Contrairimairi just e-mailed that she sent this missive to the Kansas City Star:
Dear Sirs,
Word out is, your paper is going down the tubes due to the unfair reporting during the campaign.
Well, here's a HUGE tip, and I'll bet your readership will skyrocket on just this story alone!
The campaign is NOT over. Millions of Americans are working across the Country to get the FACTS on Mr. Obama BEFORE he sets foot in our White House.
We have watched as his associates have crawled back out of the woodwork once again. Billy Boy calling him a "Family Friend". Admitting that he was silent so Barack could get elected. ( Did you notice in his little "American Flag Trample" picture he was hiding between two very large buildings.....out of site.....where no one who loves this Country could SEE him? A true "yellowbelly" IMHO.) Same with Wright, and Farrakhan.
The contribution question is HUGE also among most reasonable Americans, who just can't fathom why EVERY possible security measure was manually SHUT OFF to allow unlimited contributions from anyone......ANYWHERE.
There are millions who REFUSE to rest until Barack proves his citizenship, or lack thereof. We DEMAND answers to the question, "WHY was Barack actively supporting, and campaigning for Raila Odinga, against our ally, and with a "cousin" who had signed a contract with the same jihadists who attacked the WTC?" When his Auntie was living in squalor in public housing, and his 1/2 brother living in a hut in Africa, he contributed a MILLION dollars to Raila, who was such a sore loser, women and children were burned alive in churches, and slaughtered with machetes in the streets until he was named "Prime Minister" to appease him and end the genocide against his opponents.
How about this part of the story, which passport did Barack use in 1981 to gain access to Indonesia and Pakistan? If we look at his school registration records, will they indicate he actually was enrolled as a "foreign student" to have better access to American education at a "more affordable" price?
Let me put it to you this way......What do YOU actually KNOW about this man?
Have you looked at his Secret Service Registration? FINALLY released because sensible Americans are NOT giving up, even though the media DID. The documents also appear to be a pretty good forgery job, but not good enough to fool Americans. Maybe just someone like YOU!
Do yourself, and your failing newspaper a favor. Give Americans the news THEY WANT..........instead of the news you want to give! We really don't care so much what YOU'RE thinking.....bore us with those details on the editorial pages. Instead, give us the news we want that will sell papers like hot cakes. Then, prepare to start bringing back laid of staff members who want to be JOURNALISTS, and not hacks and cronies afraid of losing their jobs if they don't agree with you.
I'm just sayin'..........
Sincerely,
Mairi
Friday, November 14, 2008
How the US Government Created Segregated Black Neighborhoods
There is an excellent article by John Steele Gordon in today's Wall Street Journal about the history of banking regulation. The article originally appeared in Commentary. Gordon traces a brief history of banking regulation from the age of Jackson to the present. One of his points is about the origination of redlining, which in turn led to white flight to the suburbs and the segregation of the inner cities. Gordon writes:
"...historically there was also a class, made up mostly of American blacks, for whom home ownership was out of reach. Although simple racial prejudice had long been a factor here, it was, ironically, the New Deal that institutionalized discrimination against blacks seeking mortgages. In 1935 the Federal Housing Administration, established in 1934 to insure home mortgages, asked the Home Owner's Loan Corp.—another New Deal agency, this one created to help prevent foreclosures—to draw up maps of residential areas according to the risk of lending in them. Affluent suburbs were outlined in blue, less desirable areas in yellow, and the least desirable in red.
"The FHA used the maps to decide whether or not to insure a mortgage, which in turn caused banks to avoid the redlined neighborhoods. These tended to be in the inner city and to comprise largely black populations. As most blacks at this time were unable to buy in white neighborhoods, the effect of redlining was largely to exclude even affluent blacks from the mortgage market..."
This federal government-created, racially-linked lending policy was compounded by the urban renewal policies of the 1950s, the archetypal example of which was due to New York's Robert Moses. Under urban renewal, business and factory districts were destroyed or made unworkable by building expressways through the hearts of dozens of working class neighborhoods and direct condemnation of factories and privately owned residences. New York State continues to lead the nation in private use eminent domain and is close to the top in income inequality to this day. It also has the most government intervention and regulation. "Liberals" who claim that regulation will "solve" income inequality would do well to look at New York's "progressive" history.
