Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

You sure that wasn't ``The Whispering Fountain of Pine Pointe''?

[Da Geezer]

I'm working on an article dealing with the negative interest rates that are becoming a worldwide phenomenon. It is now happening in Japan and Europe in nominal terms, and if you figure inflation at 2%, it is happening in real terms most everywhere except China and India. The question is why. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the following proposition:

In most of the developed world, regulation by various levels of government is the norm. In the US, 1/6 of the people work for the government. France is about 50% and Greece is 70%. In calculating GDP, (defined as the sum of goods and services produced by a country) we add the salaries of government workers along with the salaries of all forms of service providers. This has always worked, because government workers have been in the nature of teachers, police, firemen, IRS agents and the like. They provided a service.

But now there is a large number of government workers whose job it is to actually slow GNP growth in the name of public health. safety. and welfare. Environmental regulation is the most obvious culprit. But, as Talent mentioned, building a house has become a quagmire of overlapping permitting jurisdictions which drive the price of the home up, and the number of homes built down. Should we count the salaries of those who increase costs and decrease supply of goods into GNP? A corollary of this is that GNP is actually decreasing over time because there is a regulatory component to most every price in the economy, and that component is not a "service".

In the case of the company Talent mentioned, the question to me is why some venture capitalist is not stepping forward to provide the money to bring this new cancer therapy to market. Banks are not allowed to loan for this kind of purpose any more. Private investors require a return on capital in excess of the cost of capital. What Talent describes is a regulatory environment that is so uncertain that no one is willing to bet on this therapy. Incidently, if you have cancer and are willing to take this therapy, the government prevents that too.

So, what if the measuring stick is broken? What if real GNP is declining, because the cost of things and services are being raised by excessive regulation? What if we are actually in a depression, and our antiquanted measurements don't indicate that?

[Da Geezer]

Why do developers give them names like "Hidden Glens" and "Oak Arbor"? Is it to remind us that there was something cool there before the bulldozers came?

The way I name my developments is I offer a $ 200.00 prize to the student in the local high school who comes up with the best name. Of course I am the judge, but I only have an incentive to pick the best (read most lucrative) name. The kids talk to their parents, and everyone has a small vested interest in the subdivision.

[iam416]

FWIW, I think they'll get enough money ($400K) to get it to the next stage. That's a relatively small ask. Getting through the next stage will be closer to $2M. That's beyond angel investors.

I think the RoI is sufficient for the first investment and close for the 2nd.

[Da Geezer]

You seem like a decent fellow Geez, but I have no respect for developers, at least the ones in Michigan. I wish nothing but misfortune, illness and bankruptcy upon them.

I have no problem with that at all. Developers have done some goofy things, and deserve disdain. Remember, I only deal in bare land, much of it Lake Michigan frontage. Some of you live on land that is designated as a lot or parcel. A land developer did that.

Two sayings that come from a land developers point of view:

"A person who is looking for a lakefront lot is a developer. A person who already owns his lakefront lot is an environmentalist."

"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is ours"

[Da Geezer]

I think the RoI is sufficient for the first investment and close for the 2nd.

But I suspect you can see that interest rates (or in this case, internal rate of return) reflect both potential profit and risk. How do you quantify the risk involved in getting approvals? What happens if the regulators decide that this therapy costs too much, and then take the patent, or allow competitors to copy the product?

[Mike]

Final tallies from NH:

Trump 35.3%
Kasich 15.8%

Bernie 60.4%
Hiltron 4000 38%

[iam416]

But I suspect you can see that interest rates (or in this case, internal rate of return) reflect both potential profit and risk. How do you quantify the risk involved in getting approvals? What happens if the regulators decide that this therapy costs too much, and then take the patent, or allow competitors to copy the product?

Yeah, that's why the RoI is higher for the 2nd, IMO. I could get into the specifics, but the gist is that the window will start to close for your "win" -- once you get into the full on FDA approval process, you're gutted. You need to find a buyer/partner once you've shown that it's non-toxic.

[hack]

In the US, 1/6 of the people work for the government. France is about 50% and Greece is 70%.

Those numbers sound awfully high. This says Greece's workforce is 22.3% public-sector, and the workforce is of course a fraction of the population. http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/20...ersposner.html

[Hannibal]

Eh, we'll see. I honestly don't know what to make of the R primary. If Trump crushes things tonight then I'll start to buy in more to your belief, Hanni. If it's close -- if he significantly underperforms the polls, then I'm still in the same place.

As for the Ds, at some point some one is going to start calling Sanders on his unfettered socialism. Unfortunately, Hillary won't do it because she's dealing with the progressives in her party. In any event, she'll be the nominee. Right now, I'd bet on her with a fair amount of comfort over any R in the general.

Getting back to this subject of Trump's electability...

