Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | |
| S&P Futures | 2159.0 | -12.0 |
| Eurostoxx Index | 347.1 | -2.0 |
| Oil (WTI) | 46.7 | -0.9 |
| US dollar index | 86.4 | 0.3 |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.65% | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 103.3 | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 104.2 | |
| 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 3.52 |
Stocks are lower as emerging markets sell off. Bonds and MBS are down.
Risk-off feel today, but bonds aren’t rallying. What is going on? Global bond yields are increasing, especially in Japan where the BOJ is taking a breather purchasing bonds. The German Bund is down as well. Some strategists are beginning to sense that the Japanese bond market could be headed lower. So, despite weak US economic data, a global bond sell-off will affect US Treasuries as well.
Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren is sounding hawkish, which is not his natural home. His argument is that a campaign of slow, steady rate hikes will prolong the expansion more than waiting and then having to move more aggressively. Of course it all comes down to wage growth, which decelerated in the last jobs report.
Barry Ritholz took a look at the the lack of wage growth and comes up with an interesting chart: the ratio of the unemployed to the number of job openings. This ratio is back down to pre-crisis levels. While we have yet to see much evidence of increased turnover in the quits rate, it does appear at least anecdotally that we are seeing more turnover. Certainly the stage is set for further wage inflation.
Mortgage credit tightened slightly in August, according to the MBA. Apparently, one investor is exiting the correspondent business and that accounted for the tightening. Credit is easing in the jumbo space however.
Filed under: Economy, Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
The hierarchy of victimhood in action:
“The new nondiscrimination policy, though, isn’t quite so expansive. Owners of shared accommodations may still decline to rent to a guest based on gender. Women who share living spaces with guests may refuse to rent to men. But they may not refuse to rent to trans women.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/09/08/airbnb_goes_after_racist_hosts_with_a_new_anti_discrimination_agreement.html
LikeLike
AirBNB busy going out of business. Yay, social justice and bankruptcy!
LikeLike
Am I reading this right?
That is, men can discriminate against booking other men, but can’t refuse to rent to female travelers? But women can discriminate against men? What?
The optics of this can’t be great for AirBNB. But I suppose there are enough identity-politics types worldwide to keep them in business.
LikeLike
If you read the link, the competing forum Couchsurfing lets men only rent to women if they choose.
AirBnB is apparently allowing them to retain a preference for only renting to men (so as to allow women to only rent to women) but not what Couchsurfing.
And of course they are forcing everyone to count transgender women as actual women.
LikeLike
“summer hire” Eric Holder?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, that’s weird.
LikeLike
Serious question, why should this be illegal?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/08/mother-and-daughter-arrested-over-incestuous-marriage/
LikeLike
Well, cuz it’s gross, first of all. But even if incestuous marriages weren’t illegal, it sounds like the mother has serious mental problems, and may have coerced or otherwise manipulate the daughter in their, uh, alternative lifestyle choice marriage.
LikeLike
I’ve been told that the “ick factor” is bigotry by another name, and isn’t coercion always wrong? So, if no coercion, why is it illegal?
LikeLike
McWing:
and isn’t coercion always wrong?
Not to the people who characterize the “ick” factor as bigotry, at least as a general matter. Quite often those people are actually big fans of coercion. See, for example, the Christian baker issue.
LikeLike
Kevin:
Well, cuz it’s gross, first of all.
Why gross? I thought the article said that it was a non-sexual relationship.
edit: I just re-read it. It did not say that. It only pointed out that it was illegal regardless of whether there was a sexual relationship.
LikeLike
The implications of marriage is that there is some sexual component. Even if that is not the rational conclusion, based on the factual experience of married people.
I think the authority/subordinate relationship would still make it seem generally objectionable to most people.
LikeLike
McWing:
Serious question, why should this be illegal?
Marriage “equality”, baby!
As so many of us hypothesized and predicted, this is precisely the logical next step to come out of the whole SSM movement and its transformation of marriage from an institution centered around the production and raising of children into a mere financial contract grounded in momentary sentiment. Naturally our hypotheticals and predictions were at the time dismissed out of hand as “straw men” with accusations of false equivalencies.
LikeLike
Any time you notice that the two sides look relatively similar—such as Trump’s likely fraud and graft and HRC’s likely fraud and graft—someone has to pipe up and call it a “false equivalency”. I’ve decided that’s what liberals like to call “objective observations”. 😉
Of course the whole SSM movement was about the transformation (and marginalization) of traditional marriage. I would still argue polyamory and other forms of marriage will become normalized before parent/child incest (as can be seen by the fact the mother was charged with a crime). Brother and sister? Eh, that’s coming. But there aren’t going to be many takers, so . . .
