1-2 Knockout

Bernanke, Take My Breath Away

(Hat Tip: KW)

Well, now that Cox solved that problem...

Cox made his "no short selling" announcement at 12:51 (according to Bloomberg).  Expecting the end of the worst, investors bid up shares 9%, only to realize that maybe it wasn't the naked shorts 'who dun it'.

Bondholders 2 - Taxpayers -365,743

Generally companies facing insolvency don't see their debt climb...

NEW YORK, July 11 (Reuters) - Debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  soared in their best one-day gain in history on Friday amid speculation that a government takeover of the housing giants would make the bonds more like ultra-safe U.S. Treasuries...

...But that also means a credit-quality downgrade for U.S. Treasury debt, which slumped, investors said.

Thank god I get the junk Fannie and Freddie trade in for the t-bills.

UPDATE: In you haven't seen it, i present to you the first page of any Fannie Mae prospectus (emphasis theirs!):

Fannie Mae Guaranty

We guarantee that the holders of the certificates will receive timely payments of interest and principal. We alone are responsible for making payments under our guaranty. The certificates and payments of principal and interest on the certificates are not guaranteed by the United States, and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities other than Fannie Mae.

Rumor Mongering on Gossip Boards

Ok, so all morning I've been trying to clean this up and make a "real post" out of it, but I'm simply too busy.  My comments from yesterday's Dealbreaker.com debate are below.  There will be a real post to follow, just not this morning.  Please excuse typos, grammar, and poor sentence structure as I have not edited this at all.

First, I set up with John Carney's post in response to Andrew Ross Sorkin's Dealbook post. 

The basic claim that intentionally spreading falsehoods with the intention of manipulating markets should be illegal is largely irrelevant. This kind of market manipulation is illegal. The question is whether or not we want prosecutors ramping up investigations into rumors and those who spread them. In particular, should prosecutors start aggressively investigating the origins and intentions of rumors that surrounded the crash of Bear Stearns and that have lately been hitting Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. Do we want subpoenas fast as rumors circulate?...

...What's more, the costs of such investigations would likely be worse than the alleged wrong-doing. In order to catch wrong-doers, prosecutors would have to subpoena the private emails, instant messages and testimony of lots of people who did no wrong at all. Each of the investigated would face huge legal bills and know that their lives could be ruined by a prosecutor or a judge who misreads a bad intention into an innocent email. (ed. this doesn't really set up my comments well, so i recommend checking DB yourself.)

Now, my comments...

Need i ask it again?

WHY IS IT ONLY MARKET MANIPULATION WHEN IT'S SHORT A COMPANY??

No one goes off and attacks those who perpetuate rumors about the "wicked" (technical term) new product Apple is coming out with, or unsubstantiated claims that there are "interested suitors" waiting to take over a firm. So long as the price movement is up no one cares--except for the people who buy the rumors and get killed on the inevitable fall after such rumors fail to pass. If anything, that "market manipulation" is praised when it is one in the same. But who is going to prosecute the "rumor mongerers" then? The company got a bump to it's stock price, the analyst with a buy (buys do dominate sell ratings) rating was vindicated, and whoever threw the rumor out there got his profit. But, when a stock is "forced" down the management is p-ssed, institutional owners are p-ssed, and analysts refute the rumors to save face. It's the penultimate (behind prop trading) asymmetric payout structure.

Again, as Einhorn said, "if you're company can't withstand a hit to its share price it probably isn't a viable ongoing concern". (Read his book, trust me).

Enron wasn't crushed by short sellers, short sellers found that Enron was a cheat and a liar; same with bsc. Overstock's plan of "losing money on every sale but making up for it in volume" wasn't unviable because rumors floated based on insidious short selling conspiracies...it just wasn't a profitable business model and people recognized it .

In the end it's pretty simple, if a firm thinks it's shares have been pushed artificially low, then they (and their insiders) should probably stock up knowing they will be vindicated. It's a great chance to profit...if your firm is actually well capitalized.

Now i know what's coming, "but these rumors can hurt the financial system by causing bank run". Yes and no. If it is nothing more than market rumor then two things: 1) a pretty good way to quash the rumor would be to come clean about everything on your balance sheet to allay concerns (sunlight is the best disinfectant), unless you're LEH and the concerns may be valid; and 2) if you're a commercial bank (i.e., a "run" in the traditional sense) the market rumors generally won't spark a run because main st. is not a prop desk on wall st., they don't get the rumors passed down to them in the blink of an eye. Now, if you still think that the "runs" are the problem ("runs" are always a problem) then tell me WHAT RUN ON A BANK WASN'T ULTIMATELY VINDICATED?