As much as any other force, federal government mortgage, real estate and urban renewal policy segregated African Americans and deprived them of job opportunities. Coupled with drug illegalization and the institution of union-sponsored regulatory systems that made "blue state" industry uncompetitive, African Americans were frozen out of the primary economy and forced to live in red-lined districts whose economic development was directly attacked or crippled by left-wing and liberal regulation, making economic opportunity unavailable.
"...historically there was also a class, made up mostly of American blacks, for whom home ownership was out of reach. Although simple racial prejudice had long been a factor here, it was, ironically, the New Deal that institutionalized discrimination against blacks seeking mortgages. In 1935 the Federal Housing Administration, established in 1934 to insure home mortgages, asked the Home Owner's Loan Corp.—another New Deal agency, this one created to help prevent foreclosures—to draw up maps of residential areas according to the risk of lending in them. Affluent suburbs were outlined in blue, less desirable areas in yellow, and the least desirable in red.
"The FHA used the maps to decide whether or not to insure a mortgage, which in turn caused banks to avoid the redlined neighborhoods. These tended to be in the inner city and to comprise largely black populations. As most blacks at this time were unable to buy in white neighborhoods, the effect of redlining was largely to exclude even affluent blacks from the mortgage market..."
This federal government-created, racially-linked lending policy was compounded by the urban renewal policies of the 1950s, the archetypal example of which was due to New York's Robert Moses. Under urban renewal, business and factory districts were destroyed or made unworkable by building expressways through the hearts of dozens of working class neighborhoods and direct condemnation of factories and privately owned residences. New York State continues to lead the nation in private use eminent domain and is close to the top in income inequality to this day. It also has the most government intervention and regulation. "Liberals" who claim that regulation will "solve" income inequality would do well to look at New York's "progressive" history.
As much as any other force, federal government mortgage, real estate and urban renewal policy segregated African Americans and deprived them of job opportunities. Coupled with drug illegalization and the institution of union-sponsored regulatory systems that made "blue state" industry uncompetitive, African Americans were frozen out of the primary economy and forced to live in red-lined districts whose economic development was directly attacked or crippled by left-wing and liberal regulation, making economic opportunity unavailable.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Increasing Value of Dollars Offsets Stock Declines
Many people, including myself, have been suffering from declining stock values. Those of us who track our account values may forget that the value of the dollar has increased, and to a surprising degree given the Fed's weak dollar policy. At this point in time, people who have a diversified portfolio that includes a dollop of cash should take heart from the fact that their dollars have increased in value and that this implicit increase, which does not appear on your statement, offsets the declining stock market. This increase in value may offer an additional reason to consider investing the cash in stocks and commodities over the coming year.
Since the summer, the dollar has increased against the Euro by more than 20%, and against the Australian dollar by about one third. Thus, if you are holding a portfolio that includes 1/2 stocks and 1/2 short term money market or treasuries, your decline is not nearly so bad as it seems.
The Dow topped at about $14,164 in October 2007 and is currently at 8,308, a decline of 41%. If you were holding 1/2 short term treasuries and 1/2 stocks, your portfolio has declined by a little less than half that adjusting for interest on your bonds. For instance, if you had $250 in stock and $250 in cash, your portfolio looks like it declined by 41% x 250 - 3% (interest on bonds) x 250 = $95 / $500 = 19%.
But in that calculation you're excluding the gains in the dollar, which are not reflected in your financial statement. The dollar gained about 20% against the Euro, so you've gained 20% x $250 = $50. Subtracting the $50 implicit gain in the dollar from the $95 paper loss gives you a loss of $45. So if you were diversified in cash you suffered a loss of $45 / $500 = 9% net of the dollar gain.
Although a 9% loss is unpleasant for all of us, it is hardly earth shattering to anyone who's been around the stock market via a 401k, mutual fund or brokerage account for the past ten years.
