Chuck
Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. Note that I retitled the thread. We've traveled a bit from the original, so it is really unfair to mislead those who may have been interested in that original subject.
Below is an excerpt from Fortune that actually quantifies those sub-prime loan value, something over 20% of total mortgage value, which I presume includes commercial real estate as well.. That is certainly big enough for defaults to have been a trigger. But there were a lot of other potential defaults lurking to burst the balloon.
I would like to make one constructive point that does relate to the electronics industry.
Many have called attention to past over-valuation of real estate investment in the U.S. relative to industrial development or R&D, the real progenitors of future wealth. This is a disproportion that cannot be addressed politically. No politician would dare the wrath of all those folks who were sure that their houses were going to make them rich. In formulating the very unwise policy of forcing Fanny to underwrite those sub-prime loans, politicians made the distortion of resources worse. It was bad policy and did
no favors to mortgage recipients, but was it the primary cause of the Bubble? That would be a presumption.
Now that over-valuation is being "corrected". I suspect there is further to go. A lot of people are mad, but in future time, we shall look back on this period as a corrective hang-over, a therapeutic signal that now it is time to go to work building the industries of the future. (I hope.)
------------------------------------------
The risk in subprime
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/28/magazines/fortune/subprime.fortune/index.htm
By Ellen Florian
Kratz, Fortune writer
March 1 2007: 5:13 PM EST
Last year, 13.5 percent of mortgages originated in the U.S. were
subprime, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, compared to 2.6
percent in 2000. Overall, the subprime market was $600 billion in 2006, 20
percent of the $3 trillion mortgage market, according to Inside Mortgage
Finance. In 2001, subprime loans made ups just 5.6 percent of mortgage dollars
________________________________
From: Charles Dolci <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, February 13, 2010 11:07:36 PM
Subject: Re: [LF] Fw: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
Harvey, et al
Warning: This is going to be long – because I am going to deal with facts.
Chuck
A friend rented a house in Hillsborough CA., …. The house had been mortgaged in 2007 for $2.2M (probably in the "poor" part of town). Remember 2007 was the peak of the real estate mania. Prices were going to go up forever.
The property was recently foreclosed by the bank, which has recently received $700,000 for it from a person in China.
Interesting, but totally irrelevant. I did not say that all defaults were by sub-prime borrowers. They were the catalyst that set in motion a whole avalanche of banking problems.
I can only suggest to you that the financial documentation would show that the quantitative impact of value declines in residential properties valued over $1M would outweigh the defaults in "forced" financing to those unworthy credit risks that you blame for all. I challenge you to do the research since you claim otherwise with no proof whatsoever re the relative quantitative impact.
Of course, you “can only suggest” because you have no idea of the facts. I have not said that all the defaults were by subprime borrowers. In fact, many financial institutions have been impacted negatively by this problem even though they made no subprime loans. But they, and everyone else, are feeling the consequences of it.
There were many “sound” borrowers who borrowed more than was prudent and bought more house than was prudent because of low interest rate loans, teaser rate loans, etc. If the economy had stayed strong they probably would not have defaulted, or if they had been more prudent they would have been able to weather the financial storm. But your argument is just a straw man – The subprime loans – pushed on the market by the federal government are the root cause of the problem. Your scenario is just a downstream consequence of the subprime defaults.
A good example of this is the sharp increase in defaults on car loans. As people lose their jobs or see their incomes fall, they have been defaulting on their car loans.
As far as “research” and “facts”, you present one anecdotal piece of evidence. I have done hours and hours of research on this. I suggest you begin where I did, read The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell (former professor of Economics at UCLA, now a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford); Meltdown by Thomas Woods (he has a bachelor’s degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. in history from Columbia). Sowell attributes the problem primarily to the subprime loans and Congress, Woods targets the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy. Also, Walter Williams (Professor of Economics at George Mason U) has written quite a bit on the problem.
As long as I’m at it – for the last 9 or 10 years (I don’t keep track) I have been on the Supervisory Committee of a credit union in Northern California that is among the top 1% of the nation's largest credit unions. For those not familiar with credit unions, the Supervisory Committee is the functional and legal equivalent of the audit committee of a bank’s board of directors. For those of you dieing to see what I look like you can get a glimpse by checking out the annual report at http://www.techcu.com/NR/rdonlyres/2EADEAD3-6E29-4CAF-9731-6D30E48F0790/0/annualreport.pdf
Yepp, that’s me. The current financial situation has been the top subject for nearly two years now. I think I can speak with some authority on this.
