|
Post by wild on Sept 30, 2008 11:42:16 GMT -6
I suppose some of you have a passing interest in the financial crisis and Uncle Sam's rescue of the banks and investment houses.700 Billion is what the feds are going to pump into the system.Now can anyone tell me where all the loot went.I mean 700 billion just did not vanish out of the system .Someone has to have it .Can anyone enlighten me ?
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 30, 2008 13:23:19 GMT -6
Where is limited accurate range of 40 yards coming from? I am sure an Indian could shoot prone with the bow horizontal better than trying to figure the trajectory over a ridge top.
I am basing this off of a lifetime of research and experimentation with the bow and arrow. The equipment of the era was limited in what it was capable of. Sinew backed chokecherry or ash bows of limited draw weight and length coupled with rosewood or cane arrows with stamped or forged blade, that were tied on or glued into place with hide or pine pitch. Along with fletching again tied or glued into place just do not provide for weapons of of accuracy at extended range ( twenty yards or more). These bows were also greatly affected by weather conditions such as cold or humidity. As for shooting prone, it is obviously much more difficult than shooting a rifle prone. There are number of problems that come into play when shooting a bow prone. One is simply shooting the arrow thru the grass or sage brush any of which can deflect an arrow. Also the mechanics of the bow itself create problems, the string and limbs will catch on grass or brush as they move forward. This will really throw things out of wack. And shooting the bow horizontal is not a big issue if that is the way one always shoots it. Much like shooting a rifle canted, if that's how you shoot it consistently then it is not an issue, but if you change the hold then so does the point of impact change. sherppa
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 30, 2008 13:40:58 GMT -6
I would think that from 100 to 400 yards to be an acceptable range for indirect bow fire. Clair I don't think you can indirect fire at 100 yards effectively. At 300 fps what angle would you have to use? If the Indians are massed at 400 yards, get out of there. I think Henryville had as much impact as indirect fire from arrows. AZ Ranger Again and please forgive me, the bows and arrows of that time were not anything like what we have today in means of performance. The plains bows would average between 140 and 160 fps. Max range on these bows would have been somewhere in the area of 200 yards, give or take. Actually 100 yards serves as an effective range for the use of indirect fire. The 300 fps barrier has not been consistently been surpassed until recently, and then by compound type bows. sherppa
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 30, 2008 14:04:00 GMT -6
I believe you, Sherppa...I'll amend my estimate at the range at which the Warriors would have fired their bows in an "indirect" fashion to 100-200 yards.
Again, they would not be shooting at any specific targets ("point targets" in modern vernacular). They would only be looking for their arrows to land in a 20m circumference, probably centered on a guidon sticking in the ground. They would loose their arrows at a 45 to 60-degree angle, depending upon range, intending for the arrows to fall nearly perpendicular into targets on the ground.
I don't think it would take that long for a 20m-diameter circle to look like a well-used pin cushion.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Sept 30, 2008 15:22:55 GMT -6
Hey wild,
Since the smart people here are busy figuring out where the arrows came from and went to, and since I have spent two weeks overseeing a collapsing personal financial empire - I’ll chime in.
The so called $700B is still there. It’s in the form of real estate that has landed back in the hands of the banks through foreclosures. An empty house doesn’t send the bank money every month, and since banks deal in cash, they claim to be stuck with $700B in non-liquid assets thus, clogging credit and cash flow.
The housing market is in decline and no one can tell how much the properties are actually worth and so - no clear value of assets, no way to decide how much to lend against it. So they say.
The answer they suggest, is for the taxpayers to basically take over the vacant properties, at a reduced price in order to get cash and credit flowing again, and them off the hook. Then sell those properties later when the housing market improves and recover the money at that later time.
B(usted) S(treet)
|
|
|
Post by bc on Sept 30, 2008 15:30:40 GMT -6
Yeah right, (B)roke (S)tocktrader. My 401K is now a 301K.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Sept 30, 2008 15:50:42 GMT -6
bc,
Nothing is ever guaranteed. Ask Custer.
B(orderline) S(olvent)
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Sept 30, 2008 16:05:23 GMT -6
Wild,
Here’s another take.
The missing loot is found in two places; (1) the unmade past and future payments of real life defaulted mortgages. In other words, the real estate developer or former home owner walked off with the purchase price handed to them by a lending institution and the new owner then said “I can not pay for this house”. In the old days, the lending institution was left holding the bag, which is why lending requirements were fairly stiff and defaults fairly few. But in the modern era some smart guys figured out that the risk of default could be could be taken completely out of the picture.
