Understanding Derivatives – A Primer

Someone sent this to me. I see it posted in other places it online, perhaps changing the name of the bar owner and where the bar is located (e.g. Heidi in Chicago or Detroit). But whatever. It gives you something to think about.

Understanding Derivatives — A Primer

Terry is the proprietor of a bar in Kona.

He realizes that virtually all of his customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize his bar.

To solve this problem, he comes up with a new marketing plan that allows his customers to drink now, but pay later.

Terry keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers’ loans).

Word gets around about Terry’s “drink now, pay later” marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Terry’s bar. Soon he has the largest sales volume for any bar in Kona.

By providing his customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Terry gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, he substantially increases his prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.

Consequently, Terry’s gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Terry’s borrowing limit.

He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral!!!

At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINK BONDS.

These “securities” then are bundled and traded on international securities markets.

Naive investors don’t really understand that the securities being sold to them as “AAA Secured Bonds” really are debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb!!!, and the securities soon
become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation’s leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices still are climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Terry’s bar. He so informs Terry.

Terry then demands payment from his alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts.

Since Terry cannot fulfill his loan obligations he is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and Terry’s 11 employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINK BOND prices drop by 90%.

The collapsed bond asset value destroys the bank’s liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Terry’s bar had granted him generous payment extensions and had invested their firms’ pension funds in the BOND securities.

They find they are now faced with having to write off his bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds.

His wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, his beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off
150 workers..

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multibillion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from the government.

The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, nondrinkers who have never been in Terry’s bar.

Now do you understand?

Thanx, now go away

Y’all remember Jeanne Assam? She’s the woman that, back in December 2007, stopped a mass murderer at her church, New Life Church.

Now Jeanne comes out of the closet. She’s gay.

She now claims that New Life Church no longer welcomes her. Story here, and here.

Looks like there’s a bunch of “he said, she said” going on here. Not sure what the real truth is, but hopefully it will come out.

You’d think he could do some research…

University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa is worried that the proposed legislation to allow concealed carry on campus could make schools unsafe.

Hrm. What is Mr. Cigarroa basing this upon? Facts? Data? Supporting evidence?

No.

Chicken Little.

Cigarroa says parents, faculty and campus law enforcement agencies have expressed concern that the law could lead to an increase in campus violence.

Geez. You’d think being the head of a University that he might have access to scholarly research and data, history, and might even know something about basing decisions on facts.

on DOMA and the DOJ

So the DOJ is no longer going to enforce DOMA.

On the surface, that’s fine with me. I think DOMA is an embarrassing sham. “Defense of marriage” my fanny; its sole intent is to treat GLBT as lesser citizens; to legalize discrimination because you think it’s icky or some sort of abomination (geez.. didn’t we do this to Blacks and other non-Whites some years ago?? how’d that turn out…). Homosexuals aren’t a threat to marriage. The exact numbers vary depending whom you ask, but most have it that the divorce rate (of heterosexual couples) is over 50%. So uh… I think THAT is more a threat to marriage than any fag, n’est-ce pas? I also think that a loving couple in a long-term dedicated relationship where they support and care for each other, and then support and encourage and care for their children, that does more for the positive health and well-being of the children.  That statement applies, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. I’d rather see a child in a loving household run by two gay men, than in an abusive, destructive, and unhealthy household run by two heterosexuals. It’s about love and other matters, not sexual orientation. Those concepts are orthogonal.

And now… I’m sure I’ve pissed off my conservative friends and readers, and confused my liberal friends and readers. 🙂

But I’m not here to talk about that.

Nor am I here to talk about the fact that, while people (that support this) are reporting this with a rather broad brush, you have to realize the actual reading of the DOJ statement is VERY narrow. It’s not as big a win as you think it is or want it to be. All it really is is a political statement on Obama’s part, trying to shore up votes for the 2012 re-election. It is a very small baby-step in the right direction, but really folks… you have to look at the actual statement and movement and realize that it’s pure political posturing.

And that’s the real issue here.

Obama is vulnerable for the 2012 election. So long as the Republicans find someone who has a good shot (read: not Palin), Obama is certainly in trouble. Now is the time for him to start doing things to pander to his voter base, and that’s all this is.

But what’s worse? You have a sitting President instructing the Attorney General to not defend the law of the land. That is unreal! If Obama wants to question the constitutionality of DOMA, how about questioning the constitutionality of this overreach of Executive authority! How would anti-gun people react if  a President opted to instruct the DOJ to no longer enforce the 1934 National Firearms Act? Or a President instructed the DOJ to not enforce the anti-discrimination policies and laws? People would be screaming about abuse of Presidential power! But why aren’t we hearing that now?