It turns out that no-one is credit worthy given the right, excuse me, the wrong circumstances. Ask any trade creditor to the printed circuit industry and you will hear stories that will make your hair stand on end.
I don't have enough hair to make any difference.
My condolences on the lack of hair. However to state that no one is creditworthy shows a lack of understanding of banking and finance. True, every borrower carries a certain amount of risk. Even Bill gates – that is why banks and other lenders charge interest at rates that reflect the amount of risk being assumed. Banks know that everyone is at risk of losing a job, having assets lose value, encountering personal problems that impact earning capacity, etc. But banks are in the risk business and if allowed to assess risk, make lending decisions and charge interest concomitant with that risk, we would not see this kind of problem. Some banks are poorly run – no doubt, but to have something this large and widespread requires concerted action – of the kind only government can impose.
So if those borrowers had paid, the leveraged pyramid enabled by the repeal of Glass-Steagall wouldn't have tumbled. But you see, one of those borrowers was the mortgagee of the house in Hillsborough the value of which receded 66%.
The transactions enabled by the repeal of Glass Steagall were not “leveraged pyramid” schemes. As I said previously, if the subprime borrowers and those caught in the default cascade that ensued had paid their debts the collateralized debt obligations would not have been in trouble. The cdo’s were not the problem. They were merely the mechanism that transferred the risk (and ultimate loss) to very large, supposedly sophisticated, entities. Maybe your friend’s house was previously bought by someone who was “rich” because of stock options, big bonuses, a hefty paycheck, a comfortable stock portfolio – all of which disappeared because of the consequences of the sub-prime problem,
And re poor innocent Tishman who defaulted on $5.4B, they knew the rent control constraints going in, back in 2006. They thought the ever-rising market would work for them. It stopped rising and so they also contributed to the bursting of the bubble.
I suggest you actually read the ruling of the New York Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court) in the case. See http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202434866672&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Taken from the ruling:
“In 1993, the Legislature enacted the Rent Regulation Reform Act (RRRA) (L 1993, ch 253), which provided for the luxury decontrol or deregulation of certain rent-stabilized apartments.”
“At some point after the RRRA was enacted, MetLife, (the previous owner - cd) with DHCR's (the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal -cd ) approval (see RSL §26-504.3 [b]), began charging market-rate rents for those rental units in the properties where the conditions for high rent/high income luxury decontrol were met. In late 2006, MetLife sold the properties to PCV/ST (Tishman Speyer Properties - cd) for $5.4 billion.”
Some unhappy tenants sued … so Tishman and the other defendants moved to dismiss the case.
“In a decision dated August 16, 2007, Supreme Court dismissed the complaint,”
In essence the city agency and the New York Supreme Court (N.Y.’s appellate court) agreed with Tishman that rent controls did not apply to the buildings in question. It is a little silly to say that Tishman “knew” the rent controls would apply when the City and the NY Supreme Court said they did not.
Then there is the credit card bust and the commercial real estate market bust to come. Please don't blame the entire problem on those politically forced mortgages because you cannot even define the population in question. It might even include some of your neighbors, or former neighbors.
“… cannot define the population in question” Of course we can. Look at who was defaulting on their loans. Ask a banker. The earliest defaults that set this whole thing in motion were virtually all subprime and, in fact, in a limited number of markets (Northern California, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami). The cause was local but the impact was international since institutions like Fannie and Freddie, Citibank, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch purchased the toxic paper.
The subprime defaults created an avalanche of financial problems – many of which impacted banks and institutions that were not directly involved in making subprime loans. The banking problem caused by the subprime loan defaults forced banks to horde cash, which I will discuss shortly, and that meant that many businesses could not get financing for even day to day operations.
There were stories about how small businesses could not get short term loans to meet payrolls. With defaults and foreclosures you had falling property values as homes were dumped on the market, not just causing a drop in the prices of the houses on the market, but adversely affecting the market value of all homes in the neighborhood. You felt rich when your home was valued at $2 million. But when “For Sale” signs start popping up like mushrooms after a spring rain and they stay on the market for months or years then your $2 million bungalow is no longer valued at $2 million, maybe not even $1 million. Your net worth has taken a big hit. You adjust your spending patterns accordingly.
