Alarming News

October 27, 2008

Ill

Shawn Macomber reviews two children’s books about Barack Obama:

The authors of two recent children’s picture books detailing the life Barack Obama have taken this classical Greek advice to heart, turning Hillary Clinton’s classic mockery — “Celestial choruses will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect” — into the straight-faced official biography for the four to seven year-old set.

Here, for example, is how Jonah Winter, striking a tone in BARACK somewhere between Vladimir Lenin and action movie preview narrator, translates the presidential race for America’s impressionable babes:

[O]n the horizon, at the dawn of a new age, there appeared a man who would be the embodiment of King’s dream — a presidential candidate whose very being was a bridge that joined nations.

Not to be outdone, Nikki Grimes’ Son of Promise, Child of Hope describes the early years of Barack, “his mama, white as whipped cream; his daddy, black as ink,” thusly:

He was there in Chicago because he cared about these people. They were his family. People in Kenya were his family. Indonesians were his family. And no matter where he was, the world was his home. And who he was could be summed up in one word: loveable.

Well, at least she doesn’t say Messiah.

Like I noted in an earlier post, and many of you disagreed, it will not be possible for Obama’s public to keep up this level of adoration should he actually become president. This worship is usually reserved for G-d, family, heroes, and not a man who can deliver a good speech. If you’re not sickened, you’re not paying attention.

Posted by Karol at 10:30 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

I never thought that America would be susceptable to a cult of personality, at least not most of us. Perhaps BO knows this too, and that’s why he has his thugs out stuffing ballot boxes.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Reporters have to pay taxes too. I’m sure their euphoria will wear off, once their wallets are affected.
If he wins. Which I’m still not convinced is going to happen.

Posted by: Tanya at October 27, 2008 at 11:23 am

Infatuation, adoration, fixation, and obsession, but it’s not love. You can’t love something that can’t love back. Obamania. I hope the Democrats have all their Grief Counselors, PhD neurosis-enablers, and social(ist) workers ready for the fallout on November 5th. It’s going to be fun.

Posted by: twolaneflash at October 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I never thought that America would be susceptable to a cult of personality, at least not most of us
John F. Kennedy.
‘Nuff said.

Posted by: Pokerwolf at October 27, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Actually, not. JFK was lionized after his death. By his third year in office, he had Jimmy Carter like popularity numbers.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Oh yes, I am sickened. Unlike the book about McCain by his second daughter that cuts out his first wife and all his children from that marriage. That warmed by heart and made me feel the family values love.

Posted by: nds at October 27, 2008 at 1:33 pm

FDR a more likely candidate. The guy was in a wheelchair a lot of the time, and nobody cared. Some instead covered it up pretty well.

Posted by: bryan at October 27, 2008 at 1:43 pm

FDR is in fact an excellent example, bryan. When making public speeches, he was carefully helped up to give the illusion of a strong, barrel-chested (he was quite the athlete before polio hit) man at the pulpit. If memory serves, he even had a private elevator constructed in Grand Central, so that the public wouldn’t see the crippled old man.
His personal charisma, from his optimistic soundbites to the “jaunty angle” of his cigarette holder, got him re-elected in 1936 though the American economy was still bad, and in 1940 when it had gotten worse under the New Deal. My father was going to vote for Wendell Wilkie via absentee ballot (stationed in Panama at the time) but didn’t get the chance. Yet later he came to regard FDR as some kind of saint. “At least he did something! Hoover did nothing!”

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 27, 2008 at 3:15 pm

“and in 1940 when it had gotten worse under the New Deal”
….and there you go again..
In 1940 the US Economy was doing better than the prior year in almost every measure. Weather the New Deal was responsible is debatable, the facts however are not.
Just curious as to what statistical measure you looked at to make you infer that the US Economy was getting “worse” in 1940 ?

Posted by: Dan at October 27, 2008 at 4:51 pm

” …he cared…”
I just ate dinner and I now feel ill.
chsw

Posted by: chsw at October 27, 2008 at 7:03 pm

I remember a story some guy on TV told (possibly Charles Wheeler); he was in the USA in about 1950, and noticed in a store a picture of FDR. The shopkeeper was fiercely defensive of the guy, and would’ve cracked skulls if he’d heard a bad word said about him.

Posted by: bryan at October 27, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Danny boy:
“Done worse under the New Deal” sorta implies that I’m talking about more than “the year before.”
Learn to read, you goddamn moron. Then maybe you can check GDP charts without my leading you around.
Weather the New Deal was responsible is debatable
You really have a poor grasp of the English language. Weather? The word should seem absurd from the moment you type it, or are you too reliant on spell-check?
Here’s some homework on the Great Depression for you: 1, 2, 3. What made the economy get worse in the late 1930s? FDR’s tax hike.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 28, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Perry, thank you for correcting my spelling. But your focus on grammar does not hide the fact that you are wrong again about the facts and economics. This is not the first time you have taken liberty with reality (1930’s Germany=modern USA, banking and finance, that no credit crisis exists etc., etc.).
Using GDP as the measure of economic activity, clearly the economy improved from 1933 to 1940 (Link at the bottom).
There were blips along the recovery trail due to the government vacillating on stimulus policies…hmmm sound familiar…
I don’t expect you to understand, I just don’t want you posting false information.
Please everyone do not listen to this blow hard he really has no clue about Economics.
GDP Chart