I think that you are vastly underestimating how effectively he will campaign. Once you accept that he's not engaging in a sick form of performance art, it starts to make sense. He started off with virtually zero support in the polling and he has built that into big leads in the primaries in most of the remaining states. He did it without the help of Fox News or The National Review. He also did it without spending much money and he has a shit ton left to spend. He has adopted some very possible positions that were only perceived as being toxic because they were taboo (e.g. illegal immigration). He has taken control of the media narrative in a way that no Republican has ever done. He won't let something negative hang over his head for six months without talking about it. He spins all of his negative personality traits into Presidential positives (e.g. "YES I'M A GREEDY BUSINESSMAN. NOW LET ME BE GREEDY ON BEHALF OF AMERICA!" "YES I'M AN ASSHOLE. NOW I'M GOING TO BE AN ASSHOLE TO ISIS!!!"). It's a brilliantly disarming strategy. He also attacks his opponents relentlessly and finds weak spots. In six months he turned Jeb Bush from the presumptive favorite to a guy whimpering in the corner with PTSD saying "Please don't hurt me " If he faces Hillary, he will hammer the living shit out of her private e-mail server. Unlike other Republicans, he won't shy away from it and let talk radio do his dirty work. Nor will he back down from it. He will hammer her on taking lots of money from lobbyists while he spends his own fortune. He may even go after some of the women's vote by hammering her on Bill's treatment of women. This is what I think separates him from a guy like Rubio or Cruz and makes him the only actually electable candidate, rather than the least electable one. He got more "moderate"/crossover votes in New Hampshire than Rubio and maybe Kasich. He also, last I looked, is polling at about 20% with blacks, which is higher than any Republican in my lifetime. And he has yet to campaign in a city like Cleveland, Philly, or Detroit.

[Cody_Russell]

I don't have a source to back it up, but is it actually true that government (public) agencies are more inefficient than private? Any thoughts on that.
Obviously there would be more government agencies if Sanders is elected... also dependent on how the senate and house of rep turn out.

[hack]

Getting back to this subject of Trump's electability...

I think that you are vastly underestimating how effectively he will campaign. Once you accept that he's not engaging in a sick form of performance art, it starts to make sense. He started off with virtually zero support in the polling and he has built that into big leads in the primaries in most of the remaining states. He did it without the help of Fox News or The National Review. He also did it without spending much money and he has a shit ton left to spend. He has adopted some very possible positions that were only perceived as being toxic because they were taboo (e.g. illegal immigration). He has taken control of the media narrative in a way that no Republican has ever done. He won't let something negative hang over his head for six months without talking about it. He spins all of his negative personality traits into Presidential positives (e.g. "YES I'M A GREEDY BUSINESSMAN. NOW LET ME BE GREEDY ON BEHALF OF AMERICA!" "YES I'M AN ASSHOLE. NOW I'M GOING TO BE AN ASSHOLE TO ISIS!!!"). It's a brilliantly disarming strategy. He also attacks his opponents relentlessly and finds weak spots. In six months he turned Jeb Bush from the presumptive favorite to a guy whimpering in the corner with PTSD saying "Please don't hurt me " If he faces Hillary, he will hammer the living shit out of her private e-mail server. Unlike other Republicans, he won't shy away from it and let talk radio do his dirty work. Nor will he back down from it. He will hammer her on taking lots of money from lobbyists while he spends his own fortune. He may even go after some of the women's vote by hammering her on Bill's treatment of women. This is what I think separates him from a guy like Rubio or Cruz and makes him the only actually electable candidate, rather than the least electable one. He got more "moderate"/crossover votes in New Hampshire than Rubio and maybe Kasich. He also, last I looked, is polling at about 20% with blacks, which is higher than any Republican in my lifetime. And he has yet to campaign in a city like Cleveland, Philly, or Detroit.

I agree wholeheartedly, though I'm not yet convinced it ISN'T sick performance art. He wasn't in this to win at the start. He was surely one of many, many candidates who use it as a way to keep themselves in the spotlight for other purposes. That's a fine tradition of presidential politics. Is he in it to win now? Maybe he is. I just don't know.

But what the heck happens if he actually wins? That's a Pandora's Box I am frightfully afraid of peering into. If he actually is what he is here, it's going to be four years of tantrums and insults. If we think we've got enemies now...

[Mike]

Fiorina is dropping out.

[lineygoblue]

Too bad.

I would have loved to see Fiorina debate Hillary. Just for entertainment.

[froot loops]

As impressive as Trump's win has been he still has high unfavorability ratings on both sides. He is the favorite to win the nomination but it is looking like a long slog and possibly a brokered convention. He has to change that for a general election. To win a general election you need a lot of energy from your party, it remains to be seen how energetic the base is. But it certainly a hell of a lot more likely than it seemed a few months back.

We are in somewhat uncharted waters here, so anything is possible.