Fannie & Freddie have started to offer mortgage loan modifications. As of the moment, the loan mod is voluntary. Accepting this ’solution’ means you:
* Acknowledge the full debt regardless of the value of the home
* Waive all rights to fraudulent or predatory lending claims in the future
* Turn your loan into a full recourse loan that could follow you for life even if you choose foreclosure down the road
[[MORE]]* Remain underwater, full-leveraged, renter for the rest of your life (in most cases)
* Will save no money at 38% housing debt-to-income ratio plus all other debts
* May not discharge any of this mortgage debt through any bankruptcy even after foreclosure
If widely accepted by home owners, this will ruin the American consumer and make housing a dead asset class for decades. If you are in a serious negative equity position when signing these forms, as most are, remember that you will:
* Never be able to sell your home
* Never be able to buy a new home
* Never be able to rent your home due to owner occupant provisions
* Be responsible for the full loan amount even if the value of your home keeps dropping for the next 10-years.
The 38% debt-to-income ratio on top of all of your other debt means you will save no money and live hand to mouth to keep this underwater roof over your head.
From: http://mrmortgage.ml-implode.com/2008/12/17/fanniefreddie-come-get-your-loan-mod-pay-for-life/
Monday, 22 December 2008
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
New Zealand energy and telecom investments
Here's an update on New Zealand from an energy and telecom-oriented investment perspective:
-- Broadband Internet is widely available in NZ. Fiber roll-outs are starting. Speeds of 3 Mbps are common in cities; higher in areas where cable is available. Hotspots aren't perhaps as widely available yet, and when they are, they tend to be outrageously expensive. NZ ISPs charge for data transfer, which does add to the costs. Vodafone and Telecom are perhaps the two largest, but they are by no means the only ones.
-- Electricity is relatively cheap in NZ because most of it comes from hydro power, esp. on the south island
-- NZ gets much of their own natural gas from the offshore Maui fields. Much more exploration and development has been going on over the last few years.
[[MORE]]-- One advantage of using gas canisters instead of piped-in gas is that you are much more independent that way. I have two canisters that I use only for cooking, and haven't had to recharge either one after 18 months.
-- Most NZ homes north of Canterbury (the region around Christchurch) and outside of the mountain regions don't have central heat. It's just not needed. A few electric space heaters work just fine for most people, and at a fraction of the cost. In older homes, insulation is relatively uncommon. (Kiwis are a fairly hardy bunch).
-- There are plenty of industry and investment opportunities in NZ. Check out PRC (Pike River Coal) and NZR (New Zealand Refining) on the NZ Exchange, for examples.
-- NZ has some interesting tax advantages: no taxes on capital gains (for anything from the sale of a house to the sale of stocks, etc), no inheritance taxes and very, very low property taxes. The government ran a surplus this year.
-- The NZ central bank runs independently of government, and has a mandate to fight inflation. That's why interest rates are high (over 8%), and why home prices have been declining.
-- The country is entering what looks like a gentle recession. Unemployment is up, but only modestly. It's still very low by global standards.
-- NZ has a no-nuclear policy. They are proud of their "clean and green" image; rightfully so, I think. They won't even allow US warships to dock here because of the US policy of not saying which of their ships carry nuclear materials.
-- NZ has a lot of farmers, millions of sheep, and a big and powerful dairy industry. It's also fairly rich in other commodities -- lumber, coal, etc. In a SHTF scenario, that could be considered a good thing.
-- Broadband Internet is widely available in NZ. Fiber roll-outs are starting. Speeds of 3 Mbps are common in cities; higher in areas where cable is available. Hotspots aren't perhaps as widely available yet, and when they are, they tend to be outrageously expensive. NZ ISPs charge for data transfer, which does add to the costs. Vodafone and Telecom are perhaps the two largest, but they are by no means the only ones.
-- Electricity is relatively cheap in NZ because most of it comes from hydro power, esp. on the south island
-- NZ gets much of their own natural gas from the offshore Maui fields. Much more exploration and development has been going on over the last few years.
[[MORE]]-- One advantage of using gas canisters instead of piped-in gas is that you are much more independent that way. I have two canisters that I use only for cooking, and haven't had to recharge either one after 18 months.
-- Most NZ homes north of Canterbury (the region around Christchurch) and outside of the mountain regions don't have central heat. It's just not needed. A few electric space heaters work just fine for most people, and at a fraction of the cost. In older homes, insulation is relatively uncommon. (Kiwis are a fairly hardy bunch).
-- There are plenty of industry and investment opportunities in NZ. Check out PRC (Pike River Coal) and NZR (New Zealand Refining) on the NZ Exchange, for examples.
