http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

I mean, don’t you want such an excellent reverse indicator in real time?

To wit, “Smartmoney” (choke..choke..) magazine is still running his columns. Now what does it tell you about that sadly ridiculous little rag? If you are tempted to go there…Warning! Some of his column titles put up the facade or reasonableness. Enter and you will fall into the fun-house nonsense of Luskin-world.

I sometimes get the sense that you simply need a pulse to be a pundit. Is there a scorecard for idiots like Luskin somewhere on the internet? Every time a pundit gets on CNBC, Bloomberg, or FBN, their rating should be posted. They could post the ranking next to the other disclosures now made. This ranking would be based on their previous predictions from newsletters, TV, radio, newspaper, etc. For this article Luskin would be given credit for 7 or so separate predictions and his scorecard would read 0 for 7 / 0%.

This would probably kill the pundit business. Good riddance.

Austan Goolsbee, member of The Council of Economic Advisers March 29, 2007 on the eve of the mortgage meltdown–

~~~~~
Almost every new form of mortgage lending — from adjustable-rate mortgages to home equity lines of credit to no-money-down mortgages — has tended to expand the pool of people who qualify but has also been greeted by a large number of people saying that it harms consumers and will fool people into thinking they can afford homes that they cannot.

Congress is contemplating a serious tightening of regulations to make the new forms of lending more difficult. New research from some of the leading housing economists in the country, however, examines the long history of mortgage market innovations and suggests that regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening too much.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DEEDF1030F93AA15750C0A9619C8B63&scp=26&sq=Austan%20Goolsbee&st=cse

Austan Goolsbee now–

The existence of such a regulatory framework might have averted Lehman’s chaotic end — and the economic crisis that followed — because cheap money wouldn’t have been allowed to inflate a real estate bubble with questionable mortgages and mortgage derivatives, according to Austan Goolsbee, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“One of the fundamental principles of the plan is that if you’re menacing to the system, someone is going to regulate you very closely,” said Goolsbee, 40. “They’re going to be in there watching everything you do.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aUTh4YMmI6QE