|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States40776 Posts
On April 15 2013 13:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 13:42 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 13:19 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 12:12 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans. 9 out of 10 Americans being for "background checks" doesn't mean anything. Liberals will expect something to actually happen from it and conservatives won't want a national gun registry. 9 out of 10 Americans could want ice cream but that doesn't help anyone on giveing them the icecream that they want. You can have universal background checks without a national gun registry, it just requires sellers to keep the records of the sale/proof of the background check no matter who they are. Unfortunately I don't see that happening for political reasons. The current bill of closing one loophole might work, but I'm not sure if it will stop the situation where someone just loads up their car with guns and drives around selling them to random people on the street who prolly can't buy them in a store. ? The political reason for them not keeping the records of sale/proof of the background check is that it would be a de facto national gun registry. However I've heard a lot of people getting calls from the ATF when someone buys a ton of guns in a short period of time. I'm not entirely sure how they find out whos buying the guns but from what I hear its not that evil government system that they rage against. Gun shops keep track of who buys a gun from them. When a gun is used in a crime the police first go to the manufacture to find out the store that had it, then the store tells them who bought it. After that it is hit or miss since the person who bought it does not need to keep track of who they sold it too. I would make it so that ALL people who sell a gun would need to keep track of who they sold it too (and run a background check). I really don't see how this creates a gun registry since the time required to track any individual gun is so long it makes tracking guns in bulk pointless. You could even allow private citizens to get rid of records after 5 years (the government does not keep those records). The point would be that if someone is selling guns to criminals, you can easily find them and stop them if they end up getting used in crimes. See this is the perfect example of why 9 in 10 of americans beliveing in background checks for everything is simply just bullshit filling the air waves. What are you going to do to to people who can't keep track of their own paperwork? or if they get robbed and someone steals their papers? god forbid they "burn in a fire " and suddenly you're either criminalizing some random joe who did nothing wrong but to not keep his papers in order or you have no system for anyone to follow again. Everyone wants background checks. No one has any idea on how to make a background check system that anyone wants. Hence why Joe picks up a standardized transfer of gun ownership form, fills in his name and the buyer fills in his name, shows ID etc and then he sends a copy to the gov for their record office. We use the same system for cars.
|
Pretty big SCOTUS case upcoming:
Can a company own a patent on the genes in the human body -- including yours? The U.S. Supreme Court takes up that question Monday, diving into an issue that could help determine the future of life-saving genetic medicine.
The case involves a test that has helped guide more than a million women in their medical decisions. It can determine whether the composition of their genes makes them more likely to get breast or ovarian cancer.
A Utah company, Myriad Genetics, owns patents on two parts of human genes known as BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, named for the first two letters of the words breast and cancer. Women with mutations in those genes face up to an 85 percent risk of getting breast cancer and up to a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Because of the patents, Myriad has a monopoly on performing all diagnostic tests related to BRCA 1 and BRCA 2.
In the past three decades, the federal government has granted nearly 3,000 similar patents on genetic material. Without such protection, Myriad argues, companies would be less willing to spend the money required for making genetic discoveries.
"Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop advances under this promise of stable patent protection," according to Gregory Castanias, a Washington, D.C, lawyer who will argue the case for Myriad.
The idea of patenting DNA material has provoked a strong debate among scientists, and many have lined up on opposite sides of the case.
"Human genes should not be patented," says James Watson, the Nobel prize winner and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA.
"Life's instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts," he says.
But a group of researchers at the University of Maryland is among those arguing just the opposite. "The costs are outweighed by the benefits stemming from the fruits of increased inventive activity," they say in their friend-of-court brief.
In the 220 years since Thomas Jefferson wrote the cornerstone of U.S. patent law, the courts have agreed on a general principle: patents protect inventions, not products of nature. A central issue in this case is whether Myriad has obtained a patent on something already in the body or has created something new.
The ACLU, representing a group of scientists, doctors, and cancer patients, claims that Myriad has merely removed from the body something that was already there -- the DNA sequence making up the BRAC 1 and BRAC 2 genes. Because it is a creation of nature, the ACLU says, it cannot be protected by a patent, even though Myriad claims that removing it is what makes it useful.
"Gold does not become patentable once taken out of a stream because it can be used in jewelry. Kidneys do not become patentable once taken out of a body because they can be transplanted," says the ACLU's Christopher Hansen.
Myriad's exclusive patent, says the ACLU, creates a monopoly that denies women the ability to seek a second opinion, based on another test of the genetic material, and dissuades other laboratories from pursuing research on the patented genes.
"Myriad has given women false negative results while also barring other laboratories from testing genes to verify the accuracy of Myriad's results," says Hansen.
The ACLU also contends that because the test costs roughly $3,000, many women cannot afford it or lack the necessary insurance coverage. If the gene was not under patent protection, the ACLU says, competition would make the test cheaper.
But Myriad argues that removing the gene sequence from the body requires breaking chemical bonds that lock it into place, thereby creating a new chemical entity.
The resulting genetic materials, the company says, "were never available to the world until Myriad's scientists applied their inventive faculties to a previously undistinguished mass of genetic matter."
Myriad cites a line of cases finding patent eligibility for naturally occurring substances that were isolated and purified, including aspirin, vitamin B12, and adrenaline derived from cows.
As for availability, the company says the cost of the test is covered by private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. It also says many other labs provide second opinions regarding the company's test results and that thousands of researchers have done studies on the gene sequence involved, unimpeded by the patent.
The Obama administration urges the court to be deeply skeptical of Myriad's broad claim of what can be patented. The Justice Department's brief in the case says the public interest has consistently been given precedence by the Supreme Court "in avoiding undue restrictions imposed by patents that effectively preempt natural laws and substances."
The case requires the justices to decide whether the human genetic material patented by Myriad fits the broad definition set out by Thomas Jefferson in 1791, of a "new and useful art, machine or composition of matter or any new or useful improvement."
Source
|
Whoa...
I certainly hope they rule against that. If ever there was an contemporary analogy to selling your soul to the devil....Fuck.
