EFTA01149783.pdf

From: Gregory Brown •tl To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: jeevacation@gmail.com Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 1/26/2014 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:19:48 +0000 Attachments: The Mortgage_Market Just Cratered And The Fed Should Be Worried Huff_Post_01.15.20 14.docx; The_20_most_populous_metro_areas_in_the_United_States_Chris_Cillizza_TWP_01.16.2014.d ocx; Pregnant_Nun_Roxana_Rodrigue_z,J_Didn't_IC.now_l_Was_Pregnant,i_Only_Felt_A_Stomac h_P_=?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ain=5FInquistir=5F01=5F19=5F2014.docx?=; Bill Maher New_Rules_24.1.2014_Obama,football_and_Bullying_01_25_14.docx; T- Mobile_will_help_you_cash_your_checks,_how_it_works_TWP_01_22_2014.docx; Fmlandjanuary_19,_2014_—_Weekly_Readings.docx; Finland_map.docx; Nina_Simone_bio.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; image(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; image(7).png; image(8).png; image(9).png; image(10).png; image(11).png DEAR FRIEND Trickle-down economics is the greatest broken promise of our lifetime The richest 85 people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion — or half the world's entire population — put together. This is the stark headline of a report from Oxfam ahead of the World Economic Forum at Davos. Is there a reason why the world's powerful, gathering at the exclusive resort to sip cognac and eat blinis, should care? Well, yes. EFTA01149783 If one subscribes to the charitable view that neoliberal philosophy was simply naive or misguided in thinking that "trickle down" would work infinitely, then evidence that it doesn't, should be cause for concern. It is a fundamental building block of supply-side economic theory — the tool of choice these past few decades for those in charge to make adjustments. The realisation that governments have been pulling at economic levers which, for some time, have been attached to nothing, should be a wake-up call to the deepest sleepers. Even if one subscribes to the cynical view that the elite knew what they were doing all along, observing that the "rising tide" is lifting fewer and fewer boats and leaving more and more to rot in the sediment — both at a personal and national level — must make most wonder "am I in the right boat and is it big enough?" Concentration is rampant. Credit Suisse estimates that the world will have ii trillionaires within two generations. It is not so much that the supply-side principle "if you build it, they will come" is no longer true. It is more that we appear to have passed a tipping point, where so much wealth has been concentrated at the top, they no longer need bother to "build" anything. In short, it has become more economically efficient to buy countries' economic policy than to create value in order to sell it on. If one can control government to favour the richest, while raising barriers for new entrants, thus increasing their share of the pie exponentially, what is the incentive to grow the pie? This applies to both companies and individuals. Small business gets clobbered by taxes and business rates, while b►g business turns around and says to the state: "This is how much tax I fancy paying this year, take it or leave it". The rich no longer create jobs, through a process of consolidation, takeover and merger, they actually destroy them. Zero-hours contracts are the way of the future; in a society that is hungry, desperate and devoid of political engagement or unionism, why would anyone offer terms and conditions that give individual workers any standing? And yet, the realisation must dawn soon — one hopes — that this model is unsustainable because its effects are uncontrollable. The more unequal we become as a society, the faster the top's earnings diverge from the bottom's. "When so much of the purchasing power, so much of the economic gain, goes to the very top," Bill Clinton's former labour secretary Robert Reich explains in the film Inequality For All. "There's simply not enough purchasing power in the rest of the economy." At the same time, there is far too much loose cash sloshing around at the top, leading to unwise risks and toxic investments. Wealth inequality in the US was at its highest levels, historically, in 1928 and 2007, one year before its two biggest financial crises, notes Reich. The base of the pyramid atrophies and begins to crumble. Then why are most governments continuing to fiddle with supply-side levers in order to revive the economy, when it is abundantly clear it does not work? The simple answer is in two parts. First part: habit. The second was perfectly expressed by the creator of The Wire, David Simon: "That may be the ultimate tragedy of capitalism in our time, that it has achieved its dominance without regard to a social compact, without being connected to any other metric for human progress." We have come to measure, to an increasing extent, individuals' success by their wealth, spending power and other assorted trappings. We do the same