Anytime someone starts yelling about short-seller conspiracies sell everything you can and run. Jamie Dimon was right, "where there's smoke there's usually fire".

Followed by...

And will someone tell ARS to get off his fucking high horse? His suggestion about "getting to the originator of the rumor, and their intent" poses a few problems for he himself. So, let's say someone passes him a note that Citi is going bankrupt, supplies a modicum of evidence, and says leave him unidentified. ARS publishes it as a "market rumor" because, well, that's his job. The whole thing turns out to be completely false. NY AG calls and asks him who sent him the rumor, since, ARS has already publically stated that, to him, the most important goal of regulators should be finding out who originated the rumor. ARS tells the NY AG to fuck off because he's protecting his sources. Yada yada. The best part is that ARS would presumably argue that "if he disclosed his sources then he wouldn't be able to report the goings on in the market because no one would disclose information to him; it would curtail his right to free speech and ability to act for efficient market dissemination of information".

That's a scene i would love to see.

Lake Wobegon Tax Policy

Presented with minimal comment.  From Rasmussen Reports.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 47% believe it's most important for tax policy to support economic growth. Nearly as many--44%--believe it's more important to establish a policy in which everyone pays their fair share (ed. best definition of "fair" left in comments wins lunch on me). Most Democrats favor an emphasis on fairness while most Republicans prefer a focus on economic growth. Unaffiliated voters are evenly divided.

The survey also found results reminiscent of Garrison Keillor's world where everyone is above average--most voters believe they already pay more than their fair share of the tax burden. Fifty-three percent (53%) hold that view while 30% say they're not paying more than they should. Voters who earn more than $60,000 annually are more likely than other voters to believe they're paying too much.

Just 45% of voters under 30 or over 65 think they're paying more than their fair share of the tax burden. A solid majority of those aged 40-64 think they're paying too much.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters believe that tax cuts help the economy while just 15% believe they hurt. Looked at from the other perspective, 50% believe that increasing taxes will harm the economy while just 19% disagree.(ed. define cognitive dissonance)

Despite this, 48% would vote for a candidate who promised to raise taxes only on the rich while 41% would vote for a candidate who opposed all tax increases. This clearly reflects the importance of tax fairness rather than a simple focus on economic growth. Voters believe taxes are far more likely to go up with a President Obama rather than a President McCain . However, Obama continuously repeats his claim that he would not raise taxes on anybody making less than $250,000 annually. As a result, neither candidate has a significant advantage when it comes to voter trust on the tax issue.

I do love this idea of "tax fairness", especially since everyone thinks they know how everyone else should be taxed: my legitimate deductions are your tax shields.  You received tax breaks because you're politically well connected and gaming the system; I need the tax breaks to live.

There will never be a rational tax policy now that <50% of Americans pay income taxes.

NYT: Land for the Rich to Roam a National Crisis

So, over the weekend I resolved to be more positive and not turn all my posts into rants deriding others' failed poli-economic principles.  Then I came across this piece of hogwash in the NYT Monday:

For years, officials in New Jersey have talked about the need for more affordable housing and then done almost nothing. The need is pressing, and the state may finally be ready to move. Unfortunately, this newfound resolve carries serious risks. Unless the state changes its current plan, some of the new housing will be built on the few parcels of undeveloped land that still remain. That must not be allowed to happen.

The conflict between two competing and legitimate needs — low- and moderate-income housing and breathing room — is a national problem. Anyone who drives into rural areas of Pennsylvania, New York and other northeastern states is struck by the number of houses mushrooming on what just a few years ago were huge stretches of farmland...

...Under New Jersey’s plan, which could take effect in October, one unit of affordable housing would have to be built for every five units of market-rate housing. The current required ratio is one for every eight. Commercial developers, meanwhile, would be required to provide one new affordable housing unit for every 16 jobs generated by commercial development. Both requirements could go a long way toward meeting the state’s need for at least 115,000 new affordable housing units...

...The plan [to assign "obligations" to small communities mandating non-market priced housing] will also make it difficult for remote communities to shift their obligations to cities and suburbs that want more housing and can also provide jobs.