It worked like this. A couple of really large outfits offered to buy up mortgages from lending institutions. What they bought they packaged in bundles, sliced up the bundles like baloney and the individual slices were then sold as investments. Anybody buying a slice wasn’t getting a single whole mortgage, but a fractional share in a whole bundle of mortgages. The risk was diversified across all the investors who bought a slice so nobody could get really hurt (this part was later found to be not quite right). Problem was lending institutions lost the incentive to filter out risk on the front end. “No credit. No job. No problem!” Sign up this morning, your mortgage is sold off to a bundler tonight and more baloney hits the market tomorrow and the lending institution is in the clear. Over time though the baloney began to have an increasingly funny smell. In fact, after our housing bubble popped the default rate become high enough to gag some dogs off a gut wagon
So that’s item (1), the actual past, present and future defaulted mortgage payments in this country and it’s some fraction of the $700 billion and it’s real money.
A much bigger fraction, item (2), is the almost entire value of the now tainted slices of baloney. Back in the old days again, an investor (“Inv”) who bought a slice would sit down with their public accountant (“PA”) and the conversation would go like this:
PA: Ed, we know there’s some impairment (stink) in the baloney.
Inv: Really?
PA: Yeah, 10% of it’s bad.
Inv: Can’t be more than 2%.
PA: We could live with 6%.
Inv: 4% and you get the audit contract again next year.
PA: I’m comfortable.
So the investor reported a 4% loss and his stated capital was reduced by that amount. Ouch, but business goes on.
In the modern era, the accountants came up with their bright idea to avoid such conversations, which had always left them feeling like they’d just been made love to without ever being kissed. “Mark to market” was the solution. No more wrangling over how much the baloney was worth, let the market decide. That worked fine while the market functioned; check the paper and see what baloney is selling for today, that’s what it’s worth. But as the stench rose, people became more and more queasy about buying baloney at all. Diced up as the slices were and with the default rate rising, uncertainty as to ultimate realizable value broke the market apart. Everybody said “I’m steering clear of this stuff until we can figure out what’s what.” So today the conversation is:
PA: Ed, we both know you can’t sell this stuff ‘cause the market’s closed.
Inv: Where’s that leave us?
PA: The entire slice is, under the new rules, worth zero.
Inv: That’s nuts. We both know most of the homeowners will ultimately pay their mortgages and that will filter across to me and the other slice holders.
PA: Doesn’t matter. No market to mark to, no value.
Inv: I won’t take that.
PA: How’s ten in the slammer for falsifying financial statements sound?
So the investor takes a 100% loss on the baloney in reported earnings and a big hole appears in his capital, leaving his ability to lend and borrow both seriously impaired. In fact, he may land so far under water that unless the government or a healthy investor swoops in he’s tomorrow’s bankruptcy headline.
So that’s item 2, the far larger enchilada, the difference between the ultimate realizable value and the zero value, or darned close to it, that investors in baloney have been forced to accept. It’s not real money lost, it’s real money hidden for the time being by a frozen market for that class of security and an accounting rule that doesn’t fit the circumstances.
That ultimately realizable value coming true is what the folks crafting the bailout rely on when they say “In the long run, this won’t cost the taxpayer very much. In fact, we may make money on the deal.” You know what, they could be right.
All the above is subject to the usual caveats. If you have any questions or need investment advice, check with your barber.
Yours,
Mike Powell
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 30, 2008 16:39:00 GMT -6
Where is limited accurate range of 40 yards coming from? I am sure an Indian could shoot prone with the bow horizontal better than trying to figure the trajectory over a ridge top.
I am basing this off of a lifetime of research and experimentation with the bow and arrow. The equipment of the era was limited in what it was capable of. Sinew backed chokecherry or ash bows of limited draw weight and length coupled with rosewood or cane arrows with stamped or forged blade, that were tied on or glued into place with hide or pine pitch. Along with fletching again tied or glued into place just do not provide for weapons of of accuracy at extended range ( twenty yards or more). These bows were also greatly affected by weather conditions such as cold or humidity. As for shooting prone, it is obviously much more difficult than shooting a rifle prone. There are number of problems that come into play when shooting a bow prone. One is simply shooting the arrow thru the grass or sage brush any of which can deflect an arrow. Also the mechanics of the bow itself create problems, the string and limbs will catch on grass or brush as they move forward. This will really throw things out of wack. And shooting the bow horizontal is not a big issue if that is the way one always shoots it. Much like shooting a rifle canted, if that's how you shoot it consistently then it is not an issue, but if you change the hold then so does the point of impact change. sherppa sherppa Are you saying the Apaches had far superior bows and arrows to the Sioux and Cheyenne. In The Lighting Stick, page 50 Do you think 100 fps will penetrate 6 inches of pine? Does the Apache approximate draw weight of 50 lbs sound about right? Bourke was in the field and had first hand knowledge on the receiving end. 40 yard accuracy for the Sioux and Cheyenne is a big difference between the 150 to 300 yards reported in the literature cited for the Apaches. Maybe our Apaches were far superior at making powerful bows. Iwould guess arrow speed to be closer to 200 fps to travel 300 yards and penetrate 6 inches of pine at any distance. I was thinking more like lying on your back and holding the bow with the feet horizontal like I did as kid. Since you have some expertise on bow and arrows at what angle would they have to use in order to deploy it over cover, necessary for indirect fire, to make it land in 100 yards or less? Thanks AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by cefil on Sept 30, 2008 16:44:39 GMT -6
Wild, Here’s another take. [snip] All the above is subject to the usual caveats. If you have any questions or need investment advice, check with your barber. Yours, Mike Powell Mike: This is brilliant! I feel smarter now, after your on-the-money post, than I have after all of the [endless] hours of news coverage I've been watching. You, my friend, are a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks so much for sharing! (Now, time to visit my barber...) cefil
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 30, 2008 17:18:29 GMT -6
Mike ,Brokensword Many thanks for taking the time--brilliant.If you ever need thermo nuclear physics explained in laymans language give me a call.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Sept 30, 2008 18:06:01 GMT -6
Welcome wild.
