posted by Curt, on July 27, 2008 06:40 pm

We're only part way through the drama yet, but watching the government response to the housing crisis has been an eyeopener for me. It's made me realize that you should be wary making predictions about the outcome of a "game" based on the current set of rules because the rules can be changed mid-stream. The housing bubble, its crash, and the political response provides a good example. I became interested in the whole thing starting in 2003, shortly after I got married and was getting ready to graduate. My wife and I had some savings in the bank, and I had a decent job for a kid in college--but there was no way I thought that I was secure enough to buy a home. However, a substantial number of my friends were--many with no income outside of student loans or a part-time job that paid less than mine. All the lending excesses that were going on then are now well documented.

At the time, I just didn't believe the people saying that I could afford a home; perhaps in part because my own parents had some bad experiences with their responsible real estate purchases. I didn't think too much of it. I chalked it up to my risk-averse nature more than anything else. However, as time went on, I became more concerned that something was really wrong while I watched prices go up at an astounding pace. I like many others, was first worried that I would be priced out of a home. After just some basic investigation, however, I quickly realized that the whole thing was ridiculous and unsustainable. I just decided that I would wait until everything collapsed, and hoped that by the time it did I would be ready to jump into the market. I became a part of the wait-for-the-housing-crash crowd. As a group, I suppose that we fancied ourselves more intelligent than the average buyer and congratulated ourselves on knowing that the whole real estate bubble would come crashing down on itself. We knew that people wouldn't be able to afford their loans and that prices wouldn't go up forever. We knew that people were spending beyond their ability to repay. We knew that when the bills came do and appreciation slowed down, they would be in big trouble. And we were right about that.

But perhaps we weren't as smart as we thought we were. What most of us, including myself, didn't anticipate was a huge, government-financed bailout. Apparently, the bubble was too big to let pop. Perhaps it was too big to even let it slowly deflate. The government response has been massive. And while it remains to be seen whether it's enough to make a huge difference, there have undoubtedly been some that have been bailed out, and more that will be when Bush signs the housing bailout bill tomorrow. In my mind, I can hear them taunting me:

You thought you were smarter than us. Did you ever think that we saw the bubble too, realized how big it would become, and got in knowing that it was almost certain we'd be bailed out? Who's the one who's laughing now? You're now financing my extravagance with your tax money. You'll be paying for this one way or the other . . . don't you wish that you'd jumped in when you had the chance so that you could be bailing out yourself, rather than me?

Now, I don't regret my decisions. I'm comfortable, and in absolutely no immediate danger of financial overextension. I don't live like a pauper (at least I don't think so). We have plenty of food, and the financial and personal peace of mind that comes from knowing I've made good on all my obligations. I'm not ashamed to have people come to my home because it's too extravagant and my kids can walk on the carpet with wet shoes and I don't worry too much. That's a nice life. I value it more than granite countertops and a two-sink master bathroom or home theater. What I am suggesting is that it seems like it's no longer good enough to understand the rules that govern a game. The rules change. How can you make sound financial decisions when you don't know the rules that will govern your choices? You can't predict outcomes based on on changing game. Under the current "moral hazard" type of framework, you've got to predict what will happen under the present system, and then predict how that is likely to precipitate midstream change within that system in order to try and get the likely outcome. This to me seems to be quite a difficult, if not impossible, undertaking.

I don't think this is anything new, but it's a macro rule of life that I didn't understand before. I see it as the hidden part of the moral hazard problem. Everyone talks about how bailouts encourage irresponsible behavior. But, in my situation, I'm left wonder what they do to the responsible--those who have no desire nor inclination to engage in reckless behavior. Sure, we know that we end up paying for the bailout. But we're also left in a state where we're smart enough to realize what's responsible under the current system but, at the same time, are left uncertain about how we can responsibly proceed when the seemingly inevitable changes come.