Posted by: Dan at October 28, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Perry, thank you for correcting my spelling.
Anytime!
But your focus on grammar does not hide the fact that you are wrong again about the facts and economics. This is not the first time you have taken liberty with reality (1930’s Germany=modern USA, banking and finance, that no credit crisis exists etc., etc.).
You actually mean that this isn’t the first time you have taken liberty with reality, namely stating the truth about what I said:
Your first lie: that I compare the U.S. to 1930s Germany. No, I’ve only talked about what’s turned into the financial world’s Reichstag Fire. Yet you insist on LYING about what I’ve said, by putting words into my mouth.
Your second lie: there’s no credit crisis, other than what government engendered and continues. The only thing you know about “spreads” is when you do that for your boyfriend.
Using GDP as the measure of economic activity, clearly the economy improved from 1933 to 1940 (Link at the bottom).
The graph is misleading from the skewed y-axis.
There were blips along the recovery trail due to the government vacillating on stimulus policies…hmmm sound familiar…
So you admit there that government is unsuccessful at stimulus policies.
And in fact, the only reason ONE leading economic indicator was higher was because of Keynesian policies that artificially inflated economic production at the cost of heavy federal debt and high taxation — the former saddled the next generation with debt service payment, and the latter discouraged jobs.
Let’s take a look at unemployment numbers, shall we?
1929: 3.2
1930: 8.7
1931: 15.9
1932: 23.6
1933: 24.9
1934: 21.7
1935: 20.1
1936: 16.9
1937: 14.3
1938: 19.0
1939: 17.2
1940: 14.6
You consider THAT an “improvement”? No “Roosevelt recession” there, huh? Just when the New Deal was supposedly getting into full swing, it actually made unemployment worse. You don’t suppose the 1936 tax hike had anything to do with it, do you?
Let me help you, in all sincerity: stop listening to the likes of Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. FDR and the New Deal didn’t bring us out of the Depression, nor did WWII. The answer lies elsewhere, but I have to run for now.
I don’t expect you to ever understand what I write, Danny boy. I just hope I can show you a little TRUTH along the way.
Please everyone do not listen to this blow hard he really has no clue about Economics.
You should repeat that a few more times when talking in the mirror.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm

From 1933 to 1940 there was a decrease in unemployment of 41% (from a very high base) and GDP grew by around 44%.
You may not understand economics but you certainly can read numbers (I hope).
Yes there were bumps along the way but even FDR wasn’t perfect. You have gotten no argument from me that taxes hurt economic growth but FDR’s policies provided economic relief in desperate times.
The interjection of your homosexual fantasies into every discussion says quite a lot about you.
Perry’s list of lies:
1930’s Germany = USA.
There is no credit crisis (repeat 3 times and tap heels).
The U.S. Economy deteriorated under FDR and the New Deal.
Bond fund managers are clueless about Libor.
Mommy’s money can buy him Thai love.

Posted by: Dan at October 30, 2008 at 10:55 am

From 1933 to 1940 there was a decrease in unemployment of 41% (from a very high base) and GDP grew by around 44%.
A statistics professor would flunk you right here. You’re merely cherry-picking the timeline, which isn’t even what I’m talking about. The New Deal did not start right away, and in fact took a few years to get into full swing, thus “1933 to 1940″ is not an accurate measure.
Even so, the illusionary “growth” you cite was only because an economy can only go up once it hits rock bottom. It wasn’t because of government that people packed up their belongings and became migrant fruit harvesters, or that my grandmother made bathtub gin. It was because they did what they could to survive, before waiting for some bureau to dole out “benefits,” and yet that’s still credited toward FDR’s mythical “growth.”
You may not understand economics but you certainly can read numbers (I hope).
Talking to yourself again, dimwit? You’re the one who’s clueless on economics and can’t read simple numbers.
Yes there were bumps along the way but even FDR wasn’t perfect.
“Imperfection” does not excuse FDR pursuing a policy that extended the Great Depression unnecessarily. The economy would have recovered in a few years, except Hoover and FDR thought that high taxes, deficit spending and make-work programs would work. Clearly they did not.
You have gotten no argument from me that taxes hurt economic growth
Which is wise of you not to argue. So again, and I’m not surprised you dodged the question: you don’t suppose the “Roosevelt recession” had anything to do with the tax hike of 1936, hmm?
but FDR’s policies provided economic relief in desperate times.
Relief how? Do you not see the numbers that, when the New Deal was supposed to be working, unemployment grew worse?
Government can create a temporary job, but only at the expense of destroying another job there (read your Bastiat). And government cannot create the confidence that is the foundation of long-term growth, even as it destroys confidence elsewhere, no matter how many fireside chats the president makes (which really weren’t too numerous).
The interjection of your homosexual fantasies into every discussion says quite a lot about you.
I’m only drawing on the fact that YOU, bub, YOU brought it up originally, including the gay Tijuana scene that you evidently know so much about. You assuredly could regale us with stories, but being a pure hetero, I don’t care to know.
Perry’s list of lies:
1930’s Germany = USA.