The stock market also reacted to the financial mess. It took a huge drop. So now your stock portfolio is only worth a fraction of what it was. Prior to this many people relied on getting lucrative stock options and bonuses offered by their employers to support their lifestyle, including the purchase of homes that were much bigger and more expensive than was prudent. When the stock options were under water and the bonuses were not forthcoming many had to draw down on savings. They became more frugal in their buying habits. Businesses contracted, laying off people or cutting back on hours. This also meant less cash in the banks.
All of this led to a liquidity crisis in the banking industry. Banks saw their own assets devalued and their cash reserves drying up. Pay attention, everybody, we are going to do Macroeconomics 101. Bank reserves? What are bank reserves?
When a person deposits money into his/her bank the money doesn’t just sit there waiting for the depositor to return to claim his money. That money is lent out, so that the bank can earn interest and pay some of that interest to the depositor and keep some for itself as profit. The bank knows that every depositor is not going to come and ask for all of his money all at the same time, so rather than have the money sit idle it is loaned out. But the bank, in accordance with prudent banking practices and federal law (in the form of the Federal Reserve Bank) will keep (or “reserve”) a portion of the customers’ deposits on hand to meet the day to day cash needs of the bank. That is called “fractional reserve banking”. The Federal Reserve Bank determines the fractional reserve rate. Everything over and above the reserve requirement can be lent out.
When borrowers started to default, and depositors started taking out more cash, the banks often found themselves at risk of not being able to meet their reserve requirements, so to avoid violating the reserve requirements they lend less in order to build up reserves.
And it wasn’t just the fractional reserve requirements. Banks are also required to maintain certain capital/asset ratios. The law requires banks to maintain a certain level of capital. As borrowers default and as the collateral (i.e. houses) decline in value the banks have to increase their loan loss reserves and write down assets, which meant lower capital reserves. Again, this put them at risk of violating banking regulations, so banks – to the extent they were able, began to hoard cash to build up capital. That also meant less money to loan out, which, again, had a very negative impact on businesses.
We know the problem is not exclusively defaults on subprime loans, even though they were (and still are) the cause. Part of the problem is that virtually every state has what is called no- recourse laws. Those laws state that when a bank loan is secured by a home, in the event of a default the bank can only look to the collateral, i.e. the home, to satisfy the debt. The bank has no recourse against the borrower personally. So when the bank lends someone $2.2 million to buy a house, the bank’s asset – the home – is valued at $2.2 million. When the market value of the home drops to $700,000 and the borrower stops paying, the bank has to write down the asset and, essentially, book a loss of $1.5 million.
The borrower is looking at a debt of $2.2 million and figures it makes no sense to pay back $2.2 million to keep an asset that is worth only $700,000; so he walks. He puts the keys to the house on the kitchen counter and walks. In reality it is even worse than that. If the borrower borrowed $2.2 million on a thirty year note, at the end of thirty years the borrower would end up paying, depending on the interest rate, $4 to $6 million, perhaps even more. It makes perfectly good sense to the borrower to just walk away. As borrowers saw the value of their houses fall below the debt they walked, even though many could still afford to make the payments. Consequently, banks have to book bigger and bigger losses.
Chuck Dolci
--- On Sat, 2/13/10, Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [LF] Fw: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Saturday, February 13, 2010, 12:39 AM
Chuck
A friend rented a house in Hillsborough CA., a suburb of San Francico comparable to New Canaan CT in wealth of inhabitants. The house had been mortgaged in 2007 for $2.2M (probably in the "poor" part of town). Remember 2007 was the peak of the real estate mania. Prices were going to go up forever.
The property was recently foreclosed by the bank, which has recently received $700,000 for it from a person in China.
I can only suggest to you that the financial documentation would show that the quantitative impact
of value declines in residential properties valued over $1M would outweigh the defaults in "forced" financing to those unworthy credit risks that you blame for all. I challenge you to do the research since you claim otherwise with no proof whatsoever re the relative quantitative impact.
It turns out that no-one is credit worthy given the right, excuse me, the wrong circumstances. Ask any trade creditor to the printed circuit industry and you will hear stories that will make your hair stand on end.
