News Stories

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by aohige

That's why the city offered the coverage through separate fee, and this home owner declined the offer. He should have known exactly what that meant.

I realize that. I'm just puzzled why the county government doesn't just cut a deal with the city for fire protection and pass the cost along to the homeowners via the property tax. Putting the burden of contracting with the city on the individual homeowner makes no sense to me since one person's decision to decline the fee puts all his neighbors at risk. It's the usual problem of diffuse benefits and concentrated costs which government is well-designed to resolve.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I realize that. I'm just puzzled why the county government doesn't just cut a deal with the city for fire protection and pass the cost along to the homeowners via the property tax. Putting the burden of contracting with the city on the individual homeowner makes no sense to me since one person's decision to decline the fee puts all his neighbors at risk. It's the usual problem of diffuse benefits and concentrated costs which government is well-designed to resolve.

because that would be socialism and you can't have socialism in America.

from the interview that guy knew he had to pay a fee for fire service. My guess is he choose to buy in that area so he wouldn't have to pay as much property tax. he probably figure if there is a fire the fire dept would respond anyway.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Why isn't fire coverage just rolled into property tax rates? Unfortunately the TV coverage doesn't say.

Because the county voted against it.

[JMvS]

Hmm, I guess it's America. Around here it's save first, then send the bill if the guys have no coverage.

But this concerns essentially rescue operations for those idiots lost up in the mountain of in caves underground.

Fires are to be dealt with simply to not see them propagate.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Because the county voted against it.

I think that's silly, personally. It shouldn't be up for a vote (imo), for the aforementioned reason that fires can spread.

[JMvS]

Just saw this interview come out in a Swiss magazine.

I was at school with Kim Jong-Un in Bern (source: L'Illustré).

NB: the Google translation can be pretty awful sometimes.

Aside from that, in this video (French) that came recently on the Swiss television, there are some quite original and interesting peeks in present NK (mixed with a few pictures of the Swiss Parliament House, as the peoples which were asked for their impression following a trip are a Swiss National Councilor and a High Civil Servant).

The scenes in the Children's Palace definitely sent chills down my spine...

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by JMvS

Just saw this interview come out in a Swiss magazine.

I was at school with Kim Jong-Un in Bern (source: L'Illustré).

NB: the Google translation can be pretty awful sometimes.

Not surprising that you meet extraordinary people in your class or school. Currently I have lecture-mates whose parents turned up some interesting results on Google.

Seriously since he is a cook, I bet he will be kidnapped to cook for his best friend in the near future.

[Autumn Demon]

This fire incident is a good example of the failings of Libertarianism.

Three years ago, the homeowner did not pay the fee and the fire department put out a chimney fire for him. The homeowner claims he paid the $75 annual fee for the last two years, but forgot to pay it for the current year. This time, the same fire department stood by and watched his house burn down.

Originally Posted by Reason

The owner called 911 and offered to pay the fee and, later at the site of the fire, offered to pay the fire department whatever it would take to save his home. The firemen - part of a municipal force - refused because of rules preventing such action. They were on hand to protect the house of a neighbor who was up to date in terms of fees.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/06/le...ot-fulton-fire

Originally Posted by Kevin D. Williamson

Until a few years ago, [Fulton's fire department] would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...n-d-williamson

I agree that the fire department should not have put out the fire. The man did not live in the fire department's municipality, and there is no way of knowing on the scene of a fire if a person is able to pay for the full costs of putting out the fire. This highlights the need for government to force people to pay for things like fire protection insurance and health insurance. Until you look at the outrageous pensions public fire fighters receive...

I think the lesson here is, whatever the economic system, Americans will find a way to make it not work.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

This highlights the need for government to force people to pay for things like fire protection insurance and health insurance.

While I'm hardly a libertarian, there actually are "market forces" in play in cases like this that coerce people into doing the right thing. Anyone whose home is mortgaged will be required by the mortgagor to carry homeowners insurance, and the cost of the insurance will vary a lot depending on things like distance to a fire hydrant.