-- NZ has some interesting tax advantages: no taxes on capital gains (for anything from the sale of a house to the sale of stocks, etc), no inheritance taxes and very, very low property taxes. The government ran a surplus this year.
-- The NZ central bank runs independently of government, and has a mandate to fight inflation. That's why interest rates are high (over 8%), and why home prices have been declining.
-- The country is entering what looks like a gentle recession. Unemployment is up, but only modestly. It's still very low by global standards.
-- NZ has a no-nuclear policy. They are proud of their "clean and green" image; rightfully so, I think. They won't even allow US warships to dock here because of the US policy of not saying which of their ships carry nuclear materials.
-- NZ has a lot of farmers, millions of sheep, and a big and powerful dairy industry. It's also fairly rich in other commodities -- lumber, coal, etc. In a SHTF scenario, that could be considered a good thing.
Friday, 18 April 2008
How the Free Software movement has damaged the industry
Some advocates of Free Software attack the concept of intellectual property. They claim that the work of others should be made available to the world because it's the "right thing to do." Some developers buy into it in the hope of gaining exposure that could help them later in their careers and because they believe they are doing something beneficial for the world. I believe that, in the long run, both groups hold a terribly distorted view. In fact, after participating in the industry for 34 years now, I believe the Free Software movement has irreparably damaged the industry.
[[MORE]]
Software development is an almost purely intellectual task. In that sense, it's similar to writing a book, designing a building, writing a play, composing a song or painting a picture. As with those skills, writing good software is supremely difficult. In the same way that anyone can write a short story or draw a picture, anyone can write a simple program. But modern, full-featured software is full of complexity, depth and richness that exceeds most other human endeavors.
The logic of many users and advocates of Free Software is flawed. For example, they often encourage studying the source code. In addition to benefiting from the use of the software, they also benefit from the creativity, education and programming skills of the original developers. Their employers are penalized by having to pay their staff to learn about and possibly maintain the code. While that's a potential necessity in some businesses, for most it amounts to significant added cost. The advocates distort the truth to their employers by emphasizing the fact that the software is free, while failing to acknowledge the significantly higher labor costs.
Users of Free Software also often claim that ownership of intellectual property doesn't make any sense. They say things like "how can you own an idea?" or "making a copy doesn't cost the developer anything extra" or "knowledge belongs to everyone." What they're really saying is that they want the benefits from the hard work of others, but without paying for it. They are rejecting the concept of private property at its core. If a person can't own the things they create with their own mind then what can they own? One result of this is that a lot of Free Software contains multiple patent licensing violations, which are ignored by the users as "not important."
From the developer's perspective, giving their work away for free encourages the concept that software has no real value. Rather than increasing the value of their future labor by gaining exposure in the community, the value of that future work is in fact minimized. If developers don't value their work enough to charge for it, then why should potential future employers feel compelled to pay? If all software is free, then the people who create it must not be worth very much, if anything. Competing against free software is a continual challenge. If no one is willing to pay for software, then how will companies pay the salary of those developers?
Imagine a band that gave away all of their music, then suddenly published a new recording that they wanted to charge for. They've created a market barrier for themselves. Actors have this problem, too. After being on TV for a while, their value is diminished for movies; movie-only actors can charge much more per film, as a result of audience expectations. In a similar way, software developers are denying themselves the possibility of future ownership and profits.
Let's say a developer comes up with a wonderful application that could benefit the lives of millions. They have given away all of their previous work. But now this idea is so special that they want to own it and charge people for it. How would the market respond? Rather than suddenly recognizing value in the new work, which I believe is the common self-deception, the market will instead reject the new application in favor of additional Free applications, in spite of the difference in quality or character of the new app, because they have been conditioned to expect that developer's code to be free. The developer has inadvertently shot themselves in the foot.
Personally, I use as much commercial software as I can. I do so because it's to my benefit. I am helping to support the value of my time as a developer, and I'm minimizing my support and maintenance costs by being able to call for support when I need it. Even so, I do use some free software when better alternatives aren't available (such as WordPress) – but I do so without adopting the mantra of many advocates that "all software should be free." Property rights are the cornerstone of Liberty, and must be defended at every opportunity.
[[MORE]]
Software development is an almost purely intellectual task. In that sense, it's similar to writing a book, designing a building, writing a play, composing a song or painting a picture. As with those skills, writing good software is supremely difficult. In the same way that anyone can write a short story or draw a picture, anyone can write a simple program. But modern, full-featured software is full of complexity, depth and richness that exceeds most other human endeavors.
