Pure awesome.

Thanks to ja.

Posted by: Ace at 06:39 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

In progress; snuck up on me. more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:06 PM | Comments (252)
Post contains 1981 words, total size 13 kb.

In all likelihood, it will cost far less. It's possible (not even unlikely) that the government will actually make money on the deal.

The key is remembering these assets are not worthless. It's property. It's houses. It's mortgages. It's derivatives, um, derived therefrom. These things have intrinsic value that never approaches zero, ever.

Because of the panic/crisis, these assets are "frozen" because no one can sell them, because no one will buy them.

There is therefore currently no "market maker." (Which, from what I remember from securities law, is a basic requirement to creating a market -- someone must agree to be a market maker for any stock, any commodity.)

Currently these assets are temporarily worthless as no one will buy them. But as soon as a functioning market returns, they'll be worth something.

How much? Who knows. That's part of the problem; no one can currently say what they're worth. But once a normal market returns, they'll be worth something -- a solid fraction of their prior value. Maybe 3/5ths, maybe 3/4ths.

The government's play, as I understand it, is to begin buying these assets at deeply discounted prices, due this being a distressed sale and all. Doing so will cause Wall Street and others to lose money and take big losses, but not so much as to knock most of them into bankruptcy.

Once the government does this, however, the market returns, and these assets rise in value. The idea will be to unload them quickly back to private buyers once the situation stabilizes and people start trading again. Ideally, the government would at least get back what they paid for each asset, plus a percentage based on them essentially "floating a loan" for a period of time.

For many parcels, they will realize an actual profit.

Now perhaps this is best-case scenario, but assuming the government agrees to buy these junk (but by no means worthless) assets at low prices, and then is able to sell them in a year or two and for a more realistic higher price, this bailout can actually add funds to the treasury.

Got this from the Brit Hume panel today.

This is not likely to be $700 billion just tossed in the fireplace. The government isn't buying worthless notes. They'd be buying, temporarily, real assets with real value which are currently unsalable and thus are freezing the entire financial industry. It will, at worst, end up costing us $300 billion, and at best, could actually make the government a couple hundred billion.

It should be noted that the very controversial Mexican bailout in the Clinton Administration was a net moneymaker for the government. The S&L bailout -- the last time we faced this sort of full meltdown possibility (though today's crisis appears more serious) -- either only cost $124 billion or actually broke even/made a small amount of money over outlay, depending on one's accounting.

Something to keep in mind. The government will not be getting into this business forever, nor is it simply throwing money away.

Outstanding Piece by Dafyyd: I feel like a smarty pants for having just read the first half.

It's long, but it brings you up to speed on exactly what is going on.

Bonus: If you read the whole thing, you will know approximately 40 times as much about this crisis as the average person, and 500 times as much about it as 95% of the media.

Posted by: Ace at 04:36 PM | Comments (156)
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.

Unless I've misunderstood, Winner will be a topic tonight, discussed by "Internet Cop" Amanda Carpenter.

Not sure, just watched the tease and he didn't mention it. It's possible it got bumped as there are, really, some important stories today.

Posted by: Ace at 04:21 PM | Comments (122)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

If you haven't noticed, the page width expands with your 1000 character long unformatted URLs-- making the comments virtually unreadable.

You have four options:

1) Learn to use the linkings interface just above each posting window. You can use this post to experiment with that. I admit, this interface kind of sucks and I myself am I always a bit unsure of what goes where. So let's all experiment and see how it works.

2) Enter the link you wish to post in the box at tinyurl.com, which translates that long link into a... tiny url, easily posted without breaking the margins.

I mean, not to be snakry, but it's a pretty easy thing to remember. Want to make a URL tiny? Go to tinyurl.com.

3) Enter breaks periodically in the URL. Yes, this means that anyone who wants to use your link will have to knit it back together in multiple stages. That's why you should probably use tinyurl.com.

4) Don't include the link, just tell people "search google for these keywords and look for the CNN article," etc.

Please. Please. You are driving me fucking crazy here. Stop with the long URLs. Posting a URL which 10% readers may be interested in is simply not worth ruining an entire thread for 100% of readers.

Use tinyurl.com for God's sakes. It takes, literally, three seconds. What's so hard?