So where does this leave us? Well, I'm one that happens to believe that there is a bigger rule-maker than the government, and that there are some basic rules of the game of life that can't be changed, no matter how much influence, lobbying power, or importance that one has. The law of the harvest, i.e. you sow what you reap, is pretty darn immutable (at least in the long run). Same with the golden rule. I'll plan my life according to those rules. But, beyond paying for them, the lack of predictability engendered by bailouts is certainly a frustrating thing.

posted by Curt, on July 21, 2008 08:05 am

OK, I'll admit right up front that I enjoy them, in a strange sort of way. One of the first things I do when I find an interesting article to read online is to browse through the comments that readers have posted. I even have commenting enabled on my own site . . . and I check for new comments regularly, even if it's always in vain. Rarely a source of any kind of wisdom, comment boards are generally a source of amusement. You can see what stupid, funny, offensive things people say about news. It's like a thousand mini-editorials without hardly any restriction on content. Many of the boards, while supposedly "moderated"e; by site administrators, are largely user patrolled--adding to the craziness. For me, comment boards are a source of amusement, much like the Opinion Section of BYU's student-run newspaper, The Daily Universe, was for me when I was a student at BYU (all of three months ago).

But lately, I've been thinking that perhaps comment boards aren't as harmless as I thought. In fact, I sometimes feel relieved when I read an online article from a site that doesn't all user comments. I don't feel compelled to browse through the comments and see how other people react to the piece. This surprises me a little bit, since I oft-times enjoy reading comments so much. My thoughts are so undefined at this point that they're probably better referred to as feelings. So, more accurately stated, I've got a feeling that comment boards are doing some damage and that we might be better off without them. Here's my attempt to put all this into words.

In the best worlds, comment boards exists so that a writer can get feedback on what they've written. Anyone who's ever been willing to go through the pain of letting someone else read what he's put down on paper knows how valuable another reader's perspective can be. But I rarely see any of this type of commenting on the stories of any large-scale publication or news source. Inevitably, it seems, when there are a large number of readers, the comments posted on online boards degenerate into tangential arguments (in the most childish sense) so rambling that they are impossible to follow, snide and offensive remarks, and personal rants/gloats by those to whom the issue involved has special significance. I'm not sure what's gained by it all. Although I'm sure it's something of an exaggeration, I can't remember the last time I saw any really valuable constructive criticism posted in the comments for a story on a major news site. It doesn't happen. People react to the news, not any analysis that happens to be in the posting. To me, there appears to be no benefit to it all.

Arrayed on the other side, I think there are some serious negative effects from comment boards. Not only are people using the anonymity of the Internet in order to engage in socially irresponsible behavior (as is the case with the creation of much Internet content), but there's something more wrong with it. I can't exactly put my own gut feeling into words, but it has something to do with the glorification of childish argument masquerading as legitimate debate. It's not a good thing, and I think that it does some harm to the people who post in that way and the people who read it. The apparent "e;thrill" that comes from posting comments results generally from tearing down someone else's work in a way that makes you look superior. This type of tear-down takes many forms . . . even (and perhaps especially) the self-righteous form: by criticizing other people for tearing down others (am I engaging in this type of tear-down right now?).

There's not much good that comes from all this. I'm not a Lincoln expert, by any means, but I've heard stories that he had a fairly large collection of letters he wrote but never sent. Generally, these were "angry" letters . . . ones in which he (usually justifiably) took another person to task for something they had done or failed to do. He wrote quite a few of them--but he didn't send most. Instead, he put his frustration down on paper, and then gathered his thoughts and responded again when he was more measured. This is the antithesis of the modern Internet commenter--who dashes off little more than an emotional response to what someone else has said, and hits the "send" or "post" button and then continuously reloads to page to see others' immediate responses. While his heart rate is still elevated, he finds that another has responded to him and dashes off a reply. Even better is when someone gives one of his responses a "quot;thumbs up." Before he knows it, an afternoon is wasted and the comments page is miles long.

