Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

My predictive powers have proved to be pretty good, I must say. I had predicted for some time that there might be (futile) fringe left wing violence, and it has occurred. In the U.S. and elsewhere.

More recently, I have predicted for a while that Newt Gingrich might rise to the surface in the Republican field through process of elimination, and it is has happened. Newt's problem has always been that nobody really likes him a lot personally. But in the state the country is in, it's not inconceivable that people could think, "yeah he's an a-hole, but he may be the kind of a-hole we need right now".

Of course, he's also known to have blurbed S&H's books, and certainly is familiar with this theory, which makes it interesting from the perspective of this forum.

What I find puzzling, and actually hilarious, is that Gingrich's lobbying for Freddie Mac at the height of the housing bubble formation should be at least as great a sin to the Radical Right as Romney's being the true biological father of Obamacare. The Right tends to be a little slow on cognitive uptake as well as hypocrisy detection, but eventually they'll get it and Gingrich will be toast. Too bad, for the puffed-up toad would be even more easy to pick-off for Obama than he was for Clinton.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What I find puzzling, and actually hilarious, is that Gingrich's lobbying for Freddie Mac at the height of the housing bubble formation should be at least as great a sin to the Radical Right as Romney's being the true biological father of Obamacare. The Right tends to be a little slow on cognitive uptake as well as hypocrisy detection, but eventually they'll get it and Gingrich will be toast. Too bad, for the puffed-up toad would be even more easy to pick-off for Obama than he was for Clinton.

On the contrary, with the way each successive candidate has been built up and knocked down, Gingrich benefits from the fact that people already know exactly who he is. Not the dream candidate Republican voters have been waiting on to ride in out of nowhere, but certainly a million times better than Romney, whose picture is in the dictionary next to the terms "empty suit", "professional politician" and "country club Republican". The stuff they can try to smear Gingrich with is all old news, in the extreme. And what voters want right now is somebody who will get the job done, period.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

On the contrary, with the way each successive candidate has been built up and knocked down, Gingrich benefits from the fact that people already know exactly who he is. Not the dream candidate Republican voters have been waiting on to ride in out of nowhere, but certainly a million times better than Romney, whose picture is in the dictionary next to the terms "empty suit", "professional politician" and "country club Republican". The stuff they can try to smear Gingrich with is all old news, in the extreme. And what voters want right now is somebody who will get the job done, period.

Newt's biggest problem, bigger than all his hypocrisy or his politics, is that he is a dick. At the end of the day, most everyone can agree to that one fact.

We almost always elect someone we could picture as being a good next door neighbor, maybe someone you'd sit out and have a few beers with on a warm summer night. Newt ain't that guy. He is the dick neighbor you avoid eye contact with. He is the guy who gives out pencils to kids for Halloween.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Newt's biggest problem, bigger than all his hypocrisy or his politics, is that he is a dick. At the end of the day, most everyone can agree to that one fact. We almost always elect someone we could picture as being a good next door neighbor, maybe someone you'd sit out and have a few beers with on a warm summer night. Newt ain't that guy. He is the dick neighbor you avoid eye contact with. He is the guy who gives out pencils to kids for Halloween.

Heh.James50

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Newt's biggest problem, bigger than all his hypocrisy or his politics, is that he is a dick. At the end of the day, most everyone can agree to that one fact.

We almost always elect someone we could picture as being a good next door neighbor, maybe someone you'd sit out and have a few beers with on a warm summer night. Newt ain't that guy. He is the dick neighbor you avoid eye contact with. He is the guy who gives out pencils to kids for Halloween.

Like I said, we may be in a situation where it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Newt's biggest problem, bigger than all his hypocrisy or his politics, is that he is a dick. At the end of the day, most everyone can agree to that one fact.

We almost always elect someone we could picture as being a good next door neighbor, maybe someone you'd sit out and have a few beers with on a warm summer night. Newt ain't that guy. He is the dick neighbor you avoid eye contact with. He is the guy who gives out pencils to kids for Halloween.

That was one of my main turn offs with McCain too. He was a hothead. I wouldn't want him for a neighbor either. I could just see him blowing a gasket if my dog crapped in his yard.

Originally Posted by ASB65

That was one of my main turn offs with McCain too. He was a hothead. I wouldn't want him for a neighbor either. I could just see him blowing a gasket if my dog crapped in his yard.