The logical fallacies (as well as insane assumptions) contained in the op-ed are egregious:

• The NYT (implicitly) admits that land-use restrictions drive up the cost of housing.  A cursery review of any economics textbook (or, for a better description see Thomas Sowell's Applied Economics) clearly shows that by limiting the supply of housing (in the name of "necessary space" or "green laws") you will drive up the price.  Study after study (below) shows that home prices are highest in the areas with the most stringent "open space" regulations.  These are the same restrictions--those that "protect" our "breathing room"--that are helping drive energy prices higher, and are being met with similar responses from politicians attempting to mandate market prices.  "Open space" laws protect the status quo, who used to be called "landed", and raise prices for the low-income people the NYT claims to protect.  This is simple economics.  You can restrict building, or you can encourage low prices by increasing supply, but you can't have it both ways.  Anyone who tells you differently is selling you their votes and hoping you're too dumb to notice.
  • Seattle Times: Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities....A key regulation is the state's Growth Management Act, enacted in 1990 in response to widespread public concern that sprawl could destroy the area's unique character. To preserve it, the act promoted restrictions on where housing can be built. The result is artificial density that has driven up home prices by limiting supply, Eicher says.
  • SFGate: Most people know that the San Francisco Bay Area has one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. However, not everyone realizes that, as recently as 1970, Bay Area housing was as affordable as housing in many other parts of the country...What happened in the 1970s to make Bay Area housing so unaffordable? In a nutshell: land-use planning. During the 1970s, Bay Area cities and counties imposed a variety of land-use restrictions intended to make the region more livable.
  • Cato: Under the mantra of "stopping sprawl," urban planners have crammed nearly 95 percent of Californians into just 5.1 percent of the state's land area. The nation's three densest urban areas, and 11 of the 20 densest urban areas, are all in California. Thanks to urban-growth boundaries, greenbelts and other planning restrictions, the average California urbanite lives in communities that are 80 percent denser than in the rest of the country.

• The very idea that "breathing room" is a "national problem" is, in and of itself, insane.  America  ranks 180th in population density (out of 240 countries listed).  Now, and this is the crux, the NYT doesn't want that land.  They want the pretty land.  They want the scenic land.  They want their views to be unobstructed so that the land they currently own is worth more.  Putting their central argument into contra-form, the NYT editorial board "doesn't want poor people to live in pretty places".   As they so eloquently put it: "Anyone who drives into rural areas of Pennsylvania, New York and other northeastern states is struck by the number of houses mushrooming on what just a few years ago were huge stretches of farmland".  The fallacy is that there shouldn't be houses on that land, and there should be farms.  Farms are pretty, new tracts of suburbia aren't.  If the pretty land is developed the value of their "farm houses" decreases--and we can't stand for that.  If land is most valuable as used for housing, then it should be housing, not farming or "preservation".  But, being limousine liberals, they then must call for "low cost" non-market based housing without ever suggesting where it goes.

• Even the NJ legislature has been drinking the Jaeger Bombs (click the link, trust me).  By mandating that 1/5 or 1/8 houses be built for sale at non-market rates they are raising the cost for all non-low income housing.  Unlike Wal-Mart's low prices through efficiency, legistlating low-prices raises the price for everyone not pre-ordained worthy by the politicos.  This has a negative feedback loop effect: housing restrictions are enacted => housing divided into "low cost" and "market rate" units => low-cost unit prices kept at artificially low prices => market-based units rise in price in response to inefficient capital flow and underinvestment => more people "priced out" of homes => legislature demands more low-cost housing be built with higher income ceiling for the pre-ordained =>  cycle repeats.

• Since when did commercial developers become responsible for housing potential lease-holders' employees?

• In the closing paragraph the NYT makes a classic static-phase mistake.  They assume that the "jobs" are in cities, and that low income people are being forced into rural areas (which the NYT doesn't like).  Well, as the bank robber said when asked why he chose banks to pillage, "because that's where the money is", so too will employers venture out into the rural areas if there is a workforce there ready to work at below-city rates (because the cost of living is lower).  To say that cities "want more housing" is equally infuriating.  Sure they want more housing, but, well, there's a city there!  It costs more money to build where there are already buildings, and cities have higher costs of living for numerous reasons: one of which is open-land restrictions in cities like SF.   

