Only if they are intentionally trying to increase liquidity and decrease interest rates through an open market operation. Otherwise the bonds typically go to institutional investors who underwrite the bond issuance and turn around and sell the bonds on the open market. They get paid for in cash.
And when the Fed buys bonds, it doesn't necessarily print the money to do so, they have plenty sitting around. After all, they are the one bank in America that if they want more deposits, they can require that banks give it to them. And until very recently, when they started to implement the channel system, they didn't pay interest on reserves. This makes the Fed very profitable.
Why should the economy obey the same laws that nature does? Economics is a social construction, not a physical one. The real standard is the labor standard. It is about people. If we keep advancing as a species (from hunter gatherer, to agricultural, to industrial, to information) and getting more efficient, then labor can create more wealth. This means the economy can keep growing. So far this pattern has only held out for 10,000+ years, so why should we put any trust in it? No-- far better to try to correlate the stock market with gravity...
Except that if you create more money, as you said, all money becomes worth less. This loss of value by the existing money IS the marginal cost of creating more money. This means it isn't all that tempting to print more money. Which is why our government typically doesn't use that method to pay more more spending. Instead they take out debt (a problem in and of itself), which actually has the effect of _removing_ liquidity.
I can back that up. You are absolutely right, it isn't affordable housing efforts that killed us-- it was greed.
As someone who works at a financial institution (one of the top 10 banks in the USA), I can personally testify that it is not equal housing/equal credit or CRA that is causing the increased default rate. After all, the government regulations mostly just require banks to not make credit decisions on the basis of descriminatory metrics. For example, I can't say that 25 year olds have to have better credit scores than 50 year olds, or people from a certain neighborhood can't have loans. I CAN, however, turn down people with bad scores.
Our internal models show that the bad loans we have don't correlate with income. What they do correspond to are all of the risk indicators that banks should have been watching carefully (thankfully, we were): DTI, strength of collateral, credit score. In other words, it isn't lack of income, because we were only making small loans to people with small income-- it is loans where people out did themselves.
Furthermore, the only real government programs that allow people with no money down and back credit to get mortgages are through government secured mortgages. The government doesn't come to you and say "You have to give mortgages to people who can't afford it, and screw you if they can't pay." Instead, they say "You can give mortgages to people who wouldn't otherwise qualify IF they meet certain criteria, and we will protect you from the risk if they default." As far as the bank is considered, this is actually LESS risky than your average customer. That's the whole point. Incentives for the desired behavior.
The fact is that the myth that HUD/CRA/EH/EC caused the credit crisis, is just that, a myth. Everyone I've heard say it either a) has no experience in the finance industry, b) is a CEO trying to blame someone else for their problems,or c) is a TV personality trying to find the latest and greatest reason why we should just ship those pesky poor people somewhere else so that we don't have to look at them any more.
Not a tablet PC. A tablet, like a paper one. Keep one with you. Problem solved. If the thought is so short that a long boot time makes it inconvenient to jot down, then it will only take a second to type it up when you get in front of a comp.
That/.'s consensus analysis of this bill is completely incorrect. The immunity portion of the bill doesn't change anything other than preventing a bunch of lawyers from getting rich, since the telecoms would have won any lawsuits anyway. I know that this is going to be wildly unpopular, but the truth is, if the government tells a business to do something, and tells the business that they have legal authorization to do it, and in fact threaten the company if they don't comply, the business is going to be off the hook in court. Who should be held responsible? The government agencies that did the bullying and misleading in the first place.
So what does change? Going forward, there will be stiffer penalties for groups that violate FISA requirements, either knowingly or through a lack of due diligence.
Don't use it after business hours. Make it clear that if there is an emergency (a real emergency, as in money lost by the second kind of emergency)you should be called.
Eh, actually they don't want it to work. This way they can say "we tried to stop it from selling to kids!", but when the machine dispenses anyway they can make some extra bucks. It could easily be a way to avoid the age limits on who they can sell to.
Wow. I can't believe this moderation. Ok, how about this. The poster is using one computer to post on slashdot, which is probably not even fully utilizing his CPU. The story is looking for suggestions on how to max out 500 cores. Max out 500 cores, and the poster doesn't even seem to have a good reason other than "wow, we've got a cluster, let us crank it to eleven." I think the suggestion of "don't touch that, it is not a toy" is pretty applicable.
The reality of the political process RIGHT NOW is that you can't have both. Either the law passes as amended or it doesn't. Getting the amendments removed is a VERY long shot.