I don't have enough hair to make any difference.
So if those borrowers had paid, the leveraged pyramid enabled by the repeal of Glass-Steagall wouldn't have tumbled. But you see, one of those borrowers was the mortgagee of the house in Hillsborough the value of which receded 66%.
And re poor innocent Tishman who defaulted on $5.4B, they knew the rent control constraints going in, back in 2006. They thought the ever-rising market would work for them. It stopped rising and so they also contributed to the bursting of the bubble.
Then there is the credit card bust and the commercial real estate market bust to come. Please don't blame the entire problem on those politically forced mortgages because you cannot even define the population in question. It might even include some of your neighbors, or former neighbors.
________________________________
From: Charles Dolci <[log in to unmask]>
To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum) <[log in to unmask]>; Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, February 12, 2010 11:27:39 PM
Subject: Re: [LF] Fw: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
First, a few facts are in order. The repeal of the Glass-Seagall Act in 1999 did not in any way, shape or form, cause the financial problems. The repeal in 1999 merely allowed commercial lenders to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. These did not cause the crisis. If the people who borrowed money had paid it back the mbs's and cdo's would have been just fine. Those financial instruments just spread the risk of the bad loans to different entities. The root cause still remained the huge numbers of mortgage defaults from sub-prime loans.
Werner's analysis is pretty spot on. The causes of the financial mess can be traced to three major players, Congress - by its Changes in the mid 1990s to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA); the federal reserve keeping interest rates artificially low, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the agency that regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the dominant and largest players in the secondary mortgage market.
The 1990s amendments to the CRA put tremendous pressure on banking institutions to make high risk loans, loans to people that could not afford to pay them back, i.e. "subprime loans" and yes, they are called "subprime" for a very good reason. As many of you should know, when banks make long term home mortgage loans they do not hold onto the paper for thirty years. They turn around and sell it into the secondary mortgage market - which is largely a creation of the federal government in order to make home ownership possible for more people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs (i.e. government sponsored enterprises) and between them in 2007 they controlled about 60% of the secondary mortgage market. By selling the paper to institutions in the secondary mortgage market, banks can raise cash to go on making loans.
So we have banks making crappy loans to people with questionable (or no) credit, but if the market had been allowed to operate freely the secondary mortgage market would not have bought the banks' crappy loans. The banks would have been forced to stop making such crappy loans.
Why, then, did the secondary mortgage market not put a break on such loans? Because the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandated that the GSEs buy all the garbage from the banks and make more money available for more and more garbage loans.
In a trade story from the periodical "Mortgage Banking" dated September 1, 1999 "HUD RAISES GSES' AFFORDABLE LENDING GOALS. HUD has announced a policy requiring (yes "requiring" -cd) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy $52.4 trillion (that's TRILLION with a "T" - cd) in mortgages over the next decade to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.
According to HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, HUD's action raises the required (there's that word "required", again -cd) percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that the GSEs must (NOTE: "must" - cd) buy, from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent in the year 2001--a 19 percent increase.
The agencies will be expected to generate 31 percent of their mortgage business in central cities, rural areas and other underserved markets, up from the current goal of 24 percent. They will also be expected to meet a new special affordable housing goal of 20 percent for families with very low household income (NOTE: "very low hpousehold income" -cd) or living in low-income areas, up from the current goal of 14 percent."
So HUD was pushing the GSEs to make all kinds of money available to bad credit risks. If it had not been for HUD's mandates, the secondary mortgage market would not have been buying up the banks crappy paper and the bad loans would come to a screaching halt as the money for such risky loans would have dried up.
The federal reserve is also to blame because it kept interest rates artificially low in order to encourage borrowing for home purchases.
As far as the Tischman Bedford - Stuyvesant problem, that has nothing at all to do with Glass-Seagall, subprime loans or anything else. It is the result of New York City's draconian rent control laws. In October 2009 the New York Court of Appeals (i.e. its version of the state supreme court) ruled that the complex should not have been exempted from the city's rent controls. So the high rents that Tishman had been collecting, in order to cover its high costs, suddenly disappear. They go broke because their rent stream can no longer cover their costs. Thank you New York State Appeals Court. Don't blame anyone else.
