Early Infatuation
My relationship with FB began with an initial addictive phase, kind of like getting your alumni magazine and looking up your class news—what are all those people I haven’t kept in touch with doing these days?
I, myself, never send in class updates. This is because for most of my life I hadn’t really “done” anything. And then, when I finally reached a point of my life where I had done one or two things, I felt like notifying people I hadn’t kept in touch with would be in rather bad taste--on par with the writers of The Obnoxious Annual Christmas Card.
Then followed a phase of relative disenchantment. After overcoming my initial hesitation about being in The Book, due to the fact that I’m not currently enrolled in high school or college, there came a period when The Book was discovered by many more people....
The inflation/devaluation of “friendship”
Not being a particularly socially-needy person, and someone who, throughout her life, has viewed friendship in terms of quality rather than quantity—many second-degree friend requests surprised me. If you have more than 400 Facebook “friends,” there is word for you: friendwhore.
One of my friends, who hesitated to join FB, used the following rationale—if you are my friend, chances are I’m already in touch with you. She’s right, but she's missing something.
The good? There are people in our lives that we have lost touch with, have interacted with on a limited basis or “second-degree” friends--with whom we may have a personal connection. We may not have the time or energy to call or email these people, but it’s nice to be able to keep in touch on a limited basis—thus the success of the Facebook portal approach and 140-word status update.
The bad? FB offers so many new opportunities for social awkwardness. My two FB etiquette moments and personal lows are
1) The friend request from somebody who not only WASN’T a friend in high school, but was really obnoxious and belittling back then, but now wants to sell you their investment “opportunities.”
2) Getting a friend request from somebody you considered a real friend, being excited about being back in touch with them, writing them and they never write back. You realize, so and so never really was your “friend” but just wants to offer you some portal into their life and up their friendwhore quotient.
Slippery slope to Twitterwhore?
Lisa Nova’s video offers a funny take on this tendency.
Now that I am dealing with many people, some of whom are not, strictly speaking my “friends,” won’t inundating them with the inane details of my daily life only confirm what I always suspected—that X (from high school or my circle of acquaintances) really does think I am a loser? And, shouldn’t I be above caring what X thinks of me in the first place?
The FB updates I see tend to fall in these broad categories (feel free to suggest more in comments): navel gazing, “Mom,” industry/field of interest updates, and Don’t you wish you were me/I have 140 words to convince you that a crumb of my daily life is more interesting than your entire existence.
I thought about my own updates and decided they tend to fall in the Mom and navel-gazing category—most likely because 1) I am psychologically predisposed toward navel-gazing 2) my “Mom” existence currently prevents me from doing much more than navel gazing.
Don’t You Wish You Were Me!!!
This category tends to comprise the majority of FB offenders. Now I cannot compete with Pretentious Git, who “is in Bali hanging with Bill (Gates) and Timothy (Geithner) solving the global financial crisis.” On the other hand, ZenMom, who “is enjoying a transcendent moment of motherhood” might particularly grate on my inadequacies/insecurities, since my particular experience of motherhood at that moment might be Nathalie Mason-Fleury “is up to her elbows in shite.”
Has moved beyond categorical statements
More recently, I simply appreciate Facebook for what it is—as much or little as you make it, superficiality, inanities, second-degree friends and all. Yesterday, I was scrolling through the “News” section and smiled to see that many of the people in Atlanta were writing about a thunderstorm. Now I’m Atlanta born and bred. There have been spring thunderstorms in Atlanta for as long as I can remember. There was something comforting about reading homey details such as “is happy that the storm has not delayed their flight” (yet…) or “is planning to celebrate the storm with New York strips and a bottle of Shiraz” As long as it doesn’t cause a power outage, there is nothing I love so much as a good gully washer. It feels like home. For a moment there, I felt connected.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
I receive my French citizenship
I dropped by the French consulate in Madrid today and picked up a sheaf of papers informing me that I have acquired French nationality. This included a welcome letter from President Nicolas Sarkozy "Madame, Mademoiselle, Monsieur..Vous êtes désormais citoyenne ou citoyen de notre pays," the Déclaration des droits de l'Homme (Declaration of the Rights of Man), extracts from the Constitution du 4 Octobre 1958, and a copy of La Marseillaise.
I suppose it's fashionable and convenient today to collect citizenships, but somehow I was touched. My maternal grandfather was Franco-American and grew up in France (as did my maternal grandmother). However, due to American politics immediately following the second World War, American naturalization required that he renounce his French citizenship, because of his service in the French army.
When I was a child, I first wanted to learn French because this was the language spoken by my mother's Irish-American/Colombian/French family. I was certain that only my failure to decipher the French language lay between me and exposure to many fascinating adult conversations and secrets. Every Sunday, my mother and her five siblings, their spouses and children were expected for a leisurely, alcohol-infused lunch, the kind with irreverent, salacious conversation, punctuated by multiple courses, ending with salad, cheeses, desert, coffee and brandy. My grandmother was an excellent cook--would whip up stacks of crêpes for Mardi Gras, baked her own bread, croissants and cakes, made her own jellies, candied fruits. She also cooked a lot of dishes that, to a McDonald's-loving American child, were frankly horrifying, such as frog legs, tongue, and bouillabaise.
By the time I was ten, I drank water mixed with wine at these lunches and sucked on sugar cubes dipped in coffee, afterward. While I didn't learn French until middle school, what I did learn, growing up with a large and boisterous extended family, was that you had better speak louder than everybody else or say something clever, if you wanted anybody to pay attention to you.
My mother's family owed much of their financial stability to my great-great grandfather, the child of Irish immigrant parents, who found success as the owner and operator of a string of bucket shops in New York City. Unfortunately, the only inclination his son, my great-grandfather, showed to follow in his father's footsteps was an affinity for drinking and gambling establishments. Other than that, he chiefly occupied himself spending his father's money. Just before the First World War broke out, he went on a European Tour. In Paris, he was introduced to and, soon after, married the daughter of a French count. This was my great-grandmother, whom I knew very well. She came from a family that had actively supported the monarchy (and been punished for this) during the French Revolution.
My great-grandfather eventually died an early death from alcoholism. Meanwhile, my grandfather grew up in Paris, living with his mother, his grandmother and his step-grandfather. Vacationing in Switzerland, my grandfather met and fell in love with my Colombian grandmother, who also grew up and lived in Paris. However, before they could get married, World War II had started. My grandfather was drafted into the French army, fought during the brief time the war lasted for France, then became a prisoner of war in various German camps.
