 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
I calculated that this housing crisis is only much less than $700B.
Let's make a calculation, and perhaps you could share with me your
insights:
The number of homes * foreclosure rate * average price of home =
126M * 0.006 * $200K = $151.2B .
NOTE: My assumption is that the home foreclosed, in such a way that
the owner had no equity in the home. Therefore, the entire valley of
an average home, ~$200K, was confiscated by the bank, since I assumed
that there is no owner equity.
Also, the foreclosure rate is not much higher than it has been in
historical terms. http://freeby50.blogspot.com/2008/10/home-foreclosur
e-rates-past-and-present.html
has some interesting data. But it indicates that the foreclosure
rates have been going up since around 1980. Moreover, from
inspection, the historical rate is not much lower than where it is
now.
Therefore, I'm beginning to think that the crisis is really from the
investors in MBS/CDOs who were over-leveraged on these investments.
Another entity that invested in MBS/CDOs are hedge fund/pension
investors, who over-leveraged on MBS/CDO and if these CDO investments
were insured by CDS, than the hedge fund manager or other investor has
a lot of peace of mind.
From my insights, is it reasonable to conclude that the hedge fund
managers and other risky investors contributed more damage to the
economy than the housing defaults themselves?
1. "updated 12:39 p.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 13, 2008
MIAMI - The number of homeowners caught in the wave of foreclosures in
October grew 25 percent nationally over the same month in 2007, data
released Thursday showed.More than 279,500 U.S. homes received at
least one foreclosure-related notice in October, an increase of 5
percent over September, according to RealtyTrac Inc. One in every 452
housing units received a foreclosure filing, such as a default notice,
auction sale notice or bank repossession."
2. "So Jakabovics based his calculation of 0.6% in his August
statement from the same day news release from RealtyTrac, which
reported, "RealtyTrac now has more than three quarters of a million
properties in its active REO database." The 0.6% calculation means
there are 125 million existing homes in the U.S., which is in the
right ball park. According to the 2006 American Community Survey from
the Census Bureau, it's 126,311,823. So, 0.6% is close enough."
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:53:58 -0800 (PST), "2.7182818284590..."
<t...@g...com> wrote:
>I calculated that this housing crisis is only much less than $700B.
>Let's make a calculation, and perhaps you could share with me your
>insights:
>
>The number of homes * foreclosure rate * average price of home =
>126M * 0.006 * $200K = $151.2B .
>
>NOTE: My assumption is that the home foreclosed, in such a way that
>the owner had no equity in the home. Therefore, the entire valley of
>an average home, ~$200K, was confiscated by the bank, since I assumed
>that there is no owner equity.
>
>Also, the foreclosure rate is not much higher than it has been in
>historical terms. http://freeby50.blogspot.com/2008/10/home-foreclosur
e-rates-past-and-present.html
>has some interesting data. But it indicates that the foreclosure
>rates have been going up since around 1980. Moreover, from
>inspection, the historical rate is not much lower than where it is
>now.
>
>Therefore, I'm beginning to think that the crisis is really from the
>investors in MBS/CDOs who were over-leveraged on these investments.
>Another entity that invested in MBS/CDOs are hedge fund/pension
>investors, who over-leveraged on MBS/CDO and if these CDO investments
>were insured by CDS, than the hedge fund manager or other investor has
>a lot of peace of mind.
>
>From my insights, is it reasonable to conclude that the hedge fund
>managers and other risky investors contributed more damage to the
>economy than the housing defaults themselves?
>
>
>
>1. "updated 12:39 p.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 13, 2008
>MIAMI - The number of homeowners caught in the wave of foreclosures in
>October grew 25 percent nationally over the same month in 2007, data
>released Thursday showed.More than 279,500 U.S. homes received at
>least one foreclosure-related notice in October, an increase of 5
>percent over September, according to RealtyTrac Inc. One in every 452
>housing units received a foreclosure filing, such as a default notice,
>auction sale notice or bank repossession."
>
>2. "So Jakabovics based his calculation of 0.6% in his August
>statement from the same day news release from RealtyTrac, which
>reported, “RealtyTrac now has more than three quarters of a million
>properties in its active REO database.” The 0.6% calculation means
>there are 125 million existing homes in the U.S., which is in the
>right ball park. According to the 2006 American Community Survey from
>the Census Bureau, it’s 126,311,823. So, 0.6% is close enough."