All in all this whole editorial infuriates me.  To say that we need low cost housing, but only where it's not economical to build (existing cities) or not where we think it's "pretty" is heretical for a paper espousing to be populist.  Of course, we could just let the over-supplied housing market push prices lower. That would make sense. But we also have remember to "protect current homeowners" by adding artificial floors, to the detriment of poor potential home buyers. 

As long as our home prices have floors and ceilings you can guarantee that the poor won't.

Oil's a Witch: Burn Her!

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!

Today's congressional witch hunt against "Big Oil" (framing issues 101: if you want a group to be hated name them "Big X", people hate anything "Big") once again proves that congressmen are either willfully ignorant, liars, or sheer idiots.  Following the same logic as Sir Bedevere, and the rest of the Monty Python crew, congress has determined that Big Oil is a witch...now they have to defend their logic ex post facto. 

Some of the highlights below:

Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told the executives there's "a disconnect" between normal supply and demand and the skyrocketing price of oil — surpassing $130 a barrel even as the oil leaders testified — that the industry has yet to explain.

Well, Pat, why don't you then explain what the disconnect is...and remember, you need evidence from primary sources (wikipedia doesn't count) for this paper.  I would begin by looking at your own closure of almost all new sources of oil production in this country (continental shelf, ANWR, etc). 

J. Stephen Simon, executive vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp., said profits have been huge "in absolute terms" but must be viewed in the context of the massive scale of the industry." He also said high earnings are needed "in the current up cycle" to pay for investments in the long term when profits will be down.

"'Current up cycle,' that's a nice term," replied Leahy with sarcasm, "when people can't afford to go to work" because gasoline is costing close to $4 a gallon.

Pat, love the cynicism.  However, this actually is an "up cycle", and people can't not (hate double negatives) get to work because of oil prices alone.  People chose to live outside urban areas for what they believed were non-economic reasons ("honey, isn't it just breathtaking out here instead of in the city"), unfortunately now they must realize no choice is completely non-economic.  Just because you could afford to live 30 miles away from work when gas was $1.50/gl doesn't mean you should be subsidized when the price rises.  Whether you realize it or not, you made a decision to be short energy.  By this logic, congress should be yelling about how SUV owners are getting hosed by the oil companies, because it costs so much to fill up their tank (someone challenge me on this one...please!).

[Leahy] asked Simon what his total compensation was at Exxon, a company that made $40 billion last year. Simon replied it was $12.5 million annually.

He obviously went on to link the oil companies' record profits, and executive compensation, to the price of oil.  I hate to break it to Senator Leahy, but, short of anti-competitive tactics (none of which have been successfully pinned on the oil companies) commodity-based corporations are price takers, not setters (again with the econ 101).  You could mandate that all oil executives could be paid nothing and the price of oil wouldn't fall a dime...in fact it may rise because incompetent CEOs would make worse investment decisions for future production.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Exxon's annual profits increased from $11.5 billion to $40.6 billion in the past five years and there was no explanation for "why profits have gone up so high when the consumer is suffering so much."

Not even worth a comment.  Go back to torturing the NFL, Specter.

Senate Democrats recently announced an energy package that would tax "windfall" profits of the five companies. That might have public appeal, Lowe told the senators, but oil companies should not be viewed as "a scapegoat" for high prices.

That was not what many senators wanted to hear.

You have "just a litany of complaints that you're all just hapless victims of a system," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told the executives. "Yet you rack up record profits ... quarter after quarter after quarter."

Ahh, Diane, I was wondering where you were hiding.  Apparently your net worth of between $60-90m doesn't qualify for "Big" status.  I would like to personally thank you for donating your money to the poor who can't support themselves.  As you and your cohorts love to tell us, "the rich don't need the money anyways".  Ok, back on topic.  This idea of a "windfall profits tax" is ludicrous on a multitude of planes.  Where to begin:

