Category: Uncategorized

The so-called lull in the foreclosure rate had nothing to do with fewer people failing to pay their mortages:

Khater said the foreclosure rate and REO rates have been impacted by government tinkering in the market. He said federal and state efforts have mostly delayed foreclosures, preventing few. The same is true for loan modifications — they fail about half the time. So to tune out the noise, just look at the 90-day rate. In Khater’s view it shows “one giant wave.”

I never understood why people were commenting on the “lull” in foreclosures and REOs when California had declared a short-term moratorium on permitting banks to foreclose. Combined with the demonstrated reluctance of banks to follow through on the procedure because of what it does to their balance sheets – they carry the delinquent, abandoned property on their books at the full value of the mortgage until the whole process is complete – the mortgage banks are terrified of taking ownership of foreclosed properties. But the graphic below shows the true picture, which indicates that there can’t be any reasonable expectation of a substantive economic recovery until 2012 at the earliest.

The gap between REOs (foreclosures on the books) and foreclosures in process is the extent to which the damage is being underestimated. And the delinquency rate is an indicator of more foreclosures in process still to come.

Of course, the reason more people are finding it difficult to pay their mortgages is because their wages and salary are continuing to drop. In 1973, the median male weekly wage was $486.10. Source: The State of Working America by Lawrence R. Mishel, David M. Frankel, p. 78. Corrected for inflation, that is $2,361.45 in 2009 dollars, or $122,795.40 annually. In its report entitled “USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS: SECOND QUARTER 2009”, the BLS reported the median male weekly wage is now $815, or $42,380 annually.

So, that’s what immigration, offshoring, and women’s rights have accomplished for the country, a two-thirds reduction in male wages. Inexpensive debt has hitherto concealed some of the ramifications of that collapse in real wages for a while, but as the chart shows, it can’t do it forever.

Yet another reason for men to avoid marrying American women:

Thinking her husband was dead, a 26-year-old newlywed pulled up to her Boynton Beach town home Wednesday morning in apparent panic. She surveyed the crime scene tape and swarming police officers and began to sob hysterically. A good act, police called it. Investigators say she was the one planning his death – and they were a step ahead. The would-be widow was Dalia Dippolito, and since Monday police say an undercover detective posing as a hit man had been planning with her the details of her husband’s demise.

For $6,000, he was to murder Michael Dippolito, 38, Dalia’s husband of six months, police say. “I will be very happy,” she allegedly told the hitman, and laughed at the thought.

Of course, upon reflection, one realizes that this is all the husband’s fault. Why should his petty desire to continue living stand in the way of a woman’s right to happiness? This arrest is really an outrage. It is obviously nothing more than sexist patriarchal oppression for the police to forcibly prevent a woman from leaving an unsatisfactory marriage. And it is total fascism to set up a fake crime scene in order to make a perfectly innocent woman doing nothing more than legally exercising her woman’s right to end her marriage look bad.

Fortunately, the American judicial system is a little more enlightened. Since the penalty for a woman shooting her sleeping husband in the back with a shotgun is three months jail, we can be confident that the soon-to-be ex Mrs. Dippolito will soon be set free with six months probation. Outrageous, to be sure, but every revolution must have martyrs to make the occasional sacrifice.

It often turns out to be a very good way of finding it. AW, who also informs us that she is in the process of bidding the market adieu, writes of her experience with the blog:

For every 20 emails you get from irate, offended females, I hope you receive one like mine. My original email was about three pages long – I realized what I had done, and promptly deleted it. You don’t know me, therefore you definitely don’t care about my back story or what I’ve been through or my thoughts on women today, so it would have undoubtedly gone unread. Instead, I’m just going to thank you and tell you what you – and the Ilk – have done for me.