From reading the "statement", it seems like he is saying that it is more important to have the stricter penalties and a clearer law going forward than to worry about the cases that have already occurred. Personally, if I were in the senate right now and the two choices were "stop this from happening going forward, but let the first batch go through" and "nail the guys who did this, but continue to have this fight every time the issue comes up", I might just pick the future over the present. It seems like the political climate is such that the guys have de facto immunity anyway, so what do we really gain by allowing prosecution? The deck is stacked against anyone who wants to bring the telecoms to court. Next time it won't be.
I keep hearing this "sweetheart deal" thing about Chris Dodd. You know what the actual deal is? A 30 year AR mortgage intro'd at 4.5%. All that means is the man had good credit and timed his purchase well. It's not like that is out of the range for mortgage rates. When I first heard it, I was thinking a no interest mortgage or something like that. Instead, he's paying almost 5%, like the rest of us.
As someone who works for a bank and has some familiarity with merchant service programs and debit/credit card revenue, I can testify to the fact that the industry standard is a flat charge per transaction, plus a percentage of dollar volume.
This is why most banks are getting away from joint "and" type accounts and only opening joint "or" accounts. In a modern banking environment, it is just completely at odds with what customers AND newer employees are familiar with. Think about it. Debit cards are always one signer. Online banking is always one signer, as is online bill pay. As a result, noobish bank employees just aren't that familiar with the requirements of "and" accounts.
- that mortgage applicants actually have the income needed to support paying back the mortgage! DUHHH!
- that a large enough down payment is made that if a small drop in the home's value happens, it won't eliminate the collateral the mortgage was secured on. (currently minimum 5% downpayment)
- that if a downpayment is not significant (under 25%), the mortgage applicant must have mortgage insurance.
On point one, mortgage companies want to do this-- most do. There is an impression out there that banks want foreclosure somehow. The truth is that banks lose a lot of money on special assets and loan officers at most institutions are rated on the percent of bad loans in their portfolio. Too many bad loans, you go out the door.
In America, we have a heavy taxes on mortgages which are over 80% of the value of the house used as collateral. And have you ever heard of force placement of insurance? I have and it is standard policy amongst lenders when their collateral is not properly insured.
If you want to know the real root of the mortgage crisis, it is people selecting inappropriate mortgages for themselves. Now, I know what you are thinking-- banks should stop these people! Well, banks don't have any control if you get a mortgage and then three or four years later, run up $30,000 in credit card debt. Banks don't have any control on if you don't save any money and then a year down the line lose your job and don't find another one. They can only make a prediction based on your ability CURRENT ability to pay. Your future actions are YOUR responsibility.
So if you post comments on their website, they (*gasp*) post them? They use your name if you give it to them? I CERTAINLY HOPE NO OTHER WEBSITES FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS! TEH END OF TEH NETS!
I have NEVER had this problem. In fact, the problem I have with iTunes and Quicktime is that they just didn't seem to be able to wrest control of my media away from Media Player.
Except that there is a big difference between software that is optional to download and IE being so completely tied into windows that you couldn't uninstall it and still have a working install. That is why Microsoft got the anti-trust flack-- they abused their monopoly position to ensure that they had a close to 100% install base, thus making their product the defacto standard in a new market (why design for anything else when 95% of PCs out there have IE).
Yes, Apple could be more explicit about the Safari download, but you still give permission to install it (yes, the box is checked by default; no, there is no reason why you can't uncheck it). iTunes won't stop working without it. Your OS won't stop working without it (note that even under OSX there is no reason you can't uninstall Safari).
Maybe that is YOUR perception, but I assure you, that isn't the law. The law doesn't distinguish between identity theft and fraud. There is only fraud. The law judges what is and isn't fraud and the extents of liability based on whether you were a good guardian of your card/account information, the method of the transaction (credit card vs. debit card pin transaction vs. check), and whether or not there were unauthorized transactions.
Hmm. If they are anything like the photography students I know, they are outraged at the idea that someone could take a piece of work that is meaningful to them, put their own name on it, and then, to add insult to injury, make money off of the deal.
By the way, the buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because of innovation. What you are proposing is as if the buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because all of the sudden it was legal to steal buggy whips.
There's no rule that says you have to pay for once and only once and all at one time or that subscription and paid software are mutually exclusive. Sometimes there is a business model that is different than that. That's how financing on a car works. You pay up front (a down payment) plus more later (regular payments). See also mortgages. Somehow this crops up every time any kind of subscription comes up on/., but yet the contradicting examples are everywhere in the real world. It's frustrating.