Right !
The bad housing financing was but a pimple on the hugely overbloated
financial system bubble: a swindle-on-swindles of enormous proportions.
The pimple is easier to see so it gets the attention and blame.
Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --
2.7182818284590... <t...@g...com> wrote:
> I calculated that this housing crisis is only much less than $700B.
What matters is the much larger lack of liquidity in the banks.
Thats whats killing the GDP and producing the layoffs.
> Let's make a calculation, and perhaps you could share with me your insights:
> The number of homes * foreclosure rate * average price of home =
> 126M * 0.006 * $200K = $151.2B .
What matters is the value of the loan, not the price of the house.
And it remains to be seen what the foreclosure rate will end up at.
> NOTE: My assumption is that the home foreclosed, in
> such a way that the owner had no equity in the home.
Thats a lousy assumption, particularly with foreclosures that are the result of a
layoff.
> Therefore, the entire valley of an average home, ~$200K, was confiscated by the
bank,
No it wasnt.
> since I assumed that there is no owner equity.
> Also, the foreclosure rate is not much higher than it has been in historical terms.
Yet.
> http://freeby50.blogspot.com/2008/10/home-foreclosur
e-rates-past-and-present.html
> has some interesting data. But it indicates that the foreclosure rates
> have been going up since around 1980. Moreover, from inspection,
> the historical rate is not much lower than where it is now.
> Therefore, I'm beginning to think that the crisis is really from the
> investors in MBS/CDOs who were over-leveraged on these investments.
That mangles the story too. The problem isnt with all CDOs, its
only the ones that are bad because they involved foreclosed loans.
> Another entity that invested in MBS/CDOs are hedge fund/pension
> investors, who over-leveraged on MBS/CDO
The problem isnt the leverage, its with how many of them are now bad.
> and if these CDO investments were insured by CDS, than the
> hedge fund manager or other investor has a lot of peace of mind.
That depends on whether whoever insured them can payout on them and not go bust etc.
> From my insights, is it reasonable to conclude that the hedge
> fund managers and other risky investors contributed more
> damage to the economy than the housing defaults themselves?
The problem isnt actually the hedge fund managers and other investors, the
problem is that so many CDOs got AAA ratings that they didnt even come
close to qualifying for, and now that that happened, no one is clear just what
the value of the CDOs that dont involve defaults are actually worth now.
Thats the reason most financial institutions wont lend to each other
when there is no way of quantifying the risk involved with that lending.
And its that lack of liquidity that involves the Fed in a hell of a lot more
than the $700B you came up with by calculating the value of the defaults.
> 1. "updated 12:39 p.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 13, 2008
> MIAMI - The number of homeowners caught in the wave of foreclosures
> in October grew 25 percent nationally over the same month in 2007, data
> released Thursday showed.More than 279,500 U.S. homes received at
> least one foreclosure-related notice in October, an increase of 5
> percent over September, according to RealtyTrac Inc. One in every 452
> housing units received a foreclosure filing, such as a default notice,
> auction sale notice or bank repossession."
> 2. "So Jakabovics based his calculation of 0.6% in his August
> statement from the same day news release from RealtyTrac, which
> reported, “RealtyTrac now has more than three quarters of a million
> properties in its active REO database.” The 0.6% calculation means
> there are 125 million existing homes in the U.S., which is in the
> right ball park. According to the 2006 American Community Survey from
> the Census Bureau, it’s 126,311,823. So, 0.6% is close enough."
And it remains to be seen if it will stay that low.
On Nov 21, 12:53 pm, "2.7182818284590..." <t...@g...com>
wrote:
> I calculated that this housing crisis is only much less than $700B.
> Let's make a calculation, and perhaps you could share with me your
> insights:
>
> The number of homes * foreclosure rate * average price of home =
> 126M * 0.006 * $200K = $151.2B .
>
> NOTE: My assumption is that the home foreclosed, in such a way that
> the owner had no equity in the home. Therefore, the entire valley of
> an average home, ~$200K, was confiscated by the bank, since I assumed
> that there is no owner equity.
