Assorted links

Comments

#5 - Whoa.
Here's more stuff docs do to your dong while you are under:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/04/news/la-heb-finger-ratio-penis-length-20110704

Second paragraph is where the scary is....

Row boarding is terrible. That physicist's paper agrees with lots of other work on the same subject.

(And, of course, mathematicians were there before physicists. ;)

1. Huntsman leads all candidates in the "Why is he running?" category. He's the Mike Gravel of 2012.

3. My experience in flying always made it seem like the old Southwest "every man for himself" worked best, but it was really unpopular.

On #1, I think Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain are strong challengers in the category.

Newt's motivation is no mystery. It's just promotion for Newt, Inc.

Who cares? As last man to balance an US budget, we could sure use him now.

Gingrich's campaign was over $1 million in debt in July. I wouldn't want to elect a man who cannot manage his own campaign funds on a balance the budget beef.

I'm also not sure about the "last man to balance the US budget" characterization. There were 535 other people involved in that, not least of which was the President.

It was funny what Jon Stewart said, "In the Iowa straw poll, Huntsman was the only Mormon running and he came in second...among Mormons."

Gravel was fantastic. And he was running because he had massive credit card debts.

@3 the steffen method assume everyone can self-board and stow their gear by themselves. Young children, the elderly and short people would gum up the operation. as well as people who need to board with their family members. Who is going to let their young child out of their sight so they can line up and board in the most efficient way possible?

A modified Steffens that accounts for groups?

Except that row boarding is still worse, because anyone gumming up the operation hurts things even more in row boarding.

How about we never have any more on Jon Huntsman at all and just pretend his utterly pointless campaign never happened? So he's like Romney, but less interesting. Alright. Neat.

Romney's got a difficult enough path to victory already running against utter incompetents, if another sane person swipes his base we're going to end up with Rick Perry as the GOP candidate.

And subsequently either 4 more years of Obama (likely) or 4 more years of Super-Mega-George-Bush. I'll pass on that.

I approve of this post.

In my competence versus ethical punnet square, Romney is occupying the upper left quadrant.

And subsequently either 4 more years of Obama (likely) or 4 more years of Super-Mega-George-Bush.

Huh, why is this an either-or? I thought Obama was Super-Mega-George Bush already?

#5: I find your geographical slam interesting. Would you have said that you won't be moving to Oregon, Belgium, India or San Francisco if this had happened there? I doubt it.

Bigotry: Sometimes It's Fun!

Stereotypes: Sometimes They Are True!

Thank you for proving my point, oh-so-beautifully.

And thank you for avoiding mine.

I wasn't aware Kentucky has a reputation for involuntary penectomies and stupid medical standards.

I'm waiting for someone to figure out a faster way to get everyone off of the airplane. Its after the long flight that I get antsy.

Evacuation slides

I have been wondering why Huntsman has been labeled a moderate for sometime. He is a responsible lawmaker who is a conservative -- who supports legal rights for gay couples and supports a guest worker program.

If the Republicans lose in 2012, this guy will probably be the guy in '16. The Bush family backs him too.

Tyler, I'm surprised that you didn't link to this column

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/manufacturing-a-recovery.html

It supports your TGS's main recommendation. Ms. Hockfield (a neuroscientist, MIT president, GE director) wants to subsidize invention and manufacturing because "The private sector cannot do this alone" and "Our economy will thrive only when we make what we invent." Her arguments are better presented but essentially the same as those given by several people that in early August participated in a NYT Room for Debate about U.S. manufacturing as the driving force of the recovery (It was interesting to read comments to the presentations. I got the impression that most progressives are in favor of banning the outsourcing of production to other countries.)

I fully agree with Russ Roberts that wrote this comment on Ms. Hockfield's column:

But the most important error is the idea implicit in this piece that there was a decision made somewhere by someone to gamble on a service economy instead of a manufacturing economy. If the idea of returning to what allegedly made America great is such a good idea, why does she need to write a piece in the New York Times? If making the stuff we invent is so virtuous, why isn’t it happening? There are four possibilities.

1. No one has thought of it.
2. People have thought of it but something stops them from implementing the idea.
3. People have thought of it but the gains go to others so no one does it.
4. It’s not a good idea.

So why does Apple, for example, outsource so much of its production? Because it’s cheaper and it allows more people to be able to afford more Apple products.

Making stuff the cheapest way is the road to prosperity.

Trying to find expensive ways to make stuff (because it once was a good idea but no longer is) is the road to poverty.
end of quote from
http://cafehayek.com/2011/08/finding-ways-to-raise-costs-and-make-us-poorer.html

Ok, so the CEO gets rich making things cheapest outside the US while lobbying the Federal government to maintain the demand for his products by promoting anything that lets people buy them by either running up debt or living off government aid funded by debt.

What is the policy to have 90% of Americans get on the road to real prosperity? Periodic universal debt amnesty decreed by Congress?

In Spanish we say "La culpa no la tiene el chancho, la tiene el que le da de comer". It means don't blame the pig, blame those that feed it. There is lobbying because there are too many fraudulent clowns looting the public treasury.

The road to prosperity has always been walked by those willing to take risks rather than those waiting to be fed. The basic fact of life for all humans is change as in climate change, so if you want to prosper, you better start to walk. Rather than crying, vote with your feet out your nest.