I don't see how this could possibly fall under the Jerffersonian definition provided. Genetic material isn't "new" and while I could understand patenting techniques, that's about as far as I'd go. I need to think about this one some more, it surely has some characteristics I'm missing on my initial response. Still feels gross.
|
On April 15 2013 22:17 screamingpalm wrote:Pretty big SCOTUS case upcoming: Show nested quote + Can a company own a patent on the genes in the human body -- including yours? The U.S. Supreme Court takes up that question Monday, diving into an issue that could help determine the future of life-saving genetic medicine.
The case involves a test that has helped guide more than a million women in their medical decisions. It can determine whether the composition of their genes makes them more likely to get breast or ovarian cancer.
A Utah company, Myriad Genetics, owns patents on two parts of human genes known as BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, named for the first two letters of the words breast and cancer. Women with mutations in those genes face up to an 85 percent risk of getting breast cancer and up to a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Because of the patents, Myriad has a monopoly on performing all diagnostic tests related to BRCA 1 and BRCA 2.
In the past three decades, the federal government has granted nearly 3,000 similar patents on genetic material. Without such protection, Myriad argues, companies would be less willing to spend the money required for making genetic discoveries.
"Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop advances under this promise of stable patent protection," according to Gregory Castanias, a Washington, D.C, lawyer who will argue the case for Myriad.
The idea of patenting DNA material has provoked a strong debate among scientists, and many have lined up on opposite sides of the case.
"Human genes should not be patented," says James Watson, the Nobel prize winner and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA.
"Life's instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts," he says.
But a group of researchers at the University of Maryland is among those arguing just the opposite. "The costs are outweighed by the benefits stemming from the fruits of increased inventive activity," they say in their friend-of-court brief.
In the 220 years since Thomas Jefferson wrote the cornerstone of U.S. patent law, the courts have agreed on a general principle: patents protect inventions, not products of nature. A central issue in this case is whether Myriad has obtained a patent on something already in the body or has created something new.
The ACLU, representing a group of scientists, doctors, and cancer patients, claims that Myriad has merely removed from the body something that was already there -- the DNA sequence making up the BRAC 1 and BRAC 2 genes. Because it is a creation of nature, the ACLU says, it cannot be protected by a patent, even though Myriad claims that removing it is what makes it useful.
"Gold does not become patentable once taken out of a stream because it can be used in jewelry. Kidneys do not become patentable once taken out of a body because they can be transplanted," says the ACLU's Christopher Hansen.
Myriad's exclusive patent, says the ACLU, creates a monopoly that denies women the ability to seek a second opinion, based on another test of the genetic material, and dissuades other laboratories from pursuing research on the patented genes.
"Myriad has given women false negative results while also barring other laboratories from testing genes to verify the accuracy of Myriad's results," says Hansen.
The ACLU also contends that because the test costs roughly $3,000, many women cannot afford it or lack the necessary insurance coverage. If the gene was not under patent protection, the ACLU says, competition would make the test cheaper.
But Myriad argues that removing the gene sequence from the body requires breaking chemical bonds that lock it into place, thereby creating a new chemical entity.
The resulting genetic materials, the company says, "were never available to the world until Myriad's scientists applied their inventive faculties to a previously undistinguished mass of genetic matter."
Myriad cites a line of cases finding patent eligibility for naturally occurring substances that were isolated and purified, including aspirin, vitamin B12, and adrenaline derived from cows.
As for availability, the company says the cost of the test is covered by private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. It also says many other labs provide second opinions regarding the company's test results and that thousands of researchers have done studies on the gene sequence involved, unimpeded by the patent.
The Obama administration urges the court to be deeply skeptical of Myriad's broad claim of what can be patented. The Justice Department's brief in the case says the public interest has consistently been given precedence by the Supreme Court "in avoiding undue restrictions imposed by patents that effectively preempt natural laws and substances."
The case requires the justices to decide whether the human genetic material patented by Myriad fits the broad definition set out by Thomas Jefferson in 1791, of a "new and useful art, machine or composition of matter or any new or useful improvement."
Source Patenting genes is ridiculous. Is patenting mathematical theorems next? What would have happened if James Watson and Francis Crick, the discoverers of DNA, patented DNA, so that this gene would have never been discovered?
Absurd.
Joseph Stiglitz wrote a brief to the Federal Court of New York about this case a few years ago: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010_01_20_-_Declaration_of_Joseph_E__Stiglitz.PDF
|
Home Builder Confidence Hammered by Rising Costs
Confidence among U.S. home builders fell in April, as concerns over lack of developed land lots and rising costs for building materials weighed heavily. A monthly industry index fell two points, the third consecutive month of declining builder sentiment in single family homes, after solid gains throughout much of 2012.
"Supply chains for building materials, developed lots and skilled workers will take some time to re-establish themselves following the recession, and in the meantime builders are feeling squeezed by higher costs and limited availability issues," explained National Association of Home Builders Chief Economist David Crowe.
The NAHB's monthly confidence index now stands at 42, up from 24 in April of 2012. Fifty is the line between positive and negative. The index gauging current sales conditions fell two points, while buyer traffic declined four points. Sales expectations over the next six months posted a three point gain to its highest level since February of 2007.
Regionally, on a three-month average, home builder confidence was unchanged in the Northeast and fell in the other three regions with the South seeing the deepest decline. Builders in the West have been particularly hard hit by lack of land and labor, as a heavy investor presence in the distressed market has pushed other buyers to new construction, creating unexpected high demand.
"Many builders are expressing frustration over being unable to respond to the rising demand for new homes due to difficulties in obtaining construction credit, overly restrictive mortgage lending rules and construction costs that are increasing at a faster pace than appraised values," said Rick Judson, NAHB's Chairman and a home builder from Charlotte, N.C. "While sales conditions are generally improving, these challenges are holding back new building and job creation." Negative headline but overall sounds pretty good.
|
For the Warren fans out there (it's a long one): + Show Spoiler + Ultimate Statistics Senator takes on US regulators’ $9.3bn foreclosure agreement
FT Alphaville does like a good Senate Banking Hearing. Especially when they feature a political body slam on proper statistical methods. And so we are proud to announce this month’s Ultimate Statistics Fighter… [dramatic pause]… is Senator Elizabeth Warren!