My grandfather finally escaped, but the experience left him with lasting psychological scars--what would be described today as "post-traumatic stress disorder." After the war, my grandparents got married and moved to the US. My grandfather had ambivalent feelings about France, the War and the Occupation. I think he viewed the United States as a new start, a place distant from the painful experience of the war years.
From my grandfather's prisoner of war stories; to the great-grandmother, whose childhood memories included the black crêpe with which her family shrouded the windows of their home, every 14th of July to honor their Royalist forebearers put to death during the French Revolution; who, in later life, proudly sewed a line of red thread on her few formal dresses to commemorate the Légion d'Honneur she was awarded for her work in the Resistance; the very foreign-ness of my French-raised maternal grandparents to me, as a child growing up in Atlanta, Georgia in the 70s--a jumble of personal associations accompany this new, official sanction of the French part of my identity -- and, finally, the thought that, in my marriage to a Frenchman, whom I brought back to my hometown, and, our formation of a family and a company together, I may have closed the circle.
I suppose it's fashionable and convenient today to collect citizenships, but somehow I was touched. My maternal grandfather was Franco-American and grew up in France (as did my maternal grandmother). However, due to American politics immediately following the second World War, American naturalization required that he renounce his French citizenship, because of his service in the French army.
When I was a child, I first wanted to learn French because this was the language spoken by my mother's Irish-American/Colombian/French family. I was certain that only my failure to decipher the French language lay between me and exposure to many fascinating adult conversations and secrets. Every Sunday, my mother and her five siblings, their spouses and children were expected for a leisurely, alcohol-infused lunch, the kind with irreverent, salacious conversation, punctuated by multiple courses, ending with salad, cheeses, desert, coffee and brandy. My grandmother was an excellent cook--would whip up stacks of crêpes for Mardi Gras, baked her own bread, croissants and cakes, made her own jellies, candied fruits. She also cooked a lot of dishes that, to a McDonald's-loving American child, were frankly horrifying, such as frog legs, tongue, and bouillabaise.
By the time I was ten, I drank water mixed with wine at these lunches and sucked on sugar cubes dipped in coffee, afterward. While I didn't learn French until middle school, what I did learn, growing up with a large and boisterous extended family, was that you had better speak louder than everybody else or say something clever, if you wanted anybody to pay attention to you.
My mother's family owed much of their financial stability to my great-great grandfather, the child of Irish immigrant parents, who found success as the owner and operator of a string of bucket shops in New York City. Unfortunately, the only inclination his son, my great-grandfather, showed to follow in his father's footsteps was an affinity for drinking and gambling establishments. Other than that, he chiefly occupied himself spending his father's money. Just before the First World War broke out, he went on a European Tour. In Paris, he was introduced to and, soon after, married the daughter of a French count. This was my great-grandmother, whom I knew very well. She came from a family that had actively supported the monarchy (and been punished for this) during the French Revolution.
My great-grandfather eventually died an early death from alcoholism. Meanwhile, my grandfather grew up in Paris, living with his mother, his grandmother and his step-grandfather. Vacationing in Switzerland, my grandfather met and fell in love with my Colombian grandmother, who also grew up and lived in Paris. However, before they could get married, World War II had started. My grandfather was drafted into the French army, fought during the brief time the war lasted for France, then became a prisoner of war in various German camps.
My grandfather finally escaped, but the experience left him with lasting psychological scars--what would be described today as "post-traumatic stress disorder." After the war, my grandparents got married and moved to the US. My grandfather had ambivalent feelings about France, the War and the Occupation. I think he viewed the United States as a new start, a place distant from the painful experience of the war years.
From my grandfather's prisoner of war stories; to the great-grandmother, whose childhood memories included the black crêpe with which her family shrouded the windows of their home, every 14th of July to honor their Royalist forebearers put to death during the French Revolution; who, in later life, proudly sewed a line of red thread on her few formal dresses to commemorate the Légion d'Honneur she was awarded for her work in the Resistance; the very foreign-ness of my French-raised maternal grandparents to me, as a child growing up in Atlanta, Georgia in the 70s--a jumble of personal associations accompany this new, official sanction of the French part of my identity -- and, finally, the thought that, in my marriage to a Frenchman, whom I brought back to my hometown, and, our formation of a family and a company together, I may have closed the circle.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Oracle buy SUN, WTF!! part deux
over dinner I was talking with Nathalie and some further thoughts on the deal emerge
1/ DUH! the big diamond in the rough is of course MySQL. How could this not jump at me! Larry E must have freaked out at the thought of IBM getting its hands on mySQL. This way Larry gets to nip that one in the bud... I always thought he would pull this maneuver on RedHat to get JBoss. Of course the fate of our dolphin friends at SUN is all of the sudden very iffy. Something tells me Larry will try to make something of it and rank and file within Oracle will kill it quickly... to be followed.
2/ Oracle may actually be good for SUN. SUN was always a good company whose potential was not realized by poor middle management. By middle management I mean directors and low level VPs. I have never seen such a bunch of time-serving political hacks. Sun was full of petty fights over nothing by people that had nothing better to do, because, let's face it, SUN was a company on auto-pilot for awhile.
3/ Java. I don't expect anything to happen to java. Java has moved in maintenance mode a long time ago and being part of a healthy company like Oracle can only help.
4/ Hardware: serious headwinds? In a age where the emerging trend is $300 PCs are we going to see $3000 servers replacing $30,000 boxes? Oracle is new to this game. This comforts the view of "acquisition for maintenance stream aggregation".
Interesting acquisition...
1/ DUH! the big diamond in the rough is of course MySQL. How could this not jump at me! Larry E must have freaked out at the thought of IBM getting its hands on mySQL. This way Larry gets to nip that one in the bud... I always thought he would pull this maneuver on RedHat to get JBoss. Of course the fate of our dolphin friends at SUN is all of the sudden very iffy. Something tells me Larry will try to make something of it and rank and file within Oracle will kill it quickly... to be followed.
2/ Oracle may actually be good for SUN. SUN was always a good company whose potential was not realized by poor middle management. By middle management I mean directors and low level VPs. I have never seen such a bunch of time-serving political hacks. Sun was full of petty fights over nothing by people that had nothing better to do, because, let's face it, SUN was a company on auto-pilot for awhile.