When I started reading your blog about two years ago, I was initially offended by the things you wrote about women. I don’t like to think of myself as a feminist, nor do I care for anything resembling female “equality”, so it wasn’t that – maybe your meanness sparks something in about 99.9% of the female population to stand up and defend whoever is being attacked (usually other women). As well it should, because you continually hold up the modern Western woman for inspection. In the glaring light of logic, common sense, decency and reason – what you write can be an ugly reality to swallow. But – it’s undeniable and avoidable, especially if you don’t want to become “that” woman. To avoid turning into the shrill, selfish harpy whose only goal in life is to be “happy” (the definition of which changes endlessly) and actually believes that fulfillment comes from pursuing that personal happiness, you have shown me that I must:

1.) Get over myself

and

2.) Realize that “being happy” isn’t guaranteed by getting what I think I want, even if at the expense of others. Often, the consequences of pursuing your own personal happiness causes disaster and misery to others and, eventually, yourself.

I have to say – my happiness has actually grown over the last two years. The more I discard the secular view of “womyn”, and embrace the Biblical definition of what a woman of value truly is, the richer my life, my relationships, and my walk with God becomes. It’s like shedding a disgusting piece of clothing and finding that you’ve been wearing a beautiful gown all along. While you need no encouragement from me, I do hope that you keep your blog going for a long time. I enjoy it greatly, and have learned much from you and your long-time commenters.

The simple fact of AW’s realization that complete strangers aren’t particularly interested in the minutiae of her personal history reflects how far she has evolved from the average woman today. It’s not that people don’t care at all, it’s merely that they don’t care that much. Understanding that we all live in occasionally intersecting self-orbiting universes is one of the keys to tranquility for men and women alike, although learning to stop looking to a man to provide for her ever-shifting happiness is absolutely vital for the dynamic creatures known as women.

And while it’s true that as an independent theocentric universe I have no need of external encouragement, I’m nevertheless pleased to see or hear when people demonstrate that they have not only learned something here, but been able to put it to successful use in their lives. You can always tune me out if you wish, but it’s rather more difficult to escape the remorseless logic of real life behavioral patterns that I am attempting to describe.

Deutsche Bank has a grim forecast:

The percentage of U.S. homeowners who owe more than their house is worth will nearly double to 48 percent in 2011 from 26 percent at the end of March, portending another blow to the housing market, Deutsche Bank said on Wednesday.

Home price declines will have their biggest impact on prime “conforming” loans that meet underwriting and size guidelines of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the bank said in a report. Prime conforming loans make up two-thirds of mortgages, and are typically less risky because of stringent requirements.

“We project the next phase of the housing decline will have a far greater impact on prime borrowers,” Deutsche analysts Karen Weaver and Ying Shen said in the report…. Covering 100 U.S. metropolitan areas, Deutsche Bank in June forecast home prices would fall 14 percent through the first quarter of 2011, for a total drop of 41.7 percent.

This can be expected to significantly increase the rate of foreclosures, which will take down an increasing number of banks. And the FDIC already has some sizeable problems on its hands, as its inability to find takers for the assets and deposits of several large banks that are in the process of failing has it scrambling to split the banks’ assets among acquirers, which it has to do before it can seize them and shut them down.

Don’t put too much faith in the short term happy talk on housing. That’s just a blip from the foreclosure hiatus and people snapping up the initial wave of foreclosure “bargains”. The fragility of the housing market is why the Fed won’t even think of doing what needs to be done and raising interest rates, which would appear to doom the US to a Japan scenario at best.

NW notes a pattern with regards to dating at the office and sexual harassment:

Please don’t assume I’m whining or anything. The following is more like a casual observation from patternist that is despairing just a little for people. [Consider the] funny SNL skit about sexual harassment. The moral? Just don’t even associate with girls unless you’re good looking. What’s sad is how true this seems to becoming. Once upon a time when you asked someone out, the worst they could say is no. Now the worst is losing your job for “sexually harassing” someone or outright being thrown in jail.

Personal aside: yes I may have some light Asberger’s syndrome myself but I at least recognize that I’m awkward and bad at social situations. Still at one place I tried to be friendly and fit in only to later get a warning for sexual harassment. (still don’t know what I did) So I just stopped talking to everyone.

Anyway, reading posts like this or ones where you talk about women always being the pursued and I can’t help but wonder… maybe the game is too rigged? One article spoke about how a lot of trouble in the middle-east arises from polyagamy because the older men are sapping up most of the brides, leaving a large segment of young, single (and bored) men. Meanwhile in the west it seems like we’re also getting a large segment of young, single men only here they are actively punished for trying to rectify the situation.