While I've have seen good commenting on the internet, I've never seen it on a news site. It's generally found is small doses, and on small blogs, where an author writes about something with an uncertain and questioning attitude. Readers then respond with helpful feedback. But where an author takes a strong position on something, or simply reports a happening, commenting inevitably degenerates in ways that are no good for the author (because the response probably simply encourages him to stir up some more contention), the commentators, or the comment-readers. That's why I think that "reporting" or "position" sites should disable comments.

I think I'm going to be boycotting the comment boards of internet news sites, and any large-scale online publication, from now on. And feel free to laugh at my astounding hypocrisy as I leave the comments feature on my site enabled for now. It's really mainly so I know if anyone has even read what I've written. Perhaps I'll write in a disabling comments feature into my code for posts where I take a position.

posted by Curt, on July 17, 2008 09:56 pm

I thought I would post this very amusing quote from a new article by The Onion: Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble To Invest In

"Every American family deserves a false sense of security," said Chris Reppto, a risk analyst for Citigroup in New York. "Once we have a bubble to provide a fragile foundation, we can begin building pyramid scheme on top of pyramid scheme, and before we know it, the financial situation will return to normal."

You can read the whole, and highly amusing, article here.

posted by Curt, on July 13, 2008 04:30 pm

It's been a long time since I've posted one of these "influences" posts. This one was prompted by a paper written by a law school friend on Patrick Henry, national power, and the War Powers Resolution. His paper wasn't focused on Henry's well-known speech (which follows below). Instead, it focused on his arguments about the danger of consolidation of power, and suggested that they remained a good guide for us today. Essentially, he argued that the Anti-Federalists and their arguments shouldn't be consigned to history simply because they lost the battle over the ratification of the Constitution. I agree. But, this post is more about Henry's speech than the Anti-Federalists, because it has influenced me ever since I was a kid and my mom read to us about Patrick Henry in a bedtime story. That's how I fell asleep for quite a few years--to biographies of famous historical figures, and I'll be ever grateful for it.

In any event here's Patrick Henry's speech. My commentary follows:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them?

Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

With due respect to both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and even Lincoln, I doubt there is any other piece of American political rhetoric more inspiring. And it's been adopted as part of the American psyche.

But what does it really mean for America and Americans? Many look at our country today and would say that we have chosen life and peace over freedom and liberty. Granite countertops, big trucks, walk-in closets, fast food, and conspicuous consumption seem much more the vision and goals of the American future than does liberty. Perhaps, then, the words of Patrick Henry have become yet one more part of the vast list of contradictions between the way Americans view themselves and the way they actually are. Maybe there is little spirit left in our country, especially as compared to 1776, 1861, or 1941.

I actually don't think that is the case. If Americans of the past were always willing to make the difficult choice of liberty over security, why was there a need for Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine? The reality of our history seems to be that we always need a bit of prodding to take on the difficult tasks that must be completed to secure the liberty and unity of our nation. In other words, we don't like to make the choice between liberty and security until we're really forced to. That to me, seems to be the reality of the American experience. In 1776, 1861, and 1941, no less than today, Americans needed some prodding before they were willing to stand up and save the Union and preserve their liberties. And, in significant ways, it was rhetoric that called to memory America's vision of itself that moved Americans to action. It strikes me that one of the things that Patrick Henry's speech stands for is Americans' susceptibility to ideas--big ideas about the fact that they are still engaged in the cause for which their forefathers immigrated, fought, and worked. And when there is a combination of exigency and a person with the passion and skill to call those ideas to the forefront of America's mind and heart, we still respond in largely the same way that we did back in 1776. At such times, when we are forced to see the whole picture, to "know the worst," as Henry put it, we respond with our best. I have hope that it will continue. Simply because we're not convinced that it will doesn't mean that it won't. Not even Henry knew how those listening to him would respond to the challenge he issued. He couldn't know, and neither can we. But he had faith, as do I, that, when the challenged is issued in a way that Americans respond to, it will be met by the best that America can give.

