Good morning on this crisp but, so far, clear, Friday. I got somewhat side tracked yesterday with clearing out the last of the tomatoes and peppers. Today I want to clean out another container, finish emptying a couple of pots with herbs, and generally getting the patio ready for winter. The temperature this morning was about 36 degrees. I think that is the lowest since, maybe, early April. I had to come inside yesterday to put on a knitted vest because the wind was so cold. One of the weather people said she might have to put the possibility of snow into the forecast next weekend (Halloween, of course.) Everybody on their set groaned.

HuffingtonPost published this article today. Unemployment for 1+ million people will run out just in time for the Holidays and the push will be on to extend them once again. Of course, the argument for that extension is the fragile economy, specifically the absolutely crucial holiday retail season. I guess I am getting a bit jaded by the economic news. One question has been popping up whenever I read about extending unemployment benefits, how much public support Fannie and Freddie might need to stay afloat, the need for Federal stimulus monies for the states to maintain public payrolls and other such stories is--do you want a fast train wreck or a slow one? The issue of whether we will get a train wreck is long past. I think our leaders have opted for the slow train wreck but I am not so sure that was the wisest option. There is a certain wisdom in getting it over and done with.

Carrying on with the unemployment theme, I have been totally irritated with some of the latest coverage of the issue. MSNBC had a headline this morning (and, I think, yesterday) that proclaimed 'For Some, Jobless Benefits Trump A Job.' Yeah, it is nice they fudged a bit by saying 'for some.' But the implication is that a lot of jobless people are out there sitting on their backsides enjoying a life of leisure on what one talking head earlier this week on CNBC called 'our overly generous unemployment compensation.' The comments by the anchors yesterday reinforced that impression when they talked about the unemployed taking benefits 'instead' of looking for work. From my own experience during the one brief time I qualified for benefits, I spent a lot of time looking for work, sending out resumes and applications, preparing for the few interviews that materialized. I wasn't sitting on my ass. I sympathize totally with the one worker who noted that he was worse off for taking a job that paid less than either his former employer or his unemployment benefits because he found he couldn't stomach the job (after his employer insisted he harass an elderly couple who made the mistake of signing for their grandchild's student loan). When he left that job he had to reapply and found himself no longer eligible. I spent a bit longer at my next job and did get a higher wage and more hours than I had in my previous job (the one on which my unemployment was based) but it was a job I couldn't handle even after several attempts to adjust myself to it. The company made sure it looked like I had left entirely voluntarily and successfully challenged my application. In the end I was, like the worker in the story, worse off for having taken that job. But then, if I hadn't taken that job I might have wound up having my benefits cut off anyway since the pay was actually a bit more than I had been receiving before. The way our unemployment in this state is run pressures the unemployed worker to take work and the longer the worker is unemployed the more pressure is applied to make that worker take anything at any wage. I have thought about this since my very unpleasant experience and I have a question: which erodes your job skills more--being out of work or working in a job that doesn't use your skills? I have heard a lot of comment on the first but none on the second.

Rain at Rainy Day Thoughts has a link to that Pew poll from a couple of weeks ago that attempted to examine how religiously literate Americans were. I found it interesting for a couple of reasons. Atheists scored better by a couple of points than any religiously oriented group. Not all that surprising since they more than others would be most likely to need to defend their religious choice. But the averages were all abysmal. None scored more than 20 out of 32 questions correct. For the heck of it, Mom and I went through the questions just to see how hard the poll really was. We both answered all question correctly. We were unsure of only 3--those dealing with a couple of the Supreme Court decisions--but answered those correctly as well. What the poll really underscored was how abysmally ignorant so many Americans are. Rain's assessment is somewhat kinder than mine--it isn't so much a matter of being 'smarter' than Atheists but how interested we are in what inspires us and our fellows spiritually. Unfortunately, I don't think many of us are all that interested.

Good Thursday morning to you all. We have nice sunshine today though we are not supposed to reach the 70 we had yesterday. The weatherperson's prediction of cooler temps over the next week had his co-workers moaning. They aren't ready for the change. I have been delaying cleaning out the remaining plants in my containers. It just looks so bleak out there without something growing. I will leave the mums and marigolds until we get a killing frost. That will keep a bit of color for a bit longer.

