Prof. Krugman VS Tim Geithner, To Whom will be right (part II)

Prof. Krugman VS Tim Geithner, To Whom will be right (part II).\r\n \r\n I hate to see Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ can even figure out a way to home deliver its newspaper to rural area, that NYT CANNOT! That worries me, in NYT almost every day it seems to me that the Columnists, in NYT write articles that aim at teaching other how to save the world. In realty they can not save my beloved (may be not his!) NYT from depression! How can make me believe their writing?\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n

Prof. Krugman VS Tim Geithner, To Whom will be right (part II). To my personal, humble opinion, the key parts of Legacy Loan and Legacy Security of Geithner’s Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) have the following critical points: 1. They are not zero-sum games, the Bank, Public, and Private investors they can be win, win, win situation at best. There will be no loss, loss, loss for Bank, Public and Private investors at worst situation. In game theory, the two legacy programs provide incentives for the participants, the most interesting part; there has a chance for win, win, win. For every party, it is worth to bet. 2. The two legacy programs all heavy correlate with the price of housing. 3. The housing price can be lower and higher in the future, however, house even in foreclosure has a price. That means the assets in either Legacy Loan or Legacy Security all has value, it never has zero value! 4. In residential mortgage loan, most rated AAA loan, 80% house owner still paying the mortgage. That is why Geithner did not use the word "Toxic" instead of "Legacy" in his plan. Now let me get a bit of detail of the Legacy Loan plan only: Sample Investment Under the Legacy Loans Program Step 1: If a bank has a pool of residential mortgages with $100 face value that it is seeking to divest, the bank would approach the FDIC. Step 2: The FDIC would determine, according to the above process, that they would be willing to leverage the pool at a 6-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio. Step 3: The pool would then be auctioned by the FDIC, with several private sector bidders submitting bids. The highest bid from the private sector – in this example, $84 – would be the winner and would form a Public-Private Investment Fund to purchase the pool of mortgages. Step 4: Of this $84 purchase price, the FDIC would provide guarantees for $72 of financing, leaving $12 of equity. Step 5: The Treasury would then provide 50% of the equity funding required on a side-by-side basis with the investor. In this example, Treasury would invest approximately $6, with the private investor contributing $6. Step 6: The private investor would then manage the servicing of the asset pool and the timing of its disposition on an ongoing basis — using asset managers approved and subject to oversight by the FDIC. (Quoted from Treasury white paper) You can see that that is why big Wall Street firms like Blackrock, Blackstone, Pimco they all excited about that. You just invest around $7 dollars, and you can control and manage a $100 worth asset. The most important part the Bank can sell the Legacy loan! In the future, if the estate market goes up or the Obama housing plan works or the "FOREIGNERS WHO BUY HOUSE CAN GET MULTIPLE US RE-ENTRY VISA AND TURN TO GREEN CARD" plan to be implemented in some foreclosure states, I am so sure will stabalize the housing market and reduce the rate of foreclosure. Then, win, win, and win the best situation for Bank, Public, and Private will appear. (Jimmy Huntington is the first one to lay up this plan in Bigthink on Jan 12, 2009, in his article "Creative Ideas That May Contribute The Success of Obama’s central planning". His suggestion: Special visa issued for foreigner, who can invest in the house market. For example, any one can afford to invest at least US$300,000, with a pass in security check; he or she can get a special visa to visit US multiple times within 5 yrs. After five year if she or he passes the security, they got the Green Card. If investors do not want the green card, they can still use the special visa another five year and keep the Green Card status, until they sell the house. It is a better plan than WSJ reported in Op-ed "Immigrants can help fix the housing bubble" by Richard LeFrak and Gary Shilling in March 17, 2009) Last but not least, even Geithner’s PPIP works, it does not means we can be 100% sure getting through this recession. We need jobs creations and the long term industrial innovation accompany Geithner’s PPIP to succeed. Is this kind of analysis is better than Prof. Krugman ‘s too early prediction: It almost surely will fail? I present, you decide! OH! One more wish! I wish Porf. Krugman, his Colleagues and staff of New York Times could figure out a plan which helps NYJ get through its recession or may be depression. If they are really smart enough and able enough! Can they? PS: I hate to see Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ can even figure out a way to home deliver its newspaper to rural area, that NYT CANNOT! That worries me, in NYT almost every day it seems to me that the Columnists, in NYT write articles that aim at teaching other how to save the world. In realty they can not save my beloved (may be not his!) NYT from depression! How can make me believe their writing?