My only problem with this is that if we did away with everything like 100% tariffs making paperclips more expensive, it wouldn't be as expensive to keep capital here. We think we can get away with such nonsense because we always have and we think we are geniuses and every dumb idea is great because it is ours. Our prosperity has blinded us to its fragility.

what's so terrible about scanning iris-es?

or, what's less terrible about it compared to the need for a social security number required of any legal resident in the US?

It's a way to identify people. come on tyler.

Why is a forced government spending identifier required of every legal resident?

Stop it.

okay. but tell me how a credit agency would work.

people need to be able to borrow or just get along, the credit agency works to certify the ability to borrow or just get along. they need some sort of record to do this. at least that's how I think about it. getting, or even giving a loan without being able to check the background of a person is costly, perhaps this cost is minimized with a centralized system. otherwise, firms have to do it.

and it is precisely those without identification that need credit the most.

that does not mean the way its done in the US is perfect as we have seen. but I can't think of anything better.

Glasser writes: " A significant literature shows that homes lose value - - as much as 1 percent per year -- when they are rented."

I'm sure homes lose 1 percent of their value each year in a rational market - renting and owning have no effect on the rate the property depreciates.

But ultimately he fails to address the structure of the mortgage system created by Congress, the Fed, and the bankers who were seeking free lunches where homes would appreciate as the paint peels, the roof leaks, the water heater burns out.

The community banker wouldn't make or refi loans or otherwise churn their mortgages in ways to generate fees for third parties because community bankers can see that houses don't appreciate, so to be sure sufficient equity covers the debt, the debt needs to be significantly less than the initial price, and then needs to decline as the house depreciates. When the home owner comes in for a loan on the house, then the house and property can be checked along with other borrower assets, like a job, to make sure the debt remains less than the equity.

When a German bank owns a mortgage on a property in the US that was originated by someone looking for a fee, then handed off several times by Wall Street bankers as they package it, with the lien going into a trust to avoid recording fees and managed by a group that earns a fee but has no risk associated with maintaining legal records of ownership that satisfy the 50 different laws of the 50 States, with the servicing handled by a chain of services who get paid a fee for service so efficiency is not rewarded, nor is accuracy and proper tracking of legal documents, the question becomes:
how does Glasser imagine the German's will manage the property they own by holding the note, but without any of the legal documents to back up the mortgage, and no presence where the property is to be as wise as the local real estate selling their own property.

The bankers created this mess and he's suggesting that the holders of MBS will suffer from cleaning up the mess by rewriting all the mortgages. Well, guess what, the MBS holders are already screwed and suffering.

And while he imagines a solution for the mortgage crisis of 1930, his solution was rejected by a few economists and a conservative Utah Republican banker named Mariner Eccles. But that is when mortgages were held by local bankers. The mortgage crisis two decades ago was much more like Glasser imagines today is, but after a number of years of the mortgage mess holding things up, Congress and Bush came up with a sweeping program. Today's mess is just so much worse than either the 20s or 80s created because Wall Street convinced Congress to make it legal for Wall Street to not hold the debt mess they created, and wants Congress to absolve them of all past or future responsibility, without doing anything to resolve their mess. But with the freedom to do it again, perhaps in a decade instead of being forced to wait two decades.

First of all, we have a management shortage - not enough people to keep up the excess homes (not to mention watch out for copper thieves). I favor increasing immigration.

Second, I disagree with Glaeser when he writes: "After all, if refinancing saved so much money by reducing defaults, private lenders would surely find mortgage modification far more appealing than they do."

I suspect the problem is that the lenders are stuck in a place where their own balance sheets cannot take a hit to the present value of their loan portfolio.

Also, the title of Glaeser's piece: "Refinancing Mortgages Won’t Fix Housing Market" to me misses the mark. I'm not concerned about the housing market per se, I'm concerned about the credit market, and these lending institutions also service credit to other areas of the economy. The point is to restore balance sheets while preserving as much of everyone's present value as possible on both sides of the trade. I wonder why noone is addressing the ideas like appreciation rights (even though my favored policy is simply to facilitate voluntary 50 year mortgages perhaps with stronger recourse for lenders).

Glasser writes: ” A significant literature shows that homes lose value – - as much as 1 percent per year — when they are rented.”

I wonder if this is just because homes lose in the neighborhood of 1 percent when people aren't dumping money into them every year to keep them up. Homes depreciate like everything else. Is the capital used to refurbish them best spent on that? We don't know because it is subsidized.

#3: The only possible way to get people to line up correctly would be to treat airplane boarding procedures like Space Shot/Turbo drop rides at amusement parks, where people stand in a small given area with a number on it, where that number represents the seat they have. It's nearly impossible to make this work though, given the impossibilities of separating families (including small children), plus the sheer mass of crap that people drag onto planes which they do not typically carry on a thrill ride.

I imagine this is more possible than the author gives it credit for, but it is hardly worth the effort and may indeed result in more confusion-created time waste than it saves.

Additionally, I would add that John Huntsman's campaign receives the largest ratio of news stories to votes in the history of campaigns

this is the problem with ivory towers:

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/hl-7372/1.jpg

you'd think as a physicist the first thing he'd think of is gravity. planes board by rows and have specific load/unload procedures to prevent this happening.

in that case its freight, but it can happen in passenger planes too when boarding only from front doors and if the dead load isnt unloaded correctly.

Comments for this post are closed