Entry: Opening Bell: 2.26.08

posted by Matt_m

Feb 26, 2008 9:22PM

36th Chamber sai "McDonald's does not care if you go buy your cheeseburger from burger king. As an individual you have zero ability to negotiate with them. "

Recommended reading: Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations (related concept: invisible hand driving the market)

36th Chamber also said "GM and US Steel and Microsoft's competitors aren't negotiating with them, they are competing. There isn't an issue with bargaining power because there's no negotiation. "

Colloquial term: Voting with your wallet. Also, refer to Adam Smith above.

I sense some ECON 101 issues over here. I guess you think 'macro'economics is all junk. All we should care about is single point interaction.

36th Chamber continued " The purpose of the regulation is not to filter out who can get a mortgage "

Are you actually serious here? The purpose of regulation is not to make sure that a deadbeat does not take out a loan he/she cannot afford? And that enforcing these regulations will prevent most of these deadbeats from taking out a mortgage?

To cut this short, I think a fundamental belief cannot be changed here. I DO NOT think people are stupid - they are highly Adam Smith-esque, they know what is best for them individually.

People know that unsaturated fats are bad for them. Yet they eat it for convenience / taste / economy.

All the people crying about ARMs now would have been laughing their way to the bank and buying bigger flat screen TVs and shinier rims for their cars had the market not turned on them (many actually also did). The only reason they are acting stupid not is because they lost money.

Similarly, the incentives are HIGHLY aligned at election time. Union people want less work, more benefits, higher paying secure jobs. Gay people want gay marriage. Tax payers want lower taxes. Non tax payers want even more from the tax-payers.

People are capable enough of making their own decisions (unless proven clinically retarded). Of course, elitist erudite liberals suffer from a tremendous case of delusional intellectual superiority which makes them underestimate everyone else's capabilities and over-estimate their own. Which is probably why they go around defining everyone as minority, stupid, incapable, weak whaetever. They do not do it as an insult, but the implication is the same. Sometimes it might just be better to let people be.

"lot of standardized tests start looking an awful lot like proxies for whether or not you're rich and white"

So if they ask you what a stop-sign means in a driving test - that is 'rich and white'? Asking people to solve an equation in the SATs is something only 'rich and white' people can do?

I do not know if you even get the implied boatloads of racism in that statement of yours. You imply that standardized tests can somehow not be solved by 'non-rich white' folks. I find that highly offensive, all the more becuase I am not white and as of yet am not even rich.

Entry: Opening Bell: 2.26.08

posted by Matt_m

Feb 27, 2008 3:55PM

"standardized tests do tend to look like proxies for race and income", "test that looks like a proxy for race"
but
"I’m not saying there’s any inherent difference in intelligence between people based on race"

------------------

So lets take some examples of standardized tests. Lets say the test you take to get a license, or Series 7.

You have some material, and then are expected to answer some questions based on that material. So asking "What does an octagonal red traffic sign represent" or "What is the time value of an option at expiration" is a proxy for indentifying race.

Now given that the answer to the question was already provided for in the material, and given that you 'claim' that there is no difference intelligence between races - I am still trying to figure out HOW answers to these questions can be used to identify race. I mean seriously, you may be onto something here - something that even the Nazis couldn't hit upon. Please do enlighten the rest of us.

As I said, arguing about the rest is pointless because my 'regulating' voting and politics question was rhetorical but evidently you even believe in regulating that (if you could).

I believe the ideal political system aligned with your beliefs would be one where people expressed their wishes and desires on a questionairre, which would then be analyzed/tallied by a group of regulators/super-intelligent beings, who would then match up the results with the policies and beliefs of the candidates and then declare the candidate with the highest match-rate the winner. There have existed / still exist versions of these systems in the world. Glad to know that you like them.

Two final things.

1) You want to regulate the hell out of stupid people, fine. But why should there not be any opt-out? If I want to kill myself eating saturated/unsaturated fat, why the fuck should some 'regulator' prevent me from doing that? I am really harming no one else!

2) Who ARE these regulators? Who selects them? Is there some IQ test required to get the job? Will that end up selecting people of a certain race/income profile? How will they be unbiased then? So to maintain equality should we also appoint some of the stupid people onto the regulatory board? But if we do so, what is the whole fucking point?????

