My early morning reads to start the week:

• Gold does Nothing (Aleph Blog)
• Far Too Low for Far Too Long (Rotybomb) see also Dollar Dims on Fed Speculation (WSJ)
• Groupon: You Must Have Fallen From The Sky (re: The Auditors)
• In Target-Date Funds, a Hodgepodge of Styles (NYT)
• ‘Big’ is bad for politicians this election year as populist sentiment prevails (Washington Post)
• CEOs and the Candle Problem (Nature)
• Steve Jobs’s Lesson for Solar-Power Bulls (WSJ)
• What’s the Easiest Way to Cheat on Your Taxes? (NYT)
• You had me at hello: How phrasing affects memorability (Cornell University Library)
• When Shareholders Make Their Voices Heard (NYT) see also Democratize Wall Street, for Social Good (NYT)

What are you reading?

Wake-Up Call for U.S. Stocks

Source: WSJ

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.

10 Responses to “10 Monday AM Reads”

  1. Sechel says:

    Hussman’s weekly commentary.

    Of note is his take on the future “sterilized” QE3, the ability of banks to front run future bond purchases, an earn an interest rate by lending the proceeds to the Fed and the value of speculative assets. He speaks with clarity the Fed lacks.

  2. willid3 says:

    wonder what the explanation is from of how companies ignore their owners? public companies seem really good as doing this. and they can even make their numbers look good (like they are really popular with their shareholders. even while ignoring their orders!)

  3. AHodge says:
    from a theoretical physicist and the best single paragraph skewering of neoclasssical models that have no financial sector, asset bubbles, or $700 trillion of derivatives.

  4. willid3 says:

    the jobs act fraud. continues. the new theme is social media will protect us (i.e. Facebook, Google +) etc from frauds because….some body might say some thing???

    and of course we can’t cut defense spending???

    the equity herd?

    its all emotion?

  5. JimRino says:

    The WSJ article doesn’t mention the ponzi scheme setup of the Fracking companies. Low yield fields and high costs, with no chance of a short term payoff of expenses. It’s more of an article attempting to paint Exxon as a big winner, before the race is run.

    Secondly, solar will be cheaper then all other energy sources in 6 years, making a long term investment in anything else, a losing investment.

    WSJ, attempting to “Sell someone’s book”.

  6. GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

    re WaPo’s article on “populist sentiment”:

    Approval ratings of Congress are at around 9%, yet few Congressional Reps will lose their job this election. Remarkable how well politicians have gamed the system.

    Worse yet, most of the ones who lose can become lobbyists and make far more money than before. More gaming the system.

  7. Arequipa01 says:

    Here’s a lovely bit about Blackwater-Xe-Academi:


  8. Jojo says:

    Online Porn Is Huge. Like Really, Really Huge. Who Knew?
    By Ashlee Vance on April 05, 2012

    The good folks at ExtremeTech took it upon themselves this week to get at one of the Internet’s crucial questions—just how big are porn sites these days? The answer? Ron Jeremy big. To study porn sites, ExtremeTech turned to the DoubleClick Ad Planner tool from Google (GOOG). It’s a useful website where you can peek at information gathered by ad-serving cookies about how much traffic a website gets, the age and income of visitors, and the amount of time people spend on a site.

    According to this tool, the online porn kingpin Xvideos feeds up 4.4 billion page views per month. That’s about 10 times as many as the New York Times and three times as many as YouPorn—another site packed full of stimulating content—notches 2.1 billion page views per month. And while people spend a few minutes per day on news sites, they tend to spend 15 minutes or more on porn sites, which would seem to say something rather definitive about, er, male stamina.

    “But it’s not just men on the sites,” you shout. True, although the top porn sites count men as about 75 percent of their visitors. Breaking the stats down further, about half of the visitors make between $25,000 and $50,000 per year, while only 2 percent earn more than $150,000 per year. According to Google, the other interests of Xvideos visitors include Latin American music and gangs and organized crime, while YouPorn visitors like networking equipment and family films, so it’s an eclectic bunch.

    While anyone can dig through these numbers, ExtremeTech did a nice job of adding some context to the incredible amount of data served up by porn sites. According to the Google estimates, Xvideos would record “29 petabytes of data transferred every month, or 50 gigabytes per second. That’s about 25,000 times more than your home Internet connection is probably capable of, which is a couple of megabytes per second.” Sliced another way, Xvideos will “serve up 50 gigabytes per second, or 400Gbps,” ExtremeTech writes. “Bear in mind this is an average data rate, too: At peak time, Xvideos might burst to 1,000Gbps (1Tbps) or more. To put this into perspective, there’s only about 15Tbps of connectivity between London and New York.”

    Someone at YouPorn chatted with ExtremeTech and said the Google estimates are way below actual totals. YouPorn stores more than 100TB of porn and feeds up about 28 petabytes per month.

    These types of figures put the top porn sites in a class that only Microsoft (MSFT), Google, and Facebook really surpass. My takeaway from this is that companies such as Dell (DELL) and Cisco Systems (CSCO) make a ton of money selling gear to the top porn sites and that these companies must have some very savvy engineers.

  9. DeDude says:

    I love that Nature paper on the Candle problem. Think broader than CEO’s and money incentives/pressures. As the bean-counters have taken over the world and are pushing for more efficiency and productivity, they are actually making people who’s jobs require creativity LESS productive. Do you think we could get these new bean-counting masters of our world to understand that opposite rules may apply to two different types of “beans” …. NO that would make the things they are trying to simplify much more complicated, and besides they are way to busy for that kind of “out-of-the-box” thinking.