3/ Java. I don't expect anything to happen to java. Java has moved in maintenance mode a long time ago and being part of a healthy company like Oracle can only help.
4/ Hardware: serious headwinds? In a age where the emerging trend is $300 PCs are we going to see $3000 servers replacing $30,000 boxes? Oracle is new to this game. This comforts the view of "acquisition for maintenance stream aggregation".
Interesting acquisition...
Oracle buys SUN, WTF!!
This afternoon when I read about the the Oracle acquisition of SUN my first reaction was WTF...
It doesn't make much sense to me, SUN is mostly a hardware company with software delusions. Oracle is the reverse, a software company with hardware delusions (remember the net-station?). And now they are saddled with a legacy hardware business...IBM or HP, already hardware companies made a lot more sense.
But of course this is not about strategy it is about
1/ financial. SUN IS a legacy business that can be milked. Expect Oracle to fire a ton of people to run this from a maintenance standpoint. Oracle is becoming the king of maintenance streams and it seems they will add whatever in the mix. What will be interesting is what they do with the research in hardware and software. They can easily kill both expenses (with negative consequences for java) and move it to maintenance mode for the next 10 years. On the positive side there is an historic opportunity to really get in the UNIX business, what with LarryE and his delusions of unbreakable Linux
2/ LarryE. Of course when the big ego of LarryE is involved, shit does not need to make sense as long as it pleases him. This is in the wake of IBM trying to buy them and it may be a bit of "one up manship" on his part. I wouldn't look for too much sense when Larry is involved.
And even if it doesn't make much "sense" it may work still, Oracle is actually good at integrating companies. I think java will be fine under Oracle stewardship. Like I said before I have very fond memories of Sun. I hope it goes well. I would have preferred HP but there it is.
It doesn't make much sense to me, SUN is mostly a hardware company with software delusions. Oracle is the reverse, a software company with hardware delusions (remember the net-station?). And now they are saddled with a legacy hardware business...IBM or HP, already hardware companies made a lot more sense.
But of course this is not about strategy it is about
1/ financial. SUN IS a legacy business that can be milked. Expect Oracle to fire a ton of people to run this from a maintenance standpoint. Oracle is becoming the king of maintenance streams and it seems they will add whatever in the mix. What will be interesting is what they do with the research in hardware and software. They can easily kill both expenses (with negative consequences for java) and move it to maintenance mode for the next 10 years. On the positive side there is an historic opportunity to really get in the UNIX business, what with LarryE and his delusions of unbreakable Linux
2/ LarryE. Of course when the big ego of LarryE is involved, shit does not need to make sense as long as it pleases him. This is in the wake of IBM trying to buy them and it may be a bit of "one up manship" on his part. I wouldn't look for too much sense when Larry is involved.
And even if it doesn't make much "sense" it may work still, Oracle is actually good at integrating companies. I think java will be fine under Oracle stewardship. Like I said before I have very fond memories of Sun. I hope it goes well. I would have preferred HP but there it is.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Financial Crisis For Dummies:
Securitization
Securitization, the art of turning bank loans into cash.
Glass-Steagall
Let's start with Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall was depression era legislation enacted in 1933 and repealed under Clinton. It had 2 aspects, one being separation of banking activities, which does not really concern us here, the second was establishing FDIC and
LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF DEBT BANKS COULD HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR RESERVES.
The classic money multiplier model derives from this. There is a ratio (set at around 12) between reserves and credit-money. This states that if a bank as $1 in reserve it can emit $12 of credit money. This IN THEORY limited the amount of credit money in the system. In practice however, securitization turned it into a lie.
Securitization
Imagine you take a mortgage out with a bank. Let's say $500,000. Under Glass-Steagall that meant that the bank needed to have roughly $45,000 in reserves to match that debt on their books. If they hold onto the loan it means they may not be able to issue more loans. This would limit the amount of credit money banks could issue. But the bank can "securitize" the debt and sell it. The banks would create a product based on the debt (see CDO below) and SELL IT TO THE PUBLIC. The public would then pay $500,000 for the product. So the bank GETS CASH and can LEND AGAIN. This of course leads to an explosive exponential growth in debt money.
By turning loans into cash, Securitization bypassed legislation and in fact created vasts amounts of credit money.
Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO)
The way Securitization was achieved was through the creation of a product called CDOs. Most investors, many mutual funds, cannot invest in securities not rated AAA. A AAA security is an obligation that will not lose say more than 3% to defaults, it is then considered "safe". But let's say you have a bunch of sub-prime mortgage that will default at 30%, how do you sell that to mutual funds? The answer is that you create a CDO, which is a company that holds these mortgages, emits equity paper and obligations and takes the cash flows from these crap assets and directs them in priority to the senior paper. If your mortgage default at 30% it means you can pay 70% full and 30% will suck. Roughly speaking your CDO can emit 70% paper that can be rated AAA and the rest will be rated "complete junk". Got it? It is trivial to see. What happens with the toxic assets emitted by CDOs? it was recycled in "synthetic CDOs" where you take the toxic stuff, mix it again and emit new paper. Voila! from subprime you have created AAA paper up to 2 iterations. This paper was GOBBLED UP by investors around the world seeking yield above and beyond the depressed FED rates.
Special Investment Vehicles, SIV
The banks were busy running this machine and taking fees. But some of the toxic assets could not be sold, meaning the by-product of securitization was truly nuclear waste. How would they dispose of it? They would create SIV's that would buy the Toxic CDO tranches. These SIV's were considered "off balance sheet" in many cases. From an accounting standpoint, at least in the US of A, if you do not own more than a certain amount of the equity of a company (around 30%) you do not need to include its reporting in yours.
Conflict of Interest all along the chain
One feature of this setup, which quickly turned into a problem, is that the origination of the loan is separate from the holding. Why is this a problem? simply put, those that originated the loan in subprime, didn't give a rats ass about its quality since they would not hold the debt, they would get paid out. They thought this was OK since the machine would create CDO tranches that would legitimately get rated AAA. Originate to Securitize was the beginning of a slippery slope of "who cares". The system was ripe with fraud. The rating agencies didn't have the full information, blindly believed the assumptions that went into the CDO creation and rated these AAA and got paid for doing so. At the end of the line, investors wanted to believe in AAA ratings and snapped those up. Due diligence, the art of knowing what you are buying, had completely disappeared from the manufacturing line. This lack of lending standards plays an important role in the breakdown (Minsky narrative of debt explosion to be published).