I agree with you, Lois. About 25 years ago Target (and K-Mart) dropped their needlework and craft sections. I almost totally stopped shopping there. Why make a separate trip to one of those stores when Wal-mart had everything in one place. And then I did shop at Wal-mart a lot. Over the years we have become equally disenchanted with Wal-mart. We gradually realized that their business model (cheap trumps everything else) simply didn't work for us. All of the big box stores have stopped carrying items we normally bought and the items they carried in place of those items simply did not work as well for us. One stop shopping just doesn't get us what we need so we plan our shopping for maximum efficiency and keep an eye on what is available where and at what price. I noticed an ad on tv last night for the new 'fresh produce' sections at the remodeled 'local' Target. I put the local in quotes because the ad stressed that these were 'your local' Target stores. First, they aren't mine. Second, they are local only in the sense that they are in a given area. I doubt very much that Target's local ties go much deeper. Upshot--we are very selective about what we buy and where we buy it and price alone is never the primary consideration.

Good morning to everyone. We have been busy with come of our fall chores for the last couple of days. The car has had its oil change and the anti-freeze has been checked so it is ready for winter. All of the windows have their plastic coat on now. That went very quickly. When we first started doing that it took us four hours. This year we managed it in only two. We are debating just leaving the plastic up on two of the windows all year. Those windows are so hard to open and close it isn't worth it to fight with them. Anyway, we are almost ready for winter. I plan to take out the beets, tomatoes, and peppers today and tomorrow. I might cover the containers but that might be more trouble than it would be worth. The pressure of the plants and dirt has bowed the sides so the lids don't fit any more. Update on the cuttings I took--the lavender, sage, and basil are doing nicely. Only one of the stevia left. The longer it goes the more hopeful I am that I will get one plant to carry through the winter.

I found this Newsweek article that ties up some various stories I have been reading over the last couple of years. The Sita, Alaska opener didn't surprise me much. At the peak of the extreme drought in the Southeast last year, Georgia and other state governments were making noises about transporting water from the Great Lakes to their neck of the woods. States bordering the Lakes raised quite a howl. The point towards the end concerning the inelasticity of water demand is quite accurate and parallels the discussion we have been having here as our local utility has tried to raise the electric rates. The company claims that the increase will only amount to about 10% and they haven't been allowed a rate increase in the past decade. But consumer groups challenge that charging that the increase may be as much a 30% for the lower income consumer who doesn't qualify for the discounted prices of the bulk user. Do we really want predatory capitalism to rule our water resources?

And we should be asking that question rather urgently if the scenario presented in this MSNBC article is accurate in its predictions If you think that the prediction is merely extreme environmental scare tactics from a lunatic fringe, compare the first map projecting drought conditions between 2030 and 2039 with the last map showing the conditions for the last decade. We catch the news on a South Bend station every Saturday morning, when our normal stations carry fishing shows or infomercials, and they have been reporting dry conditions there that are threatening the corn crop. I have read reports from Kentucky which say that a large proportion of counties there are either 'dry' or in stage 1 and 2 drought. Some local areas have put water use restrictions in place. Some areas west of us got enough rain in the first three weeks of September that they exceeded the yearly average but October has been drier than normal. And our area got very little of that rain. I grew up in the area and I can't remember any time in my childhood when local officials urged people to conserve water as I have several times over the last decade.

