Its the first big linkfest since the new year began — and a three day weekend to boot! Its a big one, so let’s jump right in:
• Dow Rallies Since 1900:
Chart-of-the-Day notes that, as it stands right now with the Dow up
51.6% from its lows, the current rally is classified as fairly long in duration (6th
longest in 105 years) but weak (4th weakest) in magnitude.
• "The accolades bestowed upon Alan Greenspan ahead of his
retirement on January 31st have a strong whiff of irrational
exuberance." So said the The Economist in a pair of cover articles: Monetary myopia and Danger time for America.
• General Motors Death Watch 49: Paranoia Rules
My favorite non-mainstream Automotive site looks into some GM rumors,
including questions about whether their hybrid technology even exists;
• Is 2006 the year the Volatility Trade makes money? VIX options begin trading next month; For the past 2 years, this has been a losing trade. (if no Barron’s sub, go here);
• Win Some, Lose Some Robert X. Cringely’s tech predictions for 2006 (disclosure: I am on the BoD for one of the companies he mentioned);
• The numbers are in on Holiday sales; and they were way below consensus. It was a Good — Not Great — Holiday Shopping Season. Now, we wait to see how much the deep discounting will affect profit margins; (The rest of December retail weren’t so hot either);
• Speaking of el stinko: You didn’t think I would let last week’s NFP number go by without comment, did you?
Employment Recovery Continues to be Sub-par discusses the obvious, while Who’s Dropping Out of Labor Force looks at the demographics of the NILF phenomena;
• Shanghai’s hot housing market has fizzled; What are the implications for China’s economy?
• Perception Management and Inter-temporal Shifting A short and worthwhile look at buy now, pay later;
• For you tax geeks: Buying and selling imaginary goods in computer-game worlds is big business. Should gamers pay real-world taxes on virtual treasures?
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.