The net result: credit money EVERYWHERE
So what we have just seen was an amazing machine to create and distribute credit-money while bypassing legislation aimed at limiting the amount of credit money in the system. What we have seen is that the simple mathematics of securitization in fact quickly demultiplied the amount of credit money distributed in the system. Legislation was trying to limit the amount of credit money in the system. Securitization had CREATED vast amounts of debt and DISTRIBUTED it everywhere.
Legislation needs to capture Securitization
The problem, technically speaking, with the legislation was that it was worded in terms of BALANCE SHEETS. But banks no longer held the bigger part of these loans. The public did. Securitization made sure those assets moved OFF the balance sheets and turned into cash which further enabled the banks to emit more debt. The system was absorbing this debt, way beyond what the money multiplier level (12x->40x) considered safe. Legislation that wants to capture total amount of credit money in the economy needs to encompass THE FLOW of credit money (Securitization) and not just the partial amount on bank balance sheets since in fact credit had moved off the balance sheets and was everywhere in society.
Greenspan's defense, bring back Glass-Steagall
To test your understanding of the above, read this. Krugman speaks out against Securitization: note I do NOT agree with his conclusion, Securitization should be revived but LEGISLATED, not just left for dead. For a more advanced read, you may try this. A bit more technical, it is Greenspan's own defense. That the FED had lost control of the money supply, it was Securitization.
Glass-Steagall
Let's start with Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall was depression era legislation enacted in 1933 and repealed under Clinton. It had 2 aspects, one being separation of banking activities, which does not really concern us here, the second was establishing FDIC and
LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF DEBT BANKS COULD HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR RESERVES.
The classic money multiplier model derives from this. There is a ratio (set at around 12) between reserves and credit-money. This states that if a bank as $1 in reserve it can emit $12 of credit money. This IN THEORY limited the amount of credit money in the system. In practice however, securitization turned it into a lie.
Securitization
Imagine you take a mortgage out with a bank. Let's say $500,000. Under Glass-Steagall that meant that the bank needed to have roughly $45,000 in reserves to match that debt on their books. If they hold onto the loan it means they may not be able to issue more loans. This would limit the amount of credit money banks could issue. But the bank can "securitize" the debt and sell it. The banks would create a product based on the debt (see CDO below) and SELL IT TO THE PUBLIC. The public would then pay $500,000 for the product. So the bank GETS CASH and can LEND AGAIN. This of course leads to an explosive exponential growth in debt money.
By turning loans into cash, Securitization bypassed legislation and in fact created vasts amounts of credit money.
Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO)
The way Securitization was achieved was through the creation of a product called CDOs. Most investors, many mutual funds, cannot invest in securities not rated AAA. A AAA security is an obligation that will not lose say more than 3% to defaults, it is then considered "safe". But let's say you have a bunch of sub-prime mortgage that will default at 30%, how do you sell that to mutual funds? The answer is that you create a CDO, which is a company that holds these mortgages, emits equity paper and obligations and takes the cash flows from these crap assets and directs them in priority to the senior paper. If your mortgage default at 30% it means you can pay 70% full and 30% will suck. Roughly speaking your CDO can emit 70% paper that can be rated AAA and the rest will be rated "complete junk". Got it? It is trivial to see. What happens with the toxic assets emitted by CDOs? it was recycled in "synthetic CDOs" where you take the toxic stuff, mix it again and emit new paper. Voila! from subprime you have created AAA paper up to 2 iterations. This paper was GOBBLED UP by investors around the world seeking yield above and beyond the depressed FED rates.
Special Investment Vehicles, SIV
The banks were busy running this machine and taking fees. But some of the toxic assets could not be sold, meaning the by-product of securitization was truly nuclear waste. How would they dispose of it? They would create SIV's that would buy the Toxic CDO tranches. These SIV's were considered "off balance sheet" in many cases. From an accounting standpoint, at least in the US of A, if you do not own more than a certain amount of the equity of a company (around 30%) you do not need to include its reporting in yours.
Conflict of Interest all along the chain
One feature of this setup, which quickly turned into a problem, is that the origination of the loan is separate from the holding. Why is this a problem? simply put, those that originated the loan in subprime, didn't give a rats ass about its quality since they would not hold the debt, they would get paid out. They thought this was OK since the machine would create CDO tranches that would legitimately get rated AAA. Originate to Securitize was the beginning of a slippery slope of "who cares". The system was ripe with fraud. The rating agencies didn't have the full information, blindly believed the assumptions that went into the CDO creation and rated these AAA and got paid for doing so. At the end of the line, investors wanted to believe in AAA ratings and snapped those up. Due diligence, the art of knowing what you are buying, had completely disappeared from the manufacturing line. This lack of lending standards plays an important role in the breakdown (Minsky narrative of debt explosion to be published).
The net result: credit money EVERYWHERE
So what we have just seen was an amazing machine to create and distribute credit-money while bypassing legislation aimed at limiting the amount of credit money in the system. What we have seen is that the simple mathematics of securitization in fact quickly demultiplied the amount of credit money distributed in the system. Legislation was trying to limit the amount of credit money in the system. Securitization had CREATED vast amounts of debt and DISTRIBUTED it everywhere.
Legislation needs to capture Securitization
The problem, technically speaking, with the legislation was that it was worded in terms of BALANCE SHEETS. But banks no longer held the bigger part of these loans. The public did. Securitization made sure those assets moved OFF the balance sheets and turned into cash which further enabled the banks to emit more debt. The system was absorbing this debt, way beyond what the money multiplier level (12x->40x) considered safe. Legislation that wants to capture total amount of credit money in the economy needs to encompass THE FLOW of credit money (Securitization) and not just the partial amount on bank balance sheets since in fact credit had moved off the balance sheets and was everywhere in society.
Greenspan's defense, bring back Glass-Steagall
To test your understanding of the above, read this. Krugman speaks out against Securitization: note I do NOT agree with his conclusion, Securitization should be revived but LEGISLATED, not just left for dead. For a more advanced read, you may try this. A bit more technical, it is Greenspan's own defense. That the FED had lost control of the money supply, it was Securitization.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Madrid blog-Response to Comments
Angela Jonquera--if you had actually read the previous entry you would have seen that it is prefaced with "you may not necessarily" and, in the comments, I say that my neighbors' behavior is not characteristic of my entire experience living in Spain or interaction with Spanish people, which, on the whole, has been very positive.