Once again, you’re lying about what I said. Goddamn, boy, can you not read the plain black and white in front of you?
There is no credit crisis (repeat 3 times and tap heels).
One more time, and listen up, kiddo: only what the government created and is continuing by its policies. If you’re too blind to see the eventual nationalization of every major industry in this country, I can’t feel sorry for you. The signs are so bleeping obvious.
The U.S. Economy deteriorated under FDR and the New Deal.
You say I “lie” here when in fact it’s true. Go ask any historian, economic or otherwise: the U.S. economy did not recover until after WWII ended. It was 1946 or 1947, depending on which numbers you use.
Even if things were flat, wasn’t your cherished New Deal supposed to improve the economy?
Bond fund managers are clueless about Libor.
It’s called LIBOR. Failing to capitalize it only shows me that you know nothing beyond what the Kos kids or whoever say.
The idiots would be whatever bond fund managers ran your parents’ money into the ground (is that why your daddy has gotten so mad and takes it out on you at night?), not ours. But again, you know nothing about what you’re talking about. Worrying about LIBOR-Treasury spreads would be more in the domain of risk management.
Oh well. I’ve already covered the fallacy of relying on LIBOR-Treasury spreads as indicative of anything. Not surprisingly, you had no reply. If you care to rebut with any substance, fine. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.
Mommy’s money can buy him Thai love.
I can always tell when you’re losing the argument, because you have to resort to insulting me or my wife. Of course, you’re the coward who said I wouldn’t call you an “idiot” to your face, and now ducks when I quite politely look for a time our schedules coincide.
Or wait, are you talking about yourself again? Your mommy sent you to Bangkok, and that’s how you gave your boyfriend HIV?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 30, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Pee Wee!!!
Haha now you want to meet up you overweight homosexual after twice, YES TWICE, you failed to show. Beating your ass in an argument, then physically would be a cake walk for me but with all your homo fantasy’s involving me I’m a little wierded out by you asking me out.
It is hardly my “cherished” New Deal but I am once again pointing out that you are wrong about the facts. The reality of the matter is the New Deal was first implemented in 1933 and saw a marked improvement in domestic economic activity and employment. I know this is a difficult topic and maybe one day you’ll understand but I refuse to allow your lies to propagate the web.
“and in 1940 when it had gotten worse under the New Deal”
I pointed out, with links, why this is a factually incorrect statement. The information you provided further reinforces the point.
For you to whine about the gov’t is truly pathetic. History has proven time and again why a system strictly run on capitalism (or socialism) does not work and a balance that is effectively managed is the key to long term stability. One can argue that the current crisis was mishandled by the Fed and Treasury but what you cannot argue is that the stimulus provided by domestic spending led to economic growth post 1933. I am even willing to overlook your comment that the economy got worse in 1940 as a typo.
“It was 1946 or 1947, depending on which numbers you use.”
I have a new item for the growing list of Pee-wee-Perryism’s.
If you don’t understand still I’ll brush up on my Tagalog and we’ll go through it again. Did they teach you how to count in the Philipines before you came here ? That being said I know accounting types have trouble grasping economics but you are really making yourself look stupid.