Warren demonstrated her moves on Thursday during a hearing on Outsourcing Accountability? Examining the Role of Independent Consultants. (Don’t let the incredibly dull title of the hearing deter you. That would be a mistake. Don’t be that person.)
In the red corner, witnesses included Daniel Stipano, Deputy Chief Counsel of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Richard Ashton, Deputy General Counsel of Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System!
In the blue corner, Senators Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Jack Reed!
Mortal Kombat!
The hearing ended up having a delightful ringside match, inclusive of the Warren body slam. To understand the context around it, we first turn our attention to the the main match. This concerned the role of consultants in the Independent Foreclosure Review whereby the foreclosure practices of US mortgage servicers were assessed for “errors, misrepresentations, and other deficiencies in the foreclosure process”, aka “getting stuff badly wrong”, during 2009 and 2010.
For example, if a bank initiated foreclosure proceedings on a serving, or recently serving, member of the military (they are protected under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act — something about having to not worry about things back home while risking their lives) or on a homeowner who wasn’t actually in default, that’s bad. Big no-no.
The Foreclosure Review process itself was initiated by regulators in 2011. It involves banks hiring “independent” consultants to examine bad practices like the above. However, this was taking ages and concerns were raised about how conflicted the consultants were, due to having pre-existing relationships with the banks they were meant to independently assess. (For more reading on that and this topic generally, see Naked Capitalism, as they’ve been all over this for some time. We’ve included a selection of links from them below.)
Peanuts, getcha peanuts!
In January 2013, the Fed and OCC pulled the plug on the review for the majority of the servicers, by agreeing a $9.3bn settlement with them. This headline figure comprises $3.6bn of cash payments and the rest is to support loan modifications.
The most spectacular failures by banks, such as those which affected servicemen and women, will result in compensation of some $125,000 per affected family. However, the vast, vast majority will receive compensation in the region of $300-1,000 each. The compensation level is determined by the category a given case falls in, and the decision about the category is decided by…(drumroll)… the mortgage servicers. The regulators ostensibly let them do this because the total compensation each servicer has to pay is fixed. It’s only a question of how the money is doled out, but doled out it shall be.
Looking at the numbers from a Fed disclosure dated April 9th, if the “Servicer did not engage with borrower in a loan modification or other loss mitigation action”, the person affected will receive $600 if they requested a review under the programme and $300 if they didn’t. Note how that category has 568,476 homes that were foreclosed upon. In the framework published by the OCC and Fed jointly last June, we think this falls under the “Servicer never solicited borrower loan modification option as required under HAMP or other program designated by regulator” error.
Homeowners get a whopping $100 more if they fall under “Modification request received but no underwriting decision made” category. A mere 195,631 lost their home in that one.
Let’s get ready to rumble!
Now that we have some colour on the settlement, let’s go back to last week’s Senate hearing. The WSJ notes why legislators were foaming at the mouth even before the event:
Among lawmakers’ concern is that regulators won’t disclose details about a consulting firm that was officially reprimanded for poor performance. In a letter to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Comptroller Thomas Curry, the lawmakers wrote that Fed and OCC staff “stated that the performance of one of the independent consultants conducting foreclosure reviews was so poor that you issued a letter faulting the company and directing it to cure its deficiencies” but that staffers “would not elaborate” on the identity of the consulting firm or mortgage-servicing company.
Enter, Senator Warren.
Her staff clearly think that the most interesting part of her questioning of the Fed and OCC counsel was when she put on her best indignant look in response to the regulators saying that they aren’t sure yet if they are going to disclose information to individual homeowners — information that would help the person in a lawsuit against the relevant bank in cases where the Foreclosure Review found an error (or errors). The regulators consider said information to be “confidential supervisory information”.
It does make good watching, the video uploaded to YouTube by Warren’s staffers, especially in light of the paltry amounts some of those foreclosed upon will receive:
Statistical insignificance
FT Alphaville is, however, drawn to Warren’s attack on the 6.5 per cent error rate that the Foreclosure Review turned up before it ended — for the servicers who signed up to the $9.3bn settlement, that is. The “errors” being things like the above examples: foreclosing on military personnel, or where the loan modifications weren’t offered as per regulations or actioned, etc.
Senator Warren insists that the 6.5 per cent must have been a significant factor in coming to the amount involved in the settlement, i.e. the $9.3bn, and therefore it’s very important.
Ashton, the Deputy General Counsel for the Fed’s Board of Governors, kept saying in response to Warren’s questioning that the 6.5 percent was, in fact, just one of the factors considered in getting to the $9.3bn figure. He rather places his emphasis on the settlement getting compensation to those affected by bad foreclosure practices much quicker than might have otherwise been the case given how long the review was taking.
Warren’s take on the 6.5 per cent, after effectively giving up on Ashton:
What I take it to mean, since you used it in your press release and since it’s relevant to how much money the people who’ve been injured are going to get that the number is critical. It tells us how much illegal activity there was and how much the banks should pay.
The problem is that the 6.5 per cent is not accurate. Your staff admitted to us in a meeting earlier this week that the number is not based on a random sample, not on a review of these cases, it was determined based on whatever files had been reviewed by the time you shut down this process.
And then it gets worse on the numbers. A week after announcing… a few weeks after announcing the settlement, your agency revised the 6.5 per cent number down to 4.2 per cent. The Wall Street Journal reported that the error rate — that is, the rate of breaking the law — was uhh, or making mistakes, was 11 per cent at Wells Fargo, 9 per cent at Bank of America, and there are reports that the error rate at JPMorgan Chase was only six tenths of one per cent.
In other words, the 6.5 per cent number was just a made up number.
So Congressman Cummings and I have asked for information about how you came up with the number. We still don’t have enough facts to check it, but the question I have is: what is the right number? Is it six tenths of one per cent? Is it 6.5 per cent? 9 per cent? 11 per cent? 20 per cent? 50 per cent? 90 per cent? If you can’t correctly tell how many people were the victims of illegal bank actions, how can you possibly decide how much money is an appropriate amount for settlement?