So, Henry's speech is moving to me, both as a statement of what I believe and a statement about my country--about its virtues and faults. So much for my patriotic posting. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

posted by Curt, on July 11, 2008 05:25 pm

A few months ago, people were debating about whether the US economy was really in recession. It looked like, perhaps, the Federal Reserve had staved off financial collapse and that, even with the demise of their "housing ATMs," the American consumer was still spending enough to get the economy through its rough patch with minimal or stagnant growth. In addition, increasing US exports (fueled by the weak dollar) were propping up American industry, inflation was moderate (so we were told), oil was rising, but not yet out of control, and the government was getting ready to hand out checks via its stimulus package. Even though the housing news was bad, the economic situation didn't look extremely dire--in fact, it looked better than it did in other recessions, which seemed to get much less press.

It seems as though the debate is now over. The lack of the "traditional" bad economic news (i.e. hundreds of thousands of job losses), instead of showing that the economy was withstanding the housing bubble, really just betrayed this as what it is--a different kind of economic crisis: one not based so much on the cyclical economic cycle, but one rooted in the continuous abuse of credit and debt leveraging by both American businesses and consumers. This is a collapse of a system, not a normal downturn within the system. These collapses build up slowly and occur with relatively little warning (at least to those who aren't paying attention). I think people have sensed that this is what is going on, and that this is why the economic news has gotten so much press, even though much of it has been fairly mild (outside of the housing price decline).

These types of systemic collapses are not all that rare. They've happened before, and more often that just in the Great Depression. And when they come, they're painful. The last time America had this type of collapse was 70 years ago. Yes, that's right, in the Depression. And I suspect that we may be headed for another one. Hopefully not as severe, but I'm becoming more and more certain that it's going to be more severe than anything we had since 1929.

So what does this all mean for housing prices? They've already declined significantly, but what's so interesting (and scary) is that thus far the decline has been entirely self-induced. The decline in home prices has not resulted from any weakness in the broader economy. People still have their jobs: unemployment remains low. No, the "losses" in home values so far as just the elimination of the bubble excess. The whole problem is that many Americans have relied on those excesses, and can't take their elimination. We haven't even hit the bottom of housing prices in a good economy, and it's scary to think how far they could fall if the economy turns bad, and it looks like it's starting to. If the economy turns bad, and people start to lose their jobs, they'll have to start putting their homes on the market. The increase in supply will drive prices lower, especially when combined with tight credit and high mortgage qualifying standards, which are rapidly becoming the norm rather than the exception. Things will get even worse for homeowners if the Federal Reserve raises interest rates. The run up in value was driven primarily by cheap credit, not wage increases. If credit becomes expensive, sellers will be forced to lower their prices because higher interest rates will make a $300,000 home much more expensive (monthly payment wise) than it was back in the heady days of 2005 and 2006. This will further shatter the construction industry, already reeling from the current home price declines and $4 per gallon gas.

It's not a pretty scenario, and I haven't even mentioned inflation and lack of savings. If even part of this unfolds (and I suspect that it will), I would not be surprised to see home prices fall another 30 percent.

Now, one thing I've learned from watching this whole thing is that government intervention can be a game changer, and that you can't just assume that things will unfold according to the status quo. But it appears that even the massive resources of the federal government might be unable to steer us away from this one--even as willing as they seem to be to try. But you need to be aware that they are going to try (probably unadvisedly) and plan accordingly.

Even though citizens in a democracy should get what they want good and hard (see prior post about H.L. Mencken), they don't very often. But, sometimes they do. It seems that years of government softening the consequences of easy consumer and business credit might be finally coming home to roost. I have a feeling that we're about to get it good and hard and that there's not much anyone, the government included, can do to prevent it.

posted by Curt Bentley, on June 26, 2008 06:22 am

I just had to post the comment that I found on Marketwatch.com. I thought it was one of the funniest things I have read in a while. People certainly seem scared about things . . . more so than I ever remember. I haven't been able to make up my mind as to whether this time is scarier than normal, or I just wasn't paying attention during any of the other recessions. In any event, enjoy the humor:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is your Captain Ben Bernake speaking. Welcome to the now-bankrupt U.S.A. Air, flight number 1929, non-stop service to Depressionville.