Entry: Did Auction Rate Securities Ever Have A Natural Success Rate?

posted by Matt_m

Feb 27, 2008 4:33PM

I find some of the sanctimonious outrage from a few of these debt issuers to be wierd. I mean dude - if the market is not buying your debt at even 20% then it means that you are that risk! Get your house in order - maybe people will then buy your stuff.
.
The analogy to this would be if tomorrow a bill was passed explicitly cutting off the agencied from any guarantee from the US govt. Their debt costs would soar. Their low cost is not a function of how well managed they are financially but of the implicit backstop even if they mess up.

Entry: Taxes And Consequences: Barack Obama's Tax Plan For Wall Street

posted by Matt_m

Mar 04, 2008 10:44AM

Ok I am confused. Is Random Banker being sarcastic or serious?

Random Banker @ 10:04
"Is there really such a thing a government waste? I mean with money multiplier and all does it really matter if the government "wastes" money? The money is just reallocated throughout the economy."

Are you seriously a banker? I mean
1) SO isn't that an argument for 100% taxation (is it?)
2) So everytime Bill Gates / Warren Buffet made some money - if the government took it away and 'wasted' it (gave it away to everyone equally) - would the end result be better than leaving the money with them? If paying $100,000 to a 100 random kids a better outcome than paying $10MM to hire Michael Jordon to a team?

@10:10 - "Sending in more of our money to the government doesn't really serve those purposes. If we have a specific goal we want to accomplish we donate it to a PAC"

Isn't that an argument AGAINST a tax hike (or ANY taxes at all)?

Entry: Taxes And Consequences: Barack Obama's Tax Plan For Wall Street

posted by Matt_m

Mar 04, 2008 10:50AM

Ruthlessgravity @ 10:36,

"Those Chinese and Indian engineering students are great at what they do, but struggle when it comes to basic communication."

What? They have a communication problem communicating with YOU. And when the Chinese and Indian economies individually become larger than the American economy, they will not have problems communicating amongst themselves.

YOU will then neither have the technical skills NOT the communication abilities. They already require Mandarin skills to work in China. Think you have ANY communication skills in that arena?

The sad thing is that American edcuation policy is being killed by the likes of you and the liberal politicians people like you support. NY spends $12,000 a year on a kid, CT spends I think $14,000. I am guessing that India and China spend a fraction as much.

Yet all that is being produced here is a bunch of useless workers with no technical skills to compete in the global arena. But of course - the teachers unions are getting paid (+ for the liberals) and a bunch of useless and future unemployed youth are entering the workforce (big + for the liberals.)

Entry: Taxes And Consequences: Barack Obama's Tax Plan For Wall Street

posted by Matt_m

Mar 04, 2008 12:43PM

@ Random Banker 11:28 - "Given the money multiplier, is it possible for a government to "waste" money."

YES! Even if you take 50% of the money from a productive person and distributre is amongst the non-productive ones, it is a 'waste', notwithstanding the multiplier effects - which are based on Keynesian theories and have been mostly discredited wrt long term impact on the economy.

Entry: Taxes And Consequences: Barack Obama's Tax Plan For Wall Street

posted by Matt_m

Mar 04, 2008 12:55PM

@11:52 said - "The only people willing to educate a child for $12,000 a year are religious nut cases, who see it as a small price to pay for indoctrinating the next generation of believers. "

And there you see the logic.

First of all - patently untrue except for in union circles.

Second, aren't the kids actually being currently indoctrinated into a socialist philosophy BY socialist AT the taxpayers expense? How can teachers who do not believe in pay for performance, believe in tenure, believe in no secret ballot elections and are OVERWHELMINGLY politically partisan teach student anything else?

And lets dissect your logic. So if tomorrow the govt takes ALL the money it spends on education and gives it out to the parents in the form of vouchers, the TOTAL spending on education does not go down.

Now the same public school teachers can set up their own schools and attract students to it. Given that the govt spending is still the same, they should get paid the same!

So why are they opposed to it? If parents chose to indoctrinate their kids religiously - ITS A FREE COUNTRY!! But isnt that just an illogical scare tactic.

But that aside, getting back on topic - Barack Obama is not on the side of the kids or the tax payers. He is on the side of the teachers unions. And yet - 'liberals' support him on education(even though they claim that they are NOT on the side of the unions).

Go figure.