The logic of many users and advocates of Free Software is flawed. For example, they often encourage studying the source code. In addition to benefiting from the use of the software, they also benefit from the creativity, education and programming skills of the original developers. Their employers are penalized by having to pay their staff to learn about and possibly maintain the code. While that's a potential necessity in some businesses, for most it amounts to significant added cost. The advocates distort the truth to their employers by emphasizing the fact that the software is free, while failing to acknowledge the significantly higher labor costs.
Users of Free Software also often claim that ownership of intellectual property doesn't make any sense. They say things like "how can you own an idea?" or "making a copy doesn't cost the developer anything extra" or "knowledge belongs to everyone." What they're really saying is that they want the benefits from the hard work of others, but without paying for it. They are rejecting the concept of private property at its core. If a person can't own the things they create with their own mind then what can they own? One result of this is that a lot of Free Software contains multiple patent licensing violations, which are ignored by the users as "not important."
From the developer's perspective, giving their work away for free encourages the concept that software has no real value. Rather than increasing the value of their future labor by gaining exposure in the community, the value of that future work is in fact minimized. If developers don't value their work enough to charge for it, then why should potential future employers feel compelled to pay? If all software is free, then the people who create it must not be worth very much, if anything. Competing against free software is a continual challenge. If no one is willing to pay for software, then how will companies pay the salary of those developers?
Imagine a band that gave away all of their music, then suddenly published a new recording that they wanted to charge for. They've created a market barrier for themselves. Actors have this problem, too. After being on TV for a while, their value is diminished for movies; movie-only actors can charge much more per film, as a result of audience expectations. In a similar way, software developers are denying themselves the possibility of future ownership and profits.
Let's say a developer comes up with a wonderful application that could benefit the lives of millions. They have given away all of their previous work. But now this idea is so special that they want to own it and charge people for it. How would the market respond? Rather than suddenly recognizing value in the new work, which I believe is the common self-deception, the market will instead reject the new application in favor of additional Free applications, in spite of the difference in quality or character of the new app, because they have been conditioned to expect that developer's code to be free. The developer has inadvertently shot themselves in the foot.
Personally, I use as much commercial software as I can. I do so because it's to my benefit. I am helping to support the value of my time as a developer, and I'm minimizing my support and maintenance costs by being able to call for support when I need it. Even so, I do use some free software when better alternatives aren't available (such as WordPress) – but I do so without adopting the mantra of many advocates that "all software should be free." Property rights are the cornerstone of Liberty, and must be defended at every opportunity.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Food Shortages
There are more and more reports in the news about food shortages. Riots have even started in some places, like Haiti. And of course, when their citizens start to feel threatened, governments feel compelled to respond. Unfortunately, that always makes things worse. What many don't understand yet is that the reason for the shortages in the first place is entirely because of government "controls" or various other forms of intervention.
[[MORE]]
Look at Britain, for example. A while back, the government mandated that pig farmers reform the way they raise pigs to make the process more "humane". As a (totally predictable) result, raising pigs became more expensive. The farmers were unable to pass the costs along to the public, who, presumably, wanted the changes in the first place. So a lot of farmers stopped raising pigs. Their breeding herd is now about 425,000, or roughly half the size it was in 1990. Combine that with the recent run-up in grain prices, and presto! Now there's a crisis with pigs.
No government ever seems to ask "who will pay for this?" or "what will the effects be?" Unfortunately, even if they did ask such questions, their answers would usually be wrong. The economy is just too hard to predict. That's one reason why free markets are the only viable long-term answer. In the case of pigs, if people wanted farmers to treat pigs more humanely, they could have boycotted farmers who didn't, and expressed their willingness to pay a higher price for better animal conditions (analogous to organic produce). The market would have communicated the message. No shortages would have developed.
Now the same kind of thing is happening with other foods. The government says "if you grow corn for biofuel, we'll give you a subsidy." After all, biofuels will help reduce our dependency on oil, and that's a good thing, right? So farmers replaced wheat with corn. Now there's a wheat shortage. Oh, and it turns out that corn-derived ethanol isn't an economically viable substitute for oil after all. So now we're screwed three ways: not enough wheat, ethanol that takes more energy to produce than it delivers, and more government debt / inflation. Again, this just wouldn't have happened in a free market.