As I started reading this article my skepticism meter was pegged at the high end. I read a lot of articles and blogs about economizing and simplifying. I have never been impressed with 'either/or' solutions and my first question at the beginning was 'does this really have to be framed as either I penny pinch or I concentrate on the big things issue?' Well, the author finally got to the notion of a middle path that advocates both but I thought it was a half-hearted, johnny-come-lately inclusion. The article was very unsatisfying in a number of ways. The penny pinching segment totally ignored the fact that, as we have found out here, cheap isn't always our friend. Cheap is no bargain when the quality of the product makes it unusable to any significant extent, makes it break or wear out long before a more expensive item, or requires double or triple the more expensive product to achieve the same end. Just to illustrate--we used to buy the cheapest dish soap available. It was one-third the price of the name brands. But we found that we were using three times as much (or more) to get the job done. That was no bargain and we went back to name brands on sale. Cheap, in this case, is not our friend. We have become much more discriminating in what buy and price is only one of the factors we consider. We haven't let the big things go either. After two years of unemployment (for me) we sold my car for scrap. It required far more maintenance that we could afford and it was the least reliable of the two we had. We held on to it on the expectation that I would need it when I got a new job. Once we recognized that that was a slim if not a when, it wasn't hard to economize. The point I have taken a long time getting to is that people need to realistically look at where their money goes and then decide if they need to make that expenditure and whether a cheaper item is as good for their purposes as a more expensive item. Unfortunately, our society has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer recognize what we need versus what we want and we assume that 'cheap is always our friend.' Most of us would be far more solvent if we break those two habits of thought.

I am back. We did our grocery shopping late this week because of our other chores. We decided to go to Target because our local Target just opened its 'fresh produce section' and expanded grocery. I would say that the reality did not live up to anticipation but we didn't really anticipate much. They did not add on to the store so the only way to expand the grocery section was to limit other areas. They don't have much to draw us in. We go there primarily for cat food--the canned Friskies is the cheapest in the area--and health and beauty--toothpaste etc. The bananas are $.30 cheaper than any others we have seen but they were also the greenest. Overall, few choices and many of the items we wanted just were not there. We think Target is catering to singles and couples who don't cook.

Howdy, all. Hope you are having a nice peaceful Sunday. We have sun and high 60s predicted today. According to the local weather person, our cooler temps are just a few degrees above 'normal.' And last October we didn't have one single day top 70. This year almost the entire first half did that. What a difference a year makes.

Because we didn't see any movies or other programing that didn't repulse us last night we turned on the History Channel. Don't misunderstand me--we often watch the History Channel for specific programs many of which are in hiatus now. But usually, on Saturday night, on some channel, often SyFy. Unfortunately slasher films don't do it and that was on tap last night. It was an absolutely wonderful three hours without a single political commercial. I can hardly wait until the election is over. I am absolutely depressed to think that we will get very little respite because the next Presidential cycle will probably start (officially) just after New Year.

Another interesting item from tv yesterday--usually I pay absolutely no attention to the 'financial advisors' on any channel. I don't really have much to 'invest' and I am highly skeptical of most of the advice anyway. But Suze Ormond had a brief spot that was interesting because some of what she reflects the current reality. Times are indeed tough in this economy. Many good jobs are gone, probably forever. Investments are chancy and can turn sour quickly. Interest rates on savings are so low that the saver might actually get a negative return on their savings. And that old standby, the single family home, isn't what it used to be. She actually suggested that people might be better off renting. What heresy!!!

Good Morning, everyone. The patio thermometer registered only 42 degrees this morning. The South Bend news this morning predicted lows in the high 20s and low 30s for late this coming week. We probably won't get that low. We are nearer Lake Michigan. But the season is definitely changing. I have delayed cleaning out the last tomatoes and peppers hoping they will ripen but I don't think I can delay much longer. Everything except the mums and marigolds will come out this week. Then I will spread the compost and put the cleared containers to bed for the winter. I did get a few more ripe cayennes this week. I gave them to our landlord's handyman when he came to fix our smoke detector. We already have at least 2 years' worth drying in the kitchen.

MSNBC linked to this Newsweek article which I thought was interesting. The deficit has become a somewhat hot issue this election cycle. Eleanor Clift asks why and provides an interesting answer. The deficit, she says, is an intellectual issue but the emotional issue that intersects is where that deficit money is spent. So far, for most ordinary Americans, it seems to have gone down a rathole. We have saved several institutions from bankruptcy but wonder whether those institutions should have been saved--especially when individuals in financial difficulties are given rocks instead of life preservers. And more especially when ordinary Americans have experienced serious cuts in their take home pay, if they still have a job, while executives at the 'saved' institutions are on schedule to get another round of obscene 'bonuses.'