Entry: Taxes And Consequences: Barack Obama's Tax Plan For Wall Street

posted by Matt_m

Mar 04, 2008 1:44PM

Lets say that it is a 'relative waste of money' - a waste nonetheless.

If the return on an investment is 10% and the hurdle rate is 12%, then yes, there was 'return' on the investment but in net - it was wasted money.

Similarly, for government to first take away money in the form of tax and then spend it (on ANYTHING) assumes that the return on the govt spending is higher than the return on the provate spending (the hurdle rate here).

Historical evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

If the bridge was really required, private enterprise would have sunk money into it. The 'waste' here is that instead of probably investing that money in lets say schooling of children (through vouchers), the govt decided to spend on building a bridge.

THAT, is wasted money (relatively, not doubt).

But then again, I am unaware of any sitation where you do not call an investment a loss if your funding cost was higher than your return!

Entry: Taxes And Consequences: Barack Obama's Tax Plan For Wall Street

posted by Matt_m

Mar 04, 2008 3:15PM

@2:53,

Policing the schools is easy! You are entrusting the parents with policing them! You are giving the money to the parents! If parents are not capable of monitoring their child's schooling then I guess we have bigger issues here.

Secondly, the schooling infrastructure can be easily auctioned off. That is what MANY countries with command and control economies have been doing since they have opened up. Once again, non-issue.

And as far as the comment on dedicated teachers is concerned - I see no relationship between being a dedicated teacher and union-membership! Dedicated teachers will continue to be hired in the private sector and if anything, they will be rewarded for their dedication (unlike union run no-pay for better teachers).

Once again, the union supporters seem to be grasping for the straws to justify why schools should be run by the government instead of giving the money directly to the parents. There hasn't been one solid argument for.

Entry: Taxing Sovereign Wealth Funds

posted by Matt_m

Mar 04, 2008 5:21PM

Why is it that everytime they figure out that someone is paying less tax than the other, the solution is ALWAYS to equalize taxes for both at the HIGHER end?

Wouldn't it be more logical if they increased the taxed for one and reduced it for the other to maintain revenue neutrality? Dont that have to come up with some concrete proposal for spending the extra dollars before they can grab those extra dollars?

@4:34 says - "US taxpayer subsidizing the foreign governments investments."

So if I do not come and take some money from you, am I 'subsidizing' you?

Entry: Jesse Jackson Stalks The Visa IPO

posted by Matt_m

Mar 05, 2008 5:01PM

Come on liberals / Democrats. He is one of you! Lets hear some support for your man.

Entry: Jesse Jackson Stalks The Visa IPO

posted by Matt_m

Mar 06, 2008 12:52PM

@12:37, what kind of wierd logic is that? Or more aptly, aren't we back to the logic behind 'separate but equal' in a roundabout way?

So if you are a white guy running a small shop, all else being equal you will be at a disadvantage in getting small pieces of the deal because you are not black. That is not discriminatory?

Also, just like big banks can dole out a small bit to some small guy as a favor, they can also NOT dole it out to some other small player because he might have pissed them off.

But whereas you can never DENY anything to a someone for being black person, you are supposed to be ok favoring while black? Doesn't it work both ways?

You can either discriminate as well as favor using some criteria (eg family connetion vs outsiders, school buddies vs others) or you cannot do either (race, gender etc). How retarded is it to argue otherwise?

Entry: Jesse Jackson Stalks The Visa IPO

posted by Matt_m

Mar 07, 2008 3:48PM

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/15526093/detail.html

I am so glad that these two wonderful individuals also get a share of my tax money through
1)Unemployment pay (dont see either of them working
2) Healthcare (they are certainly covered by Medicare)
3) Education (I am sure that they didn't pay a dime for going to school - no matter how much time they spend there
4) Schip - the kid's (poor thing) treatment is now being most probably paid by Schip
5) Jail - They will once again be fed and dressed at taxpayer expense and will also get a defense lawyer - all at tax payer expense

And I am sure that Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama think that I am the shithead (lucky asshole) and these two poor people are plain unfortunate. Oh the humanity.

Entry: Stiffed

posted by Matt_m

Mar 07, 2008 6:20PM

Anal_yst,

CA can regulate what their pension fund is invested in. That is valid - boneheaded (to use a term in vogue with libs of late) and bad for the people whose money the fund managed, but valid and legal nonetheless. The the pension money is in effect the state's (yes, it belongs to individuals ultimately but the state runs the plan) and the state sets up and appoints the pension fund. So the state CAN regulate what the fund is invested in.