LikeLike
Because it’s generally considered gross an inappropriate by most on the left and the right. The ick factor is only bigotry when most liberals don’t think you should consider than particular lifestyle choice to be icky.
There’s also something else involved in this case that probably makes it more objectionable than a brother marrying a sister or two cousins getting married: the responsibility of the parent toward the well-being of the child, and the potential for abuse of power in the parent-child relationship. My guess is in such parent-child relationships, abuse or coercion is aways going to be assumed. And will rarely be wrong.
I knew a woman in college whose estranged father talked her into sleeping with him “to grow closer”. Obviously, she had her own problems, and it was technically a voluntary relationship . . . but it also wasn’t. It was manipulation and coercion. And the first red flag is that it was a parent/child relationship.
I’m guessing if the relationship under discussion was that of two siblings, long separate and now “in love” the objection wouldn’t be nearly so vociferous.
Robert Heinlein wrote very upbeat sci-fi involving parent-child romantic relationships . . . and my sense is, polyamory and nudism aside, he wasn’t a pervert. But he was never a parent. Thus allowing him to entertain such future fantasies that are divorced from reality.
LikeLike
Because the most important thing about 9/11 is the impact on “Islamophobia”.
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/9/12856912/islamophobia-september-11-oversimplified
LikeLike
I find it humorous that the religion-phobic left decided to become BFFs with Islam..
LikeLike
If the Christian’s don’t like them, then they must be okay. Or, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And so on. The funny thing is, they all seem to know a secular or moderate Muslim who agrees with them politically, or close enough, so it proves than radical Islam is mostly a fever-dream of frothing conservatives. Yet the numerous Christian folks they interact with in their lives every day don’t count—only those ostensible Christians who attack them or are otherwise aggressive about proselytizing or condemning others for their sins.
If there was no Christians, it would be Islam’s turned to be ridiculed and marginalized by all right-thinking liberals. However, if we get to the point where there are no Christians, there will be no liberals, either. Embrace the inevitable caliphate as it has been prophesied!
LikeLike
They’re also afraid to criticize it. That’s a fear I understand.
LikeLike
“groups that claimed allegiance to their version of Islam, ”
I hate that nonsense.
LikeLike
racist
LikeLike
Q: when were you first called a racist/bigot/nazi
i was 18 and manning the college republicans table
LikeLike
nova:
Q: when were you first called a racist/bigot/nazi
Sophomore year at BC. I fell into a position as Copy Editor at The Heights, the school newspaper, which was filled with left wing loons. I became the token conservative and during editorial meetings, as the sole voice of reason, was called at various times both a racist and a fascist. Can’t remember which came first, though.
LikeLike
For lefties, it seems that “Fascist” is the gateway pejorative.
LikeLike
Being in NROTC at the People’s Republic of Madison…
LikeLike
I was walking across campus at U of A wearing my Marine Corps Uniform and was called a “Fascist”. I told the dude I couldn’t be, I was enlisted.
Then a ROTC douche demanded I salute him because he was a “Captain.” I told him no thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1] I was first called a Fascist in 1966 or ’67 by a UT Asst English Prof [I was in Law School, so it wasn’t in any way intimidating].
2] Previously I had been with my dad in 1949 on the Columbia U. campus when he admitted to being a fascist warmonger.
Story behind #1: buddy and I are drinking beer with two women in an Austin bar when my date’s older sister shows up with her date, a pencil necked young English prof. He is soon railing against the War.
Finally, my buddy says “yeah, thanks to my ROTC time as an undergrad I’ll be there by September ’67.” And then I added that I was signing up for Navy OCS, so I hoped the war would be over before I finished at Newport.
So he says he doesn’t mean the war is unfortunate or an inconvenience, he means it is evil and we are fascists for agreeing to fight in it, even if reluctantly. We listen politely and suggest politely that we were not making the same political judgment as he, which was an acute insight into the obvious.
He then said “you are as bad as the Nazis who just followed orders and killed the Jews”. I said that I was a practicing Jew. He then said “You have an identity crisis.” I pulled out my wallet and looked at my TDL for about 10 seconds, showed it to my buddy and asked him “This is me, right?” The professor was incensed and left, but his date, who was my dates’ older sister, refused to leave with him.
The story behind #2: Dad had a friend in the geology department at Columbia we went to visit. In 1949 there was a Commie front group called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Student members were sitting at a table outside trying to get signatures on a petition friendly to Joe Stalin.
When asked to sign, my dad said “No thanks. I am a well known Fascist Warmonger.” I asked him about it many times before I understood it, when I was about ten.
#3. The 9-11 memorial quotation is up.