Thus, there is no need to panic. Rather, John H. Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago, gives some fascinating advice in today's Wall Street Journal. Cochrane, like Warren Buffett, argues that smart investors should be buying now. Cochrane suggests that the ratio of dividends to price or dividend yield indicates that current valuations are mediocre and that in light of recent history, this may be a buying opportunity, although not an excellent one. Whether to buy depends on your personal circumstances, cash flow, risk preference, time of life and the like. Cochrane argues that when the dividend yield is high and reaches six or seven percent, the market is low and stock prices historically have increased during the ensuing seven years, but when the yield is low and falls to below 2% as it did around 2000 the market is high and stock prices have declined during the ensuing seven years. Currently, yields are middling.
However, Cochrane's analysis does not contemplate money supply policy, which influences both the dividend/price ratio and stock prices. When the Fed is increasing the money supply, as it has, then yields are going to be relatively low and stock prices are going to increase over the ensuing period. The Fed has pumped money into the system repeatedly during the past 35 years, so Cochrane's chart shows a secularly declining dividend/price ratio since 1950. Moreover, the chart suggests that average returns since 1971 have been greater than average returns between 1945 and 1971. The lowest returns occurred around 1967, several years prior to President Richard M. Nixon's removal of the international gold standard. The highest returns occurred around 1946, not long after World War II and around 1982, upon the advent of President Ronald Reagan's "supply side" economics. Increasing money supply may be the causal variable that both reduces dividend yield and increases future stock returns.
Thus, the cyclical ups and downs need to be interpreted in light of the long term trend. What are the political ramifications of the stock market's depending on perpetual injections of money and what are the policy implications?
In order to reach 1981 levels, a huge amount of liquidity will need to be injected into the system. But there is already much waste in the economy in terms of bad real estate investments, unworthy purchases on credit and the like. To compensate for these the Fed will need to give the economy much testosterone. This would cause the dividend/price curve to continue to decline. However, there is the risk of intensifying the above-average inflation rates that have characterized the recent past. If Americans are willing to live with a declining stock market, then perhaps the Fed will restrain inflation and stop the dividend/price trend from following its 63 year long downward pattern. If the main point of American society is to increase the stock market, then more injections will be needed, and increasing welfare transfers from cash earners to stock holders will ensue, likely intensifying the already massive inefficiencies in the American economy.
Which will it be? Paper wealth? Or real wealth? Further monetary expansion? Or deflation and permitting the termination of badly managed firms?
Since the summer, the dollar has increased against the Euro by more than 20%, and against the Australian dollar by about one third. Thus, if you are holding a portfolio that includes 1/2 stocks and 1/2 short term money market or treasuries, your decline is not nearly so bad as it seems.
The Dow topped at about $14,164 in October 2007 and is currently at 8,308, a decline of 41%. If you were holding 1/2 short term treasuries and 1/2 stocks, your portfolio has declined by a little less than half that adjusting for interest on your bonds. For instance, if you had $250 in stock and $250 in cash, your portfolio looks like it declined by 41% x 250 - 3% (interest on bonds) x 250 = $95 / $500 = 19%.
But in that calculation you're excluding the gains in the dollar, which are not reflected in your financial statement. The dollar gained about 20% against the Euro, so you've gained 20% x $250 = $50. Subtracting the $50 implicit gain in the dollar from the $95 paper loss gives you a loss of $45. So if you were diversified in cash you suffered a loss of $45 / $500 = 9% net of the dollar gain.
Although a 9% loss is unpleasant for all of us, it is hardly earth shattering to anyone who's been around the stock market via a 401k, mutual fund or brokerage account for the past ten years.
Thus, there is no need to panic. Rather, John H. Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago, gives some fascinating advice in today's Wall Street Journal. Cochrane, like Warren Buffett, argues that smart investors should be buying now. Cochrane suggests that the ratio of dividends to price or dividend yield indicates that current valuations are mediocre and that in light of recent history, this may be a buying opportunity, although not an excellent one. Whether to buy depends on your personal circumstances, cash flow, risk preference, time of life and the like. Cochrane argues that when the dividend yield is high and reaches six or seven percent, the market is low and stock prices historically have increased during the ensuing seven years, but when the yield is low and falls to below 2% as it did around 2000 the market is high and stock prices have declined during the ensuing seven years. Currently, yields are middling.