What about food aid to developing countries? Those people are hungry, and they deserve our help, right? We're richer than they are, and we can afford it, so it has to be a good thing, right? Wrong. Food aid actually does MUCH more harm than good. For one thing, the money never goes to the people who it would really help the most. Let's say the money is used to buy food on the open market and deliver it to poor, downtrodden communities. First, the extra demand for food drives prices higher for everyone else, so the people who aren't receiving aid suffer as a result. Second, how can a local farmer compete with free food? When continued over a long period, farmers are driven out of business. As Jim Rogers explains in his book Adventure Capitalist, there used to be a lot of farmers in Ethiopia. It has rich, fertile land. Lots of free food over the years has driven the farmers out of business – there are probably few people there now who even remember how to farm. So now if there's a global food shortage, where the food programs are no longer able to afford to buy food in the open market, guess who suffers? The people in those countries you thought you were helping will starve, because they've become dependent and can no longer support themselves. Yeah, food "aid" – another collectivist crime against humanity.
So what's the cure for food shortages? Stop subsidies. Stop interventions. Abolish tariffs and other restrictions on free trade. Repeal or minimize government restrictions on farmers (like legislating how pigs are treated). Let the free market work!
[[MORE]]
Look at Britain, for example. A while back, the government mandated that pig farmers reform the way they raise pigs to make the process more "humane". As a (totally predictable) result, raising pigs became more expensive. The farmers were unable to pass the costs along to the public, who, presumably, wanted the changes in the first place. So a lot of farmers stopped raising pigs. Their breeding herd is now about 425,000, or roughly half the size it was in 1990. Combine that with the recent run-up in grain prices, and presto! Now there's a crisis with pigs.
No government ever seems to ask "who will pay for this?" or "what will the effects be?" Unfortunately, even if they did ask such questions, their answers would usually be wrong. The economy is just too hard to predict. That's one reason why free markets are the only viable long-term answer. In the case of pigs, if people wanted farmers to treat pigs more humanely, they could have boycotted farmers who didn't, and expressed their willingness to pay a higher price for better animal conditions (analogous to organic produce). The market would have communicated the message. No shortages would have developed.
Now the same kind of thing is happening with other foods. The government says "if you grow corn for biofuel, we'll give you a subsidy." After all, biofuels will help reduce our dependency on oil, and that's a good thing, right? So farmers replaced wheat with corn. Now there's a wheat shortage. Oh, and it turns out that corn-derived ethanol isn't an economically viable substitute for oil after all. So now we're screwed three ways: not enough wheat, ethanol that takes more energy to produce than it delivers, and more government debt / inflation. Again, this just wouldn't have happened in a free market.
What about food aid to developing countries? Those people are hungry, and they deserve our help, right? We're richer than they are, and we can afford it, so it has to be a good thing, right? Wrong. Food aid actually does MUCH more harm than good. For one thing, the money never goes to the people who it would really help the most. Let's say the money is used to buy food on the open market and deliver it to poor, downtrodden communities. First, the extra demand for food drives prices higher for everyone else, so the people who aren't receiving aid suffer as a result. Second, how can a local farmer compete with free food? When continued over a long period, farmers are driven out of business. As Jim Rogers explains in his book Adventure Capitalist, there used to be a lot of farmers in Ethiopia. It has rich, fertile land. Lots of free food over the years has driven the farmers out of business – there are probably few people there now who even remember how to farm. So now if there's a global food shortage, where the food programs are no longer able to afford to buy food in the open market, guess who suffers? The people in those countries you thought you were helping will starve, because they've become dependent and can no longer support themselves. Yeah, food "aid" – another collectivist crime against humanity.
So what's the cure for food shortages? Stop subsidies. Stop interventions. Abolish tariffs and other restrictions on free trade. Repeal or minimize government restrictions on farmers (like legislating how pigs are treated). Let the free market work!
Friday, 11 April 2008
Producer vs. Consumer Jobs
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' in the US recently published numbers for how many people are employed in various areas of the economy can break this down slightly differently than how they do it, according to producers (those who are creating things of value) and those who are either consumers or whose jobs directly depend on the producers (accountants, lawyers, etc). Using their numbers:
[[MORE]]
Producers
13,643,000 Manufacturing
3,010,000 Information (it might be a stretch to include all of these jobs...)
751,000 Mining and logging
------------------
17,404,000
Consumers
22,387,000 Government
13,682,000 Leisure and hospitality
21,467,000 Wholesale and retail
18,036,000 Professional and business services
18,699,000 Education and health
8,228,000 Financial
4,532,000 Transportation
7,338,000 Construction
5,516,000 Other services
------------------
119,885,000
Total workers = 137,289,000
Which means that the ENTIRE ECONOMY is being carried by only about 13% of the total population (or about 1 out of every 8 people).
Just to be totally clear: if those producer jobs were to go away, the rest of the economy would collapse, even under the best of economic conditions.
Imagine an economy with just a handful of people: a farmer, an accountant, a store clerk and a government worker. The farmer is the only one producing anything. If the farmer goes away, what's left to sell at the store? With no sales, who needs an accountant? With nothing left to tax, there's no way to pay the government worker. The ripple effect is catastrophic -- and importing more stuff from overseas than we sell there just compounds the problem.