• 1) As Senator Leahy (sarcastically) noted, commodities are a cyclical business, and, perhaps more importantly, commodities are fungible goods.  Anyone who has taken Econ 101 knows that suppliers of fungible goods are price takers, not price setters.  I don't know if you've noticed, but the oil companies don't get to set their prices--the market does.  Their profits are a function of aggregate supply/demand, level and yield of prior investments (ie, firm-specific quantity), and substitution costs (ability for consumers to switch to another, similar good).  We are not talking about the finance department of a company picking their prices, the oil industry has to take what the market is giving them.
• 2) If you are going to tax "windfall" profits, then you will need to subsidize "windfall" losses.  Where was congress when oil was $10.76 in 1998?  Did they go and offer subsidies then?  Did they guarantee payments regardless of output/prices, like they do with farms (more on that in a later post)?  No.  Of course not. Obviously, though, if you go with a tax/subsidy system whenever the price hits a tail you create a massive disincentive to manage a company correctly--and production would fall precipitously--leading to, say it with me now, higher prices.
• 3) However, the biggest question mark is how do you define "windfall" profits.  Gross dollar value? Margins? Delta price over delta time?  Each of these metrics provides its own set of complications. 
  • Sure the dollar value of the profits is high, but not auspiciously so when you realize that oil may be the most important single commodity in the world.  In our current global set-up, without oil there would be no electricity, cars, plastics, etc.  Just like GE has exceptionally high revenues because it produces so much "stuff", oil companies produce a lot of the most vital "thing" in the global economy. 
  • So you want to define windfall profits by margins? Well XOM's operating margin was only 19% last quarter; far from "high".  And this is at the peak oil prices ever. If we chose to tax exorbitant margins we should probably impose even higher levies on GOOG (30%), MSFT (31%), POT (44%), etc.  Even at the highest prices ever oil is by no means a massively profitable business.  They don't make a lot on each barrel, but make up for it in volume...and the world has asked them to provide a lot of volume.
  • Delta P / Delta T (or price increases that seem too deviate too far too quickly from "normal"), well then why don't we haul in ADM, MON, et al (the farmers) for "making food so expense at the expense of the poor".  If we are looking for "equitable" profits (ie, whatever Leahy wants them to be) that "appear" to be from "fundamentals" and not "speculation", then we need look no further than our own grain belt for extortionist, profiteering, no gooders: farmers! 

In closing, Pat commented:

"The issue is simple," said Leahy. "People we represent are hurting, the companies you represent are profiting."

Ah, yes, I love the "companies aren't people" argument. Please, Pat, tell me what is the difference between a constituency and a company?  Both are aggregated populations aiming to maximize their own utility. 

But you're right Mr. Leahy, we should: defend people but hate those that employ them; encourage risk-taking, but penalize when it pays off; decrie corporate mismanagement, but confiscate any profits accumulated through wise decision-making; and push consumers to consume less oil, but not allow the very mechanism that would do so to work--that should put us right on track!

A closing thought: with all the rhetoric about "getting off of oil" these price increases should be the hallelujah moment for congress.  People are beginning to drive less, purchase more efficient vehicles, and investing in alternative energy sources because it now makes economic sense to do so.  While it would be nice to live in a world where we could just tell everyone to "drive less" and they would, they don't.  High oil prices are facilitating the move to energy efficiency.  I thought that was the whole point.

UPDATE: In the latest example of congressional rocking-chair legislature (rocking chair=looks like you're doing something when you're not) the House passed a bill allowing government agencies to sue OPEC.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure...

..."This bill guarantees that oil prices will reflect supply and demand economic rules, instead of wildly speculative and perhaps illegal activities," said Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, who sponsored the legislation.

Rep. Kagen, it would "guarantee supply and demand reflect economic rules" you clearly don't understand the difference between speculation, investment, and trans-national litigation.  First, prove that the price is not reflective of supply/deman.  Second, if we sue OPEC where does our oil come from (they're a cartel, remember)? Third, in what jurisdiction can you sue sovereign nations?  I've watched enough Law and Order to know that Briscoe and Green can't just go arresting people in Jersey...wish they could though.

We'll See if He Listened

As I've always said, when the politicians fail you can always turn to god:

"Rocky Twyman of Washington, D.C., came to San Francisco over the weekend to stage a pray-in at a Chevron station. He is also calling on churchgoers to ask for God's intervention where he says politicians have failed." (story here)

Ok, I've never actually said that. 

You have to find it interesting that he went to California to deride the high price of gasoline.  At $3.91 it is the highest in the contiguous United States--mostly because of the special blend requirements the Berkeley Hippies insist on. 

Oh, and Hawaii, how did those gas price controls work out for you?  I see it got you all the way to up second highest price in the country (Alaska).  I guess you can't surf past economics after all, dude.