BOOM!
She is NOT done either! Turning to Stipano, Deputy Chief Counsel at the OCC:
Warren: I’m sorry [interrupting Stipano saying that a substantial number of cases were reviewed], Mr Stipano, we met with your staff and your staff has made clear, you did not review a random sample.
Stipano: No it wasn’t a random sample.
Warren: And without a random sample, can you then generalise to the accurate number, even an estimate, of how many banks broke the law?
Stipano: Um, not in my, my understanding is not in a statistically valid way. [Warren: OK, that's a no.] Ca-can I finish though — I do think that the review of a hundred thousand files plus is not valueless. I mean it does inform your decision to some extent.
Warren: So you’re telling me it’s not a random sample, but you think you know something?
Stipano: It has some value.
Warren: And what is it that you know since we’ve seen different numbers reported here?
Stipano: I’m assuming that that’s where the error rate came from, but I’m only assuming, Senator, I was not involved in it.
Warren: So if we are to draw an inference from those hundred thousand files, it seems to me we need more information about the hundred thousand files. That is, how they were drawn and how much illegal activity was found in them in those files. Is that accurate?
Stipano: I think that’s accurate.
Warren: So far you have not given us that information.
And then we’re back to the same old line that there are processes to share confidential supervisory information to Congress in its oversight capacity. The OCC intends to provide some additional information on this to the public, but we’re not holding our breath that it will be meaningful.
Considering how much was spent on the Foreclosure Review, how badly it went, how long it took, and how little useful information it ultimately produced, maybe the focus for next time shouldn’t be to find less conflicted consultants. Perhaps it should instead involve employing a single consultant, just one person, to run a random number generator to produce any of the statistics that need to factor into the settlement. At least that would be less misleading.
Link
|
On April 15 2013 22:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 13:59 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 13:42 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 13:19 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 12:12 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans. 9 out of 10 Americans being for "background checks" doesn't mean anything. Liberals will expect something to actually happen from it and conservatives won't want a national gun registry. 9 out of 10 Americans could want ice cream but that doesn't help anyone on giveing them the icecream that they want. You can have universal background checks without a national gun registry, it just requires sellers to keep the records of the sale/proof of the background check no matter who they are. Unfortunately I don't see that happening for political reasons. The current bill of closing one loophole might work, but I'm not sure if it will stop the situation where someone just loads up their car with guns and drives around selling them to random people on the street who prolly can't buy them in a store. ? The political reason for them not keeping the records of sale/proof of the background check is that it would be a de facto national gun registry. However I've heard a lot of people getting calls from the ATF when someone buys a ton of guns in a short period of time. I'm not entirely sure how they find out whos buying the guns but from what I hear its not that evil government system that they rage against. Gun shops keep track of who buys a gun from them. When a gun is used in a crime the police first go to the manufacture to find out the store that had it, then the store tells them who bought it. After that it is hit or miss since the person who bought it does not need to keep track of who they sold it too. I would make it so that ALL people who sell a gun would need to keep track of who they sold it too (and run a background check). I really don't see how this creates a gun registry since the time required to track any individual gun is so long it makes tracking guns in bulk pointless. You could even allow private citizens to get rid of records after 5 years (the government does not keep those records). The point would be that if someone is selling guns to criminals, you can easily find them and stop them if they end up getting used in crimes. See this is the perfect example of why 9 in 10 of americans beliveing in background checks for everything is simply just bullshit filling the air waves. What are you going to do to to people who can't keep track of their own paperwork? or if they get robbed and someone steals their papers? god forbid they "burn in a fire " and suddenly you're either criminalizing some random joe who did nothing wrong but to not keep his papers in order or you have no system for anyone to follow again. Everyone wants background checks. No one has any idea on how to make a background check system that anyone wants. Hence why Joe picks up a standardized transfer of gun ownership form, fills in his name and the buyer fills in his name, shows ID etc and then he sends a copy to the gov for their record office. We use the same system for cars.
That hurts the poor and the old and minorities! (At least that's what Democrats say about voter ID laws, when getting an ID is a much easier process than the one you just described.)
No background check is done on a very small percentage of gun sales/transfers (not 40%, more like 3-7%). What exactly would bringing that number down to 0 do to reduce gun violence? Nothing? That's right.
|
On April 15 2013 23:39 Kimaker wrote: Whoa...
I certainly hope they rule against that. If ever there was an contemporary analogy to selling your soul to the devil....Fuck.
I don't see how this could possibly fall under the Jerffersonian definition provided. Genetic material isn't "new" and while I could understand patenting techniques, that's about as far as I'd go. I need to think about this one some more, it surely has some characteristics I'm missing on my initial response. Still feels gross.
I just hope a ruling against gene patenting isn't also interpreted as a ruling against individual or corporate biological materials (like immortal cells or cell lines) ownership. Henrietta Lax got screwed over hard enough. This court rules pretty randomly, though, so who knows?
|
On April 15 2013 13:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 13:42 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 13:19 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 12:12 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans. 9 out of 10 Americans being for "background checks" doesn't mean anything. Liberals will expect something to actually happen from it and conservatives won't want a national gun registry. 9 out of 10 Americans could want ice cream but that doesn't help anyone on giveing them the icecream that they want. You can have universal background checks without a national gun registry, it just requires sellers to keep the records of the sale/proof of the background check no matter who they are. Unfortunately I don't see that happening for political reasons. The current bill of closing one loophole might work, but I'm not sure if it will stop the situation where someone just loads up their car with guns and drives around selling them to random people on the street who prolly can't buy them in a store. ? The political reason for them not keeping the records of sale/proof of the background check is that it would be a de facto national gun registry. However I've heard a lot of people getting calls from the ATF when someone buys a ton of guns in a short period of time. I'm not entirely sure how they find out whos buying the guns but from what I hear its not that evil government system that they rage against. Gun shops keep track of who buys a gun from them. When a gun is used in a crime the police first go to the manufacture to find out the store that had it, then the store tells them who bought it. After that it is hit or miss since the person who bought it does not need to keep track of who they sold it too. I would make it so that ALL people who sell a gun would need to keep track of who they sold it too (and run a background check). I really don't see how this creates a gun registry since the time required to track any individual gun is so long it makes tracking guns in bulk pointless. You could even allow private citizens to get rid of records after 5 years (the government does not keep those records). The point would be that if someone is selling guns to criminals, you can easily find them and stop them if they end up getting used in crimes. See this is the perfect example of why 9 in 10 of americans beliveing in background checks for everything is simply just bullshit filling the air waves. What are you going to do to to people who can't keep track of their own paperwork? or if they get robbed and someone steals their papers? god forbid they "burn in a fire " and suddenly you're either criminalizing some random joe who did nothing wrong but to not keep his papers in order or you have no system for anyone to follow again. Everyone wants background checks. No one has any idea on how to make a background check system that anyone wants.