>
> Also, the foreclosure rate is not much higher than it has been in
> historical terms. http://freeby50.blogspot.com/2008/10/home-foreclosu
re-rates-past-and-...
> has some interesting data. But it indicates that the foreclosure
> rates have been going up since around 1980. Moreover, from
> inspection, the historical rate is not much lower than where it is
> now.
>
> Therefore, I'm beginning to think that the crisis is really from the
> investors in MBS/CDOs who were over-leveraged on these investments.
> Another entity that invested in MBS/CDOs are hedge fund/pension
> investors, who over-leveraged on MBS/CDO and if these CDO investments
> were insured by CDS, than the hedge fund manager or other investor has
> a lot of peace of mind.
>
> From my insights, is it reasonable to conclude that the hedge fund
> managers and other risky investors contributed more damage to the
> economy than the housing defaults themselves?
>
> 1. "updated 12:39 p.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 13, 2008
> MIAMI - The number of homeowners caught in the wave of foreclosures in
> October grew 25 percent nationally over the same month in 2007, data
> released Thursday showed.More than 279,500 U.S. homes received at
> least one foreclosure-related notice in October, an increase of 5
> percent over September, according to RealtyTrac Inc. One in every 452
> housing units received a foreclosure filing, such as a default notice,
> auction sale notice or bank repossession."
>
> 2. "So Jakabovics based his calculation of 0.6% in his August
> statement from the same day news release from RealtyTrac, which
> reported, "RealtyTrac now has more than three quarters of a million
> properties in its active REO database." The 0.6% calculation means
> there are 125 million existing homes in the U.S., which is in the
> right ball park. According to the 2006 American Community Survey from
> the Census Bureau, it's 126,311,823. So, 0.6% is close enough."
On Nov 21, 12:53 pm, "2.7182818284590..." <t...@g...com>
wrote:
>
> Therefore, I'm beginning to think that the crisis is really from the
> investors in MBS/CDOs who were over-leveraged on these investments.
You are completely correct. When the subprime thing first started
making headlines my thought was the amount of money involved is not
large, so this is not that big a deal. Little did I know.
It is difficult to put a finger on precisely who is responsible.
Everyone involved pursued his/her self interest and perhaps bent the
truth, not enough to really be a lie.
But if you have 18 people each bending the truth 10 degrees then you
are 180 wrong and black becomes white, up is down, and the system
starts to work to destroy itself rather than produce wealth. The
people who took out the loans are victims. The people who sold them
the loans are responsible but are so many little fish that punishing
them is not practical. Some of the people who packaged the securities
knew what was going on, but which ones? The ones who will have the
most trouble wiggling out of it are the bond rating services who gave
those AAA ratings. But the bonds were insured against default, what
could go wrong? The insurers can point at historical trends that
bonds have never defaulted like this before. Fannie and Freddie can
say, "I was under orders." Congressmen will confess they don't
understand economics. As you can see, so many are involved that it is
no longer a crime, but a systematic error. You can't prosecute a
million people.
But yes, five Wall Street banks got special dispensation to go for
40-1 leverage. Once that happened it was 1927. Most of those banks
blew up and are gone. The ex-prez of one of the survivors is
Secretary of the Treasury and seems bent on compounding the errors and
keeping the whole mess going as long as possible. I think the idea is
that if they don't, the banks go down and the FDIC bankrupts the
government.
.
There are plenty of other securitized forms of debt that may be
overleveraged as well. I don't see why not, the incentives are the
same. How much fraud is there? Those who know aren't talking. If in
fact anyone knows.
On Nov 20, 9:53 pm, "2.7182818284590..." <t...@g...com>
wrote:
> I calculated that this housing crisis is only much less than $700B.
> Let's make a calculation, and perhaps you could share with me your
> insights:
>
> The number of homes * foreclosure rate * average price of home =
> 126M * 0.006 * $200K = $151.2B .
>
> NOTE: My assumption is that the home foreclosed, in such a way that
> the owner had no equity in the home. Therefore, the entire valley of
> an average home, ~$200K, was confiscated by the bank, since I assumed
> that there is no owner equity.