I have exactly no idea who you are besides somebody who makes extremely rude and ignorant generalizations about Americans.
"the USA culture and citizens have, historically, shown arrogance, violence and bias against other peoples and cultures, specially those that are not from Anglo-Saxon or western European Aryan origin."
First of all an "American" is most likely a hybrid of many different ethnic and cultural origins... I will not deny that there is and has been racism in the US or that the US has abused its position of power in the past century and more recently. However, with all its failings, of which I am not ignorant, I am very proud of my people and my country. The US is the first modern democratic nation. I am proud of the US participation in WWI and WWII. I am proud of the Marshall plan, and I am proud of my country's scientific, industrial and technological accomplishments, not to mention the fact that the US is still probably one of the easiest places where you can come from nowhere and work and make something of yourself. No, this doesn't happen for everybody, but it's a generally more open, fluid and dynamic society than you depict. If you had ever spent any time in Atlanta, where I am from, you would see a vibrant black middle class and upper middle class.
If America is as racist and xenophobic as you claim, where do you think Obama came from and who do you think voted for him? Do you really think the Spanish would have elected a "negrito" or a "moro mierda"?
Your generalizations and "stfu" are more rude than any comment so far on this blog. If you are Spanish, as your name suggests, before writing in so critical and judgmental a manner about other nations, it might behoove you to visit places like the museum of torture in Toledo and see what kind of treatment was reserved for people who didn't fully accept the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic faith. My knowledge of my own country's history allows me to draw a parallel between the Salem witch hunts and the Inquisition, where a large portion of the denunciations had nothing whatsoever to do with witchcraft or heresy, but were rather motivated by the desire to expropriate one's neighbor's property!
I would read a little more about the Spanish conquest and reign in South America. I would go to the Prado and take a look at some of Goya's paintings or more recently Picasso's Guernica. I would watch Spanish movies like "Goya's Ghosts" and or "El laberinto del fauno." Francisco Franco learned everything he knew about total warfare against the civilian population, with the Spanish army in Morocco, but nobody was the least bit shocked until he came back to Spain and used the same tactics against his own people.
If Spain is such a wonderful family-friendly country as you describe, why is that, until recently, the birth rate was so low here? According to the Spanish mothers I know, this is because its not easy to raise children when you leave the house at 8h30am and come home by 10pm. I am not saying that the US has a better overall record on foreign or domestic policy, but I really would take a look in the mirror before lecturing other people on their short-comings.
I am writing about a negative experience with neighbors in a building of exactly 12 units, where only one couple has bothered to introduce themselves to us in the 8 months we lived in the building, not to mention a family with a girl the exact same age as my daughter; people who have never communicated with us in any civil or courteous fashion but only sent us aggressive litigious notices.
My children have to get up at 7 am to catch their school bus and they don't make much more noise than any other children their age. They just happen to be four children and all the other children in the building are adolescents, with one exception.
I am perfectly willing to make allowances for the culture where I live, but this begins with a certain amount of tolerance for others and civilized dialogue, which is the minimum requirement for living in a communal situation like an apartment building. On the contrary, it is people who are intolerant and unwilling to enter in civilized conversation with their neighbors who ought to seek more isolated living arrangements.
You don't know me, you don't know my children and you don't know my neighbors (or if you do--you might as well come out and say so). The irony is that I am living in Spain by choice because there are many things I really like about this country and I want my children to grow up with the knowledge of a broader world, different languages and people--and not go around like ignorant bigots. I can guarantee you I know more about Spain's history and culture than you do about the US. Thankfully, I have met many lovely Spanish people, so I am not tempted to judge the many, by the actions and communications of a few rude, ignorant and bitter exceptions.
I have exactly no idea who you are besides somebody who makes extremely rude and ignorant generalizations about Americans.
"the USA culture and citizens have, historically, shown arrogance, violence and bias against other peoples and cultures, specially those that are not from Anglo-Saxon or western European Aryan origin."
First of all an "American" is most likely a hybrid of many different ethnic and cultural origins... I will not deny that there is and has been racism in the US or that the US has abused its position of power in the past century and more recently. However, with all its failings, of which I am not ignorant, I am very proud of my people and my country. The US is the first modern democratic nation. I am proud of the US participation in WWI and WWII. I am proud of the Marshall plan, and I am proud of my country's scientific, industrial and technological accomplishments, not to mention the fact that the US is still probably one of the easiest places where you can come from nowhere and work and make something of yourself. No, this doesn't happen for everybody, but it's a generally more open, fluid and dynamic society than you depict. If you had ever spent any time in Atlanta, where I am from, you would see a vibrant black middle class and upper middle class.
If America is as racist and xenophobic as you claim, where do you think Obama came from and who do you think voted for him? Do you really think the Spanish would have elected a "negrito" or a "moro mierda"?
Your generalizations and "stfu" are more rude than any comment so far on this blog. If you are Spanish, as your name suggests, before writing in so critical and judgmental a manner about other nations, it might behoove you to visit places like the museum of torture in Toledo and see what kind of treatment was reserved for people who didn't fully accept the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic faith. My knowledge of my own country's history allows me to draw a parallel between the Salem witch hunts and the Inquisition, where a large portion of the denunciations had nothing whatsoever to do with witchcraft or heresy, but were rather motivated by the desire to expropriate one's neighbor's property!
I would read a little more about the Spanish conquest and reign in South America. I would go to the Prado and take a look at some of Goya's paintings or more recently Picasso's Guernica. I would watch Spanish movies like "Goya's Ghosts" and or "El laberinto del fauno." Francisco Franco learned everything he knew about total warfare against the civilian population, with the Spanish army in Morocco, but nobody was the least bit shocked until he came back to Spain and used the same tactics against his own people.
If Spain is such a wonderful family-friendly country as you describe, why is that, until recently, the birth rate was so low here? According to the Spanish mothers I know, this is because its not easy to raise children when you leave the house at 8h30am and come home by 10pm. I am not saying that the US has a better overall record on foreign or domestic policy, but I really would take a look in the mirror before lecturing other people on their short-comings.
I am writing about a negative experience with neighbors in a building of exactly 12 units, where only one couple has bothered to introduce themselves to us in the 8 months we lived in the building, not to mention a family with a girl the exact same age as my daughter; people who have never communicated with us in any civil or courteous fashion but only sent us aggressive litigious notices.
My children have to get up at 7 am to catch their school bus and they don't make much more noise than any other children their age. They just happen to be four children and all the other children in the building are adolescents, with one exception.
