My least favorite household activity. The bathroom sink faucet has been leaking for months. Not on the floor, just a little dribble on the sink. I finally got irritated enough to fix it. Drive in to Littleton, all the while thinking to myself "Lowes or Home Depot?". We have both, next door to each other. Eventually I found myself in the Lowes parking lot.
They had a lot of faucets. Shiny Chrome, gun metal, porcelain knobs, all pricey. I settled on an el cheapo Pfizer model for $18, thinking that the fancy jewelry grade faucets would look out of place in my humble bathroom. Only when I got it home and unpacked it did I see the "Made in China" sticker on this old line American plumbing fixture company's product.
Now the fun begins, getting the old faucet out of the bathroom sink. That fellow has been peacefully rusting in place since the house was built in 1962. The brand new $15 basin wrench was able to loosen one of the four nuts holding it in place. A heavy shot of PC blaster loosened a second nut enough for the basin wrench to turn it, but the last two were stuck fast. A half an hour of groveling around on the floor and using bad language convinced me that those two nuts were really stuck. So I disconnected the pipes lower down and took the entire sink off the wall and down to the shop. There a one and one eighth inch Craftsman deep well socket made the last two rusty nuts say uncle.
More fun was in store. Replacing the sink on the wall revealed that the new faucet was a quarter of an inch shorter than the old one, and the hot and cold water supply tubing didn't quite reach far enough. Damn.
Make a quite speed run to the hardware store, arriving just before closing time. Bought two new supply tubes. Returned to the job, and found the new supply tubes were the wrong size.
And now it was after five o'clock and the hardware store was well and truly closed. Another struggle and I was able to stretch the old supply tubes just enough to fit. And wrenched them good and tight, and Halleluiah, they don't leak.
I hate plumbing.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Bankers must do their own risk assessment
Rather than depending upon ratings agencies. Well how about that? Bankers will have to work at their trade, inside of accepting outside opinions. About time. The secret of banking is making loans that will be repaid. Any turkey make made a loan, the trick is to make loans that get repaid. On time, with interest.
The Wall St rating agencies, Standard and Poor's, Moody's Investor Services, and some others, have been "rating" investments, banks, and even countries as AAA, A,B,C just like grades on report cards. Trouble is, the ratings agencies made some astoundingly poor ratings over the years, such as rating mortgage backed securities AAA. Banks have been dumb enough to accept agency ratings and been burned badly.
Apparently the word is getting around. Congress required the the FDIC to remove any language referring to agency rating from the banking regulations. This is finally filtering down to even the dumbest banks.
The Wall St rating agencies, Standard and Poor's, Moody's Investor Services, and some others, have been "rating" investments, banks, and even countries as AAA, A,B,C just like grades on report cards. Trouble is, the ratings agencies made some astoundingly poor ratings over the years, such as rating mortgage backed securities AAA. Banks have been dumb enough to accept agency ratings and been burned badly.
Apparently the word is getting around. Congress required the the FDIC to remove any language referring to agency rating from the banking regulations. This is finally filtering down to even the dumbest banks.
Don't blame Wilileaks
Blame some government weenie who gave Army privates access to State Dept classified. Today's WSJ has an op-ed piece by Floyd Abrams decrying the really bad effects of Wikileaks posting classified State Dept cables. Numerous US diplomats expelled after their classified cables containing perfectly true but uncomplimentary information became public.
Abrams blames all this on Julian Assange, Wikileak's founder.
Wrong. The blame belongs to the un named bureaucrat who gave Army private Bradford Manning access to State Department classified. Manning turned into a traitor of the Benedict Arnold class and stole thousands of classified documents and gave them to Wikileaks. Manning is in custody, but the unnamed bureaucrat who gave Manning access is getting away scot free.
Abrams blames all this on Julian Assange, Wikileak's founder.