In the video a woman states that the home had been in their family for many years, which could well mean that the home was not mortgaged. As a result the owner may not have been carrying insurance either. Even if he were insured, I'm pretty sure his insurer would refuse to pay out on the grounds that the homeowner failed to take "due diligence" and pay the fee to the city.

[ChainLegacy]

I don't think that example can be used as a way to discredit libertarianism as a whole. It's not as if government loses its function in a libertarian system. It just depends whether you consider public safety, or in this case fire prevention and control a matter best handled by the government through taxation or private contracting. In this case it wasn't even a private contractor but a city government offering their services to citizens outside of their jurisdiction, which is quite different.

[Autumn Demon]

BE IT REMEMBERED, this date, the Court having ordered all present in the courtroom to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegience, and having found that Danny Lampley, Attorney at Law, failed and refused to do so, finds said Danny Lampley to be in criminal contempt of court.

Lawyer jailed for not reciting the pledge of allegiance.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I don't think that example can be used as a way to discredit libertarianism as a whole. It's not as if government loses its function in a libertarian system. It just depends whether you consider public safety, or in this case fire prevention and control a matter best handled by the government through taxation or private contracting. In this case it wasn't even a private contractor but a city government offering their services to citizens outside of their jurisdiction, which is quite different.

It's not a public/private question. It's about whether it should be left to the individuals whether they want fire protection (or other services) or not.

[SaintessHeart]

Obama kills foreclosure bill as fury mounts

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama killed proposed legislation on Thursday that struck at the heart of growing political rage over how banks have moved to evict struggling borrowers from their homes.

The bill, which would have made it more difficult for homeowners to challenge foreclosures, came under the spotlight this week as the furor grew over disclosures that some of the biggest U.S. mortgage processors filed false affidavits in thousands of foreclosure cases.

Obama sent the bill back to the House of Representatives for further discussion on how it would affect the foreclosure crisis, one of the most visible signs of the deep economic problems gripping the country.

The chorus of calls from political leaders for a suspension of foreclosures grew on Thursday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Representative Ed Towns, the Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, adding their voices.

The bill, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, cruised through the Senate last week with no public debate and could have shielded bank and mortgage processors from liability for foreclosure documents that were prepared improperly.

"We believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized," the White House communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, said in a blog posting.

In a development first reported by Reuters, the bill would have required courts to accept all out-of-state notarizations, including those stamped en masse by computers in a practice that critics say has been improperly used to expedite foreclosure orders.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is fighting a tough bid for reelection in Nevada, where foreclosure rates have been the highest in the nation, on Thursday called for the largest mortgage servicers to suspend foreclosures in Nevada.

And Towns, a New York Democrat, called for top mortgage lenders and banks to voluntarily halt all foreclosures in the country and asked New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate allegations of fraud and other possible criminal activity.

"Losing a home can be one of the most traumatic experiences faced by an American family. Anyone forced to go through this process should be treated fairly. Sadly, it appears this may not have been the case for some borrowers," Towns said in a statement.

So far, Ally Financial Inc's GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Bank of America have all announced that they are suspending some of their foreclosures to review whether they have been conducting them properly.

Wells Fargo has said that it is "confident" in its foreclosure paperwork, and Citigroup has also not announced plans to halt foreclosures despite increased pressure from state attorneys general and lawmakers in Washington.

Banks are expected to take over a record 1.2 million homes this year, up from about 1 million last year, according to real estate data company RealtyTrac Inc.

False notarizations figured in disclosures that GMAC, JPMorgan and other big mortgage processors filed false affidavits in thousands of cases, part of the wave of foreclosures that erupted in the wake of the financial and economic crisis.

The U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday it was probing reports the nation's top mortgage lenders improperly evicted struggling borrowers as growing numbers of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle demanded investigations.

The debate over foreclosure procedures comes just weeks before the November congressional elections with Obama's fellow Democrats braced for potentially big losses from voters frustrated by the slow economic recovery and punishingly high unemployment rates.