with the economic success of governments; measure it by an aggregated data set that fails to take into account wealth distribution, educational achievement, innovation, or even the welfare and health of the population they claim to represent. We must shift this perspective. It will be the hardest, simplest thing we have ever had to do as a species. EFTA01149784 This week The Huffington Post did a piece - Where The American Dream Is Dead And Buried — Suggesting that the days of one pulling themselves up by the bootstraps to become the next Bill Gates, a new study suggests that there are some places in America where it's somewhat easier to do that than others. Cities in the South and the Rust Belt have extremely low levels of economic mobility -- a wonky term that essentially measures one's ability to go from being poor to rich -- according to a study from economists at Harvard University and the University of California-Berkeley. To put that into more concrete terms: Someone born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder in Atlanta, Georgia, where economic mobility is low, has a 4.5 percent chance of reaching the top fifth of the income ladder, the study found. Meanwhile in Washington, D.C., a city with high economic mobility, the chance of moving up the income ladder is about ii percent. In the map below, red indicates low economic mobility while pale yellow represents places with higher economic mobility: 52 4 - 65.0 48 9 - 52 4 46 3 -48.9 44 7• 463 43 6 - 447 42 2 - 436 El40 8• 42 2 . 39 2. 408 • 37A - 39.2 M26.0 -37A So what is it that stifles economic mobility? The researchers found that areas with higher levels of segregation, income inequality and more single parents tend to have worse prospects for mobility. In addition, regions with fewer social networks and poorer school systems are typically worse off. The one not-so-depressing finding from the report is that economic mobility hasn't slowed over the past few decades, instead it's pretty much stayed the same. That said, while a child's chance of moving up the income ladder hasn't fallen, the rungs on the ladder have grown farther apart (read: income inequality has gotten a lot worse). That means kids today are more affected than ever by their parents' economic status. This chart shows just how bad it's gotten: EFTA01149785  Changes in the Income Ladder in the United States III Highest Incom Highest Income The rungs of the income ladder hove grown further apart (income inequality has increased) ...but children's chances of climbingfrom lower to higher rungs have not changed. cun e 1970s Lowest 19905 Income Top 10 States With The Worst Income Inequality 1. New York Gini Coefficient: 0.502 Median Income: $50,216 (22nd Highest) Households Earning $200,000+: 6.15% (5th Highest) Population Living Below Poverty Line: 14.20% (25th Highest) New York is a relatively wealthy state. It has the fifth-largest percentage of households earning $200,000 or more a year and has the 25th fewest people living below the poverty line. Regardless, the state has the most severe income inequality among all the states. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, the top 195 of earners in New York State make about 35% of the state's total income. This is up from 17% in 1990. The bottom 5o% of earners, in comparison, make just 9.1% of total income, down from 13.9% in 1990. Inequality is even worse in New York City. According to the FPI report, "if New York City were a nation, it would rank 15th worst among 134 countries with respect to income concentration, between Chile and Honduras. Wall Street, with its stratospheric profits and bonuses, sits within 15 miles of the Bronx," one of the nation's poorest counties. 2. Connecticut Gini Coefficient: 0.480 Median Income: $63,851 (Highest) Households Earning $200,000+: 7.87% (Highest) EFTA01149786 Population Living Below Poverty Line: 9.40% (4th Lowest) Connecticut is one of the wealthiest states in the country, with the greatest percentage of households earning $200,000 or more a year (7.87%). The disparity between the poor and wealthy is getting worse. According to a 2008 study from the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, income in Connecticut increased by $52,439, or 45%, to $169,378 for the top fifth of Connecticut households, while the bottom fifth's income decreased $4,437, or 17%, to $21,133, from 1989 to 2006. The state has made efforts to begin correcting this issue by increasing the top income tax rate from 4.5% to 6.5%. 3. Texas Gini Coefficient: 0.474 Median Income: $47,475 (22nd Lowest) Households Earning $200,000+: 3.83% (16th Highest) Population Living Below Poverty Line: 17.20% (8th Highest) Texas has the largest percentage of its population falling either below the poverty line or making more than $200,000 a year, relative to the other states. Just over 21% of the state's population falls into one of these two camps, although most fall into the former group. According to an article from the St. Petersburg Times' PolitiFact.com, Texas had a GINI index of 0.37 in 1970, which increased to 0.42 in 1990, and is now 0.474, implying increasing long-term income inequality. 