Wrong. The blame belongs to the un named bureaucrat who gave Army private Bradford Manning access to State Department classified. Manning turned into a traitor of the Benedict Arnold class and stole thousands of classified documents and gave them to Wikileaks. Manning is in custody, but the unnamed bureaucrat who gave Manning access is getting away scot free.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Gotta prove intent in order to prosecute
That's the whine I read in the Wall St Journal. Some investigator working to nail somebody, anybody, for causing Great Depression 2.0, or at least profiting by it.
What is this? Intent is thought. Are we trying to prosecute thought crimes? Real crime, which juries will convict for, involved actions, not thoughts. Taking cash out of the vault, out of safety deposit boxes, out of customer accounts (Corzine!), forging signatures, that's crime. The law has been real clear on this sort of thing since Moses's time.
Buying a stocks and bonds that go down in value ain't criminal, dumb maybe, apt to get you fired, but it ain't a crime.
What this guy is complaining about is really one of two things.
A. Nobody committed any crimes.
B. He is too stupid to prove the crimes. (You gotta be smart to be Sherlock Holmes. Few guvmint employees are very smart)
Crime should not rest upon mental attitude. Proof of a crime should be proof of some action, not wheither the perp was thinking impure thoughts as he did the actions. Juries largely agree with this, and have been returning verdicts of "not guilty" when the government brings a thought crime case.
And no, we do not need more vague laws making impure thoughts into felonies.
What is this? Intent is thought. Are we trying to prosecute thought crimes? Real crime, which juries will convict for, involved actions, not thoughts. Taking cash out of the vault, out of safety deposit boxes, out of customer accounts (Corzine!), forging signatures, that's crime. The law has been real clear on this sort of thing since Moses's time.
Buying a stocks and bonds that go down in value ain't criminal, dumb maybe, apt to get you fired, but it ain't a crime.
What this guy is complaining about is really one of two things.
A. Nobody committed any crimes.
B. He is too stupid to prove the crimes. (You gotta be smart to be Sherlock Holmes. Few guvmint employees are very smart)
Crime should not rest upon mental attitude. Proof of a crime should be proof of some action, not wheither the perp was thinking impure thoughts as he did the actions. Juries largely agree with this, and have been returning verdicts of "not guilty" when the government brings a thought crime case.
And no, we do not need more vague laws making impure thoughts into felonies.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Banking with Basel
Or, how banking regulations drove the world economy over the cliff. The Basel agreements on international requirements for banking capitol drove banks into unsound lending.
To understand the issue, we have to understand "capital" as related to a bank. Let's try a simple case, a medieval bank that gets its funds from depositors, in gold, and makes loans. Obviously such a bank cannot loan out ALL the money in the vault, they have to hold onto some money to cover withdrawals and losses (some borrower fails to repay his loan). Obviously the amount of capital to keep is a delicate balance. Money sitting in the bank's vault pays no interest, so the banker is motivated to loan it all out. On the other hand, the banker knows that he can't go THAT far, if he does he will be unable to pay off a depositor, and then a lot of bad things happen, like a run on his bank, tar and feathers ...
Now a days things are more complex, but the issue of capital reserves is the same. Banks ought to keep adequate capitol reserves to cover bad loans. But, now "capital" is more than gold coin. We count paper money, US treasury bonds, and less safe things like mortgages, Greek bonds, common stocks, anything that could be quickly sold for cash to meet obligations. Things like real estate don't count as capital because they cannot be sold quickly. Suppose you needed to sell the Empire State building to raise cash; how long would it take to find a buyer? Who knows.
To create a level international banking field, the big boys got together at Basel Switzerland and set up rules for how much capital banks must hold, and what things count as capital. They even talked the American SEC into imposing these rules on US banks. Trouble is, the Basel rules are bad rules. And every bank got pushed into doing things the Basel way. Under Basel , banks had to hold 8% capital against corporate loans, 4% against mortgages, and 1.6% against mortgage backed securities.
Right there you can see we are in trouble. Everybody knows that mortgages are pretty sound investments ("Safe as houses" they used to say), but mortgage backed securities are extremely risky. But the Basel rules encourage investment in flaky mortgage backed securities instead of genuine mortgages.