But while many householders may cheer efforts to get tough with banks, some experts say any blanket halt to foreclosures could risk further hobbling the economy as banks wonder whether they will ever claw back losses and the housing market grapples with by a mounting inventory of homes still likely to face foreclosure in future.

Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross said on Thursday the foreclosure debacle could slow the lending process, seen as key to pumping life back into the U.S. economy.

"I think it's more of a clogging of the system and introducing another note of uncertainty," Ross said at a Reuters summit on restructuring in New York.

MYSTERIOUS BILL

Obama's decision not to sign the bill capped a week which saw the legislation, passed by the House in April, suddenly pushed through the Senate Judiciary Committee and approved by the full Senate on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for the midterm election campaign.

Passage of the bill caught homeowners' advocates, including lawyers and some state officials, by surprise with some saying the timing seemed peculiar.

The bill had received almost no public attention but stirred controversy once the Senate's rapid passage of bill became public.

Congressional staffers said many lawmakers and White House officials initially didn't realize that the bill, which nominally deals only with notarizations, could have big impact on foreclosure cases.

Japan says to continue forex intervention

(Reuters) - Japan indicated on Friday that it would continue to intervene in foreign exchange markets when deemed necessary, on the eve of a Group of Seven meeting where tensions over competitive currency devaluation will be at the top of the agenda.

Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda also said that the intervention Japan conducted last month, its first in more than six years, was intended to stop excessive moves and was not a signal that Japan is prepared to conduct large-scale intervention to guide the yen to a specific level.

Global policymakers are at odds over the dollar's broad-based decline, China's reluctance to give in to U.S. demands to allow the yuan to rise and growing portfolio flows pushing up emerging-market currencies. Some warn that trade protectionism could soon follow if tensions are not eased.

"We are approaching a G7 meeting, but regardless of this, Japan will take firm measures, including intervention, when needed," Noda told reporters when asked about the yen's rise to a 15-year high on Thursday. "This is Japan's basic stance."

Against the yen, the dollar traded at 82.36 yen JPY=, not far from a 15-year low of 82.11 yen hit on Thursday.

Tensions have grown over competitive currency devaluation, which is set to be a focal point Group of Seven and International Monetary Fund meetings starting on Friday.

Japan intervened on September 15 by selling its currency for the first time in more than six years to stem its gains. The intervention did not reverse the trend of yen strength due on speculation the Federal Reserve will ease monetary policy further.

Whatever the Bank of Japan or the Diet does, it better boost the yen. I want to buy this before the pre-order ends :

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Whatever the Bank of Japan or the Diet does, it better boost the yen. I want to buy this before the pre-order ends :

Somehow I doubt the BoJ is going to base their economic policy on making K-on merchandise more affordable overseas.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Obama kills foreclosure bill as fury mounts

Obligatory Daily Show reference: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...10-naomi-watts

After Stewart's opening on the foreclosures bill, keep watching for Wyatt Cenac's piece in the second segment on the Mortgage Bankers Association.

[MrTerrorist]

Russian spy Chapman in surprise appearance at Baikonur

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Whatever the Bank of Japan or the Diet does, it better boost the yen. I want to buy this before the pre-order ends :

Maybe I did my math wrong. If the Yen gets boosted, won't that make the goods more expensive for oversea shoppers?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Somehow I doubt the BoJ is going to base their economic policy on making K-on merchandise more affordable overseas.

They had every reason to because this concerns the export of the cutest anime girl ever!

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Maybe I did my math wrong. If the Yen gets boosted, won't that make the goods more expensive for oversea shoppers?

Supposed an item costs 8000yen. And given that 80yen = US$1.00, it would cost US$100 excluding shipping.

If the yen is boosted to 100yen = US$1.00, it would cost US$80. You did your math wrong, or you got the wrong meaning of my words.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's not a public/private question. It's about whether it should be left to the individuals whether they want fire protection (or other services) or not.

True, not really sure what I was reading, lol. Well, even if you get as libertarian as possible I don't see an advantage in people being able to opt out of those services. Since it affects those around you and is thus an issue that transcends individual decision.

[ganbaru]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1749146/

Aren't they thinking too much of the Nobel prize?