Posted by: Dan at October 30, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Haha now you want to meet up you overweight homosexual after twice, YES TWICE, you failed to show. Beating your ass in an argument, then physically would be a cake walk for me but with all your homo fantasy’s involving me I’m a little wierded out by you asking me out.
Your first lie: you said something like meeting at 6 p.m. that day at Washington Square Park, which I couldn’t make. You have yet to mention a single other time.
But if you’d like to give me your home address, I’ll stop by.
And once more for the record, which you keep ignoring: YOU started the homo references, YOU continued it by regaling us with your experiences with Tijuana tranvestites, and somehow that makes me the fag?
You really do have a warped sense of reality, no doubt about it.
It is hardly my “cherished” New Deal but I am once again pointing out that you are wrong about the facts. The reality of the matter is the New Deal was first implemented in 1933 and saw a marked improvement in domestic economic activity and employment.
You consider “improvement” to be paying people for digging and refilling holes, building bridges nobody needs, all at the expense of business owners who couldn’t afford to create real jobs because they were taxed to death. Oh well, I’m only trying to talk a little sense into you.
The New Deal “began” in 1933 in that Roosevelt started his “reform” and “recovery” programs, but it took a few years for the behemoth bureaucracy of the New Deal to start. The full farm, labor and financial reforms weren’t even finalized until the late 1930s. Do you not understand that the wheels of government have always moved slowly, particularly in pre-computer days?
And yet you still didn’t answer the question: if your cherished New Deal was so effective, then how did the Roosevelt Recession happen? I explain why. You have yet to.
I know this is a difficult topic and maybe one day you’ll understand but I refuse to allow your lies to propagate the web.
To paraphrase some idiot on Karol’s blog, except adding proper punctuation: even though the New Deal is not a difficult topic to understand, I fear you never will, but meanwhile I refuse to let your lies and ignorance go unchecked on the WWW.
I pointed out, with links, why this is a factually incorrect statement. The information you provided further reinforces the point.
You Googled for the GDP data and found someone’s site that cites a single economic indicator. A serious student would do as I have, and link to the BEA’s own data.
So where’s your data for output for farm and non-government manufacturing output?
For you to whine about the gov’t is truly pathetic.
Absurd. Why should I not revile a government that robs me so that others live off my labor?
History has proven time and again why a system strictly run on capitalism (or socialism) does not work and a balance that is effectively managed is the key to long term stability.
Aha, now we’re getting back into political theory. The socialism is obvious, except when you don’t see it staring you in the face in this very country.
“Stability.” Stability in what, bub? Without anything else, your word is meaningless. Economic stability, meaning no increased prosperity? No technological advancement? Try saying something of substance, kid, instead of empty rhetoric that you heard in junior high civics.
Moreover, show me where this country was EVER run on capitalism, without government interference. There never has been. Government always “regulated” in one way or another: it pursued and punished businesses, or certain businesses used government to drive out others. Even when the Constitution was ratified, there was no such thing as a “free market” on this land.
One can argue that the current crisis was mishandled by the Fed and Treasury
No, not mishandled. Caused. I sincerely hope you will realize that someday, at which point other things will start making themselves self-evident.
What do you say to Alan Greenspan’s claim of “surprise” at the “credit meltdown,” when he in fact was THE ONE responsible for the beginning? He’s an arsonist surprised that his fire did so well.
but what you cannot argue is that the stimulus provided by domestic spending led to economic growth post 1933. I am even willing to overlook your comment that the economy got worse in 1940 as a typo.
How you can both quote me and then lie about what I said is simply unbelievable. Note that I said “by 1940,” which is in fact true.
You ignore the question: why, if the New Deal was working, did it not cure the Depression? Whether it was World War II or post-war manufacturing, no serious historian today will argue that the New Deal worked — except to provide illusion.
I have a new item for the growing list of Pee-wee-Perryism’s.
Throwing an insult back at me does not change the fact that you, and you alone, resorted to the “No I’m not, you are!” absurdity.
If you don’t understand still I’ll brush up on my Tagalog and we’ll go through it again.
You’ve already forgotten, or are you simply lying again, about the part where, you know, I’ve always been an American? Care to see my DS-140?
I was repatriated to the U.S. when very young, in any case, and I never did learn to speak Tagalog. It’s a shame, but my father wanted me to grow up speaking only English, and he forbade my mother to teach me Tagalog. If you learned 30 words in Tagalog, you’d know more than I do. Well, maybe 50 words.
Did they teach you how to count in the Philipines before you came here ?
The truth is that the Montessori school I attended for two years was so effective that I realized we were one, sometimes two grade levels ahead of American schools. Granted I was very young when starting school in the U.S., but it’s quite a difference in the beginning years. I didn’t realize this until I started returning to the Philippines. The public elementary classes I’ve visited, poor and dilapidated, nonetheless were very advanced compared to the same grade in the U.S. The pity is that many of these children will never have the opportunities that you and I have. Many drop out because they’re needed to work to help support the family.
That being said I know accounting types have trouble grasping economics but you are really making yourself look stupid.
Curious statement, considering, hmm, I’m not an accountant. I have an economics degree under my belt, and you’re still wrong. Maybe if you’d actually start refuting what I write, I’d take you seriously.
Still no rebuttal from you on the fallacy of LIBOR spreads.
Still no rebuttal from you on invoking “bond managers” when that isn’t even their domain.
Still no rebuttal from you on your lie that I was comparing the U.S. to 1930s Germany.
Not even a whimper of a comment on my Cassandra-esque the financial Reichstag Fire. If you truly knew the big picture, you would be afraid at what the near future holds. Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, and such conservative stalwarts as Bob Bennett, are pushing for nationalization of finance and insurance.
And the list goes on. Well, at least we know enough of you to know the Dan Strategy of Weaseling out of an Argument:
1. Ignore most of what your opponent says, and lie about the rest of what he said.
2. Call him gay but claim he first did it.
3. When those fail, insult the man’s wife.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 31, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Remember Perry you chose to ask for GDP (and a chart no less I know pictures help you learn) as your definition of economic growth now you are scurrying for other figures because you have once again been proven wrong. FDR was President from 1933-1945 and oversaw an average GDP growth that was north of 11%.
% Change from prior period.
1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -4.0
1934 17.0
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.2
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5
As for your other comments, if you refuse to recognize that the LIBOR (and spreads based off of it and swaps, treasuries, etc.) is not an indicator of the liquidity in the credit markets there is no hope for you.
Perryism:
“There’s plenty of liquidity in the credit markets its just that the money is not being lent out”
Stability = steady growth while limiting the higher end of the inflationary range.
If you have any further questions, although you are testing my patience, I am happy to help someone as ignorant as yourself in financial matters. From your posts it was clear to me that you had at least a portion of your education in a country that nears an illiteracy rate of 10%.
Since we’re on the subject I certainly don’t want my tax dollars and soldiers going to bail out little shit countries like the Philippines. Pay your own bills and fight your own wars you ungrateful leech.