I am perfectly willing to make allowances for the culture where I live, but this begins with a certain amount of tolerance for others and civilized dialogue, which is the minimum requirement for living in a communal situation like an apartment building. On the contrary, it is people who are intolerant and unwilling to enter in civilized conversation with their neighbors who ought to seek more isolated living arrangements.
You don't know me, you don't know my children and you don't know my neighbors (or if you do--you might as well come out and say so). The irony is that I am living in Spain by choice because there are many things I really like about this country and I want my children to grow up with the knowledge of a broader world, different languages and people--and not go around like ignorant bigots. I can guarantee you I know more about Spain's history and culture than you do about the US. Thankfully, I have met many lovely Spanish people, so I am not tempted to judge the many, by the actions and communications of a few rude, ignorant and bitter exceptions.
The Financial Crisis for Dummies:
Inflation and Deflation, monetary policy
This is the second post in the "Crisis for Dummies" series. One of the difficulties in giving a comprehensive narrative is that the nature of the beast is to have many variables that play together. It is easy to describe each connection and relation, the logic is not that complicated (housing prices go down, people sell) but it is the number of such agents and relationship that can boggle the human brain. I am working with a professor in Sydney on a mathematical model and will share it soon.
Meanwhile the human narrative must put the spotlight on a aspect of the crisis and unravel the relationships, the best I can do in "for dummies" is to use examples that everyone can grasp instead of throwing out 3 letter acronyms that scare little girls away. But do not lose sight of the fact that it is only when all these variables are at play at the same time, that the real story unfolds.
There are however variables and agents that play more important roles than others, they are central to the drama. Today I focus on "money", or rather credit money, monetary levels and their impact on price levels. Inflation and Deflation.
It came as a surprise to me when I was 38 years old and my brother told me "you realize credit money is money and increases the monetary mass". Assume there is a house on the market the ask is 500k. Assume there are 2 buyers you and them, A and B. Assume now that the amount of CASH that you hold doubles both for A and B. That Cash is CREDIT and you have access to it. If you start with 50K and can borrow up to 700k what is the price going to be? 750k. Because credit created CASH IN THE SYSTEM, the price level goes up. This is MONETARY ASSET INFLATION.
Assume the reverse for credit. Credit is tight. You have 50K cash assets and you can borrow only 300k. The price of the house will be 350k. THIS IS MONETARY ASSET DEFLATION.
The amount of CREDIT-MONEY in the system (monetary levels) directly affects price level. This is one of the tenets of modern economics:
What about CPI?
You may ask "but wait, the government CPI index has shown very benign inflation for the past 20 years, while the credit has expanded, what gives?"
Be careful that CPI, the index of consumption prices that governments use does not take into account asset prices. Housing and stocks for example may inflate in a monetary bubble, it will not be captured as "inflation" by the CPI index but rather be touted as "growth". It is mostly monetary growth. So while official statistics were showing low CPI due to the Chinese influence, a more comprehensive CPI measure would include the cost of housing in full, the cost of stock assets, and would have shown a HUGE BUBBLE. ASSET PRICES are subject to monetary inflation and deflation.
Inflation in bad, Deflation is worse
Inflation is bad, at least a lot of it is bad. We all know that from recent memory and history. But Deflation is worse, why? because if nominal prices are going down then you are better off holding onto cash and spending later. That house you want to buy will be cheaper in a year, so wait! The problem with this is that economic activity slows down dramatically and the "velocity of money" goes down. Worse still the burden of debt increases. See it this way: you took a loan on that 750k house. Your income may go down or disappear. The net worth of your assets may go down (your house is now worth 350k in the market), but the nominal value of you debt is still 750k. In a deflationary environment your cash inflow follows deflation but your cash out-flow is set.
Ponzi type II bubbles
Monetary bubbles kick off ponzi type II mechanisms. Expand credit, you will expand prices, so you will expand returns, so you will expand demand for credit to invest in those very assets and you will further expand prices and return and so on and so forth. Keep this in mind, the original inflationary euphoria in monetary led bubbles is really hard to resist. It talks and walks and looks like growth! The problem with this dynamic is that is kicks IN REVERSE when the prices go down. This is the "negative feedback loops" everyone talks about.
Price Stability: the FED charter, shock and awe
Central banks have as a stated goal to insure "price stability". This has resulted in practice in "a little inflation is optimal, too much is bad and deflation is worse". One can understand the current FED shock and awe program (QE and MTM suspension) as a desperate effort to derail the negative feedback loops. It is done by artificially raising monetary levels (printing presses are on: Quantitative Easing (QE)) and suspending mark to market so that at least on paper earnings stop going down with the market. Do not be fooled.
Meanwhile the human narrative must put the spotlight on a aspect of the crisis and unravel the relationships, the best I can do in "for dummies" is to use examples that everyone can grasp instead of throwing out 3 letter acronyms that scare little girls away. But do not lose sight of the fact that it is only when all these variables are at play at the same time, that the real story unfolds.
There are however variables and agents that play more important roles than others, they are central to the drama. Today I focus on "money", or rather credit money, monetary levels and their impact on price levels. Inflation and Deflation.
It came as a surprise to me when I was 38 years old and my brother told me "you realize credit money is money and increases the monetary mass". Assume there is a house on the market the ask is 500k. Assume there are 2 buyers you and them, A and B. Assume now that the amount of CASH that you hold doubles both for A and B. That Cash is CREDIT and you have access to it. If you start with 50K and can borrow up to 700k what is the price going to be? 750k. Because credit created CASH IN THE SYSTEM, the price level goes up. This is MONETARY ASSET INFLATION.
Assume the reverse for credit. Credit is tight. You have 50K cash assets and you can borrow only 300k. The price of the house will be 350k. THIS IS MONETARY ASSET DEFLATION.
The amount of CREDIT-MONEY in the system (monetary levels) directly affects price level. This is one of the tenets of modern economics:
Inflation and Deflation are always and everywhere monetary phenomenons
What about CPI?
You may ask "but wait, the government CPI index has shown very benign inflation for the past 20 years, while the credit has expanded, what gives?"
Be careful that CPI, the index of consumption prices that governments use does not take into account asset prices. Housing and stocks for example may inflate in a monetary bubble, it will not be captured as "inflation" by the CPI index but rather be touted as "growth". It is mostly monetary growth. So while official statistics were showing low CPI due to the Chinese influence, a more comprehensive CPI measure would include the cost of housing in full, the cost of stock assets, and would have shown a HUGE BUBBLE. ASSET PRICES are subject to monetary inflation and deflation.