I'd be willing to bet that the people in LIGO are attributing this to the instruments, and everyone else is running around wringing their hands at the possible demise of GR. Of course, the LIGO people know the instrument, and therefore know this-- it is extremely sensitive to interference. Traffic too heavy on the interstate (I-12)? Can't get useful data. Storm in the gulf? No useful data. They pick all kinds of vibration and noise pollution. So the fact that they didn't get a useful measurement doesn't mean there aren't gravity waves, it probably means that the timing wasn't right and all they got was noise.
I was quite sure that many women out there would find the ad very intriguing, until he got to the part about only using Vi. Seriously, why would you bring up your mental health conditions even before the first date?
Slashdot Mirror
Only if they are intentionally trying to increase liquidity and decrease interest rates through an open market operation. Otherwise the bonds typically go to institutional investors who underwrite the bond issuance and turn around and sell the bonds on the open market. They get paid for in cash.
And when the Fed buys bonds, it doesn't necessarily print the money to do so, they have plenty sitting around. After all, they are the one bank in America that if they want more deposits, they can require that banks give it to them. And until very recently, when they started to implement the channel system, they didn't pay interest on reserves. This makes the Fed very profitable.
Why should the economy obey the same laws that nature does? Economics is a social construction, not a physical one. The real standard is the labor standard. It is about people. If we keep advancing as a species (from hunter gatherer, to agricultural, to industrial, to information) and getting more efficient, then labor can create more wealth. This means the economy can keep growing. So far this pattern has only held out for 10,000+ years, so why should we put any trust in it? No-- far better to try to correlate the stock market with gravity...
Except that if you create more money, as you said, all money becomes worth less. This loss of value by the existing money IS the marginal cost of creating more money. This means it isn't all that tempting to print more money. Which is why our government typically doesn't use that method to pay more more spending. Instead they take out debt (a problem in and of itself), which actually has the effect of _removing_ liquidity.
I can back that up. You are absolutely right, it isn't affordable housing efforts that killed us-- it was greed.
As someone who works at a financial institution (one of the top 10 banks in the USA), I can personally testify that it is not equal housing/equal credit or CRA that is causing the increased default rate. After all, the government regulations mostly just require banks to not make credit decisions on the basis of descriminatory metrics. For example, I can't say that 25 year olds have to have better credit scores than 50 year olds, or people from a certain neighborhood can't have loans. I CAN, however, turn down people with bad scores.
Our internal models show that the bad loans we have don't correlate with income. What they do correspond to are all of the risk indicators that banks should have been watching carefully (thankfully, we were): DTI, strength of collateral, credit score. In other words, it isn't lack of income, because we were only making small loans to people with small income-- it is loans where people out did themselves.
Furthermore, the only real government programs that allow people with no money down and back credit to get mortgages are through government secured mortgages. The government doesn't come to you and say "You have to give mortgages to people who can't afford it, and screw you if they can't pay." Instead, they say "You can give mortgages to people who wouldn't otherwise qualify IF they meet certain criteria, and we will protect you from the risk if they default." As far as the bank is considered, this is actually LESS risky than your average customer. That's the whole point. Incentives for the desired behavior.
The fact is that the myth that HUD/CRA/EH/EC caused the credit crisis, is just that, a myth. Everyone I've heard say it either a) has no experience in the finance industry, b) is a CEO trying to blame someone else for their problems,or c) is a TV personality trying to find the latest and greatest reason why we should just ship those pesky poor people somewhere else so that we don't have to look at them any more.
Not a tablet PC. A tablet, like a paper one. Keep one with you. Problem solved. If the thought is so short that a long boot time makes it inconvenient to jot down, then it will only take a second to type it up when you get in front of a comp.
That /.'s consensus analysis of this bill is completely incorrect. The immunity portion of the bill doesn't change anything other than preventing a bunch of lawyers from getting rich, since the telecoms would have won any lawsuits anyway. I know that this is going to be wildly unpopular, but the truth is, if the government tells a business to do something, and tells the business that they have legal authorization to do it, and in fact threaten the company if they don't comply, the business is going to be off the hook in court. Who should be held responsible? The government agencies that did the bullying and misleading in the first place.
So what does change? Going forward, there will be stiffer penalties for groups that violate FISA requirements, either knowingly or through a lack of due diligence.
Don't use it after business hours. Make it clear that if there is an emergency (a real emergency, as in money lost by the second kind of emergency)you should be called.
So log in to TU and uncheck the contact by email check boxes. They give you a way to opt out of this up front and later too.
Eh, actually they don't want it to work. This way they can say "we tried to stop it from selling to kids!", but when the machine dispenses anyway they can make some extra bucks. It could easily be a way to avoid the age limits on who they can sell to.