4. Louisiana Gini Coefficient: 0.473 Median Income: $45,433 (14th Lowest) Households Earning $200,000+: 2.54% (24th Lowest) Population Living Below Poverty Line: 17.30% (7th Highest) Louisiana has the seventh-largest percentage of residents both making less than $30,000 a year and living below the poverty line. The bottom 25% of earners make only 4% of the state's income. In comparison, the top 25% of earners enjoy 63% of the income, according to the Louisiana state government. The top 5% make 29% of the income. The good news is that personal income rose 3.1% in Louisiana in 2010, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. This is slightly more than the national average of 3%, and raises Louisiana earnings above 2008 pre-recession levels. 5. Alabama Gini Coefficient: 0.471 Median Income: $39,980 (3rd Lowest) EFTA01149787 Households Earning $200,000+: 2.13% (9th Lowest) Population Living Below Poverty Line: 17.50% (6th Highest) Alabama has the 5th largest percentage of households making less than $30,000 a year, and the tenth- highest percentage of households making above $100,000 a year. It also has the sixth-highest percentage of people living below the poverty line: 17.5%. From 2008 to 2009, the number of households making $200,000 or more a year fell from 2.3% to 2.1%. The number of households receiving food stamps, however, increased 26% from 2008 to 2009. 'We're seeing record numbers on food stamps and insurance programs, and there really is a direct correlation," said Jim Carnes, spokesman for the anti-poverty advocacy group Alabama Arise, in The Birmingham News. "As the poverty rate increases, government services have a greater demand." 6. Mississippi Gini Coefficient: 0.470 Median Income: $35,078 (Lowest) Households Earning $200,000+: 1.54% (Lowest) Population Living Below Poverty Line: 21.90% (Highest) Mississippi has the greatest percentage of poor people in the nation, 21.9%. The state has the greatest percentage of households making below $30,000 a year, 42.53%, and the smallest percentage of households making $200,000 or more, 1.54%. Suffice it to say, poverty is a major issue in Mississippi and it is getting worse. From 2007 to 2009, the state's poverty rate increased from 20.6% to 21.9%. 7. Florida Gini Coefficient: 0.469 Median Income: $45,631 (15th Lowest) Households Earning $200,000+: 3.08% (loth Highest) Population Living Below Poverty Line: 14.90% (18th Highest) Although Florida has only the 18th-largest percentage of its population living in poverty in the country, that share is growing quickly. From 2007 to 2009, the poverty rate increased from 12.1% to 14.9%, a growth of 550,000 people. In comparison, the national rate increased from 12.5% to 14.3% over the same period. Additionally, almost 1.2 million of the 2.7 million impoverished Florida residents live in "deep poverty," defined by the US Census Bureau as households with incomes of 50% or less of the federal poverty level. That amounts to $5,478 a year for an individual. Recent tax breaks have been aimed at the wealthy, however. In 2007, both the state's annual intangibles tax and the estate tax were eliminated. "Florida is a low tax state, but not for those living in poverty," reports the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. EFTA01149788 8. Georgia Gini Coefficient: 0.469 Median Income: $43,340 (loth Lowest) Households Earning $200,000+: 3.43% (19th Highest) Population Living Below Poverty line: 16.50% (12th Highest) According to the non-profit research organization Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), Georgia's tax system is regressive. This means that low-income families pay more of their income in state and local taxes than upper-income families do. The poorest 20% of Georgians have 3.2% of statewide personal income before taxes, but their share of after-tax income is just 3.1%. The best-off 3.% of residents enjoys 16.7% of pretax Georgia income, and 17.2% of after-tax income. More than 2o% of Georgians are living below the poverty line. 9. Illinois Gini Coefficient: 0.469 Median Income: $52,870 (14th Highest) Households Earning $200,000+: 4.47% (loth Highest) Population Living Below Poverty line: 13.30% (24th Lowest) Illinois has a relatively large percentage of households earning $200,000 or more each year, 4.47% - the tenth greatest amount in the country. The state has the 24th smallest percentage of residents living below the poverty line, in comparison, with 13.3%. This may be due to the state's policies which may be seen as giving preference to the wealthy. This year the state increased its flat income tax from 3% to 5%. According to John Tillman, chief executive of the Illinois Policy Institute, quoted in the State-Journal Register, the tax increase is "especially going to hurt lower-income folks -- those who are just starting out in careers or are struggling for whatever reason, who have incomes in the $20,000-$40,000 range." Worst