My train reading for the luxurious ride home:

Timmeh! Report Says New York Fed Didn’t Cut Deals on A.I.G. (NYT) see also Waiting on an AIG Sale (WSJ)
• MF Global Exposes Proprietary-Trading Risk Volcker Rule Aims to Curb (Bloomberg)
• BofA and the bond insurers: Time to start talking settlement? (Reuters)
Farrell: Rich Class fighting 99%, winning big-time (Market Watch)
• Corporate Bond Issues Hit a Wall in Demand (WSJ)
Success: What’s Luck Got to Do With It? (NYT)
• Surprises of Radical Management (Forbes)
Jerry Brown: States Must Raise Retirement Age (WSJ)
• A tax reform fairy tale (LA Times)
• How Occupy Wall Street Cost Me My Job (Gawker)

What are you reading?

Category: Financial Press

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.

19 Responses to “10 PM Tuesday Reads”

  1. (AP:TRENTON, N.J.) Two chemicals considered harmful to babies remain in Johnson & Johnson’s baby shampoo sold in the U.S., even though the company already makes versions without them, according to a coalition of health and environmental groups.

    The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has unsuccessfully been urging the world’s largest health care company for 2 1/2 years to remove the trace amounts of potentially cancer-causing chemicals _ dioxane and a substance called quaternium-15 that releases formaldehyde _ from Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, one of its signature products.

    Johnson & Johnson said it is reducing or gradually phasing out the chemicals, but did not respond directly to the campaign’s demands.

    Now the group is ratcheting up the pressure and urging consumers to boycott Johnson & Johnson baby products until the company agrees to remove the chemicals from its baby products sold around the world.

    “Johnson & Johnson clearly can make safer baby shampoo in all the markets around the world, but it’s not doing it,” said Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “It’s clearly a double standard, something they can easily fix.”

    The campaign’s new report, “Baby’s Tub is Still Toxic,” is set to be released Tuesday, when the group was launching the boycott via its Web site, . Archer said her group has met with Johnson & Johnson representatives three times since spring 2009, and is disappointed the company is not making safer baby shampoo and other products in the U.S. when it does elsewhere….”

    AP Business Writer
    By Mia Davis and Amy Lubitow

    We’re sure you’ve noticed: October is breast cancer awareness month. You can’t miss the deluge of pink ribbons on every store shelf, on NFL players, jewelry, cosmetics. Even the White House went pink this month.

    Pink ribbons are big business. At present, 1 out of 8 women is diagnosed with breast cancer in the US, so nearly all of us know someone who has been affected, and want to show support or DO something to help. Many of these women have no family history, and their diagnosis can be a huge shock. But when we are encouraged to shop as a way to take action, we lose, because the consumption-oriented compulsion to buy pink primarily serves the interests of major corporate entities, not our loved ones with cancer.

    Here is the bottom line: Shopping for pink products is never going to stop breast cancer.

    Why be so pessimistic about pink? Companies like Proctor & Gamble, Estee Lauder and Avon position themselves as champions for women through their work to bring about “breast cancer awareness.” But they also can – and do — use chemicals linked to cancer in their products (and it remains legal to do so due to a lack of adequate regulatory protections nationwide). When companies use the pink ribbon under the guise of promoting “awareness” without making sure that they are doing all that they can to prevent cancer in the first place, they are taking advantage of- literally capitalizing on- our desire to support women with breast cancer. It is called pinkwashing….”’t-shop-our-way-out-of-breast-cancer/

  2. JimmyDean says:

    BR – why did you take off the Occupy banner? do you not support anymore?


    BR: nothing like that

    it simply was up last week — I had no plans of making it permanent

  3. Investradamus says:

    Thought you would get a kick out of this:

    “Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis”

    Apparently IBD is STILL trying to blame everything on Fannie/Freddie/Government. :)

  4. investorinpa says:

    Some controversial article here…I know BR is a big believer in climate change, and I will say that I am not a believer in man-made climate change, but here’s one to read:

    A report published by the Global Warming Foundation, which is based on BEST’s findings, includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past 10 years and it is absolutely flat, suggesting that temperatures have remained constant.