>
> Also, the foreclosure rate is not much higher than it has been in
> historical terms. http://freeby50.blogspot.com/2008/10/home-foreclosu
re-rates-past-and-...
> has some interesting data. But it indicates that the foreclosure
> rates have been going up since around 1980. Moreover, from
> inspection, the historical rate is not much lower than where it is
> now.
>
> Therefore, I'm beginning to think that the crisis is really from the
> investors in MBS/CDOs who were over-leveraged on these investments.
> Another entity that invested in MBS/CDOs are hedge fund/pension
> investors, who over-leveraged on MBS/CDO and if these CDO investments
> were insured by CDS, than the hedge fund manager or other investor has
> a lot of peace of mind.
>
> From my insights, is it reasonable to conclude that the hedge fund
> managers and other risky investors contributed more damage to the
> economy than the housing defaults themselves?
>
> 1. "updated 12:39 p.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 13, 2008
> MIAMI - The number of homeowners caught in the wave of foreclosures in
> October grew 25 percent nationally over the same month in 2007, data
> released Thursday showed.More than 279,500 U.S. homes received at
> least one foreclosure-related notice in October, an increase of 5
> percent over September, according to RealtyTrac Inc. One in every 452
> housing units received a foreclosure filing, such as a default notice,
> auction sale notice or bank repossession."
>
> 2. "So Jakabovics based his calculation of 0.6% in his August
> statement from the same day news release from RealtyTrac, which
> reported, "RealtyTrac now has more than three quarters of a million
> properties in its active REO database." The 0.6% calculation means
> there are 125 million existing homes in the U.S., which is in the
> right ball park. According to the 2006 American Community Survey from
> the Census Bureau, it's 126,311,823. So, 0.6% is close enough."
Mr. e Natural, I like the cut of your jib.
yes, it is true, whether or not the subprimes are all
that big of a deal; just what LaRouche says, essentially,
that it is the USA's quadrillion-dollar derivatives-in-leveraging:
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526lar_soros_pamph.
html
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3546math_is_not_scie
nce.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3546will_tolerate_
parasites.html
thus:
yeah, so, how long would it take you
to "appreciate Wiles' alleged proof?"
too long for me, as probably with the book
that you cite, although I have looked
at exposes on the Wiles matter. personally,
I beleive that he was prodded by a Cambridge Don
in 1976, upon the publication of an elementary attempt,
qua Fermat's alleged proof -- the proof is in the fact that
Fermat made no known errors in his challenges, letters and
marginal notes to Bachet's Diophantus!
> just reading rankin
> gets a good starting chunk of the representation theory
> with little prerequisites
thus:
E=mcc is just Liebniz' *vis viva* at the max; agreed....
Soddy was the first to show the actual "conversion"
of binding energy or what ever;
Dr. Strangelove wrote the letter to FDR that E. signed, and
Truman launched the nuclear era with an act of terror,
over the heads of MacArthur and Eisenhower ... as a Hawaai'ian,
Obama might make some amend for that, and hopefully avoid
the latter-day Strangeloves over Iran et al ad vom. (after all,
every nation has the right to nuclear energy, if
not '50s loghtwater reactors.)
> value. The number of electrons, protons, and neutrons in a fission
> core are *exactly* identical before and immediately after implosion.
> The difference is nuclear binding energy before and after - and that
> was always energy (as mass-equivalent).
thus:
light is a dysturbance of the medium of "vacuum,"
relatively speaking; Young caused Newton's corpuscle
to go apoptosis with two pinholes admitting the coherent sunlight
of another pinhole in a far wall;
the adsorption of a quantum of light
unto a grain of silver iodide is not "a photon per se,"
the selfsame phenom of waves splitting through a breakwater,
hitting the beach (but so many grains, thereat); similarly,
of course, with the photoelectric apparatus effect
qua the Nobel prize in physics?
--Wookipoopyea deletes correction:
Voting Rights Act "preclearance rule" a dead letter,
as annointed by Supreme refusal to hear appeal
in LaRouche versus Fowler, March 27, 2000,
thus giving Gore the greenlight
to blow all of his feet off in Arkansas,
Michigan and Florida ... and
to win an Oscar and a Dyno-mite:
for working for that oil co., his dad did?