LikeLike
Douglas C Neidermeyer, Sergeant at Arms
LikeLike
No kidding, the dude called my CO, who told him to fuck off. One of the few decent things I’ve seen an officer do. 😃
LikeLike
“I was walking across campus at U of A wearing my Marine Corps Uniform and was called a “Fascist”. I told the dude I couldn’t be, I was enlisted.”
Fascist: a person I don’t like because of his clothes and what I assume, like a giant asshole, that his uniform tells me about him as a human being.
LikeLike
“Q: when were you first called a racist/bigot/nazi”
Was called sexist and misogynist in college. But so was the college, and the life drawing teacher who couldn’t have been more of a low-key, peace-loving, hippie-style liberal. Because he showed pictures of nudes from the 1800s and early 1900s without contextualizing them into a narrative of female oppression and exploitation.
Racist/bigot/nazi directed at me didn’t show up until I was on the Internet. God bless technology.
Funny thing is, I can recall saying things I thought were innocent at the time, in high school, to African-Americans, that upon reflection could be considered racist. And would be today, I’m sure. But nobody called me racist then. Woe, my ignorance: I was a racist and didn’t know it, because there were no liberals available (or at least willing) to tell me.
LikeLike
What’s interesting is that ALL Christians are the same as Westboro Baptist Church, but Jihadist’s are false muzzies in this highly nuanced, incredibly complex Religion of Peace.
LikeLike
I also get the Christopher Hitchen’s position: that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity, and they are both oppressive and evil and the cause of all wars.
LikeLike
Islamophobia in America is linked to Muslims murdering 3000 Americans in an attempt to Murder 10,000 Americans and destroy the American economy so hundred of millions of us would starve? That’s crazy!
I cite a few numbers off the top of my head to note that, in no place in that article, is 9/11 referred to us an event that ended in the murder of 3000 people, in an attempt to cause much more statistical carnage.
They had those numbers right at hand. Huh.
And this:
By who? They are clearly implying that these are Trump supporters murdering American Muslim women. Presumably, no honor killings or other Muslims killing these women.
Poking around, I found another stat that says American women in general are 11 times more likely to be murdered. Odd, that number. Also “female counterparts”? Did they mean “male” counterparts or non-Muslim counterparts?
By the way, you are more likely to be killed (7 times more likely) by a conservative terrorist than a Muslim terrorist! Because of all those conservative terrorists killing Muslims because they believe in smaller government and lower taxes, which automatically turns into terrorism. While Islam is the religion of peace.
http://addictinginfo.org/2015/11/30/youre-7-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-conservative-terrorist-than-a-muslim-extremist/
Not counting 9/11, of course. But even so, does that sound right? 50 in 13 years? Feels like it’s more. But perhaps we aren’t counting a number of them because they were disgruntled employees or “not really Muslim” or whatever?
I like this:
Well, if it’s only 3 (so far), then no harm, no foul. Of course, there weren’t that many 9/11 hijackers, either.
LikeLike
BTW, I like the use of the term “refugees”, too. Could mean anybody. If you tightened that profile, I bet those 3 came out a group way smaller than 784,000.
LikeLike
I suspect the vast majority of these “incidents” are hoaxes… I don’t buy any of this shit…
LikeLike
They aren’t conservatives. They are usually white males who are mentally ill. Sometimes groups of them.
LikeLike
https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2377
told you the Senate wasn’t going to flip. but what do I know.
LikeLike
Interesting. I was kind of suspecting the senate would flip (and HRC would win) in 2016 and then in 2018 the senate would flip right back. Despite the destructive force that is Donald Trump, I expect the GOP will come right back with their strong midterm game.
LikeLike
Agree with Graham here:
““The Israeli prime minister told me the administration is refusing to sign the MOU until I agree to change my appropriation markup back to $3.1 billion,” Graham said. “I said, ‘Tell the administration to go F themselves.’ ””
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-israel-deal-held-up-over-dispute-with-lindsey-graham/2016/09/11/74644cc0-76bb-11e6-b786-19d0cb1ed06c_story.html
LikeLike
Re: HRC’s health issues. I think Adams is overreaching and Trump certainly hasn’t locked up the election based on her pneumonia, but all the careful coordination between the Democrats and the MSM to downplay the issue just went out the window.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150264994381/the-race-for-president-is-probably-over
She collapses in one of the debates, then it really is over.
LikeLike
jnc:
Maybe I am mis-remembering, but didn’t Adams declare the election over in HRC’s favor just a few weeks ago?
edit: I see now that Adams qualified his old prediction about HRC with “If nothing changes”. Which is a bit cheap, given that in a campaign something is almost always changing.
LikeLike
CNBC just reported as a straight up fact that “Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday.” Shouldn’t that have been “Clinton spokespersons claim that Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday”?
LikeLike
The acceptance of pneumonia as The Truthful Answer is fascinating.
