I find myself cheering for global financial panic these days because I'm trying to buy a house and because I have acquired some Australian dollar debt.
Every time a bad economic report comes out, people run to the relative security of the USD and US gov't treasuries. This moves exchange rates in my favor. And mortgage rates are strongly correlated with treasury returns.
The only bad news that is bad for me right now is talk of excessive inflation, because inflation expectations also impact mortgage rates. At the moment, there is a lot of talk about USD inflation, but there is also a lot of talk about USD deflation. And that is fine by me. I expect deflation for the next several quarters followed by inflation above 5% for several years, but what do I know.
So, I say bring on the US stock market crash and let the freedom fighters in China prevail. Better yet, let another smallish currency turn into confetti like the Icelandic Kronor did. Imagine what that would do to exchange rates and treasuries.
And it would put an end to all this diversified reserve currency BS that some G8 leaders have been rambling about.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
re:one for the duh files
I was wrong about the recent climate change bill that barely passed through the House.
At the last minute, on the morning of the day the bill was passed, a provision much like what I discussed two posts ago was added.
I still think China's sulfur and arsenic outputs are bigger worries than CO2.
And, so long as we are passing tariffs based on the regulations imposed in other countries, maybe we should have a child labor tariff, a sweat shop tariff, a minimum wage tariff, and so on.
These are all things that impact our humanity at least as much as CO2 impacts our climate.
At the last minute, on the morning of the day the bill was passed, a provision much like what I discussed two posts ago was added.
I still think China's sulfur and arsenic outputs are bigger worries than CO2.
And, so long as we are passing tariffs based on the regulations imposed in other countries, maybe we should have a child labor tariff, a sweat shop tariff, a minimum wage tariff, and so on.
These are all things that impact our humanity at least as much as CO2 impacts our climate.
Friday, July 3, 2009
business idea
This may be an obvious one, but I think there should be a full line baby stuff rental company.
Baby doesn't use any stuff for more than about a month, so what is the sense in buying it?
Considering how ridiculously expensive some of the gear can be (like the $1200 Gap Stokke Xplory), it'd be a good way for people to exceed their means.
Plus you'd be able to assure people that you'd take the stuff back after the month or so useful life, so they wouldn't have to worry about where they're going to store it until it is old and moldy enough to throw away.
Baby doesn't use any stuff for more than about a month, so what is the sense in buying it?
Considering how ridiculously expensive some of the gear can be (like the $1200 Gap Stokke Xplory), it'd be a good way for people to exceed their means.
Plus you'd be able to assure people that you'd take the stuff back after the month or so useful life, so they wouldn't have to worry about where they're going to store it until it is old and moldy enough to throw away.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
one for the duh files
The energy bill recently passed in the House puts limits on CO2 emitted in the US with a goal of reducing our CO2 output by 85% by 2050, but makes no effort whatsoever to address the CO2 output (or other pollution) from goods produced outside of the US.
Good thing the US doesn't share an atmosphere with any other countries.
Or a jobs market. (Making energy expensive in the US will push energy-intensive production overseas, taking factory jobs with it.)
How hard would it be to include an imported goods section? Something like:
All imported goods from countries that do not have equivalent CO2 capping programs must pay a CO2 tax equal to what a domestic competitor would pay.
Personally, I care a lot more about the arsenic and sulfur clouds floating over from China, but forcing them to participate in a CO2 program or come up with their own would be a good first step.
Good thing the US doesn't share an atmosphere with any other countries.
Or a jobs market. (Making energy expensive in the US will push energy-intensive production overseas, taking factory jobs with it.)
How hard would it be to include an imported goods section? Something like:
All imported goods from countries that do not have equivalent CO2 capping programs must pay a CO2 tax equal to what a domestic competitor would pay.
Personally, I care a lot more about the arsenic and sulfur clouds floating over from China, but forcing them to participate in a CO2 program or come up with their own would be a good first step.
Monday, June 29, 2009
why motorcycles basically shouldn't be legal, except for Harleys
There are two types of riders:
1) Idiots who are willing to accept risk in exchange for performance.
2) People who prefer safety and comfort and are willing to wait their line in traffic.
The first type of people want bikes because they are the fastest machine you can get for the money. These people will love their bikes for all of the several weeks of their remaining lives. There is no way for these people to ever be safe riders, no matter how skilled. As their skill increases, so do the risks they are willing to take.
The second type of people could be good, safe riders, but never will be because they don't see the point in motorcycles. There is an exception within this group, of course: the fashionista Harley riders. They have no interest in performance (if they did, they'd be on a real bike), so they are likely to be perfectly safe. Their enjoyment from the ride has nothing to do with speed or performance, so they can rumble along perfectly contentedly and don't need to take risks or push limits to enjoy themselves.