On Nov 20, 11:53 pm, "2.7182818284590..." <t...@g...com>
wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that the crisis is really from the
> investors in MBS/CDOs who were over-leveraged on these investments.
Euler? Euler? Euler?
"In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an
effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great
Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-
Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs,
in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did
it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the
United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a
similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone?
Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what
this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will
get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very
controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this
in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics.
In a word: derivatives.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId
=90328243
doodoo economics -- it's all good!
Smoot-Hawley is often alleged to have *caused* the Depression,
because so-called Republicans (and Demos, of course) don't
even know the meanings of the words, republic, or pretectionism;
how can the "foutains of technology" of free trade,
combined with an insufferable deficit, be good?
> In a word: derivatives.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId
=90328243
thus:
er, all four of you,
have ignored the matter of proportionality,
which is certainly problematic in any case,
dealing with "the last digit of pi," or
a "formalist" representation of an infinitessimal or
of an infinity. or "2000...0000. = double infinity," or
"0.0000...0002 = two of my biggest infinitessimals,
twogether for eternity" or what ever.
thus:
you mean, a contraction in the direction of acceleration,
is arbitrary?
> An arbitrary asymmetrical contraction violates the essence and
> PRINCIPLE of relativity itself...
thus:
the mere matter of proportionality,
all three of you ignore qua "decimals" and
their digits' implied exponents
apparently in thrall to AP's fixation
to linearize the p-adics;
it really only applies in base-one (or unary)
in such a simple way -- if really possible, even there;
one of *you* must do the math....
remember, the decimals of Stevin are the first toy algebra,
with inverses & the formal ambiguity of 3.149999... = 3.150000...
it's rather difficult, when the mind is occluded
by notions of omega-sub-naught etc.,
not that they don't have their places,
which I abjure for now.
> > statements such as 10^999...999 = 1000...000.
> My program is not to clear up place-value but to clear
thus:
yes, it is true, whether or not the subprimes are all
that big of a deal; just what LaRouche says, essentially,
that it is the USA's quadrillion-dollar derivatives-in-leveraging:
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526lar_soros_pamph.
html
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3546math_is_not_scie
nce.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3546will_tolerate_
parasites.html
thus:
yeah, so, how long would it take you
to "appreciate Wiles' alleged proof?..."
too long for me, as probably with the book
that you cite, although I have looked
at exposes on the Wiles matter. personally,
I beleive that he was prodded by a Cambridge Don
in 1976, upon the publication of an elementary attempt,
qua Fermat's alleged proof -- the proof is in the fact that
Fermat made no known errors in his challenges, letters and
marginal notes to Bachet's Diophantus!
> just reading rankin
> gets a good starting chunk of the representation theory
> with little prerequisites
thus:
E=mcc is just Liebniz' *vis viva* at the max; agreed....
Soddy was the first to show the actual "conversion"
of binding energy or what ever;
Dr. Strangelove wrote the letter to FDR that E. signed, and
Truman launched the nuclear era with an act of terror,
over the heads of MacArthur and Eisenhower ... as a Hawaai'ian,
Obama might make some amend for that, and hopefully avoid
the latter-day Strangeloves over Iran et al ad vom. (after all,
every nation has the right to nuclear energy, if
not '50s loghtwater reactors.)
> value. The number of electrons, protons, and neutrons in a fission
> core are *exactly* identical before and immediately after implosion.
> The difference is nuclear binding energy before and after - and that
> was always energy (as mass-equivalent).
thus:
light is a dysturbance of the medium of "vacuum,"
relatively speaking; Young caused Newton's corpuscle
to go apoptosis with two pinholes admitting the coherent sunlight
of another pinhole in a far wall;
the adsorption of a quantum of light
unto a grain of silver iodide is not "a photon per se,"
the selfsame phenom of waves splitting through a breakwater,
hitting the beach (but so many grains, thereat); similarly,
of course, with the photoelectric apparatus effect
qua the Nobel prize in physics?
