Centerfield

Bears (the underdog, for sure), pass on Draft, Arkin (and his blogger fans) and Hillary/Obama (if Iraq sputters)

Although, Chirac and Putin get runner ups

The Bears won the last game on D & D: Defense and Discipline. (I can't remember the last time a ream committed only one foul, and that in the middle of the 4th quarter!) So I'm going with Bears 20, Colts 17. Besides, that way I can get the spread if I bet.

As for the rest, I just can't see the Republicans having a desire to win sufficient to let them nominate Guiliani this time. And anybody else they put up most probably loses (although McCain might come close against Clinton). As for the Democrats, they have the luxury of being able to shoot themselves in the foot without losing the top prize. If they were in a real fight, they'd need to go with someone like Richardson; since they're not, they can indulge themselves with just about anybody who isn't the complete darling of the nutroots.

I think that by kick-off time Vegas will drop the odds to 6 points Colts. Colts are trying to rattle Grossman by saying he will crack under pressure. I so want Bears D to take off Manning's head and score a few touchdowns. One would think Bears have been working on picking up the Colt's blitz. They will need to run and hit the short passes. Specialty teams must come through. Despite the turnovers, Colts beat the Pats. What was that about momentum, Brian?

If Obama (see NYT article about doubts from the black community) and Hillary go hard Left and Iraq improves, you might be right, but if Iraq is drowning a Hillary/Obama ticket would be hard to beat. There might very well be some action against Iran by 2008 and given the volatility of the world, it is hard tell make predications. If things get ugly for the Republicans, perhaps a unity party play can shake the table.

I'd say the chance of that line moving off seven to be pretty small. It opened at 7.5 and moved to 7 pretty quickly. If it moves to 6.5 and the game ends on 7, a ton of money goes back in a push and 50% or so of the rest gets paid out which is Vegas' WORST nightmare. More likely, you'll have to pay 120 or more to win 100 on the Bears by Sunday. All hypothetically of course, for informational purposes only.

I personally like the Colts and the overs. In games like these, I like the team with the best QB and that's clearly the Colts. Obviously at this point, any team in the SB has to have been a little fortunate but I think the Bears have been more so. In the end, which do you believe in more, the Colts run defense or Rex Grossman? I'll take Bob Sanders and the defense for $1000, Alex.

The AP is reporting that the savings rate in America is the lowest since the depression, Don Surber thinks that's a myth. I tend to think Surber is wrong here because a lot of his argument is based on 401Ks and tangentially on house savings. When the housing market comes down (and I think it will, we haven't seen anything near the bottom yet), all that savings Surber is talking about is reduced dramatically. Thoughts?

Agreed, 401ks are based on the response to needing money in porder to live longer, which relates to the question "why are you saving?" In other words, even if you are saving at the same rate as a past generation, you'd be falling behind by doing so, because you need more.

The housing market? If Tip O'Neill had been a real estate agent, he'd have said that all supply and demand is local. Around here, I think the real estate market has some protection from deeper declines just by virtue of population density. OTOH, the market was so strong for so long that development was really ramped up, and planned big projects can reach a point where no one wants to quit after having invested a lot of dough. S0 new developments are still sprouting, thus supply is still going up. Meanwhile with prices falling, speculators are getting shaken out, further increasing supply while demand gets whittled to mostly people who want to own a home. At least interest rates are low.

Yeah, we have 8 homes for sale in my brand new community, at least 4 of which were some investor who is finding out things aren't so rosy now. Also, at least two foreclosures and several spec homes no one seems to want. All this in a reasonably steady market in DFW.

I think we're just at the tip of the iceberg. I read an article recently where a couple had written Liz Pulliam Weston for advice because they had a second mortgage and $68,000 in credit card debit. Kicker was that they made approximately $190-250K a year. It's that mentality of spend now, worry later, especially when using your house as an ATM that makes me nervous. I'm afraid it's more common than we may like to think.

It may be more common than we think, but Surber's correct that the story is extremely misleading. The measure used is outdated because the nature of savings has changed since it was developed.

The housing market has already contracted considerably in recent months. Those getting stung are those who speculated it would keep rolling forever, or who took out Dumb Mortgages with intro rates that are coming due for rate adjustment, just so they could buy more than they could really sustainably afford. Just like the folks who borrowed on their homes to buy into the dot.com peak......

Folks who spend dumb are getting stung, just as they always have. Pardon my lack of sympathy, as the rest of us pick up the tab for that. Folks who bought what they could honestly afford are doing just fine, even if they lose some theoretical paper profits in their homes. And folks with well-invested 401(k)'s and such are smiling at the markets, which are smiling back.

Point very well taken Tully. No sympathies for speculators or blithe over-reachers. Math literacy is what teaches you to buy what you can afford, not what you talk yourself into believing you deserve.

But you know who else is getting hurt, if not quite killed? For one, my buddy who works for Home Depot and got transferred to Michigan 5 or 6 years ago. He has 3 kids and needed a house and bought one he could afford pretty comfortably. He's not holding his breath waiting to get his money back there.