A tainted win is not a win, and again if you read the actual statement it’s not really much of a win at all. If you really want DOMA to go away, you need to go through proper means to make it go away. If you want to demonstrate it is unconstitutional, then that has to be taken up properly within the court system. This is political pandering and an abuse of Executive power; it should not be allowed to stand.

Updated: BTW, this is the same AG that said he’ll prosecute marijuana users even if state law permits it. You’ve got to love this selective enforcement of the law, don’t you?

And to all you liberal progressive types… why are you standing for this? Or is it OK to do bad things when you benefit, and not OK to do bad things when it injures you?

“That’s common sense, as far as I’m concerned.”

Spare me.

“We’re saying that you can’t have more than 10 [bullets in a clip],” she said. “That’s common sense, as far as I’m concerned.”

So please tell me… how is that “common sense”. How it is that 9 is then OK, but 11 is somehow suddenly evil?

Please tell me. Where is the “common sense” here?

Cripes.

HB 681 – time to be heard, Rep. Workman

HB 681 (Relating to an employee’s transportation and storage of certain firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or controlled by the employee’s employer) is scheduled to be heard by the Texas House Committee on Business and Industry on Monday February 28, 2011.

Alright Paul Workman. You are my representative. You also sit on the Business and Industry Committee. You received an A grade from the NRA (and the TSRA), which I know helped you get elected. I’ve written you on other issues, but haven’t heard anything (sad, given how Valinda Bolton, who you beat, was very responsive). I just wrote you on this issue urging you not only to quickly pass the bill as written, but to also sign on as a co-author.

We are watching. And yes, we will remember when it comes time to vote again… or when you ask for campaign contributions… or otherwise generally go about your business. Remember, you were elected to represent us and do our bidding.

Updated: Good news everyone! Looks like Rep. Workman JUST signed on as a co-author. I checked the HB 681 co-authors page before writing this entry and his name wasn’t there. But it is now. And the date next to his name is today (2/23/2011) so he literally just signed on.

Excellent!

Failure or success in education depends upon the parents

Adam Carolla rants about why the public school system has failed. (h/t The Packing Rat) Some NSFW audio.

He’s right. Success or failure in school directly corresponds upon the level of involvement of the parent. My little sister spent 2 years as a grade school teacher in inner city Washington D.C.. It was most evident from the family culture there that it was the prime contributor to the student’s level of success or failure (mostly failure). I can speak from my own public school experience that parental involvement is the #1 factor in the success or failing of the student (which then corresponds to the success or failing of the school, the school system, etc.).

Trouble is, it’s not politically correct to talk about it (and Adam’s rant isn’t politically correct). Furthermore, the people who whine and care so much about public education, the Liberals and Democrats, have a huge voter base that pulls directly from those very groups that have the culture problem. Do you think they’re going to address the truly tough issues in a head-on and brutally honest fashion and risk alienating their voter base? Nope, because votes matter more than actually addressing and fixing real problems.

Furthermore, you can’t fix problems of culture by throwing more money at it. It’s harder to fix culture problems. Look at Chris Rock’s own rant about how you get more respect within the Black community coming home from prison than you do coming home from college.

So what sort of culture do you surround yourself with? What sort of culture do you surround and permit to surround your children? It’s not strictly a racial thing, but it does tend to fall along ethnic lines. Believe me, I know some Asians that are worthless and some Mexicans with more degrees on their wall than you. It’s the culture that you (and your children) are surrounded by. And don’t think it’s out of your control. Sure some parts may be, but that means you as the parent have to become even more involved. Yes it might mean you have to be strict, deny your child, say “no”, and be tough in how you raise them. It’s your job to be their parent, not their friend, not to “be cool” or any such notion.

Wonder why homeschooled kids do so well? Maybe it has something to do with that high level of parental involvement in their lives and education. Think about it.

Your bias is showing

Local news channel “YNN – Austin” covers the concealed carry on campus debate. The article focuses on Colin Goddard and John Woods.

One state legislator wants concealed carry laws for college campuses across the state, but two men impacted by the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech are fighting those efforts.

Colin Goddard was shot four times during the Virginia Tech incident. John Woods’ girlfriend was among the 32 victims in the shootings. Together, they are asking Texas lawmakers to reject efforts to allow concealed handgun license owners to carry weapons into campus buildings.