M
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Sept 30, 2008 18:40:57 GMT -6
cefil,
thanks for the comments. I made a career out of showing up to explain how the horse got out of the barn. Keeping the horse in the barn was beyond my ken.
It has been interesting to watch a few newscasters handle references to "mark to market". There's a nanosecond flash of core shutdown, rapid reboot and on to the next talking point - kind of like the Matrix just glitched on them. Did see a sharp analyst chick on CNBC field it from a republican house member from Texas who voted yesterday against the bailout. He opined the SEC head should ditch the rule immediately. She fired it right back with "If you believe "mark to market" is a problem, why didn't you vote in favor of the bill since if the value is truly there, the voters will get their money back anyway." He blinked and moved on. Should have said "why not change the rule and avoid having to borrow $700 billion in the first place?" Oh, well.
Wild,
I'll keep the kind offer in mind. Could you arrange for us to stand jointly at some ground zero? Always felt that would allow me to fully grasp the substance of all the theory. Let me know what strength sunscreen to bring.
Yours,
Mike Powell
|
|
|
Post by sherppa on Sept 30, 2008 22:10:52 GMT -6
sherppa Are you saying the Apaches had far superior bows and arrows to the Sioux and Cheyenne. In The Lighting Stick, page 50 Do you think 100 fps will penetrate 6 inches of pine? Does the Apache approximate draw weight of 50 lbs sound about right? Bourke was in the field and had first hand knowledge on the receiving end. 40 yard accuracy for the Sioux and Cheyenne is a big difference between the 150 to 300 yards reported in the literature cited for the Apaches. Maybe our Apaches were far superior at making powerful bows. Would guess arrow speed to be closer to 200 fps to travel 300 yards and penetrate 6 inches of pine at any distance. I was thinking more like lying on your back and holding the bow with the feet horizontal like I did as kid. Since you have some expertise on bow and arrows at what angle would they have to use in order to deploy it over cover, necessary for indirect fire, to make it land in 100 yards or less? Thanks AZ Ranger AZ, There are differences in the bows but I would be hard pressed to say one is better than the other. No, an arrow traveling at 100 fps will not penetrate 6 inches of pine. Back when I was shooting compound bows the best I was able to get from a 50 lbs compound with an aluminum arrow and steal broadhead was the slightly more than 2 1/2 inches into a cottonwood tree. That bow if memory serve me was somewhere around 180-190 fps. "The Lightning Stick" Bourke's claim of arrows penetrating 6 inches of pine were disputed by others, I have agree with those who questioned it. But I do agree with the statement of them (Apache arrows) being effective out to 150 yards and piercing a man at 300 paces. 300 paces is shorter than 300 yards. Figuring a 30 inch step (pace) this puts the distance at roughly 250 yards. One must keep in mind though that this is effective range not necessarily accurate range. For example the M60 Machine gun is accurate out to 600 meters but is effective out to 1100. The point being what conz was saying about, area targets versus point targets. There may be some merit to your idea of shooting on your back holding the bow with your feet. The only problem would be the bows draw length and being able to draw the bow without hunching your body to far forward and exposing you upper body. And yes, 50 lbs would be probably be the average draw. I may be wrong but 200 fps just seems awful fast for bows of that vintage. As for angle needed to drop an arrow at a 100 yards or any distance for that matter determined by the bows "cast". Each bow being slightly or greatly different depending on draw weight, draw length, arrow length and weight. It is kind of like the ballistic coefficient of different bullets and calibers. For distance shooting, most "flight" shooters hold somewhere around 42-43 degrees. For the purpose of this discussion again I think conz is pretty close with his assessment of 45 to 60 degree, depending again on factors involved, range, and cast. Thank you, this has been quite enjoyable. sherppa
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 1, 2008 7:01:27 GMT -6
Sherppa...
Ever see any evidence that the American Natives tried Mongolian style compound bows? Or Japanese or Chinese?
Clair
|
|