Bankers did not suddenly wake up one morning a couple years ago and suddenly become greedy. This whole mess, from top to bottom, is the product of meddling in the market by the government.
--- On Fri, 2/12/10, Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>From: Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: [LF] Fw: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 3:47 PM
>
>
>Werner
>'tis not the "same".
>
>You are suggesting that the Bubble and its collapse was due to the "politically forced" financing of mortgages for people who were not credit-worthy. Did that include the $5.4 billion default by Tischman Bedford- Stuyvesant mortgagee? When the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the door was opened to the last act of manic real estate over- valuation. So how do you determine in advance who is credit worthy?
>
>The opportunists and profiteers who brought us RoHS and lead-free solder are the same irresponsible, self-serving ilk as those who brought us the Bubble.
>
>Why are they ignored? Because it is easier and more politic to blame "Al Gore" or the "environmentalists", anyone but the real culprits. Some of them are the most powerful people in the world, and that's how they got there.
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Werner Engelmaier <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Fri, February 12, 2010 2:01:50 PM
>Subject: Re: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
>
>Harvey,
>It is for the same reason we ignore those that forced mortgage companies to provide mortgages against all reasonable rules, by forcing this through Fannie and Freddie.
>Werner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Fri, Feb 12, 2010 11:25 am
>Subject: Re: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
>
>
>Chuck
>Why do we completely ignore the role of those who deliberately promoted
>lead-free for financial self-interest or out of plain opportunism.
>
>If we could only explore who cleaned up on tin futures. The tin mining companies
>were delighted with RoHS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Charles Dolci <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 11:03:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
>
>This sudden flurry of activity on the forum compels me to make a few
>observations.
>
>There is an old saying in the law "Be careful what you ask for, you just might
>get it." Well, it seems we got what we asked for and now we are not too happy.
>For years we have allowed sloppy thinking to dominate the political and
>scientific discourse, and we all went along with it because no one wanted to
>challenge the green gospel. Those few that stood up were shouted down and became
>victims of vicious ad hominem attacks. Any reasoned challenges, and even any
>questions, to the popular green dogma we never answered with intelligent and
>rational replies, only name calling.
>
>We were told that there would be mountains of electronic waste seeping life
>threatening chemicals into the environment, but no one dared challenge the
>obvious silliness of the claims.
>
>Green people went apoplectic over mercury, insisting that mercury had to be
>totally removed from anything with which man or animal might come in contact.
>Many states banned the sale of just about anything containing even the most
>minute traces of mercury. Of course, now we are told that to save the world we
>should all use compact fluorescents (that just happen to contain mercury). What
>happened to all the paranoia over mercury?
>
>We, in the U.S., were told that we were running out of landfill (Japan and
>Europe may have a problem, but I can only address that which I know) so now
>everything has to be recycled. We were told that it was good and that it was not
>only environmentally sound but it was good economics as well. We were told that
>the recycling industry could sustain itself and be profitable. So Californians
>now pay a fortune to recycle aluminum and plastics and it still does not pay for
>itself. With the State in a budget crisis it has had to cut the subsidies to
>recyclers and as a result recyclers have been reducing operations, shutting down
>facilities and eliminating many “green jobs”. If this industry was self
>sustaining then how come it needed massive taxpayer subsidies just to survive?
>
>By the way, those “green jobs” that are supposed to be created in the new
>economy – I recycle my cans and plastic bottles, so I see the people in those
>“green jobs” when I take my stash to the recycling center. Trust me, I did not
>send my kid to an expensive college so she could get a job sorting colored
>plastics from clear plastics in a foul smelling, wretched recycling center. Just
>what are those “green jobs” that are supposed to be created?
>
>Someone (Werner?) in an earlier post expressed optimism that the younger
>generation may have more sense than us. Well, sorry guys – this new generation
>is not going to be our saviors. I’ve been teaching in a northern California
>public high school, in a fairly affluent community, for the last few years and
>two things have become painfully obvious: 1) today’s kids have been green-washed
>since entering the system. They buy into the green gospel, hook, line and
>sinker. 2) Whatever, critical and analytical thinking skills they might have
>been born with have been totally knocked out of their heads. Of all the
>cultural shocks that I experienced going from industry to academia, the total
>inability of our young people to think for themselves has been the most
>disquieting. Maybe I expect too much from 17 and 18 year olds, but the problem
>is that they are going to be going on to our colleges and universities where
>much of this “scientific drivel” was
>spawned and where critical and independent thinking is downright verboten. I
>don’t hold out much hope for this new generation.