It gets worse. Basel defines sovereign debt (Greek bonds) as risk free, so a bank can buy any amount of sovereign debt (loan to flaky Euro governments) and not have to hold any capital at all. This was pure crazy. What is sounder, bonds issued by the likes of IBM, Southwest Airlines, Caterpillar Tractor, or bonds issued by Greece, Iceland, Ireland, or Albania? What kind of loan does more to develop an economy? Loans to flaky governments to pay for welfare benefits, or loans to productive corporations that create jobs?
Basel "regulation" is responsible for the Euro debt crisis. It encouraged banks to load up on high paying but flaky bonds, and now the flaky is coming home to roost (default) Plus, no longer do bad things happen to bankers who make dangerous loans. TARP or the ECB or somebody bails out the loser banks and nobody looses their job or gets prosecuted.
Regulation can be a disaster.
To understand the issue, we have to understand "capital" as related to a bank. Let's try a simple case, a medieval bank that gets its funds from depositors, in gold, and makes loans. Obviously such a bank cannot loan out ALL the money in the vault, they have to hold onto some money to cover withdrawals and losses (some borrower fails to repay his loan). Obviously the amount of capital to keep is a delicate balance. Money sitting in the bank's vault pays no interest, so the banker is motivated to loan it all out. On the other hand, the banker knows that he can't go THAT far, if he does he will be unable to pay off a depositor, and then a lot of bad things happen, like a run on his bank, tar and feathers ...
Now a days things are more complex, but the issue of capital reserves is the same. Banks ought to keep adequate capitol reserves to cover bad loans. But, now "capital" is more than gold coin. We count paper money, US treasury bonds, and less safe things like mortgages, Greek bonds, common stocks, anything that could be quickly sold for cash to meet obligations. Things like real estate don't count as capital because they cannot be sold quickly. Suppose you needed to sell the Empire State building to raise cash; how long would it take to find a buyer? Who knows.
To create a level international banking field, the big boys got together at Basel Switzerland and set up rules for how much capital banks must hold, and what things count as capital. They even talked the American SEC into imposing these rules on US banks. Trouble is, the Basel rules are bad rules. And every bank got pushed into doing things the Basel way. Under Basel , banks had to hold 8% capital against corporate loans, 4% against mortgages, and 1.6% against mortgage backed securities.
Right there you can see we are in trouble. Everybody knows that mortgages are pretty sound investments ("Safe as houses" they used to say), but mortgage backed securities are extremely risky. But the Basel rules encourage investment in flaky mortgage backed securities instead of genuine mortgages.
It gets worse. Basel defines sovereign debt (Greek bonds) as risk free, so a bank can buy any amount of sovereign debt (loan to flaky Euro governments) and not have to hold any capital at all. This was pure crazy. What is sounder, bonds issued by the likes of IBM, Southwest Airlines, Caterpillar Tractor, or bonds issued by Greece, Iceland, Ireland, or Albania? What kind of loan does more to develop an economy? Loans to flaky governments to pay for welfare benefits, or loans to productive corporations that create jobs?
Basel "regulation" is responsible for the Euro debt crisis. It encouraged banks to load up on high paying but flaky bonds, and now the flaky is coming home to roost (default) Plus, no longer do bad things happen to bankers who make dangerous loans. TARP or the ECB or somebody bails out the loser banks and nobody looses their job or gets prosecuted.
Regulation can be a disaster.
Neverland
Watched it last night in the SyFy channel. It's a made for TV miniseries about the Neverland before Wendy, Jon and Michael Darling fly in. It's an origin story of Peter Pan. Naturally I watched it. I've read the book, I've seen the movie,and I'm ready for more.
The sets and costumes are good, the actor playing Peter is the right age and the right size, and cute enough. The girl who plays Tiger Lily is not cute at all, neither is Tinker Bell.
The two hour premiere is kind of unsatisfying. Peter never gets a clue as to what he should be accomplishing. We hear some talk about getting home to London, but we all know that ain't gonna happen. We know Peter Pan will establish himself and the Lost Boys in Neverland and have adventures going up against pirates and Indians. So when he talks about going back to his previous Oliver Twist like existence in turn of the 19th century, Dickensian London, we know he doesn't have his head screwed on nose to the front yet.