Posted by: Dan at November 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Here’s a semi decent story reflecting how a lower LIBOR reflects a “thawing” of the credit freeze.
Treasury injections of capital are helping create liquidity as reflected in a more stable and lower LIBOR.
There are a lot of big words in it so you may want to ask someone to draw you pictures to help you understand it. Maybe break it down into accounting terms.
credit freeze / liquidity / libor

Posted by: Dan at November 4, 2008 at 10:29 am

Remember Perry you chose to ask for GDP (and a chart no less I know pictures help you learn) as your definition of economic growth now you are scurrying for other figures because you have once again been proven wrong. FDR was President from 1933-1945 and oversaw an average GDP growth that was north of 11%.
Asked and answered. Can’t you read what I wrote above?
1. When you hit bottom, especially after Hoover and FDR wrecked the economy, you can only go up from there. There’s always a huge percentage recovery after a recession, like the 7% growth that was reported in one quarter early on in Bush’s first term.
2. So how do you explain the recession, if the New Deal was supposed to work so well?
As for your other comments, if you refuse to recognize that the LIBOR (and spreads based off of it and swaps, treasuries, etc.) is not an indicator of the liquidity in the credit markets there is no hope for you.
You’re making the ultimate logical fallacy of assuming the truth of your statement. YOU are the one who made the assertion. It’s not my fault you have no evidence to back it up.
Thank you for admitting you can’t refute what I’ve said time and time again: how is there a lack of liquidity today when LIBOR is less than a year ago?
Answer: because I’m not talking about the mere existence of loanable funds, but the willingness of lenders to part with them. Even so, LIBOR rates are less than a year ago, because the central banks have made much more capital available (read: “created more money out of thin air”). I can’t understand how you miss this simple concept.
Learn the difference between what Treasury rates and LIBOR represent, and you might get somewhere in this world. They’re not the same thing, hence the “spread” is not necessarily indicative of anything.
Riddle me this: why was the American economy still expanding when inverted yield curves should have indicated a recession? Hint: don’t always rely on subtracting one rate from another.
You quoted me as saying: “There’s plenty of liquidity in the credit markets its just that the money is not being lent out”
And this is quite true. Do you understand the difference between having lendable assets and having the willingness to lend it out?
Stability = steady growth while limiting the higher end of the inflationary range.
Thanks for proving my point, as there was NO steady growth during FDR’s administration — at least nothing he was responsible for.
If you have any further questions, although you are testing my patience, I am happy to help someone as ignorant as yourself in financial matters. From your posts it was clear to me that
Blah blah blah. How about fewer insults from you, and more substance, like actually REFUTING what I wrote?
you had at least a portion of your education in a country that nears an illiteracy rate of 10%.
You’ll get no argument from me on that one, as 10% of American students (yourself as a prime example) being illiterate sounds about right.
But I know you’re trying to slime Filipinos, who aren’t my “countrymen” since I’ve always been an American. That said, most Filipinos grow up speaking English and have a superior grasp of the language than you do.
Since we’re on the subject I certainly don’t want my tax dollars and soldiers going to bail out little shit countries like the Philippines.
And here we go with your racism, although you seem to forget: I’m a libertarian, and by definition opposed to foreign aid.
I’m an American, one more time. I have no allegiance to the Philippines, though I’ve grown to love traveling around it. But I think it shouldn’t depend on the U.S., and it’s morally wrong to make Americans pay taxes to support other nations.
Pay your own bills and fight your own wars you ungrateful leech.
How about you pay for what you consume, rather than making someone successful, e.g. my American family, pay higher tax rates for your social services? No doubt you’re some first-generation “American” mojado who went to school only because of my tax monies.
Here’s a semi decent story reflecting how a lower LIBOR reflects a “thawing” of the credit freeze.
Because interest rates indicate supply and demand. Yet you still cannot explain why the same LIBOR rates were higher a year ago, indicating a lower supply of loanable funds to meet demand — thus more of a “credit crunch” than today. Try rationalizing that, kiddo.
Treasury injections of capital are helping create liquidity as reflected in a more stable and lower LIBOR.
It’s called “money created out of thin air.” Ben “Helicopter” Bernanke, remember?
There are a lot of big words in it so you may want to ask someone to draw you pictures to help you understand it. Maybe break it down into accounting terms.
Yes, yes, your tired old strategy of lying about what I actually am, lying about what I say, and then ignoring me while making racist insults. I’m really getting tired of repeating myself, but I have this crazy hope that you might actually see the light someday.
BTW, what’s your address? I’ve wanted for a while now to deliver your “I’m Perry’s Bitch” T-shirt. Size extra-pusillanimous, just right for you.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 4, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Perry,
It’s not the absolute level of the rate but it’s relation to other rates. The Libor rate being a reflection of the “higher” quality of credit and a very “wide” spread indicates issues with the functioning of the credit markets.
The first relationship I quoted you was Libor – Bills. As you can see from the following chart the relationship is not better (for credit) this year vs. last. The relationship is in fact “out of whack” and is a strong indicator of the credit crunch that corporations and banks are experiencing.