Inflation in bad, Deflation is worse
Inflation is bad, at least a lot of it is bad. We all know that from recent memory and history. But Deflation is worse, why? because if nominal prices are going down then you are better off holding onto cash and spending later. That house you want to buy will be cheaper in a year, so wait! The problem with this is that economic activity slows down dramatically and the "velocity of money" goes down. Worse still the burden of debt increases. See it this way: you took a loan on that 750k house. Your income may go down or disappear. The net worth of your assets may go down (your house is now worth 350k in the market), but the nominal value of you debt is still 750k. In a deflationary environment your cash inflow follows deflation but your cash out-flow is set.
Ponzi type II bubbles
Monetary bubbles kick off ponzi type II mechanisms. Expand credit, you will expand prices, so you will expand returns, so you will expand demand for credit to invest in those very assets and you will further expand prices and return and so on and so forth. Keep this in mind, the original inflationary euphoria in monetary led bubbles is really hard to resist. It talks and walks and looks like growth! The problem with this dynamic is that is kicks IN REVERSE when the prices go down. This is the "negative feedback loops" everyone talks about.
Price Stability: the FED charter, shock and awe
Central banks have as a stated goal to insure "price stability". This has resulted in practice in "a little inflation is optimal, too much is bad and deflation is worse". One can understand the current FED shock and awe program (QE and MTM suspension) as a desperate effort to derail the negative feedback loops. It is done by artificially raising monetary levels (printing presses are on: Quantitative Easing (QE)) and suspending mark to market so that at least on paper earnings stop going down with the market. Do not be fooled.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Madrid Blog--We get sued
...for having children
If you are a foreigner and move to Madrid, do not, necessarily expect a warm welcome.
Yesterday, we, or rather
Don Mark Fleury and Dona Natali Manson
***note to Building Association of Serrrano XX, before you lawyer up, do your research. My husband spells his name "Marc" with a "c." and my first name is spelled "Nathalie;" not to mention that my honest English stone mason forbears would cringe at the misspelling of their last name to confound with that of the notorious 20th century serial killer.
received an official communication from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Madrid, from one Don Ramiro Blah Blah, President of the Building Association of Serrano XX, a building of exactly 12 units, half of which were owned at one time by his father in law, in which it is alleged
1) "Mark Fleury and Natali Manson" have four children
2) these children own bicycles
3)and roller skates
4) and scooters (Nathalie comment: nope sorry to disappoint building association president man, the Fleury children do not have scooters in Madrid)
5) that these children get up in the morning (Nathalie comment: yep, at 7am during the week, in order to catch the bus--per state-mandated law that my children be enrolled in secondary education)
6) that the Fleury children have been known to run, jump and shout in the aforementioned apartment
7) that the combination of the above results in an indiscernible mix of noise reflecting a most scandalous and bothersome comportment on behalf of the Fleury family
8) the residents of Serrano XX have manifested to the doorman the Fleury family's unlikeliness to modify their troublesome lifestyle due to their "American nationality and customs"
9) If these activities persist, the building association in conformity with article 7.2 of la Ley de propiedad Horizantal 8/1/1999 will begin judicial proceedings to deprive the Fleury family of the occupancy of their apartment.
To the residents of Serrano XX: Have any of you opened the window or walked outside the front door lately? Because Calle Serrano is only being gutted and subjected to extremely loud construction noise from dawn 'til dusk due to the street's two-year municipal remodeling project.
If you are a foreigner and move to Madrid, do not, necessarily expect a warm welcome.
Yesterday, we, or rather
Don Mark Fleury and Dona Natali Manson
***note to Building Association of Serrrano XX, before you lawyer up, do your research. My husband spells his name "Marc" with a "c." and my first name is spelled "Nathalie;" not to mention that my honest English stone mason forbears would cringe at the misspelling of their last name to confound with that of the notorious 20th century serial killer.
received an official communication from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Madrid, from one Don Ramiro Blah Blah, President of the Building Association of Serrano XX, a building of exactly 12 units, half of which were owned at one time by his father in law, in which it is alleged
1) "Mark Fleury and Natali Manson" have four children
2) these children own bicycles
3)and roller skates
4) and scooters (Nathalie comment: nope sorry to disappoint building association president man, the Fleury children do not have scooters in Madrid)
5) that these children get up in the morning (Nathalie comment: yep, at 7am during the week, in order to catch the bus--per state-mandated law that my children be enrolled in secondary education)
6) that the Fleury children have been known to run, jump and shout in the aforementioned apartment
7) that the combination of the above results in an indiscernible mix of noise reflecting a most scandalous and bothersome comportment on behalf of the Fleury family
8) the residents of Serrano XX have manifested to the doorman the Fleury family's unlikeliness to modify their troublesome lifestyle due to their "American nationality and customs"
9) If these activities persist, the building association in conformity with article 7.2 of la Ley de propiedad Horizantal 8/1/1999 will begin judicial proceedings to deprive the Fleury family of the occupancy of their apartment.
To the residents of Serrano XX: Have any of you opened the window or walked outside the front door lately? Because Calle Serrano is only being gutted and subjected to extremely loud construction noise from dawn 'til dusk due to the street's two-year municipal remodeling project.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Entrepreneur Diaries I - Pet Psychic
To entertain old friends and colleagues and “épater l’industrie"…An entirely scabrous and fictional picaresque narrative chronicling the adventures of Case, a serial entrepreneur who falls victim to almost every fad in the tech industry.
…At some point in his life, Case decided that he was an ideas person. As such, he sought his fortune in the late twentieth century tech gold rush, with its promise of riches beyond belief, for enterprising, entrepreneurial fellows, such as he.
____________
In 1999, a chance acquaintance with a hippie chick at a bar gave Case the idea for his Dotcom. She was cute, chesty, naive and he had nothing better to do. So, the following afternoon, he accompanied her to a seminar at the Mind Spirit and Body Center for Holistic Animal Health.
The seminar was led by a large muumuu-clad Earth Mother type—a pet psychic, or “animal communicator” as she preferred to be called. The incense was getting on his nerves and Case was sure the animator was on to him, when she asked him why he seemed troubled during the group meditation. He had to think fast to come up with an alternative to the actual horrifying image he'd conjured up--that of being smothered by muumuu woman's ample bosom. However, just as he was planning his exit, she read a testimonial that piqued his interest.