[[MORE]]
Producers
13,643,000 Manufacturing
3,010,000 Information (it might be a stretch to include all of these jobs...)
751,000 Mining and logging
------------------
17,404,000
Consumers
22,387,000 Government
13,682,000 Leisure and hospitality
21,467,000 Wholesale and retail
18,036,000 Professional and business services
18,699,000 Education and health
8,228,000 Financial
4,532,000 Transportation
7,338,000 Construction
5,516,000 Other services
------------------
119,885,000
Total workers = 137,289,000
Which means that the ENTIRE ECONOMY is being carried by only about 13% of the total population (or about 1 out of every 8 people).
Just to be totally clear: if those producer jobs were to go away, the rest of the economy would collapse, even under the best of economic conditions.
Imagine an economy with just a handful of people: a farmer, an accountant, a store clerk and a government worker. The farmer is the only one producing anything. If the farmer goes away, what's left to sell at the store? With no sales, who needs an accountant? With nothing left to tax, there's no way to pay the government worker. The ripple effect is catastrophic -- and importing more stuff from overseas than we sell there just compounds the problem.
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
What did I learn in school?
I went to public school in the US for K through 12, and then to a public university (UC Santa Barbara). I skipped a few years and finally graduated with a BA in Math in 1978, just after I turned 19, so I spent about 14 years in the public school system.
What did I learn in school?
1. How to take tests
2. How to memorize and regurgitate
3. How to conform and get along
[[MORE]]4. How to not conform and not get caught
5. Teachers often know less than their students
6. Real education happens with your peers, not in the classroom
7. Most people are jerks
The most valuable lesson:
Society doesn't care about truth, honesty or the ability to think critically. What's important are rules, conformity and political correctness.
The purpose of American schools is not to teach reasoning skills, or how to get and hold a job, or anything along those lines. The schools are there as babysitters so both parents can work, and to teach the values of the state and obedience to the state.
If you think I'm exaggerating, just look at modern history books as an example: horribly distorted and full of outright lies. It's a joke.
Uneducated minds are then more susceptible to propaganda from the mass media and religion. Throw in some new-age stuff about how feelings can be used to discover things about the world around us, and you end up with a society that's so confused it becomes self-destructive -- and government schools are at the root of it.
What did I learn in school?
1. How to take tests
2. How to memorize and regurgitate
3. How to conform and get along
[[MORE]]4. How to not conform and not get caught
5. Teachers often know less than their students
6. Real education happens with your peers, not in the classroom
7. Most people are jerks
The most valuable lesson:
Society doesn't care about truth, honesty or the ability to think critically. What's important are rules, conformity and political correctness.
The purpose of American schools is not to teach reasoning skills, or how to get and hold a job, or anything along those lines. The schools are there as babysitters so both parents can work, and to teach the values of the state and obedience to the state.
If you think I'm exaggerating, just look at modern history books as an example: horribly distorted and full of outright lies. It's a joke.
Uneducated minds are then more susceptible to propaganda from the mass media and religion. Throw in some new-age stuff about how feelings can be used to discover things about the world around us, and you end up with a society that's so confused it becomes self-destructive -- and government schools are at the root of it.
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Interest rate manipulation
The problem with central banks like the Fed is that they distort the markets by setting interest rates at artificial levels. That sends incorrect signals to investors and businesses. For example, low interest rates cause business valuations to rise, so stocks go up. Or apparently cheap money might allow a business to justify a loan or an expansion that wouldn't be possible if rates were higher. That's the boom phase. What happens next is that when the economy gets "overheated" (high inflation), the central banks raise rates. Things then start to unwind: company valuations drop, new loans are no longer affordable, etc. That's the contraction (recession) phase.
[[MORE]]
On a gold standard with full-reserve banking, interest rates are always set at free-market levels -- so businesses and individuals are receiving correct, undistorted information about the economy. Rates also tend to be more consistent. Longer-term planning becomes possible; 99 yr loans again become feasible, for example. The business cycle also goes away: no more booms and busts, because the assumptions underlying investments and other spending don't suddenly turn out to be untrue.
[[MORE]]
On a gold standard with full-reserve banking, interest rates are always set at free-market levels -- so businesses and individuals are receiving correct, undistorted information about the economy. Rates also tend to be more consistent. Longer-term planning becomes possible; 99 yr loans again become feasible, for example. The business cycle also goes away: no more booms and busts, because the assumptions underlying investments and other spending don't suddenly turn out to be untrue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)