I actually was giving McCain a chance for a minute (because I wasn't an easy Obama fan). Then I saw him wobble in anger across the stage during one of his debates with Obama and that....was a major turn off. His following statements didn't make any sense to me.

Now McCain, in 2000 is a different story for me.

Originally Posted by ASB65

That was one of my main turn offs with McCain too. He was a hothead. I wouldn't want him for a neighbor either. I could just see him blowing a gasket if my dog crapped in his yard.

HBO has done a great documentary about the history of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the repeal. Some people come out very well--an veteran Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania, now an ex-Congressman, who led the repeal effort comes out the best. So, to my amazement, does Lieberman. But McCain comes out absolutely the worst. His bitterness over repeal, particularly towards Admiral Mullen, is appalling. He is not the nice guy he has been portrayed as.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

HBO has done a great documentary about the history of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the repeal. Some people come out very well--an veteran Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania, now an ex-Congressman, who led the repeal effort comes out the best. So, to my amazement, does Lieberman. But McCain comes out absolutely the worst. His bitterness over repeal, particularly towards Admiral Mullen, is appalling. He is not the nice guy he has been portrayed as.

When has he ever come off as a nice guy? Pretty much every time I've ever seen him he comes off as a jerk? But you know who I think is the biggest jerk of all? Eric Cantor. He just gives me the creeps. He is such a smug a-hole. I'll bet he steals candy from babies, then gives himself a pat on the back for making them cry.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

My predictive powers have proved to be pretty good, I must say. I had predicted for some time that there might be (futile) fringe left wing violence, and it has occurred. In the U.S. and elsewhere.

More recently, I have predicted for a while that Newt Gingrich might rise to the surface in the Republican field through process of elimination, and it is has happened. Newt's problem has always been that nobody really likes him a lot personally. But in the state the country is in, it's not inconceivable that people could think, "yeah he's an a-hole, but he may be the kind of a-hole we need right now".

Of course, he's also known to have blurbed S&H's books, and certainly is familiar with this theory, which makes it interesting from the perspective of this forum.

Your predictive powers are not as good as mine, but you notice I made the same prediction about Gingrich.

Violence in the new revolution is very small now, but there is more danger of it as the Uranus-Pluto 90-degree square passes exactitude, just as it was greater after Uranus-Pluto were exact on other occasions (e.g. 1967, 1793). So 2013-14 there could be more violence. Actually, since I have said this 4T could be a revolution and/or civil war, perhaps both, this outbreak in 2011 could be the start of a revolution that goes on for 16 more years, undergoing various phases in its unfolding.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yes, the lesser and the greater.

To believe otherwise is akin to believing that since both tanning and high-level radiation burn, there's little difference between spending a day at the beach and being at ground zero when a nuke goes off.

Oh, it's not that a nihilist doesn't understand the tangible difference; it's that, at least for the existential type, they just don't think the difference is meaningful.

A good tan or totally evaporate - really, when it comes down to it, what's the difference?

Good response to the "the existential type" The Rani. Well said, PW.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Any bets on who is up next? I'm guessing Ron Paul.

Good guess; he has good numbers according to my ranking, but I think he's too far out of the Republican mainstream to get much support. The elections will be starting before Newt fades again; he may be the last. Romney will be nominated.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Dude. We're talking about Al Gore, not Batman.

Sure. But Dubya got the signals of 9/11 completely wrong. Others could have misinterpreted them (I consider myself a reasonable person, and I would have guessed that Osama bin Laden was intent on getting command of some jetliners, loading them with high explosives, and exploding them where and when they could do the most damage -- like the Capitol Building in session and certain areas in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Houston). As President, I would have had the Feds round up anyone in the conspiracy. I might have stopped a conspiracy vastly different from my suspicions, but I would have stopped whatever was going to go on.

Guy Fawkes Day for America, indeed!

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It is kind of silly to use a historical "what if" situation to decide whether or not to write someone off.

And even though Gore's interests wouldn't have aligned with the oil industry so well as Bush's did, the Pentagon is still interested in strategic access to resources and doing something about what had become our mess in Iraq after decades of war, targeted bombings, sanctions, and air space coverage.

Alternative history is fun. Of course historical tendencies after a change in the timeline imply unforeseen complexities. Someone in fact invented a steam engine in the Roman Empire... and just think of what the Romans would have done with steam power. Does anyone have an idea of how Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee translates in Latin? Roman legions in the New World? Sure -- if some Roman had put steam engines on sailing ships.