After reaching a cruising altitude of 5.25 percent, we'll steadily drop down to 2.0 percent and hold it there for a long time before crash landing at Depressionville.

For your safety, please bundle-up Treasury Bills and stay in dollars. Federal law prohibits speculating in commodities.

Our in-flight entertainment will feature two Market Watch films, "2 Dollar Gas," starring Rex Nutting as comedian, and "Bull Run," starring Mark Hulbert.

In the unlikely event we loose cabin pressure, there will be a ten dollar surcharge to use the Oxygen mask.

After reaching the cruising altitude, we will be serving you complimentary doses of Prozak and Maylox.

If there is anything we can do to reduce your inflation pain, please do not hesitate to contact one of our flight attendants to receive a low CPI number.

Thank you for choosing U.S.A. air for your final destination, sit back and rest in peace.

posted by Curt, on June 5, 2008 06:05 am

Here's a great quote on democracy from H.L. Mencken:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard!

And the practice is that, even though we deserve to get it good and hard, we rarely do. And, because we never "get it," we never learn, and the cycle of bad public decisions seems to go on ad infinitum. While I don't have a whole lot of good to say about Mencken, I must admit that he seems right on with this quote.

posted by Curt, on May 6, 2008 09:42 pm

Well, we're back after finals, graduation, and a move. We now live in the exclusive town of Holladay . . . as renters. Yes, it's sad but true: we have not yet become a part of President Bush's "ownership society." But I'm really working to get into the homedebtor crowd by the time I'm 35. If I fail at that goal, Ros (and her family) are really going to wonder about the guy she married.

We moved up to Holladay the Tuesday following graduation at BYU. It made graduation week perhaps the most hectic week of all of law school--finishing finals and packing with three sick kids and a wife who almost threw herself into labor 5 weeks early by working too hard. But, we did it and couldn't be happier right now. Actually having a yard (for the first time in our married life) combined with a big downstairs playroom with brown carpet and walls has made all the difference in the world. The kids love it here. We live on a quiet dead end street with nice neighbors and plenty 'o birds. Randy loves it. He spends most of his days digging for different types of bugs and worms, taking a break every once and a while to chase after quail and robins.

Perhaps we're making it sound a bit too idyllic, but it certainly seems like heaven to us after three years of living right on the edge of big streets in dark apartments. We are very happy and can't believe our good fortune. Anyway, now that I've shared all my "thank yous" with anyone who happens to read this, I'll sign off. But before I do, here's a photo of our new home. Nothing fancy, but we sure love it.

posted by Curt, on April 13, 2008 10:33 am

My knee has started feeling better and I've gotten back into running over the last month. I feel as though I've started to reclaim my "life outside the law" over this last year. What really sparked the return to running though was a combination of good weather and my law firm's entry into the Wasatch Back Relay. I'm more excited about that race than I have been about any other for a long time. I just hope we can get enough guys from the firm to follow through on it. But, I digress . . . my post for today is going to be my relatively uniformed thoughts on two running watches: the Garmin 405 (if it's ever actually released), and the Polar RS800SD. Here are some pictures:

Basically, I've committed to getting one or the other but can't decide between them. Let me dispose of one thing right up front: the Garmin 305 is out. It's too big and bulky. It's not that I'm a "high fashion" guy (ask any of my friends :)), but I am a guy who has trouble wearing a wedding ring or a watch generally because I don't like to have things wrapped around my limbs or appendages. I have enough experience with myself to know that if I got the 305 I wouldn't use it much. I used a Polar HRM for a while (and the watch was small to normal-sized) and I was OK with that. So, I feel like I can do the 405 or the RS800SD but not anything bigger. The second thing I should make clear is that heart rate measurements are just not very important to me. I don't use them to train with; I think I can measure exertion fairly well without it, and I consider myself a semi-serious runner (5K @ 15:45 and marathon @ 2:50). So, the fact that Polar may do HRMs better than Garmin isn't relevant to my decision either. Finally, I never run inside and so the fact that the Polar works on the treadmill doesn't matter a bit.