still, average personal income has decreased 3.2% for the bottom 60% of Illinois wage earners over the past 40 years, according to the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. to. Massachusetts Gini Coefficient: 0.468 Median Income: $59,373 (8th Highest) Households Earning $200,000+: 6.56% (4th Highest) Population Living Below Poverty line: 10.30% (7th Lowest) Massachusetts has the fourth-greatest percentage of wealthy residents among all the states and the seventh-lowest percentage of people living below the poverty line. However, according to The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, "incomes for the highest income families in Massachusetts have EFTA01149789 grown almost five times as fast as those for low-income families and nearly twice as fast as those for middle-income families," over the past two decades. According to the organization, the inequality gap has increased more during this time in Massachusetts than in 47 of the other states. ****** g s, Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, was awarded $20 million in compensation for 2013. How can you explain to your children that crime doesn't pay and that big business and financial markets can police themselves when Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase was given a 94% pay raise ($20 million in compensation) up from 2013, despite a series of bruising legal setbacks. In November, JPMorgan agreed to pay the government $13 billion to resolve allegations that the bank knowingly sold faulty mortgage securities that contributed to the financial crisis. The settlement, and the slew of others that proceeded it, brought JPMorgan closer to putting to rest its mountain of legal woes. And for that, the board said it was grateful. One of the factors the board took into account in determining Dimon's compensation was the "steps the company has taken to resolve" the "regulatory issues the company has faced," according to the filing. Obviously in the eyes of JP Morgan Chase's board — Jamie Dimon can do no wrong. But think about it what kind of message does this sends to working people who have put in their 40 to 6o hours a week as teachers, firefighters, police, civil servants, account executives, sales associates, etc. and were told that they would only receive a 3% pay raise if any. And to make matters worse it that Dimon's compensation is structured as $1.5 million based pay and $18.5 million in stock which he then only pays 20% taxes on. As both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street believe, the game is rigged. And this is just the latest slap in the face of the average worker and working poor in America. When President Obama told David Remnick last week that he "would not let (his) son play profootball," conservatives jumped at the chance to fit that reluctance to let children play violent sports into their narrative that Obama is a weak president and a weak man afraid to engage in the kind of messy, violent acts men should take part in. On Friday's "Real Time," Bill Maher found this whole idea very odd. "I don't know where Republicans get the weird delusion that they're the party of manliness," he said. He pointed out that Republicans, who count their own fair share of "non-serving chickenhawks," are often more likely to push for war, and often silence critics by painting them as ineffectual and feminine. But he did not let Democrats off the hook for buying into Republicans' tactics. "Democrats have to start being the party that redefines toughness into restraint," he said. "It's not toughness Republicans love, it's bullying,' he continued. The governor of New Jersey was one example of such a Republican, according to Maher. "Somehow we've gonefrom Teddy Roosevelt's 'speak softly and carry a big stick,' to Chris Christie's 'speak loudly and be a big dick.'" As for Obama, Maher did not understand why his less EFTA01149790 hawkish stances on war than his predecessors was painted as negative in the new memoir by former defense secretary Robert Gates. "Gates said George W. Bush was a good president, because he had no second thoughts about Iraq," Maher said. 'That's because to have second thoughts, you have to havefirst thoughts." Web link: Intn://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuUQyzal2o#t=3.45 Somehow in America the idea of manhood has become bullying and it is no longer about how you play the game but only who prevails. Financial Review said, "that if the president thanks that the NFL is too dangerous for his fictitious son, what about the military?" As if defending one's country and kickoff returns are the same thing. We have to ask where Republicans gets the idea that they are the party of Manliness. And that somehow conservatives see themselves as the tough guys. And that Obama should man up and bomb Iran. We have to redefine toughness as restraint and stop responding to Republican taunts, that have go to Michael Dukakis into a tank, John Kerry into a duck hunting outfit and Hillary Clinton into Iraq. This isn't masculinity