3m Lib – 3m T-Bills

If the best credits are +200 over bills for short term funding what spread do the next tier of lenders have to pay? That was in 12/07, currently spreads are in the +400 range for 3m Lib – 3m Bills. Strong indication of a liquidity crisis in the credit markets.
If you can’t handle this concept we won’t be able to move onto TED spreads and many other more fascinating concepts.
But again, to get it through your thick skull, it’s not the absolute level that matters but the relationship of the rate to other rates.
Referring to the Philippines as a little shit country is not racism Perry. And the literacy rate in the USA is near 99% vs. ~90% (like Mexico) for the Philippines I will not let another Pee-wee perryism propagate the www. It may be that you had to leave school to work on the palm oil plantation but the literacy rates apply nonetheless.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 5, 2008 at 9:25 am

Post by Dan
and *recently the 3M LIBOR – 3M T-Bills spread was as wide as 400 bps (not currently). Thank you Uncle Sam and other Central Banks for the intervention addressing what could’ve been an even bigger catastrophe. Although we are not out of the woods yet.

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2008 at 10:57 am

It’s not the absolute level of the rate but it’s relation to other rates. The Libor rate being a reflection of the “higher” quality of credit and a very “wide” spread indicates issues with the functioning of the credit markets.
Which, one more time, is not necessarily indicative of anything. The spread is NOT because LIBOR rates are higher than historical values. LIBOR rates are still lower than a year ago. But U.S. Treasury securities have very low yields right now, and it’s that which has produced the spread.
If U.S. Treasury securities were still giving historically “normal” yields, and LIBOR rates shot up a lot, THEN your argument might hold water, but that isn’t the case today.
The first relationship I quoted you was Libor – Bills. As you can see from the following chart the relationship is not better (for credit) this year vs. last. The relationship is in fact “out of whack” and is a strong indicator of the credit crunch that corporations and banks are experiencing.
Banks want higher yields because they’ve been burned too many times by borrowers. Meanwhile people are flocking to the safety of paper, particularly U.S. Treasury securities and well-regarded munis. But if you look at WHY the spread is there, it has no more relation to the difference between how many apples you consume in one day versus how many bananas I consume.
If the best credits are +200 over bills for short term funding what spread do the next tier of lenders have to pay? That was in 12/07, currently spreads are in the +400 range for 3m Lib – 3m Bills. Strong indication of a liquidity crisis in the credit markets.
But in fact there’s no shortage of “liquidity.” The Federal Reserve alone has created several hundred billion new dollars since last December. There’s plenty of money to borrow, just no willingness on the part of lenders to lend it. That’s not a lack of liquidity, but a lack of confidence.
If you can’t handle this concept we won’t be able to move onto TED spreads and many other more fascinating concepts.
I would be more than happy to debunk any of your other delusions.
But again, to get it through your thick skull, it’s not the absolute level that matters but the relationship of the rate to other rates.
Why are you so afraid to answer my simple question about the inverted yield curve? Or do you realize it proves a point, that relative amounts are not necessarily indicative?
Referring to the Philippines as a little shit country is not racism Perry.
Sure, Mr. Bernard, sure.
The record shows that you were disparaging an entire people, whom you don’t even know. I know them. I’ve lived among them. And the U.S. would do well to have millions more of them here to bolster our work ethic and fulfil certain labor shortages (e.g. nursing).
And the literacy rate in the USA is near 99% vs. ~90% (like Mexico) for the Philippines I will not let another Pee-wee perryism propagate the www.
Literacy rates mean nothing when so many Americans graduate from high school with a God-awful ability to read and write. Then take into account that Cuba boasts a 99% literacy rate as well. So what?
It may be that you had to leave school to work on the palm oil plantation but the literacy rates apply nonetheless.
And once again, you lie about me. Please, let me know sometime I can stop by. You’re entertaining enough, in a pathetic sort of way, when sober. I’ll bring you some butt-kicking Philippine rum, and you can try on your new T-shirt.
and *recently the 3M LIBOR – 3M T-Bills spread was as wide as 400 bps (not currently). Thank you Uncle Sam and other Central Banks for the intervention addressing what could’ve been an even bigger catastrophe. Although we are not out of the woods yet.
I gather you’re not saying that sarcastically. I would have said it so, because their “intervention” is only making something worse after they created the crisis in the first place.
You still don’t get it, do you? What the feds and Fed have done is the most sinister thing in 80 years. They caused the crisis, and now they’ll make taxpayers shoulder the burden of “fixing” it. What will it take for you to smell the smoke?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 5, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Historically low treasury yields (nearing 0% in some cases) relative to the universe IS an indication of problems in the credit markets. Liquidity is starting to come back in the credit markets but its absence uncovered the roots of this credit crisis which were bad assets on the books of the banks. Now you want to blame the government for something like Lehman brothers leveraging and getting cleaned out on commercial real estate, mtg’s and the associated deriv’s.
Sorry I don’t buy it.
Also if you have access to historics you will see that Libor did shoot up quite a bit into October. Nearly doubling.
As for gifts, you can send it to Karol. Because so many of your homosexual fantasies involve me I wouldn’t be drinking anything you provided.

