John Ryskamp's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/139402/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/176411-leading-indicators-for-a-credit-contraction-round-2?source=feed#comment-788704 788704
There is no black swan to the "black swan"--the black swan has always been stashed behind the curtain, where's the surprise there? About to be brought out front, though.]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:56:25 -0500
There is no black swan to the "black swan"--the black swan has always been stashed behind the curtain, where's the surprise there? About to be brought out front, though.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174669-second-or-third-stimulus-stop-the-madness-now?source=feed#comment-772121 772121
This means virtually NO individually enforceable rights in such facts as housing or medical care--policy need meet only the "minimum scrutiny" test and it is virtually impossible to defeat the political system with this test.

So the problem is not an economic problem, it is an individually enforceable rights problem. Marshall and his (previously) all too self-satisifed crew at the Roosevelt Institution, are beginning to wake up to this.

This is what makes commentaries such as yours possible: you are vying for power, you want what YOU want to be policy and enforce on US. You have no conception that individually enforceable rights have a role to play in economic policy.

As I pointed out in my book, and point out now, the "scrutiny" interpretation misrepresents what the Court has said, and here I use the two cases which determine the parameters of our current regime: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish and U.S. v. Carolene Products.

West Coast sustained a minimum wage law, but not, as is often supposed, because the Court felt that as long as the law bore a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose, the policy was Constitutional. It adopted the doctrine of the State of Washington which had passed the law, and its doctrine was that policy is Constitutional only if it maintains important facts. Look at the fact involved and why the state passed the law:

"It shall be unlawful to employ women or minors in any industry or occupation within the State of Washington under conditions of labor detrimental to their health or morals, and it shall be unlawful to employ women workers in any industry within the State of Washington at wages which are not adequate for their maintenance.

There is hereby created a commission to be known as the "Industrial Welfare Commission" for the State of Washington, to establish such standards of wages and conditions of labor for women and minors employed within the State of Washington as shall be held hereunder to be reasonable and not detrimental to health and morals, and which shall be sufficient for the decent maintenance of women."

The policy of the State was to maintain important facts, and the Court found that income was an important fact. This is what the Supreme Court meant when issuing West Coast, not that policy is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

On to U.S. v. Carolene Products, which supposedly--in its famous footnote four--said that policy regarding "political" (voting, speech) facts as opposed to "social" facts (housing, medical care) might be subject to a higher level of scrutiny. This law sustained a Federal law regarding milk ingredients. Why? Because it maintained an important fact health:

"[A]ffirmative evidence also sustains the statute. In twenty years, evidence has steadily accumulated of the danger to the public health from the general consumption of foods which have been stripped of elements essential to the maintenance of health. The Filled Milk Act was adopted by Congress after committee hearings, in the course of which eminent scientists and health experts testified. An extensive investigation was made of the commerce in milk compounds in which vegetable oils have been substituted for natural milk fat, and of the effect upon the public health of the use of such compounds as a food substitute for milk. The conclusions drawn from evidence presented at the hearings were embodied in reports of the House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. No. 365, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Sen.Rep. No. 987, 67th Cong., 4th Sess. Both committees concluded, as the statute itself declares, that the use of filled milk as a substitute for pure milk is generally injurious to health and facilitates fraud on the public."

Thus, the doctrine of the Court is that the Constitution is the maintenance of important facts, not a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose. This misreading is at the source of our present difficulties, because it achieves only persistent misallocation of resources which can only be properly allocated through the enforcement of individually enforceable rights.

No one in the political system wants to give up power over the MONEY, that is why they, and YOU, have no conception of increasing individually enforceable rights as a reponse to the current problems.

How do you determine whether a fact is "important?" It is, whether the fact is an unchanging fact of human experience. It is an important fact if it is

1. a fact of human experience
2. which experience demonstrates
3. is unaffected by attempts to affect it.

This is the test the Court applied when it removed exercises of religion from the political system and turned over power over them to the individual. Look at the historical test the Court applied to the fact of exercises of religion, and how they found that it resisted assaults:

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

Note that another test could be derived from this:

4. and such affects are an assault on government.

The Court long ago held that government is an unchanging fact of human experience (Marbury v. Madison).

The reason for the recent, and surprising, anti-eminent domain revolt is public opinion's fear over facts such as maintenance, housing and medical care, which it has concluded are important facts.

Thus, it is public opinion which is moving the political system out of the scrutiny regime and putting it into the maintenance regime, the doctrine of which is that the Constitution is the maintenance of important facts.

Viewed from this perspective, you are a cowboy. Your prescriptions, as well as Marshall's, need to be put through the rigor of individually enforceable rights regarding those facts public opinion now sees as important: liberty, maintenance, housing, education and medical care.

This is why people like you and Marshall never get anywhere: you don't understand that the issue is individually enforceable rights. I can tell you two people who know perfectly well that that is the issue: Nancy Pelosi and Michael Bloomberg. Every time another government effort is made, they are at pains to point out that it does not presume or established expanded individually enforceable rights.

This is why they are about to change their tune or be removed from power. But they won't be replaced by YOU or Marshall, unless you wake up and start thinking about the law.

Cheers,
John Ryskamp


]]> Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:39:51 -0500
This means virtually NO individually enforceable rights in such facts as housing or medical care--policy need meet only the "minimum scrutiny" test and it is virtually impossible to defeat the political system with this test.

So the problem is not an economic problem, it is an individually enforceable rights problem. Marshall and his (previously) all too self-satisifed crew at the Roosevelt Institution, are beginning to wake up to this.

This is what makes commentaries such as yours possible: you are vying for power, you want what YOU want to be policy and enforce on US. You have no conception that individually enforceable rights have a role to play in economic policy.

As I pointed out in my book, and point out now, the "scrutiny" interpretation misrepresents what the Court has said, and here I use the two cases which determine the parameters of our current regime: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish and U.S. v. Carolene Products.

West Coast sustained a minimum wage law, but not, as is often supposed, because the Court felt that as long as the law bore a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose, the policy was Constitutional. It adopted the doctrine of the State of Washington which had passed the law, and its doctrine was that policy is Constitutional only if it maintains important facts. Look at the fact involved and why the state passed the law:

"It shall be unlawful to employ women or minors in any industry or occupation within the State of Washington under conditions of labor detrimental to their health or morals, and it shall be unlawful to employ women workers in any industry within the State of Washington at wages which are not adequate for their maintenance.

There is hereby created a commission to be known as the "Industrial Welfare Commission" for the State of Washington, to establish such standards of wages and conditions of labor for women and minors employed within the State of Washington as shall be held hereunder to be reasonable and not detrimental to health and morals, and which shall be sufficient for the decent maintenance of women."

The policy of the State was to maintain important facts, and the Court found that income was an important fact. This is what the Supreme Court meant when issuing West Coast, not that policy is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

On to U.S. v. Carolene Products, which supposedly--in its famous footnote four--said that policy regarding "political" (voting, speech) facts as opposed to "social" facts (housing, medical care) might be subject to a higher level of scrutiny. This law sustained a Federal law regarding milk ingredients. Why? Because it maintained an important fact health:

"[A]ffirmative evidence also sustains the statute. In twenty years, evidence has steadily accumulated of the danger to the public health from the general consumption of foods which have been stripped of elements essential to the maintenance of health. The Filled Milk Act was adopted by Congress after committee hearings, in the course of which eminent scientists and health experts testified. An extensive investigation was made of the commerce in milk compounds in which vegetable oils have been substituted for natural milk fat, and of the effect upon the public health of the use of such compounds as a food substitute for milk. The conclusions drawn from evidence presented at the hearings were embodied in reports of the House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. No. 365, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Sen.Rep. No. 987, 67th Cong., 4th Sess. Both committees concluded, as the statute itself declares, that the use of filled milk as a substitute for pure milk is generally injurious to health and facilitates fraud on the public."