or prudent foreign policy, its bullying and ignorance and should no long be tolerated. Why in today's enlighten world bullying is still considered a masculine virtue. In an enlighten world, standing up to bullies is. Ignoring society's least able people is not masculine, whereas taking care of them is. These same bullies like to think of themselves as real men because they are willing to send our young people into wars of choice while Democrats are some sort of Nancy boys who will only go to war as last resort. They believe that engagement and other pansies' concessions for could lead to dialogue and worse peace. What is wrong with this novel concept? Again: The former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates published his memoirs, criticizing Obama for not being enthusiastic about the war in Afghanistan, because for him it was all about getting out. Whereas Gates described George Bush as a good President because "he had no second thoughts about Iraq." In a world where we don't even want our warriors to win at all cost, we definitely don't want our leaders to be bullies. As such masculinity in the form of bullying should not be tolerated. FINDLAND (revisited) Being inspired by a chance meeting on a flight to Europe last month I did several pieces on Finland, one of the few countries that I have never traveled to and thus knew little about. And to my surprise, the articles generated a lot of response. Below are a few responses as well as a note from my original travel mate to thank me and provide a few additional thoughts. And for those of you who skipped the sections last week, attached is a summary of the articles for your consideration. Dear Gregory, I have been to Finland over 20 times and love the country. Helsinki is a fantastic city. The countryside is beauhful. But a role modelfor the US and Europe?Absolutely not. Finland is the third most sparsely populated in the world, which makes it easy to manage in comparison to the US, Britain, France and China, which have big, densely-populated cities. The population of Finland is 91% native-born Finns and 5% is Finnish-born Swedes (most Finns speak Swedish). Only 4% areforeign born minorities and immigration is heavily restricted. Having almost no minorities makes it easyfor Finland's political elite to oversee a placid native-born population. EFTA01149791 Finland has the highest alcoholism rate in the world. Many people, especially men, literally drink themselves to death. The lack of diversity in Finland - and its high tax rate - holds back progress and innovation, which companies need to thrive. In 2003, Nokia had 35% of the world's cell phone market. By 2013, it's share had declined to only w96 and some people believe the country is heading to extinction, like the Canadian company Blackberry. Why? Too much of the same at the top management levels of the company. Few professionals are willing to emigrate to Finland to live there, and this includes minorities (like Indian scientists and engineers,for example) who could make a contribution to Finnish companies. A 42% tax rate is totally unacceptable. Many of Finland's most brilliant young people - in technology, the arts - are leaving that country to avoid this rate. They don't want the state taking away half of their incomes. Many want to come to New York and London to live and work. New York and London are the two top destination citiesfor the Finnish young. One observer recently wrote, "It seems that there are no young people in Finland. Anyone under the age of 40 is either drunk, depressed or mentally insane. Where have all the young, bright, smart Finnish people gone? I know they must be out there, somewhere, just not in Finland." This is an exaggeration, of course, but it tells you something. Best, Paul Greg — Great write-up on Finland! You really did your research! Either that or you have a memory like a steel trap and remembered everything I said when we talked. J Or both! One of the things that really holds Americans backfromfully appreciating what Finland has done is the label of "socialism". For most Americans, socialism = communism, and that's just a no-go zone evenfor many people on the left. It's better to, as you've done, notfocus on the label but insteadfocus on the result — a government that makes its decisions based on the result to society as a whole, not based on the driving needs/desires of one small group or another, which can so often disadvantage another group. I thought you captured that quite well below. Thanksfor listening — and remembering! — everything that is so near and dear to my heart. --Leslie Greg — Great read this weekend - Did you also know that by some account Finland has the highest suicide rate - all that good stuff and yet people take their own lives - in my mind it has to do with either the constant dark (white nights) and the ugly women -pick one... Imre Greg — You're absolutely right about the high suicide rates — and don'tforget the rampant alcoholism, either! But those two negative aspects of life in Finland are very