It's morning in Obama's America

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know about that.  I doubt that he gets positive utility just from selling off assets.  That would be weird.  I think what he likes making money and one way to make money is buy companies on the cheap, leverage them and cash out.  As it happens that is how he made much of his money and he did a pretty good job at it.

What you're describing is quite a bit different than the Wall Street story of asset poaching.  Of course private equity firms want to cash out.  They buy into dying companies, build them up, and sell them off at a profit.  The fact that in the Dade case the end buyers were doofuses shouldn't change that.

[Ideologue]

I heard an ad today from what turns out was a conservative PAC (the name sounded progressive, something like Imagine the Future or some effeminate Dem-friendly shit like that, but they ran an ad later endorsing Newt Gingrich, so).  It was the most class warfare-tastic thing ever.  It was along the lines of "MITT ROMNEY IS A RICH SON OF A RICH MAN WHO DESTROYED JOBS FOR FUN."

I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.  I realize that it's not exactly the same as saying "I masturbate to layoffs," but as a gaffe with mileage, it's pretty great.  I hope it sticks throughout his campaign; I might have to change my primary vote to Romney.

[The Minsky Moment]

What you're describing is quite a bit different than the Wall Street story of asset poaching.  Of course private equity firms want to cash out.   

But a fair question to ask is whether that is a socially useful activity.
Sure in a free society a person is free to make a living in any lawful way they wish.
But if a candidate for high public office specifically cites his private sector experience as a qualification, then IMO it is more than fair to raise that question.

[Admiral Yi]

But a fair question to ask is whether that is a socially useful activity.

Isn't that what we've been talking about?

[Phillip V]

These guys are still in power : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577157001537763864.html

[DGuller]

To be fair, Fed can't really speak its mind (not that I don't think that they completely misjudged the housing bubble all the way through its inflation).  If Ben Bernanke says "shit", the whole economy takes a dump.

[Phillip V]

To be fair, Fed can't really speak its mind (not that I don't think that they completely misjudged the housing bubble all the way through its inflation).  If Ben Bernanke says "shit", the whole economy takes a dump.

These words were said behind closed doors. These transcripts have only now just been released to the public, 5+ years later.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, for fuck's sake, CC.  Just because I really dislike grumbler, and I hate seeing you continue to unconditionally embarass yourself, I'm going to post Romney's actual quote.  I'm not putting you out of your misery because I'm hostile to you, I'm putting you out of your misery because I'm compassionate towards you.

"I want individuals to have their own insurance," Romney said. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

It took me about 30 seconds to find it in Google.

Yes, it's here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9004683/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-I-like-to-fire-people-gaffe-draws-fire-from-opponents.html

but it's not exactly as quoted, right after saying "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me" he stumbles quite a bit, because I think he instantly knew what he said could sound bad, especially if it was taken out of context.

Yep, if people actually watch the video they will see that as soon as the words "I like to fire people" came out of his mouth he had an "Oh Crap! What did I just say" moment.

And that is the point.  It was a silly thing to say no matter how much people want to dress it up.

[DGuller]

To be fair, Fed can't really speak its mind (not that I don't think that they completely misjudged the housing bubble all the way through its inflation).  If Ben Bernanke says "shit", the whole economy takes a dump.

These words were said behind closed doors. These transcripts have only now just been released to the public, 5+ years later.

Shit.

[DontSayBanana]

Yep, if people actually watch the video they will see that as soon as the words "I like to fire people" came out of his mouth he had an "Oh Crap! What did I just say" moment.

And that is the point.  It was a silly thing to say no matter how much people want to dress it up.

Seriously.  Being comfortable with firing might be a positive for a potential POTUS, but an ability to misspeak that badly?  The guy would be the public face of the US- how long did it take foreigners to realize we were saddled with an inarticulate speaker in GW again?

[The Minsky Moment]

These guys are still in power : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577157001537763864.html

If the argument is that they shouldn't be, the charts do a very poor job in making that case.
On Chart 1, Bernanke's 3/06 statement was correct.  The housing market didn't collapse in 06 and growth was solid.  The chart actually shows housing prices holding stable for about a year after the statement.  The Fed rarely attempts to forecast much beyond that timeframe.

On the second chart, there are three statements:

1) The June 06 "staff report" - the context of the quoted line was ARM repricing and the staff member explained (accurately) that most ARMs would not reprice until 08 or later.  However, immediately after the quoted line, the staff member continued: "That said, there are some indications of stress among subprime borrowers . . . In particular, we are seeing a deterioration among subprime borrowers with variable-rate mortgages . . . the increases for those subprime borrowers experiencing resets could be striking: We estimate increases of something like 25 to 30 percent of their original payment. . . . the greater stress evident among the most financially vulnerable segment of the household sector presents a downside risk to the forecast."  But that didn't make for a strong a sound bite for the WSJ.

2. Geithner's June 2006 comment:  The context is Geithner's discussion of GDP estimates for the next 18 months, i.e. to December 2007.  He estimated about 3 percent.  That was too high because as it turned out 3rd Q of 06 and 1st Q of 07 were very weak.  But the last three quarters of 07 had growth rates of 3.6, 3.0, and 1.7 percent.  As economic forecasts go, it wasn't too terrible.

3.  Bernanke's December 06 comment:  This was responding in part to Janet Yellen's comment about a "soft landing" being the most likely outcome; her full comment was: "In summary, I continue to view a soft landing with moderating inflation as my best-guess forecast . . . But there are sizable risks on both sides to the outlook for growth, and the downside risks are now more palpable."  Bernanke basically said the same thing, adding for good measure: "I think I took a bit more weakness from the data in the first part of the economy than some people around the table." Based on the information available in 12/06, this conclusion -- a soft landing recession as the most likely outcome but with significant downside risk -- seems reasonable.

It's not clear to me what the WSJ's point is in all this.  What exactly do they think the Fed should have been doing in 2006?  Panicking the markets by preaching doom about the housing market and slashing rates at the very same time that core inflation indicators were rising sharply?  It is safe to say if the Fed did that in 06, Bernanke would have been lynched and Ron Paul sent in with a wrecking ball.

[CountDeMoney]

You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.   
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

[DGuller]

You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.   
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

Yes, but in this context, it doesn't matter.  It was known in 2005, at least, that the real danger of the housing bubble bursting were the financial instruments tied to it.  I said as much in my 2005 thread about the coming financial disaster.

[Admiral Yi]

You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.   
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

No.  The only housing related financial instrument that can be reasonably construed as gambling is CDS.  I'm pretty sure the losses suffered on CDS were a fraction of total losses.

And when have we had a housing bubble before?  We had a commercial real estate bubble (regionalized) that ended in the S&L crisi, but I can't think of another housing bubble in the US.

[The Brain]

You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.   
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

Yes, but in this context, it doesn't matter.  It was known in 2005, at least, that the real danger of the housing bubble bursting were the financial instruments tied to it.  I said as much in my 2005 thread about the coming financial disaster.

The thread that is somehow impossible to find now?