Clift's key paragraph, to my mind, is this one:

"Republicans have cast themselves as the deficit reducers in this election, even though earlier this year, they blocked the creation of a fiscal commission that would have come up with proposals to reduce the deficit, which Congress would then have voted on. Obama then had to appoint such a commission, which will report in December. Our politics are so out of whack that Republicans routinely oppose with impunity what they once supported. The health-care plan is founded on Republican principles: a competitive private insurance market; an individual mandate, which Republicans used to be for; and cost-cutting measures like a super Medicare commission, which is not really a radical idea. But in tough economic times, people focus on themselves—seniors worry about Medicare cuts, and Tea Partiers don’t want their taxes used to help people who may be undeserving. "

Unfortunately, it looks like the voters are going to let the Republicans get away with their hypocrisy and we have degenerated into a bunch of squabbling factions arguing over who is 'worthy.'

I can only agree with the assessment that our politics has become totally dysfunctional. This article from the Quad City Times is further proof. When the reports came out that Social Security would get no increase for the second year in a row, I wondered how long it would be before someone would push for another 'temporary, one-time payment' instead. Not long. HuffingtonPost had a small blurb that Obama is going to push for it as well. The first link reports that Rep. Phil Hare wants to link the Social Security payment to passage of the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. Frankly, I don't see the equivalence here. The payment to seniors would amount to about $14 billion while the extension of the tax cuts would increase the deficit by more than $500 billion. I think both proposals should be dropped. I will give up the $250 and they should give up the tax cut.

Some of the coverage of what the media now calls 'Foreclosure-gate' makes me want to scream and swear a blue streak. So many of the talking heads give the bankers a carte blanche to blame anyone but themselves for the mess. I saw several episodes of that on CNBC over the last few days. I also saw several articles in which the bankers basically blame the 'unworthy' home buyers for getting mortgages they couldn't pay for to begin with. And these charges go unchallenged. Yes, some home buyers got mortgages they were not able to pay. But who the hell approved them for those mortgages? Who approved loans that did not verify income or job histories? The bankers and mortgage brokers did. And who was it that failed to properly convey the notes and mortgages into the securitization trusts? The bankers and mortgage brokers. And who was it who, on discovering that failure, resorted to forged paperwork and fraudulent affidavits? The bankers and mortgage brokers. They have compounded massive failures of common sense at the beginning of this mess with criminality on the back end. If they hadn't cut corners and ignored the 'technicalities' (read 'legalities') they would be fully entitled to foreclose now. But then, I have another question--given the fraud in the foreclosure end of the process, how much fraud was in the mortgage generation end?

Hi, everyone. We got a spit of rain yesterday. Not enough to do any real good. The cool weather continues. The cat is thoroughly disgusted because we won't leave the door open so he can come and go as he wants. He figures that if he has a fur coat we should also and the only reason we won't put it on is to spite him. Like most cats, he thinks the world revolves around him and, for the most part, he is right.

I linked to an article somewhere in the last couple of posts that referred to 'purple squirrels,' the practice now among manufacturing employers of combining jobs and writing a very specific job description which proves to be very hard to fill. Then I run across this story. Evidently not all employers are so picky. Banks and mortgage servicers were quite happy to hire anyone breathing to be 'foreclosure experts' so long as they would sign what they were told to sign when they were told to and not ask any questions. I guess if the need is great they can let anything slide--like ethics and law. Maybe, especially ethics and law.

Naked Capitalism posted an item today that asks a very good question--is the bank moratorium on foreclosure real or just PR? There is some convincing evidence that it is PR and the foreclosure steamroller continues on its merry way. Yves Smith makes a very good point in the middle of her comments. Some 75% of mortgages over the last few years were securitized and that is where most of the problems are because servicers and banks were sloppy about the legal requirements governing the securitization process primarily by failing to convey the notes properly. That leaves 25% of mortgages still held by the original lenders who have every right to foreclose on defaulting homeowners. The whole notion of a moratorium on all is ridiculously like hitting a fly with a shotgun--you aren't going to hit the intended target and you are going to do a whole lot of collateral damage. What I really, really, REALLY resent has been the notion just below the arguments by the banks and their supporters that fraud and other criminality should be given a pass because the 'fragile' real estate market can't stand another shock. I say let the courts and the however-many states attorneys general are now involved sort out the issues. How long will that take? Take a look at this piece also by Yves Smith. Also take particular note at the conclusion in the middle of her first block quote--U.S. property law has developed over the last couple of centuries to include multiple failsafes to make sure that only property on which there was a mortgage could be foreclosed on, that only the right property could be foreclosed on and that only defaulted mortgages could be foreclosed on. Unfortunately, the recent news stories demonstrated that all of those conditions have been violated repeatedly. The only way to by pass the failsafes is outright fraud.