You could easily have the person selling the gun make a choice of who keeps track of the transaction. They can either have the federal government or the store that runs the check hold the record if they don't want to do it themselves. If the law was properly written you would also not get in trouble if your house burned down and you lost the records.
Honestly, you don't even need serious penalties (small fine) for not keeping the records, just something that if the police find out you are selling multiple weapons that are ending up at crime scenes or suspect that the background check never took place, then they can get you for something more serious.
Overall I think universal background checks would work, but someone would need to take responsibility for keeping the records of checks/transfers.
|
On April 15 2013 23:59 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 22:17 screamingpalm wrote:Pretty big SCOTUS case upcoming: Can a company own a patent on the genes in the human body -- including yours? The U.S. Supreme Court takes up that question Monday, diving into an issue that could help determine the future of life-saving genetic medicine.
The case involves a test that has helped guide more than a million women in their medical decisions. It can determine whether the composition of their genes makes them more likely to get breast or ovarian cancer.
A Utah company, Myriad Genetics, owns patents on two parts of human genes known as BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, named for the first two letters of the words breast and cancer. Women with mutations in those genes face up to an 85 percent risk of getting breast cancer and up to a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Because of the patents, Myriad has a monopoly on performing all diagnostic tests related to BRCA 1 and BRCA 2.
In the past three decades, the federal government has granted nearly 3,000 similar patents on genetic material. Without such protection, Myriad argues, companies would be less willing to spend the money required for making genetic discoveries.
"Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop advances under this promise of stable patent protection," according to Gregory Castanias, a Washington, D.C, lawyer who will argue the case for Myriad.
The idea of patenting DNA material has provoked a strong debate among scientists, and many have lined up on opposite sides of the case.
"Human genes should not be patented," says James Watson, the Nobel prize winner and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA.
"Life's instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts," he says.
But a group of researchers at the University of Maryland is among those arguing just the opposite. "The costs are outweighed by the benefits stemming from the fruits of increased inventive activity," they say in their friend-of-court brief.
In the 220 years since Thomas Jefferson wrote the cornerstone of U.S. patent law, the courts have agreed on a general principle: patents protect inventions, not products of nature. A central issue in this case is whether Myriad has obtained a patent on something already in the body or has created something new.
The ACLU, representing a group of scientists, doctors, and cancer patients, claims that Myriad has merely removed from the body something that was already there -- the DNA sequence making up the BRAC 1 and BRAC 2 genes. Because it is a creation of nature, the ACLU says, it cannot be protected by a patent, even though Myriad claims that removing it is what makes it useful.
"Gold does not become patentable once taken out of a stream because it can be used in jewelry. Kidneys do not become patentable once taken out of a body because they can be transplanted," says the ACLU's Christopher Hansen.
Myriad's exclusive patent, says the ACLU, creates a monopoly that denies women the ability to seek a second opinion, based on another test of the genetic material, and dissuades other laboratories from pursuing research on the patented genes.
"Myriad has given women false negative results while also barring other laboratories from testing genes to verify the accuracy of Myriad's results," says Hansen.
The ACLU also contends that because the test costs roughly $3,000, many women cannot afford it or lack the necessary insurance coverage. If the gene was not under patent protection, the ACLU says, competition would make the test cheaper.
But Myriad argues that removing the gene sequence from the body requires breaking chemical bonds that lock it into place, thereby creating a new chemical entity.
The resulting genetic materials, the company says, "were never available to the world until Myriad's scientists applied their inventive faculties to a previously undistinguished mass of genetic matter."
Myriad cites a line of cases finding patent eligibility for naturally occurring substances that were isolated and purified, including aspirin, vitamin B12, and adrenaline derived from cows.
As for availability, the company says the cost of the test is covered by private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. It also says many other labs provide second opinions regarding the company's test results and that thousands of researchers have done studies on the gene sequence involved, unimpeded by the patent.
The Obama administration urges the court to be deeply skeptical of Myriad's broad claim of what can be patented. The Justice Department's brief in the case says the public interest has consistently been given precedence by the Supreme Court "in avoiding undue restrictions imposed by patents that effectively preempt natural laws and substances."
The case requires the justices to decide whether the human genetic material patented by Myriad fits the broad definition set out by Thomas Jefferson in 1791, of a "new and useful art, machine or composition of matter or any new or useful improvement."
Source Patenting genes is ridiculous. Is patenting mathematical theorems next? What would have happened if James Watson and Francis Crick, the discoverers of DNA, patented DNA, so that this gene would have never been discovered? Absurd. Joseph Stiglitz wrote a brief to the Federal Court of New York about this case a few years ago: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010_01_20_-_Declaration_of_Joseph_E__Stiglitz.PDF A few corrections: Watson and Cricks were nowhere near the first to find DNA. Historically DNA was almost 100 years earlier though things are more fuzzy about what was known about its properties at the time. The later discovery of DNA as gene-carriers was about 1944, while structure and function was based on Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Goslings X-ray images, that Watson and Crick a year later used to interpret how DNA was folded and how it was connected (double helix). Genes as we know them were children of the 70's.
Watson and Cricks works are amazing and very important for the understanding of genes today and how they are being read. Their research has paved the way for a lot of the uses of genertics today. However, they were not inventors/discoverers of DNA or even close to it.