Thus, the doctrine of the Court is that the Constitution is the maintenance of important facts, not a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose. This misreading is at the source of our present difficulties, because it achieves only persistent misallocation of resources which can only be properly allocated through the enforcement of individually enforceable rights.

No one in the political system wants to give up power over the MONEY, that is why they, and YOU, have no conception of increasing individually enforceable rights as a reponse to the current problems.

How do you determine whether a fact is "important?" It is, whether the fact is an unchanging fact of human experience. It is an important fact if it is

1. a fact of human experience
2. which experience demonstrates
3. is unaffected by attempts to affect it.

This is the test the Court applied when it removed exercises of religion from the political system and turned over power over them to the individual. Look at the historical test the Court applied to the fact of exercises of religion, and how they found that it resisted assaults:

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

Note that another test could be derived from this:

4. and such affects are an assault on government.

The Court long ago held that government is an unchanging fact of human experience (Marbury v. Madison).

The reason for the recent, and surprising, anti-eminent domain revolt is public opinion's fear over facts such as maintenance, housing and medical care, which it has concluded are important facts.

Thus, it is public opinion which is moving the political system out of the scrutiny regime and putting it into the maintenance regime, the doctrine of which is that the Constitution is the maintenance of important facts.

Viewed from this perspective, you are a cowboy. Your prescriptions, as well as Marshall's, need to be put through the rigor of individually enforceable rights regarding those facts public opinion now sees as important: liberty, maintenance, housing, education and medical care.

This is why people like you and Marshall never get anywhere: you don't understand that the issue is individually enforceable rights. I can tell you two people who know perfectly well that that is the issue: Nancy Pelosi and Michael Bloomberg. Every time another government effort is made, they are at pains to point out that it does not presume or established expanded individually enforceable rights.

This is why they are about to change their tune or be removed from power. But they won't be replaced by YOU or Marshall, unless you wake up and start thinking about the law.

Cheers,
John Ryskamp


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174669-second-or-third-stimulus-stop-the-madness-now?source=feed#comment-772120 772120
This means virtually NO individually enforceable rights in such facts as housing or medical care--policy need meet only the "minimum scrutiny" test and it is virtually impossible to defeat the political system with this test.

So the problem is not an economic problem, it is an individually enforceable rights problem. Marshall and his (previously) all too self-satisifed crew at the Roosevelt Institution, are beginning to wake up to this.

This is what makes commentaries such as yours possible: you are vying for power, you want what YOU want to be policy and enforce on US. You have no conception that individually enforceable rights have a role to play in economic policy.

As I pointed out in my book, and point out now, the "scrutiny" interpretation misrepresents what the Court has said, and here I use the two cases which determine the parameters of our current regime: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish and U.S. v. Carolene Products.

West Coast sustained a minimum wage law, but not, as is often supposed, because the Court felt that as long as the law bore a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose, the policy was Constitutional. It adopted the doctrine of the State of Washington which had passed the law, and its doctrine was that policy is Constitutional only if it maintains important facts. Look at the fact involved and why the state passed the law:

"It shall be unlawful to employ women or minors in any industry or occupation within the State of Washington under conditions of labor detrimental to their health or morals, and it shall be unlawful to employ women workers in any industry within the State of Washington at wages which are not adequate for their maintenance.

There is hereby created a commission to be known as the "Industrial Welfare Commission" for the State of Washington, to establish such standards of wages and conditions of labor for women and minors employed within the State of Washington as shall be held hereunder to be reasonable and not detrimental to health and morals, and which shall be sufficient for the decent maintenance of women."

The policy of the State was to maintain important facts, and the Court found that income was an important fact. This is what the Supreme Court meant when issuing West Coast, not that policy is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

On to U.S. v. Carolene Products, which supposedly--in its famous footnote four--said that policy regarding "political" (voting, speech) facts as opposed to "social" facts (housing, medical care) might be subject to a higher level of scrutiny. This law sustained a Federal law regarding milk ingredients. Why? Because it maintained an important fact health:

"[A]ffirmative evidence also sustains the statute. In twenty years, evidence has steadily accumulated of the danger to the public health from the general consumption of foods which have been stripped of elements essential to the maintenance of health. The Filled Milk Act was adopted by Congress after committee hearings, in the course of which eminent scientists and health experts testified. An extensive investigation was made of the commerce in milk compounds in which vegetable oils have been substituted for natural milk fat, and of the effect upon the public health of the use of such compounds as a food substitute for milk. The conclusions drawn from evidence presented at the hearings were embodied in reports of the House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. No. 365, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Sen.Rep. No. 987, 67th Cong., 4th Sess. Both committees concluded, as the statute itself declares, that the use of filled milk as a substitute for pure milk is generally injurious to health and facilitates fraud on the public."

Thus, the doctrine of the Court is that the Constitution is the maintenance of important facts, not a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose. This misreading is at the source of our present difficulties, because it achieves only persistent misallocation of resources which can only be properly allocated through the enforcement of individually enforceable rights.

No one in the political system wants to give up power over the MONEY, that is why they, and YOU, have no conception of increasing individually enforceable rights as a reponse to the current problems.

How do you determine whether a fact is "important?" It is, whether the fact is an unchanging fact of human experience. It is an important fact if it is

1. a fact of human experience
2. which experience demonstrates
3. is unaffected by attempts to affect it.

This is the test the Court applied when it removed exercises of religion from the political system and turned over power over them to the individual. Look at the historical test the Court applied to the fact of exercises of religion, and how they found that it resisted assaults:

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

Note that another test could be derived from this:

4. and such affects are an assault on government.

The Court long ago held that government is an unchanging fact of human experience (Marbury v. Madison).

The reason for the recent, and surprising, anti-eminent domain revolt is public opinion's fear over facts such as maintenance, housing and medical care, which it has concluded are important facts.

Thus, it is public opinion which is moving the political system out of the scrutiny regime and putting it into the maintenance regime, the doctrine of which is that the Constitution is the maintenance of important facts.

Viewed from this perspective, you are a cowboy. Your prescriptions, as well as Marshall's, need to be put through the rigor of individually enforceable rights regarding those facts public opinion now sees as important: liberty, maintenance, housing, education and medical care.

This is why people like you and Marshall never get anywhere: you don't understand that the issue is individually enforceable rights. I can tell you two people who know perfectly well that that is the issue: Nancy Pelosi and Michael Bloomberg. Every time another government effort is made, they are at pains to point out that it does not presume or established expanded individually enforceable rights.

This is why they are about to change their tune or be removed from power. But they won't be replaced by YOU or Marshall, unless you wake up and start thinking about the law.

Cheers,
John Ryskamp]]> Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:39:49 -0500
This means virtually NO individually enforceable rights in such facts as housing or medical care--policy need meet only the "minimum scrutiny" test and it is virtually impossible to defeat the political system with this test.

So the problem is not an economic problem, it is an individually enforceable rights problem. Marshall and his (previously) all too self-satisifed crew at the Roosevelt Institution, are beginning to wake up to this.

This is what makes commentaries such as yours possible: you are vying for power, you want what YOU want to be policy and enforce on US. You have no conception that individually enforceable rights have a role to play in economic policy.

