ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


When results go beyond the six sigma limit it means something significant has changed in the system. Does anyone know what this is? We know that the symptom can be described as "some consumers are over their heads and cannot afford to pay their mortgages" but the government response is the same as it is for any economic downturn, "consumers need to spend more." If the change is not explained along with appropriate corrective measures, we will continue to see inappropriate responses from legislators.
Lotta reading, but I have been following the LIBOR spread issue. I think the best summary is that the peak of the housing cycle was reached, we all expected that, but the rate of rebalancing the portfolios of the bank went faster than anyone expected. The Fed did its job as chief accountant.
Why the more rapid change in housing?
My best guess is that the loan aggregators hung around too long, they should have jumped ship two or three years ago. Its this hedging system, the hedgers never know when to quit and so they bring on higher rate changes than the system expected.
Why is this? A better question, is can we identify, at least, estimate how often an industry needs a mid-level financing institution, and how often it doesn't?
We are going to always have this problem which I will state. The larger an industry is, the greater probability it will operate as a rank N+1 organization, vs a rank N. That is, it sometimes needs a secondary market, and sometimes not. The two possibilities are exclusive.
If my industry needs a second level redistribution, today, then tomorrow when I don't need it, then, if the extra level stays anyway, I am stuck with an incomplete marketing level in my industry.
We can define an optimum hedging system for any market, but it is not regulation; which just installs the secondary market permanently.
We need a system that detects when activity in the housing finance business reaches a heightened level of activity, then the repackagers jump in, operate for a year or so sanitizing the debt. Then we want the secondary repackagers to dissappear, completely, as if they were never there.
The system needs to be prepared for state changes, we have to be able to add or remove secondary markets much faster.
Thermodynamics and economics
and Paul Samuelson and William Gibbs?
I hadn't a clue, and someone should have mentioned. Nothing I say is new, and all of it was accomplished 40 years ago by Paul working with William. Paul got the Nobel Prize, but until today I never looked at why.
I am not an economist, and Gibbs, to me, was just some scientist somewhere. I had no idea.
Paul, if he sticks around a few more years, should be able to complete the Theory of Quantum Mechanical Economics. His paper showing the efficient market theory leads the way by proving that cyclic prices still cannot be predicted from moment to moment. Paul knows where this theory leads.