However, Cochrane's analysis does not contemplate money supply policy, which influences both the dividend/price ratio and stock prices. When the Fed is increasing the money supply, as it has, then yields are going to be relatively low and stock prices are going to increase over the ensuing period. The Fed has pumped money into the system repeatedly during the past 35 years, so Cochrane's chart shows a secularly declining dividend/price ratio since 1950. Moreover, the chart suggests that average returns since 1971 have been greater than average returns between 1945 and 1971. The lowest returns occurred around 1967, several years prior to President Richard M. Nixon's removal of the international gold standard. The highest returns occurred around 1946, not long after World War II and around 1982, upon the advent of President Ronald Reagan's "supply side" economics. Increasing money supply may be the causal variable that both reduces dividend yield and increases future stock returns.
Thus, the cyclical ups and downs need to be interpreted in light of the long term trend. What are the political ramifications of the stock market's depending on perpetual injections of money and what are the policy implications?
In order to reach 1981 levels, a huge amount of liquidity will need to be injected into the system. But there is already much waste in the economy in terms of bad real estate investments, unworthy purchases on credit and the like. To compensate for these the Fed will need to give the economy much testosterone. This would cause the dividend/price curve to continue to decline. However, there is the risk of intensifying the above-average inflation rates that have characterized the recent past. If Americans are willing to live with a declining stock market, then perhaps the Fed will restrain inflation and stop the dividend/price trend from following its 63 year long downward pattern. If the main point of American society is to increase the stock market, then more injections will be needed, and increasing welfare transfers from cash earners to stock holders will ensue, likely intensifying the already massive inefficiencies in the American economy.
Which will it be? Paper wealth? Or real wealth? Further monetary expansion? Or deflation and permitting the termination of badly managed firms?
Mairi Responds to Sup. Ct. Clerk Dan Bickell
Hi, Mitchell,
I don't know about you, but I have found this story to be quite infuriating. Mr. Donofrios states the clerk tried to stop and dissuade him from the get-go. Then, to misguide his case, and label it as something entirely different in an apparent attempt to stall, if not completely lose it in other work, just once again adds more fuel to the fire. How DARE a clerk misdirect a filing they personally disagree with. I HOPE Justice Clarence Thomas ORDERS the information to be sent to his desk IMMEDIATELY.
It makes one begin to understand why the legal system seems to be derailing. If "no account clerks" (my own label for this person Dan Bickell) can play games with legitimate filings to make them "disappear", how can anyone hope to have a chance in the system unless they have a very knowledgeable attorney with the fortitude to fight tactics employed by the opposition. There shouldn't even be "opposition" in the Court system itself. The Courts are supposed to be the People's platform.
This is frightening if true, and I have no reason to doubt what Mr. Donofrios' claims. Those of us determined to have answers to the very legitimate question of confirmation of eligibility of a candidate are shaking our heads in disbelief, wondering HOW we will ever find the person who will accept the responsibility, whether in the Courts, or with another entity.
I guess we will have to keep chipping away at the system until we are finally heard, and ANSWERED.
Mairi
I don't know about you, but I have found this story to be quite infuriating. Mr. Donofrios states the clerk tried to stop and dissuade him from the get-go. Then, to misguide his case, and label it as something entirely different in an apparent attempt to stall, if not completely lose it in other work, just once again adds more fuel to the fire. How DARE a clerk misdirect a filing they personally disagree with. I HOPE Justice Clarence Thomas ORDERS the information to be sent to his desk IMMEDIATELY.
It makes one begin to understand why the legal system seems to be derailing. If "no account clerks" (my own label for this person Dan Bickell) can play games with legitimate filings to make them "disappear", how can anyone hope to have a chance in the system unless they have a very knowledgeable attorney with the fortitude to fight tactics employed by the opposition. There shouldn't even be "opposition" in the Court system itself. The Courts are supposed to be the People's platform.
This is frightening if true, and I have no reason to doubt what Mr. Donofrios' claims. Those of us determined to have answers to the very legitimate question of confirmation of eligibility of a candidate are shaking our heads in disbelief, wondering HOW we will ever find the person who will accept the responsibility, whether in the Courts, or with another entity.
I guess we will have to keep chipping away at the system until we are finally heard, and ANSWERED.
Mairi
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