As I pointed out in my book, and point out now, the "scrutiny" interpretation misrepresents what the Court has said, and here I use the two cases which determine the parameters of our current regime: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish and U.S. v. Carolene Products.

West Coast sustained a minimum wage law, but not, as is often supposed, because the Court felt that as long as the law bore a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose, the policy was Constitutional. It adopted the doctrine of the State of Washington which had passed the law, and its doctrine was that policy is Constitutional only if it maintains important facts. Look at the fact involved and why the state passed the law:

"It shall be unlawful to employ women or minors in any industry or occupation within the State of Washington under conditions of labor detrimental to their health or morals, and it shall be unlawful to employ women workers in any industry within the State of Washington at wages which are not adequate for their maintenance.

There is hereby created a commission to be known as the "Industrial Welfare Commission" for the State of Washington, to establish such standards of wages and conditions of labor for women and minors employed within the State of Washington as shall be held hereunder to be reasonable and not detrimental to health and morals, and which shall be sufficient for the decent maintenance of women."

The policy of the State was to maintain important facts, and the Court found that income was an important fact. This is what the Supreme Court meant when issuing West Coast, not that policy is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

On to U.S. v. Carolene Products, which supposedly--in its famous footnote four--said that policy regarding "political" (voting, speech) facts as opposed to "social" facts (housing, medical care) might be subject to a higher level of scrutiny. This law sustained a Federal law regarding milk ingredients. Why? Because it maintained an important fact health:

"[A]ffirmative evidence also sustains the statute. In twenty years, evidence has steadily accumulated of the danger to the public health from the general consumption of foods which have been stripped of elements essential to the maintenance of health. The Filled Milk Act was adopted by Congress after committee hearings, in the course of which eminent scientists and health experts testified. An extensive investigation was made of the commerce in milk compounds in which vegetable oils have been substituted for natural milk fat, and of the effect upon the public health of the use of such compounds as a food substitute for milk. The conclusions drawn from evidence presented at the hearings were embodied in reports of the House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. No. 365, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Sen.Rep. No. 987, 67th Cong., 4th Sess. Both committees concluded, as the statute itself declares, that the use of filled milk as a substitute for pure milk is generally injurious to health and facilitates fraud on the public."

Thus, the doctrine of the Court is that the Constitution is the maintenance of important facts, not a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose. This misreading is at the source of our present difficulties, because it achieves only persistent misallocation of resources which can only be properly allocated through the enforcement of individually enforceable rights.

No one in the political system wants to give up power over the MONEY, that is why they, and YOU, have no conception of increasing individually enforceable rights as a reponse to the current problems.

How do you determine whether a fact is "important?" It is, whether the fact is an unchanging fact of human experience. It is an important fact if it is

1. a fact of human experience
2. which experience demonstrates
3. is unaffected by attempts to affect it.

This is the test the Court applied when it removed exercises of religion from the political system and turned over power over them to the individual. Look at the historical test the Court applied to the fact of exercises of religion, and how they found that it resisted assaults:

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

Note that another test could be derived from this:

4. and such affects are an assault on government.

The Court long ago held that government is an unchanging fact of human experience (Marbury v. Madison).

The reason for the recent, and surprising, anti-eminent domain revolt is public opinion's fear over facts such as maintenance, housing and medical care, which it has concluded are important facts.

Thus, it is public opinion which is moving the political system out of the scrutiny regime and putting it into the maintenance regime, the doctrine of which is that the Constitution is the maintenance of important facts.

Viewed from this perspective, you are a cowboy. Your prescriptions, as well as Marshall's, need to be put through the rigor of individually enforceable rights regarding those facts public opinion now sees as important: liberty, maintenance, housing, education and medical care.

This is why people like you and Marshall never get anywhere: you don't understand that the issue is individually enforceable rights. I can tell you two people who know perfectly well that that is the issue: Nancy Pelosi and Michael Bloomberg. Every time another government effort is made, they are at pains to point out that it does not presume or established expanded individually enforceable rights.

This is why they are about to change their tune or be removed from power. But they won't be replaced by YOU or Marshall, unless you wake up and start thinking about the law.

Cheers,
John Ryskamp]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171426-why-wells-fargo-is-a-great-buy?source=feed#comment-747281 747281
The really huge items on the agenda are faltering muni bonds (which will require an RFC-style rejiggering and this will REALLY destroy confidence), and commercial real estate.

These are the last pillars of the on the ground economy, because suburbia is still employed so there is no political will to increase the income of the 60% lowest income earners, or to increase income to those on unemployment or public assistance.

You really have economic apartheid going on here, with suburbia banking on the underclass rolling over and dying, or physical isolation+policing to keep down civil unrest.

However, an unemployment camp on the Washington Mall would really move things to the right, politically.]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:19:00 -0500
The really huge items on the agenda are faltering muni bonds (which will require an RFC-style rejiggering and this will REALLY destroy confidence), and commercial real estate.

These are the last pillars of the on the ground economy, because suburbia is still employed so there is no political will to increase the income of the 60% lowest income earners, or to increase income to those on unemployment or public assistance.

You really have economic apartheid going on here, with suburbia banking on the underclass rolling over and dying, or physical isolation+policing to keep down civil unrest.

However, an unemployment camp on the Washington Mall would really move things to the right, politically.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171587-commercial-paper-contracting-at-nearly-fastest-rate-on-record?source=feed#comment-746858 746858 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:57:42 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/171426-why-wells-fargo-is-a-great-buy?source=feed#comment-746852 746852
The Commercial Paper (CP) market is essentially a private debt market used by corporations as a cheaper means of funding typical recurring operations than drawing on a line of bank credit.

Commercial paper, as financial instrument, is by no means a recent innovation and, in fact, you can read about how the CP market was affected by the many historic financial shocks experienced by the U.S. (read Panic on Wall Street: A History of America’s Financial Disasters).

Although the Federal Reserve was able to artificially bring CP rates down significantly since the shocking 615 basis point spread blowout (A2/P2 spread) of late 2008, they have apparently not been successful in preventing an overall contraction in the CP market.

The Federal Reserve calculates and publishes the total amount of CP outstanding every week and as of the latest published period, commercial paper outstanding is contracting at nearly the fastest rate on record, registering a whopping 17.81% decline year-over-year.


On Nov 05 01:44 PM Dr. Roberts wrote:

> Mr. Ryskamp.......do us all a favor here.....post your drivel over
> on Yahoo with the rest of the know nothings.]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:54:49 -0500
The Commercial Paper (CP) market is essentially a private debt market used by corporations as a cheaper means of funding typical recurring operations than drawing on a line of bank credit.

Commercial paper, as financial instrument, is by no means a recent innovation and, in fact, you can read about how the CP market was affected by the many historic financial shocks experienced by the U.S. (read Panic on Wall Street: A History of America’s Financial Disasters).

Although the Federal Reserve was able to artificially bring CP rates down significantly since the shocking 615 basis point spread blowout (A2/P2 spread) of late 2008, they have apparently not been successful in preventing an overall contraction in the CP market.

The Federal Reserve calculates and publishes the total amount of CP outstanding every week and as of the latest published period, commercial paper outstanding is contracting at nearly the fastest rate on record, registering a whopping 17.81% decline year-over-year.


On Nov 05 01:44 PM Dr. Roberts wrote:

> Mr. Ryskamp.......do us all a favor here.....post your drivel over
> on Yahoo with the rest of the know nothings.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171426-why-wells-fargo-is-a-great-buy?source=feed#comment-746824 746824
I said that $2.4 trillion bailout was coming in February 2010 because the above policy will also be applied to commercial real estate (with some other goodies thrown in).