Wow. I can't believe this moderation. Ok, how about this. The poster is using one computer to post on slashdot, which is probably not even fully utilizing his CPU. The story is looking for suggestions on how to max out 500 cores. Max out 500 cores, and the poster doesn't even seem to have a good reason other than "wow, we've got a cluster, let us crank it to eleven." I think the suggestion of "don't touch that, it is not a toy" is pretty applicable.
The reality of the political process RIGHT NOW is that you can't have both. Either the law passes as amended or it doesn't. Getting the amendments removed is a VERY long shot.
From reading the "statement", it seems like he is saying that it is more important to have the stricter penalties and a clearer law going forward than to worry about the cases that have already occurred. Personally, if I were in the senate right now and the two choices were "stop this from happening going forward, but let the first batch go through" and "nail the guys who did this, but continue to have this fight every time the issue comes up", I might just pick the future over the present. It seems like the political climate is such that the guys have de facto immunity anyway, so what do we really gain by allowing prosecution? The deck is stacked against anyone who wants to bring the telecoms to court. Next time it won't be.
I keep hearing this "sweetheart deal" thing about Chris Dodd. You know what the actual deal is? A 30 year AR mortgage intro'd at 4.5%. All that means is the man had good credit and timed his purchase well. It's not like that is out of the range for mortgage rates. When I first heard it, I was thinking a no interest mortgage or something like that. Instead, he's paying almost 5%, like the rest of us.
As someone who works for a bank and has some familiarity with merchant service programs and debit/credit card revenue, I can testify to the fact that the industry standard is a flat charge per transaction, plus a percentage of dollar volume.
This is why most banks are getting away from joint "and" type accounts and only opening joint "or" accounts. In a modern banking environment, it is just completely at odds with what customers AND newer employees are familiar with. Think about it. Debit cards are always one signer. Online banking is always one signer, as is online bill pay. As a result, noobish bank employees just aren't that familiar with the requirements of "and" accounts.
So if you post comments on their website, they (*gasp*) post them? They use your name if you give it to them? I CERTAINLY HOPE NO OTHER WEBSITES FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS! TEH END OF TEH NETS!
I have NEVER had this problem. In fact, the problem I have with iTunes and Quicktime is that they just didn't seem to be able to wrest control of my media away from Media Player.
Except that there is a big difference between software that is optional to download and IE being so completely tied into windows that you couldn't uninstall it and still have a working install. That is why Microsoft got the anti-trust flack-- they abused their monopoly position to ensure that they had a close to 100% install base, thus making their product the defacto standard in a new market (why design for anything else when 95% of PCs out there have IE).
Yes, Apple could be more explicit about the Safari download, but you still give permission to install it (yes, the box is checked by default; no, there is no reason why you can't uncheck it). iTunes won't stop working without it. Your OS won't stop working without it (note that even under OSX there is no reason you can't uninstall Safari).
Maybe that is YOUR perception, but I assure you, that isn't the law. The law doesn't distinguish between identity theft and fraud. There is only fraud. The law judges what is and isn't fraud and the extents of liability based on whether you were a good guardian of your card/account information, the method of the transaction (credit card vs. debit card pin transaction vs. check), and whether or not there were unauthorized transactions.
Hmm. If they are anything like the photography students I know, they are outraged at the idea that someone could take a piece of work that is meaningful to them, put their own name on it, and then, to add insult to injury, make money off of the deal.
By the way, the buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because of innovation. What you are proposing is as if the buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because all of the sudden it was legal to steal buggy whips.
There's no rule that says you have to pay for once and only once and all at one time or that subscription and paid software are mutually exclusive. /., but yet the contradicting examples are everywhere in the real world. It's frustrating.
Sometimes there is a business model that is different than that. That's how financing on a car works. You pay up front (a down payment) plus more later (regular payments). See also mortgages. Somehow this crops up every time any kind of subscription comes up on
I'd be willing to bet that the people in LIGO are attributing this to the instruments, and everyone else is running around wringing their hands at the possible demise of GR. Of course, the LIGO people know the instrument, and therefore know this-- it is extremely sensitive to interference. Traffic too heavy on the interstate (I-12)? Can't get useful data. Storm in the gulf? No useful data. They pick all kinds of vibration and noise pollution. So the fact that they didn't get a useful measurement doesn't mean there aren't gravity waves, it probably means that the timing wasn't right and all they got was noise.
I was quite sure that many women out there would find the ad very intriguing, until he got to the part about only using Vi. Seriously, why would you bring up your mental health conditions even before the first date?
Everyone knows that if the SUV driver hadn't learned to drive from GTA, then the vehicle wouldn't have flipped in the first place.