Hello, again, everyone. Well, it is cooler today and overcast. Instead of the mid 70s we are supposed to have mid 60s, which is 'normal' for this time in October. The trees are starting to turn and some are quite pretty. But a large number have gone from green to bare with nothing in between. I hope the clouds drop some rain--it has been pretty dry here over the last month. That seems to be the pattern lately--dry, wet, dry, wet. I think the weather people said that this has been a wetter than normal year but the rain has all fallen in concentrated time periods. Several times we got the entire 'normal' amount of rain for a month in a couple of days. In a couple of reports some areas got an entire year's allotment in less than a week. Thankfully we didn't have the widespread flooding that occurred over the last couple of years--in areas where long time residents couldn't remember a flood.

I can give an interim report on the efforts to root some cuttings of the herbs. The stevia cuttings have been giving up their ghosts one at a time over the last week. Only one remains. Next year I will let some flower and try to collect the seeds. There is only one variety (so far) and it isn't a hybrid so I may get some good seed from any new plants next year. The sage, basil, and lavender are still doing nicely. I hope they continue to do so.

I had a thought as I read this MSNBC article this morning. I spent a good bit of time between 1980 and 2000 studying history, particularly U.S. history. I remember a couple of courses that dealt with the Great Depression and the various attempts various historians made to explain both its severity and length. A number of explanations have resurfaced during discussions of the Great Recession--trade imbalances, economic bubbles, over production, a credit drought. There is one that hasn't been mentioned but I think might be relevant. By 1930 the manufacturing sector had reached its peak as the dominant sector of the economy but was already showing signs of decline (similar to the decline of agriculture as manufacturing displaced it.) The consumer section was growing rapidly. Some economic historians postulated that this shift from a manufacturing economy to a consumer economy was a major factor in both the onset of the Depression and its severity because neither sector was strong enough to revive the economy on its own. Perhaps we are now seeing the inherent weakness of an economy based overwhelmingly on the service and consumer sectors. Ten years ago I started asking a very unsettling question--what happens to a consumer driven economy when the consumer can't consume in the heroic manner previously considered 'normal?' I think we have our answer. The question now is--what will the next economic reinvention look like?

Are you all relieved that the inflation rate is so low that Social Security recipients won't 'need' an increase in their (our since I am on Social Security) benefits for the second year in a row? The take a look at the lead section of Casey's Research this morning. How, you ask, can the price increases listed not be reflected in the official inflation rate? Because, the figures have been fudged. The government doesn't include such exotic things as food and fuel costs in the CPI. We, here, at our lowly location on the economic food chain have noted for some time now that everything we normally buy has increased in price. Sometimes the price increase has been hidden--as when the producers of a product decrease the weight or volume but charge almost the same price.

The news just gets worse for the mortgage service companies and the banks. We have watched as two or three banks suspended foreclosures in 23 states (those that require judicial review of foreclosures) to Band of America announcing a suspension covering all states to 30 states' attorneys general announcing fraud probes to (today) the announcement that all states are involved in the probe. Here is HuffingtonPost's take on the matter. And to think that those poor bankers were just getting ready to announce the happy news that they had made nearly record breaking profits and were going to pay billions out in bonuses (again).

emptywheel at Firedoglake has a good article on the foreclosure mess. And, as he points out, the problem isn't just a 'few' bad mortgages but systemic failures which undermines the trust that those who are trying to foreclose have the legal right to do so. And, if fraud is pervasive in the 23 states that require judicial review, what kind of fraud has been (is) present in the 27 states without such review? Emptywheel also poses some questions on trust and the rule of law which we should very seriously consider. And we should also question whether the banks are more value to society than the law. Right now they seem to say that they are and all too many of our political leaders seem inclined to agree with them.