There are some folks who just had to buy, realistically, due to life circumstances, and did buy within their means. They're not getting killed per se, as they can afford the mortgage. But they are stuck with a pretty crappy investment due in large part to timing. I have some sympathy there. That could have been me. We were extremely fortunate to buy well within our 1999 means around 1999, and now we only have 11 or 12 years left on a re-fi'd 15 year loan at 5%. I'll give myself the bare minimum tap on the back for developing a basic understanding and buying prudently, but our timing was fortunate. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to time their home purchase. You need a house when your life tells you that you do, know what I mean?

And yeah, I know you can rent a house. Still.

Even if you do say that 401K's are not in that number, it still says that Americans are spending more money then they are getting in after-tax income. I have seen a number of theories. One is that the really rich are spending more than what they are making because they have enough. Another more likely one seems to me to be that as boomers retire, this stat is going to continue to be upside down as they draw down their retirements. I am not sure if the current trend of reverse mortgages shows up in this stat.

I know I am in a negative income state; but that is more of a factor of taking a buyout and returning to school for a degree. Now I did convert my 401K to a Roth IRA as I am worried that taxes may not be as low as they are now when I hit retirement age 30 years down the road.

As far as the game goes, until proven otherwise, my standard bet for the last five years has been AFC team 27 - NFC team 20. Therefore Colts 27 - Bears 20.

It might be enlightening, in discussing the savings rate, to look at the savings rate of non-retirees. If the total population has a negative savings rate, but non-retirees have a positive one, the problem is very different (not to mention much smaller) than if those who are still pre-retirement are spending more than they are saving.

Are those kind of figures available?

Nope, but the figures for retirement assets by age demograpchic and overall real estate equity are, and they're highly positive for all demographics EXCEPT the 35-44 age group. You know--folks buying houses and raising kids. Imagine that--they're borrowing to buy houses instead of paying cash....

The numbers and labels are deceptive. "Savings rate" does not mean what most people think it means, and it's easy to get confused. The money companies pay out for 401(k)'s as a matching contribution gets counted as "personal income" when it's paid out, but the resultant investment returns do not, until they're paid out in the future. They're not "savings." That money you pay on your house building up your home equity gets counted as "consumption," not as "savings." Even your instant-equity down payment.

IOW, "savings rate" doesn't all mean what you think it means, and what the doomsayers would like you to think it means. To be fair, most of them haven't a clue either. But ask yourself--if the "savings rate" means what everyone thinks it does, and has been flat-to-negative for the last several years, why have US capital stocks and the retirement fund holdings of Americans and their real estate equity risen so very considerably over the same time frame? How could such a thing be? :-)

Answer: Much of what is counted as "consumption" in the derivation equation for "savings rate" is actually capital investment. You know--savings in the minds of most. But in the equations it only shows up as income and consumption, and the "savings" in the "savings rate" is the aggregate estimated net between the two. So an awful lot of investment is not counted as "savings" using those measures. It's a partial zero-sum equation in a non-partial non-zero-sum world.

More complicated than that, of course, and when I have a week or so to spare...but if you're interested, hunt down the derivation equations and models and start defining the entities and listing out the holes in the measurement techniques. Hey, it's fun!

Just got back from the Longhorn baseball season opener, at the nice Dell Diamond (UT's ballpark is under renovation). It was a good game, against the University of San Diego Matadoros. They had a huge lead for alot of the game (Texas' starter had a bad day, and Sandy Eggo had great pitching), but the 'Horns brought it within 1 in the last inning. Their closer got nervous. Interestingly, somebody blogged it.

Then we checked out a new Asian-themed strip mall. We had noodles for dinner, and I got lots of snacks (pocky, crackers, and squid).

I think Surber made a mistake:
> When baby boomers retire, there will be a tax boom as we pay taxes on the money we socked away and earned in 401 Ks.
...but the money in 401ks comes tax free, if you take it in retirement age and style. So, unless people're actually earning MORE money than they made at the of their careers....

enemy forces?

I think Surber made a mistake:
> When baby boomers retire, there will be a tax boom as we pay taxes on the money we socked away and earned in 401 Ks.
...but the money in 401ks comes tax free, if you take it in retirement age and style.

NO mistake by Surber--that's NOT true, and I strongly urge you not to do your retirement planning on that basis. 401(k)'s are tax-deferred, not tax-exempt. Withdrawals are treated as ordinary income. OK, there's some Roth investability, but it doesn't cover but a small portion of the 401(k) market. In addition, gains in a 401(k) are treated as ordinary income at withdrawal, not as capital gains. And there's the SS income offsets as well.

Money into the economy is money, and generates taxes. It may not be taxed to YOU, but once in circulation it WILL generate tax revenues. Even Roth withdrawals create tax revenue--though of course Roth contributions are made with after-tax money in the first place.

Villain of the Week: Definitely William "The Troops Should Be Grateful" Arkin

Boneheads of the Week: The idiots who greenlighted that horribly executed ATHF promo. (And I love ATHF, BTW).

Runner up: Joe Biden. D'oh!

Super Bowl prediction: Colts 35, Bears 28.

:) good!!!