    This issue is crucial because the levels of carbon dioxide in the air have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade and if temperatures have remained constant during that period it would suggest there is no direct link between carbon gas emissions and global warming.

    and later…

    Indeed she says this global warming standstill since the end of the Nineties – which has been completely unexpected – has wide-reaching consequences for the causes of climate change and has already led many climate scientists to start looking at alternative factors that may have contributed to global warming,

    other than carbon gas emissions. In particular she has mentioned the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation.

  5. Dow says:

    It’s a lovely idea to raise the retirement age. Until you realize there aren’t that many well paying jobs for folks over 50, that age discrimination really does exist, that being over-qualified for a job is threatening to a boss, that new employers don’t want older workers because of the cost of health insurance…and the list goes on and on.

    Of course, Jerry has a job that also provides him with great benefits, so it’s not like he has to worry.

  6. investorinpa says:

    Of course, to be fair and balanced and keep today’s reading apolitical, I found this little nugget of an article that ties in global finances (DSK!) with sex!

  7. Mike in Nola says:

    How the MSFT Courier was killed because it wasn’t Windows-centric. That certainly worked out well:

  8. Futuredome says:

    Global temperatures are ‘flat’ because of La Nina phase. The problem is, they should be dropping. If they can’t, we got a problem. That I believe is the real ‘crux” of the climate change debate.

    During each warm cycle, we make large swings upwards in global tempatures while not making the same downstrides in temperatures on the opposite cold cycle. What happens in 2030′s when the warm/el nino phase begins?

  9. Julia Chestnut says:

    Funny, the treatment of Lisa Simeone and Caitlin Curran makes me “inconsolably angry.” I’ve already been very disappointed in NPR’s reporting of the mortgage melt down, and I’ve begun to suspect that isn’t because it is opaque material.

    Which really blows, because they had been one of the last outlets that I didn’t actively despise. But I find I just can’t listen to them anymore, and that was true before this latest round of stupidity regarding the rights of their freelance contributors.

    At this point, to avoid road rage issues, I don’t listen to the news in the car any more at all anyway.

  10. wunsacon says:

    Starting this year, I will no longer donate to NPR. We already have enough establishmentarian “news” retailers.

  11. wunsacon says:

    Plus, I heard a Monsanto ad about “creating sustainable agriculture” on NPR. Give me a break. I’m sure that won’t affect news coverage…

    Better information is online, not on the dial.

  12. Mike in Nola says:

    Google explains why it reads your Gmail. As you can guess it’s so they can show you ads related to what’s in the email.

  13. Francois says:

    SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Who’s behind the ‘information attacks’ on climate scientists?

  14. old trader says:

    I REALLY wish that Farllell would start taking his meds.

  15. Mike in Nola says:

    Bank of America outdoes itself in foreclosing on a home destroyed in Hurrican Ike, but only after placing homeowner’s insurance on it.

  16. Crystalline says:

    Just found this… “Speculate like a wehrmacht general”…

    Very interesting.

  17. mathman says:

    if the moderators bless me, you’ll see this:

    investorinpa: it doesn’t matter who believes it or not, it’s still happening, and it isn’t just about temperature or climate aberations but also the knock-on effects on food production, diseases, pests, stress on trees and marine life, property damage, sea-level rise, etc. Even if this warming isn’t caused solely by our continued dumping of CO2 (and now methane and other gases) into the atmosphere (which the data suggests is most likely the cause), we still are killing ourselves and many species we rely on for food by our continued use of these fossil fuels as our main source of energy and their consequent releases of particulates into the air and water; and with the advent of peak oil, we aren’t even beginning any kind of transition to life without it (so we’re ridiculously short-sighted).

    MEH: good eye! I’ve noticed the hypocracy of corporations who “green wash” their ads, mislead the public about how their “brands” are oh so wholesome, clean and good for you, and compare it to the old Soviet propaganda.

    As Mike in Nola points out – it’s in the financial sector too. Everyone is grabbing what they can at all costs before the ship goes down.

    Here’s another look at the 7 billion and counting:


    g’day all!