As for the case, Diamond vs Chakrabarty gave a patent on a micro-organism and held that ""the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law", which makes gene-patenting relevant (That ruling is extremely radical!). Monsanto have won several lawsuits where their patents on genes have been seen as valid such as Monsanto vs Schmeiser. On the other hand, most of the gene patents have been on processes and non-natural organisms which human genes are not... We are talking about USA where you can patent computer programs, so I don't know what to expect really.
On April 16 2013 01:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 23:39 Kimaker wrote: Whoa...
I certainly hope they rule against that. If ever there was an contemporary analogy to selling your soul to the devil....Fuck.
I don't see how this could possibly fall under the Jerffersonian definition provided. Genetic material isn't "new" and while I could understand patenting techniques, that's about as far as I'd go. I need to think about this one some more, it surely has some characteristics I'm missing on my initial response. Still feels gross. I just hope a ruling against gene patenting isn't also interpreted as a ruling against individual or corporate biological materials (like immortal cells or cell lines) ownership. Henrietta Lax got screwed over hard enough. This court rules pretty randomly, though, so who knows? Are you sure that patenting is the right term there? Remember that patents have to be actively sought in writing and they last 20 years. HeLa is more suited for something like an inheritance right for the family (which shouldn't be contested by a patent law ruling).
|
On April 16 2013 01:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 23:39 Kimaker wrote: Whoa...
I certainly hope they rule against that. If ever there was an contemporary analogy to selling your soul to the devil....Fuck.
I don't see how this could possibly fall under the Jerffersonian definition provided. Genetic material isn't "new" and while I could understand patenting techniques, that's about as far as I'd go. I need to think about this one some more, it surely has some characteristics I'm missing on my initial response. Still feels gross. I just hope a ruling against gene patenting isn't also interpreted as a ruling against individual or corporate biological materials (like immortal cells or cell lines) ownership. Henrietta Lax got screwed over hard enough. This court rules pretty randomly, though, so who knows?
A bit confused, are you saying HeLa got screwed? or Henrietta Lacks? Really interesting story that I would like to read more about. Pretty much THE American story- the woman's cells that did so much for science and medicine whose family didn't even have health insurance.
|
Senate negotiators have reached an agreement on a bill to make the most substantive changes to immigration laws in nearly three decades.
The bipartisan Gang of Eight plans to file its bill as early as Tuesday — a public roll-out was delayed because of the deadly blasts at the Boston Marathon — and it’s certain to spark an emotional debate that will dominate Washington for the remainder of the year.
Champions of the bill will argue it’s high time that lawmakers do something to address the 11 million undocumented immigrants living inside the United States. But foes will decry the legislation as “amnesty” for creating a 13-year pathway to citizenship for that population, as well as slam the bill’s ultimate cost, including potentially providing millions of people with pricey new federal benefits. Conservatives are also likely to demand that the complex bill gets a long and adequate hearing, although only two congressional hearings are currently scheduled.
Source
|
On April 14 2013 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 04:29 HunterX11 wrote:On April 14 2013 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 14 2013 04:09 HunterX11 wrote:On April 14 2013 03:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: If that's what we're talking about than, by and large, 'vicitmized families' is homeowners who weren't able to use a technicality to get out of an otherwise legitimate foreclosure. You accuse Warren of using loaded terminology, then say something is "otherwise legitimate" besides being patently illegitimate? That's the biggest euphemism of all! It's like saying that murder is perfectly legal, except the part where you kill someone. It might seem like a technicality that a creditor has to be able to prove that they are owed money, but it is the very basis of property law going back literally to time immemorial. You can't just be like "Hey bro, the house is like, totally fuckin' ours, man, so get up off that paper 'fore we throw you off your coach and switch the locks!" It's not a great basis for a legal system if you value rule of law over just giving the rich whatever they want because they deserve it. edit: I'm not even saying that the banks shouldn't be able to go on a case-by-case basis and reestablish title when they mess up, but just giving the banks a free Jubilee is beyond insane. Homeowners that legitimately owe a debt shouldn't be given a free Jubilee either. It's one thing if we're discussing legit ownership disputes, it's another if we're discussing a technical claim that does little else than delay an otherwise valid foreclosure. I said that homeowners shouldn't be simply let off the hook in the very same sentence! And "validity" is determined by technical claims, i.e. the courts. In some cases, people were making mortgages payments to the wrong entity when someone else really was the valid recipient. The point is that the banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose just because they say so, the law be damned. The law exists for a reason. What if the people formed a milita and took the bank executives hostage, like the Anti-Renters did to the Patroons: would that legitimate, since the law is merely technical, but guns are real? Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 04:31 aksfjh wrote:On April 14 2013 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 14 2013 04:09 HunterX11 wrote:On April 14 2013 03:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: If that's what we're talking about than, by and large, 'vicitmized families' is homeowners who weren't able to use a technicality to get out of an otherwise legitimate foreclosure. You accuse Warren of using loaded terminology, then say something is "otherwise legitimate" besides being patently illegitimate? That's the biggest euphemism of all! It's like saying that murder is perfectly legal, except the part where you kill someone. It might seem like a technicality that a creditor has to be able to prove that they are owed money, but it is the very basis of property law going back literally to time immemorial. You can't just be like "Hey bro, the house is like, totally fuckin' ours, man, so get up off that paper 'fore we throw you off your coach and switch the locks!" It's not a great basis for a legal system if you value rule of law over just giving the rich whatever they want because they deserve it. edit: I'm not even saying that the banks shouldn't be able to go on a case-by-case basis and reestablish title when they mess up, but just giving the banks a free Jubilee is beyond insane. Homeowners that legitimately owe a debt shouldn't be given a free Jubilee either. It's one thing if we're discussing legit ownership disputes, it's another if we're discussing a technical claim that does little else than delay an otherwise valid foreclosure. "Valid" in what sense? The bank can't prove they own the home or that the person in the home has defaulted on payments. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the bulk of the issue (and what was dealt with in the settlement) is just paperwork. Ex. A mortgage originator (X) sells the mortgage to someone else (Y). Both X and Y agree that Y is the owner. The homeowner then defaults on the mortgage. Later, during a foreclosure hearing Y cannot prove that he is the owner due to a document either being filled out wrong or lost. The foreclosure is then postponed until proof of ownership can be established. The ability to prove that you own A under B conditions would seem to be a really big deal when dealing in the confines of a justice system.