The American is basically dead--we're running on embalming fluid. There is still some music being played and so some people are playing musical chairs.

But there are no chairs.

Did you see the wonderful "productivity" figure? Actually, capacity in the U.S. is declining, it is not "sitting idle." The supply chain is collapsing.

You will see it in agriculture: this sector is about to implode.

And now for our little slap in the face of "Dr." Roberts:


WASHINGTON – Thousands of borrowers on the verge of foreclosure will soon have the option of renting their homes from Fannie Mae, under a policy announced Thursday.

The government-controlled company, through its new "Deed for Lease" program, will allow borrowers to transfer ownership to Fannie Mae and sign a one-year lease, with month-to-month extensions after that.

The program will "eliminate some of the uncertainty of foreclosure, keeps families and tenants in their homes during a transitional period, and helps to stabilize neighborhoods and communities," Jay Ryan, a Fannie Mae vice president, said in a statement.

But the effort is likely to affect a relatively small number of homeowners. In the first half of the year, Fannie Mae took back about 1,200 properties through this process, known as a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. That pales in comparison to the 57,000 foreclosed properties the company repossessed in the period.

While neither option is particularly attractive for the homeowner, a deed-in-lieu does less harm to the borrower's credit record.

The rental program is designed to help homeowners who don't qualify for a loan modification under the Obama administration's plan, but still want to remain in their homes. Fannie Mae is not planning to market the homes for sale during the one-year rental period.

Fannie Mae has hired an outside company, which officials declined to identify, to manage the properties.

To qualify, homeowners have to live in the home as their primary residence and prove that they can afford the market rent, which would be determined by the management company. The rent can't be more than 31 percent of their pretax income.

Fannie Mae's sibling company, Freddie Mac, launched a similar effort in March. That policy, however, requires the foreclosure to be complete and only allows month-to-month leases. A Freddie Mac spokesman declined to say how many borrowers have participated.


On Nov 05 01:44 PM Dr. Roberts wrote:

> Mr. Ryskamp.......do us all a favor here.....post your drivel over
> on Yahoo with the rest of the know nothings.]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:38:37 -0500
I said that $2.4 trillion bailout was coming in February 2010 because the above policy will also be applied to commercial real estate (with some other goodies thrown in).

The American is basically dead--we're running on embalming fluid. There is still some music being played and so some people are playing musical chairs.

But there are no chairs.

Did you see the wonderful "productivity" figure? Actually, capacity in the U.S. is declining, it is not "sitting idle." The supply chain is collapsing.

You will see it in agriculture: this sector is about to implode.

And now for our little slap in the face of "Dr." Roberts:


WASHINGTON – Thousands of borrowers on the verge of foreclosure will soon have the option of renting their homes from Fannie Mae, under a policy announced Thursday.

The government-controlled company, through its new "Deed for Lease" program, will allow borrowers to transfer ownership to Fannie Mae and sign a one-year lease, with month-to-month extensions after that.

The program will "eliminate some of the uncertainty of foreclosure, keeps families and tenants in their homes during a transitional period, and helps to stabilize neighborhoods and communities," Jay Ryan, a Fannie Mae vice president, said in a statement.

But the effort is likely to affect a relatively small number of homeowners. In the first half of the year, Fannie Mae took back about 1,200 properties through this process, known as a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. That pales in comparison to the 57,000 foreclosed properties the company repossessed in the period.

While neither option is particularly attractive for the homeowner, a deed-in-lieu does less harm to the borrower's credit record.

The rental program is designed to help homeowners who don't qualify for a loan modification under the Obama administration's plan, but still want to remain in their homes. Fannie Mae is not planning to market the homes for sale during the one-year rental period.

Fannie Mae has hired an outside company, which officials declined to identify, to manage the properties.

To qualify, homeowners have to live in the home as their primary residence and prove that they can afford the market rent, which would be determined by the management company. The rent can't be more than 31 percent of their pretax income.

Fannie Mae's sibling company, Freddie Mac, launched a similar effort in March. That policy, however, requires the foreclosure to be complete and only allows month-to-month leases. A Freddie Mac spokesman declined to say how many borrowers have participated.


On Nov 05 01:44 PM Dr. Roberts wrote:

> Mr. Ryskamp.......do us all a favor here.....post your drivel over
> on Yahoo with the rest of the know nothings.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171404-jim-rogers-on-nouriel-roubini?source=feed#comment-746810 746810
And guess what? It's only about 10%, which is why nothing has changed.

And nothing will change until that figure reaches 40%.]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:28:04 -0500
And guess what? It's only about 10%, which is why nothing has changed.

And nothing will change until that figure reaches 40%.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171426-why-wells-fargo-is-a-great-buy?source=feed#comment-746527 746527
There will be about a $2.4 trillion bailout bill in February 2010. Economic activity is declining drastically.]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:35:05 -0500
There will be about a $2.4 trillion bailout bill in February 2010. Economic activity is declining drastically.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169661-bill-gross-new-normal-just-the-same-old-normal-after-all?source=feed#comment-734727 734727 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:02:38 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/168890-inflation-vs-deflation-battle-hits-key-inflection-point?source=feed#comment-731008 731008
How do you think we got in this mess? By evaluating West Coast as standing for the proposition that "social" facts such as education are at minimum scrutiny. That put ALL the power over the MONEY in hands of the political system. Disaster.

And now suburbia is terrified for facts such as housing, education and medical care. They want new rights, need new rights, and are getting new rights.

The economy doesn't know how to handle this, which is why it's collapsing. You need a new regime firmly in place in order to restore confidence, and economic activity will NEVER increase until confidence is restored. Simple.]]> Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:03:07 -0400
How do you think we got in this mess? By evaluating West Coast as standing for the proposition that "social" facts such as education are at minimum scrutiny. That put ALL the power over the MONEY in hands of the political system. Disaster.

And now suburbia is terrified for facts such as housing, education and medical care. They want new rights, need new rights, and are getting new rights.

The economy doesn't know how to handle this, which is why it's collapsing. You need a new regime firmly in place in order to restore confidence, and economic activity will NEVER increase until confidence is restored. Simple.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/168082-protecting-the-natives?source=feed#comment-725412 725412 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:45:26 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/164675-shorting-the-double-dip?source=feed#comment-702493 702493
BUT ISN'T 60% OF CONSUMER SPENDING DONE BY THE TOP 40% INCOME EARNERS. THE UNDEREMPLOYMENT RATE AMONG THOSE WITH A BACHELORS DEGREE OR HIGHER IS ONLY 10%. THE REASON YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY CHANGES--EXCEPT FOR THIS CORPORATIST GAMBIT--IS THAT SUBURBIA IS STILL WORKING. YOU WON'T SEE ANY CHANGE UNTIL THE B.A. UNDEREMPLOYMENT RATE IS 40%.


There are too many factories around the world, too many shopping malls an stores, too much commercial real estate - and at levels beyond all historical norms or comparisons. The first several legs of a rebound needed to absorb this capacity before we see any uptick in business investment that materially helps the economy.

THAT CAPACITY DOESN'T NECESSARILIY NEED TO BE 'ABSORBED.' IT CAN SIMPLY BE DESTROYED. AND THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. NOTHING WILL CHANGE IN THIS RESPECT UNTIL SUCH CAPACITY DESTRUCTION VERY SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERMINES THE SUPPLY CHAIN.

LOOK FOR THIS TO OCCUR IN AGRICULTURE, WHICH IS HIGHLY LEVERAGED JUST LIKE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE.

WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE WEST COAST HOTEL V. PARRISH "SCRUTINY" REGIME NEVER OUTLAWED MELLON'S "LIQUIDATE LIQUIDATE LIQUIDATE." THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW, AND IT HAPPENS IN TWO PHASES:

1. CIRCLE THE WAGONS--PROTECT THE POWERFUL, BACKSTOP BONDS.

2. SHOOT OUT AT THE INDIANS--THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWS FROM AMERICAN SOCIETY.

EVERYTHING IS GOING RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. YOU SHOULD STUDY THE DEPRESSION MORE CLOSELY. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PROGRESSIVELY, STEP BY STEP AND ACCORDING TO THE MOST APPROVED MELLON PLANBOOK, WITHDRAWING FROM THE COUNTRY.

THE QUESTION IS, WHERE WILL THE NEW REGIME COME FROM. IT WILL BE THE "MAINTENANCE" REGIME--NEW INDIVIDUALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS (SUCH AS TO HOUSING AND MEDICAL CARE) IN SUPPORT OF A GOVERNING DOCTRINE WHICH SAYS THAT POLICY MAINTAINS IMPORTANT FACTS (BY THE WAY, THE "SCRUTINY" REGIME DOCTRINE IS THAT POLICY RATIONALLY RELATES TO A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT PURPOSE--AS ANY LAWYER).

"MAINTENANCE" IS USED EXPLICITLY IN THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT SCRUTINY CASES:

1. WEST COAST
2. UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS
3. BERMAN V. PARKER

LOOK FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO VETO SOME LAW WHICH UNDERMINES SOME IMPORTANT FACT, STATING THAT THEY ALWAYS GROUNDED DISCRETION IN POLITICAL SYSTEM, ON MAINTENANCE OF IMPORTANT FACTS.

THAT WILL SHOW YOU THAT THE REGIME CHANGE HAS COME. AND IT HAS TO COME. IT IS THE ONLY CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE. THE ECONOMY IS COLLAPSING BECAUSE THE SCRUTINY REGIME HAS LOST CREDIBILITY.

IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE LAW, YOU WOULD KNOW THIS.

AND WHERE IS THIS CHANGE COMING FROM? WHY, FROM OUR SEMI-FASCIST SUBURBAN CLASS. THEY'RE SCARED SH-TLESS ABOUT IMPORTANT FACTS SUCH AS HOUSING AND MEDICAL CARE.


That being said, there is no political support for more stimulus. Deficits and a Congressional election preclude another stimulus package next year and the Fed and Uncle Sam have already said they are definitely pulling back, beginning November 1.

YOU'RE QUITE MISINFORMED. A SECOND STIMULUS BILL IS ALREADY IN THE WORKS. IT WILL PROBABLY BE INTRODUCED IN FEBRUARY 2010, AND WILL BE ABOUT $2 TRILLION. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE HAS TO BE BAILED OUT, OR 2000 COMMUNITY BANKS WILL FAIL. ]]> Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:04:21 -0400
BUT ISN'T 60% OF CONSUMER SPENDING DONE BY THE TOP 40% INCOME EARNERS. THE UNDEREMPLOYMENT RATE AMONG THOSE WITH A BACHELORS DEGREE OR HIGHER IS ONLY 10%. THE REASON YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY CHANGES--EXCEPT FOR THIS CORPORATIST GAMBIT--IS THAT SUBURBIA IS STILL WORKING. YOU WON'T SEE ANY CHANGE UNTIL THE B.A. UNDEREMPLOYMENT RATE IS 40%.


There are too many factories around the world, too many shopping malls an stores, too much commercial real estate - and at levels beyond all historical norms or comparisons. The first several legs of a rebound needed to absorb this capacity before we see any uptick in business investment that materially helps the economy.

THAT CAPACITY DOESN'T NECESSARILIY NEED TO BE 'ABSORBED.' IT CAN SIMPLY BE DESTROYED. AND THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. NOTHING WILL CHANGE IN THIS RESPECT UNTIL SUCH CAPACITY DESTRUCTION VERY SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERMINES THE SUPPLY CHAIN.

LOOK FOR THIS TO OCCUR IN AGRICULTURE, WHICH IS HIGHLY LEVERAGED JUST LIKE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE.

WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE WEST COAST HOTEL V. PARRISH "SCRUTINY" REGIME NEVER OUTLAWED MELLON'S "LIQUIDATE LIQUIDATE LIQUIDATE." THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW, AND IT HAPPENS IN TWO PHASES:

1. CIRCLE THE WAGONS--PROTECT THE POWERFUL, BACKSTOP BONDS.

2. SHOOT OUT AT THE INDIANS--THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWS FROM AMERICAN SOCIETY.

EVERYTHING IS GOING RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. YOU SHOULD STUDY THE DEPRESSION MORE CLOSELY. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PROGRESSIVELY, STEP BY STEP AND ACCORDING TO THE MOST APPROVED MELLON PLANBOOK, WITHDRAWING FROM THE COUNTRY.

THE QUESTION IS, WHERE WILL THE NEW REGIME COME FROM. IT WILL BE THE "MAINTENANCE" REGIME--NEW INDIVIDUALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS (SUCH AS TO HOUSING AND MEDICAL CARE) IN SUPPORT OF A GOVERNING DOCTRINE WHICH SAYS THAT POLICY MAINTAINS IMPORTANT FACTS (BY THE WAY, THE "SCRUTINY" REGIME DOCTRINE IS THAT POLICY RATIONALLY RELATES TO A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT PURPOSE--AS ANY LAWYER).

"MAINTENANCE" IS USED EXPLICITLY IN THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT SCRUTINY CASES:

1. WEST COAST
2. UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS
3. BERMAN V. PARKER

LOOK FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO VETO SOME LAW WHICH UNDERMINES SOME IMPORTANT FACT, STATING THAT THEY ALWAYS GROUNDED DISCRETION IN POLITICAL SYSTEM, ON MAINTENANCE OF IMPORTANT FACTS.

THAT WILL SHOW YOU THAT THE REGIME CHANGE HAS COME. AND IT HAS TO COME. IT IS THE ONLY CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE. THE ECONOMY IS COLLAPSING BECAUSE THE SCRUTINY REGIME HAS LOST CREDIBILITY.

IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE LAW, YOU WOULD KNOW THIS.

AND WHERE IS THIS CHANGE COMING FROM? WHY, FROM OUR SEMI-FASCIST SUBURBAN CLASS. THEY'RE SCARED SH-TLESS ABOUT IMPORTANT FACTS SUCH AS HOUSING AND MEDICAL CARE.


That being said, there is no political support for more stimulus. Deficits and a Congressional election preclude another stimulus package next year and the Fed and Uncle Sam have already said they are definitely pulling back, beginning November 1.

YOU'RE QUITE MISINFORMED. A SECOND STIMULUS BILL IS ALREADY IN THE WORKS. IT WILL PROBABLY BE INTRODUCED IN FEBRUARY 2010, AND WILL BE ABOUT $2 TRILLION. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE HAS TO BE BAILED OUT, OR 2000 COMMUNITY BANKS WILL FAIL. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163936-is-it-time-to-recognize-reality?source=feed#comment-695443 695443
He rants about the political system failing to change and continuing to turn a blind eye. Why is this happening? Simple. The underemployment rate among the politically relevant population--those with a Bachelor's degree or higher--is only 10%. These are the people who matter politically, and frankly, it isn't that bad for them yet. Just ask them.