Dear Gwendolyn:
During our session on October 5th, while talking with my cat Gandalph (real name withheld), you said that his spirit appeared as a Christmas tree. I couldn't believe it. Christmas was Gandalph's favorite time and he often slept under our tree.
One year, he brought in a mouse he had hunted and put it under the Christmas tree with all of the other presents. Because he loved Christmas so much, I put up his very own miniature Christmas tree on my nightstand in the bedroom.
Shortly after Gandalph's passing, the lights on the tree began burning so bright one night they actually woke me up and I touched one of the bulbs, burning my fingertip. The lights went out before I even unplugged it. I replaced the string of lights that evening. Thank you.…
As it turned out, Gwendolyn and her colleagues were eager to take their message to the Internet and Case succeeded in borrowing money from his family to hire the two coders who responded to his ad on Craig’s List--Duane and Sanjay.
This was 1999, talent was scarce. Recruiting wasn’t exactly an option. You had to take what you could find, and even they might be picky. You had to sell them on the dream.
Case: So let me see, Duane, you actually worked at Pets.com, Wow! How was that?
Duane: Yeah man, it was great. We were gonna rule the world.
Case: So why exactly was it that you left?
Duane: My manager and I had differences of opinion about the strategic direction the business should take.
Case: Umh?
Duane: They wanted me to actually show up, Dude. Fucking slave drivers, can you believe it? Always on my back checking my code logs during my telecommute time. I’m a creative type, inspiration comes in bursts.
Case: [meekly] Well, I’ll want you to show up.
Duane: It’s 1999 man, there’s the Internet. Heard of it? We telecommute. Anyway, that’s what’s on the table. Take it our leave it. [Breaks out a joint, lights up and takes a drag]. Want some?
Case: Er, no thank you.
Duane: Come on man, it’s very important to me that my employer understands my lifestyle. [Case reluctantly takes the joint, puffs and coughs]. If you don’t cough, you don’t get off.
Case: [Passes joint to Sanjay] So Sanjay, do you have any questions about our business model?
Sanjay: Does your business model include an H1-B visa for me?
Case: Um yeah, sure.
Sanjay: I am not com-for-table with our target market. In Bangalore, nobody would pay to talk to their pet.
Case: Listen, Sanjay, this is America. There is an endless supply of cretins out there.
Sanjay: Sure, I get that. But tell me what has this got to do with the web?
Case: Many of them are beginning to penetrate the online space in search of their own kind. The online human psychic market is pretty much cornered, but many of these people have pets. I tell you, the animal psychic market is ripe for picking. For the right person, that is. The kind of person who has the vision and the cojones to go out there and stake a claim.
Sanjay: Ok boss-man. Sign me up.
And with that, Case was off to the races. This was it, his own chance at the big league. Time to dream big dreams and raise big money. He was born to be big-time, his mama always knew it.
The Financial Crisis For Dummies:
FAS 157, Mark to Market
Ever heard of Mark to Market? Here is a little primer on what it is. It is an accounting term and it has played a big role in this current mess.
Assume you own a house, you bought it in 2004 at 600k. In 2006 a comparable house down the street sold for 750k. Today it would probably sell for 450k. You took a loan for 550k, question: ARE YOU BANKRUPT?
1/ no, since you don't want to sell now and you can wait for the market to come back
2/ yes, since on a mark to market basis, you are under-water.
Tough to decide right?
This is pretty much what is going on with the banks. They are holding onto long term highly illiquid assets (called Level 3 assets) and those assets nose-dived and there is no market for them. The balance sheets of the banks are highly impaired on a MTM basis. But many people point out that MTM is used because it is the only way we know to price things in a fair and transparent way, but that in extreme market breakdowns these numbers are temporary and should not force institutions into insolvency by the very definition of holding onto L3 assets that will vary in price over time. If an L3 asset hits a bottom price it should not trigger bankruptcy.
So congress just made sure we suspend MTM, you can now carry the assets at model or historical cost. In other words, we are in a breakdown mode and the rules are being suspended. Short term it means the earnings of the banks will be bullshit, marked to what management thinks it is worth. Just like you think of your assets with what your house "should be worth".
Assume you own a house, you bought it in 2004 at 600k. In 2006 a comparable house down the street sold for 750k. Today it would probably sell for 450k. You took a loan for 550k, question: ARE YOU BANKRUPT?
1/ no, since you don't want to sell now and you can wait for the market to come back
2/ yes, since on a mark to market basis, you are under-water.
Tough to decide right?
This is pretty much what is going on with the banks. They are holding onto long term highly illiquid assets (called Level 3 assets) and those assets nose-dived and there is no market for them. The balance sheets of the banks are highly impaired on a MTM basis. But many people point out that MTM is used because it is the only way we know to price things in a fair and transparent way, but that in extreme market breakdowns these numbers are temporary and should not force institutions into insolvency by the very definition of holding onto L3 assets that will vary in price over time. If an L3 asset hits a bottom price it should not trigger bankruptcy.
So congress just made sure we suspend MTM, you can now carry the assets at model or historical cost. In other words, we are in a breakdown mode and the rules are being suspended. Short term it means the earnings of the banks will be bullshit, marked to what management thinks it is worth. Just like you think of your assets with what your house "should be worth".
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
TF18: Kraftwerk & Anita Ward
Anita Ward, Ring my Bell-- 1979
Kraftwerk, It's more fun to compute -- 1981
Mix:
TF18: Kraftwerk & Anita Ward, 12 mins.
You probably have heard the first one. I like Anita Ward. Second track is a little more obscure, but this original by Kraftwerk is a gem. It has this unique sound that works well with anything. Here "compute" really dominates over "my bell" but the "my bell" lyrics take another dimension. The result, although made from old ingredients feels like it was made yesterday. It also goes to prove that disco and techno have common ancestry. It's a hot track.
Kraftwerk, It's more fun to compute -- 1981
Mix:
TF18: Kraftwerk & Anita Ward, 12 mins.
You probably have heard the first one. I like Anita Ward. Second track is a little more obscure, but this original by Kraftwerk is a gem. It has this unique sound that works well with anything. Here "compute" really dominates over "my bell" but the "my bell" lyrics take another dimension. The result, although made from old ingredients feels like it was made yesterday. It also goes to prove that disco and techno have common ancestry. It's a hot track.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