I don't get what's so reprehensible about requiring proper documentation of a mortgage. What else is a court supposed to rely on, divination?
I mean, really, you're rationalizing your views on the basis that you somehow already know that the homeowner legitimately owed a specific bank prior to court arbitration. Presumption of guilt isn't built into mortgage courts, far as I know...
|
On April 16 2013 01:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 22:00 KwarK wrote:On April 15 2013 13:59 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 13:42 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 13:19 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 12:12 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans. 9 out of 10 Americans being for "background checks" doesn't mean anything. Liberals will expect something to actually happen from it and conservatives won't want a national gun registry. 9 out of 10 Americans could want ice cream but that doesn't help anyone on giveing them the icecream that they want. You can have universal background checks without a national gun registry, it just requires sellers to keep the records of the sale/proof of the background check no matter who they are. Unfortunately I don't see that happening for political reasons. The current bill of closing one loophole might work, but I'm not sure if it will stop the situation where someone just loads up their car with guns and drives around selling them to random people on the street who prolly can't buy them in a store. ? The political reason for them not keeping the records of sale/proof of the background check is that it would be a de facto national gun registry. However I've heard a lot of people getting calls from the ATF when someone buys a ton of guns in a short period of time. I'm not entirely sure how they find out whos buying the guns but from what I hear its not that evil government system that they rage against. Gun shops keep track of who buys a gun from them. When a gun is used in a crime the police first go to the manufacture to find out the store that had it, then the store tells them who bought it. After that it is hit or miss since the person who bought it does not need to keep track of who they sold it too. I would make it so that ALL people who sell a gun would need to keep track of who they sold it too (and run a background check). I really don't see how this creates a gun registry since the time required to track any individual gun is so long it makes tracking guns in bulk pointless. You could even allow private citizens to get rid of records after 5 years (the government does not keep those records). The point would be that if someone is selling guns to criminals, you can easily find them and stop them if they end up getting used in crimes. See this is the perfect example of why 9 in 10 of americans beliveing in background checks for everything is simply just bullshit filling the air waves. What are you going to do to to people who can't keep track of their own paperwork? or if they get robbed and someone steals their papers? god forbid they "burn in a fire " and suddenly you're either criminalizing some random joe who did nothing wrong but to not keep his papers in order or you have no system for anyone to follow again. Everyone wants background checks. No one has any idea on how to make a background check system that anyone wants. Hence why Joe picks up a standardized transfer of gun ownership form, fills in his name and the buyer fills in his name, shows ID etc and then he sends a copy to the gov for their record office. We use the same system for cars. That hurts the poor and the old and minorities! (At least that's what Democrats say about voter ID laws, when getting an ID is a much easier process than the one you just described.) No background check is done on a very small percentage of gun sales/transfers (not 40%, more like 3-7%). What exactly would bringing that number down to 0 do to reduce gun violence? Nothing? That's right.
Dude you are ludicrous if you think voter ID laws are in any way similar to background checks to own a device designed to kill people.
It's not analagous.
And also, you provide no information to back up your claim. This sentence makes a wild number of assumptions that you fail to back up.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On April 16 2013 17:29 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 05:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 14 2013 04:29 HunterX11 wrote:On April 14 2013 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 14 2013 04:09 HunterX11 wrote:On April 14 2013 03:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: If that's what we're talking about than, by and large, 'vicitmized families' is homeowners who weren't able to use a technicality to get out of an otherwise legitimate foreclosure. You accuse Warren of using loaded terminology, then say something is "otherwise legitimate" besides being patently illegitimate? That's the biggest euphemism of all! It's like saying that murder is perfectly legal, except the part where you kill someone. It might seem like a technicality that a creditor has to be able to prove that they are owed money, but it is the very basis of property law going back literally to time immemorial. You can't just be like "Hey bro, the house is like, totally fuckin' ours, man, so get up off that paper 'fore we throw you off your coach and switch the locks!" It's not a great basis for a legal system if you value rule of law over just giving the rich whatever they want because they deserve it. edit: I'm not even saying that the banks shouldn't be able to go on a case-by-case basis and reestablish title when they mess up, but just giving the banks a free Jubilee is beyond insane. Homeowners that legitimately owe a debt shouldn't be given a free Jubilee either. It's one thing if we're discussing legit ownership disputes, it's another if we're discussing a technical claim that does little else than delay an otherwise valid foreclosure. I said that homeowners shouldn't be simply let off the hook in the very same sentence! And "validity" is determined by technical claims, i.e. the courts. In some cases, people were making mortgages payments to the wrong entity when someone else really was the valid recipient. The point is that the banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose just because they say so, the law be damned. The law exists for a reason. What if the people formed a milita and took the bank executives hostage, like the Anti-Renters did to the Patroons: would that legitimate, since the law is merely technical, but guns are real? On April 14 2013 04:31 aksfjh wrote:On April 14 2013 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 14 2013 04:09 HunterX11 wrote:On April 14 2013 03:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: If that's what we're talking about than, by and large, 'vicitmized families' is homeowners who weren't able to use a technicality to get out of an otherwise legitimate foreclosure. You accuse Warren of using loaded terminology, then say something is "otherwise legitimate" besides being patently illegitimate? That's the biggest euphemism of all! It's like saying that murder is perfectly legal, except the part where you kill someone. It might seem like a technicality that a creditor has to be able to prove that they are owed money, but it is the very basis of property law going back literally to time immemorial. You can't just be like "Hey bro, the house is like, totally fuckin' ours, man, so get up off that paper 'fore we throw you off your coach and switch the locks!" It's not a great basis for a legal system if you value rule of law over just giving the rich whatever they want because they deserve it. edit: I'm not even saying that the banks shouldn't be able to go on a case-by-case basis and reestablish title when they mess up, but just giving the banks a free Jubilee is beyond insane. Homeowners that legitimately owe a debt shouldn't be given a free Jubilee either. It's one thing if we're discussing legit ownership disputes, it's another if we're discussing a technical claim that does little else than delay an otherwise valid foreclosure. "Valid" in what sense? The bank can't prove they own the home or that the person in the home has defaulted on payments. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the bulk of the issue (and what was dealt with in the settlement) is just paperwork. Ex. A mortgage originator (X) sells the mortgage to someone else (Y). Both X and Y agree that Y is the owner. The homeowner then defaults on the mortgage. Later, during a foreclosure hearing Y cannot prove that he is the owner due to a document either being filled out wrong or lost. The foreclosure is then postponed until proof of ownership can be established. The ability to prove that you own A under B conditions would seem to be a really big deal when dealing in the confines of a justice system. I don't get what's so reprehensible about requiring proper documentation of a mortgage. What else is a court supposed to rely on, divination? I mean, really, you're rationalizing your views on the basis that you somehow already know that the homeowner legitimately owed a specific bank prior to court arbitration. Presumption of guilt isn't built into mortgage courts, far as I know... You guys are right - the law's the law. So I'm going to pull my point back.