much due to the weather and dark winters, as you note, and I think they re part of the driversfor the government working hard to make life goodfor people. My personal, unsubstantiated-by-data theory is that the northern countries are the ones who lead the way with governmental social responsibility precisely because the weather is so hard here. If people don't work together and help each other, especially the weak, then the weak won't make it through the winter. There are still a lot of depressed people and alcoholics, butfarfewer, I think, than there would be if the social safety net were missing here the way it is in the US. Anyway, that's my two cents. Again! ;-) --Leslie WEEK's READINGS EFTA01149792  Fadi Chehade: If We Fragment The Internet, 'It Will Not Be The Internet As We Know It' Fadi Chehade, CEO of ICANN, told HuffPost Live at Davos he thinks the "biggest threat"to innovation is a fragmented Internet. "The biggest threat is to start building walls that createfrictions. Frictionless Internet, where innovation is permissionless... is critical,"he said. "If we cannotfind a way to govern the Internet in an equalfooting, in an open transparent way this year, we might descend into a fragmented version of the Internet," Chehade said. "The moment wefragment the Internet it is possible there will be tariffs between borders, there will be rules... it will not be the Internet as we know it." Chehade said an open Internet is vital because it "globalizes every local industry and every local service." Chehade took over ICANN in October 2O12. As CEO he is guiding the largest expansion of the Internet address system since its creation in the 1980s, according to the AP. Watch Chehade's interview below, and see more from Davos below: Well site: hilp://www hiamgimpost comO014/0I O4/farli-rtiPhatie-clavow1 4/ 4611949 html9ittm hojef=busineschir--Blicinets As countries are looking for ways to monitor and control the control of information there is a real fear that countries will try to create their own Internet which will curtail the free flow of information around the world. This is not something that we think about today but in the world of "Big Brother" maybe we should. Mr. Chehad€ is signaling this potential problem/challenge. ****** 13 Words You Probably Didn't Know Were Invented By Shakespeare Like Precalculus and Newton's laws, Shakespeare's plays are among the most groaned-about high school topics, begetting the complaint: "When will I ever need to know about this in real life?" Turns out, pretty often. Shakespeare can be credited for the invention of thousands of words that are now an everyday part of the English language (including, but not limited to, "eyeball," 'fashionable," and "manger.') In addition to his being a particularly clever wordsmith, Shakespeare's word invention can be credited to the fact that the English EFTA01149793 language as a whole was in a major state of flux during the time that he was writing. Colonization and wars meant that English speakers were borrowing more and more words from other languages. It's hard to say whether or not Shakespeare was the first to use many of these words, but in most cases he has long been believed to be the first to write them (although the widespread digitization of books has lead to a few interesting discoveries from earlier sources.) So before you dismiss Shakespeare as a stodgy, boring alternative to more contemporary writers, remember that you have him to thank for the popularization following words...and Around 1,700 in total! Gloomy Definition: Somewhat dark: not bright or sunny Origin: "To gloom" was a verb that existed before Shakespeare converted the word into an adjective in a number of his plays. Quote: "Forced in the ruthless, vast, and gloomy woods?" - Titus Andronicus Laughable Definition: Bad in a way that seems foolish or silly Origin: Derived from the verb "laugh." Quote: 'Though Nestor swear the jest be laughable." - The Merchant of Venice Majestic Definition: Large and impressively beautiful Origin: From "majesty," which appeared in the 1.3oos, meaning "greatness." "Majestical" was first used in the 1570s. Quote: 'This is a most majestic vision" - The Tempest Lonely Definition: Sad from being apart from other people Origin: "Alone" was first shortened to "lone" in the tztoos. Quote: "Believe't not lightly — though I go alone / Like to a lonely dragon that his fen -Coriolanus Radiance Definition: A quality of brightness and happiness that can be seen on a person's face Origin: Derived from the Latin "radiantem," meaning "beaming." Quote: "For by the sacred radiance of the sun" - King Lear EFTA01149794 Hurry Definition: Move or act with haste; rush Origin: Likely derived from the verb "harry" Quote: "Lives, honors, lands, and all hurry to loss." - Henry VI Part Generous Definition: Freely giving or sharing money and other valuable things Origin: From the Latin "generosus," meaning "of noble birth." Quote: "Free me so far in your most generous thoughts / That I have shot mine arrow o'er the house / And