>
>We asked for this situation, and now we have it. So the complaining and the
>whining seem a bit disingenuous. Please, do not misunderstand me, I am not
>directing these comments at anyone in particular on this forum. Many, if not
>most, of the people here do seem to have their heads screwed on straight. But
>for the last several years our employers lacked the backbone to stand up and
>challenge the green hysteria, no one wanted to speak up, no one wanted to rock
>the boat. Many companies became green cheerleaders, promoting the very nonsense
>we now criticize. So now they are paying the price with higher production and
>warranty costs, customer dissatisfaction, and second-rate products. Well I, for
>one, don’t have a lot of sympathy for them. And for those who wonder “What are
>we to do?” The only answer I have for that is “What can a dead man do? Go and
>get buried!”
>
>‘nuff said.
>Chuck Dolci
>
>
>--- On Wed, 2/10/10, Werner Engelmaier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>From: Werner Engelmaier <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 11:35 PM
>
>
>Hi Robin,
>I wished I had your confidence in the power of theses. I have seen too much good
>research simply been ignored.
>I am all for sustainability, because quite clearly the status quo is not. And
>the approach needs to be multi-faceted aimed goods lasting longer [ actually
>'planned obsolescence' was/is not planned at all (with some infamous exceptions)
>but simply happened because of bad engineering , corner cutting and
>ignorance—'planned obsolescence ' implies you KNOW what you are doing which in
>most cases is not true (do you really think the current Toyota debacle was
>'planned'?—that still do not know what their problem is), recycling, alternate
>energy sources, etc.
>
>I sure hope this 'new generation' not only is willing to "weigh the sciences"
>but then go into the political trenches to implement what they ave learned.
>Werner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Ingenthron <[log in to unmask]>
>To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum) <[log in to unmask]>; Werner Engelmaier
><[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2010 12:01 am
>Subject: Re: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
>
>
>How to overcome this?
>
>My experience is that there is a generation of humanities graduates who
>established nonprofit credentials on the free market's weakness - consumption of
>natural resources.
>
>That generation was able to parlay the loss of rainforest, toxics fears, and
>general unease over disposal and planned obsolescence to rebound and regulate
>your industry.
>
>There is a new generation - my company has recruited several undergrads and
>grads - who is genuinely open-minded, still even more concerned, about the
>environment.
>
>They are more than willing weigh the science. After all, they are going to live
>through the mistakes.
>
>They do not like the status quo, which is not sustainable. But the
>"sustainability" people are the friends of leadfree engineer/victims. By
>rephrasing the endpoint from "non-polluting" to "sustainable", they have opened
>a thousand thesis researchers who are willing and eager to discover that
>"antidote B causes, rather than cures, blindness"
>
>My read, at age 48 a lifelong environmentalist, is that "environmental health"
>or the "health of the whole ecosystem" is parellel to the study of human health.
>Which is superior in Western Medicine. Which took root in alchemy. Just as the
>best doctors medicine could afford fed liquid mercury to King Edward of Britain
>(as I understand, it improved his bowel movements, aka waste flows). The
>research over what killed rather than cured the King is the genesis of dialectic
>and university research, which wrestled control of the hospitals from the
>Church.
>
>The analogy is that the eco-priests are prescribing mediocine to electronics
>industries (the king), and bad effects occur. But the next generation is
>willing to listen if you all can put your concerns in the form of a thesis topic
>which can be tested and promoted by a bunch of twenty-somethings who have no
>more loyalty to Al Gore than the kids in the 60s (my generation) had to C.A.
>Swanson (inventor of TV dinners, once the rage).
>
>My point is that we can channel your anger and frustration into thesis topics.
>I am working with several universities, via WR3A.org (a "Fair Trade" electronics
>export organization which fights to reform, rather than ban,export for repair
>and reuse).
>
>Incidentally, I am, for the time being, a completely self-owned recycling
>company at war with some irrational "environmentalists". I am confident they
>will lose, just impatient over the amount of time it is taking to kick their
>butts.
>
>Robin
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Werner Engelmaier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Hi Harvey,
>I know Tom Graedel from our Bell Labs days.