--Wookipoopyea deletes correction:
Voting Rights Act "preclearance rule" a dead letter,
as annointed by Supreme refusal to hear appeal
in LaRouche versus Fowler, March 27, 2000,
thus giving Gore the greenlight
to blow all of his feet off in Arkansas,
Michigan and Florida ... and
to win an Oscar and a Dyno-mite:
for working for that oil co., his dad did?
On Nov 21, 12:53 am, "2.7182818284590..." <t...@g...com>
wrote:
> I calculated that this housing crisis is only much less than $700B.
> Let's make a calculation, and perhaps you could share with me your
> insights:
>
> The number of homes * foreclosure rate * average price of home =
> 126M * 0.006 * $200K = $151.2B .
[snip]
This is not even remotely a useful estimate of the size of
the problem.
First, the bad loans were bundled with a bunch of good loans.
This means that the aggregate is what is going bad, not just
the value of the bad loans. This is a big part of why there
is a problem. Bad loans, that the smaller banks were coerced
into making through the Community Reinvestment Act (look it
up and find out for yourself) would have sunk the small banks.
But the law makers winked-and-nodded and let them sell the bad
loans, packaged with good loans to make a product. And the
law makers winked-and-nodded again to let the rating agencies
lie to make these products look attractive. So large agencies
like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would touch them.
Next, a loan does not have to be foreclosed to be a money
loser for the lending institution. There was a small ripple
in the housing market. Thus, the bank loans were suddenly
not on the expected value of the real estate, but on the
actual, not as large, value. The investors were seduced
by the expectation that the value of the real estate would
rise enough to cover the losses due to defaulting loans.
Since the default rate was low-balled, and the rate of
increase in real estate prices was high-balled, the margin
was actually a lot smaller than reported.
These agencies had invested grossly heavily, taking out
loans of their own. They were able to buy these loans
with downpayments of their own in the range of a few
percent. The small banks were all just fine, because
they got paid by the loans the big agencies took out.
But when the ripple happened, the big agencies were
unable to make the payments on *their* loans.
There are way many other contributing problems. For
example, the risk was sold off to people other than the
people making the loans. So, a loan officer at a bank
has essentially zero risk in giving a loan. But he
gets his bonus based on the amount he loans out. And
since his bank can package up the loan and sell it,
his bank comes out shiny. So a guy with a $17,000 per
year income, no assets, and no prospect of improving
his income, finds it perfectly easy to get a loan
for $580,000. And winds up unable to cover even two
months per year of the interest, never mind pay back
any of the loan.
But he got to live in his house.
For example, the loans were often subdivided and
packaged in torturous fashion. Such that, when it
came time to renegotiate a loan, or the payments,
or try to adjust the interest rates, or even talk
about loan insurance, home owners insurance etc.,
it was often not possible to find out who was the
actual holder of the mortgage. It's not your bank
any more. It's some combination of agencies, through
many layers of stock, ownership, etc. So, even those
who were paying their loan payments on time found it
difficult to figure out who actually they owed. So
in some cases, a conscientious loan-receiver found
it difficult to pay back his loan because he was
unable to figure out who to write the check to.
Or unable to find somebody to negotiate even simple
things like a schedule for payment.
But the guy who got his $580K loan is laughing.
He's perfectly prepared to squat there, not making
any payments, and hoping that nobody can untangle
who is owed how much, and hoping foreclosre is too
tangled to ever get finished. So he sits there in
his half million dollar house, having made maybe
one monthly payment, maybe none. He probably is not
even paying his property tax.
And is anybody blaming the CRA? Nah. That would be
blaming the poor guy with the $17,000 per year income.
How could anybody be against a law that lets that guy
live in a half million dollar home? Certainly the
democrats are not against it. Those guys in the big
houses they didn't pay for, those are the guys who
vote dem. And the dems know it.
Socks
what Socks said --
even a conscientious mortgagee,
might not be able to find who owns the mrtgage,
due to those -- what are they usually called?
thus:
yo, perhaps this is the whole problem, even perhaps
of Cantor's program, to attempt to stick an infinitessimal
into a formalized "place" a la decimals, when the actual insight
into numbertheory, Gauss's "Queen of Science," of Fermat,
Pascal and Liebniz was really very dynamic, in that
all of them built computers or mechanical calculators.