And yes, they have a quote from Rep. Joe Driver, sponsor of the legislation. But the article then goes on about the man who ran onto the University of Texas campus last year with a rifle and shot himself.

Hrm. Have we forgotten about how Charles Whitman was stopped? Who is Charles Whitman? Why, he’s the man who in 1966 climbed to the top of the tower on the University of Texas campus and starting shooting people. What helped stop him? Students running back to their dorm rooms, fetching their deer rifles, and shooting back.

Imagine that. People fighting back stops crime. If you say it doesn’t, then please start recommending rape victims just lie back and take it.

Imagine that. Police and others didn’t mistake the citizens for the criminal. Sure there was chaos abounding, but they knew who was the bad guy and who were the good guys. I dare say with 40+ years of advancements in training — especially in dealing with active shooter situations — we just might be OK.

Imagine that. The people there on the scene were the ones able to respond. Yes police arrived, but it takes time for them to show up. The people right there right now are the ones able to respond the quickest.

 

Goddard contends campus security, alerts, background checks and mental health evaluations should be the focus not more guns.

 

 

Tell me. How is that going to help anything? I do agree that alert systems using text messages, email, social media and whatnot are good things to quickly spread information and certainly we should use them where we can. But how is that going to stop the problem? If some nutjob starts injuring people, how is an alert going to stop the immediate act of injury and death? How will a background check stop the injury and death? How will mental health evaluations stop injury and death? And unless you put a cop every 5 feet, you cannot be sure one will be around when you need it. So please, Mr. Goddard, tell me how do you deal with the immediate problem? We do what we can as a preventative measure, but the reality is that you can’t stop crazy, you can’t eliminate it from the face of the Earth. So while those other measures might be nice, we also need to be able to address evil swiftly and firmly when it makes itself known.

But to hear this from the local news media… the bias is not surprising. But who knows. With all the local journalists and lobbyists that obtained CHL’s merely so they could have “easier” access into the Texas State Capitol building, maybe, just maybe, going through the process they gained a little more insight into the fact that CHL-holders are good people, just like them. It’s still early. We’re still hopeful.

 

Manners Matter

Gun Bloggers have been tra-la-laing recently about open carry and manners.

I think it started over at Breda’s place. Unc discusses more.

The thing is, do you view open carry as a political movement? Or just something to do, as normal as putting on your pants in the morning? If you view it politically, manners matter. You aren’t going to win people over to your side if you act like an asshole. Granted, you may not win them over if you’re well-behaved, but it does improve your chances. But if you view open carry as just something to do, or your God-given right, or whatever, then hey… if you’re normally an asshole, you’re still going to be an asshole with a gun on your hip or not. Frankly, I’m not going to tell anyone how to behave because we’re not all in this for politics. As well, as soon as I start telling someone else how to behave, that means they can tell me how to behave, and I’m not hip to that.

Furthermore, we have to remember that our little world of gun-totin’ folks is composed of a wide array of people. We aren’t going to all agree on everything, so before we start the in-fighting, we might as well stop because we aren’t all going to see eye-to-eye on how to promote, how to behave. And as much as we all love living free, that implies we also don’t care for other people to tell us how to live our lives. So if someone doesn’t want to be well-mannered well, that’s their prerogative.

Unfortunately, it can reflect badly upon the rest of us.

I do think you get further in life being polite and good to others; that whole flies and honey vs. vinegar thing. For instance, consider Linoge’s WizardPC’s story. And we have to remember that. In anything in life, any group, any movement, any thing… there’s always going to be some bad apples, there’ll always be someone who is a less than model citizen. So what should we do? Just continue to be the role model. In the end, most people are rational and will see that the majority are good folk and things are alright. Why? Unc said it best:

And that is why we should play nice. So the other side comes off as loons. Not us.

Utah gun-permit bill moving along

It looks like Utah’s SB36 is on its way to the governor

The Legislature gave final approval Monday to a bill that would require out-of-state gun owners who seek a Utah concealed-weapon permit to first obtain a permit from their home states, if available.

The Senate voted 25-0 to accept earlier House amendments to SB36 and sent it to Gov. Gary Herbert. The House changes make it clear that out-of-state residents could apply immediately for a Utah permit if their home state does not recognize Utah’s.

As I mentioned before, I like this because it’s Utah fixing Utah’s problems, so hopefully that means Texas HB 356 can be withdrawn. I am going to drop a line to Rep. Burnam accordingly.