Drill, Baby, Drill: What will we look for when we mine on Mars?

It's unlikely that there's anything on the planet that is worth the cost of shipping it back

Surprising Science
  • In the second season of National Geographic Channel's MARS (premiering tonight, 11/12/18,) privatized miners on the red planet clash with a colony of international scientists
  • Privatized mining on both Mars and the Moon is likely to occur in the next century
  • The cost of returning mined materials from Space to the Earth will probably be too high to create a self-sustaining industry, but the resources may have other uses at their origin points

Want to go to Mars? It will cost you. In 2016, SpaceX founder Elon Musk estimated that manned missions to the planet may cost approximately $10 billion per person. As with any expensive endeavor, it is inevitable that sufficient returns on investment will be needed in order to sustain human presence on Mars. So, what's underneath all that red dust?

Mining Technology reported in 2017 that "there are areas [on Mars], especially large igneous provinces, volcanoes and impact craters that hold significant potential for nickel, copper, iron, titanium, platinum group elements and more."

Were a SpaceX-like company to establish a commercial mining presence on the planet, digging up these materials will be sure to provoke a fraught debate over environmental preservation in space, Martian land rights, and the slew of microbial unknowns which Martian soil may bring.

In National Geographic Channel's genre-bending narrative-docuseries, MARS, (the second season premieres tonight, November 12th, 9 pm ET / 8 pm CT) this dynamic is explored as astronauts from an international scientific coalition go head-to-head with industrial miners looking to exploit the planet's resources.

Given the rate of consumption of minerals on Earth, there is plenty of reason to believe that there will be demand for such an operation.

"Almost all of the easily mined gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc, antimony, and phosphorus we can mine on Earth may be gone within one hundred years" writes Stephen Petranek, author of How We'll Live on Mars, which Nat Geo's MARS is based on. That grim scenario will require either a massive rethinking of how we consume metals on earth, or supplementation from another source.

Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, told Petranek that it's unlikely that even if all of Earth's metals were exhausted, it is unlikely that Martian materials could become an economically feasible supplement due to the high cost of fuel required to return the materials to Earth. "Anything transported with atoms would have to be incredibly valuable on a weight basis."

Actually, we've already done some of this kind of resource extraction. During NASA's Apollo missions to the Moon, astronauts used simple steel tools to collect about 842 pounds of moon rocks over six missions. Due to the high cost of those missions, the Moon rocks are now highly valuable on Earth.

Moon rock on display at US Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville, AL (Big Think/Matt Carlstrom)

In 1973, NASA valuated moon rocks at $50,800 per gram –– or over $300,000 today when adjusted for inflation. That figure doesn't reflect the value of the natural resources within the rock, but rather the cost of their extraction.

Assuming that Martian mining would be done with the purpose of bringing materials back to Earth, the cost of any materials mined from Mars would need to include both the cost of the extraction and the value of the materials themselves. Factoring in the price of fuel and the difficulties of returning a Martian lander to Earth, this figure may be entirely cost prohibitive.

What seems more likely, says Musk, is for the Martian resources to stay on the Red Planet to be used for construction and manufacturing within manned colonies, or to be used to support further mining missions of the mineral-rich asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

At the very least, mining on Mars has already produced great entertainment value on Earth: tune into Season 2 of MARS on National Geographic Channel.

Harvard scientists suggest 'Oumuamua is an alien device

It's an asteroid, it's a comet, it's actually a spacecraft?

(ESO/M. Kornmesser)
Surprising Science
  • 'Oumuamua is an oddly shaped, puzzling celestial object because it doesn't act like anything naturally occurring.
  • The issue? The unexpected way it accelerated near the Sun. Is this our first sign of extraterrestrials?
  • It's pronounced: oh MOO-uh MOO-uh.
Keep reading Show less

Study: The effects of online trolling on authors, publications

A study started out trying to see the effect of sexist attacks on women authors, but it found something deeper.

Surprising Science
  • It's well known that abusive comments online happen to women more than men
  • Such comments caused a "significant effect for the abusive comment on author credibility and intention to seek news from the author and outlet in the future"
  • Some news organizations already heavily moderate or even ban comments entirely; this should underscore that effort
Keep reading Show less