hurt my brother." - Hamlet Frugal Definition:Careful about spending money or using things when you do not need to Origin: From the Latin "frugi," meaning "useful, proper, worthy, honest." Quote: "Chid I for that at frugal Nature's frame?" - Much Ado About Nothing Critical Definition: Expressing criticism or disapproval Origin: From the Latin "criticus," which referred specifically to a literary critic. Quote: "For I am nothing if not critical" — Othello Courtship Definition: The activities that occur when people are developing a romantic relationship that could lead to marriage or the period of time when such activities occur Origin: "Court" was first used to mean "woo" in the r57os; prior, it was used to mean "king's court, princely residence," derived from the French "cort." Quote: 'To courtship and such fair ostents of love" - The Merchant of Venice Zany Definition: Amusingly unconventional and idiosyncratic Origin: Derived from the Italian "zani," which came from "Zanni," a version of the name "Giovanni." Quote: "Some carry-tale, some please-man, some slight zany" - Love's Labour's Lost EFTA01149795 Undress Definition: To take your clothes off Origin: "Dress" comes from the Old French "dresser," meaning "prepare, arrange, straighten, put right." Shakespeare was the first to add the prefix "un-." Quote: "Madam, undress you and come now to bed." - The Taming of the Shrew Rant Definition: To talk loudly and in a way that shows anger: to complain in a way that is unreasonable Origin: Derived from the Dutch "randten," meaning "talk foolishly." Quote:"I'll rant as well as thou." - Hamlet Definitions arefrom Merriam-Webster. Origin information isfrom Online Etymology Dictionary Last week in The Huffington Post journalist Mark Gongloff wrote - The Mortgage Market Just Cratered And The Fed Should Be Worried - As it appears that a jump in interest rates has had a big impact on the housing market. That's a warning sign for a Federal Reserve seemingly bound and determined to withdraw stimulus from a still-shaky economy. The mortgage market cratered in the fourth quarter of 2013, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase reported on January 14, 2014, as higher interest rates all but murdered demand for mortgage refinancing. The nation's biggest mortgage lender, Wells Fargo, said its mortgage volume tumbled to $50 billion in the quarter, down 60 percent from $125 billion a year ago. The second-biggest lender, JPMorgan Chase, said its mortgage originations, that includes new home purchases and refinancings, fell 54 percent to $23.3 billion from $51.2 billion a year ago. (Story continues after chart of ugliness.) EFTA01149796  160 Mortgage Originations, Billions Of $ 110 Wells Fargo 110 — E1PFgoiWCIir 100 • 01100 X101= 1 411012 M1012 013013 022013 02013 011011 These two banks are key indicators for the state of the housing market. Wells Fargo issued nearly 23 percent of all U.S. home loans last year, to JPMorgan Chase's 11 percent, according to industry tracker Inside Mortgage Finance. And the story they're telling is stark: Higher rates have hurt demand. The average interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has jumped to 4.5 percent from a record low of 3.3 percent in early 2013, according to government-backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac. This has happened mostly because of the Fed. Central bankers last year repeatedly declared a desire to pare back, or taper, their program to buy $85 billion in mortgage-backed securities and Treasury bonds each month to keep interest rates low. They made good on that promise last month, trimming $ro billion from the program. Despite a still-anemic job market, most economists think the Fed will trim another $ro billion at its next policy meeting, later this month. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and others argued they weren't kicking the props out from under the bond market, but that's sort of what happened: Bond prices fell, and interest rates jumped. Of course, rates are still relatively low, and the housing market is not exactly in a panic, though sales have dipped. The Fed seems to believe it can slowly remove support from the housing market without causing too much trouble. We're about to find out. ****** The 20 most populous metro areas in the United States, in 1 amazing chart Graph of Metro Area Population Rank over Time The top 20 Metro Areas in the United States, 1790-2010 There are few things worse in this world than listening to New Yorkers refer to "The City" -- with the implicit assumption that you know of which metropolis they speak. But, according to this amazing chart, these Empire Staters have a point: New York City is the boss of American cities. Here's the chart, which tracks the 20 largest U.S. metro areas from 1790 through 2010. Historical Metropolitan Area Populations EFTA01149797 Notes on graph: See tables below for help on what the various metro area codes mean—most air fairly self-explanatory For example "NY" is New lin*. "Chi" is Chicago. and so on. Also note