Yeah, they're not happy with their stock portfolios or the decline in the value of their houses--or a lot of other things. But as long as the job is there, the house is there, and the TV is there, you will not see THEM get politically active and move for any kind of change.

Maybe it's too bad, but then, maybe it won't happen either. Unemployment in this class never reached a level high enough during the Depression to produce any important policy change--and the country was STILL in the depression when the war began.

So if this guy wants to see change, all he has to do is sit around and wait until underemployment among the educated class reachs 40%. NOTHING will happen at 39.99999999999%.

40%.

By the way, we are moving from the West Coast Hotel v. Parrish "scrutiny" regime--which allowed this catastrophe by denying individually enforceable rights and gave the political system nearly all power over the facts (blame people themselves for this)--and toward the "maintenance" regime I discuss in my book The Eminent Domain Revolt.

You will never see economic activity increase again--NEVER--until the scrutiny regime is booted out of power, the maintenance regime is put in power, and the New Bill of Rights is enforced.

Enforce it or starve. It's up to you clowns.]]> Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:36:25 -0400
He rants about the political system failing to change and continuing to turn a blind eye. Why is this happening? Simple. The underemployment rate among the politically relevant population--those with a Bachelor's degree or higher--is only 10%. These are the people who matter politically, and frankly, it isn't that bad for them yet. Just ask them.

Yeah, they're not happy with their stock portfolios or the decline in the value of their houses--or a lot of other things. But as long as the job is there, the house is there, and the TV is there, you will not see THEM get politically active and move for any kind of change.

Maybe it's too bad, but then, maybe it won't happen either. Unemployment in this class never reached a level high enough during the Depression to produce any important policy change--and the country was STILL in the depression when the war began.

So if this guy wants to see change, all he has to do is sit around and wait until underemployment among the educated class reachs 40%. NOTHING will happen at 39.99999999999%.

40%.

By the way, we are moving from the West Coast Hotel v. Parrish "scrutiny" regime--which allowed this catastrophe by denying individually enforceable rights and gave the political system nearly all power over the facts (blame people themselves for this)--and toward the "maintenance" regime I discuss in my book The Eminent Domain Revolt.

You will never see economic activity increase again--NEVER--until the scrutiny regime is booted out of power, the maintenance regime is put in power, and the New Bill of Rights is enforced.

Enforce it or starve. It's up to you clowns.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163724-u-s-recession-more-unemployment-sinking-dollar?source=feed#comment-694367 694367
And do you really think all that stimulus money is watering trade? Nonsense. It bounces right back to Washington.

We are in the second phase of Andrew Mellon's "liquidate liquidate liquidate." The first was circling the wagons (making sure all the bonds are paid on). The second is shooting out at the Indians (destroying the American people).

The depression is proceeding right on schedule. But who's our candidate for World War III target? ]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:36:21 -0400
And do you really think all that stimulus money is watering trade? Nonsense. It bounces right back to Washington.

We are in the second phase of Andrew Mellon's "liquidate liquidate liquidate." The first was circling the wagons (making sure all the bonds are paid on). The second is shooting out at the Indians (destroying the American people).

The depression is proceeding right on schedule. But who's our candidate for World War III target? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163495-homebuilders-time-to-short-again?source=feed#comment-692139 692139
Nevertheless, I can report (I'm in the Bay Area) that the concept is spreading to commercial real estate: no payments on notes and NO foreclosure.

Where's it coming from? Washington. They don't want ANY more losses on bank books. Most community banks invested in CRE, and if that goes into foreclosure 2000 banks will fail. Can't have that.

So look for a new stimulus bill--prboably around $2 trillion in February 2010. This will simply be more fingers in the dike--no new fundamental premises here, just a continuation of the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses.

However, it DOES mean you should think 19 times before buying a home, because the Federal Government is once again fiddling around with the statistics.

How much limbo housing is there. Someone I know who works in repo at Wells said simply, "A lot."]]> Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:26:48 -0400
Nevertheless, I can report (I'm in the Bay Area) that the concept is spreading to commercial real estate: no payments on notes and NO foreclosure.

Where's it coming from? Washington. They don't want ANY more losses on bank books. Most community banks invested in CRE, and if that goes into foreclosure 2000 banks will fail. Can't have that.

So look for a new stimulus bill--prboably around $2 trillion in February 2010. This will simply be more fingers in the dike--no new fundamental premises here, just a continuation of the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses.

However, it DOES mean you should think 19 times before buying a home, because the Federal Government is once again fiddling around with the statistics.

How much limbo housing is there. Someone I know who works in repo at Wells said simply, "A lot."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162062-dollar-declines-set-to-continue?source=feed#comment-681444 681444
As for inflation, don't underestimate collapse in demand. That will always be ahead of inflation, from now on. Prices will sink to NOTHING.]]> Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:29:32 -0400
As for inflation, don't underestimate collapse in demand. That will always be ahead of inflation, from now on. Prices will sink to NOTHING.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160181-what-if-it-is-a-v-recovery?source=feed#comment-664716 664716
By the way, what I just wrote is standard stuff you will read in ANY Constitutional law book. I wrote it, however, because so many economists write on about society without knowing ANYTHING about the legal structure. This is completely idiotic.

For example, you may well wonder how bondholders can be screwed by a lot of these "bailouts" or how any of the "stimulus" provisions can survive legal challenge. It's simple: with respect to any fact you please--money, property, taxation, stocks--the Federal Government need only show that its policy is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

I'm especially amused by "property rights" advocates, who seem utterly surprised to learn that property only enjoys minimum scrutiny, and that the law has virtually NO idea of what , in FACT, property is.

How can government get away policy it generates with respect to property? Simple. Advocates of property rights (Scalia among them), have done such an AWFUL job of factually studying property, that they have never been able to convince the Court that property is an important fact, that it enjoys a higher level of Constitutional scrutiny than minimum scrutiny, and that therefore plaintiffs have a right to introduce a wide variety of facts regarding property.

Under the minimum scrutiny regime, you have virtually NO right to introduce facts.


Any lawyer knows this. Why don't these pathetic "property rights" advocates? It's really appalling how ignorant Americans are. Their ignorance is how the scrutiny regime remains in "business."


On Sep 06 05:26 PM John Lounsbury wrote:

> John Ryskamp - - -
>
> Wow!
>
> I would like to read an elaborated discussion of what you wrote.
> Any links?]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:28:11 -0400
By the way, what I just wrote is standard stuff you will read in ANY Constitutional law book. I wrote it, however, because so many economists write on about society without knowing ANYTHING about the legal structure. This is completely idiotic.

For example, you may well wonder how bondholders can be screwed by a lot of these "bailouts" or how any of the "stimulus" provisions can survive legal challenge. It's simple: with respect to any fact you please--money, property, taxation, stocks--the Federal Government need only show that its policy is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

I'm especially amused by "property rights" advocates, who seem utterly surprised to learn that property only enjoys minimum scrutiny, and that the law has virtually NO idea of what , in FACT, property is.

How can government get away policy it generates with respect to property? Simple. Advocates of property rights (Scalia among them), have done such an AWFUL job of factually studying property, that they have never been able to convince the Court that property is an important fact, that it enjoys a higher level of Constitutional scrutiny than minimum scrutiny, and that therefore plaintiffs have a right to introduce a wide variety of facts regarding property.

Under the minimum scrutiny regime, you have virtually NO right to introduce facts.


Any lawyer knows this. Why don't these pathetic "property rights" advocates? It's really appalling how ignorant Americans are. Their ignorance is how the scrutiny regime remains in "business."