(note that the matter of subtracting a larger number
from a smaller one odometer-style, was apparently used
against Leivniz by the Royal Society in Clark's write-up, or
in his correspondence; he had to do "ten's compliment,
to get the standard, "negative" answer, alas.)
thus:
doodoo economics -- it's all good!...
Smoot-Hawley is often alleged to have *caused* the Depression,
because so-called Republicans (and Demos, of course) don't
even know the meanings of the words, republic, or protectionism;
how can the "foutains of technology" of free trade,
combined with an insufferable deficit, be good?
> In a word: derivatives. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId
=90328243
thus:
er, all four of you,
have ignored the matter of proportionality,
which is certainly problematic in any case,
dealing with "the last digit of pi," or
a "formalist" representation of an infinitessimal or
of an infinity. or "2000...0000. = double infinity," or
"0.0000...0002 = two of my biggest infinitessimals,
twogether for eternity" or what ever.
thus:
the mere matter of proportionality,
all three of you ignore qua "decimals" and
their digits' implied exponents
apparently in thrall to AP's fixation
to linearize the p-adics;
it really only applies in base-one (or unary)
in such a simple way -- if really possible, even there;
one of *you* must do the math....
remember, the decimals of Stevin are the first toy algebra,
with inverses & the formal ambiguity of 3.149999... = 3.150000...
it's rather difficult, when the mind is occluded
by notions of omega-sub-naught etc.,
not that they don't have their places,
which I abjure for now.
> > statements such as 10^999...999 = 1000...000.
> My program is not to clear up place-value but to clear
thus:
yes, it is true, whether or not the subprimes are all
that big of a deal; just what LaRouche says, essentially,
that it is the USA's quadrillion-dollar derivatives-in-leveraging:
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526lar_soros_pamph.
html
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3546math_is_not_scie
nce.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3546will_tolerate_
parasites.html
thus:
yeah, so, how long would it take you
to "appreciate Wiles' alleged proof?..."
too long for me, as probably with the book
that you cite, although I have looked
at exposes on the Wiles matter. personally,
I beleive that he was prodded by a Cambridge Don
in 1976, upon the publication of an elementary attempt,
qua Fermat's alleged proof -- the proof is in the fact that
Fermat made no known errors in his challenges, letters and
marginal notes to Bachet's Diophantus!
> just reading rankin
> gets a good starting chunk of the representation theory
> with little prerequisites
thus:
E=mcc is just Liebniz' *vis viva* at the max; agreed....
Soddy was the first to show the actual "conversion"
of binding energy or what ever;
Dr. Strangelove wrote the letter to FDR that E. signed, and
Truman launched the nuclear era with an act of terror,
over the heads of MacArthur and Eisenhower ... as a Hawaai'ian,
Obama might make some amend for that, and hopefully avoid
the latter-day Strangeloves over Iran et al ad vom. (after all,
every nation has the right to nuclear energy, if
not '50s loghtwater reactors.)
> value. The number of electrons, protons, and neutrons in a fission
> core are *exactly* identical before and immediately after implosion.
> The difference is nuclear binding energy before and after - and that
> was always energy (as mass-equivalent).
thus:
light is a dysturbance of the medium of "vacuum,"
relatively speaking; Young caused Newton's corpuscle
to go apoptosis with two pinholes admitting the coherent sunlight
of another pinhole in a far wall;
the adsorption of a quantum of light
unto a grain of silver iodide is not "a photon per se,"
the selfsame phenom of waves splitting through a breakwater,
hitting the beach (but so many grains, thereat); similarly,
of course, with the photoelectric apparatus effect
qua the Nobel prize in physics?
--Wookipoopyea deletes correction:
Voting Rights Act "preclearance rule" a dead letter,
as annointed by Supreme refusal to hear appeal
in LaRouche versus Fowler, March 27, 2000,
thus giving Gore the greenlight
to blow all of his feet off in Arkansas,
Michigan and Florida ... and
to win an Oscar and a Dyno-mite:
for working for that oil co., his dad did?
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Another great day...if you're shorting
Keynesian Economics- Revenge of the Barbarous Relic
KENISON COUNTING NUMBERS STOCK MARKET TIMING OUTLOOK
Up