The obvious difference between the two watches is that the Garmin 405 is a GPS/HRM watch and the Polar is an accelerometer/HRM (using a foot pod to measure speed/distance). Now, I know that the Polar has come out with a GPS footpod, but the price of the thing to get that plus the S3 pod is just out of sight. If I get the Polar it will be with the S3 pod only. Now, with those preliminary things out of the way, here's what I like about the Polar:

• Barometric Altimeter--from what I hear, this is more accurate than GPS elevation calculation. Elevation is actually pretty important to me. I run primarily on the canyon trails here in Utah, and elevation is important to my training. One of the main things I would use a running watch for is to get a better idea of elevation and how I respond to it.
• Stride/Cadence Sensor--the Polar footpod gives you data on your stride length and stride cadence while running. I'm not a professional trainer or trainee, but my experience tells me that stride length and turnover ratio is important. I've never had information like this before, but I think that, if it's accurate, it could be something very helpful.
• Good Software?--I've seen somewhat mixed reviews on this, but it seems to me that there are quite a few people out there who really like the training software that comes with the RS800SD.
• Long Lasting Battery--the Polar battery isn't a rechargeable one, and probably has to be sent into service centers to be changed, but a rechargeable battery that only lasts eight hours at a time (when new!) concerns me a little bit.

Next, some of my concerns:

• Elevation Accuracy--Since this is one of the main reasons I'm considering the Polar, it has me a bit worried. I've heard from some that, in addition to variations in barometric pressure, the Polar's altimeter is affected by sweat (and I sweat a lot). If this is true than it would eliminate one of the big advantages that Polar may have over the Garmin.
• Accuracy of the Accelerometer--I run mainly on trails where there is quite a bit of elevation change. Stride length, cadence, and footstrike change a lot in those situations and I wonder how accurate the accelerometer is going to be under those circumstances. If the Polar has trouble with distance/length/cadence measurements in those situations, then it wouldn't be a tremendous help to me.

Now, what about the Garmin 405? First, some things I like:

• Design & Bezel Navigation--the tech geek in me likes this, but it doesn't weigh much in my decision.
• GPS Plotting--it's cool to be able to plot your runs on maps and share them with friends. I don't know how much of an advantage this is, because I usually find some favorite running routes that I stick with, but it is something neat.
• GPS Accuracy--especially over variable terrain (see my concern with the Polar above)

And my concerns?

• Elevation Accuracy--This is the big one. Pretty much everyone agrees that the elevation calculations are way off. However, this concern might be substantially eliminated because it appears that some of the software programs you can use to monitor your training do automatic elevation correction based on topo maps (i.e. they plot your route using the GPS coordinates and then smooth based on the topo elevation rather than the GPS readings). While this don't solve to the problem of getting accurate elevation readings while you're running, I don't care about that. I want to be able to run a route and then see my climb/descent afterward and use that information on future runs. If this actually would make the Garmin more accurate for elevation than the Polar (which can't do the smoothing because it doesn't track GPS without the expensive add-on), it's a big plus.
• Battery Life--I like the general idea of a rechargeable battery. But the 8 hours of maximum life concerns me a little bit. I never plan to run that long (I'm not an ultra guy), but I would like to take it one some hikes. It looks like it wouldn't last even one day. If it can still hold the 8 hour charge after a few month of use, then there is probably really not a big problem. But, if it's like my laptop battery (which once lasted 3.5 hours and now last < 30 minutes fully charged), it's a substantial concern.
• Newness--Finally, this is a new product. How many bugs are there that need to be worked out (this worry is amplified given the continually delayed release date).