I can see a problem with Al Gore as President; as a direct VP successor to a precious President he would most likely follow the pattern of the two then-most-recent such Presidents: the elder Bush and Martin Van Buren, both one-term Presidents. Because Al Gore was likely too honest to foster a speculative boom in real estate, we might have had a nasty economic downturn in 2004 that offered 'obvious' solutions like a corrupt boom in real estate underpinned with predatory lending. Considering how awful many of the current GOP Governors and Senators are, we could easily have had someone far worse than Dubya elected in 2004 and even worse consequences. "Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb Iran!", anyone?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

HBO has done a great documentary about the history of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the repeal. Some people come out very well--an veteran Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania, now an ex-Congressman, who led the repeal effort comes out the best. So, to my amazement, does Lieberman. But McCain comes out absolutely the worst. His bitterness over repeal, particularly towards Admiral Mullen, is appalling. He is not the nice guy he has been portrayed as.

McCain was not likeable( I know that I did not like him). Anyone who thought that McCain was a nice person was deluded.

Alternative history can definitely be a fun diversion, but:

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Of course historical tendencies after a change in the timeline imply unforeseen complexities.

..and that makes fishing for a specific outcome as some kind of litmus test for "seriousness" utterly ridiculous. Maybe a better test would be how many plausible alternate scenarios someone can come up with.

I can see a problem with Al Gore as President; as a direct VP successor to a precious President he would most likely follow the pattern of the two then-most-recent such Presidents: the elder Bush and Martin Van Buren, both one-term Presidents. Because Al Gore was likely too honest to foster a speculative boom in real estate, we might have had a nasty economic downturn in 2004 that offered 'obvious' solutions like a corrupt boom in real estate underpinned with predatory lending. Considering how awful many of the current GOP Governors and Senators are, we could easily have had someone far worse than Dubya elected in 2004 and even worse consequences. "Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb Iran!", anyone?

Yeah, and we also don't know: A) if Gore agreed with Clinton's Iraq policy 100%; B) what kind of pressure the Pentagon would be applying; C) who would have been elected in 2004 or what they would have done; D) the domestic and diplomatic consequences of prolonging the no-fly zones and sanctions for another decade; E) the effect on oil prices during the 2006-2008 run-up if Saddam was still in charge...


And one little detail that seems to miss a big part of the problem:

Al Gore was likely too honest to foster a speculative boom in real estate

Ehhh, I wouldn't assume malice on the part of the real estate pushers. This was kind of "common wisdom" for the economic, academic, and political classes because they were operating from a specific perspective. Rising asset prices are generally a good thing, and leveraging assets in to investment is a huge part of economic activity in the U.S. Prognosticators sitting in ivory, marble, and gilded towers take CPI and Wage data at face value so they could only conclude that such a situation was still sustainable and therefor desirable.

What was increasingly obvious to workers - particularly marginal individuals like renters and would-be first-time homebuyers - never could have occurred to someone who was sitting in a senior position, pulling senior salary, at a powerful institution.

Some choice selections from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies in 2004:

Housing’s influence on the economy extends beyond its direct contribution. Careful analysis reveals that housing also influences the level of consumer spending. When housing wealth increases, consumers spend more. Indeed, they spend even more
freely when capital gains from home sales and home equity borrowing escalate in tandem with rising home values.

...

Perhaps the most important finding of this study, therefore, is that expansionary monetary policy can provide both a rapid and substantial lift to consumer spending under the right set of circumstances. However, the recent period was unusual in several respects. Home prices likely received a boost from the stock market both before and after the stock bubble burst. Before it burst, home prices likely got a lift in at least some areas from investors plowing some realized stock gains into real estate. When stock values fell, some investors pulled money out of the stock market and put it into real estate in search of positive returns. Meanwhile, interest rates fell to 45-year lows. While a similar convergence of circumstances could recur, housing’s contribution
to personal consumption is likely to settle back into its narrower historical range. Still, should the Fed once again elect to reduce overnight bank borrowing interest rates sharply in an attempt to stave off a recession before it starts, housing could once again help the economy through a soft spot rather than contribute to its contraction.

© 2004 President and Fellows of Harvard College

There's very little talk of any risk associated with falling home prices, but there is a nice chart of the bubble with the caption "Home price appreciation regains its historic lead over stock market returns"

I agree that Al Gore would have responded to 9/11 very differently and that what he would have done will always be one of the great might-have-beens of American history. I think it's very unlikely that a Gore Administration would have prevented the attacks. It's simply a fact that totally novel acts like that one are, by their very nature, almost impossible to anticipate and prevent. But after the attack I think Gore might easily have called for a clean energy crusade, for example. And he most certainly would not have cut taxes. This crisis has been used, and is being used, to destroy government.