You asked: “Which came first? The murderous bitterness or the inability to attract women?”

With the way things are, isn’t it a bigger surprise that there isn’t more murderous bitterness out there?

I don’t think it’s quite fair to assert, as the SNL skit did, that being attractive is the only way for men to be able to ask women out without sexually harassing them. There’s also being rich, as well as being famous and being powerful. But it’s true, the Tom Bradys of the world are permitted behavior that would see another man lose his job. It’s not fair, but then, what is? Of course, once you recognize that unfairness is inherent to the system, you will realize that men also have an advantage, which is that women don’t have a reliable way of knowing who is rich and powerful, and who is not. Players exploit this information gap all the time, which of course leads women to complain that those men aren’t playing fair. But again, what is?

Anyhow, the main thing to keep in mind is that women despise desperation and weakness more than anything. They view it as creepy; therefore a man who sends off signals of being weak is by definition a probable harasser. It’s almost absurd how a man who stops viewing women as beautiful pedestal-dwelling dispensers of love and social approval and instead looks at them as prey becomes almost instantly more attractive to them. Single women are complicated and dynamic, which in male terms means that because what they want tends to change rapidly, there is no point in putting any stock in what they say at any given moment. And once you figure out that women find your honesty unattractive… why are you still being honest with them? Seriously, Asperger’s or not, is this difficult? As I have had occasion to tell both men and women: “Sometimes people say things that aren’t true.”

When honesty is acceptable, women usually want you to tell them what you want; they don’t want you to always be asking them what they want. They often want you to take responsibility for their decisions for them. That’s why they have such common fantasies about being ravished and swept away and so forth. So, to the extent that a man’s behavior is not in line with the way women’s desires orient – which is very often directly opposed to not only what they say they want, but what they think they want – a man’s behavior will usually be self-defeating.

For deeper insight into what makes women tick on a sexual level, I recommend reading Roissy or some of the Pick-Up Artist sites. Like good predators, they study their prey incessantly and make a point of knowing them intimately. I don’t recommend their attitude lifestyle because it is both immoral and ultimately unfulfilling, but it is at least an antidote to the misinformation under which so many men labor. But there’s a very good reason why women are naturally drawn to men like me and Tucker Max; it’s BECAUSE we’re independent bastards, it’s not DESPITE that.

Now, that independence came naturally to me because Spacebunny was, and is, the only woman I’ve ever loved or even cared much about. But we’re not talking about love, we’re talking about initial male-female interactions. The key is that you can’t ACT independent, you have to BE independent. For most men, it’s a process, but you can get there in time. Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree. If one happens to be out of reach, pluck another. Remember, it’s not love you’re feeling, it’s just physical attraction and momentary infatuation.

So, I have no sympathy for the bitter nice guys. They’re stupid, they’re stubborn, they’re reactive, and they’re naive. It’s not hard to understand why no woman wants them to bend her over and take her hard. Because, let’s face it, they probably wouldn’t anyhow. As PJ O’Rourke once pointed out, women fantasize about Nazis, they don’t fantasize about nice, sensitive liberals.

The murderous bitterness or the inability to attract women? In any case, it’s an interesting glimpse into the despairing mind of a killer.

December 24, 2008:
Moving into Christmas again. No girlfriend since 1984, last Christmas with Pam was in 1983. Who knows why. I am not ugly or too weird. No sex since July 1990 either (I was 29). No shit! Over eighteen years ago. And did it maybe only 50-75 times in my life. Getting to think that a woman now would just, uh, get in the way of things. Isolated. I have extra money and enjoy traveling, too, wtih my 25-30 days of vacation. LA was the best! But going alone is not too fun. Invited to a party on Christmas day tomorrow. Seems about 15-25 people will actually show. I like her parties; I can meet new people and talk. Got the next 8 days off. I should have exit plan done and practiced by then. I know nothing will change, no matter how hard I try or what goals I set.