>When a book like "Industrial Ecology" calls Pb-free solder anti-environmental,
>which of course has been proven many times over on multiple issues, what else
>can the experts do in terms of education.
>Al Gore reads the conclusions from a couple of one-sided papers, and becomes an
>authority. The main stream media takes the most negative side of any issue and
>runs with it.
>How do you overcome this?
>
>Werner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:09 pm
>Subject: Re: [LF] Toxic-free computer--Defining "GREEN"
>
>
>Bob Landman obviously knows the difference between absolute "environmentalism"
>and its intelligent application. The latter is called
>"Industrial Ecology", which happens to be the title of a book published
>in 1995, by the two authors mentioned below. Lead-free solder was determined
>to be anti-environmental in that 1995 book.
>
>The challenge is one of education. To reflexively condemn all those dumb
>politicians and environmentalists is counter-productive. Let's learn and teach
>Industrial Ecology. That means cost-benefit analysis applied to the entire
>system,
>through the entire life cycle of "contaminant" substances and their
>alternatives.
>
>In general, we would find that PCBs (halogenated polyphenyls) are indeed bad
>period, But DDT can be selectively applied, and so can Pb. (Don't put tetraethyl
>lead in gasoline). We would re-establish that there are few absolutes in the
>world and that most substance risks and benefits are dosage-dependent. People
>have died from too much hydrogen dioxide.
>
>I think, bottom line, that we are faced with a human problem. People like simple
>answers in a scenario of action-reaction per Newton's 3d Law. With the advent
>of the Industrial Revolution, we humans began polluting the earth
>indiscriminately.
>We didn't know any better. When we did learn better, the game looked like
>Industry, the bad guys, vs. the "environmentalists". the good guys.
>Well it is time to change that game. Memo to the human species: TIME TO GROW
>UP.
>
>The authors of "Industrial Ecology" and many subsequent books on the topic:
>
>Braden R. Allenby (born 1950) is an American environmental scientist,
>environmental attorney and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and
>of Law, at Arizona State University.
>
>Thomas E.
>Graedel is Clifton R. Musser Professor of Industrial Ecology, Professor
>of Chemical Engineering, Professor of Geology and Geophysics, and
>Director of the Center for Industrial Ecology at Yale University. He is
>the author of Streamlined Life-Cycle Assessment and lead author or coauthor of a
>number of other books.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Bob Landman <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Wed, February 10, 2010 10:43:16 AM
>Subject: Re: [LF] Toxic-free computer
>
>Denny,
>
>Spot on indeed. My company will speak up. We are an environmentally
>responsible company.
>
>The RoHS banning of lead was idiotic and definitely NOT green.
>
>We have to continue to use tin-lead solder until a PROVEN replacement exists.
>One that has been proven by extended studies (studies that last far longer than
>JESD-201 dictates). We don't yet have the years of experience with lead-free
>materials but we know, based on what is being said here, it's not going to be
>good news.
>
>Lead is not perfect, but it is, thus far, the best antidote nature has provided
>us with. Perhaps, besides being the best shield for radiation, we'll discover,
>after much research and many billions of dollars being spent on replacements,
>that lead remains, by far, the only substance to suppress tin whiskers.
>
>Won't that be a interesting discovery? And then what will we do?
>
>Landfills are still swelling with discarded electronics in the EU and the USA
>(and I'm sure everywhere else on the planet).
>
>Why didn't the EU first make compulsory, environmentally sound recycling?
>
>If lead in landfills is such a problem, then perhaps finally we'll do what
>should have been done in the first place? Keep the disposed of products OUT OF
>THE LANDFILLS and properly recycle them (which by the way, saves energy).
>
>Whiskers cause the failure of electronic products long before consumers and
>industry are ready to replace them. There are a lot more electronics products
>than cell phones. Using them as the metric for banning substances for the
>entire industry is gross mistake as they have a short useful life span. As Joe
>Fjelstad points out, saying 3 years is an adequate lifespan for durable goods is
>nonsense.
>
>While it can't be proved (yet) that some of Toyota's problems stem from the
>adoption of lead-free manufacturing, we know that the automotive environment is
>a severe mix of heat, cold, vibration and humidity.