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Historically low treasury yields (nearing 0% in some cases) relative to the universe IS an indication of problems in the credit markets.
This is a new subject, so you can stop early in your pretense that I ever argued otherwise. It’s actually not with the credit markets, but with investment expections as a whole. People are simply fleeing for the safety of paper, especially when they think their bank will fail or their money market instruments might “break the buck.” You know the irony, don’t you? So they pull deposits out of their banks to put in Treasury securities, and the Treasury is pumping money — effectively the same money because it’s fungible — into banks to keep them solvent.
Side note: the numbers are a lot like when the stock market was bottoming in 2003, when a broker I worked with was convincing a client to go into these insured AAA munis yielding 5.5%. But circumstances are a bit different today: state and local governments got used to overspending on top of five years of good tax revenues. Now that tax revenues are dropping, the governments have to tighten their belts, but no, they want to keep borrowing and spending…except that they’re running out of willing lenders. Sacramento had to go hat-in-hand to the feds, did you hear? A “palty” $7 billion was all they needed, but they couldn’t afford the high interest rates that borrowers demanded for the risk.
The Treasury very quietly announced on Tuesday that it’s taking on another $550 billion in debt. This should frighten the crap out of any thinking person. The real credit crisis is not with the quasi-private “markets,” but with governments.
Liquidity is starting to come back in the credit markets but its absence uncovered the roots of this credit crisis which were bad assets on the books of the banks.
Again, there’s plenty of liquidity. What needs to come back is confidence. That will require three things: time, the ceasing of government interference in markets so that analysts can properly determine assets’ correct values, and more time. I deliberately said “time” twice, to emphasize its importance. The dust has to settle, and then we must understand that accurate valuations don’t happen overnight.
Now you want to blame the government for something like Lehman brothers leveraging and getting cleaned out on commercial real estate, mtg’s and the associated deriv’s.
Sorry I don’t buy it.
In fact I never said any such thing. What I have said, and remember I’m a staunch libertarian in the finest Ayn Rand sense, is that Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill, and even my employer, took the risks and should bear the consequences without the government making me and other taxpayers pay for it. It’s immoral to put me on the hook for others’ irresponsibility, no matter how “profitable” it might turn out to be.
But as far as sparking the fire and pouring on gasoline, it’s been the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates too low for too long, the federal government since 1977 pushing lenders to make bad loans, and the federal government since 1936 (and reaffirmed in 1970 with the creation of FRE) encouraging lenders to lend too much.
Also if you have access to historics
Doesn’t everyone these days? You don’t exactly need a Bloomberg.
you will see that Libor did shoot up quite a bit into October. Nearly doubling.
Uh. You DO know that there’s more than one rate, right? And let’s take a look at them. This is before the Fed cuts; we want to leave those out for this particular analysis.
1-month LIBOR: 2.18 this week, 4.14 one month ago, 4.67 one year ago
3-month LIBOR: 2.71 this week, 4.32 one month ago, 4.90 one year ago
6-month LIBOR: 2.97 this week, 4.02 one month ago, 4.85 one year ago
1-year LIBOR: 3.17 this week, 4.06 one month ago, 4.62 one year ago
So…which one doubled during October? If you mean the 3-month, it peaked at 4.8%, but look at it now. BTW, the three-month LIBOR hasn’t been this low since 2004. And I’m not even a “bond manager,” the occupation you like to invoke — notwithstanding it’s risk management guys who are concerned about LIBOR spreads.
As for gifts, you can send it to Karol. Because so many of your homosexual fantasies involve me I wouldn’t be drinking anything you provided.
Again, the record shows that you were the one bringing up faggotry from the start. You never did explain: just how do you know so much about Tijuana transvestite prostitutes?
Take a good look at yourself, kid. We’re almost starting to have a decent, civil discussion, but you seem to have some inescapable need to interject personal insults into things.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 6, 2008 at 2:15 pm

The 3 month Libor went from 2.82% on 9/15/08 to 4.82% on 10/10/08.
That’s a big move higher in yield. Does that satisfy your upward move in a rates ?
The Fed printing money and investors withdrawing the money from investments (stocks, bonds, ABS, whatever) and buying T-Bills is exactly what i’m talking about. That specific action by no means creates liquidity in the credit markets and from the numbers I have provided that has been proven.
If you stopped yelling at the rain that it’s “NOT RAINING” and read your own posts you would see how obnoxious and offensive you are to pretty much everyone that disagrees with you. I just beat you at your own game and you don’t like it.
As I said early on in our discussions you have some interesting ideas but those that disagree with you will completely toss you away because of your obnoxious demeanor.
I pointed out that your statement was factually incorrect and you call me a moron. You demand to see the GDP over that period in a chart and I provided it and mentioned that you should look at spreads as an indication of the credit crisis.
Your answer:
“The only thing you know about “spreads” is when you do that for your boyfriend.”
Then you argue in the face of the data that proves you wrong. Claiming it’s mythical when in fact you wanted to base your original argument on said data.
I tried to be civil with you but if you want to turn things into an argument of slander and put-downs I will beat you at that as well.