On Sep 06 05:26 PM John Lounsbury wrote:

> John Ryskamp - - -
>
> Wow!
>
> I would like to read an elaborated discussion of what you wrote.
> Any links?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160181-what-if-it-is-a-v-recovery?source=feed#comment-664447 664447
But ECRI rattles along, taking no account whatsoever of the effect of Federal policy. The bailouts did not "stabilizing" a situation faced with "deterioration." It was simply a crime in which private debt was monetized. It is STILL being monetized.

This is not "liquidity," nor is it protecting "liquidity." If anything, it is a declaration of class war. It's much more important to see the interests at play and who is grabbing what, instead of ECRI's meaningless "indicators."

Interest rates are manipulated, the stock market is now wholly manipulated. And yet "declines" in interest rates and "increases" in the stock market play into the ECRI model. It's simply ridiculous.

But does it really matter what any mouthpiece has to say? It's much better to watch what happens to the main indicator: unemployment among those who have a Bachelor's degree or higher. These are the people with the political influence.

Currently, underemployment rate among this class is about 10%.

This is why outfits like ECRI--pure business mouthpieces--can survive. And they will survive--until unemployment in this class reaches 40%, if indeed it ever does. If not, Rome rumbles on.

But if it does, you will have a revolution. To be sure, there have been revolutions when unemployment among this class was lower (the American Revolution, for example). But when the figure reaches about 40%, you will ALWAYS have a revolution.

And that's what we all are waiting for. Surely it is no secret that building a middle class has been the main Federal policy since we got our current regime, the "scrutiny" regime courtesy of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). That case gave nearly absolute power to the political system over most facts.

There are VERY few rights in facts. For example, housing enjoys only minimum scrutiny (Lindsey v. Normet). This is true of a host of other facts, such as medical care, and there was a whole line of Supreme Court cases which established this.

Well, now we've got our huge, massively expensive to maintain suburban establishment. Now what? The American middle class--for all its ignorance and cryptofascism--is plainly worried about the status of the facts.

So it's going to demand more individually enforceable rights. Short of a revolution? I doubt it. Instead, I think the power of American homeowners will shrink to the point where another group simply moves in, evicts the scrutiny regime, and expands individually enforceable rights.

By the way, in case you have never heard of the regime under which we are living, I suggest you take a look at an excellent online essay by G. Edward White of the University of Virginia law school. It's called "Historicizing Judicial Scrutiny."

Americans are so appallingly ignorant that they don't even realize they are living in a particular regime, much less that that regime might end.

But history shows that American Constitutional regimes live about 70 years, and then are replaced.

With what? I think that once individually enforceable rights are expanded (check out the new demand for a right to medical care, which currently enjoys only minimum scrutiny under DeShaney v. Winnebago County), you will see a change in the governing doctrine.

The Scrutiny Regime Doctrine:

policy is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (that is what is called "minimum scrutiny").

I think this doctrine will be replaced by

The Maintenance Regime Doctrine:

policy maintains important facts.

I think "maintenance" will take over as the government concept--replacing "discretion" in the political system--because the terms is ALREADY in West Coast Hotel (Berman v. Parker too).

You will see the Court saying something like, "but we ALWAYS grounded our grant of discretion in the political system, on maintenance of important facts." And then the level of scrutiny will be raised for some fact, such as housing.

And that will end the scrutiny regime.

By the way, what is an "important" fact?

It is a

1. fact of human experience which,
2. history demonstrates,
3. does not change in spite of attempts to affect it.

I discussed the emergence of this new regime in my study of middle class opposition to eminent domain, The Eminent Domain Revolt.

This is far FAR away from ECRI's meager understanding of the profound power struggle currently under way, in which the political system engages in a silent, sub rosa struggle against an endangered, frightened and more than a little irrational bunch of homeowners.

Cheers,
John Ryskamp
]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:42:52 -0400
But ECRI rattles along, taking no account whatsoever of the effect of Federal policy. The bailouts did not "stabilizing" a situation faced with "deterioration." It was simply a crime in which private debt was monetized. It is STILL being monetized.

This is not "liquidity," nor is it protecting "liquidity." If anything, it is a declaration of class war. It's much more important to see the interests at play and who is grabbing what, instead of ECRI's meaningless "indicators."

Interest rates are manipulated, the stock market is now wholly manipulated. And yet "declines" in interest rates and "increases" in the stock market play into the ECRI model. It's simply ridiculous.

But does it really matter what any mouthpiece has to say? It's much better to watch what happens to the main indicator: unemployment among those who have a Bachelor's degree or higher. These are the people with the political influence.

Currently, underemployment rate among this class is about 10%.

This is why outfits like ECRI--pure business mouthpieces--can survive. And they will survive--until unemployment in this class reaches 40%, if indeed it ever does. If not, Rome rumbles on.

But if it does, you will have a revolution. To be sure, there have been revolutions when unemployment among this class was lower (the American Revolution, for example). But when the figure reaches about 40%, you will ALWAYS have a revolution.

And that's what we all are waiting for. Surely it is no secret that building a middle class has been the main Federal policy since we got our current regime, the "scrutiny" regime courtesy of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). That case gave nearly absolute power to the political system over most facts.

There are VERY few rights in facts. For example, housing enjoys only minimum scrutiny (Lindsey v. Normet). This is true of a host of other facts, such as medical care, and there was a whole line of Supreme Court cases which established this.

Well, now we've got our huge, massively expensive to maintain suburban establishment. Now what? The American middle class--for all its ignorance and cryptofascism--is plainly worried about the status of the facts.

So it's going to demand more individually enforceable rights. Short of a revolution? I doubt it. Instead, I think the power of American homeowners will shrink to the point where another group simply moves in, evicts the scrutiny regime, and expands individually enforceable rights.

By the way, in case you have never heard of the regime under which we are living, I suggest you take a look at an excellent online essay by G. Edward White of the University of Virginia law school. It's called "Historicizing Judicial Scrutiny."

Americans are so appallingly ignorant that they don't even realize they are living in a particular regime, much less that that regime might end.

But history shows that American Constitutional regimes live about 70 years, and then are replaced.

With what? I think that once individually enforceable rights are expanded (check out the new demand for a right to medical care, which currently enjoys only minimum scrutiny under DeShaney v. Winnebago County), you will see a change in the governing doctrine.

The Scrutiny Regime Doctrine:

policy is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (that is what is called "minimum scrutiny").

I think this doctrine will be replaced by

The Maintenance Regime Doctrine:

policy maintains important facts.

I think "maintenance" will take over as the government concept--replacing "discretion" in the political system--because the terms is ALREADY in West Coast Hotel (Berman v. Parker too).

You will see the Court saying something like, "but we ALWAYS grounded our grant of discretion in the political system, on maintenance of important facts." And then the level of scrutiny will be raised for some fact, such as housing.

And that will end the scrutiny regime.

By the way, what is an "important" fact?

It is a

1. fact of human experience which,
2. history demonstrates,
3. does not change in spite of attempts to affect it.

I discussed the emergence of this new regime in my study of middle class opposition to eminent domain, The Eminent Domain Revolt.

This is far FAR away from ECRI's meager understanding of the profound power struggle currently under way, in which the political system engages in a silent, sub rosa struggle against an endangered, frightened and more than a little irrational bunch of homeowners.

Cheers,
John Ryskamp
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160181-what-if-it-is-a-v-recovery?source=feed#comment-664201 664201
But part of the growth of the Federal role has been to "lean on" these terms, to milk them for all their are worth until they are worthless. And they are worthless now.

That's why critics now simply call ECRI a mouthpiece of the government. It concedes government terms and government definitions, even when those definitions are no longer the definitions of the government.

