Test

Test from mobile device.

Reminder

Freedom Democrats has a thank-you note up to Democrats and the media.

First, on the topic of the "Wall Street meltdown" I am completely and totally heartless and callous. I don't blame this on George W. Bush and the Republicans. I don't blame this on Bill Clinton and the 1990s. It's the entire system at fault and to lay the blame at any one individual is absurd and just political opportunism.

I am in complete agreement.

Blame game

An Investor's Business Daily editorial from Monday, September 15 lays the blame for the financial and housing sector meltdown at the Clinton Administration's doorstep. However, they stop short of laying out exactly how the market was motivated to offer high-risk products.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that
dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the
market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the
balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they
had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound
business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or
face stiff government penalties.

Unfortunately, the site has no comments at the bottom, so the normal user-content Q&A activity is absent.

Questions:

1) What rules made banks have no choice?
2) If they knew it was a bad decision, why did they still do it?
3) Since businesses operate on self-preservation, wouldn't it be up to the business to identify a losing prospect and not enter into that line of business, knowing how risky it could be?

To me, with no details or research, the IBD is saying that the Clinton Administration created a noose, and the market put their collective necks in it. Mixing metaphors, if we're to understand profit motive, there must have been some huge carrot on the other side of the noose.

The IBD is saying that it's the government's fault for even allowing the option in the first place, which cannot be reconciled with smart business decisions.

**UPDATE**

I didn't address the "stiff government penalties".

1) Did the banks and lenders do an assessment to decide whether high-risk loans carried a higher risk for loss than the goverment fines?

2) Did they think about not offering the products, and taking the hit from the goverment, while they were wallowing in the derivative benefits from the high-risk products?

3) Which was the harsher result: being fined by the government, or not being in existence 10 years later?

Personal financial manager

Mint.com is worth the price. Which is free.

Cindy McCain was a druggie?

It's old news, but offers insight into the dynamics of John and Cindy McCain's relationship.

The link is based on excerpts from a private journal of a guy that worked at the charity that Cindy McCain headed. It's an interesting story.

Name change.

In honor of Jeff Strabone's landmark decision, the name of this blog has changed.

Hydrogen

“Basically, we can mass produce these now,” said Kazuaki Umezu, head of Honda’s Automobile New Model Center, where the FCX Clarity is built. “We are waiting for the infrastructure to catch up.”

Must have skipped over this ground-breaking news in an article from the NYT. For the record, Umezu is referring to hydrogen powered cars.