Irrational Actors in a Gasoline World

Today's Curious Capitalist discusses how, with oil so expensive, gas station operators are working with razor thin margins (5c/gallon).  He also says, "A recent survey by NACS found that 29% of people would drive 10 minutes out of their way to save 3 cents on a gallon of gas." Ok, fair enough, people want to save their hard earned cash.  But this strikes me as an incredibly irrational way of "saving" money.

Using simple math we can see that in no way does anyone with a car actually "save" money. (I must assume that you are making at least minimum wage to own a car...if you don't this country is in bigger trouble than we thought).  With the current New York state minimum wage set at $7.15 ten minutes of life costs you $1.19.  Assuming a relatively average fill-up of 15 gallons, saving 3c/gallon only conserves 45c.  In fact, if you get 20mpg on your way to the gas station you spend 45c on the trip's gas alone. 

Again, if you travel ten minutes to a new gas station and work for minimum wage, you have spent $1.19 of life to save 44c.  All in (gas spent and opportunity cost) you have wasted $1.19 of your life AND 45c in gas for a grand expenditure of $1.54...all to save 44c.  Net-net you spend $1.20 for the privilege of sitting in more traffic.  Of course, that's assuming you only make minimum wage--if you make more you spend more.  Completely irrational.

Of course, the whole idea of Gas Hunting never made much sense to me anyways. 

This can be simply explained by the fact that we use mental accounting to separate our costs from our benefits, and we rarely actually incorporate them into one well. 

Ma'am, Step Away From the BigMac

From Reuters:

"NEW YORK, April 16 (Reuters) - New York City can require fast-food restaurants to post signs telling customers how many calories are in their meals, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.  U.S. District Judge Richard Howell found that "the required disclosure of calorie information is reasonably related to the government's interest in providing consumers with accurate nutritional information ..." in his ruling filed in the federal court in lower Manhattan. (Reporting by Leslie Gevirtz; Editing by Brian Moss)"

So lets get this straight:

A bacon-wrapped Filet, smothered in Bearnaise sauce, accompanied by a side of potatoes drizzled with a lush cream-based gravy, finished off with a luscious home-made ice cream fritter and chocolate mousse (a delicious, albeit arbitrary example) that I get at a "fancy" sit-down restaurant doesn't have to give any nutritional information, but fast food places do?  On what convoluted logic was this idea based?  People who are still (routinely) eating at fast food places, despite knowing damn well how unhealthy much of the food is, are too stupid/dense to realize it and need to be constantly reminded?  "Rich" people who can afford to go out to eat at sit-down restaurants though are somehow above this sort of cognitive dissonance, and are perfectly aware that the bacon-wrapped filet is a heart attack waiting to happen, yet consume anyway? 

I'm not suggesting - not by any stretch of the imagination - that we just throw ALL restaurants under these new regulations; I'm merely questioning the logic behind making ANY restaurants post the specific caloric information of their products, the idea of which (beyond the already generous information already out there) is just ridiculous.  Its like putting warnings on vodka bottles that read "WARNING: CONSUMPTION OF THIS PRODUCT WILL CAUSE EXTREME DRUNKEDNESS", or warnings on cigarettes that say "SUCKING TAILPIPE WILL CAUSE LUNG DISEASE". 

Lets get real: its 2000-freaking-8.  If you're over the age of 7 and don't know that gorging on Big Macs will eventually lead to heart attacks, pounding Jack all day will get you cirrhosis, and sucking down a pack of Marlboros will cause emphysema, than you sir or Madame, have gone out of your way to deserve, nay, EARN, the consequences of your astounding ignorance.  Period.  End of story. 

Of course, this is all really about a little thing called personal responsibility; about accepting the consequences of one's actions. Unfortunately this is the sorry state of things in this country (and the World in general) where these ideas are so foreign to us they might as well be Martian.

The hypocrisy of the whole game though is that we whine about government intervention into all of our affairs, but at the same time cry for help whenever something happens for which we don't want to accept responsibility.  Legislators, eager to stay in office (read: power) are all-too-happy to appease our complaints, further strengthening the regulatory grip on our ability to conduct our lives as we see fit.  On the grand scale, its a massive, dysfunctional game of shifting/assigning blame and actors avoiding responsibility for their decisions, a game which in the ultimate analysis, cannot possibly end well for any parties involved. 

That is, of course, unless we step up to the plate and start accepting responsibility for our actions, both the good, and slightly less-than.

Disclosure: Anal_yst may enjoy some or all of the products mentioned in this post, either in moderation or extreme excess.  Consult your financial advisor.