Other litmus tests that accomplish exactly the same purpose follow:

1. Did Fannie and Freddie cause the financial meltdown?

2. Is Barack Obama a socialist?

3. Do tax cuts increase revenue?


I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Alternative history can definitely be a fun diversion, but:

..and that makes fishing for a specific outcome as some kind of litmus test for "seriousness" utterly ridiculous. Maybe a better test would be how many plausible alternate scenarios someone can come up with.

No, what is ridiculous is to ignore what is completely implausible (e.g Gore pursuing the mile-wide-millimeter-deep fabrication necessary to gain public support to invade Iraq) and basing one's entire worldview (e.g. there's no differences in being lead from the Right or the Left) on such implausible assumptions.

Either consciously or subconsciously, one makes rational predictions every day. I give a wide berth to those that operate assuming the sun will not rise tomorrow and that a zombie invasion is underway. I use to find those that operate as if nihilism, anarchy or Libertarian viewpoints are any where near operational in the reality of our complex society as being just amusing; now I see their willful ignorance, if not sheer stupidity, as a highly destructive force in our society.... and a number of them would agreed, and express pride, in that conclusion.

... next in the barrel?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/us...1&ref=politics

Niche Voters Giving Paul Momentum in Iowa Polls

Originally Posted by playwrite

No, what is ridiculous is to ignore what is completely implausible (e.g Gore pursuing the mile-wide-millimeter-deep fabrication necessary to gain public support to invade Iraq) and basing one's entire worldview (e.g. there's no differences in being lead from the Right or the Left) on such implausible assumptions.

Who ever said that if and when Gore decided to change Iraq policy he would have pursued the exact same type of military intervention and justified it in the exact same way? You talk a good game about complex realities but this analysis is seriously lacking in imagination. Similarly, the difference between Republicans and Democrats in America today is marginally real, but too small for my personal concept of political scope. Yes, they represent a difference in choice, but the actual difference in policies - relative to functional systems around the world - is just too small to get excited about. Further, there is no effort to political innovation because the system has already been wholly captured by powerful financial interests. A system with such high barriers to entry can't be reformed from the inside - that simply defies physics.

Either consciously or subconsciously, one makes rational predictions every day. I give a wide berth to those that operate assuming the sun will not rise tomorrow and that a zombie invasion is underway. I use to find those that operate as if nihilism, anarchy or Libertarian viewpoints are any where near operational in the reality of our complex society as being just amusing; now I see their willful ignorance, if not sheer stupidity, as a highly destructive force in our society.... and a number of them would agreed, and express pride, in that conclusion.

Now you're off in Mystical Boomer Land of Ideological Purity again - where everyone who doubts your vision of order is a heretical, destructive force that must be battled or ignored instead of someone who should be negotiated with and/or learned from. That intellectual isolationism is kinda hard to work with, and IMO the biggest threat to society in a 4T.

By the way, what do you think Gore would have done about Iraq? Would he just continue the course as Clinton and Bush I did? Was that situation indefinitely sustainable? Would the Republicans clobber him about it in 2004? Would Gore prevent 9-11? The Housing Bubble? Would everyone be riding non-polluting magic ponies instead of cars? Crisis and 4T averted?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Who ever said that if and when Gore decided to change Iraq policy he would have pursued the exact same type of military intervention and justified it in the exact same way? You talk a good game about complex realities but this analysis is seriously lacking in imagination. Similarly, the difference between Republicans and Democrats in America today is marginally real, but too small for my personal concept of political scope. Yes, they represent a difference in choice, but the actual difference in policies - relative to functional systems around the world - is just too small to get excited about. Further, there is no effort to political innovation because the system has already been wholly captured by powerful financial interests. A system with such high barriers to entry can't be reformed from the inside - that simply defies physics.

If I can weigh in here, I can't see how I could quarrel with your above statement. I still have hope that if the fanatical Republicans were shoved aside, we could at least muddle through OK. Not something to get excited about, I admit.

Now you're off in Mystical Boomer Land of Ideological Purity again - where everyone who doubts your vision of order is a heretical, destructive force that must be battled or ignored instead of someone who should be negotiated with and/or learned from. That intellectual isolationism is kinda hard to work with, and IMO the biggest threat to society in a 4T.