The most frightening thing about it, I think, is how relatively normal the tone of it is. There is none of the predator’s superiority complex of the serial killer or any rambling psychosis, it’s mostly a depressing tale of deep and abiding narcissistic loneliness. I’m only surprised that he didn’t shoot his domineering mother first.

UPDATE: The link is dead so I’ve removed it, but Josh has the whole thing posted in the comments.

RS runs a recent column by an econ professor:

This is the email I received from an Econ professor about your most recent WND column:

To reduce “healthcare” to a simple supply and demand model is not very helpful. Will the demand for healthcare increase if everyone has insurance? Yes. But there will be less demand on expensive emergency services. Given the amount this nation spends on healthcare I’m not expecting “rationing” anytime soon.

I’m not buying it.

Pleading “complexity” is the usual dodge from an educated individual who is either too lazy to think through the implications or is politically disinclined to avoid them. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people are determined to explain why the law of supply and demand doesn’t apply to one thing or another, only to be eventually proven wrong like so many before them. While there are proven exceptions, as Veblen and Prechter have demonstrated, they tend to be more particular and circumstantial rather than complex. The professor is presuming here that there will be less demand on expensive emergency services because uninsured people will increasingly utilize preventative medical care rather than more expensive emergency services, which is a superficially logical assumption. It’s also incorrect.

End of life care accounts for 20 percent of all health care costs. That’s going to be completely unaffected by preventative care and will rise with the addition of the newly insured. But the more significant statistic is the one that says uninsured patients are only twice as likely to visit hospital emergency rooms than the insured. Since emergency care accounts for 17 percent of all medical visits, (9.9 percent of all ambulatory visits, compared to 49 percent for primary care), this means that the maximum total potential reduction in costs is 5.6 percent of the total cost of emergency room visits. This is not going to be anywhere nearly enough savings to cover the cost of millions of newly insured people going in for free primary care visits, especially since there isn’t going to be a one-to-one substitution between primary care visits and emergency visits. Uninsured people who wait for the emergency room don’t go in every time they get a minor sniffle, (this is by the definition of those who are making the savings argument, remember), so the ratio of Obamacare primary care visits to pre-Obamacare emergency room visits by the previously uninsured will rise and dilute the savings effect, possibly even eliminating it altogether.

And this doesn’t even take into account the fact that a percentage of the previously uninsured will live longer from receiving preventative treatment than they would have before and therefore require more treatment over time, so it is safe to conclude that the net cost of treating the previously uninsured at the primary care level rather than the emergency room will almost certainly cost more, not less.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
– Barack Obama

“You know the people who always try to SCARE people whenever you try to bring them health-insurance reform are at it again. And they’re taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they’re cobbling them together to leave a VERY false impression.”
– Linda Douglass, Communications Director for the White House Office of Health Reform

Will someone please tell these cretins that it’s an uncut video of Obama himself talking. Of course, if you’re dumb enough to buy the CERTIFICATION/CERTIFICATE sleight of hand, perhaps you’re dumb enough to believe that an unedited video of an Obama statement about his beliefs regarding health insurance is an out-of-context, cobbled-together hatchet job.

John Hood explains how “cash for clunkers” is the automotive equivalent of the 1930s-era crop destruction programs.

Back in the first term of the Roosevelt administration, its agricultural policies created the absurdity of the federal government paying farmers to destroy their crops even as many Americans were finding it difficult to feed their families. The program was intended to prop up prices and thus benefit farm interests at the expense of consumers — the former being well-represented in Washington, the latter not so much. If you think about the economy in Keynesian terms, such a policy might appear rational. If you think about the economy in practical terms, of course, the policy was idiotic.

There’s something similar going on with Cash for Clunkers. Automobiles represent a significant share of the nation’s capital stock. Even used cars often have years of life left in them, years during which owners can use them to get to work, perform work, or transport themselves and their families for education, recreation, or consumption.

The program is remarkably stupid. It’s just another form of credit inflation pushing the demand curve out. Once it hits the limits of demand, the shifting back of the curve to its place on the supply curve will be nasty because none of those new cars will need replacement as soon as the clunkers would have. There are some differences of course. Roosevelt was trying to reduce supply, whereas this program is just a means of consuming tomorrow’s demand today.