"Economists who fantasize that they can "manage" the economy are insane. The FED governors should be committed for even trying to pretend that their judgement is wiser than 303 million Americans operating in a free market.

Ron Paul's point is not that he could manage it better, but that government has no "business" even trying to run the economy: that's fascism (private ownership under government control)."

Are you kidding? That's like saying trained physicians are no wiser about medicine than Johnny Steamshovel. Some of those 303 million Americans wonder why they keep bouncing checks--they still have some left in their checkbook. I'll keep the somewhat flawed perception of the Fed governors over people who can't balance their checkbooks, thank you.

And fascism is not an economic model but a political one. The "fascist" ecomomic model under Hitler most resembled pre-1929 America, except you had Albert Speer coodinating industrial war production with the German industrial cartels. Simply having a central banking structure--something the English have had since 1690 (Bank of England)--does not make something "fascist".

The idea that gold has an inherent monetary value apart from what a state actually produces was discredited by the Physiocrats of the 18th Century. Our money, and presumably the money of any developed nation, is based on the value of production of goods and services, land, and the improvements thereupon.

Gold (and silver) are not wealth by themselves; the Spanish found this out the hard way earlier in the 17th century. The discovery of the rich Mexican silver mines brought fabulous wealth to Spain, allowing it to buy (yes, "buy") the best army and navy in Europe (like the Armada of 1588). The Spanish kings married the Hapsburgs, put themselves on the Imperial throne, and spent a century fighting religious wars with the rest of Europe, while the silver went to buy wheat to feed their people as they could not grow enough for themselves. When the silver mines started tanking, Spain could no longer buy enough food to feed their people AND their military commitments were way too expensive to pay for. They, like the Soviets and, increasingly, the US, were caught in the "guns vs. butter" problem because they failed to plan for the long term.

The abolition of the gold standard brought modern economies more closely in line with reality.

with Andrew on this one. The Fed's announcement is reminiscent of the Church's pronouncement in 1988 that--gasp!--Galileo was right after all! Well, thank you, Mr. Obvious.

Not only have the lenders writing these loans already crashed, the states have already jumped well ahead of the Fed in mandating escrows and banning prepays. As for "evidence of income" requirements, that won't happen; there are far, far too many self-employed people using legal, GAAP-approved means to minimize their reported income that deserve credit who would be shut out of the credit market if they had to prove their income under conventionally accepted means. The banks must still have the leeway to approve a loan for a person with 720 FICOs, a substantial dowmpayment, several months of post closing reserves and a track record in their business.

"However, if the housing market deteriorates further, bond insurer ratings could come under pressure again. Because of that, Ambac and most other rivals are working on ways to bolster capital and secure their Aaa ratings, Moody's said..."

All true. There is always a possibility of a trickle down effect from the larger residential market woes. The good news is that more companies are now getting out in front of the problem instead of hoping and wishing like the Wall Street outfits who kept cruising until they hit the icebergs. In the mortgage market, everything from risk-based pricing hits to curtailing LTV s is coming in.

...otherwise the industry would not take Moody's seriously. It is entirely possible Assured Guarantee did not invest or insure nonprime residential loans; there are many other things to collateralize in and other forms of real estate, such as commercial or industrial space. Or they may have invested solely in prime, agency-backed loans, where the default rates are well within normal parameters. If either of these scenarios were the case, Moody's would have noted the limited exposure to nonprime residential and certified the rating it gave.

Sometimes, it is what it is. Not everything is necessarily a conspiracy theory.

the people at Salon who get paid to write these article don't know the difference between loan origination and loan servicing.

That's basically the difference between the Herb Tarleck0looking salesman who sells you the used Buick, and the guy who buys the lemon. Yeah, really similar.

Yes, I can read. The problem is not my reading comprehension but your understanding of terms. A 20 year annuity does not lock your money up for 20 years, it is a PAYOUT over 20 years with principle and interest. Again, no annuity I have ever read about, sold, or heard of ties the owner's money up against their will once they reach 62 years old, and no insurance company marketing a product designed to do that wold get their prospectus by the SEC. That's "How the World Works".

These kinds of picks help explain the 2-11 What the Heck record you have. Any worse luck, and you'd get a call from the MGM Grand asking you to work the casino floor as a "cooler".