Incidentally, by not observing this rule, I've now had to call attention to it, which gives lefty trolls a whole new way to sabotage the site daily.

Posted by: Ace at 03:27 PM | Comments (162)
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Real missile defense.

The 49th Missile Defense Battalion, Ft. Greely, Alaska.

It's a little old, but I hadn't seen the Nightline episode on this. Nor the stunningly insightful Keef analysis of the concept!

He's brainy. You can tell from the glasses. He kinda doesn't get it that Poland intercepts might be intercepting things aimed past Poland.

incidentally, cheap Dave in Texas observation, his tie is most often dimpled in the center.

*needy*

All seriousness aside, I had no idea we had deployed these things I thought we were testing.

Not. Complaining.

also, a noteworthy note worth noting:

the critics that in one breath say that our enemies are too inept to even get an ICBM to our shores also say in the very next breath that these same enemies have the technological prowess to cap their primitive rockets with the most advanced countermeasures in the world.

We can't count on them being dopes forever, but we can ride that a bit until we have Poland missiled up, can't we?

thanks to Cuffy, an imaginary thug from some book I did not read.

UPDATE: duh. even as I try to catch up, he posts Part Three.

This is the difference between a rocket scientist and a Cowboys fan.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:08 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, better known for his coolness under playoff preasure and his bloody sock, has written one of the better synopses of the current financial mess that I have read thus far. Yes it is simplistic in some regards but he really nails the keys points of how we got into this debacle and the article provides an excellent starting point towards greater understanding. Enjoy.

UPDATE: Commentor quiggs correctly points out that Schilling infact did not write the article here but merely linked to it. It was written by Kevin Hassett of Bloomberg. Thanks quiggs!

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission’s chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie’s position on the relevant accounting issue was not even “on the page” of allowable interpretations.

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn’t be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,” he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk".

But the bill didnÂ’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldnÂ’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

Posted by: Open Blog at 03:07 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

I gotta tell ya, I trust these polls not at all. They're consistently weighted in favor of Obama.

So what the hell is this? They have McCain surging with independents?

I give up.

Someone suggested I relink this, and this seems one of the few opportunities I've had for gloating lately, so here you go: more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Hmmm...

Astroturfing? Illegal in-kind donations to a campaign? Illegal coordination with an outside group?

Michelle Malkin advises that if you receive The Bisexual Starfucker Record Review Biweekly in your mail unsolicited, you should write "REFUSED" on it in black magic marker and stick it back in the mailbox. Jan Wenner will be forced to pay for the return postage.

Subscribe to Rolling Stone Magazine

Come for the in-depth, hard-hitting interviews with Avril Lavaigne and Pink.

Stay for the trenchant political analysis.

Rolling Stone: We're so hip we think the world still cares about CSNY reunion concerts. Which happen, by the way, every three weeks. Oops, another one's coming. Whoo-hoo! Can you say COVER PHOTO? Yeah, you know it, Boo. That's how we roll.

Posted by: Ace at 02:32 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember yesterday? Ah, sweet sweet memories of 24 hours past. How outrageously young we were, and how foolishly alive.

But that's in the past. Those days, like the Road Warrior, now live only... in our memories.

The Democrats, only caring about covering their asses politically and not giving a rat's ass about whether the economy went into a depression or not (upside? depressions breed socialists like cockroaches), announced that without the strong support and vote of John McCain personally, they would refuse to vote in favor of any bailout and the bill would be dead.

So crucial was McCain that Reid put out the word McCain would vote for the bailout, in order to get Republicans on board with it. (Lindsey Graham floated a similar rumor -- untrue, as it turns out -- that McCain was on board with the Gang of 20 to try to garner more support.)

But a lot can happen in 24 hours. Specifically, our Brave Leader Obama has decided he doesn't want to show up for his actual job organizing the community of the US Senate.

And so we turn the page.

Now that Barack Obama has decided his fundraising is more important than dealing with the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, Harry Reid doesn't want McCain (or Obama) around.

Video! Here's Reid, yesterday, demanding McCain come to Washington:

Now that McCain's said yes and, who knows, just might succeed in heading this crisis off, Reid tells him to stay away.

Posted by: Ace at 02:15 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 332 words, total size 3 kb.