Posted by: Dan at November 6, 2008 at 4:14 pm

The 3 month Libor went from 2.82% on 9/15/08 to 4.82% on 10/10/08.
Of course. Mid-September was the weekend of the double-whammy, so banks lost all confidence. They had the money to lend, but not the willingness to lend it. Thus it’s a confidence problem, not a liquidity one.
In fact, I remember 9/15 as well as anyone. I was on my honeymoon but called my boss that morning to talk about Merrill, because we work with them.
That’s a big move higher in yield. Does that satisfy your upward move in a rates ?
And what was it soon afterward? Lower. Everyone took a deep breath and realized, whew, maybe they don’t have to require such high rates. It’s that old supply and demand thing, you know. If they ask rates that are too high, they’ll find nobody wants to borrow, so they must reduce their asking price.
The Fed printing money and investors withdrawing the money from investments (stocks, bonds, ABS, whatever) and buying T-Bills is exactly what i’m talking about.
I’d have never guessed it’s what you were talking about, considering you never mentioned anything so specific before.
That specific action by no means creates liquidity in the credit markets and from the numbers I have provided that has been proven.
Only if you’re assuming the Fed is creating money only at the same rate as depositors are pulling funds. It’s unfortunately too easy with modern technology for the Fed to create hundreds of billions in the blink of an eye, if it wants. And that’s the game it’s playing now.
The Austrian perspective tells us that since it’s a confidence crisis, then central banking certainly cannot fix the fundamental problem, and in fact central banking only skews rational decision-making and prevents investors from gaining confidence in what is worthy of confidence. What the Fed IS doing, however, is creating inflation.
If you stopped yelling at the rain that it’s “NOT RAINING” and read your own posts you would see how obnoxious and offensive you are to pretty much everyone that disagrees with you. I just beat you at your own game and you don’t like it.
If your “game” is about being a jackass, I conceded long ago. Did you ever stop to think that if you stopped insulting me and my wife, perhaps you’d have received more “civil” responses from me?
But on and on you went, because you had no rebuttals at all save racist slurs. You don’t seriously expect a man to let things like that slide, would you? And don’t be surprised to “meet” someone like me who wouldn’t have a second thought about literally gutting someone where he stands for insulting my wife. That was extraordinarily low of you, you know? You have a disagreement with me, fine. But you never, ever bring another man’s woman into things. People have been hunted down for lesser offenses.
As I said early on in our discussions you have some interesting ideas but those that disagree with you will completely toss you away because of your obnoxious demeanor.
I have plenty of disagreements with people that remain good-natured, unless the person says something particularly stupid (hashfanatic and bryan have done this a couple of times).
A good example: check out my post on the financial Reichstag fire. Perfectly civil discussion with some guy I don’t know, but I had to call him on his refusal to cite chapter and verse.
Another good example: 300 NYPD descend on my blog, leaving all sorts of obscene insults (and force me to start “comment moderation”), and I was hardly going to stand for it. Would you?
I pointed out that your statement was factually incorrect and you call me a moron. You demand to see the GDP over that period in a chart
Uh, no. The data is easily available; I never “demanded” that you provide it.
And if you don’t like being called a moron, then don’t start with the insults.
and I provided it and mentioned that you should look at spreads as an indication of the credit crisis.
And spreads, as I’ve said time and time again, are not necessarily indicative of anything. Just because event A and event B usually happen together, we should not assume that event B must be happening because event A presently is. The spreads are in fact demonstrative of two separate happenings, but not one.
Come to think of it, Stephen Roach is going to find some way to blame the looming recession on residuals from the oil shock.
Your answer:
“The only thing you know about “spreads” is when you do that for your boyfriend.”
And considering that you were insulting me and my wife, did you seriously expect anything less? Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
Then you argue in the face of the data that proves you wrong. Claiming it’s mythical when in fact you wanted to base your original argument on said data.
And it’s still mythical, referring to the crisis as a matter of “liquidity.” The supply of loanable funds is still immense. A seller can have a huge supply, just not a willingness to sell it. So as I said above, we need time and a lack of government interference. Markets can handle things.
I tried to be civil with you but if you want to turn things into an argument of slander and put-downs I will beat you at that as well.
Do you not remember that YOU were the one who said I hadn’t the guts to call someone an “idiot” to his face, YOU were the one who wouldn’t even put a damn thing of substance into his replies, and YOU were the one who repeatedly misrepresented (if not outrightly lied) about what the other said?
I’ve done nothing but quote you precisely, going over things line by line, and returning tit for tat. If you don’t like my game style, then you can feel free to ignore me (just tell yourself it’s not worth your time). You’re just a name on the screen, bub, but being anonymous doesn’t mean I won’t reply in kind. I’ve been involved in flamewars for 15 years, when Usenet was king and the WWW hadn’t yet taken off, but I never start flamewars. I only finish them.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 7, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Post a comment