that the table graphs rank. not population. A metro area can see increasing population and decreasing rank at the same time. if other metro arras art growing lamer Indeed. I think very few metro areas have lost population during any 10 year span. Follow Detroit's rise and fall and you follow the rise and fall of the manufacturing industry in America. The Motor City broke into the top 20 in 1840 and within 1OO years was one of the five largest metro areas in the country. The last three decades have seen a population free fall in Detroit, however, all the way to the number 12 in 2010. St. Louis is now barely on the list after peaking at the fourth most populous metro area in the late 18oos. Baltimore has fallen from top five to barely top twenty. (Tommy Carcetti weeps.) And what about the metros that briefly broke into the top 20? Rochester (N.Y) had a brief run in the mid- 'Boos. Seattle spent 20 years in the top 20 in the early loth century before returning in the 197os and now standing as the 14th largest metropolis. Heck, New Haven (Conn.) got a little run in the top 20 for two decades in the early 1800s. Random Notes and Comments • The urban hierarchy of the U.S. was dominated by the Northeast and Midwest until relatively recently. Between 1840 and 1900,18 out of the top 20 metro areas were in the northeastern quadrant of the current USA, with just New Orleans, plus either Charleston or San Francisco, as the only cities in the South or West. As late as 1960, 15 out of 20 were still outside the "sunbelt". • For 8o years, from 186o to 1930 inclusive, New Orleans was the only southern city in the top 20. Before that, Charleston, SC was the dominant city of the south, falling off the list in 1850. In 1940, Houston, Dallas, and Miami began their rises, and Atlanta didn't crack the top 20 until 1970. • Cincinnati was the first major city of the Midwest, making the top 20 list in 1820. By 1890 there were 9 midwestern cities in the top 20. • San Francisco was the only western city in the top 20 for 50 years, from 186o to 1900 inclusive. By 1910 Los Angeles cracked the the top 20, soon overtaking its northern rival. In 2010, the West had more cities on the list (6) than any other region. • In 1850, 5 of the top 20 cities were in New York State: New York City (1), Albany (7), Buffalo (1O), Rochester (16), and Syracuse (18). The nickname "Empire State" was very apt in the heyday of the Erie Canal. • Four northeastern cities (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore) have been in the top 20 since the first census in 1790. Washington, DC didn't really exist in 1790, but Alexandria, VA was on the list then, and DC itself afterwards, so one could argue that the Washington metro area also has been in the top 20 since independence. • By 1930 Washington, DC was ranked #17, down from #5 in 1820. But the expansion of the federal government during the New Deal era and World War II propelled it up to #8 by 1970. It is the only metro area with a U-shaped curve, with a steady decline in rank followed by a steady rise. Tables: Top 20 U.S. Metropolitan Areas by Population, 1790-2010 (with top 4 Metropolitan Areas 1680-1775) Approximate Populations in Thousands Rank 1. 1680 City Boston Pop 4.5 E 1- Rank . 1700 City Boston Pop 6.7 Rank 1. 1720 City Boston Pop 12 Rank 1740 City Boston Pop 16.4 Rank I 1. 1760 City I Pop, Rank Philadelphia 23.8 1. 1775 City Pop Philadelphia 40 EFTA01149798 2. New York 3.0 2. New York 5.0 2. Philadelphia 10 2. Philadelphia 13.0 2. New York 18.0 2. New York 25 3. Newport. RI 2.5 3. Philadelphia 5.0 3. New York 7 3. New York 11.0 3. Boston 15.6 3. Boston 16 4. Charleston 0.7 4. Newport. RI 2.6 4. Newport. RI 3.8 4. Charleston 6.8 4. Charleston 8.0 4. Charleston 12 1800 1810 1790 Rank Metro Area Pop Rank Metro Area Pop 1 Rank Metro Area Pop 1820 1830 1840 Philadelphia 61.6 1 New York 101 Rank Metro Area Pop 1. Philadelphia 44.1 2 New York 60.5 Rank Metro Area Pop Rank Metro Area Pop 2. New York 33.1 3 2 Philadelphia 87.3 1. New York 131 Baltimore 26.5 1 New York 215 1. New York 374 3 Baltimore 46.6 2. Philadelphia 109 3. Boston 18.3 4 Boston 24.9 4 2 Philadelphia 161 2. Philadelphia 259 Boston 38.7 3. Baltimore 62.7 4. Charleston 16.4 5 Charleston 18.8 3 Boston 85.6 3. Boston 183 5 Charleston 24.7 4. Boston 54.0 5. Salem. MA 13.6 6 Salem. MA 14.7 4 Baltimore 80.6 4. Baltimore 110 6 Salem. MA 23.1 5. Washington 28.8 6. Baltimore 13.5 7 Washington 11.2 5 New Orleans 46.1 5. New Orleans 105 7 Washington 20.4 6. New Orleans 27.2 7. Newport. RI 6.7 8. Providence 7.6 6 Albany 35.8 6. Albany 72.0 8 New Orleans 17.2 7. Charleston 24.8 8. Providence 6.4 9 Norfolk 6.9 7 Washington 35.5 7. Cincinnati 54.8 9. Gloucester. MA 5.3 9 Albany 10.8 8. Salem. MA 22.6 10 Newport. RI 6.7 8 Charleston 30.3 8. Washington 50.2 10 Providence 10.1 9. Albany 17.9 ewbuiyport. Newburyport. 9 Salem. MA 27.3 9. Pittsburgh 43.7 10. MA 4.8 6.0 11. Richmond 9.7 10. Richmond 12.1 Il• MA 10 Cncinnati 24.8 10. Charleston 42.6 Portsmouth 12. Norfolk 9.2 11. Providence 11.8 11* ' 4.7 12. Richmond 57