Agreed, weak dollar and inflation would suck (I listen to Ron Paul from time to time). It would be funny if China came and went shopping like old skool Wheel of Fortune…

“Hmm…I’ll take the Golden Gate Bridge, and Mount Rushmore…and the rest on a gift certificate…”

I understand that the Obama administration believed it was acting pragmatically by issuing debt and increasing deficit spending. It’s a reasonable theoretical argument. What makes me nervous are the spillover effects, both in the short term (extended unemployment and a large increase in inflation) and in the long term (large federal debt load and a shrinking workforce). I think the administration’s argument is that the spillover effects might happen some time way down the road and we have some time to fix it. A depression is something that could happen immediately and we know will be really, really bad.

As for liquidation, I believe that US debt holders are unsecured. So the worst thing debt holders can do is sell their positions. China talks about this periodically (usually when they want some sort of trade concession from us). Of course, that could have the effect of substantially weakening the dollar and sending interest rates skyrocketing, which may actually be worse than having China repo the Washington Monument or whatever.

That said, I think Jeff is on to something. Suze Orman (and her ilk) offer lots of advice that is worth considering. For free.

Upstairs there was a DJ that was basically spinning together remixed versions of mostly 50’s and 60’s sock-hop music. Stuff that was pretty well TV-G. They had the bubble machine rolling (which Drew L-O-V-E-D), and they had all the lights and such going. On the other end of the room, they had a bunch of bean bag chairs and books and stuff that kids could do quietly.

It’s funny that you mention it because Katie and I both thought this is like tailor-made for IC. Brothers would be a pretty good venue because it’s so well spread-out and on Sunday afternoons when Iowa isn’t playing basketball it could be a good way to get people in the door. Also, you know a DJ in the greater IC area that would be perfect for this gig…

Combine it with an already slumping housing market that was dragging down the broader economy and the government’s choices were to either let the housing markets continue to fall (a little more quickly since no one could actually borrow money fora mortgage) or step in and try to prop up the housing market in the least socialist manner possible.

As for what happens to balloons due in four years…who the hell knows? A lot will happen in four years. Part of it may depend on what happens in the election. Part of it is determined by what Congress decides to do with the companies. Part of it has to do with how protracted the impending recession will be. I think the best bet is that the refinance on the balloon will probably be a little more expensive and may require either additional down or a bridge loan to meet what will probably be tighter qualifying standards.

Those are just a couple thoughts off the top of my head.

I had to dig it out.

I share your frustrations with the inability to convey the realities of climate change to those who reject it. One can not “choose” to believe in evidence or not. Of course they must determine the legitimacy of it’s source, but we are not talking about one poorly crafted study (re: autism and immunizations).

Anyways, back to my point, the thing that intrigues me is people’s (especially ideologues) knee jerk rejection of any data that supports the observations being made for the last 50 years. They are often people I consider otherwise intelligent, wise, and reasonable individuals. Do you have any idea why this might be?

Is it a misguided desire to protect one’s faith? This based on my perception that typically those accepting the evidence of anthropogenic climate change have also accepted the evidence that selection pressure drives species development. The reality is that no true scientific theory (relativity, gravity, climate change, or even evolution) seeks to disprove the existence of God. They merely seek to explain the mechanisms of His created earth (or Earth if your faith demands you not recognize Him).

Perhaps I am allowing myself to get caught in the same trap as those I am speaking about? Oversimplifying world views so that I can easily categorize people into a way I can understand them with out making an open minded attempt to understand their foundation of thought.

Any thoughts/opinions on this?