If anyone cares, I'm the first type. Virtually everyone who has ever bought a bike is. Also just like virtually everyone who has ever bought a bike, I hope to own a ridiculous car someday. Maybe an S2000 or an Elise.
1) Idiots who are willing to accept risk in exchange for performance.
2) People who prefer safety and comfort and are willing to wait their line in traffic.
The first type of people want bikes because they are the fastest machine you can get for the money. These people will love their bikes for all of the several weeks of their remaining lives. There is no way for these people to ever be safe riders, no matter how skilled. As their skill increases, so do the risks they are willing to take.
The second type of people could be good, safe riders, but never will be because they don't see the point in motorcycles. There is an exception within this group, of course: the fashionista Harley riders. They have no interest in performance (if they did, they'd be on a real bike), so they are likely to be perfectly safe. Their enjoyment from the ride has nothing to do with speed or performance, so they can rumble along perfectly contentedly and don't need to take risks or push limits to enjoy themselves.
If anyone cares, I'm the first type. Virtually everyone who has ever bought a bike is. Also just like virtually everyone who has ever bought a bike, I hope to own a ridiculous car someday. Maybe an S2000 or an Elise.
Friday, June 26, 2009
climate change is dead, long live the energy crisis
I have no specific opinion about human caused climate change.
I think the science is too complicated (and politically charged) to come to any kind of reliable conclusions and I see little point in artbitrarily choosing to believe one way or the other. Think about the number of factors involved between atmospheric composition, solar radiance fluctuation, surface reflectivity, cloud formation catalysts, and so on. It is a difficult question.
The WSJ thinks that we are seeing an international move away from belief that we're responsible.
I just hope gov'ts won't throw baby out with the bathwater. Other types of pollution and environmental degradation are undeniably real: deforestation, fish stock depletion, China's dirty coal addiction (the US and Europe use coal too, but we scrub our smokestacks to take the carcinogens out instead of fogging our cities with it), Europe's diesel particulate issues, soil erosion, worldwide groundwater depletion. These are all obvious and comparatively easily solved problems that have been pushed aside by the carbon debate.
And, of course, there is always the other side of the CO2 problem. The nasty, scary, possibly irresolvable part: that we are depleting the world's cheap energy reserves.
I think the science is too complicated (and politically charged) to come to any kind of reliable conclusions and I see little point in artbitrarily choosing to believe one way or the other. Think about the number of factors involved between atmospheric composition, solar radiance fluctuation, surface reflectivity, cloud formation catalysts, and so on. It is a difficult question.
The WSJ thinks that we are seeing an international move away from belief that we're responsible.
I just hope gov'ts won't throw baby out with the bathwater. Other types of pollution and environmental degradation are undeniably real: deforestation, fish stock depletion, China's dirty coal addiction (the US and Europe use coal too, but we scrub our smokestacks to take the carcinogens out instead of fogging our cities with it), Europe's diesel particulate issues, soil erosion, worldwide groundwater depletion. These are all obvious and comparatively easily solved problems that have been pushed aside by the carbon debate.
And, of course, there is always the other side of the CO2 problem. The nasty, scary, possibly irresolvable part: that we are depleting the world's cheap energy reserves.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
falling prices are annoying
I'm looking to buy a place in a north Denver suburb.
I don't expect to make money on it, but I don't expect to lose a lot of money on it, either. I figure it'll be a good inflation hedge if things go that way, but mostly it is a lifestyle decision.
The only problem is that prices in the area have been nearly flat for a decade now. This sounds like it would be good news for a buyer, but it isn't. What it means is that there are three types of places on the market: distressed sales of run down houses, grossly overpriced HGTV-inspired amateur flips, and owners with unrealistic price expectations because they need to sell for at least 10% more than they bought for just to break even.
For a buyer, all of these options are bad. It means the only way to buy a place that hasn't been trashed by an angry debtor or abused by the HGTV-addled crowd is to pay significantly above market values. Nowadays, even that is not so simple, since appraisals have become so much more strict.
I don't expect to make money on it, but I don't expect to lose a lot of money on it, either. I figure it'll be a good inflation hedge if things go that way, but mostly it is a lifestyle decision.
The only problem is that prices in the area have been nearly flat for a decade now. This sounds like it would be good news for a buyer, but it isn't. What it means is that there are three types of places on the market: distressed sales of run down houses, grossly overpriced HGTV-inspired amateur flips, and owners with unrealistic price expectations because they need to sell for at least 10% more than they bought for just to break even.
For a buyer, all of these options are bad. It means the only way to buy a place that hasn't been trashed by an angry debtor or abused by the HGTV-addled crowd is to pay significantly above market values. Nowadays, even that is not so simple, since appraisals have become so much more strict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