And what are the terms of the government? It HAS no terms. That's the point.

So ECRI winds up saying exactly what the government wants it to say: that all the traditional mechanisms are in place and are operating as traditionally planned.

So ECRI takes a flight from reality: it has become the Propaganda Ministry.

All of YOUR figures show that ECRI is in fantasy-land. And yet ECRI rattles on. It will one day show utopia, while reality will show hell. And what will ECRI reply? That the models are predicting what they were designed to predict. If you notice, that is redundant.

Finally, you are dealing with an organization which bases its ideas on the notion of general equilibrium. But who doesn't know general equilibrium is a bogus model, devoid of logical content? ECRI doesn't.]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:47:12 -0400
But part of the growth of the Federal role has been to "lean on" these terms, to milk them for all their are worth until they are worthless. And they are worthless now.

That's why critics now simply call ECRI a mouthpiece of the government. It concedes government terms and government definitions, even when those definitions are no longer the definitions of the government.

And what are the terms of the government? It HAS no terms. That's the point.

So ECRI winds up saying exactly what the government wants it to say: that all the traditional mechanisms are in place and are operating as traditionally planned.

So ECRI takes a flight from reality: it has become the Propaganda Ministry.

All of YOUR figures show that ECRI is in fantasy-land. And yet ECRI rattles on. It will one day show utopia, while reality will show hell. And what will ECRI reply? That the models are predicting what they were designed to predict. If you notice, that is redundant.

Finally, you are dealing with an organization which bases its ideas on the notion of general equilibrium. But who doesn't know general equilibrium is a bogus model, devoid of logical content? ECRI doesn't.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157057-los-angeles-ports-face-a-grim-future?source=feed#comment-636698 636698
As for shipping, its relevance is to the supply chain, which is collapsing and that collapse is unnoticed. It is the collapse of the supply chain which causes societies to collapse.

The answer? Not more power in the state--which both left and right want, as long as they control the state. No, we need more individually enforceable rights.

The reason housing is a catastrophe? Simple. Housing enjoys only minimum scrutiny (Lindsey v. Normet).

The reason medical care is corrupt, a mess and contributing to the class war? Medical care enjoys only minimum scrutiny (DeShaney v. Winnebago).

Same is true of liberty, maintenance and education. The level of scrutiny of those facts has to be raised or the country will collapse. We need to evict the West Coast Hotel scrutiny regime and install the maintenance regime, the doctrine of which is that the law maintains important facts.

Just see my book, The Eminent Domain Revolt.

Cheers fools,
John Ryskamp]]> Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:59:12 -0400
As for shipping, its relevance is to the supply chain, which is collapsing and that collapse is unnoticed. It is the collapse of the supply chain which causes societies to collapse.

The answer? Not more power in the state--which both left and right want, as long as they control the state. No, we need more individually enforceable rights.

The reason housing is a catastrophe? Simple. Housing enjoys only minimum scrutiny (Lindsey v. Normet).

The reason medical care is corrupt, a mess and contributing to the class war? Medical care enjoys only minimum scrutiny (DeShaney v. Winnebago).

Same is true of liberty, maintenance and education. The level of scrutiny of those facts has to be raised or the country will collapse. We need to evict the West Coast Hotel scrutiny regime and install the maintenance regime, the doctrine of which is that the law maintains important facts.

Just see my book, The Eminent Domain Revolt.

Cheers fools,
John Ryskamp]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156321-a-granular-look-at-the-stratified-u-s-consumer?source=feed#comment-632000 632000 Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:57:35 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/153152-gdp-here-s-a-more-realistic-look?source=feed#comment-611645 611645
Economic activity will NEVER--repeat, NEVER--increase until there is an absolute, individually enforceable, permanent and complete ban on housing evictions.

And it's coming, because suburbia is terrified. But those creepy, morbid homeowners are devilishly inconsistent! See my book, The Eminent Domain Revolt (New York: Algora, 2007).

Having said that, just remember that unemployment among those with a Bachelors or higher is 7.4%. Those are the powers in the country. Until that reaches 40%, NOTHING will change. Bitch on, but NOTHING will change.]]> Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:00:31 -0400
Economic activity will NEVER--repeat, NEVER--increase until there is an absolute, individually enforceable, permanent and complete ban on housing evictions.

And it's coming, because suburbia is terrified. But those creepy, morbid homeowners are devilishly inconsistent! See my book, The Eminent Domain Revolt (New York: Algora, 2007).

Having said that, just remember that unemployment among those with a Bachelors or higher is 7.4%. Those are the powers in the country. Until that reaches 40%, NOTHING will change. Bitch on, but NOTHING will change.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/407380-jeff-nielson/13659-credit-risk-spike-means-continued-collapse-for-u-s-economy?source=feed#comment-589198 589198
All policy is geared toward American homeowners. As long as most of them are working, don't expect anything but shoring up efforts--because that's what suburbia expects. And suburbia rules--as long as it exists.]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:15:33 -0400
All policy is geared toward American homeowners. As long as most of them are working, don't expect anything but shoring up efforts--because that's what suburbia expects. And suburbia rules--as long as it exists.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/399221-graham-and-dodd-investor/13444-the-four-turnings?source=feed#comment-588083 588083 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:55:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/268621-erwan-mahe/13138-thaler-s-corner-10-06-09-the-return-of-the-infamous-mr-mellon?source=feed#comment-586597 586597
Bernanke competent? He's as competent as you are--and you are a ignorant fool.]]> Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:02:57 -0400
Bernanke competent? He's as competent as you are--and you are a ignorant fool.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/397672-arnold-landy/13002-a-chicken-in-every-pot-as-the-economy-gets-hot?source=feed#comment-584945 584945 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:17:07 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/226469-steven-hansen/11232-kool-aid-and-gdp-the-delusion-of-economic-activity?source=feed#comment-574873 574873 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:48:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/146757-is-treasury-s-tarp-debt-already-monetized-part-iii?source=feed#comment-571974 571974
Will there be inflation? Sure. But it will be Austria 1919 inflation--infation caused by the collapse of the supply chain.

Absolutely no one talks about a collapse of the supply chain. But 60% of businesses now face difficult securing financing. As these businesses increasingly fail to secure financing, they will go out of business. Those are links in the supply chain which will collapse.

Because the supply chain always collapses faster than demand. This is the most devastating curve in the downward sprial of deflation.

Wait til September. Unmitigated disaster.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:52:27 -0400
Will there be inflation? Sure. But it will be Austria 1919 inflation--infation caused by the collapse of the supply chain.

Absolutely no one talks about a collapse of the supply chain. But 60% of businesses now face difficult securing financing. As these businesses increasingly fail to secure financing, they will go out of business. Those are links in the supply chain which will collapse.

Because the supply chain always collapses faster than demand. This is the most devastating curve in the downward sprial of deflation.

Wait til September. Unmitigated disaster.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144663-flaws-in-the-deflation-case?source=feed#comment-558128 558128
There is one item you fail to take account of: demand. It is collapsing. Somehow there is supposed to be some "floor" beneath which demand cannot drop. But there is no floor.\

I don't think we have to worry about deflation or inflation. I think we have to worry about the collapse of the supply chain. It's collapsing every day.]]> Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:25:50 -0400
There is one item you fail to take account of: demand. It is collapsing. Somehow there is supposed to be some "floor" beneath which demand cannot drop. But there is no floor.\

I don't think we have to worry about deflation or inflation. I think we have to worry about the collapse of the supply chain. It's collapsing every day.]]>