Well, there's my analysis. I'm a little bit torn. I'd appreciate any advice/comments that people have. I've got to raise $$ for this purchase, so I won't be buying right away. Let me know of your experiences--I'd appreciate it.

Meanwhile, you can see both products in my Amazon store.

posted by Curt Bentley, on April 3, 2008 07:35 pm

It's been hard to miss the gloating over the economy--both by those who are convinced that we are about to enter into a major, major recession and those who criticize the doom and gloomers. My prior posts leave little doubt that I find myself more aligned with the former group. Both sides seems convinced that recent events have shown that they've been right all along. The doom and gloom crowd can point to Bear Stearns and bad economic data and the more optimistic group can point to . . . Bear Stearns and somewhat better economic data. So, is the sky falling or isn't it, and what will it take for this thing to be finally resolved?

Nobody doubts that we're going/have gone through a rough time. It appears that the doom and gloomers were right about that. If you take government officials seriously, apparently the entire financial system came close to collapse (whatever that means) with the run on Bear Stearns. However, the more optimistic group views that same news with optimism. The entire point, to them, is that there has bee no financial Armageddon; the government institutions set up to prevent that reality stepped in and did their job. While it's not going away, the liquidity crunch fears that were so palpable in the immediate aftermath of Bear Stearns seem somewhat diminished. So, are we out of the woods or not? That's what millions of Americans, including yours truly, want to know.

Let me weigh in with my two cents. One of the hard things here is that it is impossible, in my view, to know what's really going on. People thought we were coming out of the woods right before Bear Stearns collapsed. One of the problems here is a tremendous lack of reliable information. I suppose that's inevitable when so much of the functioning of the financial system depends on the maintenance of confidence. Now, it seems, many realize that the confidence we had might have not been well-placed. At one level, the credit crisis is a confidence crisis. Nobody knows the exact financial condition of the banks that drove the easy credit economy of the last five years--perhaps not even the banks themselves. That's a scary thought--and people are starting to confront it. Could there be another Bear Stearns around the corner? Perhaps, perhaps not. Whoever it might be certainly won't tell us about it beforehand. And, if there is, how many more can the Federal Reserve engineer a rescue for? These are big, unanswered questions . . . and it appears that nobody can answer them right now (or at least no one reliable is stepping up and claiming that they can, and that, should tell you something).

The second huge unanswered question out there is what the Fed's actions mean for our future. Article after article talks about the taxpayers being "on the hook" for Bear Stearns now. What exactly does that mean for the next couple years and what does it mean for our future? What does it mean for us if the Fed steps in to act in a second, third, or fourth Bear Stearns situation? The whole thing strikes me as a rather ominous precedent that (even though it is getting some significant media attention) is not really getting the attention that is deserves. In the collective sigh of relief that went up upon the saving of Bear Stearns, we may be evaluating the action a little bit uncritically. We're told it was necessary to save the Wall Street fat cats in order to protect John Doe middle class. The "we had to save the bad guy to protect the good guys" rationale is unconvincing at the best of times, yet it seems like it is being embraced a little too readily in this case.

So, is the sky going to fall? I'm not entirely sure any more. At one time I was completely convinced that it was. So, I've moderated my views a bit at this point (and give Bernanke a little more credit for intelligence than I did before, although I still disagree with him on principle). But, despite my uncertainty about the short-term economic result, I am completely convinced that the landscape that we operate in is going to be significantly changed by our love affair with houses, big trucks, boats, and credit cards. It strikes me that, during the last few years, we made many promises that we're still going to have to keep and that there's a long way to go before we can sleep knowing exactly what type of bed it is that we've made for ourselves. Hang on for the ride, and, for once, America, live on the cautious side. We should all at least be able to agree on that.