There is a small chance that the bill will help to prevent a (further!) deflationary spiral within the housing market.
Sure, housing prices are a fantasy, but so is the value of gold (no really, it is), and in this case, the current fantasy is a lot better for everybody than a fantasy where houses are worth 1/10 as much (people with no equity, like me, would not be hurt directly by housing prices falling, but the economy falling apart around them would be a bit of a bummer).
Py2exe and Py2app and so forth offer one way to work around this (The 2 in there means 'to', not python 2, the apps bundle scripts with an interpreter instance).
This is pure speculation, but I would think that the market for such a wizmo is small enough that an integrated solution would never break even. Selling a separate panel that was compatible with a line of laptops would probably be a better way to test the waters.
DRM appears to be working fairly well for Apple (it was other players in the market that pushed for removing it, Apple seems happy enough with whatever the status quo happens to be).
So start Bill's Credit Emporium. Merchants will surely jump to work with someone who is willing to be liable for all transactions (or rather, force their other customers to be liable, whatever).
Re:2001 called and wants its search engine back.
on
Google, Circa 2001
·
· Score: 1
Yep, what PIMCO did was really smart. Pay them a piece of the upside and they will do a really smart job making sure that there is an upside.
(I'm not opposed to oversight or review, but the oversight better not be too strict (because if it is congressional, at least 3 idiots will be involved) and any review would be after the fact and thus not really have much impact (it could certainly be used to limit further spending))
The Paulson plan is to buy off the debt at less than it is probably worth (as someone with no equity, I don't mind seeing housing prices fall back towards something related to the services that the house provides, rather than something related to the anticipated gain from flipping it; I do see that I will probably be better off with a robust economy than with low house prices though). If it goes really well, it will cost ~$0 (but require hundreds of billions of dollars to execute).
What it amounts to is that a confluence of bad actors that do not have to take responsibility for their actions (mortgage brokers, ratings institutions, home buyers reaching over their heads, etc.) and poor regulation has led to a lot of financial institutions having assets that are difficult to value (because they are worth nothing if the economy collapses completely but reasonably valuable if things turn around in a couple of years), but they are forced to factor that difficulty into the value when they add up their balance sheets, and they are required, by each other, in giant circles, to maintain certain ratios on those balance sheets. So there is a spiral of uncertainty; the idea behind the plan is to inject certainty, as, even though people don't like 'hand outs' to Wall Street or gub'mint intervention, it appears better than the alternative (a hard recession that goes on for quite a while).
Perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention, but I am under the impression that they intend to pay above the mark to market prices but (well!) below the hold to maturity prices.
If they are planning on paying the nominal values, well that's just crazy. Of course, I'm nearly 100% certain that they are not planning on paying the nominal value. Once they start to buy the assets, other people will want to participate, and there will be something closer to a functional market, and banks will be able to reduce risk exposure (and eventually, the government will be able to sell what it buys back into the market).
So the plan would require hundreds of billions of dollars, but it will probably only cost tens of billions of dollars, and it may even be a net gain for the government.
A normal child given no attention whatsoever will pretty much go ahead and develop the fine motor skills necessary to effectively manipulate objects. I think you would have to actively work to prevent them from doing so (i.e., immobilize their hands, prevent access to graspable objects, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
There is a small chance that the bill will help to prevent a (further!) deflationary spiral within the housing market.
Sure, housing prices are a fantasy, but so is the value of gold (no really, it is), and in this case, the current fantasy is a lot better for everybody than a fantasy where houses are worth 1/10 as much (people with no equity, like me, would not be hurt directly by housing prices falling, but the economy falling apart around them would be a bit of a bummer).
If you stop posting links, I'll stop clicking on them before I realize who posted them.
Thanks.
I think mostly that the wires are just stiffer, so the ease of untangling comes from the difficulty of tangling.
Py2exe and Py2app and so forth offer one way to work around this (The 2 in there means 'to', not python 2, the apps bundle scripts with an interpreter instance).
This is pure speculation, but I would think that the market for such a wizmo is small enough that an integrated solution would never break even. Selling a separate panel that was compatible with a line of laptops would probably be a better way to test the waters.
Just make sure you never spend a meaningful amount of time using two monitors, once you stop imagining it, you will want it.
Absolutely. Reasonable prices would be much lower.
He didn't save the plane.
DRM appears to be working fairly well for Apple (it was other players in the market that pushed for removing it, Apple seems happy enough with whatever the status quo happens to be).
So start Bill's Credit Emporium. Merchants will surely jump to work with someone who is willing to be liable for all transactions (or rather, force their other customers to be liable, whatever).
Maybe try to get someone else to help you.
Google for "How can I be less of an idiot".
wxWidgets uses GTK+ for drawing on linux.
Your comment was a lot more true for versions of Office prior to 2007:
http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_office_word/archive/2006/10/04/Equations-in-Word-2007.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Editor
I agree with you, but their subscriber count suggests that it is an effective way to make money.
Yep, what PIMCO did was really smart. Pay them a piece of the upside and they will do a really smart job making sure that there is an upside.
(I'm not opposed to oversight or review, but the oversight better not be too strict (because if it is congressional, at least 3 idiots will be involved) and any review would be after the fact and thus not really have much impact (it could certainly be used to limit further spending))
What reality are you living in that there are not hilarious court cases?
Canada?
Paulson has plenty of credibility. If that isn't enough, pay PIMCO or Vanguard to do it.
It goes in circles. If there are no buyers, then sellers aren't offering the risky securities at a steep enough discount.
The Paulson plan is to buy off the debt at less than it is probably worth (as someone with no equity, I don't mind seeing housing prices fall back towards something related to the services that the house provides, rather than something related to the anticipated gain from flipping it; I do see that I will probably be better off with a robust economy than with low house prices though). If it goes really well, it will cost ~$0 (but require hundreds of billions of dollars to execute).
What it amounts to is that a confluence of bad actors that do not have to take responsibility for their actions (mortgage brokers, ratings institutions, home buyers reaching over their heads, etc.) and poor regulation has led to a lot of financial institutions having assets that are difficult to value (because they are worth nothing if the economy collapses completely but reasonably valuable if things turn around in a couple of years), but they are forced to factor that difficulty into the value when they add up their balance sheets, and they are required, by each other, in giant circles, to maintain certain ratios on those balance sheets. So there is a spiral of uncertainty; the idea behind the plan is to inject certainty, as, even though people don't like 'hand outs' to Wall Street or gub'mint intervention, it appears better than the alternative (a hard recession that goes on for quite a while).
Perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention, but I am under the impression that they intend to pay above the mark to market prices but (well!) below the hold to maturity prices.
If they are planning on paying the nominal values, well that's just crazy. Of course, I'm nearly 100% certain that they are not planning on paying the nominal value. Once they start to buy the assets, other people will want to participate, and there will be something closer to a functional market, and banks will be able to reduce risk exposure (and eventually, the government will be able to sell what it buys back into the market).
So the plan would require hundreds of billions of dollars, but it will probably only cost tens of billions of dollars, and it may even be a net gain for the government.
(The interest wouldn't be premium either: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aBEM0cTTdBmA&refer=columnist_berry)
If no one is willing to sell, is it really a market price?
You left out orientals. And later, vodka.
A normal child given no attention whatsoever will pretty much go ahead and develop the fine motor skills necessary to effectively manipulate objects. I think you would have to actively work to prevent them from doing so (i.e., immobilize their hands, prevent access to graspable objects, etc.).
I don't think she is particularly hot.
Good job shifting fromg my parody of the other poster acting like it matters that she is hot to nationalism though.