LikeLike
If this is pneumonia, the worst thing to do would be active on the campaign trail.
LikeLike
nova:
If this is pneumonia, the worst thing to do would be active on the campaign trail.
I would imagine getting up close and personal with a little girl for a staged post-fainting photo-op would be a pretty stupid thing to do too, if one actually had pneumonia.
The Clinton’s must simply bust a gut in private over the preposterous lies they tell without getting called out by the media.
LikeLike
I could be w-w-rong, but Tim Kaine would be a stronger nominee than HRC, in that I would vote for him, rather than for Gary.
—
If government at various levels recognizes domestic partnerships [2 persons living together sharing income and expenses on a long term basis] as “marriages” it doesn’t mean any church, synagogue, or mosque need do so. And we will all know the difference.
—
Anybody see the Key and Peele episode where the ceremony of the upcoming gay wedding of a cousin is explained to the extended family by a gay friend of one of the cousins?
LikeLike
mark:
If government at various levels recognizes domestic partnerships [2 persons living together sharing income and expenses on a long term basis] as “marriages” it doesn’t mean any church, synagogue, or mosque need do so.
It shouldn’t mean that, but recent history suggests that it would be highly naive to think the left won’t use whatever tools are at its disposal (tax laws, Title IX regulations, licensing regulations) to make it mean precisely that.
If various levels of government recognize men who think they are women as “women”, it doesn’t mean that any private school or business need do so. But that is what the left is trying to make it mean.
If various levels of government recognize homosexual relationships as “marriage”, it doesn’t mean that religiously inclined universities or bakeries need do so. But that is what the left is trying to make it mean.
If various levels of government recognize abortificents as morally acceptable drugs to be dispensed, it doesn’t mean that Christian pharmacists need do so. But that is what the left is trying to make it mean.
At some point it is incumbent upon objective observers to expect the political left to act in the same what it has been acting for nearly a century.
LikeLike
mark:
I could be w-w-rong, but Tim Kaine would be a stronger nominee than HRC, in that I would vote for him, rather than Gary.
If I recall correctly, you voted for Johnson in 2012. Which implies that you find Kaine a more suitable candidate than Romney. What did you find objectionable about Romney that is not objectionable about Kaine?
LikeLike
I don’t accept your question as reasonable. The current choice is between HRC, whom I do not regard as having personal integrity, and DJT who cannot be properly described without mentioning that he is a con artist.
Johnson has personal integrity, from everything I have ever read or seen about him. I would vote for him even if he did not know where Austin was, in this field.
Tim Kaine is admired for his integrity even across the aisle in the Senate. So Johnson loses that edge and I can choose between major party nominees.
LikeLike
mark:
I don’t accept your question as reasonable. The current choice is between HRC, whom I do not regard as having personal integrity, and DJT who cannot be properly described without mentioning that he is a con artist.
I’m not sure why you think HRC or Trump would be relevant to my question.
The common denominator between the two elections is Johnson. If you preferred Johnson to Romney (which your 2012 preference suggests), and you prefer Kaine to Johnson (which your current comment suggests), it seems logical and reasonable to conclude that you prefer Kaine to Romney. The only thing that might make that conclusion not reasonable would be if there was some information about Johnson, which you did not have in 2012 but you do have now in 2016, that altered your assessment of Johnson.
Johnson has personal integrity…Tim Kaine is admired for his integrity even across the aisle in the Senate.
So can I assume that you think Romney’s integrity is something less than that of Johnson?
LikeLike
This formulation still makes no sense to me, Scott. Thus I have no way to address it. Sorry.
LikeLike
mark:
This formulation still makes no sense to me, Scott.
OK. I was just trying to understand what guides your preferences, that’s all. You preferred Johnson to Romney in 2012, and now you prefer Kaine to Johnson. So it seems logical to me to conclude that you prefer Kaine to Romney. And I was just trying to understand why.
LikeLike
I see, Scott. The simple answer to that is that personal integrity was not an issue for me in the 2012 campaign because I thought all three were satisfactory in that regard.
This is the first time in awhile that character issues – integrity – are up front number one for me, in a POTUS election.
If Kaine were running in a hypothetical race with Romney character issues would not be important to me because I would assume the basic integrity of both, and I could listen to them on FP and the like.
LikeLike
Mark:
If Kaine were running in a hypothetical race with Romney character issues would not be important to me because I would assume the basic integrity of both, and I could listen to them on FP and the like.
I assume in your hypothetical Kaine v Johnson race, basic integrity would also be a non-issue. So I think it would be interesting to know what is it about Kaine that recommends him to you over Johnson, especially relative to Obama and Romney, who you did not prefer to Johnson.
LikeLike