>
>What has been done is very bad for the environment.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Bob Landman
>H&L Instruments, LLC
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dennis Fritz
>Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:06 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [LF] Toxic-free computer
>
>WOW, YOU SURE KNOW HOW TO GET MY BLOOD BOILING ON A SNOWY INDIANA MORNING!!!!!!
>
>
>
>I am absolutely SICK of the over use of the word "TOXIC". Conjures up horrible
>images of all of us being poisoned by typing responses on our laptops.
>
>By whose definition is something "toxic"? Used to be that we depended on our
>governments to make that decision. In the US, we have had the "Toxic Substances
>Control Act" with a methodology to report the nature of "toxic" hazards -
>ingestion, breathing, skin contact, etc. Seemed pretty orderly - BUT IT DID
>NOT OUTLAW CHEMICALS AT A PACE SATISFACTORY TO "GREEN" ORGANIZATIONS.
>
>By politicizing "TOXIC" political candidates, particularly in the European
>Union, began to be elected for their stance on "TOXIC". The result has been
>the RoHS regulations where if there is any chance of harm - eleminate the
>substance - our wonderful RoHS regulations banning lead - even if we now solder
>40 C hottter and tear up untold rain forests to dig up more tin metal. A bit
>more sensible has been REACh - where supposedly there is to be a cost/benefit
>analysis before banning chemicals. The whole world is watching the EU unpile
>from the hundreds of thousands of applications they have received for subsance
>use under REACh.
>
>Finally, I refer you to the the E-PEAT website trying to catagorize the
>"green-ness" of electronic equipment -
>
>http://www.epeat.net/
>
>There, you will see the grading system drawn up for the "required" properties of
>computers, monitors, and being extended to other electronic equipment. Then,
>the percentage completion of "optional" factors give an OEM a Bronze, Silver, or
>Gold rating. - Call it the Electronics Olympics since the winter games are
>coming this weekend. While I do not personally agree with all the factors -
>lead-free, halogen free, etc, I do agree with factors such as easy disassembly
>for recycle, % recylced material used, etc.
>
>Now, Greenpeace seems upset with the pace of E-PEAT, and has taken to grading
>electronics on their own. Your posting is just their latest bow-shot. They had
>a booth at the January Consumer Electronics Show to publicize the the same
>thing.
>
>This is not scientific - it is ENVIRONMENTAL DICTATORSHIP BY GREENPEACE AND
>WHATEVER THEIR AGENDA HAPPENS TO BE. No companies dare speak up - they would
>not be "GREEN".
>
>How about some new slogans - techies?
>
>Relaibale is GREEN - I don't need new electronics every 2 years
>
>It is "TIN-RISK" solder - not Lead-Free.
>
>"TIN-RISK" components give us tin whiskers.
>
>"GREEN" is a halogen containing pigment!
>
>Denny Fritz
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pedro Tort <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Wed, Feb 10, 2010 10:04 am
>Subject: [LF] Toxic-free computer
>
>
>
>I doubt anyone can assure something is absolutely toxic-free, (remember the osts
>to this forum long time ago about the dangerous Dihydrogen Monoxide?) ut the
>Greenpeace gurus look to be sure enough to bless this Indian Greenware”.
><http://www.evertiq.com/news/16170> http://www.evertiq.com/news/16170
>
>Pedro Tort
>uality Manager
>DigiProces, S.A.
>olsonès, 87 - P.I. Pla de la Bruguera
>.O. Box 127
>-08211 CASTELLAR DEL VALLÈS
>EL. +34 937 142 132
>AX. +34 937 142 072
>ww.digiproces.com
>a Sistel Group Company
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>his email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>or more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>_____________________________________________________________________
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>ail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d o unsubscribe, send a
>message to [log in to unmask] following text in he BODY (NOT the subject
>field): SIGNOFF Leadfree o temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for
>vacation breaks send: SET eadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL) earch previous postings at:
>http://listserv.ipc.org/archives lease visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>for dditional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>47-615-7100 ext.2815
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d To unsubscribe, send
>a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the BODY (NOT the subject
>field): SIGNOFF Leadfree To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for
>vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL) Search previous postings at:
>http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
>Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for
>additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
>Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for
>additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
>Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for
>additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>--
>Robin Ingenthron
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
>Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for
>additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
>Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for
>additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
>Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for
>additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