By the way, what do you think Gore would have done about Iraq? Would he just continue the course as Clinton and Bush I did? Was that situation indefinitely sustainable? Would the Republicans clobber him about it in 2004? Would Gore prevent 9-11? The Housing Bubble? Would everyone be riding non-polluting magic ponies instead of cars? Crisis and 4T averted?

I agree with PW that "nihilism, anarchy or Libertarian viewpoints are (NOT) any where near operational in the reality of our complex society." I don't think pointing that out is being ideologically pure or intellectual isolationism; it's just reality.

Continuing as Clinton did regarding Iraq was imminently sustainable, although we should have lifted the sanctions we had on them. Iraq was no threat; at the time even republican office holders agreed. It was just Bush and P-NAC's idea to revive American imperialism; that's all the 2003 Iraq invasion ever was. It is good that Iraq has a chance for democracy now, but we don't know; and we don't know if the Iraqis could have made their own revolution instead of us imposing it on them-- at great cost to them and ourselves. And I sure don't want any more Iraqi-style invasions. The most we can or should do is what we did in Libya, and with partners in the way we did it.

If Gore had been s-elected, there would have been no Iraq War, period. There might not have been 9-11 either, because Bush had abundant intelligence that it was coming and did nothing. It might have been prevented, had we had an administration that was genuinely interested in protecting the interests of the USA and its people. We did not have that from 2001-2009.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Who ever said that if and when Gore decided to change Iraq policy he would have pursued the exact same type of military intervention and justified it in the exact same way? You talk a good game about complex realities but this analysis is seriously lacking in imagination. Similarly, the difference between Republicans and Democrats in America today is marginally real, but too small for my personal concept of political scope. Yes, they represent a difference in choice, but the actual difference in policies - relative to functional systems around the world - is just too small to get excited about. Further, there is no effort to political innovation because the system has already been wholly captured by powerful financial interests. A system with such high barriers to entry can't be reformed from the inside - that simply defies physics.

Now you're off in Mystical Boomer Land of Ideological Purity again - where everyone who doubts your vision of order is a heretical, destructive force that must be battled or ignored instead of someone who should be negotiated with and/or learned from. That intellectual isolationism is kinda hard to work with, and IMO the biggest threat to society in a 4T.

By the way, what do you think Gore would have done about Iraq? Would he just continue the course as Clinton and Bush I did? Was that situation indefinitely sustainable? Would the Republicans clobber him about it in 2004? Would Gore prevent 9-11? The Housing Bubble? Would everyone be riding non-polluting magic ponies instead of cars? Crisis and 4T averted?

Kettle, pot, black.

YOUR land of mystical purity sets a pretty high bar when you view one that notes the implausibly of Gore being Bush and conflating that to a judgement of that person as being unable to see ANY commonalities.

I am certain what that reflects in you is the cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain and preach a worldview that allows taking or not taking a path to an immoral war, deadly to thousands, as being no more than a marginal difference - "too small to get excited about." That is the litmus test and you have failed.

I have no idea where Gore would have led us vis-a-vis Iraq or any of your other endpoints. BUT, I am certain that the process would NOT have been based on same idiocy, hubris, and immoral, if not evil, fabrications ram-rod down our throats by the Bush Administration to justify the invasion. That "means" is THE significant difference, regardless of the eventual "ends."

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Alternative history can definitely be a fun diversion, but (the complexity of events) and that makes fishing for a specific outcome as some kind of litmus test for "seriousness" utterly ridiculous. Maybe a better test would be how many plausible alternate scenarios someone can come up with.

Events show that Dubya was not up to the job as President. He wasn't especially stupid; indeed, geniuses are capable of consummate folly. It wasn't because he was a conservative; it was because he was intellectually lazy. He expected objective reality to fit his world view

Yeah, and we also don't know: A) if Gore agreed with Clinton's Iraq policy 100%; B) what kind of pressure the Pentagon would be applying; C) who would have been elected in 2004 or what they would have done; D) the domestic and diplomatic consequences of prolonging the no-fly zones and sanctions for another decade; E) the effect on oil prices during the 2006-2008 run-up if Saddam was still in charge...

All true. Add to that, we have no idea of what Saddam Hussein would have done. He could have restarted his weapons programs or attacked a neighbor. If the US left him no leeway on certain weapons, Russian leadership concurred on that. After all, the range of missiles that Saddam Hussein had had before 1991 reached into Russia. If Saddam got into a nostalgic mood for the weapons that he used to have...