Matter of fact, the opening of the story looks more like Oliver Twist than Peter Pan, right up to including a Fagin, who Peter wants to work for as soon as he is old enough. Fagin gets transported to the Neverland along with Peter and morphs into Captain Hook somehow. Peter has a confusing emotional relationship with Fagin/Hook. At one point they confront each other with large bore flintlock pirate pistols at four paces, only Peter looses his nerve and gives up his gun. Bad Form! The real Peter Pan would have pulled the trigger, blown Hook into next week, and escaped by some magic/acrobatic trick.
The second episode is on tonight. Despite the numerous flaws in the script I'll watch it just to see if something good doesn't happen in the last reel.
The sets and costumes are good, the actor playing Peter is the right age and the right size, and cute enough. The girl who plays Tiger Lily is not cute at all, neither is Tinker Bell.
The two hour premiere is kind of unsatisfying. Peter never gets a clue as to what he should be accomplishing. We hear some talk about getting home to London, but we all know that ain't gonna happen. We know Peter Pan will establish himself and the Lost Boys in Neverland and have adventures going up against pirates and Indians. So when he talks about going back to his previous Oliver Twist like existence in turn of the 19th century, Dickensian London, we know he doesn't have his head screwed on nose to the front yet.
Matter of fact, the opening of the story looks more like Oliver Twist than Peter Pan, right up to including a Fagin, who Peter wants to work for as soon as he is old enough. Fagin gets transported to the Neverland along with Peter and morphs into Captain Hook somehow. Peter has a confusing emotional relationship with Fagin/Hook. At one point they confront each other with large bore flintlock pirate pistols at four paces, only Peter looses his nerve and gives up his gun. Bad Form! The real Peter Pan would have pulled the trigger, blown Hook into next week, and escaped by some magic/acrobatic trick.
The second episode is on tonight. Despite the numerous flaws in the script I'll watch it just to see if something good doesn't happen in the last reel.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Euro land woes
We have all heard about Greece, Italy and the Euro bond/bank disaster. Essentially, private investors will no longer buy Euro land government bonds, not even German bonds. Investors as a group now doubt that any Euro land government is good for the money. The 50% haircut on Greek bonds is an object lesson.
The dead beat Euro governments are crying for the European Common Bank to print barrels of Euros, and buy their worthless bonds with the freshly printed Euros. The bank is resisting this pressure, so far.
Friday, Angela Merkel was quoted in the WSJ as saying that euro members would have to accept a certain loss of national sovereignty. In plain English, she means that deadbeat members would have to accept outside (IMF, ECB, or German) control of their taxes and spending. Wow! Somehow I don't think that is going to work. Any national government with a speck of pride would rather do without borrowing at all than allow outsiders to set their taxes and spending.
Perhaps the Europeans could take a lesson from the Yankees. American state governments somehow manage to maintain their bond ratings without Federal supervision. The penalty for states that overspend is simple, they have to pay more on their bonds, or in extreme cases, they cannot borrow at all. And, like Euro land governments, no American state can print it's own money.
The dead beat Euro governments are crying for the European Common Bank to print barrels of Euros, and buy their worthless bonds with the freshly printed Euros. The bank is resisting this pressure, so far.
Friday, Angela Merkel was quoted in the WSJ as saying that euro members would have to accept a certain loss of national sovereignty. In plain English, she means that deadbeat members would have to accept outside (IMF, ECB, or German) control of their taxes and spending. Wow! Somehow I don't think that is going to work. Any national government with a speck of pride would rather do without borrowing at all than allow outsiders to set their taxes and spending.
Perhaps the Europeans could take a lesson from the Yankees. American state governments somehow manage to maintain their bond ratings without Federal supervision. The penalty for states that overspend is simple, they have to pay more on their bonds, or in extreme cases, they cannot borrow at all. And, like Euro land governments, no American state can print it's own money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)