All the same, if somone working in California has a 401k account with a Fidelity fund, then the state cannot (at least as of yet) dictate what that Fidelity fund is invested in.

But more socialists like 4:21 on, I am sure very soon the state will also regulate that. And how much you can earn. And how much you should exercise in a day to stay healthy. And how much TV you can watch. And how much sex anyone can have (to create 'equality' so that we dont have some folks getting laid multiple times a day and some not getting any action in years). And.......

Entry: Live-Blogging The JP Morgan Chase Bear Stearns Conference Call

posted by Matt_m

Mar 16, 2008 10:13PM

The true value is $2 + the value of JPM backstop for BSC for 12 months.

There is not way that the numbers went down from ~ $20 at 5:30pm (as being reported) to $2 all of a sudden. Most probably they could not get to a price but with the feds pushing for a decision before Asia market open, JP bid $2 on the stock and agreed to provide 12 months worth of backstop.

One you factor that in, I am sure that it is closer to the high teen range (at least as far as they think).

Also, it has been reported that JP has some bid protection - so no one can come and bid $4 tomorrow. Also, once the structure comes out - I am sure that you will see some huge fee for JPM if the deal gets voted down.

So I think the there is too much panic around. Bear DID NOT sell for $2. They effectively sold for more. Unfortunately that does nothing for the equity holders as of now. My money is on a re-bid from JPM after more due dilligence. This was the feds trying to prevent armageddon.

Entry: Opening Bell: 3.19.08

posted by Matt_m

Mar 19, 2008 1:46PM

Genius guest @10:53,

Actually the US lost WAY WAY more people in the offensive on Germany - which never actually attacked the US directly. Some fuzzy thing to do with saving the free world and coming to the aid of your allies etc etc.

Also, the US TILL DATE has troops stationed in Europe and Japan (60 years running) which were placed there to counter the Soviet threat.

So dear hispter, I know you flunked through school and now eke out a living as an 'artist' somewhere in the village - washing dished for food occasionally. Please go back to you communist friends and try to charm them with you 'intelligence.' Thanks for playing 'douchebag of the day' though!

Entry: Opening Bell: 3.19.08

posted by Matt_m

Mar 19, 2008 3:00PM

" Germany, which was a credible threat to the rest of the world,"

And did some divine oracle make that pronouncement? (Or may be it was just Jeremiah Wright, who knows?) I thought your initial argument was that the US should not attack any country UNLESS that country has directly threatened the security of the US.

Now you have moving onto 'presence of a credible threat.' Ok, so who decides what a 'credible threat' is and whether it exists or not? Was the taliban (and the al queda people it harbored) not a credible threat to the world until 9/11? If it was, then why did Clinton not take action? Was THAT the failure that led to 9/11?

Who was to decide that Germany would actually ever end up taking over the world? That they would not collapse under their own weight fighting the Russians? Being a Monday morning quarterback is ridiculously easy. There were MANY people who strongly opposed US involvment in WWII. So were they right?

95% of the country, including a majority of the liberal politicians supported attacking Iraq. They had access to just about as much information as was available and they also agreed with the fact that there was limited evidence. Then all of a sudden, they started apologizing once they saw the war not turning out right.

But at the time when a decision was to be made on whether the threat was credible or not, they said it was! And never - for any situation - will there be iron-clad proof of 'credible threat' unless the country is directly attacked.

And just for your education, the threat in the Cuban missile crisis was NOT from Cuba - they couldn't do SHIT to the US even if they wanted. It was from USSR, and the President chose to threaten Cuba because it was the easier thing to do. Unless of course you believe that Cuban missle crisis was about the Cubans trying to nuke the US. In that case, I apologize for indulging in this discussion with you.

Entry: Bove Report Entitled "That's What I'm Talking About, Mother Fuckers," To Follow

posted by Matt_m

Jul 28, 2008 5:04PM

BL forced by the powers that be to change the title in 3....2....1.....

Entry: Bove Report Entitled "That's What I'm Talking About, Mother Fuckers," To Follow

posted by Matt_m

Jul 28, 2008 5:30PM

That good to know.. I am used to seeing an interesting headline suddenly morph into a dull one in between page refreshes :)