I don't want the government encouraging homeowners to bring forth fruitless lawsuits. If all the homeowner is going to do is delay an inevitable foreclosure I just don't see what good will come of it - either for the homeowner or society as a whole.
|
In happier news, the US housing recovery continues:
HOUSING STARTS Privately-owned housing starts in March were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,036,000. This is 7.0 percent (±11.8%)* above the revised February estimate of 968,000 and is 46.7 percent (±13.9%) above the March 2012 rate of 706,000. Single-family housing starts in March were at a rate of 619,000; this is 4.8 percent (±10.8%)* below the revised February figure of 650,000. The March rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 392,000 Link
Still a long way to go but 2013 continues to impress.
|
Let's hope that those numbers continue to swell, though we ought to continue to pay close attention to low-income mortgages and how they are being handled.
In other news, my dislike for Eric Holder and suspicion in regards to the relationship between the Attorney General and POTUS continues.
NEW YORK -– On April 9, McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay reported that the Obama administration has “targeted and killed hundreds of suspected lower-level Afghan, Pakistani and unidentified ‘other’ militants” in drone strikes, a revelation that contradicts previous administration claims of pursuing only senior-level operatives who pose an imminent threat to the United States.
It was an investigative story clearly in the public interest, shedding new light on the government’s long-running targeted-killing program in Pakistan. But now Landay, a veteran national security reporter for the McClatchy newspaper chain, is concerned that the Obama administration could next investigate him in hopes of finding the sources for “top-secret U.S. intelligence reports” cited in the story. “Do I think that they could come after me?” Landay asked, in an interview with The Huffington Post. “Yes.”
“I can tell you that people who normally would meet with me, sort of in a more relaxed atmosphere, are on pins and needles,” Landay said of the reporting climate during the Obama years, a period of unprecedented whistleblower prosecutions. The crackdown on leaks, he added, seems “deliberately intended to have a chilling effect.”
Landay isn’t alone in that assessment, as several investigative journalists attest in “War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State,” a timely documentary directed by Robert Greenwald of Brave New Foundation that premieres this week in New York and Washington. The film details the ordeals of four whistleblowers who turned to the press in order to expose waste or illegality.
“The Obama administration's been extremely aggressive in trying to root out whistleblowers within the government,” NBC News investigative reporter Michael Isikoff says in the film. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, describing the secrecy required in her reporting for a profile of whistleblower Thomas Drake amid government prosecution, said the experience didn’t “feel [like] America, land of the free press.”
Drake, a former senior executive of the National Security Agency, says in the film, "it's extremely dangerous in America right now to be right as a whistleblower when the government is so wrong." He adds: "speaking truth to power is now a criminal act."
Drake was charged in 2010 under the Espionage Act, a law passed in 1917 to prosecute spies. Drake was not a spy, but a government employee who tried unsuccessfully to report waste and abuse through official channels before contacting a Baltimore Sun reporter. The government's case eventually collapsed, with Drake only pleading guilty to a misdemeanor of "exceeding the authorized use of a computer."
"He was vindicated in the end, essentially," Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower behind the Pentagon Papers, said in the film. "But [Drake] had his life, for the moment, ruined."
Obama Whistleblower Prosecutions Lead To Chilling Effect On Press
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 17 2013 02:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:In happier news, the US housing recovery continues: Show nested quote +HOUSING STARTS Privately-owned housing starts in March were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,036,000. This is 7.0 percent (±11.8%)* above the revised February estimate of 968,000 and is 46.7 percent (±13.9%) above the March 2012 rate of 706,000. Single-family housing starts in March were at a rate of 619,000; this is 4.8 percent (±10.8%)* below the revised February figure of 650,000. The March rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 392,000 LinkStill a long way to go but 2013 continues to impress. housing recovery is great news, though the numbers from retail seem to be contradictory. wonder who's leading the housing boom. the disproportionate impact of a credit driven policy (QE) on housing and retail may be a factor.
asset price may be coming down soon with China not looking so hot.
|
On April 17 2013 06:58 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 02:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:In happier news, the US housing recovery continues: HOUSING STARTS Privately-owned housing starts in March were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,036,000. This is 7.0 percent (±11.8%)* above the revised February estimate of 968,000 and is 46.7 percent (±13.9%) above the March 2012 rate of 706,000. Single-family housing starts in March were at a rate of 619,000; this is 4.8 percent (±10.8%)* below the revised February figure of 650,000. The March rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 392,000 LinkStill a long way to go but 2013 continues to impress. housing recovery is great news, though the numbers from retail seem to be contradictory. wonder who's leading the housing boom. the disproportionate impact of a credit driven policy (QE) on housing and retail may be a factor. asset price may be coming down soon with China not looking so hot. Retail's been decent. Last month was rough but retailers were blaming cold weather so it's too soon to say that retail has stalled out. A slump in China may actually help here - commodities have been tanking (oil included) and that could help consumers out.
As for QE - I certainly hope it's having an impact. Cheap-as-hell mortgages should have lead to a housing boom a long time ago.
|
|
|
|