizingly sacrificing his “liberalism” in the name of a competing good, Klein has merely done here what all rudderless, easily distracted progressives do: He has proposed a blunt increase in the power of America’s Star Chambers as the natural answer to the problem du jour.

      LikeLike

      Reply
11. 

    jnc4p, on October 15, 2014 at 4:42 pm said:

    I think it’s also a useful reminder on the difference between progressives and classical liberals.

    Woodrow Wilson was illiberal as well.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      markinaustin, on October 16, 2014 at 12:36 pm said:

      JNC, are you comparing Burke to TR?

      Or is this about contemporary jargon: Sen. Warren = “progressive” and nobody alive in political office equals classical liberal, but David Brooks tries for it in the press?

      As an admirer of Burke, myself, I feel cheated by these words, often.

      Addendum: perhaps this incarnation of Jerry Brown strives for classical liberal. I thought Gary Johnson was on that road in NM.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • 

        markinaustin, on October 16, 2014 at 12:41 pm said:

        To everyone – R and I had brunch with JNC and three of his friends on Sunday in Austin and that was a lot of fun – at least, R and I thought so!

        LikeLike

        Reply
      • 

        ScottC, on October 16, 2014 at 6:31 pm said:

        Mark:

        perhaps this incarnation of Jerry Brown strives for classical liberal.

        I don’t think anyone who voted for or signed into law California’s screwy affirmative consent law could possibly be considered a classical liberal.

        LikeLike

        Reply
      • 

        ScottC, on October 16, 2014 at 6:54 pm said:

        Mark:

        BTW, classical liberalism is most closely related to libertarianism. From wikipedia:

        In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[6]

        The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[7] The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of individual freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.

        Think Rand Paul, not Jerry Brown or David Brooks.

        LikeLike

        Reply
        • 

          markinaustin, on October 16, 2014 at 8:15 pm said:

          BTW, classical liberalism is most closely related to libertarianism.

          Yes, and no. If you wrote that modern libertarianism is a truer descendant of classical liberalism than is progressivism I would completely agree. But Burke and the FFs and Adam Smith were stronger believers in a social compact than are social Darwinians or modern libertarians as represented by Rand Paul.

          The man I voted for POTUS, Gary Johnson, was very close to a classical liberal in NM, IMHO. I chose this iteration of Jerry Brown b/c he has worked hard to cut back the impact of the state as governor, as a general proposition. I chose Brooks because he is an unadulterated admirer of Burke.

          JNC, what do you think about this? NoVA?

          LikeLike
        • 

          ScottC, on October 17, 2014 at 5:19 am said:

          Mark:

          Perhaps you think it is the case that the term is somewhat of a misnomer when used to identify libertarianesque ideas, but I’m pretty sure that is still what the term is generally used to suggest. Just as I think using the term “liberal” to refer to people who support the massive federal bureaucracy is most definitely a misnomer in a historical context, but it is still the case that that is what the term has come to mean in the modern day.

          BTW, I wonder if either Burke or Smith would look upon the modern federal bureaucracy as the proper enforcer of any “social compact”, or if, like most libertarians, they would view the increasing accumulation of power in a single, centralized government as objectionable. Personally I am not invested in the undefinable notion of a social compact, but even if I was I think it would be easier to argue that the modern federal government does more to subvert it than it does to protect it.

          LikeLike
        • 

          markinaustin, on October 17, 2014 at 2:50 pm said:

          BTW, I wonder if either Burke or Smith would look upon the modern federal bureaucracy as the proper enforcer of any “social compact”, Both believed central government had an essential role. They could and did both define it. To the extent Burke believed that government by consent of the governed was only necessary to intervene in or settle disputes among citizens he believed in enforcement. To the extent that Smith argued against non-competitive systems and saw government as the power to oppose monopoly he believed in enforcement.

          or if, like most libertarians, they would view the increasing accumulation of power in a single, centralized government as objectionable. Both would be stunned by the size and multiple roles of the federal government, I am sure. They would think it objectionable.

          LikeLike
        • 

          ScottC, on October 18, 2014 at 8:04 am said:

          Mark:

          Both believed central government had an essential role.

          Yes, but I was specifically talking about the modern federal bureaucracy, not central government in the abstract. Libertarians don’t generally reject the essential role played by a central government. They simply believe that role to be very limited. And in terms of that limitation, Burke and Smith are, I suspect, much closer to modern libertarian thought (even if there are disagreements) than the likes of Jerry Brown.

          LikeLike
12. 

    markinaustin, on October 16, 2014 at 12:31 pm said:

    Brent, is there a MBS related directly to VA IRRRLs?

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    jnc4p, on October 16, 2014 at 3:04 pm said:

    We did as well Mark. Thanks again for setting it up.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Michigoose, on October 16, 2014 at 7:23 pm said:

    R and I had brunch with JNC and three of his friends

    I’ve still gotta make it down to Richmond. Or entice jnc northward.

    LikeLike

    Reply