Tag Archives: markets

Federal Government and Home Lending

Posted on by
Reply

Investors worry about the impact on home mortgage costs from the Trump administration’s efforts to reform Federal involvement in the business—for instance, cutting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae loose from Federal controls and support.

The WSJ‘s subheadline of the article at the link sums up those investors’ worry:

[A]ny overhaul to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could reduce or eliminate the federal backstop

To which this investor—and home-owner and mortgage payer—says, “Yeah, and?”

There should be no Federal backstop at all, there should be no Federal involvement in this, or any other, industry at all.  Federal involvement only distorts the market, and Federal money, being the increased demand of additional and protected money, only drives up costs.

Not an Iron Curtain

Posted on by
Reply

But it is intended to be a chain-link fence.  It’s not intended to keep folks out, though, but like its Big Brother, it is intended to “encourage” folks to stay in.

Connecticut has expanded its mansion tax on homes.  Here’s how it works.  On sale, Connecticut taxmen will exact from the seller a 2.25% tax on the value of the sale that exceeds $2.5 million.  This is an increase from the already existing “conveyance tax” of 1.25%, but it adds a fillip: if the seller stays in the State for a suitably long time after the sale (“suitable” being defined by the State’s politicians), he’ll get the money back as a tax credit.  If he leaves Connecticut for greener and friendlier pastures too soon to suit those politicians, too bad—he loses those 2.25%.

Governor Ned Lamont (D) made the nature of his chain-link fence explicit. He said that the tax is a

penalty when people whose homes are valued over $2.5 million sell their homes and leave the state.

There’s also a related question: with Connecticut making it so hard to leave, why would anyone want to go there in the first place?

It’s not all bad, though.  The center of Connecticut is only 35 miles from Massachusetts and only 55 miles from Rhode Island and New York.  To the extent there are jobs at all in Connecticut, those are easy commutes, as any Angelino, Metroplex resident, or New Jersey-ite knows.

The Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

…in microcosm.  Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for a Denver, CO, city council seat says openly that she wants to replace our capitalist economy and “usher in” “community ownership” of all property by any means necessary.

The Progressive-Democratic Party is silent on her goal, and by that silence demonstrates quite clearly that Party favors this push.

Keep this in mind in November 2020.

(Partially) Self-Driving Cars

Posted on by
Reply

Christopher Mims had an article in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal that talked about the technology involved in controlling self-driving cars is slowing the introduction of production-ready self-driving cars.  Aspects of that technology are making their way into human-driven cars, obviating the need for computer-run cars.

I have some thoughts on that.  Because opinions are my jam.

Mims led off his piece with this about that technology in a more current car that remains fundamentally human-driven:

It will take over when it thinks you’re making a mistake.

No, it won’t. That’ll be among the first things I disable, right up there with any OnStar-like tracking. I remain smarter than both the average bear and any computer.

Mims then asked about the safety features for which we might look in our next car.  I’ll be looking for better 360 sensing.  My 2013 Fusion Hybrid had pretty good sensing, both to the front and to the rear.  It didn’t have “collision warnings,” but it did warn of obstacles.  Nor did it have automatic, preemptive breaking; that technology wasn’t readily available then.  Thank goodness.  Still, sensing always can get better. I also opted to not have forward sensing on my current Fusion; that has turned out to be suboptimal.  I miss the added data.

Mims also asked whether partial autonomy would be a requirement.  Far from it for me; that will be a deal-breaker, unless I can engage/disengage it at (my) will, like I can my cruise control—which is pretty much all the autonomy my car needs.

What I really want is better displays to facilitate my decision making.  I want a decent HUD that displays in a couple of lines across the bottom left half of my windshield such things as current speed, fuel, engine performance and status (if I’m driving another hybrid, I want battery charge state and per cent of maximum battery power at my current driving speed), and time and distance to my destination and next turn point if I’ve laid in a route on my Nav system.

I also want more flexibility in the organization of those displays remaining on my dashboard.  There’s no reason, in this age of digitized displays, that I can’t make my own choices on what to display on this or that display monitor and move displays (not the monitors hosting them) around to group them according to my preference.

In the end, my car works for me; I’m not along to validate the computer’s decisions, much less to be overridden by them.

Surprise Medical Billing

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal recounted one such example and a (partial, I say) solution in Benedic Ippolito’s (of the American Enterprise Institute) Tuesday op-ed.

The example was a man with a broken jaw who was transported, unconscious, to a hospital ER for treatment.  The hospital turned out to be in his medical insurance network, but the treating surgeon turned out not to be.  The latter’s bill was for $8,000, which the insurer refused to pay.  The man was unaware of that fee until after the treatment had been effected.

The solution described by Ippolito (one of three and the one favored by him; the other two were just price fixing in one form or another) is this:

[an] “in-network guarantee,” is a better solution. Hospitals would ensure that all providers treating insured patients are also considered in-network. Some already do this. Doctors at these facilities would have two options: come to an agreement with the insurer (as most already do) or receive payment directly from the hospital. This would eliminate the inflated surprise bills, reduce premiums and federal spending, and leave it to doctors, hospitals, and insurers to work out market prices.

While a good start, this option is incomplete.  All of those prices and fees need to be known to the patient and to the public at large beforehand.  Further, this needs to be the case for all the medical facilities in a region—hospitals, urgent care facilities, clinics.  Such prices and fees easily could be posted on each facility’s Web site, or on the facility’s entrance if it hasn’t joined the 20th century.

The patients and potential patients in the general public need to be in on the working out of market prices.