« Another Ayn Rand Fan Accepts Bank "Nationalization" | Main | What to think of Obama's housing plan »
Assorted links
1. Hacking Obama's Blackberry.
2. Hacking a university press.
3. Hacking Obama's housing plan. And here is a good critique.
4. Markets in everything, sell advertising space on your bald head.
5. China mad architectural design plan of the day.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 18, 2009 at 01:37 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
"“The city is no longer determined by the leftover logic of the industrial revolution (speed, profit, efficiency) but instead follows the ‘fragile rules’ of nature,” say MAD."
Haven't I been reading this kind of thing since at least the 70s? The site reads like the neverending spiel that comes out of every new crop of architects and firms mixed with the cultural egotism of the Chinese.
Posted by: MM at Feb 18, 2009 1:54:27 PM
I think the buildings look cool, although I have no idea if they have any hope of making sense from a practical point of view. If this is a new strand of cultural communication and/or cultural exportation from China, it's at least an interesting one.
Posted by: mk at Feb 18, 2009 2:09:24 PM
No person who lied on their loan application, about income etc, should be getting bailed out.
I would not allow any person who has bought more then 2 homes in the last five years to participate.
Posted by: DanC at Feb 18, 2009 2:14:53 PM
Dear Tyler,
Not sure if this is the appropriate place to make this request, but as a loyal MR reader, I was wondering if you have any thoughts about why there haven't been more scathing criticisms aimed particularly at the credit rating agencies like Moody's and S&P for their role in the financial crisis? I agree that there's plenty of blame to go around at all levels, (and that, in a sense, makes any particular group of actors perhaps less blameworthy), but I've been reading about 3 analyses of the crisis per week for several months now, and the only one that has come close to specifically calling out the credit agencies is Michael Lewis's "The End" at portfolio.com, and even that wasn't his main emphasis. These ratings agencies had the responsibility to grade these "toxic assets" accurately as a neutral third party, and it seems that they utterly failed to do so (at least with regard to the accuracy). But I haven't heard a word about whether they are being sued into the stone age by their customers, and as far as I know, none of their CEO's have been hauled before Congress to answer for their wildly inaccurate assessments of the risks of the mortgage-backed derivatives. I haven't seen a single article grilling employees of these companies and forcing them to explain what went wrong. Have I missed something?
Posted by: BC at Feb 18, 2009 2:45:24 PM
You can see the development of computer-driven architecture here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22046/?a=f
Posted by: The Timid Scholar at Feb 18, 2009 3:50:19 PM
Thank God!! I was worried Hank Paulson would have trouble finding two dimes to rub togehter.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Feb 18, 2009 4:40:47 PM
RE: Pirates v. University Presses
I have to admit that I have been amazed at the sheer quantity and variety of academic press books available on the web. [For research purposes only see: http://avaxhome.ws/] I suspect part of what is driving this phenomenon is that you have a group of highly intelligent, but poor grad students (and maybe some undergrads) with an interest in this material, and the means to carry out the scanning.
Also if anyone is interested in the Pirate Bay case mentioned in the article, see the blog TorrentFreak. They have comprehensive, although obviously biased, coverage.
Posted by: Dan in Euroland at Feb 18, 2009 5:25:15 PM
BC, you don't see the rating agencies being sued for the same reason you don't see university professors or newspaper columnists being sued when they say things or make predictions that are very, very wrong. It's called freedom of speech. Even if a university professor claimed the Soviet Union was stable, or if a newspaper columnist claimed that Jimmy Carter would be a great president, you couldn't sue them. Even if you lost money from buying and holding with Professor Siegel, you can't sue him. If you don't like someone's opinions, don't follow those opinions.
Posted by: y81 at Feb 18, 2009 7:32:45 PM
Ugh...more deplorable TIP architecture 20 years after it was proven that "urban" plannings like this promote crime, ruin neighborhoods, etc.
Posted by: Paul N at Feb 18, 2009 8:12:28 PM
y81,
I didn't realize that the rating agencies were conducting their research for free; aren't companies contracting with them for (at least some) of their work, and thus expecting them not to be negligent (not that they necessarily were, but you'd think some customers would be making at least that claim if not claims for fraud)? In any case, if a bunch of the major news organizations started erroneously reporting important info that people relied on to their detriment, you'd think there'd be some salient criticism of them. I just haven't seen much aimed at the rating agencies.
Posted by: BC at Feb 18, 2009 9:16:20 PM
I also share BC's questions.
On a related note, it's looking to me from Economist articles like the Street model for packages of bond INSURANCE is that they're kinda like bonds and AAA or A1 or another letter set will do for rating them. Is that true? And, I've also been wondering why we aren't seeing more pressure for a coming up with and deploying a good real model for CDS bundles that can be deployed readily and works well. After all, how can the economy come back together if we have no idea how much such a big chunk of cash is worth, or even a good model for traders? Or am I missing something, too?
Sorry to disturb the thread.
Posted by: Jon Kay at Feb 18, 2009 9:58:28 PM
Wow, my critique of Oabama's housing plan is entirely orthogonal to Calculated Risk's!
Calculated Risk Calculated Risk has few problems with part #1 (low-rate refiniancing for people who don't need it) and part #3 (strengthing the government subsidy for home ownership), but objects to part #2 (refinancing for people who need it).
Basically, his objection to #2 is that it is undeserved, which of course is entirely correct, but this is also the one part that likely to most reduce foreclosure rates, because it directly addresses the people who are at immediate risk of foreclosure.
#1, on the other hand, is mostly a giveaway to perfectly solvent middle-class voters who just happen not to find themselves in position to take advantage of the low interest rate refinacings that other perfectly solvent middle-class voters are getting. It might generously be described as an economic stimulus but mostly it is a political give-away to a particularly influential class of voters.
#3 is another step down the road that led us here in the first place, the idea that the government should subsidize the housing sector. It ensures that our society continues to over-inves in luxury housing. It would take a generous reader indeed to read this as a temporary stimulus measure, when in reality it is another political give-away to the upper middle class and the real estate lobby.
Posted by: David Wright at Feb 19, 2009 1:49:31 AM
3. What about refinancing to 50 year mortgages?
Posted by: Andrew at Feb 19, 2009 6:55:13 AM
Or how about interest only for 5 - 10 years?
Posted by: Tom at Feb 19, 2009 5:05:11 PM