Ehhh, I wouldn't assume malice on the part of the real estate pushers. This was kind of "common wisdom" for the economic, academic, and political classes because they were operating from a specific perspective. Rising asset prices are generally a good thing, and leveraging assets in to investment is a huge part of economic activity in the U.S. Prognosticators sitting in ivory, marble, and gilded towers take CPI and Wage data at face value so they could only conclude that such a situation was still sustainable and therefore desirable.

Malice? Malice isn't essential to economic crime. Someone who embezzles company funds to gamble on what seems a sure thing often expects to pay back his employer while keeping the winnings. Some con artists believe in their own scams. I've met people who believed that a pyramid scheme would work. Bribes and kickbacks might seem like good ways to streamline business. Good reasons exist for laws against illicit deals. For a few years people were getting rich, or at least thinking that they were getting rich, by gambling on other people's money. Leverage can work wonders.

What was increasingly obvious to workers - particularly marginal individuals like renters and would-be first-time homebuyers - never could have occurred to someone who was sitting in a senior position, pulling senior salary, at a powerful institution.

Some choice selections from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies in 2004:

Housing’s influence on the economy extends beyond its direct contribution. Careful analysis reveals that housing also influences the level of consumer spending. When housing wealth increases, consumers spend more. Indeed, they spend even more freely when capital gains from home sales and home equity borrowing escalate in tandem with rising home values.

...

Perhaps the most important finding of this study, therefore, is that expansionary monetary policy can provide both a rapid and substantial lift to consumer spending under the right set of circumstances. However, the recent period was unusual in several respects. Home prices likely received a boost from the stock market both before and after the stock bubble burst. Before it burst, home prices likely got a lift in at least some areas from investors plowing some realized stock gains into real estate. When stock values fell, some investors pulled money out of the stock market and put it into real estate in search of positive returns. Meanwhile, interest rates fell to 45-year lows. While a similar convergence of circumstances could recur, housing’s contribution
to personal consumption is likely to settle back into its narrower historical range. Still, should the Fed once again elect to reduce overnight bank borrowing interest rates sharply in an attempt to stave off a recession before it starts, housing could once again help the economy through a soft spot rather than contribute to its contraction.

© 2004 President and Fellows of Harvard College

There's very little talk of any risk associated with falling home prices, but there is a nice chart of the bubble with the caption "Home price appreciation regains its historic lead over stock market returns"

Much if what had been the well-established lore about real estate over the entire time since the last Crisis was well-established: the Good Lord wasn't making any more land, homeowners made better citizens and spurred purchases of household furnishings, their children led better and more promising lives. Homeowners are more likely to be political conservatives than are renters because they actually see costs of energy and taxes instead of seeing rent hikes as gouging, so it even had some desired political consequences. It was very attractive. Real estate had rarely crashed, and when it did it soon recovered. If a lender made a mistake and offered a mortgage to someone who eventually defaulted, then real estate inflation could make the whole transaction profitable.

Real estate could never go sour, or could it? By 2000 there were no people in the business who remembered the last real estate crash. It had been seventy years earlier -- in 1929, when the fictional George Babbitt was selling people houses that they couldn't afford. So were many not-so-fictional characters dealing real estate in that manner. Seventy years later people who had no idea of how the economic meltdown of 1929-1932 got its start found that nobody would stop their risky behavior. That's how the generational cycle operates, and not always as a convenience to people of any time.

Leverage works the other way, too, and people who don't sell out fast enough get bad results. Those who buy into an investment that suddenly goes sour lose big, and often the investment looks like the most obvious sure thing before it fails. No commodity and no financial instrument exists that can't be overpriced. The insiders and the experts are often the ones most deeply committed to an ultimate failure.

The world Endorses Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=lff4okNMxaI

On topic:

Romney's campaign has done something clever and despicable. They have a new ad based on statements Obama made during the 2008 campaign about the economy, the last of which is, "If we keep talking about the economy, we are going to lose." The catch is that Obama, in saying that, was quoting a McCain strategist.

Now what is brilliant about this isn't the ad itself, which would have been stronger if they had used the full entire quote. What's brilliant is that the Democratic leadership and the msm are jumping all over it pointing out that it's distortion. And of course, that is exactly the kind of attack Romney needs--to solidify his standing within the Republican base.